Does Liberty exist without God?

[ClayTrainor]

Morality is dependent on nature, but nature is not dependent on morality.

Genetics are memory to operate the biological functions of life, but morality is a form of memory that must be gained in the 3 dimensions that our conscious life exists in. All mamallian forms of life gain their morality and respect for rights of others from others who already existed in the 3 dimensions before them. they learn! We must learn the morality of man, based on our individual rights as they are inherent in our nature. Nature is not inherent with rights.

In other words, rights are the way in which you would prefer to be treated therefore, you should treat others the same way.

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" - Jesus

 

[emazur]

Thanks Clay, saved me some typing - just one thing left for me -

From an atheistic view, we are merely advanced primates who evolved to develop "morality" but this is all relative to each person, culture, and species. It has no deeper meaning. :o

1) There are quite a few religions out there - do they all share the same notion of "morality", or is it relative to each religion? If it is relative, why?

2) Let's narrow it down to the Abrahamic religions. I'll presume you are Christian - do you share the same notions of morality of the Jews and Muslims? How about Catholics and Mormons? If not, why not?

 

[emazur]

Morality is dependent on nature, but nature is not dependent on morality.

Genetics are memory to operate the biological functions of life, but morality is a form of memory that must be gained in the 3 dimensions that our conscious life exists in. We must learn the morality of man, based on our individual rights, as they are inherent in our nature. Nature is not inherent with rights.

In other words, rights are they way in which you would prefer to be treated therefore, you should treat others the same way.

"Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you" - Jesus

I'd prefer "Do not do unto others, as you would not have them do unto you". "Do unto others" presumes you know what the other person wants, or the other person presumes what you want. And from there it easily transforms into doing unto you what you should want. That's how we wind up with things like government "education" and healthcare.

 

[ClayTrainor]

I'd prefer "Do not do unto others, as you would not have them do unto you". "Do unto others" presumes you know what the other person wants, or the other person presumes what you want. And from there it easily transforms into doing unto you what you should want. That's how we wind up with things like government "education" and healthcare.

That's an interesting point, that i've never considered, it definitely makes some sense.

 

[emazur]

That's an interesting point, that i've never considered, it definitely makes some sense.

I think my version is usually associated w/ Confucianism - I checked wikipedia and found a few interesting variations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#Confucianism

Confucianism
See also: Confucianism
“ Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself. ”

— Confucius, Analects XV.24 (tr. David Hinton)

The same idea is also presented in V.12 and VI.30 of the Analects.
[edit] Hinduism
See also: Hinduism
“ One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires. ”

— Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse 8)[24]
[edit] Islam
See also: Islam
“ Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you. ”

— Muhammad, The Farewell Sermon

 

[Ian A.]

Rights are inherent in our nature. It matters not to me, if you give credit to a supernatural being for them, or not. Their nature does not change.

Actually under an atheistic view, our inherent morality changes all the time! The nazis believed what they did in the camps was good, while others thought it was evil. It's all relative.

Our minds have simply evolved far superior to all other species on this planet

I wouldn't say superior--I would say "differently." Imagine if neanderthals did not die out, and they evolved differently than us. Suppose they evolved with a completely different morality. Saying our morality is "superior" is speciesism.

i for one respect the natural rights of humans not wolves.

What if I respect the the natural rights of Gentiles but not Jews? This proves my point: under a naturalist view, rights are a matter of preference; of taste.

Michael Ruse wrote and interesting article called Is Rape Wrong on Andromeda? In it, he imagines an alien race who evolved differently than us, and developed their own moral values. They evolved to believe that rape is not immoral. If that alien race visited planet earth--and these aliens were as superior to us, as we are to pigs (or wolves)--and proceeded to rape humans, or harvest them for food, we would have no justification in saying that this was wrong. We would say that is evil, they would say it's good, and neither would be right.

My morality comes from respect for individual rights of man.

That's cool, but I personally don't have any morality. I like torturing animals, and sadism, and cruelty. If I really felt this way, there would be no objective difference between you and me. It would be the same as preferring McDonald's instead of Burger King.

Let's narrow it down to the Abrahamic religions. I'll presume you are Christian - do you share the same notions of morality of the Jews and Muslims? How about Catholics and Mormons? If not, why not?

Your misunderstanding my argument. I argue that objective and absolute morality does exist, and their is an absolute truth regardless of what differing religions say. An atheist can't make that claim. To him, morality is relative to how we evolved, to each culture, and each person.

