Is morality possible without God

[Hoskhsueu]

Of course morality is possible without God (or any other deities), because that's not what religion is about. Religion is about finding the sacred, not about trying to be moral, although it features morality, just like the point of a car is to drive it and get somewhere, not to sit in a comfortable seat, even though cars feature chairs.

[Nouva Romonia]

His outburst does give us an interesting insight in his true nature. Apparently he feels threatened whenever progress in the field of civil rights is made. That is actually a malevolent and tyrannical mindset masquerading as 'freedom'. Now that is not uncommon for fundamentalists, but it is a highly amoral and potentially dangerous (societally speaking) way of thinking.

Why?

If you are attempting to "save" us "nihilist" atheists then maybe you should put a little more input into your argument. From what I can gather, you either have no argument and are a troll, or you have an argument but don't know how to convey it.

If you are going to reply to this please attempt to explain why I'm wrong instead of telling me not to question you or use poor one word answers or questions.

[Hurdegaryp]

A common mistake people make when talking about morality outside the context of religious dogma. Humans, being a group animal, have always had morality that transcended the individual needs, because we as a species survive better when we cooperate. It's actually a basic biological principle. The greater good is real.

Human interdependancy is tied to environmental control. You put us in an adverse enough environment, and the concept of individual needs becomes moot, when one cant individually fulfill them. However, as people overcome their external limitations, their codependancy generally relaxes as individual efforts start counting for more. Which then allows for the subjective nature of individual human motivation to come into play and cause social tension.
Squeeze hard enough, and eventually we are all forced into such a focused communal state that cultural evolution stalls. Why do you think the Lithic ages lasted so long?
However, once we begin building our own play rooms, somewhat independent of natural environs, and start filling them full of toys and games, the paradigm shifts. Now youve got an environment where the occassional hyperactive overachiever, who doesnt have to put anymore effort into filling his belly than everyone else, has the time and chance at doing or creating something that advances an aspect of the human condition, though they most likely werent thinking far beyond their own kith and kin.

You've got a point there, but our complex high-tech civilization with its advanced infrastructures, dependency on machine technology in all fields of life and global logistics can only be maintained by the collective efforts of countless people. The current levels of education also generates more specialists capable of improving existing technologies and methods and occasionally developing new ones. It's an amazing system made possible by the continuous interaction of individual human beings.

[Othelos]

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.

Atheism =/= relativism

[Othelos]

Why?

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.

Wrong. There are things that objectively hurt people.

[United Christian America]

Of course morality is possible without God (or any other deities), because that's not what religion is about. Religion is about finding the sacred, not about trying to be moral, although it features morality, just like the point of a car is to drive it and get somewhere, not to sit in a comfortable seat, even though cars feature chairs.

*Nods*

There's also the interesting point of view that the commonly addressed Christian God desires perfection (on his own terms obviously) from his subjects, and based on Protestantism's assimilation of new members He is not as concerned with Good Works. If morality was not possible without [that commonly referenced] God, we would not be seeing Good Works among all kinds of atheists.

Of course as a Christian I can't speak for other religions. Zeus for one seemed to really care about worship and such too. For the question to be truly inclusive you'd have to specify which God (because polytheism and in those religions you sometimes see multiple powerful Gods and Goddesses). And, because you see good works from all kinds of people despite the fact that they don't worship a God, worship too many Gods, or worship the "wrong" God, the answer should also be the same.

TLDR: Yes, but perhaps not perfection from His perspective.

[Scyobayrynn]

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.

Wrong. There are things that objectively hurt people.

What objectively causes emotional suffering?

[United Christian America]

Wrong. There are things that objectively hurt people.

What objectively causes emotional suffering?

The law of tooth and claw.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

How rivetting. All of a sudden, I should bow down to ants now? Puny little ants? I never said humans would be dominant forever, only that they are meant to dominate. Of course, eventually- as the dialectic principle dictates- the have-nots in the human domination will rise up and take over. It's a matter of thesis and antithesis.

In answer to your question, one cannot demonstrate when one is not of nature. Nothing is natural anymore, anyway.

Technically speaking, everything is within the laws of nature, and therefore natural.

What, even what man makes? Buildings are natural? How about electricity? I've heard that bubblewrap is pretty organic(!) Politics and nations are not natural. They are merely ideas conjured up by Great Men of the past.

[Hurdegaryp]

What objectively causes emotional suffering?

The law of tooth and claw.

Also stress. Stress causes emotional and physical suffering in humans and pretty much all other animals.

[Coralias]

Morals aren't doing what you are told to do, but what you know (or think) is right (which often coincides with what you are told, especially as a child)
as such, morals do not require a belief in god (or any divine judgement) in the slightest
What a belief in god does get you, is motivation to not stray, from either fear of punishment (from hell, or whatever the religious punishment is) or expectations of a reward (heaven, elysium, paradise etc.). In fact,many people will argue that if you need a belief in god to be moral, you are not actually moral, just afraid of punishment.

[Othelos]

Wrong. There are things that objectively hurt people.

What objectively causes emotional suffering?

Depends on the issue. I'm not really sure what your point is, considering religion doesn't fix emotional suffering.

[Adnan Nawaz And Bureacrats Elsewhere]

Of course morality is possible without God (or any other deities), because that's not what religion is about. Religion is about finding the sacred, not about trying to be moral, although it features morality, just like the point of a car is to drive it and get somewhere, not to sit in a comfortable seat, even though cars feature chairs.

I really like that analogy, not merely because of how you mixed the story and the original point together. I agree, religion is not exclusively about morality, though my personal religion Edgwarianism does concern itself with morality.

