Morality without God (soul, seven, created, atheists)

[Asheville Native]

Originally Posted by Mattos_12

So, you can be moral, without a code defining what morality is? So, what is morality is not a code of what is right and wrong?

It is part of the human genome, just like it part of the DNA of primates, and many other species that live in groups, such as wolves, elephants, dolphins, etc.. We, like every animal on the planet have evolved to what we are today. We are ONLY just another species that inhabit this rock for a brief period of time in its history, nor are we anymore special than any other life form.

How sad to believe that "if I didn't believe in an imaginary friend, I would be a rapist, murder, thief, thug" Is that all the credit you give yourself, which obviously it is, and you can't imagine a "natural morality". Pathetic

Not only has belief in invisible friends blinded you to reality, it has even blinded you to your own character. My sympathies you poor lost individual, a mere slave to a myth.

[agnostic soldier]

It bemuses me that so many christians think they're accomplishing something when they go into their spoutings that a belief in no god means purposelessness and amorality when all they're doing is making themselves look like profoundly ignorant nonthinkers. They have the right to go rattle off their loads of twaddle but they just shouldn't be surprised when they're mocked and ridiculed because of it.

[mythunderstood]

Originally Posted by Mattos_12

Sure, let me try and re-word:

The question is, if morality is like taste. Perhaps then, I don't like British chocolate, you do, I think murder is fine, you think its wrong , neither of us is any more or less correct, its just a matter of taste. Or is it about something else? So, murder is just wrong, because there is a code that says so.

If God were to exist, then there could be an easy answer to that question. God is all powerful, God is all knowing, God is all good, therefore God's rules are the correct rules, rules that transcend human being. It seems to me that this is the way in which people in general see morality (perhaps I'm in error, but I think if you went out into the streets and asked people why certain things were wrong, they'd probably tell you they are immoral, or just wrong).

If God then doesn't exist, where does this leave morality? If it just leaves it as a matter of tastes, I wonder where that leaves the rational person. Surly one should steal if one could get away with it, for example?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that morality has evolved from our innate sense of empathy and fairness that we (even animals) have. It has developed based on the need of people having to get along with each other and live together and thrive in groups/society. Even animals other than humans have a sense have a sense of fairness, empathy and morality, so why wouldn't atheists? No god is necessary.

Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'

Morality may have roots in our primate ancestors - Telegraph

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

This is a convenient misstatement of the issue presented to accommodate a wholesale rejection of the notion that God would have anything to do with morality. The real issue is that morality is an illogical, illegitimate, deceptive, subjective and worthless philosophical concept under the "no God" presumption. It doesn't exist without an intrinsic purpose and value to life . . . which is impossible for a purposeless cosmic accident. Accidents are accidents . . . and in absolute terms it doesn't matter what they value or do . . . nor whether they continue to exist or annihilate each other. More straw man arguments and insults about the WRONG issue. It is NOT the caprice of a God that determines morality . . . it is the existence of a purpose and value to human existence which requires a purposeful Creation.More straw man arguments that no one should believe (that they do is irrelevant to the philosophical implications of the concept).The subjectivity of determining what is the morality built into the purpose of human existence cannot be avoided. But if there is NO purposeful Creation . . . then it is completely pointless and arbitrary. The strong can impose their morality on the weak, period.

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

It is exactly as illogical, illegitimate, deceptive, etc. with a God, as it is without a God.
You have adopted God's purpose as the purpose which gives value to live.
But that is not logically the only choice. In fact, its a rather random choice.

I am disappointed, Box . . . did you just skim read my post and decide to argue from your own set of presuppositions? Intrinsic purpose for the existence of humankind presupposes there is a "purpose-giver" (God) or else we are purposeless cosmic accidents. For the latter to talk about or try to find a morality is ludicrous. IF we are accidents . . .there is none to find.

For example, you could decide that God gave you life, so your purpose is to do God's will.

But you could equally decide that your parents gave you life, so your purpose is to do your parants will.

You could decide that you gave your children life, so your purpose is to do what is best for your kids.

You could decide that you should do what is best for the entirety of humanity.

You could decide that as a sapient human, your purpose is to do that which provides you the most pleasure and avoided the most pain.

You have chosen a God centric purpose, but that was a subjective decision. Even if one believed there was a God, it does not automatically follow that our purpose of life is to do his will. We decide that.

I acknowledge this subjectivity as inevitable . . . but I consider it all POINTLESS speculation and conflict IF their really IS NO purpose for our existence. THAT existence (real or not) is the quintessential issue for the legitimacy or not of the very CONCEPT of morality. God-deniers (purpose deniers) are foolish to even consider the concept relevant . . . if their belief is correct . . . it is moot.