 

[emazur]

Your misunderstanding my argument. I argue that objective and absolute morality does exist, and their is an absolute truth regardless of what differing religions say. An atheist can't make that claim. To him, morality is relative to how we evolved, to each culture, and each person.

I'm an atheist and I do make the claim that "do no harm to others" is objective morality. In your first post you said

From an atheistic viewpoint "Rights" and "Morality" are just subjective beliefs.

Therefore, from a theistic viewpoint morality is objective? Then why do not all the people from different religions (the theists) have the same objective morality? If you again try to say I'm missing your argument, let me put it this way. Do you claim that because you are a theist (forget about any particular religion), you know what objective morality is? If so, would you care to give an outline of this objective morality?

 

[Ian A.]

Do you claim that because you are a theist, you know what objective morality is?

No. You don't need to be a theist to know that you should love your children instead of torturing them. I believe that in some ways God has "hardwired" morality into our brains, but I could be 99% wrong about what is good/evil, but what I believe doesn't change a thing.

This is my only real argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.

2. Objective morality does exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

[edit] When I said "an atheist can't make that claim" I meant he can't justify the claim that objective morality exists, and he has no foundation for that belief--even if it's true.

 

[ClayTrainor]

Actually under an atheistic view, our inherent morality changes all the time! The nazis believed what they did in the camps was good, while others thought it was evil. It's all relative.

First of all, i'm not an atheist.

second of all

"Iraq is Gods War" - Sarah Palin

"God told me to invade iraq" - George Bush

"We think the price is worth it" - Madeleine Albright when questioned on the Child deaths in Iraq.


All of the above are Christians. Clearly the belief in ancient texts and a supernatural being does not justifiy their view of morality.

Imagine if neanderthals did not die out, and they evolved differently than us. Suppose they evolved with a completely different morality. Saying our morality is "superior" is speciesism.

re-read what i said.

I didn't say our morality was superior, I said our minds are far superior.

What if I respect the the natural rights of Gentiles but not Jews?

Then you don't understand or respect the concept of individual human rights, just gentiles. Sounds like something that is pretty common amongst many organized religions :o

This proves my point:

no offense, but not even close.

under a naturalist view, rights are a matter of preference; of taste.

I would prefer not to be killed, therefore i wont kill others due to my preference to have my own rights respected. If i go around killing others, i deserve to get killed. Let's see if this quote rings a bell. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Jesus.

Rights are inherent in our nature. George Bush invading Iraq was no more justified than Hitler invading poland. One is a Christian, one is an atheist. Who gives a shit? neither of them respect individual rights of man, which is all that really matters. Not the belief in a supernatural lord, that can't be proven or disproven. It's an irrelevant point to the discussion of rights.

They evolved to believe that rape is not immoral.

Than they don't respect the individual rights of their own race.

Rape:

"sexual intercourse forced on a person" - Merriam-Websters

Whoever is getting raped, is not voluntarily offering their body for sex, therefore it's immoral.

Many humans used to believe slavery is not immoral, and was just the way of life, but we're learning.

If that alien race visited planet earth--and these aliens were as superior to us, as we are to pigs (or wolves)--and proceeded to rape humans, or harvest them for food, we would have no justification in saying that this was wrong.

You would have justification, you just can't do anything about it.

It's like my wolf example. IF you're naked in the woods with no technology, those hungry wolves are going to eat your ass. Do you still have rights? yes, but the wolves won't respect them.

I would fight to the death, to defend individual humans from an invading alien force, because my morality comes from the natural rights of man, not the unprovable supernatural rights of a supreme being. I'm also willing to respect the natural rights of an alien force, if they respect mine. I would be more than happy to interact and converse with them, so long as they are not forceful upon me.

We would say that is evil, they would say it's good, and neither would be right.

It sounds like we would essentially be farmed. This is no different than fighting off an invasion from a foreign nation.

Humans would have to fight for their rights, if some kind of force has the intent to take them away. Evil is subjective to your nature (evil is generally viewed as the violation of natural rights), so clearly the aliens would be evil to the humans, if they are raping and killing. Obviously, the aliens must be gods creatures too if he created everything, therefore why would God create something that can destroy the human race and is clearly superior in terms of intelligence?

That's cool, but I personally don't have any morality. I like torturing animals, and sadism, and cruelty.

That's because you don't understand natural rights, you understand the fantasy of supernatural rights from an unprovable source. My source is my nature.

If I really felt this way, there would be no objective difference between you and me.

That's retarded. I respect the natural rights of animals, i just don't give them priority over humans.

