How can morality exist without god?

[1robin]

Morality is a matter of opinion, not a program built into us by a creator. The fact is that the strongest people are going to survive, and those that are weak or rely on faith rather than practicality won't. In my opinion "right" is anything that promotes my survival/happiness. There's my morality, and I figured it all out without God.

There is nothing in atheism that allows for sufficient justification concerning morality, justice, the sanctity of life, the concept of right and wrong, altruism ETC.... An atheist can do or think anything he wants about these issues he just has no sufficient way to justify or rationalize them in atheism. Atheism is morally impotent and nihilistic as a philosophy. Keep in mind I said an atheist can be moral he just can't justify or support these actions by atheism.

 

[Alceste]

There is nothing in atheism that allows for sufficient justification concerning morality, justice, the sanctity of life, the concept of right and wrong, altruism ETC.... An atheist can do or think anything he wants about these issues he just has no sufficient way to justify or rationalize them in atheism. Atheism is morally impotent and nihilistic as a philosophy. Keep in mind I said an atheist can be moral he just can't justify or support these actions by atheism.

Exactly, we support our ethics with reason, logic, compassion, philosophy, empirical evidence and our ideals regarding how we could make the world a better place.

Far more sophisticated, persuasive and effective than simply reading a book and deciding to believe everything it says, IMO. What if your book is wrong? What tools do you have to show you where it is giving you poor advice? I have reason and love for my neighbors. You have nothing.

 

[1robin]

Exactly, we support our ethics with reason, logic, compassion, philosophy, empirical evidence and our ideals regarding how we could make the world a better place.

Since atheism cannot give meaning to the value of good or evil then there is no justifiable standard to compare your actions with. If there is no grounds for knowing what is objectively good the how can you test whether your values are correct. Morals are not accessible to an empirical test they are an abstract concept. All those things you say you use are in fact only. Since you do not have a standard to judge them by there is no way to know if they are right or even what right means.

Far more sophisticated, persuasive and effective than simply reading a book and deciding to believe everything it says, IMO. What if your book is wrong? What tools do you have to show you where it is giving you poor advice? I have reason and love for my neighbors. You have nothing.

It isn't sophisticated, persuasive, or effective at all. It doesn't even exist. Whatever an atheist uses to adopt a moral standard is arbitrary and only opinion. In the absence of a higher standard it can't be evaluated or compared to a known standard. Since every moral claim in the bible is virtually identical to the ones humans have adopted anyway then it at least is known to be correct concerning morals. There are hundreds of other ways to establish it's reliability and it is the only foundation for moral standards that is sufficient for the needs of society.

 

[kai]

so before the bible came along there were no morals at all? or what?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since atheism cannot give meaning to the value of good or evil then there is no justifiable standard to compare your actions with. If there is no grounds for knowing what is objectively good the how can you test whether your values are correct. Morals are not accessible to an empirical test they are an abstract concept. All those things you say you use are in fact only. Since you do not have a standard to judge them by there is no way to know if they are right or even what right means.

Can God? How could God ever create morality?

I can see how a god could create a list of things saying "do this" and "don't do that", but I don't see how this could ever be construed as creating morality. It's just a set of edicts that could either be right or wrong themselves.

So what could God possibly have to do with the existence of morality? How could God provide you with the "standard to judge" that you describe?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since every moral claim in the bible is virtually identical to the ones humans have adopted anyway then it at least is known to be correct concerning morals.

Exodus 21:20-21:

When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property.

I do acknowledge that humans (some humans) have adopted this, but are you really arguing that it's correct?

Edit: hopefully you do acknowledge that slavery is immoral. Assuming you do, where do you get this from? Because it sure can't be found in the Bible.

 

[Penumbra]

Since atheism cannot give meaning to the value of good or evil then there is no justifiable standard to compare your actions with. If there is no grounds for knowing what is objectively good the how can you test whether your values are correct.

-Some behaviors can be demonstrably better at reaching certain goals than others. For example, if I have the goal of having a lot of true friends, then being as mean as possible to everyone around me, would likely work against that goal.

-Some goals are self-selected by nature, because they promote life and well-being rather than destroy it. Organisms with self-destructive goals, self-destruct, and that goal has a dead end. Organisms with life-promoting goals, have a better chance at living.

So if some goals inherently make more sense for life than others, and there are behaviors that can more likely lead to achieving goals than others, then there is a rather robust framework for determining effective behavior. Far more robust than relying on writings from generations that had less knowledge about the world.

