Can morality exist without religion?
>>842109
Christianity pretends to be a religion. In reality it is a political ideology.
>>842109
Yes. Morality is the subsequent suspension of society's virtues acting as a quintessential reminder of value.
A moral society can exist without religion.
>>842109
No shit Sherlock
>>842121
But is it a moral ideology?
>>842145
The undeniable fact about Judeo-Christianity is that it is ABSOLUTELY devoid of morality. It only has blind obedience. The glorification of God is not only the highest value, it is the ONLY value. Human suffering and misery are not even a consideration.
>>842168
But does it produce a moral society if it is upheld absolutely?
Also how does one quantify what is moral or immoral without a religious standard?
>>842109
You mean like in the absence of religion like it went away or in the state of religion never came into existence?
>>842201
>if it is upheld absolutely?
You mean as in Theocracy?
Well, it's kinda nice if you happen to follow the state religion. I wouldn't call Saudia Arabia a moral society just on their treatment of women alone.
>Also how does one quantify what is moral or immoral without a religious standard?
Assessment of unnecessary harm.
Would you sell you recently raped daughter back to the rapist? Because that the Biblical standard to apply.
>>842121
>Christianity pretends to be a religion.
No op we're obviously incapable of understanding that right > wrong without the Almighty Skyfaggot
>>842404
>understanding that right > wrong
everybody knows this. the question is what do you put behind these words.
>>842411
Which is basically what morality is--putting meaning, justification, parameters, etc. behind right and wrong
If OP wanted to ask a legitimate question, it would be, "could the morality we see as right be the same without religion?"
>>842109
Obviously.
Have you really never met an atheist with a conscience, empathy, and moral code?
This is a silly question really.
Morality was stronger before the age of Christianity
>>842109
It can and it does. Nobody truly gets his morality from their religion or holy texts. More so the project their morality onto them and then circle-jerk back and claim the opposite.
Take Christianity/the Bible.
If you were to get your morals from scripture than there would be no need to distinguish between the morals you accept and the ones you reject. But you do, as matter of fact, pick and choose from the Bible based on an independent/outside morality.
Nobody really kills their neighbor for gathering sticks on the Sabbath, do they?
>>842109
>Can morality exist without religion?
No
>>842798
Do you mean objective or subjective?
>>842109
How can anyone ask this. Of course it can exist without religion.
You have to actively avoid public school and never read a single text on ethics to come to ask this question. You have to go on with your life avoiding words such as "utilitarianism", "virtue ethics" and the like to make sure you stay wilfully ignorant. Someone must have given you a list of words, without explaining them, and then told you to turn off the screen or close the book once one of em are mentioned.
Do people like this think that a university course on ethics is "Do God exist 101" or something?
>>842109
Yes. 'Morality' predates religion.
>>842411
>the question is what do you put behind these words.
Pick up a book about ethics m8, it shouldn't be hard.
Today there are 3 ethical systems that stand out, utilitarianism, deontology and virtue ethics.
Just read about them.
>>842820
No it doesn't.
Morality predates monotheism. Polytheistic religious practices have, as far as speculated prehistory goes, always existed concurrently with the prototypic concept of morality.
The morals most religions hold to be true can be arrived at without the belief in supernatural forces.
Reciprocationalism, consequentialism, game theory, etc...
These all arrive at the same conclusions "rational" morality does.
Let's be honest, morality may exist without religion but if you have faith in God, God gives you directions as a moral authority.
Isn't this more beneficial than utilitarianism? First, belief in a moral authority, regardless of the morals explicitly stated implies that the virtue of faith is upheld.
>>843135
>Let's be honest, morality may exist without religion but if you have faith in God, God gives you directions as a moral authority.
>Isn't this more beneficial than utilitarianism?
Not necessarily, no.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/gemma-simpson-death-man-admits-4815482
The truth is that claiming your morals are based on God is the most arbitrary and subjective system of morality of all.
>>843154
Except that God is real. Enjoy hell.
>>843167
Evidence? The fact that the abrahamic perfect God idea is unfalsiable means discussing it is pointless.
>>843154
You're trying to make a point by using an example of a person who was deeply mentally ill. That's very cheap of you.
>>843172
You're asking for evidence of something. Evidence can only be provided for things which exist in the material world. God or Hell neither exist solely in the material world, so to ask for evidence of either thing would logically speaking be a cop out.
It all boils down to a matter of whether or not you constantly need the crutch of the empirical world to understand reality. The truth has it that the empirical world of reality is but a shell.
>>843135
>god gives you a moral authority
do u even euthyphro dilemma
>>843190
You can make a dilemma out of literally anything.
It's all about selecting which things are important to take apart.
Why would you want to take apart something like moral authority? Makes sense on paper, but in reality what that equates to is standing somewhere really high up and removing the object upon which you are standing. What happens then? You plummet to your death.
>Christian/muslim/jewish """""morality""""""""""
>>842109
Yes but religion could not exist without morality.
>>843180
>You're trying to make a point by using an example of a person who was deeply mentally ill. That's very cheap of you.
The point is a philosophical one. If you're claiming morals come from God then how do you know God was not speaking to him?
>>843248
>If you're claiming morals come from God then how do you know God was not speaking to him?
That's a non sequitur if I've ever seen one.
Why would morals coming from God have anything to do with a mentally ill person exhibiting a mentally ill behaviour/action? There is no link there.
>>842109
Can this cock commander exist without semen?
>>843274
They're claiming God told them to do it. Who are you to decide what God does and does not do and what he thinks is moral. Who are you to sit in judgement on God? Who are you to declare his prophet mentally ill?
It doesn't sound like you are basing your idea of morality on God at all but on modern notions of morality and modern knowledge of mental illness.
>People need a higher power to stay moral
These people are probably psychos desu.
>>843302
You're not too bright are you?
