What is the point of morality if you're a theist?

[max-greece]

Esquilax,

I hate you and I hate your question.

Why?

Because I never thought of it that way.

One more genius point to you. I think I might retire now. Have some kudos you bastard.

[Esquilax]

Esquilax,

I hate you and I hate your question.

Why?

Because I never thought of it that way.

One more genius point to you. I think I might retire now. Have some kudos you bastard.

All according to plan. Muahahaha!

[max-greece]

Seriously though - excellent question and one I had never thought of. If you think about it there is less point to being moral for a theist (particularly a Christian one) than there is for an atheist.

As a theist you can be a total shit your whole life and then, at the last moment confess all and enter heaven.

And that's just one side of it. What is the morality of abrogating all moral decisions to a third party when you have the ability and intelligence to make your own moral decisions? Going with the flow - even when its against what you think of as moral (and that must have happened too many times to count throughout history) has got to be utterly morally reprehensible. Its laziness and cowardice all rolled into one.

[Esquilax]

And that's just one side of it. What is the morality of abrogating all moral decisions to a third party when you have the ability and intelligence to make your own moral decisions? Going with the flow - even when its against what you think of as moral (and that must have happened too many times to count throughout history) has got to be utterly morally reprehensible. Its laziness and cowardice all rolled into one.

At the very least, doing this would strip you of any kind of moral context; you can't have moral actions if your every move is dictated by something other than your own moral compass. You become divorced from morality, in that case. And I desperately hope that nobody operating under this "I do what god says," mentality ever develops a mental illness and starts hearing voices.

To be honest, I mostly posed this question as a way of demonstrating that the "why be good without god?" question is a pointless one, and I'm shocked that the one theist we've had with the wherewithal to respond did so to confirm the worst possible thought I'd had. I was really expecting some kind of agreement, but I guess that would be giving these guys too much credit.

[Zazzy]

In addition, it's very obvious that morality among cultures and individuals is a fluid concept. We aren't born more or lass moral than others. I was born in the US to educated and affluent parents who taught me from a very young age that I was lucky as hell and that I should never forget the struggles others face to attain what I had by accident of birth; this indoctrination forms much of my moral code.

Those born to other cultures may think it's fine- or even moral- to marry child brides, or kill people for religious infractions, or eat their dead. These things are repellent to me because of how I was raised, not because of who I fundamentally was when I was born, or because of what a given holy book says. The fact that morality is an ever-changing concept defined by tribal cultural inheritance is self-evident.

And to add to that, it's completely clear that neurobiology and chemistry play a huge role in accepting the moral code of the tribe- brain damage can alter one's ability to feel sympathy for others, or control impulses.

There simply is no one human moral code, and there are many moral codes decreed by various holy books. Everyone thinks their moral code is best. Arguing from a utilitarian standpoint is more useful in the world as it is (rather than as we want it to be), in my view, than arguing from theology.

[Drich]

I'm sure we atheists have all heard it before: "What's the point of being good if there's no god?" And we all understand just how silly that is, along with all the attendant claims of moral relativism and secret belief in god and so on.

You can not dismiss 'moral relativism' for just about every atroceity man has committed against man was based on moral relitivism. Mao, Hitler, Himiler, Stalin, Jackson, and those who followed (The presidents to instituted and maintain manifest destiny, which saw the whole sale slaughter of plains Indians to cash in on our 'God given right' to own and exploit all of the land between the altantic and pacific oceans.) All of these acts were based in a 'morality' apart and seperate from the righteousness God outlined in scripture.

But the more I think about it, the less that question makes sense, and the more it says about the theist that's asking it. The standard answer to this idea that morality becomes meaningless without a god dictating it is that the person barely held back from immorality by their almighty creator is far more immoral than the person capable of being good without the threat of hell.

I do not disagree here, but the greater issue your over looking is the fact that if you base your 'morality' on soceity, then any form of debauchery is possiable. All one needs is the blessing of his peers then people can line up and pay to have their unwanted children killed. The only thing our soceity requires is that you do not call them children, you must use the name fetus. Otherwise your good.

That's a fine answer, but really, the question doesn't need one: it can be asked back to the theist quite comfortably.

What purpose does the theist think morality serves, if they're asking this?

Absolutely none unless one is trying to justify his 'goodness' apart from the standard of God.

Leaving aside the question of whether or not god made it or not, is there really not a reason for it that the theist can envision? Is it their view that god just created a set of random moral laws for no reason and applied them to humanity, or is there an actual, practical reason for these things?

Everything God has commanded has placed man on a path to get us to where we are now, and to where we will be by the end of the book of revelation.

So, theists, help me out: is there a reason, in the physical world, why your god proposed commandments like "thou shalt not kill," or was he just doing it for funsies?

