Zone1 Without God Who Or What Decides What Moral Law Is?

[toobfreak]

Aren’t people capable of determining right or wrong on their own?

You mean like Adolf Hitler determining what was right or wrong for the Jews, you idiot?

 

[toobfreak]

Without God Who Or What Decides What Moral Law Is?​

No one. God represents the Absolute, a higher order by which morality is both sourced and altruistically DEFINED theocratically for mankind, like an unwavering Pole Star to steer one's ship by.

In the absence of God, all we are left with are man-made, relative and changing ETHICS, which is an atheist's way of trying to define behavior for man by man, and hoping it is at least half right.

 

[rightwinger]

You mean like Adolf Hitler determining what was right or wrong for the Jews, you idiot?

Or like the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition.

 

[toobfreak]

Aren’t people capable of determining right or wrong on their own?

Or like the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition.

Weren't the Crusades and Spanish merely determining right and wrong on their own just as you suggested?

Yes. So, OTOH, you say you don't need a god, then you prove you do.

 

[BreezeWood]

You mean like Adolf Hitler determining what was right or wrong for the Jews, you idiot?

Weren't the Crusades and Spanish merely determining right and wrong on their own just as you suggested?

Yes. So, OTOH, you say you don't need a god, then you prove you do.

what's been said is no one needs the phony - desert religions ... that's a good starting point to move forwards.

 

[zaangalewa]

Zone1 Without God Who Or What Decides What Moral Law​

Good is what's good for all and every life in the whole universe.

 

[expat_panama]

... The world I'd design would have no randomness in the form of earthquakes, disease, storms, meteors, etc. We have complete control over our lives, for good or bad....

...It's virtually impossible to get as many as 3 people to agree to what TV show to watch and somehow everyone's going to agree on earthquakes, disease, meteors, etc.? What I see that we're talking about here is a HUGE reduction in individual personalities. imho that's not good...

Do you really think a majority of people are in favor of earthquakes, disease, meteors, etc.?

This is getting difficult here.

First you say that earthquakes, disease, meteors, etc. should be under our complete control. You're suggesting we live in a universe w/ predictable earthquakes, disease, meteors, etc. and that this predictability would some how be for the benefit of everyone.

Then I point out that the only way everyone would agree on this would be w/ "a HUGE reduction in individual personalities" and that I personally would not be in favor. You then assert that these "earthquakes, disease, meteors, etc." were somehow MY preference.

All I can figure is that maybe the subject is painful for you. If that's the case we can drop it.

 

[alang1216]

This is getting difficult here.

First you say that earthquakes, disease, meteors, etc. should be under our complete control. You're suggesting we live in a universe w/ predictable earthquakes, disease, meteors, etc. and that this predictability would some how be for the benefit of everyone.

Then I point out that the only way everyone would agree on this would be w/ "a HUGE reduction in individual personalities" and that I personally would not be in favor. You then assert that these "earthquakes, disease, meteors, etc." were somehow MY preference.

All I can figure is that maybe the subject is painful for you. If that's the case we can drop it.

So what is God's plan for us as you see it? Does He want to create a world where we can be judged by how we live or not? If yes, I'd say He has His finger on the scale since some get unearned advantages and some get unearned disadvantages. Seems to me, if there is a God, He is very hands off and doesn't care how we live.

 

[zaangalewa]

So what is God's plan for us as you see it? ...

He likes to see us grow.

 

[ding]

Do you want to retract or explain:

Standards exist for logical reasons, not the whims of man.

 

[Kruska]

Since our cave days - the survival of a group depended on rules and regulations. Before that primarily based upon instincts.
These rules and regulations defined our morals. E.g. who gets up late misses out on the hunt. Therefore does not help to provide food for himself and the group.
Therefore it is e.g. immoral to sleep late into the day.

The more civilized (educated) the groups became the more questions arose, to a point where no one knew the correct answer. Mama why is the Sun going and coming? or where the fu.. did the sun even come from.
It was for the smartest people to realize - hey if I can provide a satisfactory answer, all these dumb-buds will listen to me - and I can control them to go hunting for me. And actually I don't need to be the strongest and toughest to enforce my control onto the group. Brains will do just as good maybe even better.

