Without god what is the basis of morality? (page 5)

Perry

Is God Jehovah/Yahweh ?Jesus for some , of the christian bible moral ?

Hi Smiddy,

Isn't that like saying that the Standard of Morality Isn't Moral? How can that be if he is the standard?

Or maybe this: The oxygen that we breathe isn't really oxygen because we breathe other stuff too.

Or possibly: The sky isn't really blue because there are a lot of other colors mixed in too.

How is such reasoning different that a "No Real Scotsman" fallacious argument. The logic put forth in such reasoning contradicts the premise of God.

You cite a number of good questions, though. There are many others just as rich. These are questions that when researched, dramatically enrich the understanding of God, clear some of the confusion, and helps establish a greater degree of reality.

Slavery

Rape

Genocide / Sex Slaves

Are the Genesis accounts borrowed from other cultures?

I highly encourage anyone to research the premises of these "lightning rod" subject titles as well as the facts surrounding such topics in their historical ancient near east (ANE) context.

Researching these topics and others like them helped me to very deeply understand that God was someone that I could personally trust. He has a plan. It is VERY interesting, even if seemingly long and drawn out from our perspective. It can get a little tedious, but will provide much food for thought.

cofty

So Perry I take it your answer is that you have no interest in a sincere conversation on this topic.

ttdtt

The god of the bible is in NO WAY a moral standard for anyone.
He is the embodiment of evil.

By the way, who invented the weapon that would slaughter millions and millions?

So he drove the man out, and he posted at the east of the garden of Eʹden the cherubsf and the flaming blade of a sword that was turning continuously to guard the way to the tree of life.

Thanks loving god, what would adam and eve have done without knowing about swords.

Diogenesister

What Doubtful1799 was talking about as a starting point

The "veil of ignorance" is a method of determining the morality of political issues proposed in 1971 by American philosopher John Rawls in his "original position" political philosophy. It is based upon the following thought experiment: people making political decisions imagine that they know nothing about the particular talents, abilities, tastes, social class, and positions they will have within a social order. When such parties are selecting the principles for distribution of rights, positions, and resources in the society in which they will live, this "veil of ignorance" prevents them from knowing who will receive a given distribution of rights, positions, and resources in that society. For example, for a proposed society in which 50% of the population is kept in slavery, it follows that on entering the new society there is a 50% likelihood that the participant would be a slave. The idea is that parties subject to the veil of ignorance will make choices based upon moral considerations, since they will not be able to make choices based on their own self- or class-interest.

As Rawls put it, "no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like".[1] The idea of the thought experiment is to render obsolete those personal considerations that are morally irrelevant to the justice or injustice of principles meant to allocate the benefits of social cooperation. The veil of ignorance is part of a long tradition of thinking in terms of a social contract that includes the writings of Immanuel Kant, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson.

blownaway

Humans are social creatures, as such you have to have structure to live socially. God is an invention to give few power over the many. The bible is the last book along with the Koran that I would call "moral"

Finkelstein

but implied when we are ethical we reflect God (Mathew 5:9)

That's why the Jesus god became so popular, he was the most humanistic empathic god ever created by man.

Too bad it was still a fictional prophetic god expressed within ancient mythology.

snugglebunny

When I left the JW's, I did some of the bad things. Later I felt like shit about them all. Then I realised that true morality comes from within. If you don't listen to that little voice telling you no, then you will feel like an absolute turd whether you believe in God or not. So something is operating somewhere.

EverApostate

smiddy3

Well said.

slimboyfat

Okay I can see why you would think that from what I have said, so let me be clear.

I think there is good reason to believe that some sort of God exists. When I say that what I mean is I believe that an intelligence behind the existence of the universe seems at least as good, and probably a better explanation for the universe than no God at all.

So that’s the base level, you could say agnostic leaning toward believing in God.

But on top of that I don’t rule out the God of the Bible being a fair representation of the God of the universe. How come? Because it’s quite a complex and thoughtful portrayal of the almighty. New atheists take all the problematic anti humanist texts of the Bible and say God can’t be like that or is wicked. But isn’t it possible that God, if he exists, doesn’t conform to modern humanist standards? What if God has less regard for humans than we would like, is in many ways incomprehensible, views his worship as paramount and so on. You might not like God to be so. But there is nothing to say God must be as we would like him to be.

zeb

Has anyone read the meditations of Marcus Aurelius? (google)

Without god what is the basis of morality?

Share this