Can Morality Exist Without God?

Heh, hardly. I don't fear punishment. I don't even think hell exists in the traditional sense.

Maybe it would help if I gave some background. I was an atheist, and am religions now for 2 reasons, because I believe the data is incontrovertable, and because it represents the chance for me to do something in this lifetime which is actually worthwhile.

I'm not asking what to do if there's no God holding a big stick threatning people into staying in line. I'm asking what happens if there's no chance of us ever serving any purpose larger than ourselves.


Which leads to my interest in this question. Is the goal to survive and prosper the highest achievement an atheist can hope for? Or is there a logical or practical reason to believe in a different standard similar to the ones religious people believe in?


But, you have not answered the objection to the survival argument. Why do we no euthanize the elderly, retarded, crippled; essentially all those who CANNOT add value to society? If the advancement of society is of the highest importance, is this not then the logical course of action? Is a Huxlean world the utopian society?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What the hell is your problem? Are you trying to pick a fight with me? Why do you assume that because I post something, I must by definition be making criticisms of your beliefs?

If you read that thread, you would realize I wasn't making points, I was asking questions and honestly looking for answers. You see, unlike you, I actually look for background knowledge before I draw conclusions, and give the other side all the benefits of the doubt, AND chances to explain, before I jump into a debate.

This thread was not me making a point. It's me trying to understand something which is not native to my thought process. So someone who isn't just here to argue, riddle me this riddle:


If there is no God, there is no absolute (objective) moral compass. So what happens to morality? In a universe like that:

What does it mean to be "good?"
If our civilization rises and falls in the blink of the universe's eye, do individual human emotions matter? Why?
If everyone dies anyways, does saving a life mean anything? Why?
What reason do we have to be not selfish, if our own lives are all we have?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No chance of "serving a purpose larger than ourselves"?
Family.
Friends.
Community.
Our children.
Grandchildren.
:shrug:

Where do you get the idea that "advancement of society" is of the highest importance?
Society is a nebulous concept at best and the future (past next week's bills or next year's holiday) even more so.
One reason they're not euthanised could be fellow-feeling.
And possibly a bit of self-interest: "It could be me there one day".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Morality is a concept. It attempts to dissolve an action into two separate categorizes; good and evil. Good and evil have no absolutes and can not be said to exist, there for making morality defunct.

Societies view on morality today is geared towards a more cooperative, beneficial relation with each other. Which usual leads to human advancement(More of a vanilla term, I wouldn't call it advancement); Science, babies, blah blah. Now that isn't always good let me remind you.

I don't know where God plays into this, he is unprovable. But I can not say there is a good reason for humans to have morality, even though through ever action you make a moral decision. Breathing is good, not breathing is bad.

I'm just throwing out some words, it's 3 in the morning here.

 

Defensive much?
My beliefs?
We've been through that.

Looking for answers?
Really?

Yup, that's looking for answers: but you only want them from theists it seems.

Since you ALREADY stated in that document you are NOT interested in debate on the subject, but have assumed (from the general tone) that atheists don't conform to those criteria link to pertinent comments given then I simply replied to that part of it.
Explain to me again how you look before jumping...

Right: trying to understand by assuming that atheists can't be good/ noble but not prepared to debate about it.

Null question.
God is not the basis for morality, it's biological.

Whatever human nature/ thinking/ biology decides it to be.

Pick your answer: you're not the only one to ask

Conscience.
Empathy.
Biology.
Love.
Self-preservation.
More?

 

So, "good" is utilitarian? And it doesn't disturb you that everybody dies eventually, so any "good" you may have done will fade?

Or is our goal to write ourselves so deeply into history textbooks that we'll never be forgotten, and your impact will last as long as humanity?

Yeah, that was what was puzzling me as well. That's why I questioned it.

Hmmm. Good point. So we don't euthanise "useless" people because we worry about it happening to us?

 

No, good is what society (and the individual) define it to be.
In some societies it's good to eat humans (in fact in one it's good to kill two pubescent teens of your own tribe and eat THEM), in others (limited circulation of course) it's good to be vegetarian...

That's up to the individual.
There's a link to a relevant thread given in my previous post.
Personally, it disturbs me deeply on bad days and never occurs to me at all on good days.

Again it depends on the individual.
Some people just want to get by, some would rather go early provided their name lives as long as possible.

That's one explanation.
Another is, as I said, fellow-feeling.
I may not be able to picture myself as drooling congenital idiot of no "use" to anyone, but I do know that I'd rather not be "put down" if I were simply because someone else thinks I have no value.

 

Always. What did I say that makes you doubt it? I converted once, what makes you think I'm not liable to do it again?

I will assume anything until I have evidence against it. Instead of going off on a tangent at how i'm being unreasonable, how about explaining WHY what I believe is wrong?

The difference between a debate and a discussion is that in a discussion, regardless of what I start out believing, I'm willing to hear you out AND change my position if I think there's merit. In a debate, the objective is to win, by any cost.

