Morality Without Deity

by cofty 210 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • The Rebel
    The Rebel

    As a landlord it is my job to have the gas and electrics up to standard. However if I employ a qualified electrician and he does the electrics, yet a serious electrical problem still occurs, i would still feel responsible and devastated, if something tragic happenned to my tenants.Why? Because I am the Landlord and the safety of the tenants is my responsibility. If the electrician f...ks up, it doesn't excuse my responsibility.

    This is the problem I have with God, he has a lower moral standard than I, he simply hasn't done enough, and the sentimental story of sending his son to die for our sins, is a bit like me passing the responsibility on to my electrician. If God created man he should have known of the risk factor and that things could go wrong. In my opinion the fact that we have tsunamis, and so much senseless tragity in the world is proof that if God exists and created mankind, he has no moral standard and is not worthy of my respect. However if a person feels they can make sense of this God and find him all loving, then i hope they will also understand why I can't?

  • Rainbow_Troll

    How can there be any moral absolutes without a God? I have heard this question from so many theists. A better question is: How can there be any moral absolutes with a God? If God is the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong then there can be no moral absolutes. If God says murder your own child (like with Abraham), then this becomes the right thing to do in that particular situation. If 'right' is simply whatever God wills, then whatever God wills is right. 'God is good' means only that God wills what he wills. If God is truly good (in any meaningful, non-tautological sense of that word) then he is good because he obeys a set of moral principles external to himself.

    No ethical theory I'm aware of is totally absolute. Even so, theistic morality has to be the most arbitrary ethical system conceivable. Utilitarianism, Confucianism, virtue ethics, social contract theory, all contain more absolutes than theist morality.

  • Heaven

    There are many examples, past and present, where religion fails the morality test. Most believers are ignorant and have no idea of the ugliness within their own religions until they experience it for themselves. Catholics, in particular, have an enormous blood trail legacy their religion has caused (examples include the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and Witch Burnings just to name a few. I could go on but I leave it up to the individual to do their own research). Even when stories come out, those unaffected make up excuses such as "well it was only one case" kind of bull shite - as if this makes it ok.

    One only has to look to the Catholic and Jehovah's Witnesses religions, to name just 2, where we find a mountain of immorality in their many pedophilia cases being just one example. And these cases, among other abuses, continue to occur. If religion was truly moral, these things would not be happening.

    I am not sure why Christian believers take offense when their very own foundational holy book speaks to where evil comes from at Isaiah 45:7: I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things. - KJV Note: I find it interesting that certain translations have altered the word 'evil' to be 'calamity' or 'disaster'. It strikes me as an attempt at softening the gravity of the word without actually being successful. Just one more example of the disingenuousness of religion

  • fukitol

    John Mann:

    History show us that some accounts is literally impossible.
    Every battle and genocide is a symbol for our inner faith struggles.
    Catholicism is not founded on Bible. The NT is a product of Catholicism. Outside Catholicism the Bible is pure nonsense.
    Amazing how Atheists here seems just to take the Sola Scriptura approach. If Sola Scriptura is the only approach so I'm an Atheist too.

    And so the special pleading begins. Cherry pick what scriptures suit and reject what doesn't.

    In that case you have just completely sawn off the branch you are sitting on, since all knowledge of your God comes from the Bible.

    Case closed.

  • slimboyfat

    In the case of Siamese twins the separation can come much later still. Are there even cases where brain matter is shared and separation is not possible. Lots of complicated scenarios around personal identity and individuality for sure. But are you saying these situations prove Catholics are wrong to hold that life is sacred from conception?

    That because individuality may not always be defined at conception, therefore Catholics are wrong that life is sacred from conception. Have I understood the argument correctly? How does it logically follow?

  • cofty

    Stem cell-research is a useful example of the clash between the absolute moral pronouncements of theism and a more rational morality based on objective facts.

    Compare ---

    Yes, we believe that the soul is directly created and infused by God in the very moment of conception. It's not about the embryo having a neural system or not or ability to feel pain. It's about the soul already created - John_Mann

    Catholics want to prohibit important medical research on the basis of the specific belief that god infuses the fertilised egg with a unique human soul at the moment of conception.

    Objective facts show that this belief is impossible. These facts should give pause to those who would deny important medical knowledge to people suffering from debilitating diseases. It won't give them pause of course because their morality is based on the premise of "god says.... the end".

  • John_Mann

    "There's no absolute."

    ( the statement above is the ONLY exception)

  • cofty

    It's becoming clear you you don't want to engage with any of the actual arguments on the topic John. That's a pity.

    Perhaps you would answer one question....

    Can you think of a moral position that isn't predicated on the well-being of conscious creatures?

  • John_Mann

    I think the ultimate goal of morality is the well-being of people.

    But in the meantime some acts can be seen as immoral if you don't see the big picture.

    Parents submitting children under painful treatment for instance.

    Sometimes an apparent evil is the only way to achieve a greater good.

  • never a jw
    never a jw

    @John Mann: I think the ultimate goal of morality is the well-being of people.

    You re making progress. You are using a popular definition. At least it's better than "God's will"

    But in the meantime some acts can be seen as immoral if you don't see the big picture.

    Maybe not, now you are demonstrating the subjectivity of the whole issue. You found the need of the big picture that others don't see. It's your view versus others' view. Yours is better...of course. It's based on absolute morality.

    Parents submitting children under painful treatment for instance. Sometimes an apparent evil is the only way to achieve a greater good.

    Cherry picking? How about bombing to oblivion a town where a new, lethal and highly contagious disease has overwhelmed the population. The greater good is to prevent the spreading of the disease to the world. The amount of lives saved by bombing the town can easily be much greater than the lives killed in that town. What does absolute morality dictate to do?

Share this