Morals without God?

Why is everyone assuming it is one or t'other?

Could they have not run in sync? For instance, when cave men stopped bashing in each other's brains, they began to develop a society, perhaps by appointing a ruler (or appointing himself). In order to function together, live and survive together they needed rules. To justify these rules, they simultaneously looked to a higher power (as well as justifying their existence etc.)

You do not have to be religious in order to have morals. Religious believers simply have a divine authority to guide and reassure them in the absolute. Atheistic, or agnostic moralists, simply look to other means of justifying the morals they have presented.

[QUOTE="redstorm72"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

The intial wrong and violation of the marriage arrangement has to be answered.

GazaAli

Ever heard the saying "two wrongs don't make a right"?

No it does not. You would be right in punishing the person who kills another. Either as a deterrent from him killing again, or as an example to others, or to fulfilled the justice deserved enacted by the society. You would be wrong to punish when it no longer becomes a matter of justice, but of vegeance or passionate hatred, which is how the west view the act of stoning because it is so barbaric.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="hartsickdiscipl"]

Let me put this simply- I would much rather God personally enforce his own laws by smiting sinners. However, if God's law (not the US law, not my state's law, not Chinese law, etc..) tells me to do it, I'll do it. There is no contradiction there. If I was told by God to punish a sinner, and I do it.. that's God's will being carried out through me. Not the will of man, but the will of God.

There's nothing contradictory about it. I seriously doubt if I'll ever by personally called-upon to strike down some sinners. Our society doesn't live under God's laws any more. They are based on and extrapolated on from the original laws passed down to us from God, but they are twisted and convoluted now.

hartsickdiscipl

Nope, sorry, it's completely contradictory. Especially from someone who claims to be a Christian. Christ taught love, forgivness, and compassion. You seem to be filled with bloodlust and hatred.

Did I say that I'm going to stone an adulterer? No.. but if Christ was ever in a position where God's law required him to do so, I'm sure he would have. Yes, he preached compassion and leading by example.. but bad things happen. Christ wasn't one of the high priests in his ancient Isreal, so he wouldn't have been called upon to enact these types of laws anyways. Relevant details my friend.

I have a few problems with what you are saying...

Are you not merely a tool to heaven's tyranny? Do you have no desire for freedom?

I am going to make a presumption that you are a sinner, as everyone sins, do not dare to claim that you have never sinned, and ask this,
If God asked you to smite a particular sinner, as you'd like, so it seems, and that sinner turned out to be you, would you do it? And by smite, God asked you to kill yourself.

Do you not see what your line of thought reaches... it is a paradoxical conquest. If God fulfilled his will in regards to morality, there would be no such thing as morals, because we'd all being doing exactly as God demanded. If we were not doing as he commanded, he would not be omnipotent, and consequently, not a God.

So, you are proposing God smites sinners in a limited way... but again, paradoxically, why would God be limited in smiting the few...

Surely, therefore, God has granted us free will, if you believe in God (which i don't), in order for morals to exist. Otherwise, you'd would never have known sinners had sinned.

You say Christ would have stoned an adulter HAD he been commanded, that is exactly the point. He was not commanded, because denying free will would be immoral, as it destroys any sense of morality we could have. So, we are granted free will, in order to guide us, Christian morality formulated.

I don't believe in any divine law giver, but i cannot help but feel as though your argument is very flawed, and that you become narrow minded when it suits you because you cannot specify any other suitable answer.

