Can someone create an objective moral code apart from God?

[kesa82]

If i took a dump in somebody coffee and made them watch. Would that be immoral?
I was just wondering.

Yes it would be.

 

[kesa82]

Nothing positive can come from a belief in naturalism and neither is it necessarily true. So why believe it and teach it? Naturalism is simply an opportunity to escape God and be God. I care about people; and so I would rather teach people about the most positive thing that could ever happen to them, and that is Jesus Christ.

Q.E.D. !

 

[Leela]

Hi Charlemagne,

You quoted me (and added emphasis):
***Atheists are not arrogant. ***They simply don’t want to claim to know things that they don’t know. We nonbelievers think we should say that we simply don’t know when the universe began or whether there was a creator let alone what a creator would be like or whether anything cool happens after you die. How is that arrogant? That’s not arrogance, that’s honesty.

Then you responded:
Excuse me, it is arrogance. You claim to know that there is no God. You claim to know that there is no afterlife. Excuse me, but where do you get this direct knowledge, and where is your proof that there definitely is no God or afterlife? Your knowledge can’t just come out of thin air, can it? Then it’s arrogant to say you have solved the problem of God and the afterlife when you haven’t a clue about either.

Is it really arrogant to claim to know those things? Ok, fine, but I never did. If you read what you just quoted you will see that I specifically said that I **don’t **know those things. But you do, right? I guess that makes you arrogant by your own standards.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

Why didn’t the first atheist kill the second?

Why didn’t the first born believer kill the second? Oh, yeah. According to the Bible, he did.

 

[Leela]

Why?

If its pleasing to me to hold my mother down and take a dump in my mothers mouth, why should i ought not do that?

This is just disgusting. Where do you get this stuff? Do you actually believe that someone has to believe in God to avoid such behavior? Is this the sort of thing you used to do before you found “the Truth”?

Is this the best sort of argument believers can come up with? “Why didn’t the first atheist take a dump in the mouth of the second?”

I fully expect this thread to be closed since this discussion is not at all going in the way the theists here would like.

See you in the next thread where we’ll rehash all the same titred arguments,
Leela

 

[buffalo]

Why didn’t the first born believer kill the second? Oh, yeah. According to the Bible, he did.

He disobeyed and was punished.

 

[buffalo]

Sorry i miss quoted this before.

After reading some of your posts, It seems to me that you have accepted that moral values are not real, but you are willing to promote the fallacy of values, in order to feel comfortable. In other words you are willing to promote lies such as the idea that killing and raping is wrong. Am i correct?

In other words, you are happy to live in a fantasy if it serves your interests. Your happy to dogmatically condemn others for behavior you do not agree with. Not because of logic; but because of feelings. What gives you the right then to ridicule those who do believe in moral truth? Since you are quite happy to manufacture belief systems that have nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with emotion and fear; you are no more rational then somebody who has blind faith. At least somebody with blind faith is willing to say that your existence has objective value.

If God does not exist, then it is irrational if you believe that moral values are rooted in truth; this is the topical point of this thread.

Id rather you lived in a world where a good God, the God that Christians believe in, exists. Because its only in that world where you will ultimately find personal fulfillment.

Bingo! The atheist position is indeed irrational.

 

[Nepenthe]

Yet again I’ll try - there IS NO ‘atheist position’ as such! The same way there isn’t much of a united ‘Christian position’ on many things, but even less so with atheists and nontheists - it’d be like herding cats! A pretty strong theme of enlightened self-interest is present, though, as it is also present in many people of faith.

Really, I get the feeling that simply the very word ‘atheist’ brings on a mouth-frothing, kneejerk reaction in some people. Whatever happened to loving thy neighbor as thyself? (A certain really nice, evidently quite moral individual of the Samaritan ethnicity and non-Judeo-Christian faith comes to mind, for example…) Jesus’ teachings pretty much boil down to ‘Don’t be jerks unto one another - it’s just not very productive or beneficial in any way!’ And I thoroughly agree with the Moralist of Galilee there. You don’t have to either be a deity or believe in one to see the sense in that.

 

[reggieM]

Yet again I’ll try - there IS NO ‘atheist position’ as such! The same way there isn’t much of a united ‘Christian position’ on many things, but even less so with atheists and nontheists - it’d be like herding cats!

I disagree here. There is a Catholic position on the meaning and purpose of life. It can be found authoritatively stated. Individual Catholics may disagree but we can’t judge each individual but rather “the position” of that body of faith.

