-=-
If there is a God, its morals are not objective.
If there is a God, its morals are not objective.
Can Morality Exist Without God?
- Thread starter fiicere
- Start date
“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
The Holy Babble is the worst example of morals. It is vile, disgusting & repulsive. And contradictory. God is 333 camplextrillion times worse than Hitler, Bundy & all human villains combined.
I've yet to hear of any moral gods. They are all created in the image of man with more negative than positive.
I strongly warn against Jesus or God as a role model. ”
Have you not read it???
The Holy Babble is the worst example of morals. It is vile, disgusting & repulsive. And contradictory. God is 333 camplextrillion times worse than Hitler, Bundy & all human villains combined.
I've yet to hear of any moral gods. They are all created in the image of man with more negative than positive.
I strongly warn against Jesus or God as a role model. ”
Have you not read it???
Well, I don't know how to define objective morality short of "a standard of behavior held by a higher perspective than a human one"
Yes I have.
Dude, are you gonna stop wasting my time with monosyllabic responses and actually post something worthwhile, or will you satisfy yourself with your own ignorant bias and oh-so-clever mispelling of the name of the Book you're referring to, minus any actual examples, of course?
Yes I have.
Dude, are you gonna stop wasting my time with monosyllabic responses and actually post something worthwhile, or will you satisfy yourself with your own ignorant bias and oh-so-clever mispelling of the name of the Book you're referring to, minus any actual examples, of course?
Yes. Without a societal moral standard of some sort, there'd be no society. Humans evolved a system of ethics in order to survive as social animals in large, potentially volatile, groups. Without that development, we'd have killed each other...well, killed each other more.
Whether or not that cognitive evolution was divinely inspired is irrelevant to the fact that we, as a species, developed the concept of ethics.
Of course .
However do you not see that religion started from a sort of philosophy based on the definition of the word philosophy ?.
I think it is their conscience and not their will for survival .
One way to approach this issue (morality) is looking at nature. Animal researchers constantly finds various examples that indicate different level of social bonds among non-human creatures. There is a passage from Science website of New York Times:
Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.
It is possible to find many other similar semi-moral behaviour examples. Nature provides some sort of base for social bond, with or without humans. Like other animals, we are armed with a set of moral elements in our existence, it's within the package, we have nothing to do with it.
However, "being human" signifies something different: Consciouss codification. Just as we codified some voices to construct grammatic languages, we have also tried to establish a culturally coded (so we can share the idea with others) moral values. So morality was rooted before the idea of creator God emerged among humans. Moral codes were coming from the heritage of ancestors, giving meanings to natural environment, realising the fact that communal harmony brings better survival chance, happier and secure (not always) and wealtier (not for everyone) opportunities. My answer to OP is yes, there is a possibility of morality without the existence of God idea, it has been in human history before and still there are people who follow certain moral and ethic codes without believing in any sort of God.
Actually, some of these people also find it immoral to behave morally just because otherwise God would punish us. That means if God or the idea of God was not around, there would not be any need to follow any moral value. Wrong. Because morality is about responsibility and respect to each other and to nature; God does not need it, we need it.
Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.
It is possible to find many other similar semi-moral behaviour examples. Nature provides some sort of base for social bond, with or without humans. Like other animals, we are armed with a set of moral elements in our existence, it's within the package, we have nothing to do with it.
However, "being human" signifies something different: Consciouss codification. Just as we codified some voices to construct grammatic languages, we have also tried to establish a culturally coded (so we can share the idea with others) moral values. So morality was rooted before the idea of creator God emerged among humans. Moral codes were coming from the heritage of ancestors, giving meanings to natural environment, realising the fact that communal harmony brings better survival chance, happier and secure (not always) and wealtier (not for everyone) opportunities. My answer to OP is yes, there is a possibility of morality without the existence of God idea, it has been in human history before and still there are people who follow certain moral and ethic codes without believing in any sort of God.
