Morality without God?

[crowonsnow]

those were wars between christians not about christians, and they were secular not religious governments, the exact kind of government i say is wrong.

as to noah, G-ds justice is absolute we are his to do with as he pleases he has no need to appeal to our since of reasonable

They were Christians making “just war” on Christians. What could possibly be more revealing about Christian morality? That’s not sarcasm, btw, just an honest observation.

And as to all those “secular” governments at the time, well, all those “secularists” running all those governments were Christians.

Really, Christianity doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on, even without the genocide in the Noah story. Christians simply are guilty of confusing blind obedience with morality. Not a good thing, and certainly not an example I would care to teach or emulate.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Believing the Bible is a matter of faith - it is all hearsay written by nobody-knows-who and compliled by folks with a definite agenda (but that is for another thread).

thats false on its face

the bible is a collection of books written over thousands of years, by dozens of people who did not live at the same time or even in the same area, have the same culture, or even the same faith or denomination, or even access to the same books, and could not have possibly known each other.

big deal you say.

how bout this

they all predicted a messiah, and those predictions were born out in front of many, many first hand witnesses by Jesus Christ. Who sacrifice fulfilled those prophecies.

no other faith makes these claims

there is one G-d,
one truth,
and one way to a relationship with him, Jesus Christ

amazing evidence, isn’t it, unless all the people who wrote the bible were time traveling psychics we should accept it, less evidence is permissible in a court of law, why isn’t it acceptable to you

 

[buffalo]

They were Christians making “just war” on Christians. What could possibly be more revealing about Christian morality? That’s not sarcasm, btw, just an honest observation.

And as to all those “secular” governments at the time, well, all those “secularists” running all those governments were Christians.

Really, Christianity doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on, even without the genocide in the Noah story. Christians simply are guilty of confusing blind obedience with morality. Not a good thing, and certainly not an example I would care to teach or emulate.

Christianity has a fantastic moral leg to stand on. What is the difference between failing morality and just not having it?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

They were Christians making “just war” on Christians. What could possibly be more revealing about Christian morality? That’s not sarcasm, btw, just an honest observation.

And as to all those “secular” governments at the time, well, all those “secularists” running all those governments were Christians.

Really, Christianity doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on, even without the genocide in the Noah story. Christians simply are guilty of confusing blind obedience with morality. Not a good thing, and certainly not an example I would care to teach or emulate.

your not a Christian because you claim membership, you are Christian because you truly try to live in imitation of Christ

those secularists could have just as well claimed hinduism for as much as they followed Christ

funny enough in the missal today, the Pope did equate total obedience to christ as “moral” they are one in the same to us

nor was the flood genocide, it was the destruction of the wicked by their owner, are you committing murder when you have a rabid dog put down, or is that your right and responsibility?

bottom line is they were His to do with as He wished, they were His property

 

[Swan]

They were Christians making “just war” on Christians. What could possibly be more revealing about Christian morality? That’s not sarcasm, btw, just an honest observation.

And as to all those “secular” governments at the time, well, all those “secularists” running all those governments were Christians.

Really, Christianity doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on, even without the genocide in the Noah story. Christians simply are guilty of confusing blind obedience with morality. Not a good thing, and certainly not an example I would care to teach or emulate.

Instead of typing out a long and apparently pointless response of my own, I’m going to just go with yours. Your points are excellent and well said. The bottom line is as you say: Christians are simply guilty of confusing blind obedience with morality. I’m sure we could both point out that the Bible, claims of believers notwithstandings, cannot be proved to be anything but a collection of myth and ancient tribal law. Bible scholars don’t even agree, for crying out loud. But we will make no headway because of the blind obedience issue. Simply opening one’s mind to the objective truth about scripture is too be a risk for folks who think their God is okey-dokey for drowning millions of innocent folks (many Bible scholars and theologians regard the Noah story as pure myth and allegory, BTW). So, Crow on Snow, thanks for the great posts, including this last one.

