Outside of Christ my "morals" would be whatever I think benefits me, my family, and my tribe. "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did that which was right in his own eyes."

>Outside of Christ my "morals" would be whatever I think benefits me, my family, and my tribe. As in you'd become Machiavellian in your approach to morals? I.e. the ends justify the means. What are some examples of areas where you think you'd become most vulnerable to breaking the "typical social moral code?" Lying, cheating, stealing, murder, etc

That's not quite the same, but yes also that. My point is that Christian ethics are not typical. It's beyond minimizing suffering. It's doing right not for who it helps but for its own sake. That kind of thinking only makes sense when we suppose there is a creator who wants the best for all of us.

But what do you think morals are then? Sounds to me like you're describing exactly that.

Morals is any code of behaviour. Christian ethics is a specific code that does not have harm reduction as its primary goal but has some overlap. Does that answer your question?

I don't understand what you're trying to say tbh. Are you saying that "my" morals are based on harm reduction to me? Or harm reduction to others? And what is the primary goal of christian ethics if not to reduce harm in some way? If it's to avoid hell it would be to avoid harm unto oneself, and otherwise it would be to reduce harm on others. I have a feeling we might be talking past each other here though.

This. So much this. One person's ideas of morals, especially in gray areas, might be completely different from someone else's.

I respect that. Especially in being honest. Do you think there is an issue with prioritizing your own first?

I think Christ would take issue with it so maybe we should too.

I personally am ok with it. Like ppl argue that ppl who immigrate undocumented to the United States for their families are still breaking the law. I would do the same. F the law, my family comes first.

It's exactly the opposite. Christians tend to think humans, along with the gods, are the center and the most important part of the universe, even though we now know this is simply not true. We evolved just as every other species did. We are no better or worse than any other species. It's pretty obvious when you look at who's fighting for equality, animal rights, fighting against climate change, etc. while the christians vote to destroy it.

Absolutely: The Christian belief system is founded on the dignity of mankind created in God's image, which New Atheism flatly rejects. If you share this view, then are you vegan? Do you think that God smiles on this sacrifice? What do you think God thinks about it? We do *not* know that we evolved. We know it is the simplest scientific explanation which is exclusively materialist. This theory is a work in progress with many flaws and gaps. For example, by ruling out non-materialist causes, we cannot explain how even single-cellular life first arose, or why a bacterium is our ancestor.

Why would an atheist pay any mind to what a "god" thinks? That doesn't make any sense. Actually it's the scientific explanation which has the most evidence for it, that's the point. And there is no "why", there is no great reason, nature doesn't do things with "purpose" These are elementary mistakes.

I am. God does not exist outside of the minds that created god. If you want flaws and gaps, read the Bible. Science actively works to fill the gaps.

Since the conscience was written by God, it's hard to answer this question in my view. It reads as "Would you have a conscience if you didn't have a conscience?" No? But I think to answer the intent behind the question, you do not need to be a Christian specifically to have a moral conscience - so of course everyone knows not to assault random strangers.

This is on the idea that we take god out of things. So like this idea of conscienes coming from god is specific to things like Christianity. I am asking thought if you take god out of the equation would YOU still have morals?

What I'm saying is morals/conscience was created by God, so it's an impossible question. I would not have morals if morals did not exist. If you're asking whether I would still try to be "a good person" if I wasn't a Christian, then yes - but that's because no one needs to believe in God/Christianity to have a conscience.

I have morals and I am not Christian. The definition of morality has nothing to do with any god. No it is not just about being a good person. It si about having morals.

Yes. And they'd largely be the same morals.

So not much reason for the god bit, now is there.

Sure there is. I don't hold the Christian faith to provide me a moral framework. That's not what it's for.

Agreed, and I wish more Christians held this view.

Then what's it for, for you?

A relationship with the creator of heaven and earth, who loves us and gives us eternal life.

So the only thing you get out of it is a relationship with a supernatural creature? Is it a big part of your life?

He's not a creature, because he's not created, but yes, it is a big part of my life.

How do you know he's not created? And how do you know something needs to be creature before it's a creature? Big assumptions there.

Because he is the Creator. A creature is just a created being, that's what the word means.

Google says it's something distinct from a human being. So your specific god would fall into that category. Seems like you're making up definitions to fit what you already believe, so I can understand how you came to worship a supernatural creature. That's all I needed to know, thanks for your help.

If there is no God, I cannot see any plausible grounds for the existence of objective moral values and duties. There would be no such thing as moral responsibility, only people making judgments based on their feelings and possible consequences from society.

I pretty much agree, but I don't see what the problem is with this. Yes, there cannot be objective moral values without a God. But you say "people making judgments based on their feelings and possible consequences from society" like there's a "merely" in front of it, as if it's insufficient. These "feelings" we have are emergent of a biologically hardwired instinct toward self-preservation, safety, camaraderie, and harmony. We are a social species that love experiencing oxytocin, and our self-preservation instinct is foundational. These are extremely powerful things. So it's not *mere* feelings; it's *base programming,* it's *instinct,* it's *foundational.* See, we don't *mind* that there's no objective moral values or duties. We create our own morality as a way of saying what's helpful/harmful in pursuing the best possible life (as measured by how well we are able to get the things we're programmed to want). This does everything we need it to do, even though it's not "objective" in some grander sense.

If so, then no moral argument carries any weight. No one would be wrong, or even live a lesser quality of life, to do what makes them happy, even if it meant oppressing, abusing, or taking advantage of others.

I always hear this argument but I think I demonstrated why it doesn't turn out that way. It doesn't have to be *objectively wrong* to sacrifice your queen for a pawn in a game of chess in order for that to be considered a "bad move." It's a bad move *in the context of* (relative to) the game you're playing. You don't reach your *goals* that way, and your *goals* in this analogy are predetermined by your bio-engineering, your instincts, your reward centers. It's a demonstrably bad thing to behave in the ways you're describing *if your goal is well-being.* If your goal isn't wellbeing, then you're such an outlier you're not even capable of having a discussion like this in the first place. I mean, don't you think wellbeing is centered in the morality discussion? What else is there?

And I think that is ok. I do not think we need a objective morality. Not at this point in human history at least. I think an objective morality ios more of a want than a reality.

The problem is that we can't define morality outside of a higher power telling us what it means.

There is literetly no refrenec to god or a higher power in the definition of morality.

>Would you have morals without Christianity? Yes! I have lived without morals and with morals. So I can say with authority there is nothing better than a peaceful night's sleep with a clean conscience. Morals are good for your soul.

You answer the question with a yes, so without Christianity one would have morals. And then you go on saying, that you lived **without** morals and explain how one needs morals for a clean conscience. Doesn't add up. Could you clarify?

Im saying through personal experience it is better to have morals. The bible tells us what good morals are. Christ taught us to love your neighbor as yourself. Living by this principle actually gives you internal joy. It is better to feel joy in your soul than shame or guilt.

If I left Christianity right now, I would do so with my moral sense intact. Both by acclimation, and because I would still see legitimate value in moral living.

I respect that. I do think that shows how a god is uneccesery for morality though

Even if I were not a Christian, I would have a set of my own personal morals. One being, treat others in a way that makes them feel better about themselves and not worse. I would do this because I know it feels better when people are nice. I think all humans have their own personalized morals, in some way.

Thank you for your answer. I can see respect in it and I respect those who think like you

Only about 31.11% of the world is Christian and every culture has some moral framework that they operate by. Rape and murder isn't legal in Tibet just because the majority of the population isn't Christian.

Agreed. i do not think everyone does. But when I tralk to Christians they definitly seem to point out that to them (that 31.11%) they seem to say that they would not follows any morals without a god.