Actually, some of these people also find it immoral to behave morally just because otherwise God would punish us. That means if God or the idea of God was not around, there would not be any need to follow any moral value. Wrong. Because morality is about responsibility and respect to each other and to nature; God does not need it, we need it.
:bravo: !.
NiccolòBrioschi
Registered Member
Not really.
OK, good point. More questions!
Do we, as intelligent, logical beings (well, some of us more than others), decide that the old "morality" that nature has drilled into us has served its purpose? Will we ever reach a state where we can discard these evolutionary impulses and find a better system? If so, what system?
Philosophy is searching for the truth and a man's made religion is somehow seeking the truth by guessing there is a god or multiple gods....etc .
Last edited:
NiccolòBrioschi
Registered Member
It's still speculation.
So indeed philosophy is a mere speculation powered by logic .
fiicere,
Why would that be desirable or important?
How do you weigh the values between a soul and something physical? A soul if it could exist appears to depend entirely on the physical for its identity, memory, ability to think, etc. Without these things a soul has no value, whether it is eternal or not.
For example? Walt Disney was an atheist and the Disney phenomena is now a permanent mark in the history of the universe.
The basic promise of every religion is survival, that's why you believe in an eternal soul. Or perhaps more importantly people don't want to die, and religions promise an escape.
Understood.
I believe that to be a fundamental paradox to the theist claims for omniscience and free will - they are mutually exclusive. If omniscience exists then what you think of as choice is only your delusion, if what you think is your chocie is known before the event then you had no real free choice, your actions were predetermined. Calling it your nature makes no difference.
But you don't have to be a theist to achieve the same thing. Your purpose in life is not made for you it is something you choose.
Yes this is taking responsibility for your actions, there is no escape. Once something is done it cannot be undone. If you do something wrong that you regret then you must live with it. Religions again give the deluson that there is an escape, like the delusion that you can survive death. These are both things we would like and religions pander to those inner desires and play on our weaknesses.
If it makes you happy to help others and you see that is your purpose in life, then fine. You don't need to believe in a god to do the same thing.
Equally applies to atheists.
We have been replacing some old "morality" with new ones and sometimes just been modifying them since the dawn of time. Today, our entire moral set is based on unnatural human knowledge, even the ones that look like very natural to us; even the ones which are consumed and produced by very much natural behaving hunter-gatherer tribes: Because we put them into words, we symbolize them, teach them and learn them. They don't come from natural process; they totally depend on human individuals in a given social or communal existence. “Evolutionary impulses” or what “nature has drilled into us” have gone from our existence long ago.
And we know from history that human mental universe and its real world constantly change, so the society. Morality must satisfy the needs of society, if it does not, it will be changed. It once regulated by the human meanings for natural environment, then agricultural societies pushed it to other stage; Gods and Philosophy (“if we can control livestock somebody must be controlling us” logic). Our crops and largely populated new cities required blessings; today they just do well with enough electricity. Now first time in the history, human beings started to believe only in themselves. New morality will be based on according to the needs and expectations of this new society. So my reply for your “Will we ever reach a state where we can discard these evolutionary impulses and find a better system?” question is “suitable”, “more functional” systems, instead of “better”. We now love environment; we think that we have moral responsibility for the nature and its habitat. Why? Two reasons: One: artistic as well as scientific view has evolved us into a level of wisdom that we started to realize our position in the court of natural universe. Second: We just realized that nature needs attention and constructed new moral discourse accordingly and pragmatically. They are both same thing: Functional mental tools for apes...
What system it would be? This would be fortune telling, but I will restrain myself seeing the dynamics of this system, rather than the end result: God driven societies had to rely upon taboo creation and boundaries, alongside using natural energy of fear. They started their journey by agricultural revolution 10 000 years ago and they have reached their utmost stage as empires and nation states. Now number driven societies are challenging taboos and borders, alongside using every means of human creations; technology and principles. The moral system will be adopted accordingly.
of course morality can and does exist without god.
have you seen any gods lately telling us how to live?
which ones
www.godchecker.com
or is this your source of morals
www.evilbible.com
kinda obsolete those religious morals wouldnt you think?
now try www.atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/atheism/About_Atheism
fiicere:
Morals only exist between multiple conscious agents. If it was a one-person universe, morality would have no meaning.
