Morality without God is impossible

OK, PK, I have a question for you. Have you ever believed that a character in any book which you have ever read becomes so well studied and "known" (or understood) by you that you could almost read their mind? Granted, Who has known the mind of God? Yet we have the mind of Christ, according to the Apostle Paul. Was Paul fooling himself? Or can we question whether the words which I loosely quote were even attributable to Saul/Paul?This one is as hard to falsify as it is to verify. And once a skeptic has raised the question of authorship to a level beyond a reasonable doubt, it becomes hard to actually know any character in the Bible. The book becomes a ragtag collection of random and unknown authors. Satan has done his job well. Comprende? Perhaps to a skeptic, doubt is a badge of honor. Certainly not so for a believer.

quote:

---

OK, PK, I have a question for you. Have you ever believed that a character in any book which you have ever read becomes so well studied and "known" (or understood) by you that you could almost read their mind?

---

I think that would be an illusion. You can get an impression of what they might be thinking if they were a real person, but that is all. And the Jesus of the Gospels should be considered a fictional character in this context - not because there is no person behind the stories but because the stories themselves are far enough from the reality that we cannot rely on them to give enough accurate detail. Every word spoken - for instance - is at best a translation of an old memory - and second-hand at that.

quote:

---

Granted, Who has known the mind of God? Yet we have the mind of Christ, according to the Apostle Paul. Was Paul fooling himself? Or can we question whether the words which I loosely quote were even attributable to Saul/Paul?

---

Reading in context it looks to me as if he was making excuses to dismiss justified doubts. He certainly does not make that phrase clear (and note that it implicitly claims that Christ is not God). And of course he does not attribute it to reading the Gospels which had not even been written at that point.

This response is not the flex you seem to think it is. It even exposes your "beliefs" and "ideas" as pure delusion.

Past - of course. I missed the 'd' off 'believed' - but that should have been obvious. Have you unknown Father Christmas?

Throughout time societies have viewed the past through rose-colored glasses. Media has increased fears for our children. The increased prevalence of guns has made suicide attempts more successful (I know one person who committed suicide, but that was was back in 1969). Bullying has been a problem forever, though online bullying is certainly new. The more social and compassionate people you speak of used to love to come out for public spectacles like hangings and pillories and whippings. Alcoholism has been a problem since man first figured out how to make alcohol. Churches are just people. There are people of both religion and no religion who possess qualities of honesty, kindness and generosity. There are also people of both religion and no religion who possess qualities of dishonesty, cruelty and selfishness. My own conclusion is that the evils that religion commits when empowered by government is what forced the separation of church and state that prevails today, though diminishing at present, which is scary. If a church wants to hold a bake sale on church property and sell only to those it believes are not sinning in the eyes of God then that's its business, but when a church member sets up a business in town then they no longer have the right to discriminate on the basis of their religion.But that barrier is being gradually torn down. Hopefully we all believe that recent Supreme Court rulings are wrong and that any church member who has a business outside their church dealing with the general public does not get to choose on the basis of their religious beliefs which part of the general public they'll deal with.--Percy

I'm going to regret replying... I would rephrase this to, "GDR has no desire to find the truth." You misunderstood PaulK. He was talking about GDR fooling himself. You are so confused. Attempting to falsify is part of how you verify. This just repeats your confusion.--Percy

Eh, well ... that depends.What is the business? Does it take a rote operation like making a standard cake or does it take an artist's eye and expression of self as in a one-off custom order?The artist speaks through their medium.Generic cakes on display for sale or by order should be openly available to any person wanting some. No discrimination allowed. But a custom job requiring the artists skill to go beyond their generic offering is a different beast.You do not lose your right to free speech just buying a business license. If a custom job comes to your shop requiring you to express objectionable beliefs through your art then you have the constitutional right to refuse. Government (your business license) cannot force you to speak against your own soul.If a religionist yahoo cannot handle special requests from the general public then they maybe should not go into that business.But then I think of the holocaust survivor being asked to make a swastika cake. No matter what the business you cannot be forced by law to speak, create art and images, you find personally offensive. That is our right to free speech. Free from government coercion, and, yes, even in these borderline cases, IMHO needs to be zealously guarded.

You raise some good points, but the way I see it is that once you start drawing lines you're faced with endless decisions of where to draw them and it never stops, no matter what business you're in.I face that problem myself because I've chosen not to allow racist advocacy here. I'm sure I've drawn the line in the wrong place many times.--Percy

Some lines are easily drawn. Others, not so much. In this society we let the advocates argue it out in court.I cannot fault the Supremes for the speech-rights reasoning on artistic expression, but I chafe at their religious-rights reasoning to allow open hate-based discrimination.There once was a time when our Supreme Court was a pillar in the edifice of slavery. That changed. Hopefully the (presumed) rights of privacy and dignity will be again recognized in a future court.As far as your line drawing ... you've done right well.

Percy:

---

Attempting to falsify is part of how you verify.

---

This jumped out at me but im still deciding whether or not I agree. Belief is not simply resolved through critical thinking, after all. I suppose as long as you keep your experiment in your mind and not let it contaminate your heart you will be ok.In the past you have been concerned about me and why I can be so cold-hearted.I'm still trying to figure that out myself, but perhaps I can blame YouTube political videos featuring the weird logic of conservatives such as Ted Cruz. Morality without YouTube just might be possible!

If you try to prove something correct and succeed, haven't you added weight to the verification?And if you try to prove something wrong and fail, haven't you also added weight to the verification?Keep in mind that confidence in the verification can never reach 100%.--Percy

Alright, this is not a reply to a recent comment. Sorry for that.

quote:

---

if we are the result of blind chance then it is my contention that there is no frame of reference for understanding morality.

---

As others have pointed out, each culture, society and each person even, can have their own morality and set of rules.But putting things in another perspective, without god or life hereafter, our lives are just tiny fractions of the billions of years of time, our existence on this planet is just as tiny dust in the vast space of the universe of countless of galaxies.Although we are quite meaningles in the grander scheme of things, to each person, what they observe through their senses, it's the whole world to them.

Sure, but rules that we come up with are not the same thing as morality. They are simply the way we govern our lives. I just don't see that as relevant in thinking about an absolute reality. For one thing current science tells us that the universe was once infinitely small. The universe is what we perceive and theoretical science is always speculating about other dimensions and universes. I see it differently. I contend that there is a universal morality. The "Golden Rule" of treating others as you would want them to treat you is ubiquitous in both the religious world and the secular world. However, as individuals we can observe that to whatever degree we want and even reject it completely. Even within that concept there is considerable ambiguity as things aren't always black or white.I'm not sure if this post answers the point you were making or not.

Hi Percy, Wouldn't that be determined on what the subject you are referring too is?If the question is does God exist you will have 100% verification when you die if He actually exists. Because you will meet Him.If He does not exist you will never know because you will just be dead.Hope you had a happy holiday.God Bless,

No. And you know this how? How is this statement any different than, "If leprechauns do not exist you will never know because you will just be dead"? The meaninglessness of the statement must be obvious. Determinations of what likely exists can only be made while alive.--Percy