By going into an ad hominem attack without even pausing to explain WHY any of my points were irrational, you showed you don't actually care for an exchange of information, only to try to prove that your information is correct.

Sure, because saying "You're so biased I can't even talk to you" is an excellent way to start a productive debate.

But for the record, I was saying that atheists can never serve an objective morality, merely a subjective one.

 

I took the "One last word to the atheists who are reading this: I don’t actually care to debate you.If you’re looking for an argument, or a fight, or even a debate, you’ll not find one here. Go elsewhere." as a dismissal of atheists and their opinions in general.

That's easier: or are you claiming that no atheist is or has ever been noble? Or generous to beggars (real or metaphorical) or don't do anything with their lives?

Ah okay.
I apologise.

As to why see comments above.

That's how it read to me.
And we're not debating we're discussing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Understood, and agreed.
We've got umpty-gazillion threads about that and it's more or less unanimous as a viewpoint for atheists. (Unless I missed someone's post disagreeing

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

).

 

Hmmm. That makes sense to me. Thank you.

In a semi-related question, is war then necessary? In the event those two societies ever run into each other?

 

fiicere

Then why be moral as a theist? What's YOUR motivation?

What data?

Such as? What can you do that an atheist cannot?

What does that mean? What purpose do you think you have found?

Both have the same goals. Both want to survive and prosper. The theist expects to survive death, that's why they are theists, the entire purpose of following the rules of a religion - to achieve immortality - i.e. to survive.

Ultimately survival and happiness are the only meaningful goals, whether theist or atheist. Do you have a better goal?

Because the value to society is not a goal, at least not in the western world. The rights of the individual still come first.

I sincerly hope we never get to such a dreadful state. The rights of the individual MUST always outweigh the rights of the society. Society is comprised of individuals and if they don't come first then what value is the society?

The issues of the elderly, crippled, and retarded, are challenges for science to resolve, that comes down to human ingenuity and creativity. Anti-aging research will likely solve the disease of aging, by far the biggest killer of all time, and the reason why religions exist.

 

I think I can permanently alter the state of the universe. Theists believe in the human soul, which is eternal, and is therefore infinitely more important than merely physical occurences.

Usename: fiicere@yahoo.com
Password: free

Commit actions which have permanent consequences.

Sort of. I don't really think survival is an issue.

Now we're getting into something fuzzy. I just want to clarify that I have no proof (although it works out nicely with my other beliefs for consistency. If you're curious, ask) for what I'm about to say. Obviously, I assume souls exist.

The problem for me has always been time. How can God be both eternal AND in the present moment? How can we? How can God see the future without it being predetermined? My take on it is that things have a nature. For example, think of Gravity. It applies different forces on different objects at different times, but it itself is always the same. Similarly, if you knew me well enough, you'd know that when I come home and see a box of chocolate on the table, I'll help myself to one. It doesn't mean that I had no choice in the matter, but, after a fashion, I already MADE my choice by choosing to be the kind of person who eats chocolate.

So, it would seem to me that life is the state where a soul is making a choice. THE choice, if that helps. I believe, through the interactions I have with others, that I can change the outcome of that choice.

Personally, I don't believe in hell or heaven in the traditional sense. No torture rooms or burning lakes for me except as metaphors. What I do believe is consequence. The consequence of living a certain lifestyle is true inner peace and harmony, because one is fulfilling one's purpose in the universe. Consider that feeling you get when you are hanging out with the people you truly care about and who truly understand you. The consequence of living the other is the discord of knowing that you are at odds with everything else in the Universe. Consider the feeling of guilt you would feel if you knew you had done something important so monumentally wrong it is irredeemable.

If I, in my life, can help anyone else to be a "better" person, then I truly believe that it will have repercussions for all eternity FOR THAT PERSON. Heck, even if I can't convert anyone, it's not a black and white thing. If someone were to become a marginally better person because of me, they would live with the consequences of that change forever.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat forever.

 

Oh, good question.
The answer is (IMO) "Probably, so long as we remain human".
I think it's probably part of our nature, but we seem (some of us) to be learning to control it, so it may get "phased out" although I'm fairly sure (gut feeling) that something will take its place...

 

-=-

The Holy Babble is the worst example of morals. It is vile, disgusting & repulsive. And contradictory. God is a trillion 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.

 

Evidence?

 

You're contradicting yourself. Or having great difficulty expressing yourself.

 

I could say the same. I have no problem answering questions, but I really don't understand WHERE you think I am contradicting myself. Please, clarify for me.

I said that one of my primary motivations is not the fear of punishment but the hope of doing something worthwhile. And I question, if God does not exist, how I may do any lasting good for the world I live in.

 

If there is a God, there is no absolute (objective) moral compass.

 

Ah interesting. OK, I concede that there may indeed be other forces in the universe other than God which determine morality. Personally, I don't think things like evolutionary morality are respectable enough for me to dedicate myself to their standard, but if you think you can change my mind, go for it.

So, who/what do you think determines objective morality?

 

Philosophy provides a moral compass... Actually, it's better than religion.