Morality without God?

[REALIST1]

UNBELIEVABLE!!! All these replies and no answers!!! I guess I should not be surprised. I came here hoping this would be a great place for answers. Or atleast a place where I could come to understand better why so many people continue to stick their head in the ground. All I recieve was mud-slinging, negativity etc… I’m sorry if I came off that way as well but I have came to learn that no matter how I sugar coat such a discussion I get the same reactions…so I just let it all hang out there now. I’M SURE MANY OF YOU WILL REJOICE in that I will be now leaving this site. It is ashame that I leave so disappointed. All of you have failed miserably in having the ability to step out of the shadows and give even semi-answers. Its the same old BECAUSE or you don’t understand etc… If God was so great it would be so clear there is no need of convincing anyone. Go back to my post of contradictions and relly test yourself, and how you think of similiar things in your daily life. I have wasted my time here and I apologize for doing the same for you. I just expected better here…MUCH BETTER!
Peace and Happiness to all!!!
P.S. if God created Light on the 1st day and the Sun and Stars etc… on day 3 then where was the light coming from those 1st 3 days? And if we started from Adam and Eve why are there soooo many ethnicities and different DNA combinations?

 

[afriendofGod]

“Hi friend, I disagree that God is the source of moral arguments. I and others who do not believe in God are of course still concerned with morality.”
Leela, since all moral law comes from God, I have said that God is the Source of all true moral arguments. Of course, some people, atheists and humanists primarily, will keep inventing their own moral laws. But this does not change my fundamental premise, shared with John Paul II, that “God alone is the Source of all moral law: The conscience may err precisely because it is not the last instance, which decides what is good and what is bad. It is for this reason, that conscience must subject itself to the immutable moral truth of God” (John Paul II, Insegnamenti, v.VI (2), s.262.
Believe me, Leela, God is the only Way!

 

[buffalo]

UNBELIEVABLE!!! All these replies and no answers!!! I guess I should not be surprised. I came here hoping this would be a great place for answers. Or atleast a place where I could come to understand better why so many people continue to stick their head in the ground. All I recieve was mud-slinging, negativity etc… I’m sorry if I came off that way as well but I have came to learn that no matter how I sugar coat such a discussion I get the same reactions…so I just let it all hang out there now. I’M SURE MANY OF YOU WILL REJOICE in that I will be now leaving this site. It is ashame that I leave so disappointed. All of you have failed miserably in having the ability to step out of the shadows and give even semi-answers. Its the same old BECAUSE or you don’t understand etc… If God was so great it would be so clear there is no need of convincing anyone. Go back to my post of contradictions and relly test yourself, and how you think of similiar things in your daily life. I have wasted my time here and I apologize for doing the same for you. I just expected better here…MUCH BETTER!
Peace and Happiness to all!!!
P.S. if God created Light on the 1st day and the Sun and Stars etc… on day 3 then where was the light coming from those 1st 3 days? And if we started from Adam and Eve why are there soooo many ethnicities and different DNA combinations?

Before I answer these we have to get the question of God out of the way. Did you read my link? Do you have a response?

 

[Leela]

Usually, atheistic philosophy means that there is no God and no supernatural. So the natural world (molecules and matter) are all that exist.

The lack of one particular sort of belief is hardly a philosophy.

I don’t believe that molecules and matter are all that exist. For example, I believe thoughts exist.

I don’t know what it would mean to say that something unnatural exists since I think of anything that exists as natural.

When we speak about laws, as in moral laws, this always requires a law-giver.

When there is no God, there is still a law-giver but that is a human being or a community of humans (government or state).

Humans make laws based on moral considerations but the laws themselves are not morality, they only reflect what we’ve come to learn about morality at a given point in time.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

I’d really like you to answer my question so I can understand your position; I can’t debate it until I know for sure what it is.

You are referring to your previous post “This definition equates morality with functionality: what is beneficial to the group is moral, what is harmful to the group is immoral. Or am I misunderstanding you?”

I think human flourishing or eudaimonia is best left as a flexible term. We need to learn more about what it means and how to accomplish it.

You are correct that ones moral intuition (the conscience) can often be mistaken, just as ones rational decisions about what is beneficial can often be wrong. So: if I do what I think will increase human flourishing (can you come up with a better term?) but it turns out to be harmful, have I committed an immoral act?