 

[buffalo]

Instead of typing out a long and apparently pointless response of my own, I’m going to just go with yours. Your points are excellent and well said. The bottom line is as you say: Christians are simply guilty of confusing blind obedience with morality. I’m sure we could both point out that the Bible, claims of believers notwithstandings, cannot be proved to be anything but a collection of myth and ancient tribal law. Bible scholars don’t even agree, for crying out loud. But we will make no headway because of the blind obedience issue. Simply opening one’s mind to the objective truth about scripture is too be a risk for folks who think their God is okey-dokey for drowning millions of innocent folks (many Bible scholars and theologians regard the Noah story as pure myth and allegory, BTW). So, Crow on Snow, thanks for the great posts, including this last one.

How do you know they were innocent?

 

[crowonsnow]

your not a Christian because you claim membership, you are Christian because you truly try to live in imitation of Christ

those secularists could have just as well claimed hinduism for as much as they followed Christ

funny enough in the missal today, the Pope did equate total obedience to christ as “moral” they are one in the same to us

nor was the flood genocide, it was the destruction of the wicked by their owner, are you committing murder when you have a rabid dog put down, or is that your right and responsibility?

bottom line is they were His to do with as He wished, they were His property

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Instead of typing out a long and apparently pointless response of my own, I’m going to just go with yours. Your points are excellent and well said. The bottom line is as you say: Christians are simply guilty of confusing blind obedience with morality. I’m sure we could both point out that the Bible, claims of believers notwithstandings, cannot be proved to be anything but a collection of myth and ancient tribal law. Bible scholars don’t even agree, for crying out loud. But we will make no headway because of the blind obedience issue. Simply opening one’s mind to the objective truth about scripture is too be a risk for folks who think their God is okey-dokey for drowning millions of innocent folks (many Bible scholars and theologians regard the Noah story as pure myth and allegory, BTW). So, Crow on Snow, thanks for the great posts, including this last one.

why dont you provide a reasoned argument based on some evidence or reasoning, you haven’t answered any of our positions

i am saying that morality is the same thing as obedience to G-d do you have an opposing argument, you say thats confusion but you offer no other argument, do you have one, other than to assert that you are right and we are wrong?

I provided you an argument as to why the bible is a valid source of true information, do you have a reasoned response? you only assert its just myth and tribal law, but do you have supporting evidence or a reasoned argument to offer?

i offered a reasoned argument for the just action of the flood, do you have a reasoned argument to oppose that? what risk is there to me to debate the issue?

your claiming possession of objective proof regarding the bible, what is this objective truth?

i can present just as many scholars with an opposing viewpoint. what evidence do you present?

do you wish to reason with us or just assume you are right and we are foolish because we don’t hold the same belief as you?

parting shots are bad form, bad form indeed

 

[crowonsnow]

your not a Christian because you claim membership, you are Christian because you truly try to live in imitation of Christ

nor was the flood genocide, it was the destruction of the wicked by their owner, are you committing murder when you have a rabid dog put down, or is that your right and responsibility?

bottom line is they were His to do with as He wished, they were His property

Wow. Drowning infants and toddlers is the same thing as putting down rabid dogs. So much for holding the moral high ground. I truly do not think your analogy would be well received by Christians generally, or anyone else of conscience for that matter.

The best Christians I know are Quakers. They come closest to living the religion of Jesus (mythical or whatever), as opposed to a religion about Jesus. Big difference. Big, big - great big difference.

 

[buffalo]

Wow. Drowning infants and toddlers is the same thing as putting down rabid dogs. So much for holding the moral high ground.

I understand his analogy. God as Creator has authority over His creation. It really is quite simple. Would you like to learn more?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Wow. Drowning infants and toddlers is the same thing as putting down rabid dogs. So much for holding the moral high ground. I truly do not think your analogy would be well received by Christians generally, or anyone else of conscience for that matter.