Another point the article makes is that science is not and shouldn't be concerned with regarding what is good morality and what is not. That's the problem of atheism because many atheists think science can give them all the answers when the purpose of science is not that, so atheists end up treating science like a religion which is as bad as treating religion likes a science.kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Another point the article makes is that science is not and shouldn't be concerned with regarding what is good morality and what is not. That's the problem of atheism because many atheists think science can give them all the answers when the purpose of science is not that, so atheists end up treating science like a religion which is as bad as treating religion likes a science.StopThePresses

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Another point the article makes is that science is not and shouldn't be concerned with regarding what is good morality and what is not. That's the problem of atheism because many atheists think science can give them all the answers when the purpose of science is not that, so atheists end up treating science like a religion which is as bad as treating religion likes a science.StopThePresses

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]Another point the article makes is that science is not and shouldn't be concerned with regarding what is good morality and what is not. That's the problem of atheism because many atheists think science can give them all the answers when the purpose of science is not that, so atheists end up treating science like a religion which is as bad as treating religion likes a science.Xx_Hopeless_xX

I couldn't get the link to come up so I was unable to read it. Just going by your post, It seems kind of obvious to me anyone can have good morals. You do not have to be religious to have good morals. You can be Agnostic and have good morals. You can be Atheist and have good morals. You can be Christian, Muslim, Catholic, Baptist, and any other religious belief and have good morals.

With that said, I see no reason to become an Agnostic or Atheist. I used to be an Agnostic many years ago and decided to become a Christian. I'm not a Christian because I have to be, or because I need good morals, or any other reason similar to those. I'm a Christian because I want to be and I honestly strongly believe God does exist and Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Savior.

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] This is just as bad as what he stated...Xx_Hopeless_xX

This is a thread about religion. If people don't want to see other people's opinion on the matter then they shouldn't open it. It's not like I just walked up to some random person and told them their religion is b.s.

With that said, I see no reason to become an Agnostic or Atheist. I used to be an Agnostic many years ago and decided to become a Christian. I'm not a Christian because I have to be, or because I need good morals, or any other reason similar to those. I'm a Christian because I want to be and I honestly strongly believe God does exist and Jesus Christ is the Son of God and our Savior.

GTbiking4life

Personally, I don't see a reason to believe in religion, but I respect your faith, especially since your morals don't seem to rely on a "healthy fear of God".

Your post encompassed every religion and basically said that every poster on here who is religious believes in some false, absurd and imagined deity...in a manner that lacked any semblance of respect towards others beliefs..so yes it is absurd as you posted it in response to a statement that you believed was just as absurd..there's no proof of God or the Gods..but there's also no proof that they don't exist..

How do atheists treat science like a religion? Religion is entirely antithetical to the scientific method. Religion is mostly just believing something that sounds far-fetched just because some random people wrote it down a long time ago and other people decided that it sounds nice.

StopThePresses

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]You're hilarious..you attack him for his statement by making a statement of equal absurdity..In addition to this you're being disrespectful in regards to people's religious beliefs..Xx_Hopeless_xX

This is a thread about religion. If people don't want to see other people's opinion on the matter then they shouldn't open it. It's not like I just walked up to some random person and told them their religion is b.s.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"] I don't find it to be absurd at all, and I also don't put "religious" beliefs up on some untouchable pedestal. Beliefs are beliefs. Something is either true or it isn't. I don't care if the beliefs are about some beings, real or imaginary, who are apparently defined as "good" just because they have more power, or if they are about who had the best selling album last week.

This is a thread about religion. If people don't want to see other people's opinion on the matter then they shouldn't open it. It's not like I just walked up to some random person and told them their religion is b.s.

StopThePresses

The point is that stating every religion is absurd and nonsensical is hardly respectful and it is indeed absurd as a response to the other posters statement as no one can prove Gods existence nor could anyone disprove it unless you supply evidence that states otherwise..

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] Your post encompassed every religion and basically said that every poster on here who is religious believes in some false, absurd and imagined deity...in a manner that lacked any semblance of respect towards others beliefs..so yes it is absurd as you posted it in response to a statement that you believed was just as absurd..there's no proof of God or the Gods..but there's also no proof that they don't exist..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

The point is that stating every religion is absurd and nonsensical is hardly respectful and it is indeed absurd as a response to the other posters statement as no one can prove Gods existence nor could anyone disprove it unless you supply evidence that states otherwise..

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"] Okay, if you want to play these silly games, I can play along: Prove that there is no proof that they don't exist. StopThePresses

The point is that stating every religion is absurd and nonsensical is hardly respectful and it is indeed absurd as a response to the other posters statement as no one can prove Gods existence nor could anyone disprove it unless you supply evidence that states otherwise..