It isn't sophisticated, persuasive, or effective at all. It doesn't even exist. Whatever an atheist uses to adopt a moral standard is arbitrary and only opinion. In the absence of a higher standard it can't be evaluated or compared to a known standard. Since every moral claim in the bible is virtually identical to the ones humans have adopted anyway then it at least is known to be correct concerning morals. There are hundreds of other ways to establish it's reliability and it is the only foundation for moral standards that is sufficient for the needs of society.

With all the genocide and irrational rules, the Bible is a pretty good example of the opposite of my morality.

I don't view biblical or Christian morality as particularly high up on my list of assessing the morality of various worldviews. It does not seem to be particularly rigorous, particularly consistent, or particularly insightful, compared to various other ethical worldviews I've examined.

 

[waitasec]

How can morality exist without god?

how can morality exist with god?
you have to admit, this idea of god has been used to justify some
questionable behavior.

 

[Alceste]

This is not an unsolvable issue. Just like a court case where two sides disagree. The evidence decides the issue. There isn't anything in the new testament that can even be used out of context to support her position. Her position is so contrary to the bible I wonder if you are stating it in the correct context. A book that says do not murder, treat others as you desire to be treated, and to turn the other cheek is hard to use to support honor killing.

As far as you being right I would love to see you sufficiently justify that.
On my side is this:
1. The bible contains prophecy that could only have it's source in the divine. There are over one thousands prophecies that have been fulfilled 100%. They are extremely detailed and exact.
2. The bible contains scientific claims which are detailed and accurate. They were written long before they have become known by science.
3. The bible has 25000 plus historical corroborations verified by archaeology.
4. It was completed over the course of 1500 plus years, has 66 books, and over 40 authors. The fact that it contains an extremely sophisticated and perfectly consistent narrative throughout despite those facts suggests a divine, timeless, omnipotent author.
5. It is the only book that contains explicit, complete, and sufficient explanations for the deepest subjects of mankind. Origin, destination, meaning, and purpose.
6. It has greater explanatory scope and power by far than any other book in human history.
7. It contains the only logical path and means to heaven. All works based salvation systems are chaotic, arbitrary, capricious, unspecific, and impossible. Only the bibles grace salvation system overcomes all these issues.
8. The bible has a greater and more accurate textual tradition by a large margin than any other work of ancient history. It retains 95% accuracy even after 1800-3500 yrs. No other book is even in the same league.
9. Every philosophical claim or implication contained in the bible is consistent with accepted philosophy.
10. It's theological claims are the most sophisticated, consistent, sufficient, and profound found in any religion.
11. The bible is unique in it's demand and guarantee of a spiritual experience with God. I have had the born again experience guarantied in the bible that follows faith in Christs sacrifice. It is a spiritual experience of such a character that it confirms the reality of God and the book that was followed to arrive at that conclusion and faith.
12. The bible is the most tested, researched, trusted, read, and cherished book in human history.

What is a Taoish? Is it oriental Taoism? What evidence or claims do you use to defend or promote it?

I'm certain all twelve of your factual claims are false. So! I guess we have an impasse! We can't both be right, and there's no way you will EVER convince me any of your claims are true, or that I will ever convince you they are false. So...

"Taoish" is a word I made up to convey that of all the world's diverse philosophies and spiritualities, taoism (the philosophical type, not the religious type) best resembles my own personal philosophy. It doesn't match perfectly, but it's pretty damn close - hence the "ish".

I don't "defend or promote" taoism. Apologetics and proselytizing are Christian / Islamic hobbies. Philosophical Taoists don't operate by the same playbook. They have far fewer ridiculous ideas to defend and no interest in recruiting converts.

 

[Alceste]

Since atheism cannot give meaning to the value of good or evil then there is no justifiable standard to compare your actions with. If there is no grounds for knowing what is objectively good the how can you test whether your values are correct. Morals are not accessible to an empirical test they are an abstract concept. All those things you say you use are in fact only. Since you do not have a standard to judge them by there is no way to know if they are right or even what right means.

You are only imagining that you have a standard of objective good and evil. You are just like every other religious nut who is imagining they know what God wants us to do, like that Christian I mentioned who thinks God approves of war and wants us to murder our own daughters for promiscuity. You are exactly like those Islamic men who throw acid in the faces of girls who attend school. You are exactly like those Jewish settlers who beat up Palestinians to drive them off their land. All those people are using their own personal "objective, God-given standard" to justify their evil acts. I'd be very wary of using the exact same process these wackos use to try to distinguish right from wrong.