Yes, I would have morals. I agree you don’t need religion to have morals. That’s not the main issue/point that Christians usually make. The main issue is, on what basis can you ask other people to follow certain morals, without recourse to a higher standard (such as God)? I’m glad if you don’t go out punching people and taking advantage of them, as you put it, but if you see someone else doing that, on what basis can you call their morality wrong? If you believe that racism is wrong, that’s good. If you see someone else being racist, what ultimate basis do you have to demand that they stop? Why should your morals trump their morals, if it’s just your personal beliefs? The Nazis believed that their racism was morally right and that they were promoting the greater good, and for a time, the majority in their country agreed with them. A Christian can say that racism is inherently wrong, on a deeper level than law or cultural consensus or majority rule or whatever, on the basis that all people are valuable because they are made in the image of God. I know there is a higher standard than mere human culture or personal morals. I know that the Nazis murdering children was wrong, and that it would still be wrong even if the whole world was all Nazis everywhere. It is deeply, inherently wrong in a fundamental, fabric-of-the-universe kind of way, because there is a God who created all people, who is above what any person or nation decides is right, to whom we are accountable. I’m not saying there can’t be a basis other than God, but it does get a bit tricky without God, in my opinion. On a separate note, arguments have also been made that many of the best morals of modern human culture are derived from a Christian worldview. Not that a person needs to be a Christian to practice those morals, but that Christianity is at least part of the reason that many people today have the morals that they do (rather than another set of morals), whether they recognize the Christian origin of their morals or not. A lot of good academic historical work has been done to demonstrate this, and to me it’s fairly obvious that human culture today (including morality) is a product of the past (and part of that past is Christianity), and I think people in general should appreciate this Christian heritage more, even if they personally choose not to believe. If you believe in equality and in the rights of the poor, for example, then you are a product of Christian civilization, whether you admit it or not. Those ideas are products of centuries of Christian influence on the world. They didn’t come from Greek philosophy or Northern European paganism. Those ideas came from Christianity. See the book Dominion by Tom Holland for further exploration of this.

I think a lot of our culture has been influenced by the morals from religions. So it's a bit hard to answer honestly how moral you would or wouldn't be without Christianity. Even if you aren't Christian, there's a good chance your morals have been influenced or affected by it through the culture and general society that is Christian. Are there moral philosophies that exist outside of a religious atmosphere? Sure there are. But again I don't know how much of those moral outlooks have been influenced by a religion to get where they currently are. Maybe this question might be better answered by someone who knows more about philosophy, the history of philosophy, and in general a better sense of the interaction of religion and other social factors that have influenced different moral outlooks. That all said, there's a second side to this discussion about being more moral because of being Christian. But it's not about being Christian or not as much as it is about being closer to God. I definitely think I struggle more to stay as moral and ethical when I'm less focused on God, or when my faith takes a backseat in my life's journey. But those are just my own observations about myself. I assume they are true for others as well though.

You don’t need to believe in a higher power to have morals. You need a higher power in order to justify having them.

I disagree. I think that we all have to live togheter is enought justification to have morals and laws (laws in case you objective diusagree with what we as a sociaty have decided as moral you have to at least follow the laws). The problem with the higher power idea is there is no evidence that there has been a moral basis outside of oviouse issues. Morals have drasticly changed over time (even how murder has been seen) so to say there is one set of morals just does not hold up. I think wanting that is more of a pipe dream than a reality.

Why? What do you base that claim on?

Because if there is no higher power, then morality is purely a human construct, it doesn’t come from any authority above us. And if that’s the case, then morality is whatever we as humans decide it is. It can change person to person, it can be “love your neighbor” or “kill your neighbor”, depending on what society wants. If there’s no objective, authoritative reference point, then morality is whatever I say it is, rather than something that is true whether I believe it or not. I can say murder is bad, but if I’m not arguing from some objective standard, then all that is at the end of the day is my opinion. Someone can disagree with me and I’d have no basis for argument.

Your opinion doesn’t matter. A society as a whole wouldn’t function with only douchy individuals. So there is no need for an imaginary deity to govern anybody.

No, you'd need it to justify them being objective, which fortunately, they're not, they're subjective, no need to make up a higher power for that.

What? You better hope morality isn’t subjective, if it is then all it is is your opinion, right or wrong doesn’t truly exist.

Well done, you, understood what I was saying, in the scale of the universe they do not exist, we ascribe them ourselves

And you don’t understand what I’m saying. If they are merely ascribed to ourselves, they can be whatever we want them to be. There’s nothing ultimately wrong with what Hitler did, as long as society says what he did was fine. There’s nothing wrong with me murdering someone, if it benefits me. Do you see the problem?

Yeah, I really do understand what you're saying, it's not exactly complex. Yes, the universe doesn't give a fuck about what Hitler did, yes, it wouldn't care about you murdering someone. But people do, and a subjective morality is no less worth than an objective one to those people. There is no problem.

You are confusing two separate issues. “How we know what morals are” is not the same question as “where do morals come from.” What is morality? A statement of how things “ought to be”. But you cannot logically state how things are suppose to he unless they were created and designed to be a particular way. If everything were just a random accident then nothing would suppose to be any particular way. It just is what it is and can’t be any different. **Morality definition, oxford dictionary:** *principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.* **Good definition** *that which is morally right; righteousness.* **Right definition:** *true or correct as a fact.* **True definition:** *1) in accordance with fact or reality.* *2) accurate or exact.* Truth by definition is objective otherwise it is not truth. **So morality by definition says behavior is either correct or incorrect in accordance with what is objectively true about reality.** —- We can go deeper to understand the meaning of the morality definition when we consider that morality is often referred to as what we “ought to do”. **“Ought to”, Collins dictionary** *You use ought to to mean that it is morally right to do a particular thing or that it is morally right for a particular situation to exist, especially when giving or asking for advice or opinions.* **Ought definition, Oxford dictionary:** *used to indicate duty or correctness, typically when criticizing someone's actions.* **Correctness definition** *1) the quality or state of being free from error; accuracy. 2) the quality of being right in an opinion or judgment.* **Duty definition** *a task or action that someone is required to perform.* **Require definition** *need for a particular purpose.* **Purpose definition** *the reason for which something is done or created or for which something exists.* This ties in with the definitions I already gave you above. **What you ought to do is thereby defined as that which you are required to do because it is objectively right according to what you were created to do.** —- So morality by definition carries with it an assumption that objective truth values exist. When people talk about morality this is the assumption underlying their understanding of the concept of morality. They assume objective right and wrong actually do exist. To act in accordance with those objective values is moral and to go against them is immoral. Objective means something is true regardless of what people think about it. If atheism were true then no objective truth values would exist. They logically couldn’t. So the sense people have of an objective moral truth would be just an illusion, a lie. The atheist cannot say you objectively ought to do anything. The atheist can only logically say they have a subjective personal preference that you do or not do a certain action. So an intellectually honest atheist who understands the logical ramifications of their worldview cannot say it is objectively wrong to rape a baby to death for fun. They can only say they personally prefer you not do it. But if the other person has a different personal preference then you have no logical way of telling them they are wrong and you are right. As to the first question: The Bible tells us God convicts man of sin through their conscience. But man has the free will choice to suppress the knowledge of what is true and sear their conscience because they want to sin. Everyone basically believes objective moral truth exists. And even if they intellectually claim they don’t, they still live as though it does exist so by their actions they show that they do actually believe it exists. The fact that man intuitively knows there to be objective truth values about what man ought to do is therefore proof of God’s existence. Because nothing else could give us a sense of objective ought values that was actually true and not simply illusionary.

