Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,644 Year: 4,901/9,624 Month: 249/427 Week: 59/103 Day: 3/14 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality without God is impossible
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 210 of 472 (873915)
03-21-2020 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
02-28-2020 4:20 AM


Tangle writes:
The difficulty appears to lie in the assertion by believers that we can't know what right and wrong is without there being a god to tell us. The question is why not?
It seems to me that their only reasoning is because they believe it so.
Then thank goodness we don't have to rely on your conclusion that it is merely because we, "believe it so".
It's actually because of a fairly straight forward issue of where you find ultimate morality to begin with, in terms of it always being a relative or subjective matter.
By analogy there is a game called, "Scruples", but the problem is this; where did the makers of "Scruples" get their set of criteria?
Another example is this, there appears to be at least by human standards, various groups of people that are fairly decent by at least our own relative standard as humans, yet they may have a different moral compass.
So that is the problem, if God did not exist then basically if somebody murders you, to see this according to the implications of atheist materialism, it follows that strictly speaking all that happened when someone murdered you was that molecules collided.
You see this is the problem, if you're going to tell people they're ultimately just a material accident, then logically it follows that there really isn't any morality, in that if you die and you were murdered, there is no actual justice after death in a materialist scenario.
Under a strict evolutionary, materialist scenario, it quite literally would not ultimately matter to the universe if you were sliced, diced then thrown on the fire, or lived a life of paradise-like perfection.
Conclusion: These are the logical implications of a strictly materialist universe whether you like it or not. Your destiny under this philosophy, is that you have the same worth as a bowl of spaghetti, which is obviously absurdly false, because the value of a human sentient person, made in God's image, is well, obvious, and it is obvious that therefore the atheist belief is against the facts, because factually a human being has more value than merely it's material. (modo hoc fallacy).
But that is ultimately what you have to accept to be a consistent atheist. Ultimate, objective morality is not available, because like with the, "Scruples" example, who decides who is right?
But when you take THE OBVIOUS TRUTH, that only an all-knowing God can be righteous, and accept people are sinful human beings, you get a much more consistent, realistic picture of reality.
So if you strive in your mind to accept murder is just as lawful as making a cup of coffee, then you yourself in your mind are acknowledging that atheism is inconsistent with reality.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 02-28-2020 4:20 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Tangle, posted 03-21-2020 11:55 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4755
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 431 of 472 (914234)
01-04-2024 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
02-28-2020 4:20 AM


Tangle writes:
The difficulty appears to lie in the assertion by believers that we can't know what right and wrong is without there being a god to tell us. The question is why not?
‚Äč
It seems to me that their only reasoning is because they believe it so.
It is a strawman of, "believers". I have never argued it and don't know any believers that do and I am around a lot of them in terms of the debate so I don't think my comment being anecdotal is as important as usual.
What I have argued is that it seems like there is no precedent to argue anything morally if you are an evolutionist that doesn't believe God exists. All arguments for morals would just represent relative opinions.
In this sense there is nothing quite as absurd as a politically correct Godless liberal like say Stephen Fry, SHOUTING at our God, "How dare you", in regards to the ills of the worlds.
In other words, even though you are very self-righteous, you are basically a hypocrite for not believing in the implications of your own theory that tell us we are an accident.
Under this scenario all moral systems are equal so why do you imply there is one morality that one can know without God?
Why would that one morality follow under accidentalism?
Yet it is also obvious that if God's morality is the only true morality then it follows that "morality without God" is not really morality, but is a whole STEW of desires, self-deception, misplaced sense of pity or emoting.
Also when judging God this can only ever be logically absurd because God is an omniscient being. You can't be more correct than correctness itself. God is correct at all times, about all things, PERIOD. Whereas when we point the finger at God we do so from limited minds and we perform the bodge job mistake of anthropopathism and anthropomorphism.
The bible makes some unequivocal comments about God's understanding compared to ours. It always LINKS the futility of the human mind with a rejection of the obvious creation. Especially in Romans where it says, "their foolish hearts were darkened" because you know God is there but won't give Him the credit of being there in your, "wilful ignorance" of the miraculous creation before you.
CONCLUSION; As an atheist you can be, "moral" in the sense that some of your behaviours will OVERLAP with what is righteous. The problem is you have a sin nature which also will argue that sin is "moral". In other words, your morality can only really represent you as an individual with all of your various tastes and foibles. It can't be true morality in that you have to be a perfectly moral being. I will only follow a perfectly moral being, and that was Jesus Christ. As for you, you clearly in your prejudice towards people like me and all the things you say to me for no apparent reason other than hatred, are not a moral being but a sinner that tells himself he is so as to comfort his conscience. Why then if you are so moral, are you so hostile towards me when I have not been hostile towards you nor even personal. I make my arguments about the arguments and issues themselves, you make them about hating on me personally.
I see no morality in you, atheist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 02-28-2020 4:20 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 432 by Tangle, posted 01-04-2024 5:00 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 433 by Omnivorous, posted 01-04-2024 9:24 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024