There is also “an atheistic-materialist” position. This is simply the atheist-materialist-evolutionary view which is the most common atheistic belief. All life emerged from unintelligent matter. There is no real purpose or meaning to it (although there are some illusory purposes). Human life ends at death with biological decay. All nature is the product of unintelligent forces.

Really, I get the feeling that simply the very word ‘atheist’ brings on a mouth-frothing, kneejerk reaction in some people.

For myself, it’s not “atheist” but “atheism” – not the person but the belief. The belief is evil. It is the embrace of nothingness and the belief that death is the ultimate winner over human life.

Whatever happened to loving thy neighbor as thyself? Jesus’ teachings pretty much boil down to ‘Don’t be jerks unto one another - it’s just not very productive or beneficial in any way!’ And I thoroughly agree with the Moralist of Galilee there. You don’t have to either be a deity or believe in one to see the sense in that.

That is very good to hear but it completely contradicts materialistic-atheism. There is no reason to be “good” – and, you can’t even define “good”. A pool of bacteria evolved into more complex organisms. This was not good or bad, but merely an accident. Human beings are the same.

Without God’s eternity, there is no justice, and there is no hope. Atheism provides no hope for human beings – only the finality of death and nothingness.

Our good God gives us fulfillment, perfection in all blessings and infinite happiness and a source of Truth. Atheism denies all of that. We’re left just with natural laws that lead to death and destruction whether we like it or not.

Atheist morality is irrational and contradictory.

 

[Ender]

If Sidekick or you want to define “objective moral truth” in terms of a Gods-eye-view then without God, then there is no “objective moral truth” but only because the way you’ve defined the terms completely begs the question.

I may not get to address your other points today but I do want to address this one. I have not in any of my discussion with you defended or even expressed my position; you presume to know what it is. I have questioned your position, not advanced mine. Don’t continue to attack “my” or the Christian view of morality; they are irrelevant to the truth of your position. You could mathematically prove that my belief is utterly wrong without strengthening your position in the slightest. My comments to you are about the logic of your claims - rebuttals like the above are not germane.

Ender

 

[reggieM]

In other words, you are happy to live in a fantasy if it serves your interests. Your happy to dogmatically condemn others for behavior you do not agree with. Not because of logic; but because of feelings. What gives you the right then to ridicule those who do believe in moral truth? Since you are quite happy to manufacture belief systems that have nothing to do with truth, and everything to do with emotion and fear; you are no more rational then somebody who has blind faith.

That was a good analysis of the most common atheistic view. There can be no “good” in evolutionary-atheism. Killing, rape, lying – are all merely natural processes which are normal parts of evolution. We can’t or shouldn’t change such things.

But atheists don’t like to admit that, so they irrationally condemn certain actions. It’s a fantasy of some “moral good” which they logically cannot believe exists.

Atheists proclaim that there is no moral truth. They spread that teaching widely by their philosophy. But then they deny it when the consequences of that teaching are evident.

 

[buffalo]

That was a good analysis of the most common atheistic view. There can be no “good” in evolutionary-atheism. Killing, rape, lying – are all merely natural processes which are normal parts of evolution. We can’t or shouldn’t change such things.

But atheists don’t like to admit that, so they irrationally condemn certain actions. It’s a fantasy of some “moral good” which they logically cannot believe exists.

Atheists proclaim that there is no moral truth. They spread that teaching widely by their philosophy. But then they deny it when the consequences of that teaching are evident.

Most atheists have no knowledge of actual history and they do not delve into theology. They do not really understand what and why we believe.

They stand way back and look at it. If you want to know someone you have to get close. They do not get close to God so they fail the personal experience.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

And look what happens when they are ruled by Christian ethics http://planetsmilies.net/vomit-smiley-31.gif media.bigoo.ws/content/smile/sick/sick_3.gif​

i assume you are talking about the inquistition or crusades, etc. a few thousands killed over more than a millenia, are not a spot on the 100 million plus killed in the last century.

the kill ratio is roughly 28,000 to 1.

atheists took a consecutive 30 years to murdered tens of millions in the last century for reasons of political opinion, and property ownership in the main

the inquisition was completely in line with contemporary legal thought and practice. people were given actual trials, allowed to recant, if found guilty.

it executed roughly 4000, over the course of 300 years or so, according to the laws of the time

atheistic regimes made laws by which they were allowed to kill dissenters, property owners, religious etc. within our lifetimes

the church executed people who were criminals by the standard of the times.

hardly the same thing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

severntofall

*As a non-believer I personally have no problem honestly admitting that there may actually be a god. *

Interesting. So if there is a God, and it turns out to be the Christian God, when you come to your judgment, what will be your plea?

