You just contradicted yourself.
If morality apart from God doesn’t exist, them morality does not originate from a holy book.
(Unless your god is a holy book. But I doubt you believe that)
For some it would seem that way. However, to the spiritually literate, my logic makes perfect sense. The Bible is inferred and the God of the Hebrews is the main character of the book.
Euthyphro.
1 Like
7 posts were split to a new topic: Are the Islamic, Hebrew, and Christian gods the same?
Atheism is simply a description of beliefs people don’t hold. Atheists use their positive beliefs to inform their morality like anyone else. Those beliefs often incorporate pieces of secular humanism and personal experience.
Atheists are well aware of the naturalistic fallacy and are mindful to avoid it.
We atheists do have a reason to classify something as good or bad. It’s called empathy and reason. We have the same sense of morality that you do. I find it hard to believe that you would be confused about the morality of rape and murder if it wasn’t for your religious belief.
1 Like
Objective morality is way overrated and dictatorial. Subjective moralities are much better since they are based on what humans want. If an objective morality went against everything humans believed was moral, would that objective morality be worth following? No.
That argument needs a bit more meat on it in order to be convincing.
Do you think humans lack an inner sense of morality?
This is an interesting topic but it easily goes down rabbit trails and less-than-fruitful conversations. Let’s keep it to the topic in the OP – Is religion (or a particular religion) needed to live a moral life?
No, they seem to have a sense of it. The problem would be that they are unable to truly obtain it apart from its source.
What, exactly, is it you are saying humans can’t obtain “apart from it’s source”, and what exactly does it mean to say that they “obtain” it?
What is morality? The concept of morality, what does it refer to?
My argument
- Morality is not an innate human quality
- Morality by nature is divine in origin
- Humans can live what looks like a moral life, without being moral
- For a human to obtain the quality of morality would necessitate an intersection with the divine
Don’t agree? Just say so.
That’s not an argument, that’s a list of assertions. They might be used as premises in an argument that ends with a conclusion but that is not what you provided.
I see no good reason to accept any of those premises as true.
2 Likes
It’s not an argument, is it? It’s just a series of claims. To make an argument, you have to give reasons for believing that the claims are true.
2 Likes
The answer is yes, not no. If an objective moral good exist, it would be foolish for humans, nearly by definition, to deliberately turn their backs from it.
It is scary that people can bring themselves to say something like that.
If every human being believed that maximum suffering was wrong, but the objective moral agent says it is the perfect moral good for humans to suffer maximally for an eternity, then I dare say I’d rather be objectively morally wrong and not follow that objective moral agent’s rules.
To say that it would be foolish to do or not do something, is to say that it has some sort of undesirable consequences. Otherwise, what is foolish about it?
It has to matter to us, to our mental states, to our well-being. If it goes against our well-being, then why follow it? For what purpose? In what sense would that be good? Why would that be worth it?
Can you explain Swinburne’s position?
“On Swinburne’s view, moral truths are either necessary truths or contingent truths that are grounded in necessary truths. For example, it is obviously contingent that “It is wrong to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima,” since it is contingent that there exists a city such as Hiroshima. But one might hold that this proposition is true (assuming it is) because of some other truth such as “It is wrong intentionally to kill innocent humans” which does hold universally and is necessarily true. ”
1 Like
You should not be scary for God is a loving God that want us to live a good life; And this is why He has written in the hearts of men his moral law so that by following it, they can find true happiness.
Taken from the Bible, here is God’s project for humanity:
« And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes, and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain; for the former things are passed away. »
Revelation 21:4
You can’t string enough good deeds together for us to call you “moral” because we will either find gaps of immoral behavior in your string of good deeds or you will one day do that which is immoral after a long period of morality.
If you drink a glass of ½ pure water mixed with ½ impure water, then in reality you will consume a full glass of impure water. If you are a mix of good deeds and bad deeds, we cannot call you moral. That which we say possesses a certain quality, is expected to continue to exhibit that quality, or it cannot logically possess that quality. The best we can say is that you seem to exhibit morality at certain times in your character. But you are not innately moral.
Only that being who is good all the time or who - without gaps, demise, or failure – continually exhibits moral behavior, is innately moral. That such a being exists outside of the human experience, is reasonable, whether he is believed in or not. To ascribe that one the name “God” makes sense due to his innate goodness.
Hence, the gap between you and morality, and your inability to bridge the gap. The human is not a moral being. More, he is not even a mix of moral and immoral, but wholly, immoral.
@Ashwin - This stilted characterization is fairly insulting to atheists, and quite a few Christians too. Would you perhaps consider rephrasing that?
@Ashwin_s
No reason? What about empathy and compassion. Atheist are every bit as human as anyone else, with the same feelings. I’m trying not to get mad at you over this, because I don’t think you realize what you are saying. You are also doing something very human - blaming the other. It’s easy to characterize those we disagree with as being somehow deficient, or even less human, than our own group.
We move beyond blaming the other by learning empathy and compassion. Christianity offers some lessons for people to learn those habits, but it’s not the only way to get there.
Sorry if I seem to be coming down on you about this, but it’s an important point, and I felt I had to respond. – Peace
5 Likes