Posted on 12/20/2010 10:32:51 AM PST by truthfinder9
To whos standard? Yours?Would it be incorrect to say for instance Greek culture is surrounded by the cult of Greek mythology? Since the cult of Greek mythology influnced Greek culture. Play all the word games you like if you think it makes you feel more cultured.
Then please enlighten me, what is the objective basis for "morals" without God. Nobody has ever been able to answer the question before but maybe you'll be the first. I anxiously await the response.
I pointed out that is impossible if there is no God because objective morals are impossible without a God..........................................................................See, that is your opinion and belief, that does not make it a fact except in your own mind.
You don't even understand the question at issue. Being religious doesn't make anyone any "gooder" than anyone else. It does, however, provide an objective standard to define something as good or bad. Atheism doesn't.
No, by definition "moral" presupposes a normative standard. That's simple logic. It is the exact opposite of "opinion". Now please tell me where this standard comes from if there is no God. Don't dodge the question.
Such an interesting person you are.
Yes, exactly, and conversely, many Atheists are “better” people than professing Christians, but this certainly is no indicator of the lack of truthfulness of Christianity as many anti-Christians are quick to believe. Of course, when we say “better” we have an idea in mind of a certain endpoint that is preferred and that the individuals we are referring to are more (better), or less (worse), in accordance with that endpoint. It is that endpoint that measures goodness over evilness. Hitlers, Stalin’s, and Mao’s “endpoint” obviously measures good and evil on a different standard. And we know for a fact that the propaganda campaigns that lead to the fascist and communist genocides painted the State’s enemies as evil and justly deserving of torture and death.
So what standard are we going to live by? And is that standard simply a personal choice either adopted or invented by the individual, or does it originate with the Origin of everything?
I guess it could be stated that anyone in the Old Testament that was not a Hebrew was, in gods eye, an enemy of the Hebrew. ............ The standard we live by has changed and evolved over many thousands of years.Islams standard hasn’t changed much in the last 700 hundred or so.Our standards have changed in the last 150 or so. 150 years ago taking a woman or girl to be your wife at the age of 14 was a moraly accepted practice, but not today.On the other hand , 150 years ago women dancing naked on a stage was not an accepted practice in this country, but prostitution was.
Then please enlighten me, what is the objective basis for “morals” without God. Nobody has ever been able to answer the question before but maybe you’ll be the first. I anxiously await the response.
***********************************************************
With your supposition that there is/must be a God it is obviously impossible to address your question. Later you said that a religion is ‘required’ to set moral standards. That is your ‘belief’, nothing more. Its unfortunate tho that implicitly you must believe that you can live a higher moral life than I. Hmmmmmm ‘unfortunate’ isn’t the right word.
No, by definition “moral” presupposes a normative standard. That’s simple logic. It is the exact opposite of “opinion”. Now please tell me where this standard comes from if there is no God. Don’t dodge the question.
*************************************************************
The discussion below uses the term ‘moral authority’. It starts off saying it ‘might/could’ come from a God (God). But in the end I think it says that we, society, defines moral authority. Not laws mind you but doing what is right.
http://theblog.philosophytalk.org/2007/07/where-does-mora.html
Good luck. BTW, all the provided links say "does not exist on this server."
Actually I never said whether I believe in a God one way or the other. I merely said without God there is no objective basis for what you call morality or right or wrong. An atheist can easily live a "higher moral life" than a theist but only as defined by the theist. Merely because one presupposes a God doesn't mean they live up to the standards set by that God any better than one who doesn't believe in a God. But if one doesn't believe in a God then there are no standards, only what they personally chose to do or whatever makes them feel best about themseles. Without a God there is no objective basis for saying Hitler was any "worse" a person than Mother Theresa. Every serious philosopher has acknowledged this, even Kant with his cop out of the catagorical imperative.
Second that!
Spot on.
Might 'a known, huh?
IMHO, the "Desiderada" has it about right...
". . . You are a child of the universe no less than the trees and the stars;
You have a right to be here,
And whether or not it is clear to you,
No doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore, be at peace with God,
Whatever you conceive Him to be. . . "
But that definition will change from society to society and within a society over time. There is nothing fixed and it is completely relative and arbitrary. Thus, there is no objective reason why I as an individual should follow or accept what any society arbitrarily choses to define as right or wrong other than the fear of punishment.
This could be the reason you are so confused, put the damn book down, get to know real people and use you own mind to decide what is real. We have enough philosophers and community organizers
Morality is relative, not absolute. The standard is determinate by the society, subjectively.
Go to the main page, SB.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.