[Chinese Peoples]

I think this is the very essence of the distinction between morality and ethics.

As for the OP's decision to designate the source of morality as 'God' (with 'G' in majuscule), I don't think it's necessary for the God (of the Bible) to be that source. It may be any deity or even another source of definitive authority.

[Drury Lane]

Also stress. Stress causes emotional and physical suffering in humans and pretty much all other animals.

Also conversely acts as a motivator for modifying ones environs to be less stressful.
I suppose "morality" comes into play when asking; "at whose expense do I do this, mine or someone elses?".

[Myrensis]

Yes, in fact divine command theory is probably one of the weakest moral theories, because it has never really been able to resolve the Euthyphro dilemma first articulated by Plato: Is that which is good commanded by God because it's good, or is it good because God commands it?

In the first case, God is not the moral lawgiver, he is simply restating something which exists independently from his command. In the second case, morality is reduced to "might makes right" on a cosmic scale.

I have no idea what you're talking about.

It's not that complicated. If there is an 'objective' morality, by definition it applies to God as much to anyone else, and he can be judged by it just as much as any mere human.

If on the other hand morality is "whatever God says", then morality is purely subjective, and the only basis for saying morality as laid out by God is superior is "he has a bigger stick than anyone else." ie, the same 'morality' your dog has in relation to you. It doesn't roll over on command because it's the 'good' or 'right' thing to do, it does it because it knows you might give it treats if it does, and might punish it if it doesn't.

[Davinhia]

I'm somewhat-moral and I'm not religious

[United States of White America]

I have no idea what you're talking about.

It's not that complicated. If there is an 'objective' morality, by definition it applies to God as much to anyone else, and he can be judged by it just as much as any mere human.

If on the other hand morality is "whatever God says", then morality is purely subjective, and the only basis for saying morality as laid out by God is superior is "he has a bigger stick than anyone else." ie, the same 'morality' your dog has in relation to you. It doesn't roll over on command because it's the 'good' or 'right' thing to do, it does it because it knows you might give it treats if it does, and might punish it if it doesn't.

Oh ok. I agree with you.

[United States of White America]

Why?

If you are attempting to "save" us "nihilist" atheists then maybe you should put a little more input into your argument. From what I can gather, you either have no argument and are a troll, or you have an argument but don't know how to convey it.

If you are going to reply to this please attempt to explain why I'm wrong instead of telling me not to question you or use poor one word answers or questions.

No, no. I won't try and save anyone any longer. There's no need to.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Technically speaking, everything is within the laws of nature, and therefore natural.

What, even what man makes? Buildings are natural? How about electricity? I've heard that bubblewrap is pretty organic(!) Politics and nations are not natural. They are merely ideas conjured up by Great Men of the past.

Especially what man makes. They are all within the boundaries known by science. Even ideologies, which are purely abstract, don't technically violate the laws of nature.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

If you are attempting to "save" us "nihilist" atheists then maybe you should put a little more input into your argument. From what I can gather, you either have no argument and are a troll, or you have an argument but don't know how to convey it.

If you are going to reply to this please attempt to explain why I'm wrong instead of telling me not to question you or use poor one word answers or questions.

No, no. I won't try and save anyone any longer. There's no need to.

Exactly.

[Drury Lane]

Morals aren't doing what you are told to do, but what you know (or think) is right (which often coincides with what you are told, especially as a child)
as such, morals do not require a belief in god (or any divine judgement) in the slightest
What a belief in god does get you, is motivation to not stray, from either fear of punishment (from hell, or whatever the religious punishment is) or expectations of a reward (heaven, elysium, paradise etc.). In fact,many people will argue that if you need a belief in god to be moral, you are not actually moral, just afraid of punishment.

Its even less simple than that.
With everything about the human condition being subjective, and chaos reigning supreme in the absence of proaction against it, how does one blame anyone seeking some sort of objective anchor for which to ground their attempts at not only establishing and maintaining a sphere of order for the sake of their own existence, but expanding and improving upon it so that ones life may improve with it, and others taken into the shelter of their influence?
A positive religion not only helps in this regard, but offers an element of inspiration to improve not only oneself, but the world around them also if possible. There are notions of nobility that can be taken from some interpretations of religion that go beyond adherents just submitting and living on their knees for the favor of a godhead, but also aspire to evolve to be more like the godhead, creating a vehicle of perpetual self-improvement in light of the imperfectability of the species.
Whatever your conduit of world view, whether it be religious, scientific, political, or a matter of pure philosophical conjecture, the important thing is that you live your life as a matter of counsel, and not of precept, or you will never know justice much less have any ability to mete it out.

[United States of White America]

No, no. I won't try and save anyone any longer. There's no need to.

Exactly.

Glad we agree.
Also, I'm an atheist now. Thank you.

[The Debauched Rabbit]

What, even what man makes? Buildings are natural? How about electricity? I've heard that bubblewrap is pretty organic(!) Politics and nations are not natural. They are merely ideas conjured up by Great Men of the past.

Especially what man makes. They are all within the boundaries known by science. Even ideologies, which are purely abstract, don't technically violate the laws of nature.

Nature uber alles, essentially?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Im just annoyed with posts that promotes Richard Dawkinism :/

Is it a fair assumption you're referring to that devious, atheistic-communist plot known commonly as "science?"

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

Hey now. He can be an ass, but give the man his due; he's extremely intelligent.

Northern Ireland could certainly use a decline of all denominations in the area. Given their history, it would probably result in a collective moral upgrade.

I'd have to agree with you - I'm non-partisan and believe the politics involved are utter tripe.

*rosary, ski mask, and automatic weapon somehow fall out of back pocket*

i can explain