How can morality exist without god?

[arthra]

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.

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)

I think that religion has influenced law and morality a great deal and will continue to do so.... Telling the truth, not stealing..being true to one's spouse... caring for the sick and making efforts toward greater understanding and peace are shared vales today and many of these attitudes were inspired by religions. While there have been societies that supported ethics and humanistic ideals and were not necessarily religious... I think religion is still today a great influence.

 

[McBell]

If new testament morality was chosen even if wrong it would be a great choice.

Your subjective opinion.

there are those who completely disagree.

 

[McBell]

Atheists can be morally good. But that isn't the issue. Having good morals doesn’t mean you have objective morals. One atheist’s good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist’s isn’t. Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral "should and shouldn't”. Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism morality is up for grabs.

an atheists morals are just as absolute as your morals.

Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established.

Actually, no you don't.
All that is removed is the standard YOU use to establish YOUR own absolute moral truth.

 

[McBell]

I think that religion has influenced law and morality a great deal and will continue to do so.... Telling the truth, not stealing..being true to one's spouse... caring for the sick and making efforts toward greater understanding and peace are shared vales today and many of these attitudes were inspired by religions. While there have been societies that supported ethics and humanistic ideals and were not necessarily religious... I think religion is still today a great influence.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg...?

 

[arthra]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg...?

Early societies were preponderantly religious ones... ergo... the "chicken" in my view.

Recall that the last words attributed to Socrates were?

"Crito, I owe a **** to Asclepius; will you remember topay the debt?"

er a "rooster"

and Jesus said:

"Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the **** crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."

er a "rooster"

And Abdul-Baha:

"How else could the ****-crow of Heaven have penetrated those ears? How else could the sweet parrots of India have come upon this sugar, or nightingales have lifted up their warblings out of the land of Iraq?"

er a "rooster"

 

[1robin]

Your subjective opinion.

there are those who completely disagree.

Since if the bible was strictly followed there would never be a war, genocide, race issues, corrupt politicians, adultry, murder, theft, or 9/11s and you dissagree with that being good then you must want these things. Of course I realise that wasn't what you said I just thought I would show you what it feels like to have your position purposely distorted so a point can be made. That is what your side of the isle does to my statements every other post. What is it that if we adopted biblical morallity, that could possibly be warped into something bad.

 

[McBell]

Since if the bible was strictly followed there would never be a war, genocide, race issues, corrupt politicians, adultry, murder, theft, or 9/11s and you dissagree with that being good then you must want these things. Of course I realise that wasn't what you said I just thought I would show you what it feels like to have your position purposely distorted so a point can be made. That is what your side of the isle does to my statements every other post. What is it that if we adopted biblical morallity, that could possibly be warped into something bad.

this is nothing more than wishful thinking which you attempt to support with a false dichotomy and then even more wishful thinking.

How many denominations of Christianity are there?

 

[McBell]

Early societies were preponderantly religious ones... ergo... the "chicken" in my view.

Recall that the last words attributed to Socrates were?

"Crito, I owe a **** to Asclepius; will you remember topay the debt?"

er a "rooster"

and Jesus said:

"Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the **** crow, thou shalt deny me thrice."

er a "rooster"

And Abdul-Baha:

"How else could the ****-crow of Heaven have penetrated those ears? How else could the sweet parrots of India have come upon this sugar, or nightingales have lifted up their warblings out of the land of Iraq?"

er a "rooster"

I wonder...
Do you really think that your presented quotes support the idea that religion was around before atheism?

 

[Aquitaine]

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.

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)

Hi Polarbear71,

I'm a moderate Atheist and I evolved my Morals and social ethics from my Environment. Based off what I observe, hear and "feel" from others: if certain actions generally cause people pain, I avoid such actions. Conversely, if certain actions generally cause people pleasure, I engage in such actions.

Finally, always remember the Golden Rule: do as you wish to be done by.

Hope that helps,

Paul Rusco.

 

[1robin]

this is nothing more than wishful thinking which you attempt to support with a false dichotomy and then even more wishful thinking.

You said this instead of giving any actual examples where I was wrong even though I specificaly requested them. Amazing. Your statement is: nothing more than wishful thinking which you attempt to support with a false dichotomy and then even more wishful thinking.

How many denominations of Christianity are there?

About a billion. However since the bible is the issue not a difference of opinion on Transubstination among denominations. They all have virtually an identicle core morallity.

 

[McBell]

You said this instead of giving any actual examples where I was wrong even though I specificaly requested them. Amazing. Your statement is: nothing more than wishful thinking which you attempt to support with a false dichotomy and then even more wishful thinking.

You made no such "specification" in the post I replied to.

Are you perhaps confusing me with another poster?
Interestingly enough the fact remains that your whole "All would be good is the whole world followed my favourite belief" claim is nothing more wishful thinking on your part.

About a billion. However since the bible is the issue not a difference of opinion on Transubstination among denominations. They all have virtually an identicle core morallity.

so there are "about a billion" different versions of just one religion all based on one book and you honestly think that if there was no other religion that there would "never be a war, genocide, race issues, corrupt politicians, adultery, murder, theft,"...?

