Is morality possible without God

[Nilla Wayfarers]

Common sense?

Different people have different ideas of what is common sense.

Umm... maybe you'll understand it better as "reason?" That's universal. Just ask any rationalist.

[Jamzmania]

Because that is the nature of atheism. There is no ultimate authority and nothing is ultimately right or wrong. You cannot claim that your morality is "better" than someone else's, just as you can't claim that it is right while theirs is wrong. There is only a difference of opinion.

Explain to me why what god says is moral is any less of an opinion than what I say is moral.

That's not what I'm arguing.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No, I mean why does it have to be God?

Do you have something else besides God?

Doesn't answer my question.

[Jamzmania]

Do you have something else besides God?

Doesn't answer my question.

Well if you have something else that can take the place of ultimate authority and judgement of what is right and wrong, then I'd like you to share. Otherwise, God is the only one that comes to mind.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Because that is the nature of atheism. There is no ultimate authority and nothing is ultimately right or wrong. You cannot claim that your morality is "better" than someone else's, just as you can't claim that it is right while theirs is wrong. There is only a difference of opinion.

Explain to me why what god says is moral as any less of an opinion than what I say is moral.

Because random opinion is random?

[Rhyfelnydd]

Common sense?

Different people have different ideas of what is common sense.

Not killing anyone on the side of the street or taking things that aren't yours are generally considered bad universally. As someone stated, maybe you understand "reason" more.

[Neutraligon]

Explain to me why what god says is moral is any less of an opinion than what I say is moral.

That's not what I'm arguing.

You claimed that without god there can be no objective true morals. I am asking you why having a god makes morals objective or true. I am asking you to show me why a god's opinion on what is moral is any "better" than a humans opinion of what is moral.

[Jochistan]

Yes, yes I did. you're point (the one I originally responded to, not this one) was that there was no culture that ever didn't know that murder was wrong. I presented some exceptions, and thn you argued that if they justified it, they didn't know the Murder they did was wrong.

Which one of our arguments is self defeating again?

That is actually the exact opposite of what I said.

"needing to justify it does in some sense belie the knowledge that the action is in some sense wrong."

I'm sorry, how the fuck was what I said the exact opposite?

[Rhyfelnydd]

Doesn't answer my question.

Well if you have something else that can take the place of ultimate authority and judgement of what is right and wrong, then I'd like you to share. Otherwise, God is the only one that comes to mind.

Which is false as the notion of god also changes from person to person, just as you claim common sense does.

[AquilaJordyn]

Define morals. Can an atheist live by what we consider moral? yes. But that's the problem. What is moral? If there is no God, then it follows there is no absolute morality. If there is no absolute morality, then there ceases to be morals. You end up having everyone being their own God, deciding what is and what isn't moral. My worry is that it'll eventually devolve to a purely Darwinian morality, aka survival of the fittest. Why should I care if you are killed? Really now. I benefit, less competition for food and reproducing. People say "you don't need God, just empathy to be moral" I'd say perhaps,but yet again, what is wrong, what is right, what should I be empathetic about? Classical atheists for century's have accepted that an atheist society cannot hope to maintain morality for long. So they either a. Respected religion for its good. Or b. Dreamed of a world based solely on survival of the fittest. So I'd say a single person can be "moral" without God, but society as a whole cannot. Doubt me, look to the ancients. If you can't produce a solid reason why murder, rape, and stealing, etc, are bad and, most importantly, why you should care about it, your morality will quickly fall apart in future generations.

[Sun Wukong]

Doesn't answer my question.

Well if you have something else that can take the place of ultimate authority and judgement of what is right and wrong, then I'd like you to share. Otherwise, God is the only one that comes to mind.

Isn't this just arguing for Hobbesian Absolutism?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Doesn't answer my question.

Well if you have something else that can take the place of ultimate authority and judgement of what is right and wrong, then I'd like you to share. Otherwise, God is the only one that comes to mind.

If you can't explain why God should be the ultimate authority or how he makes morals objective, then I'll just dismiss your claim.

[Jamzmania]

Well if you have something else that can take the place of ultimate authority and judgement of what is right and wrong, then I'd like you to share. Otherwise, God is the only one that comes to mind.

Which is false as the notion of god also changes from person to person, just as you claim common sense does.

