Is a God Needed for Morality?

[Midnight Star]

I find that a very easy question to answer, the answer is no.

It's difficult in that all things we have today comes from the very idea of one way is better than another; the human engine. So to condemn that, would be to condemn everything. So if i'm willing to let all that go, then yes it's absolutely wrong (given we're talking about universal truth), and it's time to let it go. Otherwise, this discussion continues.

-----

Mike.

 

[Thalassamania]

Shoshin is a major focus of our Aikido practices.

 

[Midnight Star]

When it's raining, I love to sit outside and listen. I wish it were raining now.

-----

Mike.

 

[MikeFerrara]

That's 5,000 sentient people versus 800,000 non-sentient, obligate parasite cell masses. Let's save the abortion discussion for another thread, that will get us shutdown in an (adult human) heartbeat.

Fair enough but that doesn't speak to a correlation between religious beliefs and acts or "wrong", however we would define that, or the question of whether or not we would be better to trust athiests.

 

[JessH]

Quote:
Originally Posted by agilis
People who act ethically mainly because they fear that God will punish them if they do not are not to be trusted.

It's not clear to me how agilis is comming to that conclusion. Beyond that the statement reflects what seems to be a common misconception. I don't try to act in a way that pleases God in an attempt to avoid punishment. It's a forgone conclusion that I will not be totally successful and I already have forgiveness for those failures through Christ. My desire to please God is an expression of love for God and a result of having faith that the things that "please God" are the things that are best.

Then you are not one of the group that he says is not to be trusted, but it seems that most of the arguments for god being required center on people needing a fear of god to have morality. I would also say that I have known many people who do have a fear of god and base their morality on it. I also do not trust those people. They no longer rely on logic or their inner sense of morality and instead rely on someone to tell them a set of rules. They will not hesitate to do truly horrible things as long as they are told that it will not anger god. They are also susceptable to the fact that in the mind it is often easy to rationalize the bending of rules in a way that allows one to convince themselves to do imoral things because they believe that it will not anger god. Your basis for morality seems much healithier than this. I am glad. Replace God with the world and you basically have what I believe: My desire to please the world is an expression of love for the world and a result of having faith that the things that "please the world" are the things that are best. (By the world I mean everything, I was about to use the word Humanity but I realized that it didn't include everything that I needed it to.)

Do no harm because all is one and hurting another is the same as hurting yourself. I think that is a much healthier basis for morality than a parent figure, but I also understand that some people believe that most people are not ready to fully embrace that philosiphy and that is what has necesitated the formation of most religions. While I think there may be something to that idea I don't feel that religion has been very succesfull at achieving its goal.

~Jess

 

[JessH]

The Bible dosn't say anything about abortion but the reasoning is simple. Since each is created in Gods image, each is valuable. Would you agree that all else being equal and left to run its course that being a "first trimester baby" is a temporary state? Isn't this "lack of sentience" then a temporary state?

<snip>

My reasoning results in a greater level of safety for you because I don't believe that your right to live is in any way dependant on my perception of your sentiance. Being human and created in the image of God is where your "right to live" originates.

Left to their own, people can rationalize just about anything and think it all completely reasonable.

But it is your rationale and interpertation of the word of god, not the word of god himself. You yourself just said that people can rationalize anything, how do you know that you are not wrong? Basing your rationale on the word of god means nothing if it is not the word of god itself.

Do you believe in the death penalty? I know far too many anti-abortion people who are pro death penalty. I don't see how someone in there right mind could rationalize that and truly consider themself a christian, yet sadly I see it every day.

~Jess

 

[Hemlon]

Then you are not one of the group that he says is not to be trusted, but it seems that most of the arguments for god being required center on people needing a fear of god to have morality. I would also say that I have known many people who do have a fear of god and base their morality on it. I also do not trust those people. They no longer rely on logic or their inner sense of morality and instead rely on someone to tell them a set of rules. They will not hesitate to do truly horrible things as long as they are told that it will not anger god. They are also susceptable to the fact that in the mind it is often easy to rationalize the bending of rules in a way that allows one to convince themselves to do imoral things because they believe that it will not anger god. Your basis for morality seems much healithier than this. I am glad. Replace God with the world and you basically have what I believe: My desire to please the world is an expression of love for the world and a result of having faith that the things that "please the world" are the things that are best. (By the world I mean everything, I was about to use the word Humanity but I realized that it didn't include everything that I needed it to.)

Do no harm because all is one and hurting another is the same as hurting yourself. I think that is a much healthier basis for morality than a parent figure, but I also understand that some people believe that most people are not ready to fully embrace that philosiphy and that is what has necesitated the formation of most religions. While I think there may be something to that idea I don't feel that religion has been very succesfull at achieving its goal.

~Jess

Very good!

 

[JessH]

Very good!

I decided to take a break from making smart *** remarks and attempt to say something of substance for once. While satisfying I would have to say that it wasn't nearly as much fun

 

[Kevrumbo]

Actually I think the question makes more sense if it's reversed.
Did Man seek God because of intrinsic moral feelings that needed to be explained?

Morality in the Judeo-Chistian-Islamic tradition comes from authorative declarations such as "Thou shall not kill --else you'll go to Hell!"; or "Thou shall not kill --because you'll be reborn as a cockroach if you do!", as in the Hindu-Buddhist tradition. These declarations are based on the ideas of reincarnation based on past specific behavior in the latter, and the former on the idea of Hell and an omnipotent God who will send you there based on certain behaviors in your one & only corporeal life. IMO, analytically (not Theologically Thalassamania!) this boils down to a Pascal's Wager Scenario, the motivation to "do the right thing" not really coming from morality per se but from ironically, self-interest in one's welfare in this Life and whatever else is to come (i.e. an AfterLife).

But the fact remains that you will go to Scuba Diving Purgatory if you don't dive using the Metric System, and suffer in Scuba Hell for all eternity if you don't dive DIR!

 

[Bryan]

Shoshin is a major focus of our Aikido practices.

In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's mind there are few.
--Shunryu Suzuki