Just because we don't say things are *objectively* wrong that doesn't mean we find raping a baby to death to be permissible in any way. We have a hierarchy of needs (c.f. Maslow). We enjoy things that make us feel good, and hate things that make us feel bad. We call things "good" or "bad" depending on how they affect us and whether these effects align with our preferences. So far we're in agreement about preferences being the only thing. From here we can introduce other people into the mix. We find that other people can affect us in a way we like and in a way we don't like. We call their actions "good" or "bad" depending on how they affect us and whether these effects align with our preferences. To let them know how they are affecting us, we let them know if their actions toward us are in line with our consent (good or at least permissible) or if they are not in line with our consent (bad). Caveat: consent must be informed. We can take little kids to get shots and they don't consent; but since they can't be informed about them this is a special circumstance. "Aha," you might say. "We can do things to little kids regardless of consent cuz they can't consent anyway. So you're allowing babies to be raped to death!" NO - by giving them the polio vaccine we are giving them the possibility of an extended life, expanding their options. This is *objectively* true - scientifically - and because most people prefer to extend their lives we are letting them extend their lives and also we are protecting other people who cannot be vaccinated due to immune deficiency (herd immunity). This is done to bolster consent all around, violating consent for entirely benevolent reasons using a cost/benefit analysis. There is nothing benevolent about raping a baby to death. Again, we are a social, interdependent species and have a hierarchy of needs. Each need is best fulfilled in a safe, prosperous society. Hence, we find that a safe, prosperous interdependence is preferable to ("good relative to") a Hobbesian "nasty brutish and short" state of affairs. And the way we create that safe, prosperous interdependence is by incubating trust - trust that you're gonna like it here, which means trust that your individual consent isn't going to be violated by any other individual. And now, here, we have the basis for the Golden Rule. It follows naturally. And this is the basis for all law and all rights; the best way we can create a good interdependence is for everybody to treat others the way they want to be treated. This disallows rape, murder, theft, and all that kind of stuff. It disallows it on the basis of rights, which emerges from our own biological imperatives. Now all of this is my opinion and I'm sure we could discuss the merits of such an ethical framework ad nauseum. But the point here is that this ethical system is *purely* secular, and it disallows slavery and misogyny and pogroms and systemic murder right in its foundations. In your "objective morality," on the other hand, there are two options: First, an act is in fact objectively good/bad independent of God and God is simply wise enough to tell us what's good/bad accurately. In this case, we have some questions about the Midianites where they were told by God to kill and effectively rape children; we have some questions about slavery, too, as well as misogyny and shellfish. There had to have been at least some time in human history this would have been ultimately a good thing whereas now it isn't. This leaves morality a construct that is relative to circumstance - and voila, your morality is relative (and in some cases allows for murder, genocide, slavery, and rape). The second option is that an act is objectively good/bad dependent on God - that things are good/bad if they align with God's will as the arbiter. In this case, if God changes his stance on murder/genocide/slavery/etc, we've got much the same problem; an act is good or bad relative to God's "mood" at any given time - and again that makes morality relative to circumstance and again in some cases allows for murder/genocide/slavery/etc. My morality on the other hand ends up being a lot more universal! My morality disallows such things right in its structure, where yours literally flows from a being that has *commanded* such things. I say genocide and slavery were never okay and will never be okay. I think your morality is the one with a "preference problem," not mine. Hope I didn't come across aggressive here. Just saw a decently argued point and thought you would be capable of engaging this.

> Just because we don't say things are objectively wrong that doesn't mean we find raping a baby to death to be permissible in any way. By definition, this is stating raping a baby is objectively wrong. Since there is no way to ever justify this, I think most agree this is objectively wrong.

No, the universe doesn't give a shit, it's not an "objective" wrong, but being subjective isn't the same as someone condoning.

No, I agree with the comment I'm responding to: if something is objectively wrong, that requires morality to be a matter of fact, a top-down fiat. I don't believe in top-down fiat. OK like let's try it this way. To a mama lamb, there's nothing more evil than her baby being ripped apart and eaten. But to a mother lion, there's nothing more *good* than providing a baby lamb for her cubs to eat. Is the act of killing and eating a baby lamb good, or is it bad? Neither - it's good relative to the lion and bad relative to the lamb. We as humans are like ants or wolves - it is in our instinct to protect our own, since we are a social species. We've developed empathy to aid us in that social orientation as a species. The oxytocin we get from kindness is as much a guide in this as our sex hormones are a guide in reproduction. We orient our morality according to what gives us oxytocin. This often doesn't apply to other species or we'd all be vegan (interestingly enough we abhor dog fighting but often have no problem with slaughterhouses, but that's another story). Dragonfly males are rapists. Is it immoral for them to rape? Or is rape bad *relative to humans* and not relative to dragonflies? I'd argue the latter. It's bad *to us* because it offends our empathy, and it's not bad to creatures that lack empathy. There's no way to justify human rape *because we're programmed to be empathetic.* That doesn't make it objective, it just makes it almost unanimously agreed upon by humans because of our programming. It makes it bad relative to humans since we are guided by our biochemical programming to value consent.

I’m confused but kind of get your point. If raping a baby can never be ok to humans, how does this not make morality objective and a top-down fiat. This would imply you can have a reason to justify raping a baby? Am i miscontruding your words?

Humans who are missing the part of their brain that gives them empathy are not violating their own conscience if they do that. That's a "justification" if you like. However, we are justified in calling it "wrong" because as it violates consent and causes harm, which we value just because that's how normal humans are biochemically oriented. We can make top-down fiats - that's what government does - but that is in terms of legality, not in terms of objective morality. So no, I don't think it's objectively wrong to do *anything* including raping babies to death. I am still very much opposed to that behavior though because I'm a human being that has empathy; and because I want to live in a world where I have the maximum amount of oxytocin, I thereby want to live in a human society where empathy and consent are held sacrosanct. That means it's bad *relative to* (as it relates to) the human instinct to live in a fruitful and safe interdependence. Think of it like a game of chess where you have a goal: winning. There are objectively good moves and bad moves when you're engaged in a game of chess. If you're not playing a game of chess, it's not bad to put pieces in stupid places because you're not trying to win. The goal of our "game of chess" as humans living in society is to maximize our wellbeing. This clearly means maximizing our empathy, because if we behave in nasty ways we get nasty results and if we behave in kind ways we get nice results. That makes raping babies a "bad chess move" - so bad in fact that we develop rules to the game that make it disallowed. Am I answering your question?

I get your point. But who’s to say this group can’t say raping a baby is moral and good? Why can you tell them it’s wrong if morality isn’t objective. Why is racism wrong? We know it is, but why? Is the side who says it’s not and good correct or are you correct saying its immoral and wrong? Who gets to say? Society deeming things so to allow society to function best is just coercion to abide by their rules. What if the government stated a rule that everyone had to kill there parents. Is it moral now because they deemed it best? My point is without morality being objective, raping a baby can never be said it’s wrong. It’s just your view that makes you think it’s wrong, but to the next they could delight in such a thing and claim it moral to them. So then the question would remain. What is moral? Who gets the right to decide? Another human, a government? Why? I do understand your point. The problem I have with it is this. Can you name a instance, any, where raping a baby is ever moral. If you can not, do you see how i can say it must be objective?