Morality is subjective to your nature, not objective. Wolves have a totally different sense of morality than you do, because they have a very different nature. They don't respect human morality, just as you likely don't respect Wolf morality. Morality is not objective or universal, it is subjective to your nature.

It would be the same as preferring McDonald's instead of Burger King.

Doesn't even make sense.

Your misunderstanding my argument.

And i don't think you're even grasping mine.

I argue that objective and absolute morality does exist, and their is an absolute truth regardless of what differing religions say.

Right, because your religion is the correct one, and the other methods of supernatural worship, are wrong.

Morality is subjective to your nature. Cows probably don't find the mass slaughters very moral, because it's not very respectful to their nature. Humans don't find oppression moral, because it's not respectful to their nature.

You are born with a right to life. You have a right to it, and so do all forms of life. If morality was truly objective, than it would not be limited to humans. I accept individual human morality as it is subjective to my human nature, not a universal objective morality for everything.

An atheist can't make that claim. To him, morality is relative to how we evolved, to each culture, and each person.

I'm not an atheist, so your point is moot. I think atheists tend to be just as wrong a Christians when they talk about how certain they are about "no god". I just don't accept the certainty behind such an unprovable concept. I believe the concept of natural individual rights is independent from your "theory of life" or religion, or a mystical being.

I reject the certainty of a supernatural being in charge of everything, not the possibility of one. Rights are natural and inherent in our nature,

 

[ClayTrainor]

No. You don't need to be a theist to know that you should love your children instead of torturing them. I believe that in some ways God has "hardwired" morality into our brains

Than why do so many people support a woman's right to Abortions? Why are they not hardwired?

Genetics are the memory to operate your biological machinery. Morality is memory that must be learned through reason, and passed on to your youth. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - Jesus

 

[Sheepdog11]

William Lane Craig lays out this argument here:

That video is nothing more than a 5 minute appeal to consequence fallacy. William Lane Craig spends far too much time on his perceived ill consequences of subjective morality (nobody can say anything is objectively wrong!) and far too little time actually trying to show that objective morality exists. He basically says "we all know it exists deep down inside"... is that really his argument?

I don't see what the big hangup over objective standards is. I don't see why they are necessary, nor obvious for the world to appear the way it does today.

 

[emazur]

Rights are inherent in our nature. George Bush invading Iraq was no more justified than Hitler invading poland. One is a Christian, one is an atheist. Who gives a shit? neither of them respect individual rights of man, which is all that really matters. Not the belief in a supernatural lord, that can't be proven or disproven. It's an irrelevant point to the discussion of rights.

You might be surprised about a few things about Hitler - I'd suggest reading this whole article but here are some key points:
http://proudatheists.wordpress.com/2009/05/07/why-do-they-still-insist-hitler-was-an-atheist/

1. Adolf Hitler was raised and baptized as a Roman Catholic in the midst of a Catholic family. He also served as an alter boy in the Catholic church.

2. Hitler wrote in his book, Mein Kampf: “. . . I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews, I am doing the Lord’s work.” He made essentially the same claim in a speech before the Reichstag in 1938.

3. In 1941 Hitler told Gerhard Engel, one of his generals: “I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.” In fact, Hitler was never excommunicated from the Catholic Church, and Mein Kampf was not placed on the Church’s Index of Forbidden Books. Yes, the Catholic church supported the Nazi movement and the killing of millions of Jews. There probably were an undisclosed/unknown amount of atheists killed also.

4. Regarding atheism, Hitler specifically opposed it in a 1933 speech in Berlin: “We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.”

I'll agree with you that it doesn't matter if a killer is a Christian or an atheist, but it does matter if the Christian uses his religion as a justification for killing. It matters to me, anyway.

Many humans used to believe slavery is not immoral, and was just the way of life, but we're learning.

Did you know that the South used the bible as justification for slavery? Here are a few excerpts from my history book, "The American Past" Second Edition by Joseph Conlin:

"The proslavery argument included religious, historical, cultural, and social proofs. The Bible, the positive-good theorists argued, sanctioned slavery. Not only did the ancient Hebrews own slaves with God's blessing, but Christ had told a servant who wanted to be his disciple to return to his master and practice Christianity as a slave"
321

The presence of free blacks presented a problem for slaveowners. One of the most effective means of controlling the slaves was to convince them that God and nature intended them to be slaves because of their race, and that they should be thankful to be under the care of their masters. But if slaves saw free blacks prospering, the argument fell flat. Slaveowners also thought that free blacks were likely to stir up discontent among slaves, and they were probably right.

