Morality without God

The Bible isn't a mathematical truth. It's anonymous thoughts. Enstablished truth. Now that I think about it, even mathematical truths are enstablished. Why can't one have his own moral code? Something YOU believe is really right or wrong?

>Something YOU believe is really right or wrong?
it has to be based on something more than just your self because people don't like to be deceived, so they need to ask if their beliefs are actually true or not. The deeper you question the nature of morality the more and more the foundation appears to be God, or something at least transcendent and divine.

OP I think raping you is moral

but the bible was written by people. Like you and me. At this point even categorical imperative seems better
No, you don't.

>but the bible was written by people. Like you and me. At this point even categorical imperative seems better
when did I mention bible? I did not. That comes later, first you need to have a sense for God and that morality is bigger than your desires and whims.

Anyway if your sense of morals are at odds with the bible then your morals are wrong. Gay sex is immoral. Sorry OP.

>first you need to have a sense for God

how do I get this?

seek wisdom my friend, ponder why you exist, who made you and for what end? read old books, read the saints and mystics, with an open and curious mind; meditate and pray to whatever there may be... and God will find you. In time. Perhaps...

>if your sense of morals are at odds with the bible then your morals are wrong

sheep

Matthew 25:31–46: "But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.

The reason it is natural is because God created us.

Straight sex outside of marriage/procreation is immoral too

...

I think straight sex outside procreation is wrong, but I'm not religious. How do you explain this?

Not really, most morality is cultural, conditioned from birth in your society. I do think that the only reasonable morality (i.e, morality that is not baseless, often damaging, trite) is utilitarianism with bias and exception in regards to biology. Empathy is a wholly biological and animalistic thing, for example. One must account for it.

Like i said earlier it is because God created you with a sense of morality. It is as inherent to human nature as breathing. The fall of man came when the realization dawned that rules could be broken; and when the law was written sin was increased even more. Christ came and fulfilled the law and created salvation. My opinion is that he made morality obsolete. You can only become moral through faith, not the other way around. God grants us by grace the ability to live in the kingdom of Heaven. The first step is repentance but even this can only come through acts of faith (i.e. prayer) The process is much like a narrow path that is hard to find, and to be ecumenical it is like "the way" of eastern philosophy. It cannot be found by seeking yet only seekers shall find it.

I would also tend to see morals as a tool to increase the success of animals living in a society.
But I don't like the biology is everywhere approach.

Did my nigga raskolnikiv kill her with the BLUNT side? Damn.

Edgelords love this era. They can get away with anything since going after them is too much trouble to our animal instincts.

Actually, Catholics (only real Christians) derive the majority of their morality from the natural law, which is indeed "bound to nature."

Should we kill gay people?

>he thinks God thinks gay sex is immoral

>Catholics (only real Christians)

>first you need to have a sense for God then, like magic, you'll find god

>all this circular reasoning
the morality argument doesn't disprove god, it disproves morality as a proof of god
that means according to pure logic you're back to agnosticism
there is literally no unexplained or partially understood factor of reality you attribute exclusively to god more than unkown phenomenons because to do so you would have to be omniscient
The most you can do with religion is recognise it's a personal view and denounce the parts that are obviously fabricated as political tools by the regular clergy.

and not an argument was made that day.

Not true.
Ultimately morality is informed by environments.

You can't argue logically with most moral or ethical premises because they're almost exclusively noncognitive in nature. It's like making an objective premise for your favorite coloring book.

brainlet:
>can't be moral and religious
normie:
>can be moral and religious
pseud:
>morality is an arbitrary construct so it's irrelevant
brainlord:
>morality's inexistence is not contingent on God's being

Dumbass is holding the axe the wrong way.

Still fucked her and her sister up senpai have you read the book

Your instincts have been shaped by the moral values of society at an early age. Values of any kind do imply the existence of a god or gods (not as a transcendent being but as a descriptive term for a fundamental identifiable power in the universe).

Without meaning there are no morals, and meaning is only granted to us through God. Without God there's just egoism.

I'm not a Jew, so why do I have to follow their laws?

I can eat pork and pork my boyfriend.

Good and evil aren't real in themselves; they're only real in relation to people's reaction to acts.

For example: I meet a homeless teenager on the street I offer him food and he thanks me for the food and feeds himself that night. Most people would consider what I've done a "good action".

But what if in say ten years this formally homeless kid is now running for some type of minor political office. He says what I did that day is what turned his life around. But another ten years later this man has gain a massive amount of power and the interview where he talks about how my "good act" inspired him. But a year later he's committing genocide upon a minority in the nation I am in; and members of that minority and future generations do not look at my act as "good" rather they see it as the beginning of this man's "evil".

Your intentions aren't relevant, they only matter in relation to how others view you. This is a bad way to view the world as it simplifies it far too much, and if we look at things as either "good" or "evil" that simplicity will always doom us.

You're retarded and/or impressionable.

>morality is fundamentally the same in every culture at every time
How would you even think this, much less write it down and post it for others to see?

Morality is the codified will to power of a human type, it is that human type's means of creating an environment in which it will flourish.

When people say that there cannot be morality without God, what they mean is that God acts as an anchor for man so to not drift into the infinity of douches semantics and relativity.

God exists. God is good. Therefore he acts as a philosophical mechanism that can allow us to move past certain points in our intellectual development.

>everyone knows what is right and wrong

Actually, the bible mentions that the law of God is written on the heart of Gods people, so take that as you may.

>Morality is bound to nature

Ok, but is it cool for me to kill another human because I am hungry and he is weak? I understand that urge to attach the law of nature to the human condition, but due to our consciousness, a new law is needed, which is conveniently available in the form of the Law of God.