Yes. Though we generally also consider intentions when evaluating people’s moral standing.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

this is exactly what they mean, leela, you don’t address the direct argument, you just claim that it is not’ applicable to you

What is the direct argument that I didn’t address?

‘negative or weak’ atheism is exactly what you are claiming, this link will show you the terms.

If you say so.

there is proof G-d exists, because an observable universe exists.
further i assert that He logically exists as a result of the ‘first cause argument’

I find this argument less than compelling. See my recent post in Letter to a Christian Nation thread.

nor am i using the term atheist as a pejorative, it is the descriptive term of your professed philosophy in support please refer to the provided link.

Atheism is not a philosphy any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby. It is simply the lack of a belief in God or gods.

further your ‘theories’ hinge on the idea that there is no G-d, or if there is it does not matter.

the central question in all of this is the existence of G-d.

I don’t know what you mean. Do your theories hinge on the nonexistence of fairies?

Best,
Leela

 

[Nepenthe]

JDaniel:

Nep:

Oh, that makes me so sad I will now start praying for you too.

And, you are quite right - we can remain friends.

Although you do realize, I hope, that we are commissioned to try to convert you - nicely; intelligently; reasonably; and, from time to time, some strong arm-twisting and neck-choking!

Hahaha, aw, don’t be sad. I am a very happy, fulfilled person and find quite enough to be both happy about and concerned with, without religion, and I positively ooze goodwill, since I like to share my good fortune. (As to the austerity bit, I mean I really need and use very very little in the matter of worldly goods and desires, as well as observing the -rather harsh in some peoples’ opinion- discipline of not believing things simply because I would like them to be true - although NOBODY can hurt or abscond with my books or my spouse without waking a true fury! )

And I was both educated and largely raised by Jesuit monks, who got me out of a world of hurt, and treated me with great love and respect - and if they couldn’t convert me, I doubt anyone will have much luck, because those guys are professionals at it! After knowing them for some years, one of the monks, rest his soul (even though I may not believe in the ‘soul’, or at least, probably not in the way you do - it isn’t quite that simple) who was very dear to me and still inspires me, once did quietly comment that I would be ‘an ornament to the church, or uh, well any faith really…’, and I told him I would do my best to be an ornament, or better still, an asset to humankind, since I do not seem to have whatever it is that facilitates Faith in the religious sense.

He seemed pleased by that answer.

And yay, glad to be your friend!

PS to warpspeedpetey - nearly all people commonly referred to as ‘atheists’ are in fact strong agnostics/weak atheists. There is no way to prove that there is no god, or pink nervegas-belching dragons, or what have you. Can’t disprove a negative and all that, so no burden of proof. And I don’t see why so many theists get worked up over that - Kierkegaard was right, about having faith means believing without proof. Some people just don’t swing that way, and that’s not intrinsically a bad thing.

 

[JDaniel]

Can someone PLEASE explain why if the Bible is the word of a perfect God is there so many things in there that are what we now call immoral acts? Why does the bible contradict itself sooooo many times. Why doesnt the bible give us insight to science i.e. gravity the solar system etc…The bible does not state any level of thought greater than an average person of that day. Wouldnt the Bible or God make it sooo visible to us that there is no doubt? And if he allows room for doubt, why would he punish you forever for having doubt? Sounds like quite the Bully to me!1.) If Adam and Eve had children to start the population, who did the children have sex with to keep it going? Was there incest here?

Question: So, if we disabuse (haven’t used that word in a while, yikes!) you of all of your misinformed assertions here, via this Philosophy forum, is this it? Or, will you have more and more and more assertions? If you do, it would be easier if you wrote them ALL into a spreadsheet and attached that to a post for us.

But, you’ve got to promise that that will be all of your questions/assertions. This cannot go on forever. Folks on this forum have been answering these questions for very long time, from under every color interrogation lamp known. It is all out there for you to read, by the way.

By this method (this forum), the members may, or may not, be able to completely satisfy you. Thus, we risk leaving your soul in danger. It has been suggested that you take it upon yourself to become un-lazy and start to read some books. Particularly, Catholic books. You have been offered a good start herein.

