Morality without god

One question I would like to ask is, why would you be itching to ask an irrational, emotionally driven question?Consider your above statement. It bypasses the only thing that matters, the simple logic involved in the question, "Is it possible to have morals without an eternally existent God", that would be the absolute standard, from any reasonable standpoint.If the there is no absolute standard, then there is no moral standrd at all. You can call it morals, right or wrong, but that wont make it morality in actualityThe point is that there is no logical way to establish that morals are absolute or they are morals at all, without an absolute standard.Logic will not allow itThe best you can do is assume you have some so-called standards within the human race. Because when we consider the animal kingdo, aliens, or whatever, the socalled standard we use , becomes, both subjective and contradictoryany discussion of actual morals that tries to move past the standard I have just set out is nothing more than banttering and rehtoricFrom a purely logical standpoint an attempt to define morals without an absolute standard is nothing short of silliness and idiocyWhether you can demonstate from a persons perspective that God exists or not, has nothing to do with this simply set out proposition. If he does not from your perspective, you will always be constrained by the logical proposition that its only matter in motion.If you think you can demonstrate it otherwise, give it a shot. All I need to do is simply disagree with what you have called or discribed as morality to demonstrate that without an absolute standard, you are spinning your wheelsSo Dr Adequate, emotionlly driven, poorly set out propositions and questions, have nothing to do with what is, purely logical and demonstrableyour up.Dawn Bertot

Except for an infinite wisdom, in an infinite existence, everything else would be subject to question, speculation and someone elses view.But there is an even better reason. If there is no eternal infinite God, then the only choice is, Matter in motion. As hard as you try to view it otherwise, there is no standardIf matter in motion or survival of the fittest is the answer, then by all rights I should be trying to overthrow or kill you and take everything you have.Or atleast if I did I wouldnt be right or wrongNow watch, if you dont believe God exists and you disagree with my conclusion who cares right, because neither of us is right or wrongLogic, reality, M in Motion, subjectivity, simply wont allow you to have a right or a wrong, or a moralityCall it what you want You are not bringing logic and reality to its true form. Think about it. Your trying to define a morality from a purely human perspectiveThe basket of tasty murdered chicken does not share you "Morality"Take logic where it needs to go, to its basics, defined it by reality and conclusions that can be tested no further than reality will allowDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Bertot writes CS writes Bertot writes: It does is if you remove yourself from trying to find standards only in and from a human perspective. This is not only a discussion website, it is a debate website. Which means that you would have to show that the animal kingdom would have to share your so-called standards. Lets assume you were instantly transported to the Aztecs and Incas time period. How would you convince them that there behavior was immoral and yours Moral?How do you establish that your so-called Morality is superior to or right or wrong. Pure reson and reality, without God, an infinitely wise God, does not allow you a standard of morality, even if you choose to call it thatCS writes Dawn Bertot writes: Surely you are not so simple that you cannot understand, that simply calling something doesnt make it right in or wrong. For it to be morality it has to be either right or wrong. Defining right or wrong, from only within the human perspective makes your so-called morality silly at bestYou first have to demonstrate that yours is the only standard by which to judge what murder is, before you take the cows life for your consumption. If you cannot do this, then your so-called morality is nothing more than molecules in motion, even if you call it moralitySurely you are not so simply, as not to be able to see that point
Now watch, let me ask you a simple question, then you answer it as a part of the debate process. If I disagree with you that you have an actual morality, that which actually describes what is right or wrong, how will you establish that either or both of us, is either right or wrongYou cant even get past this hurdle, to even address the qurestion of wether it is right or wrong to murderD Bertot writes CS writes Its simple. You cant proceed in discussion about morality, as if you have delt with the basic problem as to how you arrive at a standard of right and wrong. Logic and reality doesnt allow that luxuryExample Mr Dawkins says God is an evil so and so. Yet he firmly beliefs in survival of the fittest, evolution, matter n motion and so on.Yet he first needs to give us the standard of evil, tell us how he arrived at such a conclusion, then explain why, his so-called standard, doesnt apply to the animal kingdomBut he needs to do this from a standpoint of logic. Not just say oh well thats just the way it is. Of course there is no way for him to do this from any rational standpointSo CS, deciding to call it morality, doesnt make it moralityDawn Bertot

