How can you have objective morality without God?

a reply to: Degradation33

I don't think he is saying that. I believe he is saying that people don't understand that you can only have Morality because of God.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: dandandat2

Does the reason for doing good negate a good outcome?

I don't know; at the very least it suggests that deep down the do gooder has a bad "heart" for lack of a better word. And that he would much rather prefer to be bad if he wasn't seeking reward or cowering in fear.

The person who does good for good sake with out fear or reward seems to have the more pure motivation.

Let's say two people fed you when you were hungry. Person A fed you because they just wanted to feed somebody. Anybody.

Person B fed you and didn't want to but did it because it was the right thing to do. Now he doesn't have enough to eat.

Who is more morally correct.

Person A or Person B.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Now you can say the Christian Crusades with 5 million over 500 years, but just like your WWII we can also say much of CC was political more than religious.

I would add the inquisition, as well as other Church crimes against humanity, like wiping out whole South American cultures. Also the Jews, who slaughtered who knows how many people. The early Christians of Rome who didn't kill as much as they violently vandalized anything that wasn't Christian throughout Roman territory. The list could go on.

The problem is when religion is pushed aside in the past we tended to go total retard, and it took religion to get us back on some moral path.

I see it as a human problem more than a religious or atheist argument. When one group oppresses another, once the oppressed group breaks free, they rebel against their oppressors.

Also, Russia didn't turn to religion to straighten out their country after Stalin, and they still haven't. Although they aren't oppressing religion like Stalin did, which is a good thing.

originally posted by: highvein

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: dandandat2

Does the reason for doing good negate a good outcome?

I don't know; at the very least it suggests that deep down the do gooder has a bad "heart" for lack of a better word. And that he would much rather prefer to be bad if he wasn't seeking reward or cowering in fear.

The person who does good for good sake with out fear or reward seems to have the more pure motivation.

Let's say two people fed you when you were hungry. Person A fed you because they just wanted to feed somebody. Anybody.

Person B fed you and didn't want to but did it because it was the right thing to do. Now he doesn't have enough to eat.

Who is more morally correct.

Person A or Person B.

That analogy does not fit the line of argument we are having. This is the correct analog:

Person A, B, and C all have the same amount of food. Giving you food will have equal personal ramifications for these three people; either they all will not have enough left over for themselves or they all will have enough left over.


Person A fed you because he wanted to.

Person B didn't want to feed you but did so because his king promised to pay him handsomely for feeding you.

Person C didn't want to feed you but did so because it his king promised to cut off his arm if he did not feed you.

Who is more morally correct?

My simple answer to this question is that.

Person C is pitiable under the best of circumstances.

Person B is apathetic under the best of circumstances.

Person A is helpful and kind on his own with out the need for outside influence.

a reply to: neoholographic

Plugging your ears doesnt mean i didnt answer.

a reply to: neoholographic

Here is a bit of Stoic Philosophy .

If God makes people Good .

Then God makes people bad.

If God only makes people Good and not the latter then God is not God .

In essence I think humanity is a bit confused as to who they think is God.

Good/bad. Evil/godly....
For some reason, in the beginning, god seems to have had not wanted us to be bothered by such knowledge. He didn't want us to be able to distinguish between good and evil. It probably would have been less of a hassle to convince his army to go and annihilate entire towns in the promised land if mankind never developed a conscious of his own.
I wonder if the angels were perplexed about good/evil when they went at god's command and destroyed sodom and gamorrah, the men, women, and children that called it home. Did they feel any guilt or remorse or are Angel's like mindless drones that just carry out god"s orders with no thought of weather it was a good thing to do, or a bad thing.
Was god hoping to create another version of mindless drones when he created us and commanded us not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge? Why was the tree in the garden, if he didn't want us to eat the fruit of it.
Could it be that the god that most of the bible is written about isn't really God? That god didn't have a choice about that tree being in the garden because God planted that tree deep into the heart of his creation and it has always been accessible to all?
And that the religions with it"s insistence of obedience to the lords of this world, the husbands, the kings, the priests, the slave masters have served to cause us to tune out the soft whispers of that tree that dwells within us?

