Where morals come from

  • Thread starter Thread starter JamesATyler
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JamesATyler

Guest
I hear many Christians asserting that true morals are based on the laws of God. An atheist therefore cannot have real morals because they are not based on God’s law. I think this is incorrect.

I think morals come from love. Jesus said: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself." Even an atheist can be true to the second commandment and it really has nothing to do with being lawful. But if they can really love like that then they fulfill the laws like don’t kill, steal, covet, or commit adultery etc. That’s why Jesus said that those two commandments are the law and the prophets. Its love that is the key.

Love is the root of morality not laws. Even an atheist might not be so far away from loving God if he loves the things which we attribute to God like true justice, mercy, compassion, heroism, wisdom, and self sacrifice to name a few.
 
JamesATyler said:
I hear many Christians asserting that true morals are based on the laws of God. An atheist therefore cannot have real morals because they are not based on God’s law. I think this is incorrect.

I think morals come from love. Jesus said: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself." Even an atheist can be true to the second commandment and it really has nothing to do with being lawful. But if they can really love like that then they fulfill the laws like don’t kill, steal, covet, or commit adultery etc. That’s why Jesus said that those two commandments are the law and the prophets. Its love that is the key.

Love is the root of morality not laws. Even an atheist might not be so far away from loving God if he loves the things which we attribute to God like true justice, mercy, compassion, heroism, wisdom, and self sacrifice to name a few.
Click to expand...
Though I agree with you JamesATyler I would accuse you of being vague and as we all know the devil is the accuser and so be careful for I carry a pitch fork with me. This pitch fork is for unbelievers, however.

To carry with it the power of conversion I believe something more is needed. You are preaching to the choir. This is something I began writing and was intended for another thread, specifically “Free Will” which is located at forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=734365, when I lost steam and decided to take that thread else where into the realm of the unknown and mysterious. I recommend going there since it will provide additional context concerning what I am saying.

What is the whole truth? Must the whole truth include a metaphysical object such as faith and God? Those who regard scientific observation as the sole standard of truth are frustrated because their theories contain metaphysical objects. They assume that they will figure out a way to rid their theories of all metaphysical objects eventually, but that is a conjecture. Morality is intrinsically a metaphysical object. What is morals? It has no body. Can I have it with my evening meal? What does it taste like? It is meaningless to speak of such things for it is not a physical object, hence, it is metaphysical. How do you explain a thing that is inherently metaphysical in terms of the physical? A partial description is possible, but not one that is complete, i.e. whole.

Those who regard scientific observation as the sole standard of truth would say that it admits only to a partial description because it isn’t real. It is ephemeral and something that is going to shift as shifting sands because of it. According to atheism it is all about maximizing utility and advantage and nothing more. Hence, they have a disdain for heroism and duty. I was once a hero to a young woman. Our relationship was chaste. I gave up a great deal for her. At this time I was being seduced by the dark side which offered me the world. I could have abandoned her in her hour of need with no one to blame me for it. In my heroism I found God. This is not to say that I did not already have a relationship with God, however. God is the God Hero. He will come to rescue us when all hope is lost. According to atheism there is no God Hero who will come to rescue us when all hope is lost.
 
God created a morality into humanity that I think everyone is born with, even those who choose not to serve God. The same way that God built into or hardwired into humanity a desire to seek Him which is why throughout the history of man, all kinds of cultures instinctively looked for someone or something greater than we are. Can some people over ride those built in things or squash them down deep inside? Yes. But everyone is born with a seed of morality and desire to seek God. 👍 That’s why even atheists have some form of morality. Sure a lot of cultures in their seeking of God may not know the truth, but it was their seeking that led them to the different beliefs in gods that they have.
 
:hmmm: My friend the “laws of God” are written in your heart.

They are what we call “concience” which tells every human being no matter what their faith is what is good and evil.
 
If you have lived the life of a hero, you will understand why God will come for you regardless of the expense.
 
I recall a scene in the film, It’s a Wonderful Life. More specifically a speech where the character played by Jimmy Stewart, George Bailey, explained how his father had neglected his family and had not saved enough money to put him and his brother through college. An atheist would have been bitter, saying “Father, you failed to love me!” His father was a hero and he knew it. It was what he was arguing. Though it caused him much grief as a man, he followed in the footsteps of his father. In time he was brought to despair. He was a nothing, less than nothing, disgraced. He was tormented, for example, by not being able to give his wife everything she deserved. He made decisions in his life that left him in poverty, not destitute poverty, however. There was a lot he could have had, but didn’t.

I could imagine an atheist or two saying you sell us short, but not all atheists are unbelievers.
 
The problem for the atheist is that even if he can prove that in a Godless universe morals exist, he doesnt really have a reason for morality, as after he dies, none of his memories etc are gonna matter.
If he thinks it matters, then challenge him to go into a supermarket and preach his morality to others like a fundamentalist street preacher and see how zealous/brave he is.

If he can say that morality is good, then he is assuming that there is something called “bad”. If the says there is something called “bad” then:
  1. Who defines what is good/bad? If its God, then fine. If its the Govt, then where did the Govt get it from? If its the person who defines it, then who is he to impose his opinions on Christians or others, because other people can also have the right to have their own opinions.
  2. He assumes that there is a perfect good, otherwise he is saying that a line is crooked when he doesnt know what is straight.
BTW, does anyone think that the atheist donation organisation [Non-Believers Giving Aid] is a bit of a show off organisation. I mean, they could have named it “Dawkins aid” or some thing similar, but the name they gave to that organisation seemed to be aimed at Christianity. I think it is specifically targeting the argument that Christianity (even single branches of Christianity alone) has done more good than the rest of the world.
I am sure that the words “Non-Believers” means non-Christians more than a non-adherent to any other religion. I am just thinking, why would they set up such organisations when other their atheists could have easily donated to Red Cross, which is secular enough.

Also lets think carefully.
Would Non-Believers Giving Aid give aid to help rebuild religious buildings?
I know that the Salvation Army would gladly use aid to rebuild religious/atheist institutions etc.
If Non-Believers Giving Aid is willing to donate to help religious institutions, it would be against its own founder’s philosophy, while if it would not help religious institutions, then:
  1. The religious aid organisation like Salvation Army would be superior and more charitable.
  2. Even if Non-Believers Giving Aid is willing to donate to help religious institutions, its founding philosophy alone (New Atheism) is less charitable than that of religious aid organisations.
Speak your minds on this one
 
In a crime, there can be both a perpetrator and a victim. In an atheistic world, it must be the victim who asserts what is bad, right? All of our modern laws will have developed from the relationship between judge (or jury), perpetrator, victim, and legislator. I guess that assertion of wrongdoing by the victim is based on pain and suffering, hardship, loss of property or life, etc.

Its not all that hard to make sense out of the world without God in the picture. They have evolution, science, humanism, and the list goes on and on. That’s why atheists can argue their point of view quite easily. I don’t even know if they require much forgiveness (if any) from God for not believing in him, in this modern age (or any age). I know some of the people who wrote the bible really hated them but what does God think today considering the modern era?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top