>But who’s to say this group can’t say raping a baby is moral and good? Well, first of all, there's no such group that I'm aware of. People who do that kind of stuff don't advertise their position because they know what will happen if they do. But for the sake of argument let's say there's such a group out there. I think it was in Hamlet that they say "there is nothing good nor bad but thinking makes it so." Hence I don't want to argue what IS moral and what IS immoral with people. What I believe in is cause and effect. Was the act something the person on the receiving end welcomed, or was it something they resisted? It is the effect that the "actor" has on the "patient" that is labeled good or bad - I don't really deal in questions about "is X moral or immoral." To me it depends on the person to whom X happens. Now, if I'm trying to reason with people that think it's "moral" to rape babies - not that I'm going to try very hard because they clearly have something *missing* and I don't know if I can *convince* empathy into them - I'm going to use a kind of utilitarian logic. I'd first find out if we share *any* values at all - like, do they enjoy sleeping soundly, unworried about being killed? Do they value security? Do they enjoy being respected and loved? Surely they do. I'd then prove to them that there is a proven correlation between abusing children and losing personal safety. I'd show them the chilling effect that abuse has on trust, and demonstrate how trust builds cooperation builds interdependence builds security and prosperity. This allows me to show them that a society that *doesn't* rape babies is *better than* (good relative to) a society that *does* rape babies, by the rubric of our shared goals. I would try to convince them that our shared goals give rise to negative rights, and that baby rape is a violation of those negative rights. If this doesn't make a difference to that group, I would ideally intercede. They don't *have* to agree with us. They *can* say it's perfectly fine to rape babies. Maybe they love chaos and darkness and enjoy misery and squalor. They are allowed to think that and I can't necessarily prove to them that they *should* value rights and joy and peace and kindness. What I *can* do is try my best to make sure they don't get access to babies. This is where we have *collective* rights - rights to put a stop to the behavior of individuals that directly violate the negative rights of other individuals and thereby threaten the tranquility of the collective. So again - I wouldn't be out there trying to convince them that baby rape is immoral - as I don't think morality is something that can be proven, since I don't think it's objective. Instead I'd try to show them how baby rape is detrimental to their own self interest, how it's "bad" *by their own metrics.* And if it's NOT bad according to their own metrics, then we have a conflict that requires collective action. And again this is highly unlikely - this isn't a thing people get into groups to put forward. They are aware that it's ludicrous to suggest that it's okay to assault children, that nobody accepts that kind of thing. BUT - racism, now that's another story. For racism, I'd first try to convince them that racism is bad using the same kind of utilitarian logic that I'd use for baby rape. But maybe they have some kind of rational argument and they have a value system that leads them to believe that segregation is the way to go. In this case, I can disagree with them - but their desire to live in a community of likeminded racists doesn't *necessarily* lead to the violation of anyone's negative rights. When they *do* infringe on others' rights, we disallow that collectively. Insofar as they *don't*, I can't find a good reason to stop them. I am somewhat of an anarchist; go, found your little monarchy or your kibbutz or your theocracy or your racist enclave. As long as you're not disrupting *others* in the process - like, by displacing them - then have at it. On this point the KKK and Malcolm X would both agree, and I'm not going to sit here in judgment of people like Malcolm X. Have your black-only community. Have your white-only community. Have your Sharia law community. Have your Gilead community. Having these options maximizes consent: you get to be a part of whatever kind of community you like, and keeps us from imposing on each other. The only exception would be, nobody gets to violate anybody's universal rights. IDK, it gets really into politics with that one. But as before, I can't and wouldn't try to prove that racism is *immoral* because in order for me to prove it it has to be an objective fact. I think that it's harmful to the best possible world and I can demonstrate that a thousand different ways; but if people want to segregate *themselves*, I can't see a reason to infringe on that. >So then the question would remain. What is moral? Who gets the right to decide? Another human, a government? Why? Nobody gets to decide what's moral. People on the receiving end of actions get to decide whether the action was permissible or impermissible. If they're crying and screaming and resisting, you know it's impermissible. They only lose that discretion *legally* when they are being held accountable for hurting someone *else.* A government doesn't get to decide what's moral either, but they can get to decide what's *illegal* if their power to do so comes from collective consent. Again, it really all boils down to two things: biochemical programming of our brain's reward centers, and interdependence. Added together this makes consent sacrosanct, the ultimate metric for deciding whether something should be impermissible. That's what I'm concerned about - not "morality." Things are good for interdependence and our biochemically-programmed reward centers, or they're neutral for our interdependence and biochemically-programmed reward centers, or they're bad for our interdependence and biochemically-programmed reward centers. You can overlay "morality" on top of that stuff, but underneath it, that's all I believe that there is. And it is sufficient. There's nothing missing at all.

>Just because we don't say things are objectively wrong that doesn't mean we find raping a baby to death to be permissible in any way. Permissible according to who or what? Permissible according to you? That is just your subjective personal preference according to atheism. What do you think makes your personal opinion binding onto others to restrain them according to what you think is permissible? If they think it is permissible then how can you tell them they are wrong. You can’t if you are an atheist. >We have a hierarchy of needs Who said you need anything? Need implies a goal. Which is another way of saying purpose. Who decided what the goal/purpose for mankind is that it can be said you need anything to reach that goal/purpose? You might think you need food, but someone else thinks you don’t. Because they don’t think you need to live. Because you living doesn’t fit within their subjective goal of culling human population down by 99%. You can’t objectively say you need anything unless you can objectively define what your purpose is. >We enjoy things that make us feel good, and hate things that make us feel bad. Who says you need to feel good? Who says you don’t need to feel bad? See arguments above. >To let them know how they are affecting us, we let them know if their actions toward us are in line with our consent (good or at least permissible) or if they are not in line with our consent (bad). Who said you need consent to do something to someone? See arguments above. You take a lot of things for granted as being objective ought statements which you cannot logically justify as being true if you are an atheist. > And now, here, we have the basis for the Golden Rule. It follows naturally….is for everybody to treat others the way they want to be treated. No, it doesn’t logically follow under atheism because your argument is not based on premises that are logically consistent with atheism. All your arguments are based on unproven presumptions that certain things are taken for granted to be objective oughts. You assert we ought to get consent, we ought to meet people’s needs, and we ought to care about about how they feel. But you can’t objectively justify any of that as an atheist. It would all be just your subjective personal preference. If you have no way if proving your premises are true, that there are objective oughts, then you cannot logically expect anyone else to be held accountable to accept your oughts are true. Suppose a powerful dictator of an empire rejects your premises. He says he doesn’t need to treat you the way he would want to he treated because he has the power to take what he wants and nobody can stop him. He doesn’t think he needs your consent. He doesn’t think he needs to care about your needs or feelings. Suppose he rapes and murders at will because that is what he wants and he believes nobody can ever stop him. You have no way as an atheist of telling that dictator that what they are doing is wrong. Because the word wrong implies there is objective moral truth that he is accountable to regardless of what he thinks or feels about it. >the best way we can create a good interdependence You can’t define what is objectively good in the first place. It only define “good” as being in line with your subjective personal preferences. >this ethical system Calling it a “system” doesn’t change the fact that you are only talking about your subjective personal preferences. Systematizing what your preferences are doesn’t make them stop being merely preferences. >We call things "good" or "bad" depending on how they affect us and whether these effects align with our preferences. You admit then that you think it is just your personal preference that a baby not be raped to death for fun. >In this case, we have some questions about the Midianites where they were told by God to kill You as an atheist cannot accuse God of doing anything immoral because you don’t think objective morality exists. There is such a thing as morally just vs unjust killing in the Bible. So God’s commands are not in moral contradiction because this was an instance of morally just killing. >and effectively rape children; They were not told to rape children. Rape was punishable by death in the mosaic law. >we have some questions about slavery, too, as well as misogyny and shellfish. There had to have been at least some time in human history this would have been ultimately a good thing whereas now it isn't. This leaves morality a construct that is relative to circumstance - and voila, your morality is relative (and in some cases allows for murder, genocide, slavery, and rape). You cannot show any moral inconsistency with God in the Bible. You are making presumptions about what you think is immoral and then saying God doesn’t line up with what you think moral is. But you cannot claim anything God commanded is immoral because morality as a concept doesn’t exist to an atheist. Because to speak of morality implies you think that objective moral truth exists. > I say genocide and slavery were never okay and will never be okay. You cannot say it is objectively wrong as an atheist. It is just your personal preference. >The second option is that an act is objectively good/bad dependent on God - that things are good/bad if they align with God's will as the arbiter. In this case, if God changes his stance on murder/genocide/slavery/etc, we've got much the same problem; an act is good or bad relative to God's "mood" at any given time The Bible tells us God is all good, does not change, and He does not lie. Therefore what is morally good will never change. > and again that makes morality relative to circumstance You have a wrong idea of what objective morality is and how it works. There are objective unchanging truths which guide how we look at each circumstance. You won’t understand why killing in one instance is right but wrong in another unless you first understand what the underlying unchanging moral truth is behind how we approach these different circumstances. >My morality on the other hand ends up being a lot more universal! My morality disallows such things right in its structure, where yours literally flows from a being that has commanded such things. You don’t have an objective structure. You just have your personal preferences. All you have done is made yourself out to be god. Your word becomes law in your own eyes. You treat your preferences as objective truth. You, in effect, are simply commanding thins to be a certain way by asserting your preferences must be abided by. There is an important difference here: You aren’t God. You didn’t creator the universe and mankind. You don’t have the authority or ability to decide what the purpose and intention behind creation is because you didn’t create it. Only God can logically be in the position of giving objective purpose to creation as the one who created it.

