Can Atheists be Moral?

[saveliberty]

Getting way off the topic. In essence, I see Atheists as defining themselves as God of their own morals. Some will have high standards and others not so much. They are likely to fail at reaching their standards as are the rest of us.

I disagree. God is pruning us all. Even the ones who do not believe he exists. Here's how...

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Interesting, because I clearly stated morals were standards, just like your long winded mantra says.

 

[ding]

Not at all. There are no limits on God because God is no thing. If God were made up of matter and energy as we know it, then there would be limits placed upon God. There is no thing that can describe God because God is no thing. God is consciousness without form.

According to the Trinity, God is also Christ who had physical form. Your theory has a hole.

I don't see how it does. If God can create the material world he can be born into the material world.

You just finished telling us He has no consciousness form. I pointed out He did through Christ.

No. I said God is consciousness without form. Jesus was born into this world. Jesus had form while on earth.

 

[ding]

Getting way off the topic. In essence, I see Atheists as defining themselves as God of their own morals. Some will have high standards and others not so much. They are likely to fail at reaching their standards as are the rest of us.

I disagree. God is pruning us all. Even the ones who do not believe he exists. Here's how...

If the universe were created through natural process and we are an accidental happenstance of matter and energy doing what matter and energy do, then there should be no expectation for absolute morals. Morals can be anything we want them to be. The problem is that nature does have a preference for an outcome. Societies and people which behave with virtue experience order and harmony. Societies and people which behave without virtue experience disorder and chaos. So we can see from the outcomes that not all behaviors have equal outcomes. That some behaviors have better outcomes and some behaviors have worse outcomes. This is the moral law at work. If the universe was created by spirit for the express purpose of creating beings that know and create we would expect that we would receive feedback on how we behave. The problem is that violating moral laws are not like violating physical laws. When we violate a physical law the consequences are immediate. If you try to defy gravity by jumping off a roof you will fall. Whereas the consequences for violating a moral law are more probabilistic in nature; many times we get away with it.

Morals are effectively standards. For any given thing there exists a standard which is the highest possible standard. This standard exists independent of anything else. It is in effect a universal standard. It exists for a reason. When we deviate from this standard and normalize our deviance from the standard, eventually the reason the standard exists will be discovered. The reason this happens is because error cannot stand. Eventually error will fail and the truth will be discovered. Thus proving that morals cannot be anything we want them to be but are indeed based upon some universal code of common decency that is independent of man.

So the question that naturally begs to be asked is if there is a universal code of common decency that is independent of man how come we all don't behave the same way when it comes to right and wrong? The reason man doesn't behave the same way is because of subjectivity. The difference between being objective and being subjective is bias. Bias is eliminated when there is no preference for an outcome. To eliminate a preference for an outcome one must have no thought of the consequences to one's self. If one does not practice this they will see subjective truth instead of objective truth. Subjective truth leads to moral relativism. Where consequences to self and preferences for an outcome leads to rationalizations of right and wrong.

Man does know right from wrong and when he violates it rather than abandoning the concept of right and wrong he rationalizes he did not violate it. You can see this behavior in almost all quarrels and disagreements. At the heart of every quarrel and disagreement is a belief in a universal right and wrong. So even though each side believes right to be different each side expects the other to believe their side should be universally known and accepted. It is this behavior which tells us there is an expectation for an absolute truth.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness to begin with because fairness would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and that we expect everyone else to follow ought to raise our suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

Interesting, because I clearly stated morals were standards, just like your long winded mantra says.

See you around, SL.

It was nice chatting with you.

 

[saveliberty]

Seems like the Bible would have mentioned this "no thing" concept once or twice. What is said is The Creator.

Chapter 1 and 2 of Genesis is the allegorical account of the creation of space and time and tells us that man is a product of that creation. Man came from dust and man will return to dust.

We have to keep in mind that these accounts are 6,000 years old and were passed down orally from one generation to the next for thousands of years. Surely ancient man believed these accounts were of the utmost importance otherwise they would not have been passed down for thousands of years before they were recorded in writing. We shouldn't view these accounts using the context of the modern world. Unfortunately, we are so far removed from these events that we have lost all original meaning. If you were to ask almost any Jew what the Tower of Babel was about he would have no clue that it was the allegorical account of the great migration from the cradle of civilization. That is not intended to be a criticism. It is intended to be an illustration of just how difficult a task it is to discover the original meaning from ancient accounts from 6,000 years ago. We read these texts like they were written yesterday looking for ways to discredit them and make ourselves feel superior rather than seeking the original meaning and wisdom.

Yeah, well I prefer to think God thought explaining Quantum Physics to folks 6,000 years ago had its own set of issues. Keep it simple was another good rule.