Equating the divine with what is clearly a case of mental illness is the absolute crudest point you could make. To the point where it's no longer an argument and it instead says everything about your personal failure as an individual.
No one has said
>Define morality
Is morality unwritten/written laws within society to make it function? Is morality concept of some actions being better than others? Can morality be calculated? Is doing morally bad things allowed if the outcome is morally positive?
>>843322
>he fell for the 'define x before you attempt to speak sense of it' meme
>>843310
I see you just want to ignore the point by whining pitifully, there are many other examples I could use including ones from the Bible or the Koran.
Claiming morality comes from God is entirely arbitrary. Anyone can claim any morality anyone can justify any action by saying it comes from God and they have just as sound a basis for doing it as anyone else claiming their morality and actions are guided by God.
In theory and practice it is the most subjective way of determining morality there is.
>>842109
>don't murder people daily
>call yourselves moral
yeah ok
>>842109
>>843310
>The divine
>Mental illness
How do you distinguish the two?
Do you just feel it intuitively?
Does a burning bush tell you which is which?
>>843108
Wrong communities formed before any religion. There needed to be a social contract before getting together hence morality.
>>843335
Whinging pitifully? I'm just calling you out on being the bad person that you are. Look at how little you understand. How little shame you have and how little you care about the consequences of your beliefs.
>Claiming morality comes from God is entirely arbitrary.
Let me clue you in on something. The reason why you feel that morality coming from God is so arbitrary is because it is the exact opposite of arbitrary. First wrap your head around that and then we can have a discussion. Otherwise you aren't on the same page.
God is the Absolute. You are simply mistaking the Absolute for the everything, or specifically, the anything.
>>843377
My entire point is that claiming morality comes from God is entirely arbitrary.
Unless you are claiming to speak personally to God you have no way of knowing what he wants and therefore no way of knowing whether anyone else's morality that may differ from yours comes from God.
And if you are claiming that God speaks to you personally and tells you what is moral then maybe it is you who is mentally ill.
What you are going to have to wrap your head around, my poor little lamb, is that in theory and practice claiming morality comes from God is the most subjective way of determining morality there is.
>>843393
God speaks to all humans. If I'm in a crowded room and somebody speaks to me, how do you figure it is only I who will hear? It is whoever pays attention. Whoever listens.
So why do you deny God from your life? When the choice is between listening and ignoring.
>>843398
>Two people claim to hear gods words
>What they hear both conflict and they kill each other.
God is a dick apparently.
>>843398
You haven't even been able to come close to answering my point and now you're just trying to change the subject.
If two people completely disagree on a moral issue and both start stamping their little feet and throwing a tantrum about how their morality is absolute because it is from God then who is right?
>>843407
Death is a part of life. You live in a perverse, sheltered world where this attempts to be untrue, and that results in perverse, cancers of belief like what allows you to say what you have said.
You will be judged by your beliefs and intentions, not your actions or character.
>>843398
>Literally indistinguishable from schizophrenia or other auditory hallucinations
How is your criticism of using the mentally ill as an example valid again?
>>843418
Your beliefs and intentions are a part of your character, though.
>>843415
Not so much trying to change the subject, but trying to elevate it from meaningless quibble to some sort of worth.
>>843421
>Literally indistinguishable from schizophrenia or other auditory hallucinations
So, are you admitting to being schizophrenic? Otherwise how would you know?
>>843427
No, your character is a result of your beliefs and intentions.
>All this fucking armchair philosophy/theology
Good grief.
>>843437
What else is this board for if not that?
>>843446
He's just intimidated because he realises if he entered the discourse at this moment he'd be eaten alive.
>>843434
>Not so much trying to change the subject, but trying to elevate it from meaningless quibble to some sort of worth.
Kek. Sure anon.
Now that we have comprehensively proven and agreed that claiming morality comes from God is subjective and arbitrary. We can leave it there.
I've given you enough chances to give a sensible respone so I'll let you have a last pitiful bleat in reply.
>>843434
>So, are you admitting to being schizophrenic? Otherwise how would you know?
Hearing something that isn't visibly there, that can't be measured and that no one else can hear is an auditory hallucination or otherwise is something imagined.
How would you distinguish schizophrenia or auditory hallucinations from "Hearing god" because it seems indistinguishable.
>>843455
>Eaten alive
>By religious sophistry and potentially even religious solipsism if this thread keeps going
>>842430
The rise of atheism is correlated with a decline in morals.
Promiscuity is much bigger right now than it was a few decades ago.
>>843455
Yes that's the case, I mean look at the comments here:
>So why do you deny God from your life? When the choice is between listening and ignoring.
>The reason why you feel that morality coming from God is so arbitrary is because it is the exact opposite of arbitrary. First wrap your head around that and then we can have a discussion
>Except that God is real. Enjoy hell.
I've seen Merry-go-rounds that are less circular than these arguments.
>>843446
I don't know, could we be adults for a second? And when you have an opinion, your argument shouldn't be on level "Look God is real because God is real"
And just generally stop trolling every second... /His/ has good threads too! Let's not waste it on shit like this.
>>843480
>The rise of atheism is correlated with a decline in morals.
And still we live in era where you are least likely to die because of violence, if you are poor you more safety nets than ever, certain people aren't considered goods. Or at least most of the civilized nations live in.
Those seem pretty positive moral traits to me.
>Promiscuity
You would need to point how is that a negative trait. Murder can be argued to be a negative moral action as it takes life from someone, and no one can have right to life of other person.
>>842109
Of course. Morality cannot exist, however, without God. Without God, there is no objective basis for morality.
Just look at atheistanon above, who's not sure if murder is evil or not.
>>843457
>God is subjective and arbitrary
>for literally the past two millennia it's been the going rate that God is interchangeable with objectivity
>some 20 year old NEET weeb on 4chan who stays inside all day rotting his brain with video games has something to say about that
>>843481
>Except that God is real. Enjoy hell.
