Why do people claim you can't have morality without God?

>vision
>results
Both are made up bullshit.

STARRY SKY ABOVE ME
MORAL LAW WITHIN ME

Isn't it the same shit even if you do believe in religion? With the added bonus of believing you'll get rewarded in the afterlife as well as in life. It's all just social pressure.

What makes the reason not "real"?

and
both are made up bullshit

If you do believe in religion you also believe in objective morality. Therefore it's easier for you to act a certain way simply because you wish to do good.

It's a mouthful, but basically if someone tells you what "good" is and you want to be good simply for the sake of being good, it's easier than if you don't have any objective views on morality.

Judging purely from the quotes, Dennet>Dawkins>Harris>Hitchens

>judging
who made you morally superior?

If religion is just a cultural institution, can't any good be an objective good if the majority agrees on it?

Which also brings me back to the wording here
Can you believe in god, via your own beliefs derived from the teachings of religion, but not actually adhere to religious dogma? Would you be following objective morality? Isn't religion just someone else's interpretation of God's word anyway? What makes his vision more objective than yours?

No one. I'm entitled to my own opinion.

>can't any good be an objective good if the majority agrees on it?

It might depend on each person's perspective. And I am talking purely from a Christian perspective in this long post. But I think most people will value their own opinion and concussions over the opinion of other humans in abstract matters like morality.

God is the answer to "Why?", and if you've ever had to argue about morality you'll know easy it is to fall into the never-ending "why?" spiral, you can't really justify morality in any logical way, a god in a religion serves as the answer to that question (And even then some people will be contrarian enough to keep questioning it even if they were to believe in a god). He allows you to make "objective" claims on morality.

>Can you believe in god, via your own beliefs derived from the teachings of religion, but not actually adhere to religious dogma? Would you be following objective morality?

I'm not sure what the point of the question is, but yeah, you can definitely believe in a god and still not follow his word. Even intentionally.

>Isn't religion just someone else's interpretation of God's word anyway? What makes his vision more objective than yours?

I don't know how it is in non-abrahamic religions, but the old testament tends to be very specific. God mandates things directly. And although there is a lot of interpretation when it comes to issues that arised later on, and there isn't a fixed rulebook to follow in those situations, usually the specific points are broad enough that there isn't that much room for argument.

Then again the papacy has retconned and modified and change it's own laws many times, which does create some sense of arbitrarily for some people.

Heaven and hell are good motivators. Most people are too stupid to be moral.
Humans need either Authoritarianism or religion, because without some sort of shepherd, people will shepherd each-other, in a storm of ignorance.

>entitlement
Spooky.

inaccurate. but you can't derive morality from ideologies that offer nothing nihilism.

ITT: Zero understanding of metaethics.

Reminder that Divine Command Theory is fucking bankrupt and has been for 2000+ years.

Because so often those supporters become hedonists and it is a slippery slope

It's not that they can't be moral without God, it's that they have don't have the supramoral principle that even the King or the President cannot break.

It's not a coincidence that the societies that repudiated the concept of God most aggressively are also the kind of societies that very few people want to live in.

What the hell is a "supramoral principle"?

Probably because the man speaks the truth

Of all the people listed, you picked Hitchens? He's the best fucking one.

They mean that human morals arent worthy only the Abrahamic jew morals are the true morals. They're not arguing that you can't have morals as an atheist, they're just claiming that theirs are better, because humans are imperfect and thus can't create perfect morals. But ofcourse slaughtering villages slavery kidnapping and rape is completely moral if you're a follower of the Abrahamic god.

It means that if you don't have something objective that exists outside of relativity, and that is a given and can't be challenged, you will by reason and logic come to the conclusion that nothing matters, and turn to hedonism or depression.
Friedrich Nietzsche explores this very well, read his work. He concludes that if you kill God, that is if you leave the covenant with the idea of an objective morality that comes from an objective thing outside of our subjective relativity, then you must either collapse into an animalistic form, or make a God of yourself.

Bullshit you don't kill a blopd because his senpai'll kill you. You don't kill your neighbour, becausr you don't want to lose your virginity in prison. The concept of revenge and punishment predate any religion and is probably why we find it in there unlike astrophysics

Are you saying that the ethical and moral thing to do, and everyone should do it whenever possible, is to kill others when you can conceal it and not get into trouble?
If punishment from your fellow man is what you are worried about, you can get around that by ensuring you don't get punished.
This is why the punisher has to be "god", someone you can't run away from, since he knows everything and sees everything.

Because some people are stupid or haven't thought it through; morals don't come from any cult, let alone its imaginary deities – they're all basically codes of social conduct steeped in various cultural sauces and derivative interpretations.
Morals come from human societies (to each their own), just like gods; the latter is not necessary to establish the former.

It's the kind of principle that stops you from committing genocide.

Thats your conclusion. I explained where morality comes from. If you want to take your chances like many other criminals be my guest, but if i catch you bringing that weak shit here you're going to have one hell of a problem, you're gonna feel my wrath boy

>i'll beat u up, thats my morality!!!!

Weaksauce, lad. You will struggle with suicide later in life.

Ayn Rand is 100x better than all of them.

Dude let's invade iraq because their religion is dangerous lmao.

