Morality without God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
some thoughts:

Morality without God has lost its bearings
and will begin to slide ever deeper into immorality

God, infinite goodness, truth, and beauty,
contains all that is righteous, being righteousness Himself

if an act is not done in love,
it is not done according to His will

if someone seriously attempts to discover what is truly good,
and is not actually out to justify certain choices
He will find God

With regards to the unborn:
Gen 2:7 Yahweh God shaped man from the soil of the ground and blew the breath of life into his nostrils, and man became a living being.
We are shaped through His word, expressing itself in the physical form of DNA
His spirit makes us human
Incarnations of Adam, we exist at conception and we develop as muscle and bone, color and sound, pain and thought, under the gaze of our spiritual soul, which emerges through His eternal act of Being which includes all creation.

Godless societies will continue to bring upon themselves, their own downfall
“Thy kingdom come; thy will be done” - the only moral alternative

thanks for the opportunity to organize my thoughts
 
PRmerger said:
Why do I have to do that? What makes you think that just because you can’t demonstrate empirical evidence for something that it doesn’t exist?
Click to expand...
I have a magical, invisible fire-breathing dragon in my basement… I cannot give empirical evidence for it, since it is magical… as such you would be rational to assume that I am mistaken, precisely because I cannot give an empirical evidence. Since you cannot give empirical evidence for you magical “soul”, the rational approach is to doubt, until evidence is given. Mind you, I do not deny that magical coul, I am waiting for your evidence. And since it is not forthcoming…
PRmerger said:
And just so we’re clear: you have stated that someone who had a lobotomy is no longer a person.
Click to expand...
Of course I did. Why do you think that there is only ONE way to lose one’s personality? An analogy will suffice: a computer can be rendered inoperational by A) smashing its memory chips (the equivalent of destroying parts of the brain), or B) erasing the operating system (the equivalent of lobotomy).
PRmerger said:
Do you retract that statement?
Click to expand...
Why should I do that?
PRmerger said:
Did you mean someone who is in a* vegetative state *is no longer a person? If so, then we can talk from there. ('Cause that’s also absurd, but at least it’s creeping towards reason slowly.)
Click to expand...
Without a mind there is no “personhood”. How the mind is lost is an insignificant detail. And yes, the mind is the activity of the brain - which has been empirically demonstrated zillions of times - quite unlike your “magical soul”, which is just an empty assertion.
 
Tyrion said:
I have a magical, invisible fire-breathing dragon in my basement… I cannot give empirical evidence for it, since it is magical… as such you would be rational to assume that I am mistaken, precisely because I cannot give an empirical evidence. Since you cannot give empirical evidence for you magical “soul”, the rational approach is to doubt, until evidence is given. Mind you, I do not deny that magical coul, I am waiting for your evidence. And since it is not forthcoming…
Click to expand...
Eye-witness testimony is not empirical, but you would be mistaken to think that it is not evidence. It is even less rational to ignore when billions of people claim the same testimony. You want evidence? Get down on you knees and ask for evidence. God claims that only those with humble hearts, looking for the truth will find Him. The fact that you are taking a pragmatic stance to truth shows that you are not seeking it with all your heart. You are willing to let truth slip from your fingers if it does not conform to the scientific method.
 
InJesusItrust said:
Eye-witness testimony is not empirical, but you would be mistaken to think that it is not evidence.
Click to expand...
How many “eye-witnesses” have experienced a “soul”? And what is the reason that second-hand “witnesses” are not allowed in the courts? The phrase “hear-say” evidence covers the reason… it is not “real” evidence.
InJesusItrust said:
You want evidence? Get down on you knees and ask for evidence.
Click to expand...
And you will NOT get anything. Been there, tried it, have a t-shirt to prove it.
InJesusItrust said:
God claims that only those with humble hearts, looking for the truth will find Him.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. “God” does not claim anything. “You” do… and you have no credibility. 😉
InJesusItrust said:
The fact that you are taking a pragmatic stance to truth shows that you are not seeking it with all your heart.
Click to expand...
My “heart” is only pumping blood. And since God never answered me, “obviously” I am to blame, since I did not ask long enough, hard enough, humbly enough… or I “closed” my eyes and ears… sorry, bud. These excuses are very lame and boring. Many atheists, myself included asked for a sign, which was never given.
InJesusItrust said:
You are willing to let truth slip from your fingers if it does not conform to the scientific method.
Click to expand...
There is no “scientific” method… there is only ONE method, employed by science… because that is the ONLY method that gives objective results.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Conclusion: Double Homicide relative to the rights of the mother and how she identifies with the foetus.

