Being that I don't believe in a conventional god and most certainly not one that created everything and is a centralized entity I believe morality is inherent in human beings. However, I will not expose my reasons why until some other people throw their hats into the conversation. What do you think? Can morality exist in the absence of god?
I understand. Nice point sir or madam. It makes me wonder about what makes sociopaths. I know that there is some genetic marker that makes one more or less likely to be one, and that it is usually nurture that sends one over the edge. I wonder if those who are conditioned to feel that way because of they're circumstances (and by feel that way I mean to think it is okay to kill or ****) would feel the same way if removed from that situation...
Thank you. You are a a great opponent in a debate. And I am indeed a sir. You should look up child soldiers in Africa. There are some organizations there trying to rehabilitate children that were made to be addicted to cocaine, kill their parents, and loot villages. Really interesting and heartbreaking stuff to hear what those kids were made to do and the efforts to return them to a sense of normalcy.
And a lot of sociopaths are made through abuse, but there's a lot of research about the ones that were born that way. Like the ones that start fires and torture animals without any history of abuse. Scary stuff.
Morals seems to be based on society. If religion is a part of a society, the morals will mirror this. If not, the morals will still mirror what the society thing is wrong and right. You do not have to be religious to have a common thought that killing other human beings are bad, really.
Well said, Cenere.
In the Middle East, according to Islamic Law (which is only applied in some parts of Saudi Arabia) it is immoral for a woman to show even arms, and even in countries other than KSA, women generally cover themselves because the Qu'ran tells them to. A good Christian would not kill someone for no reason, because that's what the Bible tells her/him. Now, this doesn't mean that a community where no religion is followed is a barbarian one, but morality is not set by God, but by the authority figures in the community. If the meaning of this thread is whether or not morality would exist in the event that God does not exist and no one believes in Him, then I assure you it will. Simply because we are human beings, and sure we may have a few crazy people around causing trouble and such, but hey, that's how it is now and we live in a pretty stable world. Ask any sane person if they would go on a rampage if they found out God doesn't exist, they'd say no (remember, we're talking sane people.)
When making the assertion that morality can exist without God the obvious question is â�" how do you know? How many of us have been brought up in the complete ignorance of God, or a God? Can we genuinely answer the question of whether we know our morals have not been influenced by the pervasive and cultural impact religion has on us through our upbringing and more widely upon the society we live in.
You might not know it, but not everyone is raised to believe in a God. Hell, even tribesmen eons ago who never even thought of an omnipotent being lived in peace.
You might not know it, but not everyone is raised to believe in a God. Hell, even tribesmen eons ago who never even thought of an omnipotent being lived in peace.
It's true - People were exhibiting their own form of morality long before Christianity, Islam, or Judaism came around; or any of the earlier polytheisms for that matter.
Hell, I was brought up without any religious backing; I was 17 before I started looking into it on my own.
It's true - People were exhibiting their own form of morality long before Christianity, Islam, or Judaism came around; or any of the earlier polytheisms for that matter.
I agree with this assertion. It seems to me that before the advent of complex language, and the ability to relate stories through the generations that people must have had some basic sense of morality. Although, of course, morality is a word that we use to describe the constraint to not do things we find to be objectable all on their own. Had the word morality, or the description of the word not be defined so concretely, someone would still be angry if you murdered their brother or partner.
lthough, of course, morality is a word that we use to describe the constraint to not do things we find to be objectable all on their own. Had the word morality, or the description of the word not be defined so concretely, someone would still be angry if you murdered their brother or partner
Well my argument to that would be in that same society that you mention, I think there would be revenge killings if a loved one were killed. Then they would think it perfectly justified to kill the aggressor. Then we're back at square one, where there isn't an innate morality telling them not to kill when it's for revenge. I think there would be a sense of morality born from the fear of repercussions, or a selective one that you expect to apply to you until someone else breaks it and you take revenge. In the pre-civilization society you posted at least. I think the concept of "Turn the Other Cheek" wasn't around then.
Morality can only exist while any sort of God is absent.
Just because you put 'only' in bold doesn't make what you say true, especially when that's all you put. I'd appreciate some elaboration for the sake of argument please.
Then they would think it perfectly justified to kill the aggressor. Then we're back at square one, where there isn't an innate morality telling them not to kill when it's for revenge. I think there would be a sense of morality born from the fear of repercussions, or a selective one that you expect to apply to you until someone else breaks it and you take revenge
Sure, sure. Although, I have heard a great deal of anecdotal evidence that suggests one usually feels remorse for revenge killings. People still kill for revenge today, even with the threat of grave repercussions looming, thus revenge seems to be yet another innate urge within human beings. It seems similar to the fact that humankind always wants more, and is willing to take, but, when taken from, is upset.
Just because you put 'only' in bold doesn't make what you say true, especially when that's all you put. I'd appreciate some elaboration for the sake of argument please.
I never said it was true. Because, like you said, I failed to elaborate on my presented opinion. Therefore, you are mistaken.
Also, I probably did not bold the way I intended, but I merely wished to put emphasis on the way I rephrased the statement. That is all.