>babby's first ethics lecture

To put it shortly, abrahamic religions one up even regular monotehism and have the idea of god as a definition of most absolutes.
So as long as you believe in a god like theirs morality is objective because the tenets are absolute.
People always shit on rebels that praise egoism or on nihilists because in the head of an uninhibted person, they are dangerous.
Sure, saying everything is objective is a copout like saying every politician is corrupt. But it's not wrong.
There is no way to believe yourself being objectively correct unless you believe in a supernatural absolute.
Everyone's moral codes are an approxiamtion influenced by their author's mindset and desires. Social pressure, raw calculation (for autists) and evolved traits are what makes some aspects of morals quasi-universal. Appealing to the material nature of thought is also a copout but it's also true.
TL;DR nihilists and egoists are right but being subjective doesn't make a moral mindset invalid

DOOZ VULT!

That's what I'm saying, social pressure.

Thr way it is preventing people from committing crimes is still not to be taken lightly, plus its similar and older than the tales of Abrahams boogyman.
Which works the same way, you call what he allows good and what he prohibits evil, in terms of deeds with punishments and rewards as a result. Which works the same as when i forbade you to kill for you will suffer my wrath. Vendetta is realler, older and has people more freightened than any imaginairy genie. Also yes id struggle to commit suicide, but not to resist it.

Not what you said at all, because you said that those morals were derived from religion and i showed you that they weren't, because they predate religion. Even chimps know the concepts of revenge and punishment and they don't have religion. So why would humans have to wait over 100.000 years to develop theirs? Makes no sense on countless fronts

because you fucking can't, everything is subjective without it. With it you rely on circular reasoning but within itself objectivity can be found. Within a rational system you have to strive for objectivity and discard the subjective as mere opinion easily set aside for any change in fundamental axiom.

Also thanks these short sighted ideologues for the rise of muslim protectionism in the west. For all their intelligence these self righteous cunts didn't know what they were doing.

Honestly, I have struggled personally with this question. I think the idea is that there is no objective source from which to base morality on. After objective sources the strongest basis of morality is consensus which works well when you agree.

I disagree.

Watcha gonna do about it faggot?

Because, you take a group of people, raise them in a dome, do no more for then feed them well more then they need to be fed. Then immediately and abruptly reduce their rations to the point that IF they share the smaller amount of food, they will all barely survive....the people in the dome will have options.

The people will either kill each other or go to war for the food, or, they can choose to share and spread the food out equally out of charity and genoristy.

The moral desicion was not created by the people, it existed as a PRE EXISTING option to choose, as a PRE EXISTING concept to adopt. Morality itself exists as something that was already made...and it wasn't made by man.

It doesn't have to be a moral decision. It can be a practical decision. Your likelihood in dying in war is lessened by sharing your food.

That isn't morality, its game theory. And it's animals responding to their environment. Whether the concept of sharing predates this experiment or not does nothing to confirm or deny any being of divine influence.

>no argument

If that was the case, killing everyone and taking the food for yourself and a group would also be practical. Only now you have a standard set, one which would lead to oppression because "morality" would be no more than a meaningless option.

Morality is genuine, not opportunistic. Lol it's why it's "morality." Sharing out of fear is not the same as sharing because you simply aren't afraid of shit and aren't looking for a opportunity to prolong survival. They aren't even the same thing.

Man did not came that way in the world so why use such a stupid experiment?
No, you put a group of people on a large piece of land and let them live off it. See hoe long itll take for them to cooperate and share rations to increase their chances of survival.
Man evolved in a world of abundance yet is now fighting over accomodations that are scarce. Which is moral to some (being a provider by theft) and not to otherd. Yet the cirvumdtances and not the act decide if a thing is moral, like murder theft or lying to stay alive and thus morality doesnt come from a god, but its circumstancial

Because morality isn't real.

Killing everyone would generally cost more energy than you'll receive then theres the fact that upon return to society youll be shunned thus decreasing the chances youll get offspring. Like the guy said its all about numberd

Four Horsemen cheated for every Championship Title win, how were they moral?

That IS the experiment we're in though. Earth literally has enough to support all, the scientific method, the knowledge, it can all be voluntarily shared. But instead, out of fears and insecurities we're not choosing the already created option of morality. We're hording, competing, exploiting, and putting conditions on goods.

And again, you're talking about "conditional compliance", when the very definition of morality is that it's a unconditional and genuine structure of principles, which is a law. There's no conditional trading in morality, morality isn't used out of fear for survival. It's charitable in nature, there's no conditions.

Again, there's a difference....between sharing out of fear in order to prolong survival and sharing with no expectations in return. I mean I don't know if you're the original guy I was typing at, but you keep insisting that the only way to give is out of a survival instinct, when that's not the case. That's thinking like an animal, with a reward system, stemming from a fear of dying lol. That's not the only reason why people share, or would share.

Lol no, man.

The mongols killed and stole successfully. Rome did as well, only they were far more insidious with the practice.

Again, morality, the very definitive nature of it is charitable, no conditions, there is no fear of survival affiliated with morality.

What you guys are attempting to define as morality, is really economics. Condition based. Which actually has nothing to do with morality.

Yes, you can give out of fear of a potential harmful outcome for yourself, in hopes your gift grants you survival.

You can also give without it being on display as a motive for survival. That's the definition of charity. Giving without expecting anything in return. Actually seeking to give to the have-not, out of sympathy/empathy. No goal other than easing the discomfort of others. Not because it means you'll survive another day.