The best Christians I know are Quakers. They come closest to living the religion of Jesus (mythical or whatever), as opposed to a religion about Jesus. Big difference. Big, big - great big difference.

you don’t like that analogy, ok, let me reassert then that those people were his property to do with as he wished. that cuts too the chase.

the moral high ground is held by G-d, it may not agree with what you think is moral.

but in comparison to an all knowing G-d, our ideas of morality may be lacking. for further information i urge you to read the last 5 or so chapters of the Book of Job

Job was a good man who suffered through no fault of his own, after conversations with his friends and G-d he came to realize that he was in no position to question G-ds decisions. the complete explanation, is found there and too long to post, but it would give you a more clear understanding of my position

 

[CatsAndDogs]

I’m confused about something.

Are the folks who claim that all morality comes from God saying that no morality existed before the Jews recognized the Judeo Christian God?

That no morals existed prior to the Hebrew society?

Or is it that morals did exist and that they came from the J/C God but that folks just didn’t know/recognize the origen?

“J/C God”? Is that the “Jesus Christ God”? Is that what you meant?

There is only one God qua God. Polytheism is an essentially atheistic “theism”.

Morality is eternal. It has always existed. And it has never changed.

Morality has been “spelled out” explicitly by God to us over time.

Morality can also be “listened to” by listening to natural law. This is the “method” (as it were) that those who have never had access to the People of God can use to be moral.

Don’t confuse “morals” with “correct morals”. To simply HAVE a moral code is not necessarily to have a correctly informed moral code.

I can certainly CALL destroying embryos moral, because those things aren’t “persons” but only “tissue”, but that doesn’t make that “moral” actually moral.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalo View Post
Tell me why Hitler was wrong without using a moral argument.
Hi Buffalo,

Tell me why the first born believer did not kill the second born believer. Oh, yeah, according to the Bible, he did.

How could it possibly make sense to explain why something is wrong without talking about morality? All I’m saying is that it is not necessary to believe in God to explain morality.

Can you please just say what your point is?

The question is: Why is it immoral (“bad”) to have acted as Hitler did in relation to, for instance, his genocide of “sub-humans”?

The WHY is the important part.

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Hey warpspeedpetey,

How many people died in WWI and in all those earlier European Christian wars or in the American Civil war? Religion doesn’t get a pass here. And most of those regimes you mention evolved from religious regimes. Germany and Russia were Christian states. How is it that a Christian state can descend into such depravity, if indeed being Christian is the answer? The Nazis were about 100 percent baptized Christians, primarily Lutherans and Catholics to be precise.

And all those dead Noah babies piled up on the sandbars were evidence for a reasonable and moral solution to a problem? Interesting take. Perhaps you should be telling that to someone who was born yesterday, or perhaps I’ve missed the sarcasm. Don’t know.

Honestly, any person who takes the Noah story literally hasn’t done the math and therefore is an unreasonable or at least an uninformed person. So I don’t think such a person is even open to reason - yet.

In the final analysis history is replete with evidence demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that morality claims based on religion alone have indeed been a complete disaster.

So, did you pull this directly from Hitchens, Dawkins or some other prophet of atheism?

It’s not that “religions” murder people. People who don’t do what their religions tell them to do murder people.

Unless, their religions actually do tell them to murder people, which is precisely what atheistic religion allows people to do, if that murderous behavior “purifies” humanity of “badness”, as defined by the most physically powerful atheist.

This presupposes that some of the so-called “religions”, which ARE religions, are “bad” (non-understanding of God qua God) religions, and that atheism is simply another of these “bad” religions.

To have the true religion is to know that it is not acceptable to murder to spread true religion. Therefore we have a nearly perfect indicator of where true religion exists! It is NOT where people murder to spread their religion.

Show me an atheistic “group” which doesn’t allow murder to “purify” humanity?

…proposed “groups” mustn’t support the murder of unborn persons at some stage post-conception.

Show me one?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

You’re equating morality with obedience to a god. Okay. You’re also saying you are moral because you have a reason to act morally. Okay again.

