How can you have objective morality without God?

Here's a video of a woman who was an atheist who became a Christian because she asked the simple question, "Why am I a good person?"



She realized that the Bible says our righteousness is like filthy rags. In other words, we're all born sinners and it's the grace of God that makes us good as we become like Jesus.

This poses a problem for atheist. If there's no God, then there's no objective morality. If this is the case there's no good and evil. An atheist morality is no different than Hitler or Charles Manson. This would mean morality is relative to the observer's experience.

If from Hitler's perspective, what he did was morally good, an atheist has no basis beyond their subjective opinion to say otherwise. In a debate, the atheist Richard Dawkins said he supports Darwin principles but Darwin principles wouldn't be good for running a society. Dawkins just made an argument for God.

Why wouldn't a society based on Darwin principles be good if 80% of the people in that society thought it was good? They may like living in a society where all sick people are killed in a humane way. This way they have low insurance premiums and everyone is having great sex because everyone is healthy.

If there's no God then there's no objective morality and the rapist can say it's good to rape from their perspective. Why would the morality of an atheist that donates to the homeless, is in a 20 year committed marriage, raised 3 great kids and cuts his older neighbors lawn because he can't be any different than Jeffrey Dahmer's or Ted Bundy's morality?

a reply to: neoholographic

Define Morality.

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: neoholographic

Define Morality.

Here's the dictionary definition:

mo·ral·i·ty /məˈralədē/ principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

How can there be any distinction between these things without the objective morality that comes from God?

A serial killer murders 20 people and another helps feed the homeless, why is one good and the other bad? Why is one right and one wrong?

If the serial killer's morality says he was killing prostitutes to help society, why isn't his morality and better or worse than the guy who helps feed the homeless?

Religion can be summed up as—-do unto others as you would have them do unto you—-that’s it, morality defined, and if you follow that one rule, you don’t need the Bible or religions.

a reply to: neoholographic

There is no such thing as objective morality. There is no problem for atheists regards morality. There is more of a problem for those of a biblical persuasion with a psychopathic god swashbuckling through the ages.

We see empathy all around us in the animal kingdom. We just reason it out a bit more.

Regards morals, there are good people and there are bad people...that's basically it.

Is God moral? Man wrote a book about this God person. Is various parts it says slavery is good, genoaide is good, war is good. In other parts of that same book it says all these things are bad. The problem is MAN wrote this book.

a reply to: neoholographic

Psychopaths and sociopaths need "God" for a moral compass. The rest are bestowed with empathy, altruism and a sense of survival that tells us it's healthier to get along with people than to piss them all off.

How can you have objective morality without god?

Easy....test your survival instincts in reality.

You will be amazed at what and whom you learn to work with easily and in a beneficial manner for all. No god required.

originally posted by: neoholographic

If the serial killer's morality says he was killing prostitutes to help society, why isn't his morality and better or worse than the guy who helps feed the homeless?

Were they ugly hookers, makes a difference...

Have you ever read Immanuel Kant who was an atheist?

Morality is whatever society says it is. Religion helps maintain a fundamental moral foundation, but its society that determines if they want to use it or not.

a reply to: neoholographic

We would have to create a Morality graph, and gather data in order to study your question further.

Altruism has been shown to exist in Nature.

A guy sales a kidney and it saves the life of a child,

The next year he sales another kidney which saves the life of another child. Is that good?

The following year he sales another which saves another child. Is that Bad?

Morality is moldable.

Do you go to heaven when you die if you are a good person? Or do you lie under ground until the rapture when Christ comes back to take all the souls to heaven?

a reply to: neoholographic

I think God or the belief in a god(s) is like having a needle in the compass.

It would point you in the right direction.

Now, whether you take the right direction or not is up to you.

But the "needle" is pointing the way, regardless.

Atheist's have a compass without a needle. Instead, they arbitrarily draw one in and claim that what they drew in is showing the correct path.

a reply to: neoholographic

Here's a video of a woman who was an atheist who became a Christian because she asked the simple question, "Why am I a good person?"