I was not the person who posted that.
Circular reasoning is only invalid in first order logic. Natural language exists at a pace higher than that of the first order.
>And when you have an opinion, your argument shouldn't be on level "Look God is real because God is real"
Has it ever occurred to you that when you feel like people are saying or doing this, they aren't actually doing it, and that it's your own refusal to let what they're saying in (exactly like a child), which gives to the illusion of this?
Murder was seen as evil in olden times because we focused on the bigger picture. We became civilised and made it a relative non issue, but we have also lost track of the bigger picture. When the bigger picture has been forgotten, promiscuity becomes more evil than murder.
>>843497
>You would need to point how is that a negative trait. Murder can be argued to be a negative moral action as it takes life from someone, and no one can have right to life of other person.
And this is an example of falling morality,
PROTIP: There is more to morals than "whatever directly harms others is morally wrong"
>>843210
What the fuck man. Start taking your life at least a little bit serious.
>>842109
Many atheists seem to think moral realism is obvious, and easy to prove. I disagree.
Consider the claim moral realists are making. They generally claim there are invisible properties in the world not detectable by our usual tools of science, properties of an entirely different sort than the usual “is” facts of science.
These are mysterious “ought” facts, and there is great disagreement about what they are or how we know them.
Now that is a strong claim.
An extraordinary claim, we might say. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, right?
So what is the atheist’s extraordinary evidence for this claim? Usually, it’s something like this:
“I experience a world of moral facts. I feel very strongly that rape is objectively wrong, and charity is objectively right.”
“Almost everybody believes in moral facts. It’s just obvious. Until you can prove there aren’t any, I’m justified in believing what people have always believed: that some things are really right or wrong.”
Do those arguments look familiar? They should.
Atheists are skeptical of these arguments when given for the existence of God, but they are credulous and gullible toward these arguments when you replace the word ‘God’ with another mysterious thing called ‘moral facts.’
>>843556
What are you saying?
>>843466
I would distinguish it by hearing God and no one else. That is faith. Hearing anything else is an auditory hallucination.
When it comes to hearing God, it's all about prayer, supplication, and love.
>>843544
Not only something to say, but thinks he gets to vote on the matter. It's preposterous.
>>843584
Er, there are other supernatural beings than God who talk to people, and more directly, implant thoughts into people's minds.
>>843544
>Has it ever occurred to you that when you feel like people are saying or doing this, they aren't actually doing it, and that it's your own refusal to let what they're saying in
Do enlighten me
>The reason why you feel that morality coming from God is so arbitrary is because it is the exact opposite of arbitrary. First wrap your head around that and then we can have a discussion
What part of that is good argumentation?
It is basically saying, "You just don't get it". It doesn't give any arguments why God is opposite of arbitrary, apart from "First wrap around that your head", which in itself isn't an argument but just a way to say "I don't need to explain because I can't".
>>843547
Yes but then you need to show me what are those and why? You can't say something is morally good without offering me reason why it is that way. Is eating pork immoral? Vegans and Muslims think it is, why don't majority of west?
I am willing to listen, but if you keep chanting "look how immoral everything is" but never provide me with any examples and reasoning why they are immoral. It's hard for me to take you seriously.
>>843584
>You can't hallucinate or imagine having heard god
>Ever
>>843560
>Strawman
>>843544
>for literally the past two millennia it's been the going rate that God is interchangeable with objectivity
That doesn't make it right though.
Moreover god hasn't personally arbitrated any morals ever.
It's all in books written by other men or has been supposedly said by other men.
Refer again to the auditory hallucination bit and take it with a grain of "People are capable of lying about god".
>>842109
There are all kinds of people with all kinds of morality systems. They're all equally annoying, religious or not.
>>843602
It's good argumentation in that, apart from me not explaining it, it simply CANNOT be explained, and I'm giving you way more than I should in telling you to try to understand it for yourself.
>>843625
John 10:27
My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me.
(It's only sheep and goats. Those are your two picks. You don't get to be a lion. You're just a goat.)
>>843625
Hypothetically if you did hallucinate hearing God, would he really tell you to kill someone as previously stated? Obviously not
This thread is one of the best I've seen in a while since you are tackling the ties of Faith, direction, and morality
>>843631
But if my understanding is that God doesn't speak to me, God doesn't give us morals. Religion and morality is completely different concepts which answer different question. One isn't required for another. And our morals stem from the age we live in and the common concept of good society accepts, which can be influenced by many things, including religion (in good and in bad).
>>843625
>>Strawman
>muh appeal to stone fallacy
>>843665
But did God write His laws in your heart, and give you a conscience to know right from wrong? Did your ancestors gain the knowledge of good and evil?
See, because I know God, I know that what you're doing and thinking cannot be undone from the reality in which you live, and on the actions God and others have taken on you.
You cannot be a moral island; you cannot govern morality from a lateral position.
Morality can only be determined, and enforced, from the top down.
>>843652
You know quoting "the word of God" from someone that doesn't think your God exists is probably the dumbest argument you could think of.
Imagine if a Hindu quoted his Veda's to try to convince you of one his doctrines. Would you accept that as a good reason?
>>843625
Those books were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God; it's fair to say the bible is from God, to you. He'll back up everything in it.
>>843681
He/you wanted to know how we knew it was God's voice.
That's how.
>>843681
If the Hindu vedas weren't good enough for the buddha, and the buddha is not good enough for me, why would the Hindu vedas be good enough for me?
>>843652
>John
Again.
How is this different from a hallucination?
>>843663
God moves in mysterious ways and telling people to kill other people isn't exactly out of line with what god acts like and what he commands others to do in the bible I guess.
If I actively believed that god talked to me I could easily rationalize god telling me to kill.
