Well, that's easy. They would say "God".
But that's just silly. It was
artificially constructed by a group of
men in antiquity and is
poorly translated,
heavily altered and
selectively interpreted. Entire sections of the text have been
redacted over time.
Why there is no god
Why is it so important to you that there be no God?
Scares the hell out of you, doesn't it?
You just might be wrong .... in which case, you are .... as we say ... royally fucked!
The real question is, why is it so important to you that there
is a God? If you woke up tomorrow, and discovered, with absolute certainty, that God does not exist, would anything
really have changed? Would the earth spin any differently? Would the sun shine any less brightly? Would anything in the natural universe really stop running as it always has?
See, the only people who fear that they are wrong, are the theists. Because, if they have to admit that they are wrong, then they have to admit that they have denied themselves countless opportunities at pleasure, and personal experiences all in the name of living up to the standards of a God that never existed.
Aren't you just the sweetest thing?
Your failure to recognize that there is a God is steeped in arrogance. You have continually stated that since there is no God, Man is the "supreme authority" [my phrase], and, as such, is the ultimate authority.
No, my failure to "recognise there is a God" is not due to arrogance, but to reason, and lack of objective, verifiable evidence. It is this same "arrogance" (your word, not mine) that leads me to not recognise there are fairies, or goblins,. or unicorns, or dragons. I cannot prove with absolute certainty that none of these things exist, however the evidence - or lack thereof, as it were - leads to the rational position that non-existence is the most likely to be true (refer to rational position #2).
Then, you posit that we, in fact, don't need an ultimate arbiter, that as thinking, rational human beings, we are able to determine the validity, or fallacy, of our own actions.
And, then, you acknowledge Man's relativism, that man will make decisions based on his own best interests.
And, then, you have the temerity to ask me what is there were no God? Stop and think, man.
Reasonable positions right down the line.
Man's penchant for self-forgiveness, coupled with his relativist mindset, ensures that there are no rules, no laws, no covenants, no commandments. All things will be relative - relative to the personal well-being of the man making the judgement. Murder will be disallowed - unless, of course, you murder somebody who has upset the judge of those actions. What you find reprehensible, I find justified - what you believe is appropriate, I find morally repugnant. Consistency is impossible, and justice is simply a dream.
You create a moral code that is dependent on who perceives its pertinence. I note that your "suggestions" (never, ever call them a code!!) offers absolutely nothing in structure nor consequences. There is no penalty for ignoring your "suggestions" - there is no definition of propriety in your actions with others. That which I can justify in my mind is permissible, under your approach. If I kill your mother for walking on my grass, I feel justified (if I hadn't felt justified, I wouldn't have done it) - you feel anger
To suggest that society can survive without rules, without laws, without punishment, without compensation is nonsensical. It defies logic, and it defies the evolution of thought and social interaction.
THAT is your discussion ... it is just plain stupid.
The problem is that you are, again, conflating a
personal moral code with a
societal set of laws. They are two different things. Moral codes are individual, and can, and often will, vary from one individual to another. Legal statutes, on the other hand, because they are agreed upon universal rules for a society are
not subject to variation from one individual to another.
- Law: Do not murder. This is universal throughout a society. Murder is a crime for me, you, and everyone.
- Morality: Never kill. This is a personal position. For some it may even lead to veganism, as their desire not to kill extends to lesser animals. For some killing is synonymous with murder. For some this is a flexible moral standard that changes with circumstance.
Now, clearly, the difficulty comes in when one's personal moral code conflicts with social laws. At that point it becomes a calculation of desire vs consequence. For example, I do not believe it necessary to wear a seat belt when driving. That is my personal position. The law states that seat belts are required. If I get caught not wearing a seat belt, I have to pay an annoying fine. I have determined for myself that this consequence is worth following my personal position in defiance of the law. On the other hand. You stole something of great personal value to me - say, for the sake of argument, my wife. I believe I would be perfectly justified, according to my own personal moral positions to strangle the life out of you. However, according to the law, I would spend a great many years in prison, and would most certainly
not return my wife to me. It is not, therefore, worth the consequences for me to defy the law.
Now, is this a perfect system? No. Guess what? No system is. You kn ow how we know this? Because Christians break laws, too. They steal, they lie, they kill. Sometimes, the Law, whether it is secular, or religious, is simply not enough to prevent a person from doing what they want. Neither is any moral code.
I don't propose that my 10 reasonable positions is preferable to the 10 Commandments because the positions, themselves, are "more moral". Rather, I say that they are preferable, because rather than relying on
someone else to
dictate what is, and is not moral, the 10 reasonable positions allow you the tools to find your
own way to your
own moral position. And independent reason is always preferable to blind obedience.