The question I have did God give humanity free will or not?

It seems to me Atheist are taking God up on his gift of free will.

While some theists want God to tell them what to do; rejecting his gift of free will.


ETA;

Added the word "some" as with out it the statement was too broad.

Meh, from whence Evil cometh.

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: Degradation33

I don't think he is saying that. I believe he is saying that people don't understand that you can only have Morality because of God.

Oh, that's just more presuppositional apologetics.

Arguing priori assertions like "animal behavior and all laws of physics are because of The Tyranical Omnipresent Acausal Space Tomato" is an exercise in futility.

Why are the laws of physics what they are? 

The Tyranical Omnipresent Acausal Space Tomato.

They are equal statements. Reductio Ad Pastafarium.

* I thought he was arguing only people with an apprehension of God can be moral, which I can argue against. My mistake.

originally posted by: Klassified
I would add the inquisition, as well as other Church crimes against humanity, like wiping out whole South American cultures. Also the Jews, who slaughtered who knows how many people. The early Christians of Rome who didn't kill as much as they violently vandalized anything that wasn't Christian throughout Roman territory. The list could go on.

With all that above was it really religion driving it? Some of it yes, but there were many other motivators.

I said the very worst that humans have been while not suggesting religion didn't have its roles too, but add all that up above and Stalin all by himself did much worst. The problem is when there is no fundamental foundation to come back to. Mainstream religion has a base of morals to them, so when we evil humans go crazy there is a course to come back to, and in many of these non-religious cases there was nothing to come back to and so it just kept getting worst and worst.

a reply to: Xtrozero

With all that above was it really religion driving it? Some of it yes, but there were many other motivators.

The same question could be asked in reverse. Was it really atheism driving it? When human leadership goes psychopath, their religion or lack thereof doesn't seem to matter. And which side holds the record for atrocities also becomes irrelevant, considering god himself Trump's everyone by destroying all life on planet Earth excepting 8 people if we are to believe the bible and a few other sources.

The problem is when there is no fundamental foundation to come back to.

The golden rule has been around for thousands of years. Long before the bible, Torah, and other religious manuscripts were penned. It seems to me the earliest humans quickly discovered that if they were going to survive and thrive, they needed to work together. In order for that to happen, they needed a moral code that was conducive to the good of the group as well as the individual.

Mainstream religion has a base of morals to them...

Which "mainstream religion" should we default to? Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism? They all have a base of morals, and they all have good and bad ideas as to what morality is, but that "base of morals" comes with some very undesirable excess baggage that varies in extreme depending on which base you choose.

so when we evil humans go crazy there is a course to come back to...

I personally do not consider humans innately evil as some religions do, and see that as part of the problem with religion.

...and in many of these non-religious cases there was nothing to come back to and so it just kept getting worst and worst.

Religion so permeates our world that each cultures religion is already the default when things inevitably fall apart. Known history shows that religion has always been the default or the base, and yet all societies have and will collapse, and either dissolve or rebuild.

In my opinion, no government should be structured resembling a theocracy. Nor should they ignore concepts that should be embraced by both the religious and non-religious like don't murder, don't steal, treat people like you would want to be treated regardless of their gender or skin color, and so on. These things are not divine precepts, they are common sense for the common good.

The psychopaths will always exist, and unfortunately they have and will inevitably rise to the top and poison cultures and societies before they are recognized for what they are. Stalin, among others are good examples of such, but lets not lay their atrocities on all humans. Most humans want to live in peace and be left alone to live and enjoy their lives, not wishing harm on others. I suspect you and I are among them.

From what I have observed, all religions state the following, and then further distort them to fit an agenda.

4 laws of creation
1. The law of existence.
2. The law of one
3. The 3rd law of creation - "The Golden Rule"

Karma
what you sow you reap
the chicken coming home to roost
Duality
Polarity
Paradoxes
Law of opposites
The law of attraction
Cause & Affect
and many other names to explain that what you put out, you get back. Which is why you turn the other cheek if you are wise.