As was previously said, we are not Protestants. Protestants tend to answer your questions in the manner you have described to us. You contended that it was/is we that held/hold science back. Well, it was a Catholic priest who first put forth the big bang theory. How’s that for holding science back!

In fact, throughout the ages, Catholic clergy participated to a large extent in many of the temporal/natural sciences. So, your contention is simply wrong. (Check out some of the other threads on this forum.)

With your permission, I will take this moment to apologize to you. It’s just that so many of your contentions have gone out of existence due to sufficient proof provided over and over again for 2,000 years. Only newbies return with those particular ones. That means that you have not taken the time to even educate yourself on them. Heck, even your science is faulty.

I’ll be back shortly and try to take them one at a time. I will require help as I have forgotten so many of them over the last 40 years. Give me an hour, as I have to complete an earlier task. In the mean time, look for other posts.

I’m confused, though. You seem to have a quasi-religious background. Do you have a religious background?

JD

 

[JDaniel]

Hahaha, aw, don’t be sad. I am a very happy, fulfilled person and find quite enough to be both happy about and concerned with, without religion, and I positively ooze goodwill, since I like to share my good fortune. (As to the austerity bit, I mean I really need and use very very little in the matter of worldly goods and desires, as well as observing the -rather harsh in some peoples’ opinion- discipline of not believing things simply because I would like them to be true - although NOBODY can hurt or abscond with my books or my spouse without waking a true fury! )

And I was both educated and largely raised by Jesuit monks, who got me out of a world of hurt, and treated me with great love and respect - and if they couldn’t convert me, I doubt anyone will have much luck, because those guys are professionals at it! After knowing them for some years, one of the monks, rest his soul (even though I may not believe in the ‘soul’, or at least, probably not in the way you do - it isn’t quite that simple) who was very dear to me and still inspires me, once did quietly comment that I would be ‘an ornament to the church, or uh, well any faith really…’, and I told him I would do my best to be an ornament, or better still, an asset to humankind, since I do not seem to have whatever it is that facilitates Faith in the religious sense.

Oh, you probably have it in you . . . just haven’t found it yet.

(But, I am curious, what, precisely have you found wrong with St. Thomas’ proofs? But, let’s not start that on this thread as we are already off topic.)

Respectfully,

JD

 

[Nepenthe]

Quite so, but I can give a quick answer anyway - nothing, save that I cannot corroborate them personally and it remains hearsay. Thomas is my favorite Apostle for that, though. This was a long time ago however, and the tale may have changed in the telling, identities could have been mistaken (it does happen - there is an individual around here whom we occasionally run into at shows and clubs whom I have mistaken for my lovely and distinctive-looking spouse repeatedly, and this person’s partner and best friends have mistaken my spouse for said person repeatedly, even up close! - very uncanny but there you are), and so on. Remember, none of the apostles actually saw Yeshua dig his way out and shamble around until he could poke his head out of the shroud.

And there are still a few more matters I would have wanted cleared up, especially given just how very unlikely it is that anyone could die, and then somehow undie (no matter how many tales from all over the world there are of such occurrences there are, the existence of space aliens is more likely) and, of course, just how VERY good the Romans were at making people very permanently dead, and there is a whole bunch of corroboration for that! But Thomas’ healthy skepticism is most endearing and welcome to me. Extraordinary assertions require extraordinary rigor in their testing, yes?

Okay, yes, it’s a little off-topic, but not too much so.

 

[JDaniel]

Quite so, but I can give a quick answer anyway - nothing, save that I cannot corroborate them personally and it remains hearsay. Thomas is my favorite Apostle for that, though. This was a long time ago however, and the tale may have changed in the telling, identities could have been mistaken (it does happen - there is an individual around here whom we occasionally run into at shows and clubs whom I have mistaken for my lovely and distinctive-looking spouse repeatedly, and this person’s partner and best friends have mistaken my spouse for said person repeatedly, even up close! - very uncanny but there you are), and so on. Remember, none of the apostles actually saw Yeshua dig his way out and shamble around until he could poke his head out of the shroud.