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] Uh no sorry but the burden of proof is on you..as you stated originally that they don't exist in a definitive sense..Referring back to your statement that "Religion is mostly just believing something that sounds far-fetched just because some random people wrote it down a long time ago and other people decided that it sounds nice."..and if there's no proof in regards to the non-existence of God/the Gods then how exactly would one go about proving there's no proof anyway?..

The point is that stating every religion is absurd and nonsensical is hardly respectful and it is indeed absurd as a response to the other posters statement as no one can prove Gods existence nor could anyone disprove it unless you supply evidence that states otherwise..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

You're the one who changed the subject to some perception of a claim that I never even made that there definitely cannot be any gods, so here we are: Your claim is that no proof exists. You actually made that claim explicitly. It wasn't something I simply imagined was in your post like what you did with mine. So, prove your claim.

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"][QUOTE="StopThePresses"] You said there is no proof that they don't exist, which really had nothing at all to do with what I posted, but I'm holding you to you own standards: Prove that no such proof exists.StopThePresses

You're the one who changed the subject to some perception of a claim that I never even made that there definitely cannot be any gods, so here we are: Your claim is that no proof exists. You actually made that claim explicitly. It wasn't something I simply imagined was in your post like what you did with mine. So, prove your claim.

You did in fact make the claim..you stated that religions are mostly far fetched and absurd and people follow them because they think they sound nice..

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"] It has everything to do with what you posted..you CANNOT possibly state in a definitive sense that they do not exist..and my standards?...What the hell are you talking about?..You're stating that all religions are made up and that God DEFINITELY does not exist..what are you basing your statement on exactly?..You're personal opinion on the subject?...Xx_Hopeless_xX

You're the one who changed the subject to some perception of a claim that I never even made that there definitely cannot be any gods, so here we are: Your claim is that no proof exists. You actually made that claim explicitly. It wasn't something I simply imagined was in your post like what you did with mine. So, prove your claim.

You did in fact make the claim..you stated that religions are mostly far fetched and absurd and people follow them because they think they sound nice..

Morals can easily be explained by biology. Eu socialism creates certain "morals" in species which would gain it an evolutionary advantage, aka "Not killing your kin is beneficial for gene propagation."HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"] Well, here is the thing: Actually, I did not say that it is definitely the case the no gods exist YEs, actually you did..when you stated that religions are mostly made up/far fetched and followed by those who think they sound nice.., but nevertheless you took it upon yourself to tell me that there is no proof of that. What I said regarded what the foundation of the belief is. Whether you agree with that or not is besides the point, because that is not what you went on about.

You're the one who changed the subject to some perception of a claim that I never even made that there definitely cannot be any gods, so here we are: Your claim is that no proof exists. You actually made that claim explicitly. It wasn't something I simply imagined was in your post like what you did with mine. So, prove your claim.

StopThePresses

You did in fact make the claim..you stated that religions are mostly far fetched and absurd and people follow them because they think they sound nice..

[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Morals can easily be explained by biology. Eu socialism creates certain "morals" in species which would gain it an evolutionary advantage, aka "Not killing your kin is beneficial for gene propagation."alexside1

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"][QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]

You did in fact make the claim..you stated that religions are mostly far fetched and absurd and people follow them because they think they sound nice..

Xx_Hopeless_xX

Yes, I said that is why people believe in them. I didn't say that necessarily means that no gods exist.

Now, how about that proof?

Stop with the proof thing...It's obvious if no proof exists then there can't be any proof that proof does not exist..

But you stated people that believe in the Gods are doing so on the basis created by far fetched beliefs..

Two problems:

1. Even if all religions are wrong, that still doesn't mean that NO gods exist.

2. "Far-fetched" does not mean "false," and probably my idea of using that word was to avoid the exact kind of silly argument that you made out of it anyway. If I told you that I personally knew some guy who could walk on plain water with no technological aid, you'd probably say that sounded far-fetched. Just because some people decide that it was true in some particular instance does not make such a tale inherently less unlikely sounding in general.