Subjective though it may be, I have a perfectly serviceable standard of evil: an intentional act that causes needless suffering to another living being. With that simple, easy to follow rule, I'm doing quite a lot better at being "good" than all those people I described above.

It isn't sophisticated, persuasive, or effective at all. It doesn't even exist. Whatever an atheist uses to adopt a moral standard is arbitrary and only opinion. In the absence of a higher standard it can't be evaluated or compared to a known standard. Since every moral claim in the bible is virtually identical to the ones humans have adopted anyway then it at least is known to be correct concerning morals. There are hundreds of other ways to establish it's reliability and it is the only foundation for moral standards that is sufficient for the needs of society.

I hate to break it to you, but your religious preferences are arbitrary and only your own opinion too. Sorry to rain on your "holier-than-thou" parade.

How many slaves do you own? Do you allow women to speak in your church? How many animals did you sacrifice to God this year? Have you given over all your property to your church, to be shared out among all the members? Either your knowledge of what the NT demands of you is wanting or you are living a VERY unusual life.

 

[1robin]

so before the bible came along there were no morals at all? or what?

Quote the post where I said that. I believe all humans have a God given conscience and can behave morally without the bible. However they cannot suffeciently justify their actions without it.

 

[Alceste]

Quote the post where I said that. I believe all humans have a God given conscience and can behave morally without the bible. However they cannot suffeciently justify their actions without it.

Sure I can. I have been sufficiently justifying my actions with nothing but reason, evidence, a decent secular education and good old fashioned friendliness for almost 37 years. Buddhists seem to do just fine without the Bible. In fact, they do WAY better at adhering to my single standard of goodness ("do no intentional harm needlessly") than Christians, generally speaking.

You might find that when you are doing your level best to be a good person, you don't really need to "justify your actions" all that much.

 

[Me Myself]

1. The bible contains prophecy that could only have it's source in the divine. There are over one thousands prophecies that have been fulfilled 100%. They are extremely detailed and exact.

Haven´t seen that to this day, and I did challegen someone about it.

I think of 25 prohphecies, 23 went away (amd some proven irrebocably false) by a SUPERFICIAL research. Wouldn´t surprise me a little more in depth one would have disappeared the last ones. If not, luck still exists.

BTW, I dont remember even one being extremely detailed an exact, except the ones I proved wrong BECAUSE they were detailed and were clearly not fulfilled in the way they said they would be.

2. The bible contains scientific claims which are detailed and accurate. They were written long before they have become known by science.

Did you meant to say extremely vague and when not, inaccurate? Because if you did, why would that validate the bible? and if you didn´t, then are you sure you have read the thing?

3. The bible has 25000 plus historical corroborations verified by archaeology.

You know that New York exists?

I was surprised too, you wouldn´t believe all the places that appear on

and exist too.

4. It was completed over the course of 1500 plus years, has 66 books, and over 40 authors. The fact that it contains an extremely sophisticated and perfectly consistent narrative throughout despite those facts suggests a divine, timeless, omnipotent author.

Comicbooks are written by different authors too and trust me, they are way more coherent (and TRUST ME that is NOT saying much.)

The standards of anyone saying this are just too low.

5. It is the only book that contains explicit, complete, and sufficient explanations for the deepest subjects of mankind. Origin, destination, meaning, and purpose.

A lot of people find it lacking on all this accounts. Count me on them by the way.

6. It has greater explanatory scope and power by far than any other book in human history.

To which books are you comparing it? This claim is entirely subjective, similarly to the one above.

7. It contains the only logical path and means to heaven. All works based salvation systems are chaotic, arbitrary, capricious, unspecific, and impossible. Only the bibles grace salvation system overcomes all these issues.

Again, entirely subjective. So this is also worthless. I find the system of the bible to be incoherent, contradictory extremely capricious and more than once downright immoral. (like slavery and genocide immoral)

8. The bible has a greater and more accurate textual tradition by a large margin than any other work of ancient history. It retains 95% accuracy even after 1800-3500 yrs. No other book is even in the same league.

Accuracy on what? if you are merely talking that the cities or events that it quotes existed, then there are compiling all the greek and roman myths may do it some competition. Comics also would by the way

If 5% is truly the only inaccurate part, then I am sure that a lot of important bull that today is still revered as holy is included there.

9. Every philosophical claim or implication contained in the bible is consistent with accepted philosophy.

With some (of thousands... ) of accepted philosophies.