This is the schizophrenic aspect of the law that the author was addressing and you know it.

An unborn child cannot both be a person and a nonperson according to the law.

That’s crazy. :rolleyes:

That’s like saying a person can be both a slave and a free man at the same time depending on how you want to view him.
Click to expand...
The fetus is not considered a person in and of its self. But with respect to the mothers right to life and the mothers will to give birth, the fetus has a right to life under the protection of the mothers will. Given that right to life its murder, since its the legal “right to life” that determines whether a murder is taking place or not. Thus the fetus although not a person in the eyes of the law, has the same protection afforded to those legally considered persons in that particular context.
 
Tyrion said:
And yes, the mind is the activity of the brain - which has been empirically demonstrated zillions of times - quite unlike your “magical soul”, which is just an empty assertion.
Click to expand...
You are accepting this on faith, Tyrion. There is no scientific proof that demonstrates, “If it can’t be proved with empirical evidence, then it doesn’t exist.”

Otherwise, please cite those studies right here. Thanks.

You are as faith-filled as the Believer. 😃
 
Tyrion said:
I have a magical, invisible fire-breathing dragon in my basement… I cannot give empirical evidence for it, since it is magical… as such you would be rational to assume that I am mistaken, precisely because I cannot give an empirical evidence. Since you cannot give empirical evidence for you magical “soul”, the rational approach is to doubt, until evidence is given. Mind you, I do not deny that magical coul, I am waiting for your evidence. And since it is not forthcoming…
Click to expand...
There is nothing wrong with doubting, Tyrion. That’s quite acceptable. 👍

When you say, “I won’t believe until there is empirical proof” well, then that is irrational.

Not to mention it’s contradictory. Because, of course, if you subscribe to “I won’t believe until there is empirical proof” but you don’t have empirical proof that this paradigm is true, then you are not subscribing to your own paradigm.
 
Tyrion said:
There is no “scientific” method… there is only ONE method, employed by science… because that is the ONLY method that gives objective results.
Click to expand...
Empirical evidence, please, for your faith-filled assertion that “there is only ONE method”. Thanks.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
How can a civilization develop a moral consensus on anything without reference to the commandments of God?

“Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” George Washington

Do a thought experiment. Imagine a perfectly non-religious society. From whence would morals be derived, and by what (whose) authority?
Click to expand...
AMEM!
 
Tyrion said:
How many “eye-witnesses” have experienced a “soul”? And what is the reason that second-hand “witnesses” are not allowed in the courts? The phrase “hear-say” evidence covers the reason… it is not “real” evidence . . . And you will NOT get anything. Been there, tried it, have a t-shirt to prove it . . . Incorrect. “God” does not claim anything. “You” do… and you have no credibility. 😉 . . . My “heart” is only pumping blood. And since God never answered me, “obviously” I am to blame, since I did not ask long enough, hard enough, humbly enough… or I “closed” my eyes and ears… sorry, bud. These excuses are very lame and boring. Many atheists, myself included asked for a sign, which was never given. . . . There is no “scientific” method… there is only ONE method, employed by science… because that is the ONLY method that gives objective results.
Click to expand...
my :twocents:

you are arguing about “soul”;
understand that the concept describes something as real to me
as the wetness i feel, just having come in from a winter storm

ppl ask for a sign
problem is that it is everywhere - there is one miracle
consider that it is our understanding of the world,
what defines us and gets us by day by day,
that is actually blocking your ability to discern it
we exist as a mental “framework” in which we fit “data”
problem is that new information tends to be reduced to things we understand
and can be grossly distorted in order to maintain the integrity of this “structure”
again, the problem is making contact with things that are new,
especially when what we are looking for is something that encompasses all

i would suggest trying again with prayer, sticking with it, sorting out what assumptions might make it feel odd - see where it takes you.
another approach you might want to look into if you don’t yet trust Catholicism/Christian approaches (the Church offers a very rational system that describes and is a means by which we relate to the One true Spirit that is the Ground of all Being) is something like Zen - if you buy my idea that your own thoughts and perspectives are limiting your ability to grow in knowledge - look into koans - they are paradoxical statements or questions used in meditation where the effort to “solve” it exhausts the analytic intellect and egoistic will, opening one’s mind to what is real. You may find your soul, which is who you are; your actual being here right now.
 