And......? People switch from non-religious to religious and back again all the time. They also switch from one religion to another. So what?

This poses a problem for atheist.

It poses no problem at all for the atheist. The only morality at all is that which is defined by the group.

Why would the morality of an atheist that donates to the homeless, is in a 20 year committed marriage, raised 3 great kids and cuts his older neighbors lawn because he can't be any different than Jeffrey Dahmer's or Ted Bundy's morality?

Because the former is subject to the mores of the group and stays within them. The latter have strayed outside the tenets set by the group and is damaging to the health of the group, so the Dahmer's and Bundy's must be excised from the group for it's well-being and cohesiveness.

These concepts are very simple, and religion is unnecessary for a society to flourish and grow. All that is needed is an agreement that prospers the whole while respecting the rights of the individual...

...Such as the right to believe in the Christian god, or any other god if you so choose without trampling the rights of others if they don't believe as you do, and vice versa

a reply to: DBCowboy

I always agree with you but not this time.
Atheists don't need a compass because, just like free birds, they know their directions intrinsically.

A compass and religion are manmade for those who lack natural guidance.

morality is the result of pleasure and pain
it aligns with our thinking
anything painful is considered bad and so on

originally posted by: Hecate666
a reply to: DBCowboy

I always agree with you but not this time.
Atheists don't need a compass because, just like free birds, they know their directions intrinsically.

A compass and religion are manmade for those who lack natural guidance.

Okay.

In religious debates it's all about faith anyway.

We'll just agree to disagree.

a reply to: neoholographic

That's a trick question, right?

What god has provenance, what morality has provenance? It seems to me like if you lens it through a particular one you lose ALL CLAIM to objectivity.

Morality differs around the world. Objectively viewing morality requires taking into account all forms of morality like; Judeo-Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Taoism, tribal honor codes, secular humanism, and all criminal justice codes under any name need to be factored in.

I feel all are rooted in a principle of respect. Before laws were written, parable transcribed, and territory mapped out, there were still acknowledgements of territorial claims or appropriate behavior. And a further stratification (casting) and code of order/respect established within the family groups.

But when an animal wired for groups of 150 or less (Dunbar's number) tries to exist beyond the empathetic capacity a need for overreaching mandate exists. Code of Hammurabi, Magna Carta, The Bible, Egyptian Heiroglyphs, cuneiform tablets, all are examples of a mandated morality, moral parable, or suggested code of conduct.

Where it actually comes from is moot to its biological need.

What's beneficial to maintaining order is "good"
What's detrimental to maintaining order is "bad".

And not being a total piece of **** or crossing unspoken lines benefits your ability to survive (most of the time).

Just my thoughts.

Curiously enough, I never think of "God" when I'm being nice to someone. Practically every culture came up with the same Golden Rule over time -- Treat others as you would prefer to be treated yourself. That takes care of it without there needing some kind of supernatural mystery entity involved.

Besides, when has a belief in this controlling entity ever stopped people or nations from harming each other? Half of the Old Testament is stories of the Jews basically slaughtering their enemy tribes and destroying their villages and salting their farmland.

And of course, "God" is undefinable anyway, so it makes no sense to acknowledge it as an actual thing, and even less sense to worship it.

originally posted by: Hecate666
a reply to: DBCowboy

I always agree with you but not this time.
Atheists don't need a compass because, just like free birds, they know their directions intrinsically.

A compass and religion are manmade for those who lack natural guidance.

Natural guidance? lol. Could you describe this Natural guidance you speek of? How do you communicate with it's existence, please don't tell me you ignore it's presence.

If your only a good person because you fear reprisal from God or because you are seeking reward from God are you really all that good of a person?

If I were god; I'd favor those people who did good on their own over those who did good just to please me.

Then again God might be an egomaniacal entity who craves nothing more than worship from his creations. In that case being good just to please God or because you fear God might be the only thing God wants.