And there are still a few more matters I would have wanted cleared up, especially given just how very unlikely it is that anyone could die, and then somehow undie (no matter how many tales from all over the world there are of such occurrences there are, the existence of space aliens is more likely) and, of course, just how VERY good the Romans were at making people very permanently dead, and there is a whole bunch of corroboration for that! But Thomas’ healthy skepticism is most endearing and welcome to me.

Okay, yes, it’s a little off-topic, but not too much so.

Sorry, I meant St. Thomas Aquinas (yes, another St. Thomas!). He wrote the Summa Theologica. In this work, he put forth 5 arguments for the existence of God, based upon looking at the universe in combination with logic.

Usually, people either fail to understand the arguments - normally due to lack of (formal) education - or, they try to figure out some way of rejecting logic without rejecting logic (which is a little tricky).

JD

 

[CatsAndDogs]

And I was both educated and largely raised by Jesuit monks, who got me out of a world of hurt, and treated me with great love and respect - and if they couldn’t convert me, I doubt anyone will have much luck, because those guys are professionals at it!

You can’t convert that which specifically won’t be converted.

After knowing them for some years, one of the monks, rest his soul (even though I may not believe in the ‘soul’, or at least, probably not in the way you do - it isn’t quite that simple) who was very dear to me and still inspires me, once did quietly comment that I would be ‘an ornament to the church, or uh, well any faith really…’, and I told him I would do my best to be an ornament, or better still, an asset to humankind,…

Perhaps you’re a late-blooming Augustine? Who’s your “Monica”?

You’ll find the “hole”, eventually, that only “worshiping the one thing worth worshiping” can fill. He, or rather, “it” to you at this point, will either creep up on you or suddenly “appear”, and all defensiveness about being “quaint” will move out of the way.

…since I do not seem to have whatever it is that facilitates Faith in the religious sense.

Your not missing anything other than motivation. Here’s hoping that that motivation is as least painful as possible when it comes.

:shamrock2:

 

[JDaniel]

Quite so, but I can give a quick answer anyway - nothing, save that I cannot corroborate them personally and it remains hearsay. Thomas is my favorite Apostle for that, though. This was a long time ago however, and the tale may have changed in the telling, identities could have been mistaken (it does happen - there is an individual around here whom we occasionally run into at shows and clubs whom I have mistaken for my lovely and distinctive-looking spouse repeatedly, and this person’s partner and best friends have mistaken my spouse for said person repeatedly, even up close! - very uncanny but there you are), and so on. Remember, none of the apostles actually saw Yeshua dig his way out and shamble around until he could poke his head out of the shroud.

And there are still a few more matters I would have wanted cleared up, especially given just how very unlikely it is that anyone could die, and then somehow undie (no matter how many tales from all over the world there are of such occurrences there are, the existence of space aliens is more likely) and, of course, just how VERY good the Romans were at making people very permanently dead, and there is a whole bunch of corroboration for that! But Thomas’ healthy skepticism is most endearing and welcome to me.

Okay, yes, it’s a little off-topic, but not too much so.

Do you participate, or, practice any other "religion, or neo-pseudo-religion? OK, let me be blunt, are you a scientologist?

Respectfully,
JD

 

[Nepenthe]

Ohhh, okay, Thomas Aquinas! Yeah, you are right, that would take a much longer post, and probably another thread. Also, Mirdath (that spouse of mine I refer to ) and I have in fact discussed them extensively before on these fora, but sure, we could do it again sometime, either in a thread or informally via IM or something, perhaps? We have a copy of the Shorter Summa right behind me on the shelf, in fact.

And to CatsAndDogs, no, I don’t think I am willfully ignorant or stubborn. Indeed, if I was given a ‘proof of God’ that satisfied my requirements of premise and evidence, I would likely just say ‘huh, wow, nice proof’ and start acknowledging the existence of God, no fuss. But that would make all this stuff about the desirability of Faith pretty redundant, don’t you think? Also no, I can’t think of anyone in my life that I can imagine as analogous to Monica, and that’s just fine too. As I have said, I am indeed an almost disgustingly happy person!

Gosh, I hope I don’t turn out to be such a bummed-out and cranky person as Augustine often was in my later years (I’m an old coot of 40 already!), however interesting and brilliant he was. And I do not feel any lack or ‘hole’ in my being - please do not presume that I do, since I am diferent in outlook than you are, in some respects, which are to my mind, very minor ones.

