Is morality possible without God

[SuperFruitland]

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.

Murder?

You can't really think you can live in society while killing members of said society?

Rape?

Do I even need to say why forcing someone else to do sexual intercourse with you is bad?

Stealing?

Taking other people's work (that happens to be part of the same society as you) isn't really a good thing....

And, as an atheist, I can confirm: I'm not a darwinist, also due to the fact that I would get fucked IMMEDIATELY if that sort of thing went into effect. If you have to associate God with being a good person, then I'll respect that. And I'd rather not you deem me as an immoral person due to my religious beliefs (or lack thereof)...

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

Actually there are few ideologies that actually push for a moral claim (or "what is good").

Most of them, however, are pretty debunked by now because their premises are sand castles.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

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.

Yes you can, and yes they do.

[Sun Wukong]

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.

Demonstrate that logically.

[Jamzmania]

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

Yes you can, and yes they do.

You cannot.

Good, in this sense, is something which is undeniably and objectively right. Evil is something which is undeniably and objectively wrong. These things are impossible without an ultimate authority such as God, as without such ultimate authority, there is only differences of opinion between humans. This is a concept that I would think most atheists would acknowledge.

I am not saying that you can't be moral without God. I'm simply trying to point out that without God, there can be no set of morals that is ultimately right.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Yes you can, and yes they do.

You cannot.

Good, in this sense, is something which is undeniably and objectively right. Evil is something which is undeniably and objectively wrong. These things are impossible without an ultimate authority such as God, as without such ultimate authority, there is only differences of opinion between humans. This is a concept that I would think most atheists would acknowledge.

I am not saying that you can't be moral without God. I'm simply trying to point out that without God, there can be no set of morals that is ultimately right.

Prove that there is any kind of action that is objectively and undeniably right or wrong.

[Neutraligon]

Yes you can, and yes they do.

You cannot.

Good, in this sense, is something which is undeniably and objectively right. Evil is something which is undeniably and objectively wrong. These things are impossible without an ultimate authority such as God, as without such ultimate authority, there is only differences of opinion between humans. This is a concept that I would think most atheists would acknowledge.

I am not saying that you can't be moral without God. I'm simply trying to point out that without God, there can be no set of morals that is ultimately right.

define right and wrong.

Again explain why the moral opinions of god are in any way better than the moral opinion of a human.

[Jamzmania]

You cannot.

Good, in this sense, is something which is undeniably and objectively right. Evil is something which is undeniably and objectively wrong. These things are impossible without an ultimate authority such as God, as without such ultimate authority, there is only differences of opinion between humans. This is a concept that I would think most atheists would acknowledge.

I am not saying that you can't be moral without God. I'm simply trying to point out that without God, there can be no set of morals that is ultimately right.

Prove that there is any kind of action that is objectively and undeniably right or wrong.

That's not what I'm arguing, so stop trying to ask me to argue for it.

[Liberty and Linguistics]

Yes you can, and yes they do.

You cannot.

Good, in this sense, is something which is undeniably and objectively right. Evil is something which is undeniably and objectively wrong. These things are impossible without an ultimate authority such as God, as without such ultimate authority, there is only differences of opinion between humans. This is a concept that I would think most atheists would acknowledge.

I am not saying that you can't be moral without God. I'm simply trying to point out that without God, there can be no set of morals that is ultimately right.

Well, morality isn't objective. Sure, that's a hackneyed argument, but it really can't be repeated enough sometimes. People generally live according to the morality that society considers acceptable, though outliers and individualists who refuse to do this exist. What we need to realize is that some moral systems cause less suffering, less harm, and encourage more freedom and acceptance. This is true when comparing the morals and customs of West Europe and, say, a Pakistani village.

[Nilla Wayfarers]

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.

Why not?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Yes you can, and yes they do.

You cannot.

Good, in this sense, is something which is undeniably and objectively right. Evil is something which is undeniably and objectively wrong. These things are impossible without an ultimate authority such as God, as without such ultimate authority, there is only differences of opinion between humans. This is a concept that I would think most atheists would acknowledge.

Up, in this sense, is something which is undeniably and objectively vertically positive. Down is something which is undeniably and objectively vertically negative. These things are impossible without an ultimate authority such as God, as without such ultimate authority, there is only differences of opinion between humans. This is a concept that I would think most atheists would acknowledge.

IE, I don't give a shit about "in this sense". Morality is relative.

I am not saying that you can't be moral without God. I'm simply trying to point out that without God, there can be no set of morals that is ultimately right.