So are you saying that if someone has a reason that differs from yours that that person cannot act morally, or that it is more difficult for that person to act morally?

Because their “reason” to act morally, if it IS in fact moral, comes not from some INVENTION of the person acting but from God’s creation (as known by His directives).

There are no reasons for acting morally other than because those actions would BE MORAL ACTIONS. And why are they moral actions? Not because you have a reason to see them as moral, but because they ARE MORAL, and those actions which ARE knowable AS moral is because God gives us one way or another of knowing that, either by giving us direct revelation of the fact or by allowing us to “listen carefully” to natural law.

Anything less than this is called “moral relativism” which is a sin, regardless of whether one thinks it is a sin or not.

Why do you say that?

Because it’s true!

Do you think you are somehow special or privileged?

Yes!!

Just as someone who has access to a university library is “special and privileged” compared to someone “studying” in a garbage dump (gehenna), those who listen and obey the Church (Catholic) are “special and privileged”.

Is it wrong to use what you have in front of you to use, if it’s use promotes good?

:shamrock2:

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Quote:
Originally Posted by buffalo View Post
Whether you want to accept this or not you were born into morality. You cannot grow today without being exposed to it somewhere. If you as an atheist are moral, it is because you were brought up in it.

The problem is that you are claiming that this morality came from the J/C God - or at least that is what I think you are claiming.

Obviously, you have “not quite enough” education in the meaning of the word “monotheism”.

There is one, and only one, God.

God, the singular, created everything, and morality was “built into” His creation as a “design feature”.

Morality, what is good and what is not-good, is not declared one or the other on an “as it happens” basis (and “instantial basis”), but simply IS good or bad in the doing of it.

IOW, all morality is from the J/C God and all moral behavior is a direct result of that?

Yes. But there is no “J/C God”. There is only God (qua God).

The thing is, this is simply conjecture on your (and other Christians’s) part(s). Why? Because as big as you seem to be on objectives and absolutes, there is no, zero, “objective” “absolute” proof that the J/C God even exists.

And that is why you are wrong. You are a moral relativist. We are absolutists. You can’t even SAY what good and bad/evil, right and wrong, are. So, how can you tell us we are wrong?

It’s all a matter of faith. Believing the Bible is a matter of faith - it is all hearsay written by nobody-knows-who and compliled by folks with a definite agenda (but that is for another thread).

That is simply a rationalization to allow you to be a moral relativist. It allows you to do exactly as you like, depending on your “circumstances”.

Why are we wrong and you are right if there are no “standards” to judge right and wrong?

:shamrock2:

 

[Swan]

why dont you provide a reasoned argument based on some evidence or reasoning, you haven’t answered any of our positions

i am saying that morality is the same thing as obedience to G-d do you have an opposing argument, you say thats confusion but you offer no other argument, do you have one, other than to assert that you are right and we are wrong?

I provided you an argument as to why the bible is a valid source of true information, do you have a reasoned response? you only assert its just myth and tribal law, but do you have supporting evidence or a reasoned argument to offer?

i offered a reasoned argument for the just action of the flood, do you have a reasoned argument to oppose that? what risk is there to me to debate the issue?

your claiming possession of objective proof regarding the bible, what is this objective truth?

i can present just as many scholars with an opposing viewpoint. what evidence do you present?

do you wish to reason with us or just assume you are right and we are foolish because we don’t hold the same belief as you?

parting shots are bad form, bad form indeed

The point I was trying to make in the parting shot you have such a problem with was simply this: we are talking in circles and it is fruitless and a waste of time at this point. Things are getting repetitive. Sure, we could get into a discussion on the Bible and the various claims on both sides - we could each quote experts, etc, etc… But to what end? Will either of us change their mind? No. And as it looks like we’re perilously close to name calling already, I don’t hold much hope for courtesy let alone respecful discourse.