The usually smartest buggers or being acknowledged as such by the majority, where the healers, or the so called Shamans. So one Shaman came up explaining that the sun is essential for growing and determining the outcome for crops (growing crops is where human civilization starts to really evolve). It is a spirit that designed the sun and made it from clay and placing a flame into the clay ball. In order for us to sleep the spirit has an assistant to put out the flame and to light it again in the morning.

And everyone went - hey great that explains it. And the Shaman said; okay guys you got it - and in order to keep the spirits happy YOU must provide fresh meat and vegetables plus some good looking virgins - to a brick construct that shall be called alter and will be housed in a fine building, where I shall live, ahh... were the spirits live.

Some tribal chiefs weren't dumb either, called themselves kings and came up with a dozen other spirits. And called themselves boss of all Spirits - aka God. Being aware of the power of those Shamans now called priests, some decided to unify both jobs - becoming God Kings and started to define a moral concept enabling them to control and enhance the development of their respective civilization. Perfect example the Egyptian God Kings.

There was a larger group - no power, more like slaves or peasants who had to work quite hard for these damn Egyptians and their priests and God Kings. And a single person or a group of these fellows realized that as long as they stay in Egypt, they are not going to climb the ladder to the top of the Pyramids. And far more important - how to unite all these peasants in order to rise against these God Kings. Or even better demand to leave and search out their own place.

Thanks to Egyptian knowledge of the surrounding territory/lands - they knew about a place far enough away from those bloody Egyptians, with nice valleys, water and not heavly defended by those locals living there - a place called Canaan.

So they would need an Ultimate God - super duper spirit - that could challenge these Egyptian God Kings and their half-gods, spirits etc, and thus unite these peasants towards a common goal - get the heck out of Egypt and look for the promised land - that their God told them it's theirs.

Later off course after having wiped out these Canaan's and others - they started to rewrite their story ah... history.

In order to maintain/keep their unique status - they came up with developing lot's of morals and religious customs - e.g. Kosher meals to avoid unnecessary health issues and inbreeding (kind of a moral) to make sure that the chosen ones won't get assimilated by other or larger groups.

So natural morals are defined by a society, religion defines/invents morals according to what fits its agenda/purpose best.

 

[alang1216]

Standards exist for logical reasons, not the whims of man.

You: So we as a society could determine that it was moral to own slaves? And that would make it moral?
Me: Of course. Do you think Washington and Jefferson were immoral or criminal?
You: No. Not of course. That’s dumb.

Please explain how the standard in the 18th century was logical but not so in the 21st century.

 

[Leviticus]

If two poople have two different ideas of what is right and wrong, and both believe god gave them their moral compus, which one if right.

 

[Meriweather]

If two poople have two different ideas of what is right and wrong, and both believe god gave them their moral compus, which one if right.

Watch for which decision produces the least harm and the most good.
Which decision is closer to the ideal and which meets the standard of "good enough."

 

[MizMolly]

Most people aren’t that stupid to not know right from wrong.

 

[MizMolly]

If two poople have two different ideas of what is right and wrong, and both believe god gave them their moral compus, which one if right.

Which one would cause harm or negative consequences?

 

[Leviticus]

Which one would cause harm or negative consequences?

Some people may agree on whether or not consequences are positive or negative.

 

[ding]

You: So we as a society could determine that it was moral to own slaves? And that would make it moral?
Me: Of course. Do you think Washington and Jefferson were immoral or criminal?
You: No. Not of course. That’s dumb.

Please explain how the standard in the 18th century was logical but not so in the 21st century.

Truth is discovered. Error can’t stand.

 

[themirrorthief]

There is no such thing as a ‘god-given’ conscience because, again, there is no ‘god’ as perceived by theists.

One has a man-given conscience, the consequence of having been socialized in accordance with moral and ethical tenets created and developed by man.

all religions blow, just a bunch of dogma and horseshit....trust in god instead///u can find God inside your heart....get woke idiots

 

[alang1216]

Truth is discovered. Error can’t stand.

You sound like a Muslim talking about Christianity. Regardless you have only dodged the question. If slavery was considered moral by Jefferson but is considered immoral in our society, it seems clear to me that, with or without God, society determines morality.