Any religion can make that claim.

Heck, any person can make that claim. Even childs.

10. It's theological claims are the most sophisticated, consistent, sufficient, and profound found in any religion.

Again subjective. I find the mahabharat way, way, WAY more sophisticated consistent, sufficient and profound than the bible. The same goes for theravada buddhist teachings.

And I mean WAY out of the poor and low league of the bible.

But both are claims are still technicaly subjective.

11. The bible is unique in it's demand and guarantee of a spiritual experience with God. I have had the born again experience guarantied in the bible that follows faith in Christs sacrifice. It is a spiritual experience of such a character that it confirms the reality of God and the book that was followed to arrive at that conclusion and faith.

Again, I find hinduism topping it in this quality. Again, it is still entirely subjective.

All religions are unique in their own ways anyways. That doesn´t prove they are the "real" one, that proves they are... well, their own religion.

12. The bible is the most tested, researched, trusted, read, and cherished book in human history.

This is a site called guttenberg.org

Project Gutenberg - free ebooks

Now, I admit that the bible is one of the top 100 more downloaded books, but please look that it is not number one nor number two.

Top 100 - Project Gutenberg

The first place goes to sherlock holmes, with the second place going to a book far more enjoyable to read and to practice than the bible.

What? I wont tell you which, you gotta go see

 

[1robin]

Can God? How could God ever create morality?

Are you actually unsure how a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being could provide morals when even us humans have done so. It is derived by codifying those actions that are consistent with his nature.

I can see how a god could create a list of things saying "do this" and "don't do that", but I don't see how this could ever be construed as creating morality. It's just a set of edicts that could either be right or wrong themselves.

If they were given by God then they are universal absolute standard. See above for your other claim.

So what could God possibly have to do with the existence of morality? How could God provide you with the "standard to judge" that you describe?

I swear sometimes the questions that have the most obvious answers trouble non believers the most. It is as simple as codifying requirements consistent with his nature and purpose. Writing those codes in a book and implanting them in our conscience. God is the only rational justification for morals. There are many philosophers that insist that is the only possible source for morality. Since humans have this capability I wonder why you think a God could not.

 

[Alceste]

Are you actually unsure how a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being could provide morals when even us humans have done so. It is derived by codifying those actions that are consistent with his nature.

If they were given by God then they are universal absolute standard. See above for your other claim.

I swear sometimes the questions that have the most obvious answers trouble non believers the most. It is as simple as codifying requirements consistent with his nature and purpose. Writing those codes in a book and implanting them in our conscience. God is the only rational justification for morals. There are many philosophers that insist that is the only possible source for morality. Since humans have this capability I wonder why you think a God could not.

And if they were not?

 

[Me Myself]

And if they were not?

Then people are turning off their own moral standards for blind obidience to someone else´s bull that is millenia old.

 

[1robin]

Sure I can. I have been sufficiently justifying my actions with nothing but reason, evidence, a decent secular education and good old fashioned friendliness for almost 37 years.

You have only been rationalizing your behavior. There is no method to justify or consider one thing right and another wrong without a standard to compared it to. Your characteristics all add up to opinion. Hardly a reasonable foundation for establishing moral truth.

Buddhists seem to do just fine without the Bible. In fact, they do WAY better at adhering to my single standard of goodness ("do no intentional harm needlessly") than Christians, generally speaking.

I have said that a person can be good without the bible considering they have a God given conscience. They however can't justify their actions as an absolute truth. There isn't even a way to differentiate between good and evil to anything but an arbitrary conclusion.

You might find that when you are doing your level best to be a good person, you don't really need to "justify your actions" all that much.

i agree it is not necessary to justify an action to take that action. It is only relevant in a philosophical discussion on morals and is also necessary to properly justify law. For example Jefferson knew that the only justification for inalienable rights was our creator even though was only a deist. Let me illustrate this. Lets say there is a situation where you have to choose either to kill a house fly or a human. Tell me by using atheism why the fly is less valuable than the human. Tell my how you could justify the concept of human equality and inalienable rights. Tell me how it was a just action to destroy Germany and Japan in WW2, The bible can explain these things with sufficient reason to provide a rational foundation for these issues.

 

[Me Myself]

Arbitrary? like having faith in the bible?

 

[Sunstone]

The two ton elephant in the room is the fact believers have no objective means of demonstrating their morals to be absolute. You can talk your way around that all you want, but the elephant remains in the room.

 

[Me Myself]

Dude, you forgot to mention it is pink with yellow dots