Is morality possible without God

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

It actually does. Just not in an universal context.

[Sun Wukong]

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.

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

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.

No. Because, "what if I was that person I murdered? Or a relative of theirs?"

I'm sorry, but this is what it means to be a relativist.

[Neutraligon]

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.

No I am asking you to explain why a god is an ultimate authority on morals. Why any gods morals is better or more true than the morals of a human. You are basing your claim on those two assumptions, that a god is an ultimate authority on morals and that a gods morals are better or more true that a human morals. I am asking you to show why these assumptions are true.

You claim that is the nature of a god. First what is a sin? Second, you claim that a god must create everything, but there are gods that have not created everything. Second you claim a god must be omniscient, what do you base this claim on? Third you claim that something that creates everything is somehow going to have better morals, I fail to see the logical connection. All I am seeing is a might makes right thing here.

[Neutraligon]

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.

No. Because, "what if I was that person I murdered? Or a relative of theirs?"

I'm sorry, but this is what it means to be a relativist.

Otherwise known as empathy and self interest.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

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.

How is it his nature?

God cannot sin, He cannot do evil, etc.

How?

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.

It doesn't take omniscience to know good from evil.

He also doesn't seem to be opposed to committing evil himself anyway.

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.

And your claim is wrong.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

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.

We are moral because of societal memetics.

The idea that killing others is wrong, unless in self-defense or in case of war, is a meme.

The idea that someone isn't a person and therefore can be discriminated against or killed is a meme.

Ideas about what is a moral valuation is what governs morality, not God.

We already think that killing people is ethical under the right circumstances.

[Conserative Morality]

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.

Correct. There is no difference in following an absolutist code of morality handed down by a divine omnipotent being and a code one devises from one's own acculturation and personal reflections on life, except that the latter suits my (metaphorical) spirit.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Not really. Unlike most of the posters of the thread subscribing to the whims of atheism, claiming it is morally subjective, I believe in my own God, the God of Red. He proposes rugged individualism and social darwinism. I believe that, without my own God, I cannot have morals.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

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.

It isn't a matter of comparing animals with one another. Animals are built for their own purpose, that being to serve the needs of the human. Man is superior and thus must conquer over others if survival is inevitable. There is no point comparing other animal species with humans. The reason for the differentiation in moral high grounds and perspectives is not because of morality is subjective, but because of deviation from a morality bestowed upon us by God, whether that be the Abrahamic God, the Eastern Gods or the Greek Gods- in my case, I believe it to be the product of a God I have created and that I worship.

[Myrensis]

Are you comforted by the thought that there is no universal law that makes murder immoral?

Was God immoral in the Old Testament? He racked up quite the body count both directly and by proxy as I recall.

If morality is Universal, then we should judge Gods behavior in the Old Testament the same way we would anyone else.

If it's not, well then God just has the biggest stick and we're right back to, "You don't do good out of any objective sense of right or wrong, you do good out of fear of Gods punishment or hope of Gods reward." aka, you have the same sense of morality as your household pets do.

[New DeCapito]

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.

It isn't a matter of comparing animals with one another. Animals are built for their own purpose, that being to serve the needs of the human. Man is superior and thus must conquer over others if survival is inevitable. There is no point comparing other animal species with humans. The reason for the differentiation in moral high grounds and perspectives is not because of morality is subjective, but because of deviation from a morality bestowed upon us by God, whether that be the Abrahamic God, the Eastern Gods or the Greek Gods- in my case, I believe it to be the product of a God I have created and that I worship.

So you made up your own religion - and now you believe it actually exists? When you know that its origin was the inside of your head? Impressive.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

It isn't a matter of comparing animals with one another. Animals are built for their own purpose, that being to serve the needs of the human. Man is superior and thus must conquer over others if survival is inevitable. There is no point comparing other animal species with humans. The reason for the differentiation in moral high grounds and perspectives is not because of morality is subjective, but because of deviation from a morality bestowed upon us by God, whether that be the Abrahamic God, the Eastern Gods or the Greek Gods- in my case, I believe it to be the product of a God I have created and that I worship.