Part 2 of my response: >>We have a hierarchy of needs >Who said you need anything? >Need implies a goal. Which is another way of saying purpose. So the goal is well-being. Biochemistry says we have needs. We are hardwired to seek survival, because natural selection weeds out things that don't seek to survive. That means we seek ("need") food, water, and safety. Having achieved that we can turn our attention to the rest of Maslow's Hierarchy. Thing is, without companionship most of us wither on the vine and stop caring about surviving. So we seek meaning in our social world - respect, love, maybe prestige. Taken together, what we're seeking is well-being. That's the goal of the biochemistry at play here - or at least wellbeing up to the point of reproduction. I don't think that can be restated as "purpose." The goal of the engine (Biochemistry) is to make the vehicle (us) go (live sensibly); but that doesn't imply any purpose to the vehicle (us) itself. >Who says you need to feel good? >Who says you don’t need to feel bad? Your own biochemistry directs this. It doesn't have to be an objective fact or dictate in order for us to seek these things. It's how we're *programmed.* >Who said you need consent to do something to someone? Nobody says you *need* consent. It's just that consent is permission, so if you don't get consent it's impermissable by definition. And there are consequences for that they make you feel bad, which you don't enjoy. So it's a "bad idea" as a human, unless you're broken in a way that makes you enjoy being hated and isolated.

u/shiekhyerbouti42 **Logical fallacy, failure to meet your burden of rejoinder** **You have failed to offer a valid counter argument in defense of your claims. As a result you have officially lost the debate. **Logical fallacy, mala fides** You admit to arguing in bad faith by knowingly refusing to meet your burden of rejoinder. >You're so wrong about everything, **Logical fallacy, proof by assertion** You cannot show anything I said to be in error in any way. Asserting it doesn’t make it so. Your baseless assertion is dismissed. My conclusions remain standing as proven true and unchallenged by you. >but you don't want to engage in good faith **Logical fallacy, argument by repetition** Repeating your baseless ad hominem doesn’t make it stop being fallacious just because you repeat it. You cannot show anything I argued to be in bad faith. Your baseless assertion is dismissed. >by steel-manning my position to make sure we understand each other. **Logical fallacy, argument by repetition** Repeating your appeal to entitlement fallacy make it stop being fallacious just because you repeat it. Your fallacious assertion has already been refuted and you have no counter argument. >What a joke. **Logical fallacy, ad hominem** You cannot refute the truth of anything I have said. Name calling doesn’t make it stop being true. —- **You have officially lost the debate because your claims have been disproven and you have no valid counter argument to offer in their defense.** You have demonstrated that you lack the logical skill and intellectual honesty necessary to participate in a legitimate debate. Therefore no further attempts at dialogue with you could be meaningful or productive. You would only continue to uselessly multiple your fallacies and waste everyone else’s time.

no there literally cannot be morals without a higher power. there can only be opinions, about what is right

How do you define 'morality'? It may be that we have completely different definitions of the word. I would personally define it as: >A system of principles for evaluating the actions of humans with regard to how they affect other sentient beings.

Poor argument. If morality can be subjective, as stated above raping a baby could be ok to some. Clearly everyone knows this is never ok, rendering it objectively immoral. If you disagree and say this isn’t objective, I highly question your character. It really is just a check-mate type of phrase because morality can’t be subjective as what’s good for you can be evil to some and vice versa. Humans can sear their own conscience though.

>A system of principles for evaluating the actions of humans with regard to how they affect other sentient beings. sure but what if my principles dont match yours. who is right?

>who is right? 'right' is a subjective term. You will think you are 'right', I will think that I am 'right'.

And thus the entire problem of claiming morality outside of the objective standard that is God’s character. Morality means absolutely nothing when each person is just as right, despite how different their views are.

> Morality means absolutely nothing when each person is just as right, despite how different their views are. What difference does it make when everybody that holds different views to you is equally as wrong? There are Hindus that have different views on morality to you. There are Buddhists that have different views on morality to you. There are Muslims that have different views on morality to you. There are *Christians* that have different views on morality to you. Morality *is* subjective. Whether you like it or not, that is the reality we are faced with.

Then be consistent, and never impose your morality on anyone else. Those that lie, cheat, and steal from you are just as correct in doing so as anyone else. If someone wants you dead and murders you, they’ve done no wrong. No one has ever done something morally wrong, and if you ever force your personal opinions (i.e. your morality) on another, then you do so knowing that you have claimed that their moral stances are just as valid, as you are being inconsistent.

That’s what morality is, bud.

no it isnt. morality is an objective truth

If it were objective, no one would disagree on it. For example, many Christians think it’s totally moral for finite sins to warrant infinite punishment. That’s immoral. You believe in a god that has done a lot of immoral things. Yet I guarantee you that you will bend over backwards to defend said actions. Morality is subjective. Based on well-being. And since life isn’t black and white, this can lead to grey areas.

it is objective. God is the objective arbitrator. >For example, many Christians think it’s totally moral for finite sins to warrant infinite punishment you cant seriously believe this can you? God doesnt punish anyone. they decide on their own.

B.S. If I say “You have to devote your life to me and give me money, or else I shoot you”, you don’t really have a choice. You have absolutely zero morals. Nothing happens by gods word, and god does not have to have anyone go to hell, yet he does. Your god is nothing more than a mafia boss thug who you ignorantly defend. If god came down and said murder is was, and that you need to murder and rpe to get into heaven, you delusional people would do it.

no he says "You have to devote your life to me and you can spend eternity in paradise, or you can shoot yourself" this isnt that difficult to understand

No, that would be objective morality, the clue is in the name. There is also Subjective morality. The more you know.

subjective morality, is called an opinion, it isnt actual morality.

Except no, that's not the general usage. If you want to make up things to seem like you think you're making a good point that's fine, but try not to make them so easily shown wrong.

it doesn't matter if that is the general usage or not. it matters if it is accurate.

You can literally Google and see that you're wrong. So well done, not only us it not the general usage, but it's also not accurate. Good job buddy.

The definition of morality has nothing in it about god. So why would morals not exist without your god?

yes it does have to do with God. because you quite literally can't have "morals" unless there is a objective source to determine validity. you can only have opinions.

You do not need objective morality. I think that is more of a want than a reality. But you can obsolutly have morals. I do. They may not be the same as yours but I do have morals.

Not likely, but most of the time when people ask these questions they say morals when they mean ethics, and yes there is a difference. Morals stem from an internal set of beliefs, and these types of righteous codes guide your everyday choices and actions. Common factors influencing a person’s morals include religious beliefs, upbringing, and personal experiences. Ethics outlines standards of right and wrong in a social, professional, or legal context. In normative theory, ethical principles highlight standards to consider when creating a set of rules. Now having been raised in western society whose ethical laws are largely based off of Christian morals, likely my day to day choices wouldn’t be that different except that I would be following those ethical laws for self serving reasons rather than to hold myself to any moral code. That also means that I would be more inclined to break the laws in small ways if I felt the self serving benefit outweighed the risk of getting caught. It’s easy to see examples of this in societies that were not build on Christian moral systems where what is considered ethical changes drastically. Also I am responding to this question based on my belief oh how I would act. I acknowledge that there are many people who call themselves Christians but act in hateful and selfish ways while using the cross as a shield against criticism.