4. 4th law of creation
Change is a constant. Everything changes, except the first 3 laws which never change.

originally posted by: Klassified
Most humans want to live in peace and be left alone to live and enjoy their lives, not wishing harm on others. I suspect you and I are among them.

Though I agree with much of what you wrote above I have a couple of thoughts. It was religion that pushed the golden rule to the masses. Religion was the bases for human intellect for 10,000 years or more, so you either were taught through religion or not taught at all. Wasn't until 300 years ago that it slowly changed to not be only religion.

As far as humans being evil. All is good until sh!t hits the fan. I would give it 3 weeks before the good people of LA became cannibals...lol

Look at the population of German and Japan during WWII, or the population under Pol Pot where he turned schools into torture chambers and used kids to do the tortures to death. There is a tree there called the killing tree near the killing fields where they beat to death about 10,000 children, didn't want to waste good ammo on them.

That stuff can happen in an instant...

a reply to: Xtrozero

It was religion that pushed the golden rule to the masses. Religion was the bases for human intellect for 10,000 years or more, so you either were taught through religion or not taught at all.

Agreed, you do well to point this out. And not just ONE religion, but all of them, including those who practiced human and animal sacrifice. That doesn't make the myriad of atrocities they committed throughout history any less repugnant. Teaching the golden rule on one hand and murdering people by sacrifice, or because they didn't believe in the right religion, is no less hypocritical or abominable. Yet history is replete with such acts of barbarism from the "guardians of morality".

That stuff can happen in an instant...

And it did for "10000+ years" under the aforementioned "guardians of morality" and the golden rule.

Wasn't until 300 years ago that it slowly changed to not be only religion.

And things have gotten no better or worse except that we have better technology to murder with, whatever our beliefs.

a reply to: neoholographic



You Cannot . The Man Animal Needs Spiritual Guidence to Survive on this Earth .

originally posted by: neoholographic
This poses a problem for atheist.

I'm an atheist, that doesn't pose a problem for me.

You seem to be the one who thinks they have a problem with it, which ironically, is subjective.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Here's a video of a woman who was an atheist who became a Christian because she asked the simple question, "Why am I a good person?"

She realized that the Bible says our righteousness is like filthy rags. In other words, we're all born sinners and it's the grace of God that makes us good as we become like Jesus.

This poses a problem for atheist. If there's no God, then there's no objective morality. If this is the case there's no good and evil. An atheist morality is no different than Hitler or Charles Manson. This would mean morality is relative to the observer's experience.

If from Hitler's perspective, what he did was morally good, an atheist has no basis beyond their subjective opinion to say otherwise. In a debate, the atheist Richard Dawkins said he supports Darwin principles but Darwin principles wouldn't be good for running a society. Dawkins just made an argument for God.

Why wouldn't a society based on Darwin principles be good if 80% of the people in that society thought it was good? They may like living in a society where all sick people are killed in a humane way. This way they have low insurance premiums and everyone is having great sex because everyone is healthy.

If there's no God then there's no objective morality and the rapist can say it's good to rape from their perspective. Why would the morality of an atheist that donates to the homeless, is in a 20 year committed marriage, raised 3 great kids and cuts his older neighbors lawn because he can't be any different than Jeffrey Dahmer's or Ted Bundy's morality?

Spirituality doesn't make you a good person, lots of very bad people were also very spiritual. Being a good person has nothing to do with theism or church doctrine. Chances are if you were a bad person before Jesus, you're still a bad person but you have learned to suppress it to socially acceptable levels.

a reply to: TzarChasm

What?

What does this have to do with the thread and objective morality?

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: neoholographic



You Cannot . The Man Animal Needs Spiritual Guidence to Survive on this Earth .

Whose spiritual guidance? Inca? Aztec? Shamanism?

And spiritual guidance from what era? The definition of "morality" changes rather drastically within a single religion depending on what timeframe you're looking at.

Divorce was once immoral to Christians. So was going into debt (credit cards.) So was wearing certain types of fabrics or eating certain kinds of foods.

Or, in a more horrific example, female genital mutilation. So is the old idea the moral one or is the new modified one the moral one?