I understand why a person would reject the idea of God, especially since most prevailing ideas center around immature views of God, but to reject the usefulness of God as a philosophical mechanism is honestly retarded.

Also, Jesus wasn't a jew and Judaism is the modern form of the religion of the Pharisees, which was a non racial religious and political party.

>pseud and brainlors stances are the same

Everyone knows murder is wrong but plenty of societies didn't think so.

>Also, Jesus wasn't a jew and Judaism is the modern form of the religion of the Pharisees, which was a non racial religious and political party.
And you were doing so good too.

It's all because of the platonists, who introduced the cacoethes of singular divinity into classical morality. It was meant to be an ideal moral standard, not an assertion that by its absence deductively invalidates all traditional morality. The Hellenes of a generation prior were not uncivilized barbarians. The OP ought to restate "The platonic ideal of morality cannot exist without Deos." Specificity elides challenge. Only trolls use this concept in its broadest sense.

>People still don't see morality as a path among a platitude of pulls
Morality is the Divinity of Man defeating the beast within and taming it for the Divine cause.

Name one

impressionable mmm....

Can't you arrive at the same conclusions using different paths?

Every single society that has the death penalty, or a military.

The bible telling you that adultery is immoral isn't really arriving at a conclusion, it's just accepting a doctrine.

They confuse not believing in God with being a physicalist.

>what is moral?
Do unto others what you would want done to yourself.
Simple, really.

>Everyone knows what is wrong and what isn't.
I don't.

listen carefully inside you.

So, is abortion right or wrong? We can finally solve the debate right here in this thread.

Different people have different epistemological beliefs, but that doesn't mean anything other than that different people are wrong about epistemology.

I'm an atheist and this is embarrassing. Religion was ridiculously important for the installation of morality and in building societies. People who don't accept this are just pseudo-intellectuals in immense denial.

Cyrus already did it for me.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrus_Cylinder

Is implies ought. What something is, determines what it ought to do.

The common claim isn't that morality is impossible without God, but that objective morality is impossible without God. Without God there is no "I ought to" there is only "I wish to."

Suppose that morality is bound to nature, specifically human nature. Could humans evolve so that their nature is now changed? Then their morality would change, so it lacks objectivity (in the sense that it isn't always true).

if there is a god everything is permissible

Morality is a necessity for the wellbeing of a social animal. The more well the flock is the more it thrives and the more it thrives the longer and better it lives which lead to better results for the offspring.

In that case it was right. In case of irresponsability of the woman/couple, it's wrong.

if there isn't

>Everyone knows what is wrong and what isn't. Morality is bound to nature.
>the argument no moral philosopher ever made

It isn't, it goes deeper than base instinct.
Morality is inherent in the definition that binds all living things.
It is the core of a 2 billion year old struggle on our planet that started when the first microorganism, by virtue of nothing other than It's nature seized a part of the chaotic world around it and ordered it so as to either make more of itself or to make the world just a little less dangerous.
Morality is the order of life And It's ultimate struggle against the chaos of death and the degradation of a chaotic universe.

Thats actually the opposite case. Religion is immoral by it's nature.

>Everyone knows what is wrong and what isn't.

Due to the existence of God.

It isn't, Civilization tames most of us.

Because people have a general idea of what is right and wrong, its the rationalisation of their failings that people can't live with.

If you're christian and actually hold yourself to those standards then I will praise you even though I'm fedora as fuck otherwise. Those are good standards to hold yourself to.

Im currently living with one of the most hedonistic and nihilistic people i've ever met, who shies away from uncomfort and self analysis. He chooses to be proud of their arrogance, drinks and smokes weed to the point where he is never sober, then goes to the confession booth like his God is a personal toilet for his failings. Because if he can't forgive himself for his problems then God can.

Meanwhile im a just a fedora tipper who was basically raised with old proddie values filtered through a non religious Stoic father.

I worry for my housemate, but he's legitimately let himself become disgusting person.

If your deed makes your group, or an other individual lose something, including health, life, property, when he doesn't agree, it is then immoral. And it is immoral, because deeds like that destroy our society and civilization.

Yea, as simple as that. We don't need a desert diety to conclude what is moral and what is not.

Morality exists without God but it's subjective.

No, because of empathy.

Given to us by God.

Then it's just opinions.

So executing a baby murderer/cannibal would be immoral.

No, given to us by evolving as a social creatures. Animals have empathy aswell.

There is a reason why the civilized countries got rid off death penalty. Only wild states like the Burgeristan and various Asian barbarians still defend it.

Yes, but objectification do the trick. You will not feel bad about immoral things, if you don't consider your victim a real human.

Opinions and morals are simply subsets of the act of valuation, and valuation is completely subjective.

>lol we are so civilized!! Xddd

Yes, when they're eating each other alive, they seem quite empathic.

Yes, because they're godless heathens.

It's immoral in your worldview to kill someone in self defense.

Your opinions don't matter to me.

To godless people who lack all morality, yes.

Without God, there is no objective basis for morality. At all.

Just opinions.

>Everyone knows what is wrong and what isn'
On the base of what?
>Morality is bound to nature
The rule of the strongest? Do you want to live in that?

t.

When you are defending yourself your survival instincts will probably overweight your moral values, so it doesn't matter.

well, given all religions were made up by regular humans, any morality derived from them is innately human

if there is a god, it is so immensely beyond our comprehension it can't even be discussed in terms of morality

now if the core of morality is belief, that is an interesting question

>The rule of the strongest?
Cooperation is proven to be much more effective survival strategy.

Just because its subjective doesnt mean morality doesnt exist. It exists in your mind.

Social animals eating each other alive?

A good number of social animals would literally rather starve than hurt their own

>Cooperation is proven to be much more effective survival strategy.
Tell this the Romans.