(May 24, 2015 at 1:03 pm)nicanica123 Wrote: If I do conclude that god doesn't exist or certainly that the god of the bible doesn't exist, then I can see that I can set my own moral boundaries. I would be understanding that the bible is not the gold standard for human behavior. So if I conclude that the bible is the gold standard, to me that would suggest some sort of divine backing.But you do realize that on the one hand, you're just choosing a god and a holy text that makes you feel good but restricts your freedom to reason independently of the dogmas one or a few individuals decided upon, and in any given situation where you might have to make a decision you're bound from being able to fully consider what you, per your prior experiences, actually believe to be the most ethical action or outcome; whereas on the other hand, you're choosing an ethical stance in which you are free to modify your position based on the ever-changing circumstances of the real world and on your ability to reason and put your knowledge of all human experiences into context. I guess the one that seems the most capable of achieving a better outcome in terms of true morality seems obvious to me.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza