How can morality exist without god?

[idav]

Uh... I'm not following your goal, and you're not following mine, thus both are subjective.



So if I have a different goal than you, you just wont believe me?

If you were to explain your goal to me I would understand it subjectively but your goal would still be objective. I just may not understand it the way you do.

What about having different goals makes them subjective. If I wanted to save wolfs and you wanted to save dolphins, how are they subjective against one another?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

If you were to explain your goal to me I would understand it subjectively but your goal would still be objective. I just may not understand it the way you do.

What about having different goals makes them subjective. If I wanted to save wolfs and you wanted to save dolphins, how are they subjective against one another?

It's based on emotion and opinion, that's what makes it subjective.

The goals are never the same, thus it's an opinion on who's goal is better, and since it's based on an opinion, it's subjective.

 

[1robin]

You made it in reverse.

First you see if his morals agree with your morals, then you see if his morals are acceptable so you can know if you want to take that religion.

Not hardly. Why are my or your morals a valid test for a God's reality or moral standard? Something is not true because we like it.

If the morals are wrong and you dont agree with that God on them, you choose the religion that has morals that you agree on. If no religions does so, then you choose your own morals, because they are what feels right to you.[/quote] No this is backwards. I do not accept or reject a religion (God) on whether I like it or not. I accept it because I find it to be true. I can't imagine a more incorrect statement. Let's say the God that is true has morals I do not like so I select a false God that has ones I like. Since I am answerable to the real God I rejected and not to the false one I chose then I am screwed.

 

[McBell]

Since I am answerable to the real God I rejected and not to the false one I chose then I am screwed.

Ah, so it is basically nothing more than a crap shoot, a salvation lottery if you will?
Cause if you happen to choose the right god everything is just peachy.
If you happen to choose the wrong god, the right god will not be happy with you.

is that about right?

 

[Me Myself]

I do not accept or reject a religion (God) on whether I like it or not. I accept it because I find it to be true. I can't imagine a more incorrect statement.

How did you find it to be true? Wasn´t it "faith"(feeling)?

 

[McBell]

Why are my or your morals a valid test for a God's reality or moral standard?

What difference does it make, outside of personal preference, whose "reality" or "morals" are used for the "standard"?

Something is not true because we like it.

does that apply to everyone?

 

[idav]

It's based on emotion and opinion, that's what makes it subjective.

The goals are never the same, thus it's an opinion on who's goal is better, and since it's based on an opinion, it's subjective.

I didn't think one goal was better than the other. They would just be whatever path someone decided. There are objective ways to achieve things despite opinion. The issue is why someone decides happiness over sadness. I would think that anything someone chooses is for their own "true" happiness. Who am I to say someones path they chose is wrong?

 

[Alceste]

If there is a God and we pick Christianity as his true revelation or another then how is whether his standards are objective or not meaningful. If they are we should obey them and are accountable for our actions. If they are subjective then we should obey them and are accountable for our actions. What differences does the label make. IMO they are objective but like I said who cares?

Since nobody in their right mind claims to know the exact nature and entire mind of God, the objectivity vs. subjectivity question applies to US, not to God. Objectivity means that our opinions on what is moral are based on empirically demonstrable facts, external to ourselves, that should lead all people, regardless of their origins and beliefs, to the same conclusion. Subjectivity means that each of us formulates our opinions based on nothing but our own abstract ideas and notions, or those that are shared by our immediate community. The empirical baselessness and cultural isolation of subjectivity leads to a proliferation of very different ideas about what is true.

It's your personal opinion that your God is real, and that his will can be known and should be obeyed. You have no empirically demonstrable facts that could lead others to make the same conclusion, and share your opinion only with other members of your community. IOW, your unfounded belief that God's morality is objectively true is a subjective opinion.

 

[McBell]

There is no ultimate and absolute standard for right and wrong.
What's right and wrong is decided by the society in which an individual finds himself in.
Judgments about what is right and what is wrong are transitory.
Judgments about what is right and what is wrong vary to a huge degree from one culture to the next. It seems plainly evident that to any objective observer, absolute right and wrong do not exist.

 

[KlLLUMINATI]

Think about this for a minute, if there is no creator god then the natural world is all that exist. If all that exist is natural then humans are to and that would make us bound by causality, which doesn't allow for any free will...

Without free will nobody can be held accountable for their actions. Because whatever you did you didn't choose to. Your action was caused by an unalterable chain of events that started with the big bang and without any alternate course of action there can't be any good or bad actions, just those that were predetermined to be taken.

So how do you as an atheist account for morality?

(Note: I am not saying that atheists are bad people, just asking how they justify their morals)

Atheists can be morally good. But that isn't the issue. Having good morals doesn’t mean you have objective morals. One atheist’s good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist’s isn’t. Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral "should and shouldn't”. Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism morality is up for grabs.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I didn't think one goal was better than the other. They would just be whatever path someone decided. There are objective ways to achieve things despite opinion. The issue is why someone decides happiness over sadness. I would think that anything someone chooses is for their own "true" happiness. Who am I to say someones path they chose is wrong?

Then, if you admit yours' isn't the best, then it isn't objectively the best, thus not an objective.

 

[Alceste]

Atheists can be morally good. But that isn't the issue. Having good morals doesn’t mean you have objective morals. One atheist’s good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist’s isn’t. Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral "should and shouldn't”. Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism morality is up for grabs.

In religion morality is up for grabs. It's not like there's only one religion, FYI.

Face it, whichever way you slice it, we are all responsible for our own ideals and whether or not our behavior affirms them.

 

[idav]

Then, if you admit yours' isn't the best, then it isn't objectively the best, thus not an objective.

Your throwing in a label of best or worst forcing subjectivity. There is not best or worst therefore there is no subjectivity. Your creating the subjectivity with your mind. Is there really a better scenario like saving wolves vs dolphins?

Lets say, just for fun, you were a million individuals. Would you have all the individuals do the same thing? They could have a common goal yet all be doing different things. Would anything an individual is doing be "better" than the other.

 

[1robin]

Ah, so it is basically nothing more than a crap shoot, a salvation lottery if you will?
Cause if you happen to choose the right god everything is just peachy.
If you happen to choose the wrong god, the right god will not be happy with you.

is that about right?

If you leave my statement within it's context then your response doesn't make sence. Me Myself said this

"First you see if his morals agree with your morals, then you see if his morals are acceptable so you can know if you want to take that religion." If the morals are wrong and you dont agree with that God on them, you choose the religion that has morals that you agree on. If no religions does so, then you choose your own morals, because they are what feels right to you.

To which I replied with this:

No this is backwards. I do not accept or reject a religion (God) on whether I like it or not. I accept it because I find it to be true. I can't imagine a more incorrect statement. Let's say the God that is true has morals I do not like so I select a false God that has ones I like. Since I am answerable to the real God I rejected and not to the false one I chose then I am screwed.

My statement was puposefully meaningless in order to Show Me Myself how irrational his/her statements were. Of course it is not a crap shoot. It is a well reasoned choice based on over 30yrs of gathering data to which I recieved confirmation of God's reality when I was born again. Did you really not understand the context?

 

[waitasec]

Think about this for a minute, if there is no creator god then the natural world is all that exist. If all that exist is natural then humans are to and that would make us bound by causality, which doesn't allow for any free will...

Without free will nobody can be held accountable for their actions. Because whatever you did you didn't choose to. Your action was caused by an unalterable chain of events that started with the big bang and without any alternate course of action there can't be any good or bad actions, just those that were predetermined to be taken.

So how do you as an atheist account for morality?

(Note: I am not saying that atheists are bad people, just asking how they justify their morals)

sorry i haven't read through the thread....
do you mean objective morality?

 

[Sunstone]

Atheists can be morally good. But that isn't the issue. Having good morals doesn’t mean you have objective morals. One atheist’s good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist’s isn’t. Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral "should and shouldn't”. Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism morality is up for grabs.

Even if a god existed, and even if that god endorsed a certain set of morals, you would have no means of objectively knowing it. Hence, in theism, morality is up for grabs. Think about it.

 

[1robin]

Even if a god existed, and even if that god endorsed a certain set of morals, you would have no means of objectively knowing it. Hence, in theism, morality is up for grabs. Think about it.

You would not have to know it to choose it. Thomas Jefferson Chose to declare our inalienable rights based on the justification of our creator. He did not know this he chose it. It sure hasn't hurt anything that he did not know for sure. If new testament morality was chosen even if wrong it would be a great choice. However it was designed for individual adoption not governmental incorporation. Regardles whether we know or not God's morality exists or not independant of that.

 

[Sunstone]

You would not have to know it to choose it.

If you didn't know for certain that the morals were objective, what would prevent you from accidentally adopting the morals of some false god -- such as a god that urged you to commit genocide, stone to death women and others -- that sort of thing?

 

[Polarbear]

sorry i haven't read through the thread....
do you mean objective morality?

Yes I do.

 

[1robin]

If you didn't know for certain that the morals were objective, what would prevent you from accidentally adopting the morals of some false god -- such as a god that urged you to commit genocide, stone to death women and others -- that sort of thing?

I can't speak for other religions, and I acknowledged that it is problematic. What I claim is that if new testament morallity was adopted true or not we would be much better off. The new testament doesn't have any of those abominable actions you named so in that case it isn't an issue. G.K. Chesterton said that Christianty has never been tried and found wanting. It has been found hard and left untried. I am well aware of the problems associated with adopting a religion for cival morality and don't think it will ever happen in a free society. That is why the bible teaches seperation of church and state. Most of my claims apply to individual choice not governmental institutionalization (is that a word?).