So you made up your own religion - and now you believe it actually exists? When you know that its origin was the inside of your head? Impressive.

I did make up my own religion, and I adhere to my own ethics, but I don't think it actually exists. It's more of a metaphor to me. I have my own morals, outside of conventional religion, but I am not an atheist.

[New DeCapito]

So you made up your own religion - and now you believe it actually exists? When you know that its origin was the inside of your head? Impressive.

I did make up my own religion, and I adhere to my own ethics, but I don't think it actually exists. It's more of a metaphor to me. I have my own morals, outside of conventional religion, but I am not an atheist.

Oh. I see what you've done there.

[Meridiani Planum]

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't morality a non physical thing?

Yes, in the sense that any idea is non-physical. For instance, the idea that "the Earth is round" is non-physical (unless you count a brain state as its physical aspect), but the Earth is physical.

Morality can still relate to what is physical (such as human activity) without the ideas being physical in the same sense.

If it's difficult to even prove whether we ourselves exist

Is it? That doesn't seem challenging unless one has unrealistic requirements for human certainty.

is it possible to prove that certain actions are wrong without belief in a supernatural God?

I'd say yes. That's not to say that any argument can compel agreement from all other persons, but I do think that it is possible for someone to be correct.

From my understanding the skepticism around morality boils down to "what authority is there that makes doing x actions bad and others good?" I can't think of anything besides God that may constitute this authority.

I can think of other sources of "authority", such as the reality and requirements of human well-being. An "authority" doesn't have to be a person, and perhaps can't be one. (What would it matter to us that God has certain views on morality? Divine punishments and rewards are not arguments.) An "authority" can be a standard -- something that is measurable.

[Salandriagado]

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.

There are plenty of other ways to determine the value of a set of morals that don't rely on a magical invisible being telling you what to do.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

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.

Atheism does not mandate a lack of a moral code. It also does not mandate a moral code. The only thing you need to do to be an atheist is refuse to believe in any gods.

[Geanna]

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.

It actually does. Just not in an universal context.

Well - given the fact that morality and objectivity aren't compatible, morality is always subjective.

[Davao City-State]

Lol Richard Dawkinism

[The Archregimancy]

Lol Richard Dawkinism

Please don't smiley spam.


Otherwise I might subject you to a 90-minute lecture about the history of non-theistic Confucian morality.

That or give you a formal red-text warning.

[Davao City-State]

Lol Richard Dawkinism

Please don't smiley spam.


Otherwise I might subject you to a 90-minute lecture about the history of non-theistic Confucian morality.

That or give you a formal red-text warning.

sry there m8
Im just annoyed with posts that promotes Richard Dawkinism :/

[Cannabis Islands]

Please don't smiley spam.


Otherwise I might subject you to a 90-minute lecture about the history of non-theistic Confucian morality.

That or give you a formal red-text warning.

sry there m8
Im just annoyed with posts that promotes Richard Dawkinism :/

There is no such thing as " Richard Dawkinism"

[Geanna]

Please don't smiley spam.


Otherwise I might subject you to a 90-minute lecture about the history of non-theistic Confucian morality.

That or give you a formal red-text warning.

sry there m8
Im just annoyed with posts that promotes Richard Dawkinism :/

There's maybe one or two here that may fit that card, and I'm not one. I don't like Dawkins

[Cannabis Islands]

sry there m8
Im just annoyed with posts that promotes Richard Dawkinism :/

There's maybe one or two here that may fit that card, and I'm not one. I don't like Dawkins

The only reason I have a link featuring him is because he and I do share the same opinions on Islam. Other than that, I don't agree with him that much.

[Risottia]

Well, if there is no God, what is there?

Me.

If there really was no God I'd spiral into despair.

You can start spiralling and despairing then. I've been told it's rather fun.

[United States of White America]

Well, if there is no God, what is there?

Me.

If there really was no God I'd spiral into despair.

You can start spiralling and despairing then. I've been told it's rather fun.

Enough of the sarcasm.

I tried starting a thread about the "merits" of atheism, only for it to be locked.