Of course because I both don't actively believe that and because I'm not insane I wouldn't ever do that.
I feel like I have to clarify that since you or someone in this thread has a habit of taking thought experiments, hypotheticals and the like literally.
>>843674
Sorry. I overlooked the "many" at the start of your argument.
I just meant that not everyone believes there is absolute morality to be found.
>>843682
Which version? Which books?
And why should I take the books word that it was divinely inspired? That's just circular reasoning.
>>843700
You're missing, or avoiding, or ignorant of, the inspiration of the Holy Spirit in all of the 40 or so authors of the 66 books of the bible, written over 1500 years.
John the beloved apostle definitely knew the voice of God, and God told John that all of His sheep know His voice.
If you do not know what the voice of God is, you are not one of His.
>>843663
He did exactly that at least once.
>>843684
Isn't this quoting the bible to prove the bible? Honestly I don't think there is any real way to prove John heard the voice of God instead of making it up, or hallucinating. Hell most scholars are skeptic that John even wrote the book and think someone else did it in his name.
>>843726
The truth is the same, whether it is written down or not.
All of these people so desperately fighting letting
God into their hearts are the truest of fools.
You lose everything. Gain nothing.
>>843743
The emptiest of rhetoric.
Morality exist in all human society. Some based their authority on god/religion. Other do it on law. Some do it on personal beliefs created by their own experience, etc.
Whats so hard about this concept? Its fucking universal to human society.
>>843706
M8 the Gospel of John doesn't even say who wrote it and it's likely multiple people had a hand in writing it.
Also.
>CIRCULAR
>REASONING
You are using the bible to prove the bible.
>>843726
No one did it in his name the Gospel just states that it's from "The disciple whom Jesus loved".
Attribution to John is, like all the other Gospel attributions, unfounded and traditional.
>>843663
If you were hallucinating, you would not be hearing from God, so your question is kind of pointless.
If you think God never ordered anyone killed, you need to start reading the bible.
>>843680
See that's the circular reasoning I was talking about. It leads to nowhere. We are still in the position of not knowing what constitutes a good moral nor why. What makes morals from a God good? What makes God good? There have been evil gods throughout history, why couldn't christian God be evil?
>>843700
>And why should I take the books word that it was divinely inspired? That's just circular reasoning.
The bible proves itself as the Word of God, as it is about 30% prophecy, and those prophecies come true 100% of the time. Only God knows the end from the beginning.
Only God can call the exact day He would enter Jerusalem, on the back of a colt, on the 10th of Nisan, to be examined by the priests, and sacrificed as the Lamb of God on Nisan 14, 32 AD.
483 years, to the day, that it was prophesied.
If you have Greek and Hebrew, read the manuscripts that we have in those languages. If you want an English version, the KJV and the NASB and the ESV are all good. I prefer the NKJV.
>>843743
Exactly. The "rational" people cling to a foolish worldview that has no upside, and an infinite downside.
I dislike how atheists want to dismiss visits from Gods and spirits as "mere hallucinations" if someone actually saw something so powerful it completly changed their life around (for instance Paul went from an anti-Christian to fully embracing after one vision) than they actually saw something.
You can not deny that they did indeed see something this is not "merely" a vision but something that was profound: Jung saw such things as not just 'accidents' or 'pointless imagery' but powerful psychic symbology, a connection to the deeper unconscious mind and hidden sensations that lay dorment.
Religious imagery need not be dismissed as superstition but should be understood as a psychological-sociological phenomena. These things are deeply part of us. To give an example Jung once described how one of his clients was a little girl no more than 8 years old. She had recurring and vivid dreams containing strange symbols neither she nor her family could understand. These were often associated with seemingly paradoxical mythological images such "Pagan dancers in heaven" and "angels doing good deeds in hell". Jung identified the images in her dreams as being obscure pagan symbols which she could not have possibly known about.
Today it is known that information can be transferred genetically. In other words religious symbols are literally part of our identity on a genetic level.
>>843750
John the beloved apostle wrote John. And 1, 2, and 3 John. And the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
You keep saying "circular reasoning" without any evidence.
The things in the bible are true because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, and He is truth.
I have no idea how you're fumbling your way through life without being able to tell what's true, and what's false. I suspect badly.
>>843757
There's nothing circular in there whatsoever. Maybe you're just dizzy.
>>843746
The ocean is empty to the fish.
>>843774
They don't know that their own worldview is naturalism, which rejects all things supernatural.
>>843789
>Where do we get morals
>From God
>What makes them good?
>Because they are from God
>How do we know they are from God?
>Because God tells me so
Every answer is the same, because God wills so (Deus Vult). For God to be a correct answer would require uniform idea of God and uniform understanding of Gods omnipotence, however if I am questioning it, it cannot be true.
So I ask you once again. Why are morals from God good and why should I follow them?
And answering "Listen to God he will tell you" isn't a proper answer and you know it.
>>843794
Pretty sure most atheists believe exactly that. Nothing to do with his post by the way.
>>843821
The apple is red.
Is that circular reasoning?
God is good.
Is that circular reasoning?
All things from God are good.
Is that circular reasoning?
>>843823
It's exactly relevant to why most atheists dismiss anything that can't be empirically studied by Scientism.
Fuck off with your left handed compliments.
>>843821
God cannot be good if you question whether or not He is good?
Are you a madman? How would you possibly have any effect on the nature and existence of God?
>>843829
Okay I admit, not necessary circular reasoning, but bad reasoning. Happy now?
Now can you answer my question and not nitpick?
>>843821
Ah, wait, I missed something. You said God cannot be omnipotent if He allows you to question Him.
You are trying to find out the balance between where God's sovereignty stops, and yours begins.
You have the right, and power, to question God, because God gave you that right, and that power, so that you could reject Him if that's your choice.
He created organic free will moral agents, not mechanical devices.
