Morality without God is impossible

Surely you know that this is a species argument? If you make a statement that you can not show to be correct what use is it? It tells us that even if there is a god it does not mean that our morality is derived from it. Regardless of your cherry-picking of your holy book and deciding to accept only the nice bits, that's what it says and what it says is all you have. It IS an emotion - what else can you call empathy and compassion? You have not; you've given us some illogical assertions that you can't back up, and which actually just amount to rationalising beliefs.

It also begs the question of why different gods have different moral codes. For all the effort spent propping up a theistic objective morality, we see those same people objecting to the idea of having to follow Sharia law, an objective moral law laid down by God (allegedly). The massive contradictions between alleged objective moral codes should be a big warning sign for those who ascribe to an absolute objective morality.

Are you following a religion made in the image of someone else? The Golden Rule isn't universal. It only applies to humans.

..but as you point out, you know that the concept of morality based on the survival of the fittest isn't desirable. I'd also suggest that those who live by that also know that it isn't how we should live, but as it works for them and they don't have faith in there being an absolute morality that is how they live.CS Lewis writes that the over-arching sin is pride. One of the ramifications of that is the desire for power. If one is bigger and stronger, (it could be physically, financially or whatever), then the temptation to turn to using that ability to exercise power over others is very strong and some turn to it. That does not mean however that prided or selfishness is a universal morality. If you are correct in your atheistic beliefs then I agree. However, as a Theist who believes that we are influenced a God meme or whatever you want to call that influence then I believe that along with all of our cultural memes that we can we can affirm or reject that God meme calling us to the Golden Rule. Well I can't say that I pity you, but just happen to believe that you are wrong. I agree

That's right. Because of a personal decision I've made based on my personal experiences.
Not based on any absolute moral. I try to avoid saying how other's think.
It's almost always wrong.
Here - you're definitely wrong - as, by definition, there's only 1 "strongest" that's going to have it "work for them (singular)"... and therefore it can't possibly "work for them (plural)" as there is no "them" - only 1 it actually works for. Exactly.
For the same reason - just because God created us and intends something/anything - that also does not mean it is a universal moral.
As we each decide to agree or disagree with us.
Just as we each decide to agree or disagree with pride.If you're going to say something can be a "universal moral" because God created it and intended it
-then you have to be willing to accept that that "universal moral" could be "the strong are better than the weak" if there happens to be a God that exists that created it and intended it, regardless of whether or not you and I (and others) disagree with it. You use the term "However..." but then your text seems to agree with me completely that we don't affirm/reject the God meme because it's "absolute" or "ultimate" - we affirm/reject it based on "all our cultural memes" (our own personal decisions.)So your reply is very confusing. Perhaps I parsed/interpreted your intentions wrong?
Or maybe you're saying we don't use our own decisions? Our decision process is an illusion based on this "God meme/influence" and we're actually only robotic slaves that don't make decisions?If you do agree - then why insist on using words like "absolute" and "ultimate" that only serve to promote confusion when you actually only mean "external?"

Well if my arguments are species then yours are specious.
You can't show that your statement is correct either. It is what we believe. I agree. I believe in a resurrected Jesus and base my conclusion on what He said and did. I realize that as an atheist that makes no sense to you. It isn't about accepting the nice bits. Firstly it is 66 books with no doubt hundreds of contributors. It isn't an all or nothing choice. They are attributes. Anger is an emotion - morality isn't. I get it. We disagree

Yes. Jesus Fair enough

Last I checked, Jesus didn't write the gospels.

OK, but we can't know which influences were predominate. Nothing about that eliminates the possibility that we are influenced by a God meme along with all our cultural ones. It is very difficult to argue with you when you are right. Fair enough, and obviously my views are coloured by my Christian faith. C S Lewis writes this:

quote:

---

The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something-some Real Morality-for them to be true about.

---

Darn. There you go again. I agree that the term "external" would be the correct term in this context. Possibly Lewis' term "real" works as well.Your first sentence in this quote is pretty much bang on.BTW, I appreciate not only your clear thinking but I appreciate the way you respond without being condescending.

I really have to ask why the source is relevant? Even as a believer, why does it matter what the motivation or source for morality is known to be, is unique or even existent?Edited by jar, : wrong key

I think it matters because as a Christian I contend that it isn't what we do that matters but what our motivation is for doing it. From a secular POV the result is all that matters. It doesn't matter whether we do it for public recognition, (back to pride), or if it is done anonymously.However as a Christian, like Jesus and Luther for that matter it is about having hearts that choose a life based on self-giving love. (Again see Matthew 25.) If there is no God meme, still small voice of God or Holy Spirit, then Tangle, Stile etc are right.It is faith, but as I believe that this life is only the end of life as we know it, and that somehow our acts of self-giving love do have eternal consequences in ways that are well beyond my pay grade.

Yet you have said that the Golden Rule is the closest example of an absolute or universal morality.And YOU think that motivation matters.But if the motivation for the act is because of Buddha or Ganesha or Satan or Shiva or that it's just the right thing to do how is that different than because the God you happen to believe in says to do it?

You've missed the point. It is about loving sacrificially without thought of personal reward of any sort in this world or the next. However, it isn't about doing it because of a specific deity. Yes, I believe that is the God of Christianity that enables us to love that way but that isn't the point. Remember what Aslan says about the service that Emeth did in the name of Tash.

What is the difference between instinct and choice? You point out that choice can override instinct but the reverse is equally true. How long can you choose to hold your breath? I am sure that you would agree that my dog is a creature driven by instinct and yet does she not choose to obey my command? I wouldn't use that fall back. There is such a thing as choice and it is directly built on instinct. Your instinct is to survive and your choices are subservient to that. No doubt we can choose to override that instinct but then where are we? Yes they do. One is just better at it than the other one and we decide which one is better based on how well their choices benefit their personal condition. Of course we are not all using the same brain and all brains are not equal but they all work the same way. They are all subject to the same laws of chemistry and physics. I would say that applies to every religion. Those 'certain individuals' are the group. Anyone who is intentionally being screwed is not part of the group. I am trying to think of some examples of that and surely there are some that look that way. Suicide and self sacrifice to benefit another. Suicide is meant to end one's own suffering and self sacrifice is meant to avoid the suffering of another. Both directly related to an instinct to avoid pain. (edit: which is directly related to the instinct to survive.)Edited by Dogmafood, : No reason given.

No, I have not missed the point.Anyone can love sacrificially without thought of personal reward of any sort in this world or the next, particularly atheists. Anyone can behave sacrificially without thought of personal reward of any sort in this world or the next, particularly atheists. Anyone can do things sacrificially without thought of personal reward of any sort in this world or the next, particularly atheists.No God is needed. And with atheists there is no god involved.It is the act, doing good, that is significant not the motivation or source or deity.Remember what Aslan says about the service that Emeth did in the name of Tash.Christianity is a path. It is a chosen path. But it is not the right path or only path or best path or better path.It is the acts that are significant and not the motivation.Now, on the path called Christianity there are road signs that say, if you already got paid for the act don't expect to get paid again. But that is in the realm of personal reward of any sort in this world or the next and a separate subject.The acts though stand on their own regardless of motivation. The naked clothed are still clothed. The hungry fed are still fed. The homeless sheltered are still sheltered. the sick healed are still healed. The weak protected are still protected.You believe and I believe that we will get judged after death. But that is not significant until we die. But good done today, even for the worst reason is still good done today.Remember what Aslan says about the service that Emeth did in the name of Tash.