Oni writes Bertot writes: Unfortunately, emotional responses to logical propositions, dont get anything accomplished. What people do in the name og God, has nothing to do with weather he is infinte in wisdom and eternal in character. If he is, then there is no other standard and he is the standardSince humans share the same characteristics in reality, that of finitness and decay, with other species, they cannot be used as examples of what is right or wrong. therefore no real morality. Just molecules doing thingsIt seems therefore logical, that there are no other choices that logic will allow. Unless you or others could provide valid reason to show why humans standards are the only correct choices. Or why they should be considered the standard of right or wrongMy guess is that the only thing you will be able to do, is talk AT morality, not actually demonstate it exists without God.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

12ft writes Bertot writes: Since that is not the essence of my argument, it follows that your above statement is not applicable12ft writesBertot writes:I know you are new to this website and quite possibly new to critical thinking in general. I say that with the greatest respect. You first need to in logical and rational fashion demonstrate that an actual morailty existsIll give you the example again. Explain why murder is immoral, wrong or right, not from a human perspective, but from the standpoint of all species and from the standpoint of reality (existence) itself. Now i dont need examples of humans doing things, selfless or selfish acts. I need a well reasoned logically set out argument that demonstrates from the standpoint of reality, why murder is wrongThis is your task Ok, but you still havent explained why its ok to exterminate (murder) a colony of ants, because they seem to be INSECTnificant. Do you see how your "morality", changes, when it suits your purposes. Morality cannot both exist and not exist. It either does or it does not Thats the point friend, there is no testable hypothesis, from a logical standpoint that will allow you that luxury. If you think there is, then present it to me. If you think you have the evidence or that it can be gathered, then simply present it. In actuality, there is no evidence in a logical or rational way that will aliviate you of this problem. no amount of information will make your position anything but subjective. No, its a simple logical problem that can be tested against realiy and reason. No more information will come in to demonstrate that "morality" is not morality actually without an absolute standard to judge it against.Its a logical proposition, not a lack of evidence. Seriously, do you not see what you are trying to advocate. Simply present the information in some logical argument.Here is an illustration. At one point in time, the taking of life by the gladiators was viewed by them as valid and right. We on the other hand would say it was atleast wrong, if not immoral.Now who is right?You cant demonstrate whether morality exists by examples, it has to be done from what reality and reason will allowChicken srites Actually you could have saved your time, this is not my current position and I dont need the existence of God argument, presently to demonstrate that you have no actual objective morality, without an objective standard.You do understand that a thing cannot exist and not exist at the same time, correct? If morality needs thinking to exist, then it would follow that the all "morality" whereever that is and whatever that is would need an ultimate thinking process for it to be valid as moralityDawn Bertot