>>843794
It's more like they want to smash anything related to spirtuality.
Spirtual things can be highly naturalistic: for instance Jungian archtype might be explained by DNA and perhaps some theory about evolutionary advantage. It can also be idealistic with the spirit beings some sort of transcient metaphor that travels with us through culture and memory a sort of 'ghost of the collective unconscious'. It can than become supernatural if you suspect that people can 'tap into' this ghostly realm.
The point is no matter what package the spiritualism is in there are certain atheists that will point fingers at it and want to condemn it. With the information age in such an advanced state there are more ways of learning and conceiving of spiritual concepts.
>>843768
>The bible proves itself as the Word of God, as it is about 30% prophecy, and those prophecies come true 100% of the time.
Books that were written with full access to the prophecies that were cherrypicked.
Who would have thought they'd all come true in the bible?
>sacrificed as the Lamb of God on Nisan 14
Gospels disagree by one day. Synoptic Gospels place it a day later.
>>843785
It's never stated that John wrote John. Revelation was written by an entirely different John as well you fucking idiot.
>CIRCULAR REASONING
I literally don't need any evidence. You keep taking the writers in the bible on their word because they were divinely inspired but the proof that they were divinely inspired is their word.
Don't twist this with some logos bullshit.
>>843840
Sure.
As a Christian, I hold the belief that God is good; that the things of God are good; that anything in line with God's will is good; and that everything that proceeds from God is good.
And the opposite would be true; anything against God's will is evil; anything from a source other than God is at best neutral, and most likely evil; that anything contrary to God, God's Word, and God's plan is evil.
Because when I talk morality, it's good and evil, not good and bad, or useful or not useful. Because I didn't set up the rules. God did.
As God is above us, what God says is good, is good. What God says is evil, is evil. God determines that, and God enforces that.
Without God, there is no objective transcendent basis for human morality. You might think love your neighbor is good, but other people on the planet eat their neighbors, and say that is good. Who can decide between you, what is good, and what is evil?
>>843837
What? No...
If God (Christian God) gave us good morals, how can we know they are good?
What makes them good? Are they good because they come from God?
So morals are good because they come from God and because they come from God they must be good. We aren't allowed to question them. But when I question Gods good morals, then he must have forgotten writing those morals into my heart as Anon >>843680
said
>But did God write His laws in your heart, and give you a conscience to know right from wrong?
If God did write them, then why am I questioning morals that don't seem good.
My answer is, they are good morals for YOU (follower of Christian God). But they aren't good morals for ME. But shouldn't we as society strive for morals that are good for US?
>>842109
Yes. Morals are in fact only moral if you arrive at them without religion. They should be made by humans for humans.
>>843869
I don't see how "should be made by humans for humans" is violated when religion comes into play.
>>843863
So in the end, you don't know good from evil, you just follow a dogma. And this is how we gave religious zealotry.
Good is what humans decide together as good. If all people (of fixed society for example) agreed that eating neighbour is good, then so be it. But the people being eaten might see it as a evil/bad.
>>843829
The defination of red is defined by how it relates to other colors. If you really want to get technical it falls into certain numbers on spectrum. We didn't declare that red is defined as the color of an apple, the definition came from something else.
Your understanding of God IS circular.
I'll give you a hint. If you want to see why Christians think God and good are the same thing you need to dig up Plato because he's the one that made this type of thinking.
Not even Christian but you are getting absolutely destroyed in this debate. Your argument IS circular.
>>843869
>Yes. Morals are in fact only feel-good if you arrive at them without religion.
FTFY
Daily reminder that morality is not muh feelings.
>>843854
True. I find it a false choice to say something is "natural" or "supernatural", by virtue of our own ignorance of reality. What's "natural" about hurtling through space at breathtaking speeds, and not feeling it?
>>843855
The prophecies were made, and then centuries later fulfilled by agents other than the authors.
It's like you have zero understanding of biblical prophecy.
Oh, wait, that's totally the case.
All of the gospels have the crucifixion on Passover, Nisan 14; you just don't know how festivals were kept back then, and you don't believe Moses and the prophets, and you don't believe Abraham, and you don't believe Jesus.
Turns out that your disbelief does not change past events.
>>843855
John wrote the Gospel According to John; John 1, 2 and 3, and the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
Facts.
Your disbelief does not count as facts.
>>843863
>As God is above us, what God says is good, is good. What God says is evil, is evil. God determines that, and God enforces that.
The people flying this plain believed that God was the only arbitator of good and that they were doing his will. By your own logic we cannot condemn their action.
Their morality is the morality that comes from God: irreftuable and absolute.
>imb4 NOT ALL GODS
>>843868
Yes, they are good because they came from God, Who is good.
They're not good FOR ME, because they are not relative, but absolute.
Yes. Same as how aesthetics and truth that are also subjectively formed objective categories can exist without magical being in the skies.
>>843904
Human interpretation of the will of God is what is subjective.
Humans are fallible. Not God.
>>843912
Well the only fucking way a human is going to understand what God wants is by interpretting a book.
So basically God IS subjective.
>>843907
And that is circular reasoning. That makes so many assumptions that it cannot be taken as a proper answer. We still don't know what constitutes a good, or why. We just know God is good, whatever that good is. So if God allows things to happen that are illogical or even harmful, they still must be good because God is good. That's exactly the religious fervor that is rampant within Islamic extremists.
Those rules might apply to heaven, and to those who go there, but in human realm that isn't good enough. We aren't omnipotent, we aren't supernatural, so we cannot live by laws that aren't proper for us.
>>843912
Nice try but actual God can just give us morals that can't me misunderstood. If God doesn't done this then he is as fallible as the rest of us. Even better he could just create infallible humans if he really cared about morality at the first place.
>>843880
I know God, and I know God is good. God gave 613 commandments, if you want to try to prove to God how good you are. Just follow all of them perfectly all of the time, and you're golden.
j/k
Nobody but Jesus has ever done that.