Now, since you have absolutely no way to show that your claim has any basis in reality, then it is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Which, if you recall, is exactly what I said it is.

 

[Alceste]

You said this instead of giving any actual examples where I was wrong even though I specificaly requested them. Amazing. Your statement is: nothing more than wishful thinking which you attempt to support with a false dichotomy and then even more wishful thinking.

About a billion. However since the bible is the issue not a difference of opinion on Transubstination among denominations. They all have virtually an identicle core morallity.

I'm not so sure about that. We have a Christan in another thread arguing rigorously in favor of honor killings.

 

[Aquitaine]

I'm not so sure about that. We have a Christan in another thread arguing rigorously in favor of honor killings.

A Christian arguing for Honor Killings on RF, who? xD

 

[1robin]

You made no such "specification" in the post I replied to.

Are you perhaps confusing me with another poster?

Maybe, I will assume you are right but let me ask now. To assert I am wrong without some type of justification adds nothing to the discussion.

Interestingly enough the fact remains that your whole "All would be good is the whole world followed my favourite belief" claim is nothing more wishful thinking on your part.

Are you actually suggesting that if everyone followed new testament morality things wouldn't be better off. If followed it would end abortion for convenience or as a form of birth control, end war, end poverty, end racism, end corruption, end lieing, etc.... how could that be bad? Of course I am discussing a theoretical adherence to the system. There would in reality be violations by people who would violate whatever rule we have but it would still be a better system if only because it would be universal. Like I said though Christianity was not designed for this type of application so we are talking hypothetics.

so there are "about a billion" different versions of just one religion all based on one book and you honestly think that if there was no other religion that there would "never be a war, genocide, race issues, corrupt politicians, adultery, murder, theft,"...?

I said if it was followed, and I also said these various denominations believe virtually the same core values they differ on the very obscure and only theologically relevant ones. I think in reality it would be better because of universality plus it's stricter requirements and more philisophically consistent framework as well it's more valid roots but it would definately have people who wouldn't follow it.

Now, since you have absolutely no way to show that your claim has any basis in reality, then it is nothing more than wishful thinking.
Which, if you recall, is exactly what I said it is.

Actually there are many ways all of which are more valid than morality without them. However this takes a long time to hash out and isn't necessary to discuss the implications if their truth is assumed for the discussion. That is a different subject.

 

[1robin]

A Christian arguing for Honor Killings on RF, who? xD

He is free to do so. However he is not free to say he bases that claim on the bible. There is no teachings in the new testament (the one that actually applies now) that allow murder of any kind.

 

[1robin]

I'm not so sure about that. We have a Christan in another thread arguing rigorously in favor of honor killings.

So? The new testament is the standard, not every claim that ever came out of the mouth of a fallable human that claims (rightly or wrongly) to be a Christian.

 

[waitasec]

So? The new testament is the standard, not every claim that ever came out of the mouth of a fallable human that claims (rightly or wrongly) to be a Christian.

by what criteria though?

i don't think we ever got to the bottom of that...




and

by what criteria does one determine the claims are right or wrong?

 

[McBell]

Are you actually suggesting that if everyone followed new testament morality things wouldn't be better off.

Nope.
i am flat out saying it.

If followed it would end abortion for convenience or as a form of birth control, end war, end poverty, end racism, end corruption, end lieing, etc....

Again, nothing but wishful thinking.
My evidence?
There are loads of people who are following the NT who do not have a problem with others getting abortions.
Wars are declared for many different a reason, religion, IMHO, being merely an excuse, not the reason...
Are you claiming that religious organizations are free of corruption?
take a look at all the lies being told by the higher ups in the Catholic Church...

how could that be bad?

It is not bad, it is not a realistic outcome of everyone following the NT.
Now if you were to claim that if everyone was to follow your personal opinion of what the NT says, then it still would not be a realistic outcome, cause people disagree with your opinion of what the NT says.

Of course I am discussing a theoretical adherence to the system. There would in reality be violations by people who would violate whatever rule we have but it would still be a better system if only because it would be universal. Like I said though Christianity was not designed for this type of application so we are talking hypothetics.

I said if it was followed, and I also said these various denominations believe virtually the same core values they differ on the very obscure and only theologically relevant ones. I think in reality it would be better because of universality plus it's stricter requirements and more philisophically consistent framework as well it's more valid roots but it would definately have people who wouldn't follow it.

Actually there are many ways all of which are more valid than morality without them. However this takes a long time to hash out and isn't necessary to discuss the implications if their truth is assumed for the discussion. That is a different subject.

Again, what you are claiming cannot be shown to be anything other than wishful thinking on your part.

 

[McBell]

He is free to do so. However he is not free to say he bases that claim on the bible. There is no teachings in the new testament (the one that actually applies now) that allow murder of any kind.

Says who?
You?
What makes you think that your personal interpretation of the Bible is to be held as the standard for all human kind to adhere to?

 

[McBell]

So? The new testament is the standard, not every claim that ever came out of the mouth of a fallable human that claims (rightly or wrongly) to be a Christian.

First you have to decide which interpretation of the NT is to be the standard.
Then you will need to get all Christians to agree that that interpretation is the to be the standard.


Now since getting Christians to agree on a single interpretation of the NT is much like herding cats....