Originally Posted by agnostic soldier

This just shows the flaw in the typical religious argument. If nonbelief makes morality pointless and arbitrary then what makes your moral code meaningful. You conveniently ignore the fact that there are a multitude of other belief systems that hold a belief in purposeful creation, but have different moral codes. Case in point, Islam holds a belief in purposeful creation, but it also advocates honor killings, killing apostates and rather mysoginistic beliefs. Given the fact that Islam has a belief in purposeful creation, has(according to your reasoning) an equally valid moral code as christianity. A belief in purposeful creation makes morality meaningless and arbitrary. Nazism and Islam have beliefs in purposeful creation, therefore you have no reason to say their moral codes are wrong. It follows that you have no reason to condemn the holocaust, Islamic jihad, suicide bombers, honor killings, fatwas or the racism of neo nazis.

I am not as surprised by your lack of comprehension of the real issue, agnostic. Your posts are rife with non-sequiturs and illogic. The errors of belief in defining morality due to our subjectivity and preferences has nothing to do with whether or not a morality even exists.(as in all these examples of yours which are called non-sequiturs)

IF a morality does NOT exist (if there is NO intrinsic purpose to the existence of human life, ie. no God) . . . then all these errors in belief are not errors but simply conflicts that will be decided by the winners . . . the dominant groups.

IF morality does exist (there IS an intrinsic purpose to human life) Then these conflicts can only be erased by a concerted effort to discern what the true morality is . . . not fight over books and preferences for superstitions or fables.

[agnostic soldier]

Originally Posted by mythunderstood

Why is it so hard for you to understand that morality has evolved from our innate sense of empathy and fairness that we (even animals) have. It has developed based on the need of people having to get along with each other and live together and thrive in groups/society. Even animals other than humans have a sense have a sense of fairness, empathy and morality, so why wouldn't atheists? No god is necessary.

Animals can tell right from wrong - Telegraph

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Animals 'are moral beings'

Morality may have roots in our primate ancestors - Telegraph

That's a good point. Meaningful moral codes don't come from belief in a deity nor is a deity necessary in order to hold a purposeful moral code. Humans are the only species that have invented god beliefs, yet most other species, especially those whom live within social groups, share and exhibit cooperative and empathetic behavior. If meaningful moral codes are contingent upon belief in a divine being then you would expect all other species to be out savagely murdering and brutalizing each other in order to gain gratification. The complete opposite is true though. Within other primate species one can observe the extreme care and compassion that they have for one another.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

I am disappointed, Box . . . did you just skim read my post and decide to argue from your own set of presuppositions? Intrinsic purpose for the existence of humankind presupposes their is a "purpose-giver" (God) or else we are purposeless cosmic accidents. For the latter to talk about or try to find a morality is ludicrous. There is none to find.I acknowledge this subjectivity as inevitable . . . but I consider it all POINTLESS speculation and conflict IF their really IS NO purpose for our existence. THAT existence (real or not) is the quinntessential issue for the legitimacy or not of the very CONCEPT of morality. God-deniers (purpose deniers) are foolish to even consider the concept relevant . . . it is moot.

You'll have to bear with me, this subject matter lends itself to misinterpretations and it's easy to mistakenly believe that a person is making the argument you are used to seeing, rather than the argument actually made.

Back to the discussion. You said:

Intrinsic purpose for the existence of humankind presupposes their is a "purpose-giver"

Why does it presuppose a "purpose-giver", and why couldn't that "purpose-giver" be each individual sentient creature? (Why can't we give ourselves a purpose?)

It seems to me that you simply prefer "God as purpose-giver" over other logical alternatives. That's your right, but that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives possible sans God - the most important being the royal you.

And just to make sure we aren't engaged in circular reasoning, could you give me your definition of "Morality"?

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

You'll have to bear with me, this subject matter lends itself to misinterpretations and it's easy to mistakenly believe that a person is making the argument you are used to seeing, rather than the argument actually made.

Ah . . . I knew there had to be a reason.

Why does it presuppose a "purpose-giver", and why couldn't that "purpose-giver" be each individual sentient creature? (Why can't we give ourselves a purpose?)

We can . . . but it has jack all to do with there being a raison d'etre for the existence of humanity and life itself . . . which is controlling. Logic is grossly violated when a premise of NO raison d'etre is used to defend violations of our raison d'etre.

