Morality without god

What kind of sense does this make? How could the creator of all seen and unseen need a dope slap from a human? If the Bible actually says this much, it obviously is mans writing...and flawed in wisdom at that.Why do you bring stuff like this up? The only explanation I would even want to believe would be God in the role of Loki the trickster, making man responsible for correcting the errors of a trickster.

I finally have a bit of time. OK, so we get a good feeling when we have done the right thing. Well, why is that? Why should we feel good for doing the right thing? IMHO it is because we had a sense of morality in the first place. The good feeling is a by product of having morality. How many people feel resentful when they are placed in a position of having to do the right thing, maybe because people are watching and they don’t want to lose face? The good feeling isn’t in all people. Some people have a higher degree of morality than others obviously. The feelings are the result of morality not the cause of it. I don’t disagree with that. In my view morality is about having a heart that actually wants to move away from that model. I know that I sit in my nice comfortable home in the full knowledge that there are people who don’t have a home at all. I just came home from a nice dinner with my wife in a Thai restaurant knowing that a huge percentage of the world is starving. I live peacefully and safely whereas many live in constant fear for their life. All this is true but other than the nice easy safe thing of sending money to the third world as well as being a rep for an African home for young women I do nothing. I am far closer to being as moral a person as a mass murderer than I am to what I really should be.On the other hand though we do have the ability to overcome to a small degree our instinct for selfishness and we are on occasion capable of even completely selfless behaviour. Again, morality isn't what you do. What you do is the result of your morality. I believe our basic instinct is to consider the self first and in order to do the selfless thing, (to act in someone else’s best interest at personal cost), we have to rise above that basic instinct. That is beautifully written, and is consistent I think with both of our points of view.

But it is not a matter of what you want to believe, rather it is what the Bible actually says.You know right from wrong just as any God might, you simply don't like what your own innate knowledge of right a wrong tells you.

Why do teachers ask questions? To get the students to think of the answers themselves, maybe?If "God" is being portrayed as a dope that needs a slap, people should question the portrayal, maybe?

Dr DA, right and wrong are not real things. Matter in motion cannot produce right and wrong, even if emotions are real things.If you dont believe me, show us what right is accross the board (reality)Show us how you establish this point. What formal argument do you use to explain what Wrong from a moral standpoint, actually is or is notDawn Bertot

Again that is not the point try to pay close attention to that which you need to respond. I have in logical fashion demonstrated why a morality, relative or otherwise, does actually exist.If indeed this is a debate website, your obligation would be to respond to what I have actually set out, then show why it is faulty.Ill give you an example of how debate actually works. Ive stated that for murder to be murder, that which is objectively wrong, not just a concept. You would need to demonstrate why human life is more sacred from the standpoint of reality, than animal life.That is, why it is Right, actually and objectively Right, not just as a concept, to take life unjustifiedly and premedtadedlly without malice of forethought.Now you need to in an objective and logical way, respond exacally to what I have set out.I promise you that if you did, I would return the favor Ill try again. For an objectively reality to exist, you would need knowledge, the likes of which could not be added to. The likes of which, a better decison could not be added to to make it more right or less wrongSince you live in an environment where you dont possess this type of knowledge, you cannot know what is actually right or wrongIf you do not believe in God, you are maintaining that you believe that there is not enough evidence to establish that idea. I believe there is.But that is not the point of this thread. I would ne happy to discuss that at any other pointDawn Bertot

It's a measure of how clearly you've set out your arguments that no matter how often I read the above sentences, I can't make them make sense. Did you mean does NOT actually exist?If you actually mean that you have shown that morality DOES exist, then yippee, perhaps you'll now attempt a proof that my car exists. It would make it so much more satisfying to drive.I have no idea why you are making such a mess of this. Morality clearly exists. It's relative and changes over time and between cultures. You are unable to say what an absolute morality would actually look like if it did exist or show that it exists at all.Come back when you can.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

I've already stated a system in this very thread, if you'd like to take a look, see Message 114
Here's the basic definitions:

quote:

---

1. Definitions
"The action was bad" = something that hurts someone else, as described by that someone else.
"The action was good" = something that benefits someone else, as described by that someone else.
"Being bad" = Trying to do bad things... that is, trying to do things that you think are going to hurt someone else
"Being good" = Trying to do good things... that is, trying to do things that you think are going to benefit someone else

​

(for more information, please see Message 114)

---

Using these definitions, it is objectively Right to kill someone if they want to be killed (like in that renaissance movie I can't really remember where the guy with the long-gun shot the dude in the head who was being burned alive... or in certain honourable killings like a Seppuku or other (possibly assisted) suicide kind of thing...). It is also objectively Wrong to kill someone if they don't want to be killed (like pretty much every killing ever).You still havn't answered my questions to you from a long while back:

quote:

---

What is God's absolute standard?

​

The 10 commandments?
All instructions found in the Bible? (...including Leviticus and the rest of the Old Testament?)
The Golden Rule (...love others as you love yourself?)

​

If you are unable to even say what this "absolute standard" actually is... how do you even know it exists in the first place? What objective thing are you comparing it to in order to show that it is, indeed, "standard"?

​

I have no idea what you're talking about. How can you call it an absolute standard if it's not absolute, or standard?

​

Message 74

---

Or maybe I've just missed where you did describe it. If so... can you point me to a specific post, please? If it's actually so prevalent, shouldn't we all know about it? Why do people not agree on what actually is moral? Your absolute standard doesn't seem able to explain this basic fact. I think it's because morality simply is confusing. It's confusing because it's based on other people's subjective feelings.

God has apparently chosen to calibrate the morality-scale such that evil exists. Presumably he could have created a scale which includes far worse than evil (lets call it evil++). The scale of man's ability to do wickedness could have been even greater than it is if God had wanted us to have an even greater level of freewill. I mean presumably no man can be as evil as Satan himself (whether Satan is real or just a concept of ultimate evil is irrelevant to this).So it would seem God has felt it necessary to restrict our freewill in terms of our ability to commit possible evilness. He chose to limit our freedom to just evil.My point is this - If there is going to be a limit imposed, which there must be, why not stop at indifference rather than evil? Rather than create good and evil why not narrow the scale so that the only possibilities are indifference and escalating degrees of good? You still get freewill but you don't get evil. The worst someone can be is indifferent.I put it to you that God should have calibrated his scale so as to make evil unnecessary for freewill. We can only conclude that God actually wants us to be able to be evil.Evil isn't logically necessary, any more than evil++ is logically necessary, for freewill in the way you are asserting.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

The Bible does not make Satan out as an evil character and does not sh0ow Satan as having free will. Rather Satan is God's tester and tempter, doing only God's will.

In which case it is God's will that there be evil.

Okay. I have no problem with that assertion.But I don't see how you get that position from what I posted.

Does Satan exemplify evil?If not then I think we are talking about different concepts of the thing commonly referred to as "Satan"

Not according to the Bible.Evil is simply a human construction just as good is simply a human construction.

Just as God is simply a human construction...