It's obvious if no proof exists then there can't be any proof that proof does not exist..Xx_Hopeless_xX

[QUOTE="alexside1"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"]Morals can easily be explained by biology. Eu socialism creates certain "morals" in species which would gain it an evolutionary advantage, aka "Not killing your kin is beneficial for gene propagation."HoolaHoopMan

[QUOTE="Xx_Hopeless_xX"]It's obvious if no proof exists then there can't be any proof that proof does not exist..StopThePresses

ITS OBVIOUS that a person CAN'T demand people to disprove something that has never been PROVEN to begin with...

I have more morals than most religious people. Religious people hate gays and childrens books and I think both of them are pretty alright.\\ also I've never murdered anyoneWontonSoupSwag

LOL, this thread got pretty loony. :lol:

You can be moral without being religious.Logan1616

[QUOTE="Logan1616"]You can be moral without being religious.Darkainious

No, it really isn't.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Another point the article makes is that science is not and shouldn't be concerned with regarding what is good morality and what is not. That's the problem of atheism because many atheists think science can give them all the answers when the purpose of science is not that, so atheists end up treating science like a religion which is as bad as treating religion likes a science.StopThePresses

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]Another point the article makes is that science is not and shouldn't be concerned with regarding what is good morality and what is not. That's the problem of atheism because many atheists think science can give them all the answers when the purpose of science is not that, so atheists end up treating science like a religion which is as bad as treating religion likes a science.kuraimen

Morals is way different if you believe in God than if you don't.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="StopThePresses"] How do atheists treat science like a religion? Religion is entirely antithetical to the scientific method. Religion is mostly just believing something that sounds far-fetched just because some random people wrote it down a long time ago and other people decided that it sounds nice.

StopThePresses

Not just Dawkins but every supporter of evolution has been attacked by creationists. The time they waste defending against people who don't listen is up to them. Stephen J. Gould got attacked quite often and he defended himself yet he never fell into the obnoxious self-righteous preaching Dawkins fell into and that he responded with a mixture of pseudoscience and arrogance. For me Dawkins didn't really care about science or truth but he cares a lot about selling books, that's why he spent so much time responding to creationists, it is a way to secure several bestsellers in the US. Gould was a real scientist, Dawkins is a pseudoscientific religious douche and he thinks himself as somekind of prophet IMO.

[QUOTE="StopThePresses"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] Take Richard Dawkins the father of atheism right now. He treats his believe in that there's no God as a complete unquestionable truth when science is not even capable of proving that. Therefore his believe is an act of faith just like in a religion the existence of a God is an act of faith. He preaches about this believe of his and he has followers and others who support his stance and preach about it as prophets. He calls himself a scientist and defends the idea that science has the answers for everything while there's no prove to that either. He preaches about his "selfish gene" like it is the absolute truth about human nature but there's no real science in that. He treats what he calls science like a religion that revolves around the believe of a lack of existence of a God but it has little to do with what science should be about.kuraimen

Not just Dawkins but every supporter of evolution has been attacked by creationists. The time they waste defending against people who don't listen is up to them. Stephen J. Gould got attacked quite often and he defended himself yet he never fell into the obnoxious self-righteous preaching Dawkins fell into and that he responded with a mixture of pseudoscience and arrogance. For me Dawkins didn't really care about science or truth but he cares a lot about selling books, that's why he spent so much time responding to creationists, it is a way to secure several bestsellers in the US. Gould was a real scientist, Dawkins is a pseudoscientific religious douche and he thinks himself as somekind of prophet IMO.

You do not have to be an adherent to dogmatic BS to understand that benevolence/philanthropy is the best course of action.

Morals are for the weak.

The first part of you post proves my point. I believe according to my Islamic belief that stealing is stealing, whether its a penny or a free laptop. Also, atheists and other "branches" of atheism should learn to stop telling people they are being fooled and they are being terrorized. If we want to be fooled and live in fear let us be.GazaAli