How can you have objective morality without God?

a reply to: Byrd

How does this change objective morality?

What Hitler did was evil but there's Germans back then who would say it was good. Slavery in America was evil but the slave owners would say it was good. Does that change morality? Of course not!

Is Byrd's morality any different than Ted Bundy or Gacy? If you think it's different, why?

Like I said, Dawkins said in a debate, he accepts Darwinist principles but they wouldn't be good to run a society. Why? If 70% of the people said a society killing the sick is good, why isn't it good?

Without objective morality from God, then morality is relative to the observer.

A rapist can say rape is good. A murderer can say murder is good. A thief can say stealing is good. Objective morality doesn't change even though the morality of the carnal mind does.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Without objective morality from God, then morality is relative to the observer.

And, if there is no god or god doesn't impose a morality, then there is no objective morality.

Like I said earlier, that seems to be a problem for you. Don't know what to tell you.

a reply to: Byrd




" Morality " is Selfevident , it does Not Need to be Defined with Pretzel Logic .

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Byrd

How does this change objective morality?

What Hitler did was evil but there's Germans back then who would say it was good. Slavery in America was evil but the slave owners would say it was good. Does that change morality? Of course not!

Is Byrd's morality any different than Ted Bundy or Gacy? If you think it's different, why?

Like I said, Dawkins said in a debate, he accepts Darwinist principles but they wouldn't be good to run a society. Why? If 70% of the people said a society killing the sick is good, why isn't it good?

Without objective morality from God, then morality is relative to the observer.

A rapist can say rape is good. A murderer can say murder is good. A thief can say stealing is good. Objective morality doesn't change even though the morality of the carnal mind does.

Explain this first please...

God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6). In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife!

Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody! In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered.

The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.

Source

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: neoholographic

Define Morality.

Objectively true good vs evil behavior. Example: it’s always evil to murder, barbecue and eat other humans.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Objectively true good vs evil behavior. Example: it’s always evil to murder, barbecue and eat other humans.

Even atheists can get behind that, so why would god be needed, as posited by the OP?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Objectively true good vs evil behavior. Example: it’s always evil to murder, barbecue and eat other humans.

Even atheists can get behind that, so why would god be needed, as posited by the OP?

Let me ask you, why isn't it good if the person murdering and eating people says it morally good to them?

If you had a society that killed sick people and used their bodies to feed the poor and 90% of that society thought it was morally good, why wouldn't it be morally good?

If there's no objective morality then there's no good and evil.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Let me ask you, why isn't it good if the person murdering and eating people says it morally good to them?

I never said it was good or bad, just that even atheists would get behind it.

If you had a society that killed sick people and used their bodies to feed the poor and 90% of that society thought it was morally good, why wouldn't it be morally good?

I have not heard anyone claim it is or it isn't.

If there's no objective morality then there's no good and evil.

Maybe there isn't. Is that what is causing you the problem?

a reply to: daskakik

LOL, come on man as Joe Biden would say!

You said:

I never said it was good or bad, just that even atheists would get behind it.

Of course you did. I know why you're obfuscating now, it's because you stepped in it. Here's the post you were responding to from NoturTypical:

Objectively true good vs evil behavior. Example: it’s always evil to murder, barbecue and eat other humans.

The post was about objective good and evil and he said IT'S ALWAYS EVIL TO MURDER, BARBECUE, AND EAT OTHER HUMANS!

You said an atheist can get behind that! Get behind what? THAT IT'S ALWAYS EVIL..... That's the subject of the post you're responding to.

You agreed with it but when I asked my question, you realized that you were supporting objective morality which comes from God so you just obfuscated(I'm trying not to use lied) in order to reconcile your initial response.

originally posted by: neoholographic
You agreed with it but when I asked my question, you realized that you were supporting objective morality which comes from God so you just obfuscated(I'm trying not to use lied) in order to reconcile your initial response.

Sorry, but no.

I said even atheists could agree with, "it’s always evil to murder, barbecue and eat other humans".

You are now trying to attach this part to it: "which comes from God".