If I implied superiority, it was unintentional. I was simply stating my point of view - it was not meant as a personal attack on you. I do not agree with you for very personal reasons. I was a Christian for 98% of my life. I am now an agnostic - I believe in the supernatural but not in any of the “revelaed” relgions of monotheist Gods, such as the Judeo Christian (J/C God - Cats & Dogs). I do not claim to know - indeed, quite the opposite. I have no idea and I readily admit it. I’m not trying to convert anyone, just saying what I think and why.

My basic philosophy is this: if religion helps you be a better person, get through life, etc., good for you. I have no problem with it. But I don’t believe it. I will at times engage in debate and discussion on the issue, but not past a point where civility is lost. Which is why I’m bowing out now.

 

[Leela]

The question is: Why is it immoral (“bad”) to have acted as Hitler did in relation to, for instance, his genocide of “sub-humans”?

The WHY is the important part.

:shamrock2:

Hi Cats, Buffalo,

I suspect that the only answer that will be considered admissable is “because God (or the Church) says so”, but I’ll answer anyway.

Murder is wrong because of the social contract that allows us to live without constant stress about being attacked. You dont kill me and I wont kill you. But why? Because such an agreement promotes human flourishing. Because it is a win-win situation for those you make the choice to live in a society. If someone breaks that contract at least one of the two is going to be the loser. So it is better for all parties involved to follow the social contract.

Genocide is the same idea on a larger scale. Instead of individuals we are dealing with groups but the above argument still applies.

Yet genocide is even less rational than individual murder Genocide is also wrong because it is the killing of people that is unjustified by any reason-based standard. In other words, your question is backwards to start with. You seem to propose that genocide is rational, and I should dispute the claim. The crucial flaw is that there is no reasonable concept of separate and distinct human races. But even if there were such races, the killing would still be unjustified because it would be irrational to condemn a person merely for belonging to a particular race.

Best,
Leela

 

[REALIST1]

You are right on the money! I have been an atheist since my early twenties. I have lived a more “Moral” life than almost every “religious” person I know. And I did not need a God to do that. Religion inherently is not moral at all. Unless you believe that you should stone your bride to death on her fathers doorstep on your wedding night if you find she is not a virgin. All religion speaks of respecting other religions but yet inherently feel that if that person does not believe as they do then they are a lesser person and will go to hell. So immediately religion looks down on others…no matter what religion it is. The witch hunts and crusades are all examples of such inmoral traits. Lets face it the Bible was our 1st real try at explaining our universe and history. It was a good try…but way off base. No the Earth is not flat. No the sun does not revolve around the earth, and yes there are microscopic organisims that are responsible for plagues…Not from someone in the sky who is mad at us. The writers did not know such things but made an attempt. And if you say God wrote the Bible then why are there soooooo many contradictions. A perfect God should be able to handle the task of writing a book.

 

[buffalo]

Hi Cats, Buffalo,

I suspect that the only answer that will be considered admissable is “because God (or the Church) says so”, but I’ll answer anyway.

Murder is wrong because of the social contract that allows us to live without constant stress about being attacked. You dont kill me and I wont kill you. But why? Because such an agreement promotes human flourishing. Because it is a win-win situation for those you make the choice to live in a society. If someone breaks that contract at least one of the two is going to be the loser. So it is better for all parties involved to follow the social contract.

Genocide is the same idea on a larger scale. Instead of individuals we are dealing with groups but the above argument still applies.

Yet genocide is even less rational than individual murder Genocide is also wrong because it is the killing of people that is unjustified by any reason-based standard. In other words, your question is backwards to start with. You seem to propose that genocide is rational, and I should dispute the claim. The crucial flaw is that there is no reasonable concept of separate and distinct human races. But even if there were such races, the killing would still be unjustified because it would be irrational to condemn a person merely for belonging to a particular race.

Best,
Leela

Why should humans flourish? Where did the social contract come from?

I asked you to prepare an argument that Hitler was right without using religious morality. That is your claim after all.