How can morality exist without god?

[I.S.L.A.M617]

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.

An atheist has no need to justify their morality because they're not scared of some invisible boogie man in the sky that decides what's right or wrong. It's called living, and it's actually quite liberating

 

[Koldo]

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.

But you contend that morals provided by humans are not universal and absolute. What makes God moral instructions universal and absolute?

Do you think that an omnipotent and omniscient God must necessarily be moral? If yes, why?

 

[Alceste]

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.


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.

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.

So basically you are saying that the ONLY method you can imagine of distinguishing a good action from a bad one is claiming your morals are dictated by God, even if that claim is false.

I like my way better.

 

[Zantiax]

Boo

It's simply so that we NEED morals or the world would be a complete chaos. People have come to realise this and now we've got this awesome thing called laws.

I've been raised without religion and I don't think I'm a bad person.

 

[waitasec]

Since atheism cannot give meaning to the value of good or evil then there is no justifiable standard to compare your actions with.

what do you mean by this?

are you saying theism has a justifiable standard? if so, by what criteria do you determine that it is justifiable?

 

[Zantiax]

I think he's right There IS no value in good or evil.
What people consider to be 'good' is if you do something that help other people. People like that idea because if there are more 'good' people, there's a bigger chance that they might one day help YOU.

But in the end 'good' and 'bad' are just terms invented by humans.

Btw, sorry if my English sucks

 

[waitasec]

I think he's right There IS no value in good or evil.
What people consider to be 'good' is if you do something that help other people. People like that idea because if there are more 'good' people, there's a bigger chance that they might one day help YOU.

But in the end 'good' and 'bad' are just terms invented by humans.

Btw, sorry if my English sucks

your english seems pretty good to me
my sense of good and evil is contingent on what i think is good and evil... i set the standard for myself.

 

[Penumbra]

I think it's preferable to not include the concepts of "good" and "evil" in a worldview. They're too vague, and inherently include a judgment rather than an observation.

I find them useful only for discussions where they have social meaning.

 

[waitasec]

I think it's preferable to not include the concepts of "good" and "evil" in a worldview. They're too vague, and inherently include a judgment rather than an observation.

I find them useful only for discussions where they have social meaning.

absolutely!!

 

[1robin]

And if they were not?

I have answered this question a dozen time in a dozen ways so far. If they were not then they are unjustifiable, have no sufficient foundation, and are arbitrarily chosen.

 

[1robin]

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.






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?






You know that New York exists?

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

and exist too.




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.




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



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



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)



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.



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

Any religion can make that claim.

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



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.



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.





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

I am going to address this mess soon. It is long and I have to have the time to answer all these false claims.

 

[Straw Dog]

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.)

Even if decisions are ultimately predetermined by a series of complicated causes, it is still that person making the decision. You are your mind. What I think we identify as our sense of free will are actually our internal rationalizing processes. We make choices based on a number of different factors influencing us, both from past experience and hypothetical imagining of possibilities.

The opposite of determinism isn't free will, but randomness. It just doesn't add up. It would be equivalent of saying that we make our decisions for no reason whatsoever. If our choices do not have any reason behind them, then they are random. The fact that our decisions usually have a number of reasons behind them, both conscious and unconscious, means that our choices are ultimately predetermined. This isn't a simple process by any means and I don''t think it means that there is only one possible chain of events, but rather that the causation of things arises dynamically rather than in a straight line of 1 and then 2, etc.

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)

If atheists aren't necessarily bad people and can be described as good from your relative perspective, then what does it matter whether it can be justified with absolute conviction? Isn't the good behavior the point in-and-of itself?

Nonetheless, I'll try to address the question. I don't begin with a set of moral rules. I start first and foremost with a committment to my sense of intergrity, that is internal consistency with external behavior. If I tell myself that I believe I am a compassionate person, then I better make good and sure that my behavior reflects my self-image else I'll slip into hypocricy. This isn't necessarily easy as much of culture encourages hypocricy.

I find that when some people become overly self-righteous about their respective ethical codes, presenting themselves as 'holier than thou' and preaching to others on how they ought to follow suit, that there's a greater chance of falling into hypocricy since the social reality becomes more important than the underlying physical reality. Because of this threat, I start with intergrity first and then develop any personal moral code around it in order to maintain internal consistency as much as possible in my thoughts, words, and actions. I have simple rules like pay attention, show compassion, and be grateful. My morality is justified by a desire to become a genuinely authentic expression of that which I consider to be the best in human nature and personal morality assists in that maintenance and growth. I hope that properly addresses your inquiry.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Are you actually unsure how a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being could provide morals when even us humans have done so.

Wait... what? Weren't you arguing that God is the only source of morality?

It is derived by codifying those actions that are consistent with his nature.

What does this mean? What does "God's nature" have to do with anything?

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

No, they're not. If they're universal and absolute, then they're objective and unchangeable for everyone. If they're subjective to God, then they're not objective to everyone. If they're changeable by God, then they're not unchangeable for everyone.

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.

So that would make God's code consistent with God's nature. But why would God's nature necessarily be good?

I mean, we could conceive of an evil god who created a code that's consistent with his nature, but that code wouldn't be moral, would it?

God is the only rational justification for morals.

I'm confused; I thought you said that humans can create morality. Can you explain what you mean?

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.

If you think that humans can create morality, then you apparently disagree with those nameless philosophers. Why would you think they support your argument, then?

 

[1robin]

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

It sure is revealing how unbelievers assert they know more about a Christians motives than they themselves do. They then distort our views until they have something to rebut. Since what you wind up arguing against isn't actually correct what is it you feel you accomplished. We allow for the fact that any morality we invent is arbitrary and unjustifiable. We also make a highly reasoned decision that God is real (most of us have a spiritual experience that verifies our faith). That decision has been made by many of the smartest and highly educated people in history. We rightly conclude the greater capacity and ability of God to develop morals and the only source capable of justifying them. There is nothing blind about it. The age of the standard has no bearing on its truth.

 

[Zantiax]

I don't think free will exist ^^
Everything people do are the results of chemical reactions and fysical processes.

*bracing myself*

 

[1robin]

Arbitrary? like having faith in the bible?

The adoption of specific standards with sufficient justification is the opposite of arbitrary.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have answered this question a dozen time in a dozen ways so far. If they were not then they are unjustifiable, have no sufficient foundation, and are arbitrarily chosen.

And if they are from God, then they're also unjustifiable, have no sufficient foundation, and are arbitrarily chosen... unless there exists a standard for morality that's external to God.

 

[waitasec]

I have answered this question a dozen time in a dozen ways so far. If they were not then they are unjustifiable, have no sufficient foundation, and are arbitrarily chosen.

well how do you determine if something is justifiable or not?
what determines the foundation...?
many of gods laws are arbitrary by nature.

the importance of being a virgin girl
the importance of the proof of virginity
the importance of snipping off a piece of ones penis
the importance of worshiping one god
the importance of understanding homosexuality is evil
the importance of the virtue found in blind faith
the importance of not questioning authority

 

[waitasec]

The adoption of specific standards with sufficient justification is the opposite of arbitrary.

what justifies it though?

 

[1robin]

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.

While falling short of objective proof. There is more than enough evidence to adopt faith in God. Regardless it is not necessary to prove God exists to discuss the implications of his existence. You are right that his reality is the only question. The implications of his existence are unavoidable. The title of this thread does not require anyone to prove God exists. It requires the justification of morality without God. An impossible task.