Morals

[Eilonnwy]

Rockthatpiano, I think morality evolves in the same way we have. To believe morality comes from god, you must believe in objective morality, as in it does not change and it's always been the same. This is demonstrably not true when you look at history and how slavery was considered moral (And is still considered moral in some parts of our world) as well as stoning women for adultery, etc... The Bible condones many acts we consider immoral because at the time, it was moral. People might try to claim "Well God was addressing people of that time", but why couldn't God tell them then that slavery was wrong instead of telling you how much to pay, how long you can keep a Jewish slave, how to trick him into becoming a slave for life, and how you can beat him and if he dies, it has to be two days after the beating (So he suffers before dying). If God is speaking to these people in relation to their time period, then objective morality does not exist, and who needs God if he can't even direct his own people to a more moral lifestyle faster than normal social & evolutionary processes?

Humans aren't the only ones who display morality, many social animal groups display moral behaviours. Any social animal needs to set up rules within which they survive and don't kill each other if they are going to truly evolve and survive as a social animal. Here's an article I wrote, discussing this very topic: http://www.examiner.com/x-8776-Boston-At...ng-of-Life

One question that you might want to ask this person is "If you found out today that God absolutely did not exist, would you go around raping or murdering". Don't let him dodge the question. He has to either admit that without God he's immoral, which means you, as a moral atheist are more moral than him since you DO NOT go around murdering and raping. Or he must admit that he can be moral without God and that's damaging for him too.

Also, the whole notion of being moral because "Gold told me so" or "I don't want to go to hell" is a childish form of morality. More mature morality comes from the understanding that you don't want to come to harm and don't want others to come to harm too. You don't need God for that

---

When it is said that life is meaningless without God it means...you can live a giving life but because life is unfair - it won't matter. You won't be treated how you deserve to be treated. Thieves are off living the high life and charitable people are dying from starvation. God gives life meaning by ultimately setting things right. E.g. charitable people who are dying from starvation rely on the notion of God in order to continue being charitable while starving or being treated poorly. Without God in mind, people in the long run tend to focus on making sure they are treated well, whether they deserve it or not. This subjective "substitute" for meaning that Adrian describes isn't really a substitute. It doesn't enable a person to live poorer and more charitably than the people around them. (The substitute is meaningless.)

What? You are essentially saying that charitable acts are better when you believe in God because God is on your mind? That is absurd. In fact, this kind of thinking is MORE damaging. If you're willing to suffer because that makes you "holy" and you will go to heaven, then you won't try to improve. Mother Theresa was an abominable woman who would rather watch people suffer and die in the name of God rather than actually try to give them medical attention with the MILLIONS of dollars she received in charity.