Religion could be an effective means of control, and careful masters paid close attention to the kind of preaching their property heard. Some owners took their slaves to their own churches where the minister was expected to deliver a sermon now and then based on biblical stories such as that of Hagar: "the angel of the Lord said unto her, return to Thy mistress, and submit thyself under her hands." Other masters permitted the blacks, who preferred an emotional Christianity enhanced with vestiges of their African past, to have preachers of their own race. but those often eloquent men were instructed - specifically or indirectly - to steer clear of any topics that might cast doubt on the justice of slavery. Some toed the line. Others developed coded language and song by which they conveyed their protest
324

RACISM IN THE BIBLE
Defenders of slavery were hard pressed when abolitionists quoted the Bible on the equality of all men and women before God. A few went so far as to answer that blacks were a different species from whites, even though it was known that mating between species produced sterile offspring and the children of mixed parents in the South were both numerous and fertile.
Southerners were more comfortable when they went to the Bible. They quoted the story of Noah's son Ham, who had humiliated his father and was therefore cursed when Noah said, "a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." Blacks were human beings, proslavery southerners agreed, but their race was "the mark of Ham." As Ham's descendants, they were doomed by God to be (borrowing from another source) "hewers of wood and drawers of water."
334

 

[Ian A.]

First of all, i'm not an atheist.

I never said you were. But it is logically impossible to not believe in God, and at the same time say that objective morality exists.

All of the above are Christians. Clearly the belief in ancient texts and a supernatural being does not justifiy their view of morality.

Exactly! Each human being has a subjective view of what is good and what is evil. But no matter what each person thinks, objective morality exists.

..........

Hey CT, your a cool guy and I wanna debate this further but I'm really sick. Maybe some other time. :o BUT......

William Lane Craig spends far too much time on his perceived ill consequences of subjective morality (nobody can say anything is objectively wrong!) and far too little time actually trying to show that objective morality exists.

I read some of Dr. Craig's work and he does acknowledge that proving objective morality does exist is a lot harder, but he adds that very few of his opponents argue that particular point.

 

[Sheepdog11]

I read some of Dr. Craig's work and he does acknowledge that proving objective morality does exist is a lot harder, but he adds that very few of his opponents argue that particular point.

And I'm disappointed with most of his opponents. But the guy truly is an amazing debater, whether you agree with him or not.

 

[Deborah K]

I'd prefer "Do not do unto others, as you would not have them do unto you". "Do unto others" presumes you know what the other person wants, or the other person presumes what you want. And from there it easily transforms into doing unto you what you should want. That's how we wind up with things like government "education" and healthcare.

I tend to think what is meant by this commandment is that we should treat others(individually - not collectively) as we would like to be treated- with respect. Respect is not subjective.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I never said you were. But it is logically impossible to not believe in God, and at the same time say that objective morality exists.

I would argue that in the absence of a God, objective morality is determined by who has the most physical force on his side. (as a side note, In an anarchist society, morality is an individual trait, and individuals reconcile their different moral systems through contractual agreements)

 

[ClayTrainor]

..........

Hey CT, your a cool guy and I wanna debate this further but I'm really sick. Maybe some other time. :o BUT......

You as well man. Get feeling better

 

[emazur]

I tend to think what is meant by this commandment is that we should treat others(individually - not collectively) as we would like to be treated- with respect. Respect is not subjective.

Not so sure about that. For instance, let's suppose a man and a woman (who are strangers) are exiting a building, and the man holds open the door for the woman on the way out. He may think he is just showing respect to a lady, but an independent woman might find such an act to be insulting or even sexist.

 

[Deborah K]

Not so sure about that. For instance, let's suppose a man and a woman (who are strangers) are exiting a building, and the man holds open the door for the woman on the way out. He may think he is just showing respect to a lady, but an independent woman might find such an act to be insulting or even sexist.

That is not my definition of an independent woman. A woman who gets angry over that is a misguided feminazi. I say that if a feminazi gets indignant over door opening, then the man should smile and politely say that he holds the door open for any human, if he is in the position to do so.

I understand your point about respect being subjective, but I still stand by my interpretation of that commandment.

 

[LDA]

The concept of liberty exists, whether you believe in God or not. I haven't seen any proof that God somehow "bestowed" rights upon us, or anything like that. The concept of liberty and rights were developed by humans, for humans. To say that we "wouldn't have liberty" with or without God is a totally useless statement, because the existence of a supreme being cannot be verified, and no principles can be derived from assuming its existence, because we know nothing about it.