What I find interesting, and I think PR you are alluding to this point, is that if the atheist position regarding the existence of God is consistently applied to ethics, any hope for an ethical system under that same mindset essentially dissolves.

An atheist claims that without appropriate substantial “proof” of the existence of God there is no rational reason for anyone to believe in the existence of God.

Applied to ethics, a similar case for a kind of ethical nihilism can be formulated. Thus, without substantial (on the same level as would override atheism) “proof” for the obligatory nature of morality, one should similarly abstain from promoting any kind of morality as obligatory except to, perhaps, oneself.

The atheist position, then, when applied to moral beliefs essentially nullifies all claims that ethical principles might have on anyone because no adequate “proof” for such authority exists to compel anyone, reasonably, to follow a moral code that transcends one that I would, based on my own brand of rational egoism, set for myself.

Certainly, while particular alleged “moral” beliefs might be shown to be practical or prudent, there can be no further extension towards anything like, therefore, they “must” be adhered to by all human beings.

The “should” nature of this paradigm would be encompassed in statements like:
“You should because the law says so.”
“You should if you want to be better off in the end.”
“You should if you want everyone to be better off in the end.”

All of these forget that extending my concern to others or, further, to “everyone,” becomes essentially a choice without obligation. It is conditional, by nature, on whether I determine it to be so, not that any actual obligation exists on me to do so. This kind of “atheism” applied to ethics means that there is no right or wrong in me making a determination that, for example, gaining power over others and consolidating that power by building up a security network of thugs could be in my best interest and that “others” who I deem outside of my network are dispensable or of no value.

There can be no “proof” of this kind of ethical system being “wrong” in any sense, so an atheist would merely have to abstain from condemning it because “no proof” exists for it actually, verifiably, being “wrong.”
 
Peter

**This kind of “atheism” applied to ethics means that there is no right or wrong in me making a determination that, for example, gaining power over others and consolidating that power by building up a security network of thugs could be in my best interest and that “others” who I deem outside of my network are dispensable or of no value. **

Right. 👍 In a godless world the thug’s morality has as much validity as anyone else’s if he asserts that might is right and he has all the might he needs. The only person who can dispute this effectively is the thug down the street whose gang is planning a takeover.
 
Peter_Plato said:
What I find interesting, and I think PR you are alluding to this point, is that if the atheist position regarding the existence of God is consistently applied to ethics, any hope for an ethical system under that same mindset essentially dissolves.
Click to expand...
:sad_yes:
 
Tyrion said:
Of course I did. Why do you think that there is only ONE way to lose one’s personality? An analogy will suffice: a computer can be rendered inoperational by A) smashing its memory chips (the equivalent of destroying parts of the brain), or B) erasing the operating system (the equivalent of lobotomy).
Click to expand...
This is the most diabolical standard I have ever personally encountered regarding criteria for declaring personhood.

People who have had lobotomies = not really people at all.

I have read of folks who say the fetus is not a person. And even have read arguments by folks who argue for infanticide. And, of course, who could forget the horrific fruits of declaring an entire race of people inhuman, resulting in the deaths of over 6 million people…but I must admit, it’s a new one, so kudos to you for creating this new criterion!

It’s a dubious honor, to be sure, but I will proclaim that you have indeed succeeded in astonishing me as to the degree of inhumanity folks can stoop to when they divorce themselves from any Objective Truth.

:eek:
 
Tyrion

Of course I did. Why do you think that there is only ONE way to lose one’s personality? An analogy will suffice: a computer can be rendered inoperational by A) smashing its memory chips (the equivalent of destroying parts of the brain), or B) erasing the operating system (the equivalent of lobotomy).

This is what you get when you separate God from morality. :rolleyes:
 
Charlemagne_II said:
The only person who can dispute this effectively is the thug down the street whose gang is planning a takeover.
Click to expand...
Well, his god may be bigger than yours.

But aren’t we looking at this in too simplistic terms? The examples everyone uses for morality are all ones to which everyone would agree. But what about the more esoteric ones.

There are plenty of moral quandaries which would divide any group of Christians. If there is no clear cut answer, no scripture on which to base a decision, no guidance from the Vatican, then what does your average Catholic do? Pray?

I’d guess so. But I’d bet there would be many moral decisions that Catholic A, after checking with the Almighty, would make that would be directly in opposition to Catholic B who went through the same process.

Don’t you ever simply make your own mind up about things? Do you always need guidance?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top