And why is it that God would be the ultimate authority on objective morality?

[Sun Wukong]

Yes you can, and yes they do.

You cannot.

Good, in this sense, is something which is undeniably and objectively right. Evil is something which is undeniably and objectively wrong. These things are impossible without an ultimate authority such as God, as without such ultimate authority, there is only differences of opinion between humans. This is a concept that I would think most atheists would acknowledge.

I am not saying that you can't be moral without God. I'm simply trying to point out that without God, there can be no set of morals that is ultimately right.

There are several problems with this:
First, it assumes that good and evil can only be meaningful if they are unquestionable. This is false.

Second, it assumes that an objective reality cannot exist without a "ultimate authority." This is false.

Third, it assumes that there is an reason to believe that your god's opinion us superior to anyone else's. This is false.

[Neutraligon]

You cannot.

Good, in this sense, is something which is undeniably and objectively right. Evil is something which is undeniably and objectively wrong. These things are impossible without an ultimate authority such as God, as without such ultimate authority, there is only differences of opinion between humans. This is a concept that I would think most atheists would acknowledge.

Up, in this sense, is something which is undeniably and objectively vertically positive. Down is something which is undeniably and objectively vertically negative. These things are impossible without an ultimate authority such as God, as without such ultimate authority, there is only differences of opinion between humans. This is a concept that I would think most atheists would acknowledge.

IE, I don't give a shit about "in this sense". Morality is relative.

I am not saying that you can't be moral without God. I'm simply trying to point out that without God, there can be no set of morals that is ultimately right.

And why is it that God would be the ultimate authority on objective morality?

I have been asking that for a while, still no answer.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Prove that there is any kind of action that is objectively and undeniably right or wrong.

That's not what I'm arguing, so stop trying to ask me to argue for it.

You are arguing that without God there would be no sense of right and wrong and therefore morality is objective.

I am asking you to provide, within divine law, an axiomatic behavior which is always right or wrong regardless of the situation.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Up, in this sense, is something which is undeniably and objectively vertically positive. Down is something which is undeniably and objectively vertically negative. These things are impossible without an ultimate authority such as God, as without such ultimate authority, there is only differences of opinion between humans. This is a concept that I would think most atheists would acknowledge.

IE, I don't give a shit about "in this sense". Morality is relative.

And why is it that God would be the ultimate authority on objective morality?

I have been asking that for a while, still no answer.

Remember him from the Confederate Emblems thread?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Prove that there is any kind of action that is objectively and undeniably right or wrong.

That's not what I'm arguing, so stop trying to ask me to argue for it.

You are arguing that without God there would be no sense of right and wrong and therefore morality is objective.

I am asking you to provide, within divine law, an axiomatic behavior which is always right or wrong regardless of the situation.

[Sun Wukong]

It's so obvious that good and evil are relative, isn't it?

No doubt the seal thinks bringing food to it's pup is unquestionably good, the highest of moral duty. And probably the penguin disagrees.

[Conserative Morality]

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.

God decides morals.

His morality is arbitrary.

His morality is good, because he's God.

Human morality is bad, because humans.

I think you might be working out of a very theistic axiom.

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.

Is that how you think in the absence of your God?

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.

I choose not to murder for thousands of reasons. Not any single command. If I were to kill someone without provocation, I would not have to overcome but a single rule but thousands.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Morality is certainly possible without God, however any set of morals cannot be true or objective without God. Without God, one cannot claim that their morals are right or better than anyone else's. That is the nature of atheism -- nothing is right or wrong, simply your opinion versus others' opinions.

It's called scientific, biological, evolutionarily-developed empathy.

And no, that's an aspect of pessimistic, possibly sociopathic nihilism. Most atheists aren't nihilists.

[Jamzmania]

Up, in this sense, is something which is undeniably and objectively vertically positive. Down is something which is undeniably and objectively vertically negative. These things are impossible without an ultimate authority such as God, as without such ultimate authority, there is only differences of opinion between humans. This is a concept that I would think most atheists would acknowledge.

IE, I don't give a shit about "in this sense". Morality is relative.

And why is it that God would be the ultimate authority on objective morality?

I have been asking that for a while, still no answer.

You seemed to, basically, keep asking me to prove religion right, when that is not what my point was.

As for why God, if He existed, would be the ultimate authority on morality: That is the nature of God. God cannot sin, He cannot do evil, etc. He created the universe and everything in it. He is omniscient. Therefore, He would be the ultimate authority. You can't exactly go any higher for judgement than to the thing that created the universe and everything in it and knows everything.