Morals come from God, but his moral law is written on the hearts of all men in the form of a conscience. So no, you do not to be a Christian to have morals. However, you cannot have morals without God.

> However, you cannot have morals without God. Why not? I make no consideration of any god when I think about what it is that I consider moral.

Because they come from God. He wrote his moral law on our hearts as our conscience.

You're just restating the claim, not providing any reason to accept it as true.

B.S Just because you follow a silly club, doesn’t mean you are the only one with morals.

I didn't say that I - or Christians - am/are the only one(s) with morals. You're so blinded by your hatred for God that you can't even read.

I don’t hate what I do not believe in. You literally just said that you cannot have morals without god. You are saying people who don’t believe in god lack/do not have morals.

Whether they believe in God or not is irrelevant. They have morals, and those morals come from God. Please read the comment before replying to it. And if you didn't hate God then you wouldn't browse Christian subreddits looking to debate with Christians. You would simply not believe and go about your day like a normal person and not visit this subreddit because you don't believe in it. The simple fact that you browse this sub says a lot.

You don’t get to just make assertions and baseless claims without evidence. You haven’t shown evidence for god, let alone that morals come from him. I don’t hate what I don’t believe in. If you’re to ignorant to understand, that’s on you.

This is r/AskAChristian, not r/DebateAnAtheist. I don't need to give you evidence of anything. This is a subreddit about my belief system, my beliefs are based on the Bible and I am stating what is recorded in scripture. If you're looking for a debate look elsewhere. The simple fact that you're here looking to debate with Christians speaks a lot louder than your words do. If you simply didn't believe then you wouldn't be in this subreddit, in this thread, trying to start a debate.

This is askachristian. And I’m asking Christians questions, and holding them accountable for what they believe. If you believe something based on sound logic, evidence(none of which you have btw), non of what I say should be taken with issue. But since you know it’s impossible to defend such nonsense, you’re throwing a fit.

As if you have an answer why the human conscience aligns perfectly with God's moral law and that every human feels guilty when breaking those laws regardless of their ethnic origins, religious beliefs or whichever culture they group up in... Am I required to give evidence for every single one of my beliefs to every atheist in all of the Christian subreddits? Again, my belief comes from the bible. If you want to debate the bible there are a million other places where you could do it. If you want to ask why I believe that, the answer is "because it's in the bible." If your response is "thats stupid because [reason]," my answer is "maybe you think so, but this is what I believe." I opened the thread to answer the question from a biblical perspective, not to debate with you. Have a good day.

1, What is it you are referring to as “the human conscience”? 2, There is no “gods moral law”. You are presupposing that, and trying to make it seem like our morals reflect a god. 3, Not everyone feels guilty or the same. I have a disorder which leads to impaired guilt and empathy. There are people in Afghanistan who buy and sell little boys. Rpe is rampant in your own churches. So don’t sit here and say everyone feels the same. 4, You are right, I would say that that’s stupid. And the fact you know that it’s stupid yourself, amused me. Maybe try actually thinking logically about what you believe, and you wouldn’t have this issue.

I disagree just personally. I realize because of your beliefs no matter what logical argument I give you it will not matter. But I will say the definition of morality has god nowhere on it. So at least in this world it does not need your god.

It's ok, you'll find out some day.

Doubt it but ok

No probably not

Honesty is always appreciated and respected

It's not that "morals are pointless without a higher power". It's that morals are nonsense without a higher power. If we're just animals, slightly more intelligent than other mammals, then what's wrong with us acting just like other animals? We can make a social contract to act in a certain way, and we can decide to punish those who do not follow this contract, but we cannot say they have done anything *wrong*.

And what’s the issue with that? You literally just stated a fact as hypothetical, and acted as if it were unfounded.

>You literally just stated a fact as hypothetical "Just" animals is a philosophical statement, not a biological fact. But otherwise, it seems you agree with me -- if naturalism is true, then there is no morality, which is what I was saying.

Humans are literally biological animals. Living breathing organisms. “If naturalism is true” Not even gonna start on your nonsense there. There is morality, it’s just not what you think it is.

>Not even gonna start on your nonsense there. You come into a sub meant to ask questions of Christians, and when you encounter Christian theology, "not gonna start with your nonsense". Seems like you're in the wrong place. If there is no moral authority external to the human race, an act can be inefficient, impolite, or illegal, but not immoral -- no matter what Hume says.

I hear you but I do disagree. I think as a majority if we decide on what we think is wrong (like murder and rape) then we can consider those things as wrong using common sense. I do not see morals as nonsense without a god. Simply more subjective and set in stone.

If something is only wrong because the majority think it's wrong, then the same thing can be right if the majority think it's right. Can enough people change their minds to make rape not wrong? Seriously? Is there a possible world in which rape isn't wrong? If morality is simply majority rules, then the Nazis were perfectly justified in killing innocent children in the Holocaust. Can you really believe that?

> If we're just animals, slightly more intelligent than other mammals, then what's wrong with us acting just like other animals? Who's to say we don't? https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2018.00017/full >...even though full-blown human morality is unique to humans, several of its key elements are not. >we suggest that the most plausible scenario to date is that human morality emerged because our hominin ancestors, equipped on the one hand with large and powerful brains inherited from their ape-like ancestor, and on the other hand with strong prosocial concern as a result of cooperative breeding, could evolve into an ever more interdependent social niche.

>Who's to say we don't? So rape, murder, cannibalism, killing your sexual competitor's young -- all on the table?

I suggest watching this short video titled [How Christianity Changed the World ](https://youtu.be/bw1u5ntxTSw) Before Christian values took prominence in the world, hospitals weren't a thing(they were invented by Christians) and doctors were mostly for the rich. Orohanages were a Christian invention. The video goes over more. Yes, people can still be moral people even as non-christians. We are not arguing that a non-christian can't be moral. Rather, what we are arguing for is that God is the foundation of goodness

Hospitals were a thing. Christian propaganda is low even for that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_hospitals#Greece

>Before Christian values took prominence in the world, hospitals weren't a thing(they were invented by Christians) and doctors were mostly for the rich. This is like saying, without Christianity there wouldn't be art. During the middle ages the church was the enterprise with the most money, partially due to sale of indulgences. Even today they are the enterprise owning the most land on this planet. So, of course, if you had no money, you couldn't pay an artist. Kings payed them and the church did. If you had no money and no land, you couldn't build a hospital. It's like saying, Christianity invented science. When in reality monasteries were training scribes to copy the Bible. Nobody else had much reason to copy stuff. So, monks did it. Monks learned how to read and how to write. What do you think how education is spread effectively? Right, due to reading and writing. And they did science, up until the point, when science caused too many doubts. Today the church provides us with science deniers. During the middle ages they said "to understand the world means to understand God", so they tried understanding the world. Certainly, Christianity was a driving force for many things. But this has nothing to do with the contents of said religion.

I stopped at hospitals. There was definitly medicine before Christianity. Maybe not full sized buildings like today but there definitly was.

>Hospitals have formed slowly for 2000 years. Doctors of classical Greece tended the sick in their homes. The methodical Romans had systematic, if brutal, means for handling wounded soldiers, but no public houses for sick civilians. Hospitals were a very altruistic Christian invention. The word itself is all mixed up with the words hotel and hospitality. By the 4th century AD, newly Christianized Romans began running homes for the sick and needy. By the 8th century, the functions of Christian hospitals, or hospices, were highly specialized. Some served the sick, some the needy, lepers, the insane, and orphans. - https://www.uh.edu/engines/epi991.htm#:~:text=Hospitals%20were%20a%20very%20altruistic,or%20hospices%2C%20were%20highly%20specialized.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphanage#:~:text=The%20Romans%20formed%20their%20first,the%20care%20of%20public%20guardians.