 

[buffalo]

i assume you are talking about the inquistition or crusades, etc. a few thousands killed over more than a millenia, are not a spot on the 100 million plus killed in the last century.

the kill ratio is roughly 28,000 to 1.

atheists took a consecutive 30 years to murdered tens of millions in the last century for reasons of political opinion, and property ownership in the main

the inquisition was completely in line with contemporary legal thought and practice. people were given actual trials, allowed to recant, if found guilty.

it executed roughly 4000, over the course of 300 years or so, according to the laws of the time

atheistic regimes made laws by which they were allowed to kill dissenters, property owners, religious etc. within our lifetimes

the church executed people who were criminals by the standard of the times.

hardly the same thing.

C’mon gottle, know your history.

 

[Leela]

i assume you are talking about the inquistition or crusades, etc. a few thousands killed over more than a millenia, are not a spot on the 100 million plus killed in the last century.

the kill ratio is roughly 28,000 to 1.

atheists took a consecutive 30 years to murdered tens of millions in the last century for reasons of political opinion, and property ownership in the main

the inquisition was completely in line with contemporary legal thought and practice. people were given actual trials, allowed to recant, if found guilty.

it executed roughly 4000, over the course of 300 years or so, according to the laws of the time

atheistic regimes made laws by which they were allowed to kill dissenters, property owners, religious etc. within our lifetimes

the church executed people who were criminals by the standard of the times.

hardly the same thing.

When will we stop arguing about whether Christians or atheists are responsible for more respehensible acts and recognize the common thread in all these crimes against humanity? Clearly all the perpetrators of these crimes had failed to properly worship Zeus!

 

[buffalo]

When will we stop arguing about whether Christians or atheists are responsible for more respehensible acts and recognize the common thread in all these crimes against humanity? Clearly all the perpetrators of these crimes had failed to properly worship Zeus!

It is very important.

The Russians thought they could get rid of the concept of God and retain a value for humans, but they couldn’t.

Solshenitzin said (paraphrasing)- 60 million of my countrymen died because we forgot about God.

 

[Leela]

severntofall

*As a non-believer I personally have no problem honestly admitting that there may actually be a god. *

Interesting. So if there is a God, and it turns out to be the Christian God, when you come to your judgment, what will be your plea?

I don’t know what you mean by plea (guilty of not guilty???), but clearly if you are right and the Christian God is God, then we atheists will be screwed since belief in life is a requirement for salvation after death.

While I accept that as a possibility, I lose just as much sleep over it as you do about the possibility that Islam is true and so the followers of Jesus will be damned, or that you’ll be reincarnated as a bug because of your wrong beliefs, which is to say, I don’t lose any sleep over the matter at all. In fact, I really value sleeping in on Sunday mornings.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

I really value sleeping in on Sunday mornings.

I guess that says it all. Atheism is a lazy philosophy?

However, Leela, you have posted nearly 400 messages at Catholic Answers, so I think sooner or later you might lose a little sleep.

 

[buffalo]

I don’t know what you mean by plea (guilty of not guilty???), but clearly if you are right and the Christian God is God, then we atheists will be screwed since belief in life is a requirement for salvation after death.

While I accept that as a possibility, I lose just as much sleep over it as you do about the possibility that Islam is true and so the followers of Jesus will be damned, or that you’ll be reincarnated as a bug because of your wrong beliefs, which is to say, I don’t lose any sleep over the matter at all. In fact, I really value sleeping in on Sunday mornings.

There is a difference. The search for the truth and what is in our hearts. If we are searching and we are misled (ignorant) we will have to deal with God’s justice and hope for His mercy.

If we have been told the truth but will not accept it or be open minded to God then what could we expect, but separation from God. We have done nothing to advance our relationship with Him in that case. I believe atheists argue from a disingenuous point of view.

Catholics understand faith as opening ones mind and heart to God. Once done we have to move closer to Him to experience Him. If you know you have to take that step and don’t then you yourself have made a choice away from God.

You really do have enough information to start.