 

[saveliberty]

No. I said God is consciousness without form. Jesus was born into this world. Jesus had form while on earth.

The Spirit is God and Christ, Christ is The Spirit and God, God is Christ and The Spirit, yet each separate, the Trinity. God took physical form as part of Christ.

 

[saveliberty]

See you around, SL.

It was nice chatting with you.

Same here, bless you.

 

[G.T.]

 

[BreezeWood]

not to mention there is no evidence to indicate jesus ever claimed to be a messiah.

Remember, adults talking....run and play now.

in 35 years jesus never ventured 100 miles from where he was born for the simple reason they had no inclination for a divine origin ... one erroneously manufactured in the 4th century christian bible.

 

[saveliberty]

not to mention there is no evidence to indicate jesus ever claimed to be a messiah.

Remember, adults talking....run and play now.

in 35 years jesus never ventured 100 miles from where he was born for the simple reason they had no inclination for a divine origin ... one erroneously manufactured in the 4th century christian bible.

Maybe it never dawned on you, but its a world wide religion now. Imagine of He had TV back then.

 

[hjmick]

Morality is not necessarily defined by religion.

 

[Penelope]

not to mention there is no evidence to indicate jesus ever claimed to be a messiah.

Remember, adults talking....run and play now.

in 35 years jesus never ventured 100 miles from where he was born for the simple reason they had no inclination for a divine origin ... one erroneously manufactured in the 4th century christian bible.

Maybe it never dawned on you, but its a world wide religion now. Imagine of He had TV back then.

We would of never believed him.

 

[SweetSue92]

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International

Atheists not only can be, but often are moral. That's because God's law is "written on their hearts". (Romans 2:15). Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International

Atheists not only can be, but often are moral. That's because God's law is "written on their hearts". (Romans 2:15). Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

Agree.....on an individual basis....but doesn't seem to work for whole societies.

Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

“Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.




We have seen it in the French Revolution, where an attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason resulted in 600,000 slaughtered.

Science and reason can tell us what we can do, not what we should do.

 

[Taz]

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International

Atheists not only can be, but often are moral. That's because God's law is "written on their hearts". (Romans 2:15). Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

Agree.....on an individual basis....but doesn't seem to work for whole societies.

Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

“Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.




We have seen it in the French Revolution, where an attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason resulted in 600,000 slaughtered.

Science and reason can tell us what we can do, not what we should do.

If the god you all follow was moral, you all wouldn't hate gays.

 

[BreezeWood]

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International

Atheists not only can be, but often are moral. That's because God's law is "written on their hearts". (Romans 2:15). Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

Agree.....on an individual basis....but doesn't seem to work for whole societies.

Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

“Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.




We have seen it in the French Revolution, where an attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason resulted in 600,000 slaughtered.

Science and reason can tell us what we can do, not what we should do.

.

Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion

neither of the above statements are true if for no other reason they are based on a religion, desert religions that have not proven the existence of their deity to be real.

they have only faith and do not reach the next level where faiths foundation is realized as attaining the Apex of knowledge or the Triumph of good vs evil that provides the irrefutable evidence for the metaphysical morality of their existence - from whence they came. the same as their gods judgement, the proof their destiny was fulfilled.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International

Atheists not only can be, but often are moral. That's because God's law is "written on their hearts". (Romans 2:15). Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

Agree.....on an individual basis....but doesn't seem to work for whole societies.

Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

“Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.




We have seen it in the French Revolution, where an attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason resulted in 600,000 slaughtered.

Science and reason can tell us what we can do, not what we should do.

.

Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion

neither of the above statements are true if for no other reason they are based on a religion, desert religions that have not proven the existence of their deity to be real.

they have only faith and do not reach the next level where faiths foundation is realized as attaining the Apex of knowledge or the Triumph of good vs evil that provides the irrefutable evidence for the metaphysical morality of their existence - from whence they came. the same as their gods judgement, the proof their destiny was fulfilled.

"...they have only faith ...."


This must be why they call you 'Sherlock,' huh?



You seem to have overlooked the 100 million deaths associated with the doctrines that abjure religion.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures.

And you give gods credit for this? ...pffft.... The Bible morality is horrible. Thank goodness we don't have that immoral abbheration hardwired into us. In fact, modern western society has spent the better part of the last 400 years using secular enlightenment to claw out from under that nonsense.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International

Atheists not only can be, but often are moral. That's because God's law is "written on their hearts". (Romans 2:15). Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

Agree.....on an individual basis....but doesn't seem to work for whole societies.

Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

“Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.




We have seen it in the French Revolution, where an attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason resulted in 600,000 slaughtered.

Science and reason can tell us what we can do, not what we should do.

.

Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion

neither of the above statements are true if for no other reason they are based on a religion, desert religions that have not proven the existence of their deity to be real.

they have only faith and do not reach the next level where faiths foundation is realized as attaining the Apex of knowledge or the Triumph of good vs evil that provides the irrefutable evidence for the metaphysical morality of their existence - from whence they came. the same as their gods judgement, the proof their destiny was fulfilled.

"...they have only faith ...."


This must be why they call you 'Sherlock,' huh?



You seem to have overlooked the 100 million deaths associated with the doctrines that abjure religion.

while you overlook the deaths FROM religion.

 

[anynameyouwish]

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International

Atheists not only can be, but often are moral. That's because God's law is "written on their hearts". (Romans 2:15). Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

Agree.....on an individual basis....but doesn't seem to work for whole societies.

Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

“Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.




We have seen it in the French Revolution, where an attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason resulted in 600,000 slaughtered.

Science and reason can tell us what we can do, not what we should do.

"Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men."


In the bible god promotes slavery in a number of passages.

and also the killing of gays.


Roy Moores' source for his desire to have homosexuality made illegal.

So if the christian bible (and i have no doubt that the only religion/bible that you approve of is the christian one)
is used as a source of morals or laws gays and atheists would be slaughtered and blacks would still be slaves.

Would this be an example for you of "Making America Great"?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Many theists believe it is clear-cut. Humans can only have opinions about morality, and no one’s opinion is any more valid than anyone else’s. This leads them to the conclusion that an objective source of morality must stand apart from, and above, humans. That source, they say, is God. Since atheists, reject God, atheists can have no basis for morality.

This is really two separate arguments: (1) that God is the source of objective morality and humans can learn morality from God and (2) that humans on their own have no way to know what is moral and what is not.

Can atheists be moral? - Atheist Alliance International

Atheists not only can be, but often are moral. That's because God's law is "written on their hearts". (Romans 2:15). Most people of common sense can see this is true. Most people live by common precepts that have held for all people, of all time, through all cultures. Like, don't take what is not yours. Don't torture for fun. Etc.

Agree.....on an individual basis....but doesn't seem to work for whole societies.

Now for the idea that the rational, the common sense method is better than religious morality. Can a human being be good without reference to God? As the saying goes, ‘Going to church doesn’t make you a good Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.’ Sure….there could be good pagans….or bad religious folks. While it is true that one can be moral and good and not religious, the idea does not work for all or even most.

Why? Because there is no force behind reason. Take slavery as an example. There is no rational way to convince the slaveholder that he shouldn’t own and sell his fellow man: it makes a great profit, makes his life easier. He can even claim that his slaves live longer and better than many free men.

“Having been created as a free society, the concepts required to support slavery required ideological justifications that other slave societies had not found necessary. The most essential justification was the assertion that the enslaved were so different that the principles and ideals of the country didn’t apply to them. Imagine the contortions that had to go into the idea that the slaves lacked the feelings that would cause them suffering from degradation, hard work, or the destruction of family ties.” Thomas Sowell, “Ethnic America,” chapter eight.

Take as an example, a sadist who gets satisfaction from murdering children. If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion versus that of the murderer. Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.




We have seen it in the French Revolution, where an attempt to replace religion and morality with science and reason resulted in 600,000 slaughtered.

Science and reason can tell us what we can do, not what we should do.

.

Without God, good and evil are a matter of taste.

If there is no God who declares that such an act is wrong, then my arguing such is simply my opinion

neither of the above statements are true if for no other reason they are based on a religion, desert religions that have not proven the existence of their deity to be real.

they have only faith and do not reach the next level where faiths foundation is realized as attaining the Apex of knowledge or the Triumph of good vs evil that provides the irrefutable evidence for the metaphysical morality of their existence - from whence they came. the same as their gods judgement, the proof their destiny was fulfilled.

"...they have only faith ...."


This must be why they call you 'Sherlock,' huh?



You seem to have overlooked the 100 million deaths associated with the doctrines that abjure religion.

while you overlook the deaths FROM religion.

There is no possible way to equate the slaughter by you Leftists with those attributable to religion.


"Over the past 100 years the most oppressive ideology in the world has been communism [Marxism]. While the people who lived under it were starved, tortured and murdered, its leaders lived in luxury.
The suppression of ordinary people by their communist rulers far surpasses anything capitalist employers were ever accused of doing. While condemning exploitation, communist dictators turned out to be masters at it.

R.J. Rummel estimates that almost 170 million people were killed in the 20th century by their own governments. These are not deaths in war. They are the victims of genocide by the governments in the countries where they lived. Hate on the Left


Some major examples:

Stalin....42,672,000

Mao.....37,828,000

Hitler....20,946,000

Lenin....4,017,000

Pol Pot...2,397,000

Chiang Kaishek...10,214,000

Tojo.....3,990,000

Total......122,064,000




Get it, mud??????