>>843888
The statement "the apple is red" is only meant to distinguish it from yellow apples and green apples, or from oranges, or bananas, or red raspberries. It was used to see why Anon thought saying "God is good" was circular reasoning, and it worked just fine. It's just one characteristic.
God was good before Plato existed; before the planet Plato lived on existed. Do you really think Plato defines what God is?
Do you worship Plato?
>>843904
And God said many people would follow false messiahs, and false gods, and that would end in tragedy.
Muslims say they worship God, but in fact, they worship Ba'al, a false god, on the word of Mohammad, a false prophet, who is accursed.
>>843903
Your sentence structure is unclear.
Are you saying John wrote the Gospel according to John?
The Gospel of John AS SAID PREVIOUSLY only mentions the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Revelation is generally considered to be a different fucking John.
Being called John does not mean he is also John the Apostle, especially since it would be inconsistent as hell to refer to himself differently each time.
This would basically mean that this post was made by the author of the Gospel of Mark.
That's obviously not true but it's still my fucking name.
>>843921
There are other ways that you are not aware of, because you are dead.
>>843923
Evil happens in God's permissive will, not in God's express will. There was no evil before the creation, and there will be no evil after this creation has run its course.
Can religion exist without morality?
>>843971
Let the dude from Big Lebowski explain the problem with that statement.
>>843832
It's dismissed usually because it's contrary to the null hypothesis.
I could spew baseless conjecture and wishful thinking that the consciousness, emotions, etc. are some trans-physical concepts but until you show me a biological phenomenon not ultimately controlled by biochem then we're going to assume, until there is contrary evidence, that it's a biological process like the billions of other processes carried out by the billions of other organisms past and present.
>>843973
"The Gospel According to John" was written by John.
1, 2, and 3 John were written by John.
The Revelation of Jesus Christ was written by John.
Same John. Same beloved apostle.
>>843983
Yes, of course. Most do.
>>843988
Things written in the bible are not my opinions.
Can we make Euthrypho and Genealogy of Morality required reading?
All of these the things that are being discussed related to religion and morality were already explored and exhausted in Plato's work and Genealogy is the single most influential book on the subject in the modern age.
>>843991
Then live and die with naturalism, like an animal.
>>843981
There was no good before creation either. Because by definition there was nothing before it was created. Nor will there be any good after this creation has run its course.
Now you say (Because I am a fucking Prophet). Good did exist, because God is good! But God also must have possessed the idea of Evil, otherwise he couldn't have created it. So before creation there couldn't be either, or there must have been both. Which begs the question, how can we tell the difference of good and evil?
>>843981
Everything happens in God's permissive will because he expressly chosen to create the world where evil can happen in the first place. Anything possible in the world is at sheer accordance to how God wanted it to be.
>>844008
God is good, and God is eternal. God has always been, and God will always be.
>>844008
Evil is not a created thing; it is a bent, twisted, and perverted good thing.
>>843997
Neither are things written in Quran, Torah, Vedas or any of the thousand different holy text. Which all claim more or less the same as Bible, that they are right, their God is the chosen one. So it is your opinion to believe in any of them and claim it to be right.
>>844008
> There was no good before creation either.
You saying that God aren't good? Because he existed before creation.
>>844016
Simply not true. It is not God's will that any should perish in hellfire, but most people choose to do so.
>>844022
You can't pervert an omnipotent being you retard.
>>844024
Those are not holy texts. Only God makes a thing holy. Not men, and not angels.
>>844029
You can pervert the things the omnipotent being created.
>>844022
Truly moral God wouldn't allow good things to be bent, twisted and perverted.
>>844038
Truly moral God would, to allow for the existence of Love as the highest ideal.
>>844036
No you can't. God controls all aspects of the world, you, me, anything. Nothing happens without his will.
>>844022
Ah. so now evil is just a form of good (we are finally getting somewhere). This doesn't speak highly of God.
Now it seems if God cannot create goodness that is firm and eternal, why should I believe or worship him? God seems to be fallible in this case. However if god is omnipotent and infallible, then how come he can't create good without evil?
It's the classical Epicurus reasoning.
>>844028
It is totally in God will. He created possibility of hellfire and punishments. Everyone would say that I am evil if I install bombs into your stomach and give you a button to explode them. Even if it is technically your choice to be punished for pressing the button.
>>844048
People go to hell against His will. People sin against His will.
It will not be like this forever.
>>844050
Because the exercise of your free will moral agency requires apparently viable options for you to choose from.
Jesus or satan.
Heaven or hell.
Life or death.
Good or evil.
>>844047
God can create Love as the highest ideal without any need of perversions. Are you trying to say that he isn't smart enough or doesn't understand Love to do something like this?
>>844026
Are you saying that you didn't read the next line?
Because I said if God did exist before creation and God is good (still highly questionable), then why did he create evil in creation and where did he get this idea of evil? Then God must have had idea of evil before creation too, which begs the question if God is both good and evil, how can we know which morals are good or evil?
If God however was only good, then where comes the evil? >>844022
Anon said because good things aren't perfect and are being twisted/bent (by what exactly?) which just shows God isn't omnipotent, so why worship or believe him if he is as infallible as my local politician.
>>844054
I'll let God speak for God.
2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
He's keeping the door open for you, today, to be saved. If He closed that door yesterday, you would be lost.
>>844032
So show me a holy text made by God.
>>844064
God is Love. Love is not a created thing.
>>844056
If God was truly against sinning then he could just made so sins are physically impossible and erase hell from the reality. Seems like God wasn't so against this after all.
>>844069
The bible, 66 books written by 40 men over 1500 years and inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, is the only holy text on the planet. It is the only prophetic text on the planet. It is the only true record of the creation, fall, redemption, and destination of mankind, telling the end from the beginning, which only God can do.
