How can you have objective morality without God?

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: NOTurTypical

At what point did Jesus voluntarily lay down his life?

He orchestrated the entire event beginning at the Last Supper, then offered zero defense for Himself to the people who could set Him free. But the precise moment He layer down His life was at Calvary.

Was it after they forced him to carry a heavy cross through town, when they put the nails in, hung the thorny crown on his head, stabbed him under the rib cage?

See above, His entire reason for coming was to die for humanity’s sins. He orchestrated the events.

Or when he cried it "It is done" and took his (supposedly) last breath?

Supposedly? He stopped breathing 3 hours before the centurion pierced His heart with a spear through His rib cage. The other two men had their legs broken so they could no longer push themselves up to breathe ending their lives.

Why did Jesus need such theatrics to prove his point? Was the evil a necessary part of his "performance"?

He didn’t come to prove points, He came to make atonement for sins.

a reply to: NOTurTypical

His entire reason for coming was to die for humanity’s sins. He orchestrated the events.

So even though he could lay down his life and take it back anytime, he decidedly allowed evil to kill him, even though no matter how he died, he would have risen again. Sounds like he needed evil to exemplify his "you can't kill me" point, for effect.

It's hard to claim that the Bible lays the ground work for objective human morality, when its "god" advises evil actions, and then uses evil to prove the point that even evil can't vanquish him.

As far a Jesus supposed "sacrifice" to save us from our own supposed immorality, I don't see how that speaks to morality at all.

The message that salvation can't be earned, no matter how moral you are, does nothing to promote moral behavior.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I mean, there was only one form of judicial execution in 1st century Jerusalem. The Jewish authorities had their method and authority stripped by Ceasar.

As far a Jesus supposed "sacrifice" to save us from our own supposed immorality, I don't see how that speaks to morality at all.

It doesn’t. And we are immoral, that’s why He came to offer vicarious atonement for us. We can’t save ourselves.

The message that salvation can't be earned, no matter how moral you are, does nothing to promote moral behavior.

I’m not sure I said that does promote moral behavior.

originally posted by: neoholographic
This is why nobody has answered my questions.

Without God, there's no objective morality.

If you pair survival instinct with intelligence and experience, you will always come to the conclusion that cooperation is beneficial for continuation of the species and being altruistic is beneficial for cooperation. Every moral principle derives from this foundation. No piety included.

Some studies have shown that children show empathy well before they can understand the concept of god. Animals exhibit behaviour that might classify as moral without religious directives. Even viruses cooperate altruistically to overcome host immunity in the same way animals do.

The Moral Status of Animals
plato.stanford.edu...

The Origins Of Empathy and Altruism
www.wellbeingintlstudiesrepository.org...

Altruism in a virus
doi.org...

In ancient times, where knowledge was privilege, it was much easier to impose the fear of god on people, rather than creating an infrastructure to educated them. It also came with an additional control and power, so this format worked for centuries.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
Stalin, who outlawed religion 40+ million killed just to create fear
China, Killed/starved 100 million+, no one really knows, as they pushed into their industrial revolution.

It's beyond manipulative to attribute to atheism what Stalin, or Mao Zedong did, given both of them were religious at some point in their lives and Stalin even attended seminary for a couple of years. They had their share of indoctrination. It was poverty and abusive childhood that shaped them, not lack of faith. The only thing it proved is that the ancient way of imposing morality with fear didn't work on them. Maybe if someone taught them morality based on reason instead of fairy tales, we would have different outcome.

If you teach a person that it's logically beneficial to follow moral principles, he can't argue the facts. If you build his morality on 'what god approves', he can question his existence and there is nothing stopping him from becoming a sociopath. Just remove the middle man or separate him from morality and everyone will benefit.

a reply to: iknowyou

I watched a video some years ago where young children were shown a video of little coloured blocks interacting. One block was purposely mean to the others and all the children didn't like that one. It was a psychological experiment which showed that empathy is innate and displayed at a very early age. No need for God at all.

a reply to: neoholographic

There is no rational reason to follow any laws unless a law-giver enforces them. There are plenty of irrational reasons to follow them.

Anyone who tries to establish objective axioms of morality will have to enforce them.