My point was that atheists can get behind it regardless of whether it supposedly comes from god or not.

You then tried to use extreme examples in questions and ended with "If there's no objective morality then there's no good and evil."

I said maybe there isn't, which doesn't pose the problem for me that it seems to pose for you.

a reply to: daskakik

You're proving my point!

You said atheist can agree that IT'S ALWAYS EVIL....

If there's no objective morality why is it always evil? If the person eating and murdering humans thinks it's good, why isn't it good?

Atheist logic always fails!

originally posted by: Kreeate


Explain this first please...

Haven't you been paying attention? Its subjective morality...

... God can say murder is good.

originally posted by: neoholographic
If there's no objective morality why is it always evil?

It isn't, but people will think it is because it is what they are taught.

If the person eating and murdering humans thinks it's good, why isn't it good?

Do they think it is good?

Seems to me they often think it is bad but just can't help themselves. Feeling that it is bad is probably what gives them the rush that many have said they are after.

Atheist logic always fails!

The only fail here is you trying to force god into something that is basically just a social construct.

Headhunters obviously don't see the evil in the idea posted by NoturTypical.

Maybe the early humans didn't need a god to tell them that murderous cannibalistic tribes weren't good? Maybe all they needed was to have a bigger, stronger murderous cannibalistic tribe attack their village and eat their friends and family to decide that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to kill your own species for a food source? I mean that do unto others as you would have others do unto you doesn't really mean much if everyone is already being sweet and kind to each other does it? God never said anything about murder till cain murdered able did he?
Then, it doesn't really sound like he had to tell everyone it was a bad thing to do. He had to protect cain from the people who I guess might have been a tad angry that he took their friend able away from them?

By the way.. I think there have been a few primitive societies that involved eating the dead relatives as part of their burial/cremation/whatever ceremonies.
I guess maybe it depend on how you define god, but they were at least in the beginning stages of of recognizing the spiritual nature of their existence and forming their own concepts of god or gods. Heck. Maybe their view was superior to ours since they may have recognized the Divine spirit all around them while to us, he is somewhere up there, or maybe a small spark exists in our hearts, but he surely doesn't dwell in this playground he gave us dominion over to play in...

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: daskakik
If there's no objective morality why is it always evil? If the person eating and murdering humans thinks it's good, why isn't it good?

Because it's not good for society and the people living in that society, you muppet.

originally posted by: dandandat2

originally posted by: Kreeate


Explain this first please...

Haven't you been paying attention? Its subjective morality...

... God can say murder is good.

But "he" doesn't exist so whatever "he" says is irrelevant and pointless.

a reply to: neoholographic

Interesting.

On this subject, my take is morality is subjective outside of placing it in the context of a functioning society.

Think of it this way, for society to function you can’t have people murdering others, stealing, being violent, not working together in various capacities, etc.

So “morality” is actually just a set of guidelines that allows society to not fall apart and humans to cohabitate, in my mind.

The rest is just subjective “beliefs” about what is or isn’t right - which is wildly open to interpretation.

Compassion does not require religion.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Objectively true good vs evil behavior. Example: it’s always evil to murder, barbecue and eat other humans.

Even atheists can get behind that, so why would god be needed, as posited by the OP?

Because the atheist stands on the Biblical worldview that there is objective morality that applies to all mankind. In a macro-evolutionary worldview cosmic dust and random chemical processes have no moral code.

originally posted by: NOTurTypical
Because the atheist stands on the Biblical worldview that there is objective morality that applies to all mankind.

Not necessarily. Many societies existed that had a moral code that wasn't based on the Biblical worldview.

In a macro-evolutionary worldview cosmic dust and random chemical processes have no moral code.

True, but moral codes spring from the need to control populations and not because of how man originated. Of course, the best tool for that was to instill fear of god or the gods in the people, even if it was all lies.

In modern societies, after centuries of give and take, people no longer have to be scared into seeing their benefits, and since they now also have the power to shape them and not just accept what a monarch or small group of elders say, they no longer fit the codes in the old "good" books.