It amazes me the inability to comprehend what is actually taking place in this instance. I never maintained that morality was an absolute, even though i believe that, because I believe in God. It is not necessary to demonstrate the existence of God, to demonstrate that without an absolute standard, morality in any real sense is not a possibility.Saying that I have ignored requests by not giving examples of absolute morality, is silly, because the burden of proof is on the one, that believes, morality can exist, without God. Hence the title of the thread.What i have demonstrated, is that your contention that morality is fluid and that murder is wrong and immoral, has gone unchallenged in any logical fashion.My illustrations of the fact, that you have no explination for the murder of lower species for your consumption, yet believe, that it it wrong within your species, is both ILLOGICAL and IRRATIONALMy argument that morality has to be across the board concerning all species and reality itself, has gone unchallengedMy argument that you can provide no logical proposition that will allow you to justify calling morality, right or wrong, has gone unprovided and unchallengedYour initial statement above is evidence of the fact that you can provide no valid argument, except to assume, that morality, right or wrong, is such, if it involves only your speciesAny tyro in logic can see the problem with that scenario.Since you have seen fit to answer none of my arguments, actually, Ill present you with another question.Why do you think it is, that when you take another species life, you feel no moral remorse or obligation. IOWs, you dont feel morally, right or wrong, just indifference. Nothing obligatoryI have no hope that anyone will actually tackle my earlier arguments, so Ill just run with thisDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Rahvin writes Bertot writes: I was going to respond to each of the individual posts to my last posts, but this one is sufficiently self defeating enough to demonstrate that most if not all do not understand what is involved in questioning morality without God.Most of the post are repeats of things that are not related to the actual subject at hand. or they are not actual arguments against what I have presentedI will try to simplify the topic, so perhaps it can be understood, what is actually involved in setting out the propositon that is needed to bring it into the focusHere it is. Before you can establish that morality exists, you first need to establish that right and wrong are actually real entities. Right and Wrong do not actually exist, anymore than emotions. they are manifestations of molecuar processes. Hence right and wrong dont actually exist in the first placeSince right and wrong are derived from emotions and emotions vary from person to person and reason to reason in an exitence where alll theings are equal (physical properties), if follows that not only are they not real, they are not valid to establish an actual moralityWhat we percieve as actual is not. What we call right and wrong, and morality do not actually exist.Now there is simply no way to avoid this conclusion. If there were it would have been presented.Now lets see the only possible logical solution for actuaaly having an actual morality that can have atleast some actuality.We have seen what the logical possibilites are without an absolute standard, now here they are with an absolute standard. While Right and Wrong still would not be actual entites, (having actual existence) assuming the existence of God, we would have a standard by which we could conclude that no more information could be gathered to contradict the conclusions of such an entity. So the standard would be absolute, even if the they are not actual realites.Your premise is, in this thread that morality can eixst without such a standard. To establish that you would first need to find an absolute standard by which you could evaluate the differences in not only peoples opinions but reality itself concerning what is actually right and wrongThe items that you have provided in the area of selflessness, self preservation and related topics simply will not work from a logical perspective. they do not provide a logical format for you to proceed to establish any kind of real standard that can be used to establish the existence of right or wrong, moral or immoralIf you think this proposition can be overthrown, simply put forth the evidence to demonstrate it otherwise.Dawn Bertot

Again with respect, you have read emotion into a strickly logical propositon. You have only decided that a certain thing is genocidal because you dont like it perpetraded on those of your species. I am going to bet you dont feel the same way when a group samon are scooped up into a net, then dismemberd and gutted.Would you call that genocide or just buisness as usual?Remove yourself from the purely emotional aspects and you will see clearly to the only thing that remains, logic and realityRight and wrong are not actual entities and they cannot be established where there is a lack of total knowledge. Without envoking emotion, what makes them terrible acts. How did you decide they were terrible acts? Personal belief has nothing to do with simply reality. Im only suggesting and pointing out what logic and realty will allow.Unless you can demonstrate it otherwiseDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

thats non-sense

Where does it say that

If a guy decides he wants human flesh instead of animal flesh for consumption and survival, why is that murder? Because you decided it was murder? You cant be the STANDARD where both species are equal in physical attributes. "Morality" decided and based upon ones own perspective is neither rational or reasonableConversely it makes no sense to say a lion killing a child is not murder, yet we do not call it murder, which is a moral principal, correctThe point is what makes it "moral" in one instance and not immoral in another ? When you can establish that logically, then you will understandEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

And I guess you forgot the passage just before that that says. "Let us make man in our IMAGE after our likeness"God put the knowlegde of godd and evil in us when he created us in his image

With respect and as usual you havent thought things through or given critical thinking any considerationAdam and Eve had been given a command prior to eating, that they could clearly understand. Now without the abiltiy to choose between good and evil, the command would make no sense and there would be no reason to give a command to someone who could not understand itThe were already created in the image of God and knew how to decide between good and evil.details of good and evil in specifics does not mean they could not choose between good and evil. those are two differnt thingsDawn bertot

I cant wait to see where you think this gem of wisdom, given by yourself, is set out in ther scriptures Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Im sorry but these kinds of comments demonstrate that it is both unreasonable and untenable that any serious conversation can be sought in conversation with youIf they werent given the TOOLS to know what to do, how could she converse with the serpent and show clear distinction between right and wrong. hence the following Im still interested in ypour second assumption about God acting immorallyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.