Morality without God is impossible

Phat writes: My argument is to support the basic idea that anything is impossible without God.

But you never present an argument, only repeat your beliefs.

What does the actual evidence show?

Is there any evidence that shows atheists are less moral than Christians?

Is there any evidence that shows those who deny Jesus was God are less moral than Christians?

Is there any evidence that shows Muslims are less moral than Christians?

Is there any evidence that shows Buddhists are less moral than Christians?

Is there any evidence that shows Hindus are less moral than Christians?

Is there any evidence that shows Taoists are less moral than Christians?

Is there any evidence that shows Satanists are less moral than Christians?

Is there any evidence that shows Non-Trinitarian Christians are less moral than Trinitarian Christians?

What does the evidence show?

Phat writes: Is there any evidence that God exists regardless of what people believe about Him?

So far no one has ever presented such evidence.

Phat writes: Should a lack of evidence be any grounds for rethinking one's worldview?

Absolutely. If your worldview is that you hit the target but there are no holes in the target, you definitely need to change your worldview. If your world view is that morality is impossible without the God you desire yet all the evidence shows that there is morality even within those who deny the God you desire then yes, you need to change your worldview.

Phat writes: Is there any evidence that Christian belief and thinking have influenced the world more so in a good way than a bad way?

So far no one has ever been able to present support for that assertion.

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

GDR writes: 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.

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?

GDR writes: It is about loving sacrificially without thought of personal reward of any sort in this world or the next.

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.

GDR writes: Truth matters. If God resurrected Jesus then the path that Jesus taught is more than relevant.

But resurrection is pretty common in the Bible and we have wandered down that path many times before. I know you have your beliefs but that is not what I find actually written in the Bible. Nor is resurrection unique to Christianity.

But regardless, it has NOTHING to do with morality or behavior.

GDR writes: If you are looking at the physical effect of what happens then I agree. However as we see in Matthew 25 the sheep had no idea that they were doing it for a reward.

The sheep did not do it for a reward; what they thought is irrelevant.

GDR writes: However, as Christians we are to infect others with the God meme that calls us to self giving love. If when we do something positive for others but do it in order to receive praise from others then that is not likely to convince anyone of the human call to unselfish love.

More word salad. If when we do something positive for others but do it in order to receive praise from others then that is not likely to convince anyone of the human call to unselfish love and if you look close, there is no God or God meme found in that or needed in that or that adds any value to what was done.

jar writes: 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. GDR writes: OK, but that isn't what made the sheep sheep.

But that IS what made the sheep sheep. It was feeding and clothing and sheltering and comforting and protecting and ...

jar writes: Remember what Aslan says about the service that Emeth did in the name of Tash. GDR writes: That point is why I brought it up.

The go back a reread it.

I know you believe there is some god meme and that Christianity is somehow more than a chosen path but so far you have presented no reasoning that that it is or should be true.

I actually agree with your belief but I also understand it is simply a belief and neither reasonable or rational or logical or based on any evidence.

GDR writes: Resurrection into a new renewed physical existence is not the same thing as resuscitation into body that is still subject to decay. As you love to tell Phat - just read your Bible.

Nonsense.

GDR writes: That is the point. They were following the God meme and nudging them to follow the Golden Rule.

Nonsense. There you go just making stuff up.

Phat writes: Wait a minute! Are you (jar) telling us that sheep become sheep through their own effort and decisions?

Absolutely. Don't confuse behavior and forgiveness.

Phat writes: Why should I be responsible for my own human nature?

You are not responsible for your own human nature; you are responsible for your behavior.

You are once again conflating issues.

Phat writes: Its Gods job to steer me in the direction I am to walk.

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood...

Read it. Understand it. God did not suggest which road to take, the speaker chose.

And that made all the difference.

Nowhere does it say one example of resurrection is different than the other examples.

Nowhere does it say that one example of Ascension is different than the other examples.

You need to provide at least reasoning for your assertion unless it is again just what you believe.

But that is also a great example of how the tale grew as all folk tales grow. Just as with the Great Commission or Travels with Paulie the story is enhanced and made more unreal with each repetition.

But it still has absolutely NOTHING to do with morality or whatever a God meme might be or external sources of morality or universal morality.

Edited by jar, : wrong key

I believe the Bible actually says what is written.

And I understand your intent is to move the goal posts.

The fact is that the Jesus resurrection stories like the Great Commission and the Pauline conversion are exaggerated and embellished with each iteration. That is a classic trait of folk lore rather than history.

I keep telling you and Phat and others to read what is actually written in the hope you will come to understand the creation of the various Bibles.

Tangle writes: To be able to act morally an organism needs both agency and capacity, that is it must be able to act independently by rational choice and be mentally capable of understanding the difference between good behaviour and bad.

Should that be "To be able to act morally an organism needs both agency and capacity, that is it must be able to act independently by rational choice and be mentally capable of having a concept of some difference between good behaviour and bad."

Is there some real difference between good and bad behavior that is not relative to the society and specifics of the incident?

But they are related to that society. I can't see anyway to say one set of morals is better or worse beyond relating it to my moral standard. And I imagine someone from the other set of moral standards can be equally justified comparing my standards to those of his society.

God and bad only relate to a given perception within a given society for a given incident.