I'd like to note that, although I believe in God, I am not arguing for His existence in this discussion. I am merely pointing out that without an ultimate authority such as God, you cannot have good or evil, and no one can claim to have better morals than anyone else.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You cannot.

Good, in this sense, is something which is undeniably and objectively right. Evil is something which is undeniably and objectively wrong. These things are impossible without an ultimate authority such as God, as without such ultimate authority, there is only differences of opinion between humans. This is a concept that I would think most atheists would acknowledge.

You'd be wrong. We like using things like dictionaries.

e·vil
ˈēvəl/Submit
adjective
1.
profoundly immoral and malevolent.

pro·found
prəˈfound/Submit
adjective
1.
(of a state, quality, or emotion) very great or intense.

im·mor·al
i(m)ˈmôrəl/Submit
adjective
not conforming to accepted standards of morality.

I see no references to a deity.

[Sun Wukong]

I have been asking that for a while, still no answer.

You seemed to, basically, keep asking me to prove religion right, when that is not what my point was.

As for why God, if He existed, would be the ultimate authority on morality: That is the nature of God. God cannot sin, He cannot do evil, etc. He created the universe and everything in it. He is omniscient. Therefore, He would be the ultimate authority. You can't exactly go any higher for judgement than to the thing that created the universe and everything in it and knows everything.

I'd like to note that, although I believe in God, I am not arguing for His existence in this discussion. I am merely pointing out that without an ultimate authority such as God, you cannot have good or evil, and no one can claim to have better morals than anyone else.

Behold as I, in magnificent defiance, claim to have better morals than you.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Morality is certainly possible without God, however any set of morals cannot be true or objective without God. Without God, one cannot claim that their morals are right or better than anyone else's. That is the nature of atheism -- nothing is right or wrong, simply your opinion versus others' opinions.

It's called scientific, biological, evolutionarily-developed empathy.

And no, that's an aspect of pessimistic, possibly sociopathic nihilism. Most atheists aren't nihilists.

So would you say that to show empathy is a moral imperative and whatever falls short of showing empathy is wrong?

[Jamzmania]

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.

God decides morals.

His morality is arbitrary.

His morality is good, because he's God.

Human morality is bad, because humans.

I think you might be working out of a very theistic axiom.

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.

Is that how you think in the absence of your God?

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.

I choose not to murder for thousands of reasons. Not any single command. If I were to kill someone without provocation, I would not have to overcome but a single rule but thousands.

Your morality would be just as arbitrary as God's. Why is it wrong to murder people? "Because I think it is." You can say, "I wouldn't murder anyone because there would be consequences," but that's not an argument over whether it is wrong or not.

[AquilaJordyn]

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.

Murder?

You can't really think you can live in society while killing members of said society?

Rape?

Do I even need to say why forcing someone else to do sexual intercourse with you is bad?

Stealing?

Taking other people's work (that happens to be part of the same society as you) isn't really a good thing....

And, as an atheist, I can confirm: I'm not a darwinist, also due to the fact that I would get fucked IMMEDIATELY if that sort of thing went into effect. If you have to associate God with being a good person, then I'll respect that. And I'd rather not you deem me as an immoral person due to my religious beliefs (or lack thereof)...

Could I ask you to provide me a reason as to why we should care about these immorality? My point is not to say you are immoral. My point is: who taught us these things are wrong? We in our relatively good society, know they are bad. You know supposedly smart guys like Aristotle and Plato thought it to be moral to kill poor people, to thin the herd. Until really only within the last 100 or so years have we stopped blaming women for rape. What if I said the romans occasionally did it for sport? I'm sure your a very nice guy, and I mean no offence. My point is what we deem as moral comes from somewhere, historically religion, namely the big ones we think of today, former ones were more about answering unknown natural events. I don't think if religion left the world today, it would become immoral overnight, nay more like 2000 years. But without a ultimate authority, bad men unlike us can argue almost anything to be moral. Whatever your opinion on it, think of gay marriage and abortion. How quickly both were made law, when God's, by that I mean the Christian god's opinion was left out. Man can be convinced the stars can fortell your future, and that walking under a ladder is a bad idea. Trust me when I say the masses could be convinced, in time of course, that murder is ethical. Many society's used to believe it was, depending on who you were killing. Again, I'm saying society can't be moral, not the individual person, that would just be a foolish statement.