I'm not sure that they do not contribute to society. You must be thinking of a particular type of contribution.
On the topic of euthanasing people with Down Syndrome or the elderly, I guess the question to ask is: would you agree to be euthanased once you reached a certain age, regardless of your state of health, mental faculties etc.? If not, then advocating it for other people is inconsistent.
I thought I'd already given several reasons in my first response to you. You sound like you read them and you responded, but then you go back as if these things weren't said. Strange.
Morals only exist between multiple conscious agents. If it was a one-person universe, morality would have no meaning.
I'm not sure that they do not contribute to society. You must be thinking of a particular type of contribution.
On the topic of euthanasing people with Down Syndrome or the elderly, I guess the question to ask is: would you agree to be euthanased once you reached a certain age, regardless of your state of health, mental faculties etc.? If not, then advocating it for other people is inconsistent.
I thought I'd already given several reasons in my first response to you. You sound like you read them and you responded, but then you go back as if these things weren't said. Strange.
good question,
perhaps better suited for the political forum?
I suspect the old capitalist system will keep on chugging for a long while yet,with a touch of socialist ideas thrown in to make it bit more stable,like we've just seen..
eventualy when people become inteligent enough to realize that money isnt everything
(only way to reach that would be to have guaranteed existence/job for life) then we may reach something like a Star trek society where no one is poor or hungry.
heres one idea thats been around for a while
www.technocracy.org
religions unfortunately wont help us to get there as all they do is make people stupid,by teaching them lies and hate and even denying simple fact such as evolution etc..
WillNever
Valued Senior Member
The answer is yes. Morality is inborn to human animals. Like many other species, we have a natural aversion to killing each other without cause or provocation.
Furthermore, if "god" exists...
(1) Then "god" created everything that exists, including extreme evil. This "god" does nothing to intervene with that evil. Thus, this "god" is evil.
(2) This "god' requires worship. This "god" must be vain and insecure. Thus this "god" is not worthy of worship.
(3) This "god" created humans as his/her supposedly "chosen" race. This "god" then allows humans to suffer. Thus this "god" is petty and cruel.
(4) This "god" created everything, yet "everything" includes this "god." You cannot create yourself. Thus, this "god" cannot exist.
So then, if "god" does not exist...
(1) Humans need to stop wrapping themselves in a myth and start facing the true and natural reasons for their existence.
(2) Humans need to start accepting those natural reasons and stop claiming semi-divine status for themselves in the universe.
(3) Humans need to stop hiding behind a preposterous myth and using it to rationalize their own murderous cruelty and childish insecurities.
(4) Humans need to start existing in reality instead of indulging in dangerous magical thinking.
Furthermore, if "god" exists...
(1) Then "god" created everything that exists, including extreme evil. This "god" does nothing to intervene with that evil. Thus, this "god" is evil.
(2) This "god' requires worship. This "god" must be vain and insecure. Thus this "god" is not worthy of worship.
(3) This "god" created humans as his/her supposedly "chosen" race. This "god" then allows humans to suffer. Thus this "god" is petty and cruel.
(4) This "god" created everything, yet "everything" includes this "god." You cannot create yourself. Thus, this "god" cannot exist.
So then, if "god" does not exist...
(1) Humans need to stop wrapping themselves in a myth and start facing the true and natural reasons for their existence.
(2) Humans need to start accepting those natural reasons and stop claiming semi-divine status for themselves in the universe.
(3) Humans need to stop hiding behind a preposterous myth and using it to rationalize their own murderous cruelty and childish insecurities.
(4) Humans need to start existing in reality instead of indulging in dangerous magical thinking.