>>844075
If God made you a robot, you could not sin.
Since God made you a free will moral agent, and gave you sovereignty over yourself so that you could choose to love God, or reject God, you can, and do, sin.
>>844072
Which is even more retarded if you tries to justify perversion from perspective that it needed for Love if Love existed without them just fine because God existed even before creation.
>>844062
Why would God test me like this? To test me? As Hitchens put it:
"Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. And over us, to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship"
And even from those options. HOW DO I KNOW which is good and which is evil?
Why is Jesus good and Satan evil? What if its visa verca?
>>844080
>Those are not holy texts. Only God makes a thing holy. Not men, and not angels.
>The Bible, 66 books written by 40 men over 1500 years
Congratulations, you just failed high school debate class....
>>844068
I don't buy his shitty excuses. If I would hold power to save everyone I wouldn't just open the door. Instead I would directly save people like moral being should do at the first place.
>>844083
How do you know that we have free will?
>>844085
If you have never seen how anyone can pervert love, you must be, what, 12?
>>843921
>we can only experience the world through perception, therefore the world is all perception
The world must first be there in order for it to be perceived.
God must be objective before humans can subjectively and fallibly interpret him and his will.
>>844086
It's not a test. They are not trick questions. You are dead, and if you don't do something about it, you're going to stay dead.
You want to live your life based on Christopher Hitchens, or Jesus?
>>844090
Yes, when you cut out "all inspired by the Holy Spirit of God."
>>844091
You would be the God of Rape, and not the God of Love then.
>>843927
An infallible human is an oxymoron and God gives us free will which makes it possible for us to fail or do evil. Next.
>>844094
Because God says "Choose".
>>844083
Where is my free will when I want to save people but can't because I am limited by physical laws? There is none. Why is it perfectly okay to create me as robot who is limited to bounds of material world but suddenly big no when in comes to my ability for sin and moral decision? The truth here just as simple as it can be. God allow me to sin because this kind of agency for him is just more interesting that my agency to do a good acts by ignoring laws of physics. We are robots anyway. Robots bounded by material world. Moral being would bound us to moral restrictions instead of bounding us to laws of physics. It is that simple.
>>844111
Free will is not power. Free will is the ability to choose from among available options.
>>844096
The point here if God which is Love existed before any creation then it is simply illogical to say that he is in need to create something for Love to exist.
>>844104
God could create infallible human. He doesn't but because it was his choice he is responsible for us to fall. God doesn't give us free will we are limited in what we can do. If limitations are already here then there is no big deal if you limited our abilities to act evil. It doesn't change anything at this point.
>>844115
> ability to choose from among available options
You can just made all available options to be good then. Free will still here but evil doesn't exist.
>>844100
>You want to live your life based on Christopher Hitchens, or Jesus?
Neither. I am an individual, I don't want to live life of either one, but my own. That's the problem, too many people live lives of others.
>You are dead, and if you don't do something about it, you're going to stay dead.
Good, I am not really fond of the idea of eternity, whether it be hell or heaven. When I have exhausted my energy, let others take over me and let me go.
>>844102
Would you be surprised if I said other holy texts are "Inspired by the X" where X is just the local belief system or deity.
>>844128
You are not limited in your ability to choose "For Jesus" or "Against Jesus".
You want to be God. Stop it.
>>844130
How can you choose good over evil, if evil doesn't exist?
>>844131
You are dead right now.
>>844138
Ok... now this is just getting too surreal for me... Like Marcel Duchamps art.
>>844105
God personally told you that?
>>844151
You view death as a cessation of life.
God views death as a separation from Him, as He is Life.
>>844160
Yes. The Holy Spirit, the third person of the Trinity, tells people that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
When you believe Him, you are saved.
>>844183
Prove it. All I am asking. And we are getting quite sidetracked here. Has nothing to do with morality anymore.
>>844193
Prove God is Life? How would I do that, exactly?
Why don't you just ask God to prove Himself to you?
>>844199
Because he doesn't seem to talk to me like he talks to you. Thus I don't think your God exist. My God however....
>>844211
My God will make Himself known to you the instant you open your heart to Him.
>>842109
It already does.
>>844220
My God doesn't require that. So I believe my God is better.
>>844220
I did that, kept my heart open for a year, and nothing happened.
>>844189
I didn't ask about people. I asked about you specifically. Did the Holy Spirit specifically tell you that you had free will?
>>844199
Well, why doesn't he prove himself?
He could write "I'm God, mother fuckers" across the sky right now if he wanted.
If he had morality that he wanted to give us he could change the laws of every country in the land or the minds of every person with a metaphorical flick of his finger.
He could zap down a moral code and combine it with unmistakable evidence of his existence. And yet he doesn't.
>>844232
It was never open.
Jeremiah 29:13 And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart.
>>844234
Yes.
>>844250
And how did you know it was the Holy Spirit? Because it told you so?
>>844243
>He could write "I'm God, mother fuckers" across the sky right now if he wanted.
Not him but that wouldn't prove his existence famalam. Any position in life is a matter of faith.
>>844288
It would be a pretty good start.
>>842168
that is simply untrue, however I'm interested to hear your support for this dubious claim.
if you cannot see the separation between religious theology and its modern representation then how could you possibly claim to have even thought about the subject.
>>844279
Because He said Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and no evil spirit can say such a thing.
Because I am one of His, and I know His voice.
Because He is God, and can make Himself known.
>>844243
It's an excellent question. God could arrange all of the stars in the sky to say Hello! I'm God, and you need Jesus!
So why doesn't He?
Why does He balance out the evidence so that you can, if you choose, believe that the evidence points to Him, or in the alternative, you can choose that the very finely balanced evidence leads away from Him.
Why has He balanced the universe in such a way that you can draw either conclusion?