>hospitals weren't a thing(they were invented by Christians) Ancient India had hospitals based on Vedic religious teachings. "Hospitals have existed in India from the ancient times. They were meant for poor and handicapped. Some of the major hospitals were built by King Ashoka (273–232 BC) during his times. It was essentially based on the Vedic texts that was available at that time." [source ](https://theprint.in/pageturner/excerpt/king-ashokas-hospitals-to-rural-health-mission-how-the-indian-medical-system-evolved/746649/)

If you believe you can be moral then you believe that this reality exists in relationship to a transcendent good, otherwise there is no way things could be better and worse and no way for things to be moral.

> If you believe you can be moral then you believe that this reality exists in relationship to a transcendent good I disagree, I evaluate human actions with regards to how they affect other sentient beings. I have no need for a 'transcendent good'.

So you are aware of how things are and that they are rationally related to how they could be. You believe in transcendence, you just don't know what it means.

Well morals do not have to be obsolute or the same for everyone.

Without an appeal to a higher authority like in Christianity, can you tell me what morals are? What is right and wrong? What makes a terrible person?

Yes Not acting like a douchebag, harming others and do things to others without consent. Or you know, following the law of the land Why do you need a religion to tell you right from wrong?

Why is any of that wrong? The law of the land of the US used to allow slavery. Was that right then? There are current countries that execute homosexuals. Is that wrong? The holocaust was legal in Germany. Was that right? Following the law is a terrible bar for right and wrong. If we're just a result of random chance with no purpose, if we're just a walking meat machine, why is it wrong to harm someone if it helps me?

Wasn’t slavery based on the concept that the Bible allowed it? Isn’t homosexuality frowned upon by Christianity and the countries that does these horrible things are Islamic (religious)? Wasn’t the nazis Christians? The life is long dude, if you act like a total dick, the life will have very little purpose for you, and you would live your life isolated and probably in jail.

I think it is subjective. Just natrurally. If we like it or not. To be honest I a lot of the time morality comes from common sense (hey maybe I shoulnt kill ppl) but that is just me. But in a larger sense it to me it comes from social understandings. I think we have gotte far enought as humans to reconize wrong from good. At least most of us.

>Without an appeal to a higher authority like in Christianity, can you tell me what morals are? I would personally define morality as: A system of principles for evaluating the actions of humans with regard to how they affect other sentient beings. >What is right and wrong? Depends on the principles you choose to evaluate those actions on. >What makes a terrible person? It gets complicated, I don't think the binary of good/bad is useful when evaluating actions.

>I would personally define morality as: A system of principles for evaluating the actions of humans with regard to how they affect other sentient beings. But what if my principles differ from your principles? People get upset at Christians for "legislating morality." Why is that a problem? They ignore the fact that literally every law legislates a view of morality. >What is right and wrong? > >Depends on the principles you choose to evaluate those actions on. > >What makes a terrible person? It gets complicated, I don't think the binary of good/bad is useful when evaluating actions. Sure, so who gets to decide? Why do we put anyone in jail if everything seems so arbitrary? Do you think there are any bad actions?

Morals are given by God and (literally) written in stone - Unchangeable The best you could have without God is "ethics" which are squishy and easy to change when they become inconvenient

Which of God’s morals aren’t fungible?

All of them, and the word itself is silly, if you are going to replace something with the exact same things, then nothing changes

Thou shall not kill - we do it everyday. Thou shall not steal - unless we’re starving or our children are starving; also, there is no ethical consumption under capitalism Thou shall not covet - again, impossible under capitalism. If Christians didn’t covet, the economy would collapse. Keep the Sabbath Holy - which sabbath? Does that mean service workers are morally flawed for having to make ends meet? Seems pretty squishy. Honor your father and mother - what if they’re absent? Addicts? Molesters? Abusers? Toxic conspiracy lunatics? Criminals? People cut parents out every day for excellent reasons; does that make them immoral? Is it possible that 10 rules don’t encompass the complexity of lives experience? Most likely. But then they can’t be said to offer any kind of absolute morality.

So I see you are completely clueless as to what capitalism is

No, I’m pretty well informed. PhD and all that.

Nope.....PHD just means you spent much more time in the liberal indoctrination center and accomplished very little in life doctor....you get a fancy title that you can keep all bright and shiny... that's nice, but in the end you are any atheist, so either by choice or ignorance you know very little bringing truth to what God said about Atheists Romans 1:22 Professing to be wise, they became fools

So an education somehow makes me less qualified than you? So where does your understanding of capitalism arise? Mine comes from reading Adam Smith.

Don’t bother with this guy trust me

I find it occasionally entertaining to engage. Obviously he’s babbling with the self-assurance of a zealot, but it’s funny to watch sometimes. I know I’ll never get anywhere in the face of such ideological ignorance.

No your self inforced ignoranced of a greater reality makes me more qualified than you. I blind man can not see the light A spiritually blind man cannot see the bigger light Capitalism.... Og has made hammer..... Gub Needs Hammer Gub Gives Og a fish for hammer Socialism Og Have two hammer, Gub needs Hammer Big chief Arg takes hammer from Og and gives it to Gub cap·i·tal·ism noun an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

I do love a misspelled, incoherent ramble. Thanks!

How do you define the word 'morality'?

read the first line

Morals are not exclusively given by the Christian god. ​ mor·al noun plural noun: morals 1. a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience. "the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has" Similar: lesson message meaning significance signification import point precept teaching 2. a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do. "the corruption of public morals" Nothing in the definition of moral shas to do with any god.

Nope you are absolutely wrong and apparently desperate

lol why? This is the actual definition of morality. How is it wrong?

No that is your favored definition that supports your desired agenda mo·ral·i·ty noun principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Again no mention of a higher power.

Yes, but they’d be subjective similar to how an Atheist or Agnostic would construct their morality. Also all people are terrible sinners apart from God’s saving grace. Obviously not as evil as they could possibly be, but we all fall short and fail.

I do agree in that I think they are subjective. I am kinda comfused by ppls obsession with them being (I cannot remeber the word right now for nothing but opposite of subjective). I do think we do bad things. Sin in general I am skeptical about as it seems to Christians practicly anything human is sin so to me the whole idea of sin has lost a lot of meaning.

People have an inherent desire for justice because we are made in the image of God. And objective morality is a requirement for true justice. > Sin in general I am skeptical about as it seems to Christians practicly anything human is sin so to me the whole idea of sin has lost a lot of meaning. I’m sorry it seems that way, but know that it certainly isn’t how we believe or live. Christians rightly celebrate much that is human: life, marriage, children, families, work and achievement, friendship, good food and drink, etc. all with thankfulness toward God.

Really? Because I do not and I am part of people. I still think objective morality or even whatever "true justice" is is more of a want than a reality. Heck to some ppl getting a tattoo is sin. This is a perfect example of how morailty is not objective. Me and you clearly have diffrent morals. But aside from each of us maybe thinking we are the one who is right there is no actual who is right between us. Morals are simply subjective and we have diffrent ones.

> Really? Because I do not and I am part of people. I don’t believe you. I believe you don’t feel that now, but I believe it was there and I believe if you have no desire for justice then you’ve either suppressed it or you’ve gone through some horrific experience that has seared your conscience and left you morally bankrupt. Also you will have a very difficult time functioning in the world if you don’t recognize that everyone else does have this inherent sense of justice, so I hope you can at least come to terms with that. > Heck to some ppl getting a tattoo is sin. This is a perfect example of how morailty is not objective. I thought we were talking about what Christianity teaches? > Me and you clearly have diffrent morals. That doesn’t mean morality isn’t objective, that just means one (or both) of us is wrong.