Different people can have different religions, but within a religion the idea of what God is is pretty set.

[Rhyfelnydd]

Which is false as the notion of god also changes from person to person, just as you claim common sense does.

Different people can have different religions, but within a religion the idea of what God is is pretty set.

As is right and wrong for many people who do not consider themselves religious.

[Neutraligon]

Which is false as the notion of god also changes from person to person, just as you claim common sense does.

Different people can have different religions, but within a religion the idea of what God is is pretty set.

Really? There is a reason why there are so many sects of Christianity. Even those in the same sect disagree with each other on morals.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Doesn't answer my question.

Well if you have something else that can take the place of ultimate authority and judgement of what is right and wrong, then I'd like you to share. Otherwise, God is the only one that comes to mind.

There's none. That's the thing.

You are claiming a position that there is an ultimate authority to value right and wrong actions. There is none.

[Jamzmania]

Well if you have something else that can take the place of ultimate authority and judgement of what is right and wrong, then I'd like you to share. Otherwise, God is the only one that comes to mind.

If you can't explain why God should be the ultimate authority, then I'll just dismiss your claim.

That's not my point. My point is that atheism, by nature, has no good or evil. No right or wrong. No basis upon which to claim that one set of morals is more ethical, better, or more right than anyone else's set of morals.

[Sun Wukong]

That is actually the exact opposite of what I said.

"needing to justify it does in some sense belie the knowledge that the action is in some sense wrong."

I'm sorry, how the fuck was what I said the exact opposite?

Because that's what those words mean?

Needing to justify [murdering someone] does in some sense belie [betray, make apparent] the knowledge that the action [murder] is wrong.

You seem to really want me to be your opponent, but I can't for the life of me figure out how anything you say is supposed to impact what I've been arguing.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If you can't explain why God should be the ultimate authority, then I'll just dismiss your claim.

That's not my point. My point is that atheism, by nature, has no good or evil. No right or wrong. No basis upon which to claim that one set of morals is more ethical, better, or more right than anyone else's set of morals.

So fucking what?

[Neutraligon]

If you can't explain why God should be the ultimate authority, then I'll just dismiss your claim.

That's not my point. My point is that atheism, by nature, has no good or evil. No right or wrong. No basis upon which to claim that one set of morals is more ethical, better, or more right than anyone else's set of morals.

Correct Atheism itself makes no such claim, since atheism is a stance on one issue and one issue only. It makes absolutely no moral claims whatsoever. There are however other ideologies that can and do make such claims.

You have also still failed to explain why a god is or should be the ultimate authority, why a morality set by a god is better or more right.

[Insaeldor]

If you can't explain why God should be the ultimate authority, then I'll just dismiss your claim.

That's not my point. My point is that atheism, by nature, has no good or evil. No right or wrong. No basis upon which to claim that one set of morals is more ethical, better, or more right than anyone else's set of morals.

Except we do have reasons to be morally good without the need of a higher power to provoke us into it. After all a duty to both your fellow man and society aren't any less conducive to a morally positive standing than anything religion can pull out.

[Sun Wukong]

Which is false as the notion of god also changes from person to person, just as you claim common sense does.

Different people can have different religions, but within a religion the idea of what God is is pretty set.

Not really.

[Jamzmania]

That's not my point. My point is that atheism, by nature, has no good or evil. No right or wrong. No basis upon which to claim that one set of morals is more ethical, better, or more right than anyone else's set of morals.

Correct Atheism itself makes no such claim, since atheism is a stance on one issue and one issue only. It makes absolutely no moral claims whatsoever. There are however other ideologies that can and do make such claims.

You can't have good or evil without God, since those things don't exist without some kind of God.

[Sun Wukong]

If you can't explain why God should be the ultimate authority, then I'll just dismiss your claim.

That's not my point. My point is that atheism, by nature, has no good or evil. No right or wrong. No basis upon which to claim that one set of morals is more ethical, better, or more right than anyone else's set of morals.

Because atheism is not a doctrine, and is properly described as having no content.

[Neutraligon]

Correct Atheism itself makes no such claim, since atheism is a stance on one issue and one issue only. It makes absolutely no moral claims whatsoever. There are however other ideologies that can and do make such claims.

You can't have good or evil without God, since those things don't exist without some kind of God.

Define good and evil.