Why has He left the choice up to you?
>>844310
Or it other words, it's true because I say so
>>844321
It's true because God says so.
>>844324
What's the difference? What you call 'God' appears to be little else than a conceptual version of yourself.
Or is there anything you two radically disagree on?
>>844326
What's the difference between me and God?
God created the universe, and then adopted me. He's adopting anyone who wants to be adopted into the family of God.
>>844310
A voice told you all of that? Or are you interpreting your reading of the Bible as the Holy Spirit talking to you?
>>844347
No, sorry, this concept that you call 'God' appears to be really nothing more than an idealized version of yourself. It's basically you without all your flaws and with endless power. The fact that you call God a 'he' (why would 'he' have personal features) and that you treat him like a relative.
In other words, he's just an idealized version of yourself projected onto reality. Everything you've said so far points towards this
>>842109
More to the point can morality truly exist within religion?
>>844351
All of the above.
>>844365
Say that to His face.
>>844370
No. It quickly turns into legalism, into following men's rules, and becomes devoid of anything divine. Quickly.
Religions are systems of bondage. Jesus did not die to put men into bondage, but to set us free.
I am free.
>>844387
You can walk up to a mirror and do it yourself
>>844421
It's gonna be a rough day for you. And then it's going to get a whole lot worse.
>>844421
Have a good day, anon!
I'm late to the party but damn, religious rhetoric is the fucking worst. Up there with extreme moral relativism.
>>842109
Morality is for animals.
Ethics are for sentient beings.
>>842109
Morality without religion is just nihilism pretending to something more than a hunt for pleasure (epicureanism).
There doesn't necessarily have to be a worship of an old man in the sky, but a society without an institution based on a structure of religion is sooner or later in great peril.
>>842109
No it cannot
>>843480
that doesn't mean religion is moral, it means that we still worship- we just worship money instead
>>844617
At least it is fun to see how people trying to come up with an absurd excuses why their God is good but somehow he allows suffering to exist anyway. The real truth is simple. God created world as it is and if it is shitty place then he is just a shitty God. Nothing more. Nothing less. It is joke how people trying to shift most of responsibility from being that control everything in existence to human decisions like they somehow would even matter in the world where exists omnipotent and sentient divine figure.
>>844794
I have aspergers: The Post
>>844392
> into following men's rules
Right, as opposed to God's rules.
Look at any religious theocracy and it operates under the exact same legal network as a secular one, except typically with FAR more stupidity and anti-social sentiment.
>>844914
>stupidity and anti-social sentiment.
Your personal, lowly opinion.
>>844817
I have an autism: the response
>>845137
you tried
>>845130
And your opinion is someohow more elevated than mine?
>>842801
>objective
>morality
Pick one
>>845284
Absolutely.
No, because morality IS A SPOOK
>>842109
It has never been otherwise.
>>842109
>peer pressure
>social conforming
>>842109
You do realize society dictates our morality right? In lots of societies over the years killing is not considered that bad of a thing but because we grow up in a society where it is one of the worst things you can do you feel bad about it.
>>846088
Yeah those societies just happen to be more primitive than ours but that's totally unimportant.
Morality is definitely completely relative to society.
>>843480
>decline in morals.
>Promiscuity is much bigger right now than it was a few decades ago.
>Promiscuity is amoral. this fact is self evident and requires no argument.
you serious?
>>842109
All morality is in spite of religion.
>>843135
>Isn't this more beneficial than utilitarianism? First, belief in a moral authority, regardless of the morals explicitly stated implies that the virtue of faith is upheld.
Let's say you live in a theocracy where the dogma promotes total wasteful wanton suffering of almost everyone except the "faithful" priest case.
By your reason this is better than "utilitarianism" because they have an authority structure to derive their "morality" they hold by faith.
Is having "faith" itself so moral that it overrides actual bodily suffering?
Why is "faith" even morally virtuous at all, much less the highest moral good?
>>843180
>God or Hell neither exist solely in the material world
They almost certainly don't exist at all and so basing your real human life decisions on them is foolish. To say nothing of holding these beliefs over others, tips from foolish to moral wrong.
>>843743
The final plea of the religious: Please just stop thinking and trust me.
>>844713
Nihilism is the beleif that all values are meaningless.
Explain why a value made by an exterior God is worth something and a value made by a society or an individual is worthless, don't just assert something, give a reason man.
It sounds to me like you are just saying that humans have no value and need some divine other to fix this.
The statement ninhilism=hunt for pleasure is also a contradiction since nihilism would imply that pleasure is equally meaningful as pain.
>>846135
>Yeah those societies just happen to be more primitive than ours but that's totally unimportant.
>Morality is definitely completely relative to society.
Not really, in a lot of cases, the ones that were horrifically brutal(aztecs, assyrians, etc.) were the most advanced.
>>842109
>Can morality exist without religion?
Of course it can.
It's just philosophically bankrupt.
>>846347
Are religious morals "philosophically" rich?
Do religions really use beautiful philosophy, or are they biased toward convenient apologetics?
Wouldn't using "love of wisdom" to reach naturally evident morals be more "philosophically" rich, rather than inheriting dogmas?
>>846318
For some, thought is not the answer.
>>846392
Well that's more than apparent from this thread..
>>846341
Yes really. Those societies are thousands of years old you twat.
>>845749
Well if you care to convince me getting 1000 lashes for being an atheist is an intelligent, humane thing to do, be my guest.
This is why I am so interested in game theory and am currently planning on concentrating in it at college. If you look up evolutionary game theory especially with respect to cooperation you will see that cooperation and group punishment of deviation (morality) is a group Nash equilibrium. I actually wrote a paper last semester on this topic, attempting to show that a morality on monogamy (marriage etc.) can be beneficial for a society competing with other societies. Because of this, collective punishment towards defectors can lead to what we perceive as morality.