 

[Nepenthe]

And no, I am not a Scientologist. Come on now

We have considered joining the Society of Friends since theism is not a prerequisite, and it would be nice to have a community of kind, thoughtful individuals just to hang out with – but that’s about as close to religion as you’re likely to find us

 

[reggieM]

The lack of one particular sort of belief is hardly a philosophy.

Atheistic materialism is a very commonly known philosophical position. It’s not merely the negation of God. It’s the affirmation that only material causes exist. Your assertion that only natural causes exist (if that is your affirmation) is the philosophy of naturalism. There is nothing “above nature” in your view – thus, you positively affirm that all that exists is natural.

I don’t believe that molecules and matter are all that exist. For example, I believe thoughts exist.

You therefore also believe that thoughts are “natural”. Since science is the study of nature, then do you believe that thoughts can be measured and evaluated through natural science?

I don’t know what it would mean to say that something unnatural exists since I think of anything that exists as natural.

As above, you believe that everything that exists is “natural”. What do you mean by the term natural?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

UNBELIEVABLE!!! All these replies and no answers!!! I guess I should not be surprised. I came here hoping this would be a great place for answers. Or atleast a place where I could come to understand better why so many people continue to stick their head in the ground. All I recieve was mud-slinging, negativity etc… I’m sorry if I came off that way as well but I have came to learn that no matter how I sugar coat such a discussion I get the same reactions…so I just let it all hang out there now. I’M SURE MANY OF YOU WILL REJOICE in that I will be now leaving this site. It is ashame that I leave so disappointed. All of you have failed miserably in having the ability to step out of the shadows and give even semi-answers. Its the same old BECAUSE or you don’t understand etc… If God was so great it would be so clear there is no need of convincing anyone. Go back to my post of contradictions and relly test yourself, and how you think of similiar things in your daily life. I have wasted my time here and I apologize for doing the same for you. I just expected better here…MUCH BETTER!
Peace and Happiness to all!!!
P.S. if God created Light on the 1st day and the Sun and Stars etc… on day 3 then where was the light coming from those 1st 3 days? And if we started from Adam and Eve why are there soooo many ethnicities and different DNA combinations?

you have recieved an answer, you just refuse to accept it, i personally have explained twice why the contradictions you think you are seeing don’t exist, i also offered info on where to find those answers, but i bet you didn’t look.

what more do you want? goodbye

 

[JDaniel]

Ohhh, okay, Thomas Aquinas! Yeah, you are right, that would take a much longer post, and probably another thread. Also, Mirdath (that spouse of mine I refer to ) and I have in fact discussed them extensively before on these fora, but sure, we could do it again sometime, either in a thread or informally via IM or something, perhaps? We have a copy of the Shorter Summa right behind me on the shelf, in fact.

Interesting. I must admit that it’s hard to fathom that any individual who can “fully” understand Aquinas, could come to the conclusion that you and your spouse did. Yes, down the road, I would very much like to hear that process.

JD

 

[reggieM]

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom” …

Atheism obviously does not have this fear of the Lord.

“Fear” means a number of things, but mostly it means “reverence”, 'humble admiration", “awe”, “deep respect”.

But it also means the fear that comes with “trembling” – outright fear of the majesty and power of God. The way we fear something very powerful in nature.

That is one of the primary roots of morality – the fear of the Lord. That is the path to wisdom because that fear teaches us the true nature of humanity and of our Creator.

Atheism cannot have this fear or reverence for God. There’s no admiration for God and that can mean no reverence for creation.

Logically, there would be no reason to have reverence for the blind laws and processes of material creation since they are accidental and meaningless. There is no reason to have reverence for other human beings either since they are the product of the same accidental processes and have only a transient value (not to mention that they compete with us for survival).

Atheists shouldn’t have any fear of death and they can find no meaning in death at all. It’s just the termination of an accidentally produced life.

 

[buffalo]

There is no reason to have reverence for other human beings either since they are the product of the same accidental processes and have only a transient value (not to mention that they compete with us for survival).

.

Alas, back to the unanswered question - why didn’t the first atheist murder the second?