It seems to me that you simply prefer "God as purpose-giver" over other logical alternatives. That's your right, but that doesn't mean there aren't alternatives possible sans God - the most important being the royal you.

And just to make sure we aren't engaged in circular reasoning, could you give me your definition of "Morality"?

I suspect you have discerned it from the preceding . . . but morality defines what is constructive to the raison d'etre for human existence and life itself. Violations of morality are those things that are destructive.

[agnostic soldier]

Hello everyone, I have just come to a great and awesome realization-I am the one true god, supreme ruler, lord and creator of the universe. My command is this-to live a moral life, you must follow my 10 commandments:

1. Do not pray for it will annoy me.

2. Do not spend time pursueing an afterlife for it will waste this life.

3. Sex between consenting adults is good.

4. Be good to others and strive to live as peaceful a life as possible.

5. I do not give purpose or meaning to others. Individuals create them for themselves.

6. Do not worship me.

7. Science and philosophy are the ultimate sources of objective truth.

8. Think for yourself. Don't become a sheeple and let others do the thinking for you.

9. Humans are neither worthless nor vile sinners. Such beliefs are corrupt and wicked.

10. Most importantly-live well, laugh often and love much.

Given the fact that I am a transcendent being, these commandments are thus transcendent morals. Therefore, those whom live a life without believing I am god are following a life based on self interest. Morality would therefore become pointless and arbitrary.

[Boxcar Overkill]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Ah . . . I knew there had to be a reason.We can . . . but it has jack all to do with there being a raison d'etre for the existence of humanity and life itself . . . which is controlling. Logic is grossly violated when a premise of NO raison d'etre is used to defend violations of our raison d'etre.I suspect you have discerned it from the preceding . . . but morality defines what is constructive to the raison d'etre for human existence and life itself. Violations of morality are those things that are destructive.

If you define morality as "that which is constructive to the reason we exist," than certainly one could say that we have no morality if we have no reason to exist.

But I have a few issues with that.

First, it's not a standard definition of morality. You are free to use it, but when other people talk about morality, they usually are talking about a code of conduct defining right and wrong. There are several theories of morality that don't rely on a reason for existing.

Second, the reasoning is circular.

Third, it presuppose (or implies at least) that without a God concept one can't have a reason to exist.

Fourth, even assuming the existence of a God, I can't think of a reason that I should prefer God's purpose of my life above my own purpose for my life.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

Murder is wrong by definition.

The definition of a murder is a wrongful killing.

That is not the definition of murder, that is the definition of negligent homicide.

Murder is the taking of life with malice aforethought, for profit, for gain, or for any personal reason.

Killing is simply the act of taking a life. It is usually done unintentionally, by accident, or some form of negligence that is not culpable.

If you're driving down the road and you sneeze, and your car drifts left of center and strikes a car causing the death of seven members of the Smith family, then you have killed them, but you did not murder them.

Even so, that doesn't rise to the level of negligent homicide, unless you happened to be drunk at the time, or your were snorting cocaine and that caused you to sneeze, in which you'd be culpable and a charge of negligent homicide is proper, although it still isn't murder.

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

However, just which killings are wrongful and which killings are not wrongful is the question.

Well, no, it isn't a question at all. You've created an oxymoron for the purpose of obfuscation.

The definitions we use are the definitions employed since time immemorial.

To slay means to take a life under the authority of a state, whether that is the execution of a prisoner convicted of a capital crime or soldier taking the life of another soldier in combat.

To kill means to take life accidentally or by justifiable means, which have also been established since time immemorial, that is you may take a life to defend yourself, to defend another or to defend your property.

To murder means to take a life with malice aforethought, for one's own personal profit, gain or advantage.

The fact that Quakers and Pacifists have adopted an absurd position which is selfish and immature does not change the definitions, even though it is true that there is no concomitant obligation. You may defend yourself without penalty if you wish, but you aren't required to do so.

The prohibitions against murder are Absolute. You may never murder at no time ever.

The prohibition against killing is not Absolute, nor can it be. No one plans to back their car out of a drive-way or parking space and strike a passing bicyclist or pedestrian.

No one plans to drop a 2 x 4 so that it strikes a worker on a scaffold and knocks him off the scaffolding so that he falls 15 stories to his death.

Those are accidents, and that's why they are called accidents. Murder is preventable, while killing is not.

Originally Posted by Boxcar Overkill

Similarly, stealing is self-defined as a wrongful taking of another's property. But which takings are wrongful and which are not... that is the problem.

Stealing is another Moral Absolute. You may never steal at any time ever. There's no such thing as a "lawful theft."