This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

A new challenge to the atheism/morality dilemma that I just thought of...

#1sextronbotPosted 6/7/2011 1:19:41 AM
If morals truly have no meaning without God, then why would God create morals at all? After all, if for example, murder is only wrong because God says so then did God just decide that murder was wrong for no particular reason at all? You could of course, give a rational reason as to why God decided on the morals that he decided on, but then you've just given a reason to abide by morals that doesn't require a belief in any God...
---
RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009 :'(
Karma: 637
#2OrangeWizardPosted 6/7/2011 1:28:46 AM
God would create morals so that everyone can have some accountability to him, for their actions.


But even if God made morals arbitrarily, so what? That's like saying God made the laws of Physics arbitrarily. That doesn't mean that they still don't work, that they're still unchangeable, and that we abide by them.
---
"this game is about reality. ... when you fire a gun you are not like "what is this am i shooting sausages?""
-General_Dong on Black Ops
#3sextronbot(Topic Creator)Posted 6/7/2011 2:03:22 AM

From: OrangeWizard | #002
God would create morals so that everyone can have some accountability to him, for their actions.


Why would we need accountability for actions that supposedly are neither right nor wrong?

But even if God made morals arbitrarily, so what? That's like saying God made the laws of Physics arbitrarily. That doesn't mean that they still don't work, that they're still unchangeable, and that we abide by them.


If God's morals were only decided on arbitrarily then that seems to put a huge dent in the argument that morality is incompatible with atheism. Why should an atheist even care when even theists admit that morals don't have any meaning aside from God?
---
RIP Butters_1188 2005-2009 :'(
Karma: 637
#4DiranosaurPosted 6/7/2011 3:23:09 AM
Morals are subjective. If a personal God exists, s/he also holds a set of subjective morals. End of topic.
---
My folk band - http://barfota.bandcamp.com/
#5zyzzvya01Posted 6/7/2011 6:08:01 AM
We can see morality evolving in todays society, particularly in the fields of bio ethics and sexual rights. Claiming one religion has a set of objective morals is simply moronic, especially when holy books contain some truly immoral teachings, such as homophobia and the allowance of slavery.
#6kozlo100Posted 6/7/2011 9:21:55 AM
Why should an atheist even care when even theists admit that morals don't have any meaning aside from God?

It's not really as simple as all that. Under the assumption that God arbitrarily created morality, he also arbitrarily created everything else. Such a god has the authority and power to make his arbitrary decisions have the weight of reality.

Think of it this way: God arbitrarily decided that red would be the particular hue that it is, but that doesn't mean atheists get to go around seeing it as blue. Red is still red, no matter how arbitrary it's creation was.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#7Faust_8Posted 6/7/2011 9:52:51 AM
^^ But doesn't it mean that the morals aren't objective, that they are simply subjective...from god?

The only way for morals to be truly objective is if they existed independently and before god. And that doesn't seem possible to me no matter how I look at it.
---
Religions tell children they might avoid hell...while science tells children they came from the stars.
#8AtomicItalianPosted 6/7/2011 10:03:29 AM
zyzzvya01 posted...
We can see morality evolving in todays society, particularly in the fields of bio ethics and sexual rights. Claiming one religion has a set of objective morals is simply moronic, especially when holy books contain some truly immoral teachings, such as homophobia and the allowance of slavery.

So the only one who knows anything about "true" morals is you, right?

Since you can claim that religious texts hold "truly immoral teachings".

I thought morals were subjective? How can anything be truly immoral? Isn't this just you projecting your own morality onto other subjective moral systems? How can you, with any degree of intellectual honesty, admit subjective morality and then turn around and make an absolute statement about morality?
---
This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers. 1 John 3:16
#9kozlo100Posted 6/7/2011 10:04:05 AM
But doesn't it mean that the morals aren't objective, that they are simply subjective...from god?

Sort of, but like I said, it gets tricky when you have a creature with the ability to create objective reality. Such a creature can take it's subjective views and make a reality in which they are objective, strange as that sounds.

Take a universe which has an atheistic objective morality, something of the natural law sort. A creature with the power to create universes can create a place like that, only with his arbitrarily chosen morality as the objective one.

You can validly claim that such a morality isn't ultimately objective, but that's a wholly trivial and irrelevant claim to creatures living within that created universe. It doesn't mean that we aren't irrevocably subject to it any more than the specific force of gravity being arbitrarily chosen by that same being means we can choose to fall slower. Doing wrong would still be wrong even if you disagree with the morality and consider it right.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#10Faust_8Posted 6/7/2011 10:12:58 AM
So the only one who knows anything about "true" morals is you, right?

Since you can claim that religious texts hold "truly immoral teachings".

I thought morals were subjective? How can anything be truly immoral? Isn't this just you projecting your own morality onto other subjective moral systems? How can you, with any degree of intellectual honesty, admit subjective morality and then turn around and make an absolute statement about morality?


ITP: Only morality is subjective--you can't subjectively decide something is immoral.

Who said he was making an absolute statement on morality? He was simply stating a very commonly agreed subjective one.

By the way, to anyone doubting the power of subjective values/morals:

Diamonds. Cash. Gold. Send them all to me. After all, they have absolutely no objective value whatsoever.

Ever seen tapes of those city riots after a big soccer (aka football over there) game? The results of that game were also completely and utterly subjective. And yet it has the power to produce extreme elation or bitter disappointment...or turn you into part of a violent mob mentality, apparently.

I really don't give a hoot about any sports team, in fact. It's just not something I'm interested in. So I actually "let go" those subjective values, on my own.

The world is chock full of objectively meaningless but extremely subjectively relevant ideas/objects/rituals/traditions/whatever.
---
Religions tell children they might avoid hell...while science tells children they came from the stars.