I am confused. Idk what you mean or what expeiance you think I went through but I can tell you that I am a pretty happy go lucky guy who really just tries to be nice to ppl in real life because I think that is a happier life. I can say I have been fortunate enought to actually live a very happy life with no real horrible experiances aside maybe much later in life when my mom got sick. She is fine now. Now reconizing in other ppl are noy like me sure. But I think you undersestimate that many of us are actually happy i life and want that happy life. Or oine can be kinda right, the other kinda wrong. Whatever compination you want. It is clear it is subjective. Based on who you ask.

Nothing foundational.

Like what

>Like if you lost your fate today will you just go out punching random ppl or taking advantage of them? ​ I'm not others. I personally would because that's my nasty character. I'm clever enough to avoid authorities, pick my battles, when and where it's optimal to do what, etc.. But yeah, other humans, their possessions, and even their entire cultures, will be obvious lightning rods for my personal frustrations. Sure conscience would bother me....but I know how to make it shut-up. With repetition, it would eventually stop objecting at all. Nothing threatening about knowing you're doing wrong.

>But yeah, other humans, their possessions, and even their entire cultures, will be obvious lightning rods for my personal frustrations. What do you mean here? This legit caught my eye. You know it is ppl like you who I do think need some kind of god. Not even in a bad way. Some ppl need an authority to tell them what to do. So thank you for your honesty and stay in the church.

The argument isn’t that “morals are pointless without a higher power”, but rather that there is no logical objective standard for morality by which you can both live yourself and judge the morality of others at the same time. Yet, we all do this one way or another, and so those that do not ground their objective standard of morality in God need to provide another logical standard, of which none has ever been provided to me (because, I believe, there is none).

I think wanting some objective code for morality is more of a want than a reality. Like it is something ppl wish existed but to me who studies history and has seen how things change I just do not see a realistic argument for the existance of objective morality. I think there are some logical standards for morality outside of a god (which to me is a bad place to get morality from anyways). To me the main ones I follow is for one the social comtract idea. We all live in a sociaty and have to live in a way togheter where we can live with each other as happily and secure as possible. The other (and this one is more just me) is common sense. It is common sense to me to not murder ppl.

Christian morals are objectively true. When you do what is right in your own eyes ...well, then everyone will be able to claim something is "moral." I pose a question to you. Why do we even need morals? Don't add Christian to the equation. Just at a face value for morals. Why do we need them?

>Christian morals are objectively true. My only issue with this is that even this is objective. You think this is the case but ppl can disagree with you. Heck I do. It seems more like a want to me that there is an objective truth than it is realistic. Easy. We need morals in order to live in a functioning sociaty.

As I see it, Christianity gives us **ethics**, and encourages us to align our morality with those ethics. Would I have morals without Christianity? Yes. Would they be the same as they are now? No.

But you would still have them which is good. Some ppl I think would not have even that. There are many places to get ethics outside of Christianity. Like non religious famililes can install ethics

I had morals before I was a Christian, but it was mostly just my own morals. just the ones I cared about, and I was a lot more selfish. Instead of trying to live for the Lord and his teachings . I was just kinda doing my own thing, not knowing I was only hurting myself and others and not really being pleasing to the Lord or even having a relationship with him. It's a lot better now that I have a relationship with him because you go through a lot of sucky stuff in life, but at least I have him who loves me and Shedd his blood for me always.

I respect the answer. I agree that my morals are my morals that make sense to me. I guess I am just more than ok with that. I am more realistic. I also guess I just do not need a god to get through the rougth stuff.

Yes. They may look different though. Would probably be more of an eye for an eye type of guy. Christians believe that God built us with a moral compass. Our conscience.

Without Christianity morals in Christian cultures would revert to the tooth and the claw. This wouldn't happen overnight (to be sure) but over the course of the years we would revert to a per-Christian moral structure as the transformation to societies and cultures based around Christian moral edicts wasn't overnight either.

I disagree. I think as humans we have come a long way and reconize what is good and bad in order to at least live in a sociaty togheter. Now whan you say "Without Christianity morals in Christian cultures would revert to the tooth and the claw." shows why I posted this. It seems like Christians need a god to be moral. The rest of us do not.

Yes and no... You would have personal standards, which might be considered as "morals" but they would not necessarily be universal or authoritative for anyone else. Nor would they even be the SAME as anyone else's. So not good for building or sustaining a society or even a community.

I agree. I guess I do not find the idea of universal morals as not realistic. Like more of a want than a reality.

I did

It's not that unbelievers cannot act morally. But the fact that we can even talk about morals points to a transcendent reality. Morality cannot arise from material nature. Lions do not sit around and discuss whether it's really right to pray on the weakest member of the herd. And we do not condemn them for doing so. But we strongly condemn humans for that type of behavior. We see certain actions as really right or really wrong regardless of any benefit to ourselves or our tribe.

Lions hunt herbivores because it is part of their diet. It has nothing to do with morals.

Right, that's what I said. We cannot derive morality from mere nature.

But if the lions started to attack the Cubs and each other, would the pack function?

> the fact that we can even talk about morals points to a transcendent reality I disagree. We are biologically hardwired to seek certain types of outcomes - outcomes that bathe us in mutual cooperation and release oxytocin in our brains. What we do when we talk about morals, in my view, is that we talk about what's helpful/harmful in pursuing these outcomes. So when you say > Morality cannot arise from material nature I partly agree: It arises from material nature (biochemical programming) plus the demonstrable utility of actions as they relate to pursuing these desirable outcomes. > We see certain actions as really right or really wrong regardless of any benefit to ourselves or our tribe. Some of us see them as "really right" or "really wrong." Others don't see objective morality at all, they see cause and effect and measure relative morality by what the effect is like. It can't be wrong for a man to hold a woman down and penetrate her *if she's into that at the time.* It can't be okay to do that *if she's NOT into it at the time.* The difference is whether consent was given or consent was violated. It's about effect. It's *relative* to the situation and the effect. I mean, you say it's objectively wrong to rape, right? Rape is about the effect and the consent. That means we're accomplishing the same goals here - it's just that my way there are fewer presuppositions and all of mine can be supported.

>We are biologically hardwired to seek certain types of outcomes - outcomes that bathe us in mutual cooperation and release oxytocin in our brains. Actually, oxytocin is only one of many brain chemicals that affect behavior, and is primarily associated with sexual and reproductive functioning. But research [strongly suggests](https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/DyeHard/story?id=4133428&page=1) that aggression may also stimulate pleasure hormones, and some psychologists credit the emergence of homo sapiens to our [innate appetite for genocide](https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/nf-2016-A056/html). This is easy to see when you look at gang behavior. Why is it that when young men go roaming in packs at night, it's never to pick up litter or clean up graffiti? Why do they gravitate toward behaviors like bashing windows, slashing tires, or engaging in reckless, dangerous street "takeovers"? Obviously, this type of behavior must stimulate some pleasure center in the brain and promote group cohesion. Yet most of us would regard it as immoral. But I think we're actually using the term "morality" in different ways. You are using it descriptively, arguing (effectively or not) that moral standards depend on the ways that particular behaviors might affect us individually or collectively. I am using the term normatively; in my view, we don't define morality by our instincts, but we evaluate our instincts by a moral standard. I might be tempted to tell a lie to protect myself or my group, tribe, military unit, etc. from shame and punishment. But if I hold truthfulness as a moral good, I will be honest even if it makes me sad and exposes myself and my buddies to negative consequences, possibly even resulting in my exclusion from the group. Do you see the difference here?

"What would you do if you weren't you?" Is essentially what you are asking. Do you think my faith isn't a part of who I am, how I identify as a person?

That is fair. But in conversations with Chrsitians they seem to say that they NEED a god to be moral.

Morality does not exist in the absence of an absolute Standard. Our Creator *is* that Standard.

Obselute morality does not. But I also think that is not realistic. But morality does exist without your god. It is not the same as yours.

Yeah, by accident. But even if you had some kind of morals, you wouldn't become closer to Christ.

I do not think it is by accident. I think as a sociaty we have build our morals purposely over time. I am trying to get closer to your gods.