The Command is you shall not murder. The difference is there is no intrinisic value in taking a human life in of itself. It is the reason and lack of authority that makes killing murder. For instance Goverments have the right to take life, and deligate this right to certain people acting with in the goverment to carry out it's will. If you shall not kill was the Command then any killing of any kind would be a sin.

If you can think of a practical answer, that's the answer to the "good without god" question too.

We have been given the command you shall not murder because organized soceity would not be possiable if one could freely kill another when ever there was a conflict.

[Esquilax]

You can not dismiss 'moral relativism' for just about every atroceity man has committed against man was based on moral relitivism. Mao, Hitler, Himiler, Stalin, Jackson, and those who followed (The presidents to instituted and maintain manifest destiny, which saw the whole sale slaughter of plains Indians to cash in on our 'God given right' to own and exploit all of the land between the altantic and pacific oceans.) All of these acts were based in a 'morality' apart and seperate from the righteousness God outlined in scripture.

Who's dismissing it? I'm just saying that, in terms of the question originally being posed, accusing atheists of moral relativism is useless precisely because the idea has a proven record of failure.

I do not disagree here, but the greater issue your over looking is the fact that if you base your 'morality' on soceity, then any form of debauchery is possiable. All one needs is the blessing of his peers then people can line up and pay to have their unwanted children killed. The only thing our soceity requires is that you do not call them children, you must use the name fetus. Otherwise your good.

So, you know how the entire purpose of this thread was for me to show that morality is based on practical concerns and not the blessings of society?

Yeah...

Absolutely none unless one is trying to justify his 'goodness' apart from the standard of God.

Maybe just go with the flow? I mean, you know what I'm actually asking, right? Why the need to get so stuck in your own definitions?

Everything God has commanded has placed man on a path to get us to where we are now, and to where we will be by the end of the book of revelation.

Were god's commandments made for the benefit of mankind, in a moral sense? Or just to fulfill this prophecy?

We have been given the command you shall not murder because organized soceity would not be possiable if one could freely kill another when ever there was a conflict.

Thank you, Drich, you got there in the end. That's precisely my point: asking "why are you keeping to morality if you don't believe in god?" is useless, because those morals we do have serve a demonstrable purpose for the good of the group, and hence the individuals within them. The reason we're moral without god is because god commanding it isn't the only reason one should.

[Lemonvariable72]

Really? I don't remember doing that at any point in my life.

Good to know you're atheists. But you don't see atheists ever try to argue against the existence of God or that religion is purely a man made fabrication of fairy-tales and myths? I think I may have seen that happen before with hilarious results.







Ah yes great stuff there, fun to be had by all.

Now, I don't think it's a "truth", but I also don't consider it a "harmful myth".

Good to hear, you're just being wrong a purely logical level then I don't mind that so much. You see all things that are caused have a cause. No infinite regresses of causes either as it would take an infinite number of causation's to cause anything to happen therefore nothing would ever be caused to happen. Solid philosophical proof of God there.

SWord of christ, it appears you know little of quantum physics, for we now know that a whole zoo of particles flash in and out exsistance a 1000 times a second from nothing!
Now as a christian I could argue you have no moral code because the word of god permit you to do whatever you dam well please and get away with it as long as you ask forgiveness

[downbeatplumb]

I do not disagree here, but the greater issue your over looking is the fact that if you base your 'morality' on soceity, then any form of debauchery is possiable. All one needs is the blessing of his peers then people can line up and pay to have their unwanted children killed. The only thing our soceity requires is that you do not call them children, you must use the name fetus. Otherwise your good.

And here is where that idea gets you.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24532694

El Salvador has one of the toughest anti-abortion laws in the world. A side-effect is that women who suffer miscarriages or stillbirths are sometimes suspected of inducing an abortion - and can even be jailed for murder.

[Drich]

Who's dismissing it? I'm just saying that, in terms of the question originally being posed, accusing atheists of moral relativism is useless precisely because the idea has a proven record of failure.

What are you talking about? Soceity is currently based on moral relativism. The fact that just with in one generation there had been a drastic paradyme shift on the views and understanding of marriage, says that 'pop morality' is not based on an unchanging standard, but what ever soceity deems as being moral at the time.

What you are point to as 'failure' are the fallen ideals of the past, which are based on the same foundations as our current morality. The only difference is that 'we' do not have the hindsight to see what will stand the test of time. Even so, what 'we' believe to be moral has been created and instituted in the same fashion that the indians were slaughtered, hitler came to power and killed jews, and every other 'socially immoral' act we can Identify in our past, but at the time were deemed 'moral.' Which would have a thinking man ask what do we currently hold to as being 'moral' that is not truly righteous?

So, you know how the entire purpose of this thread was for me to show that morality is based on practical concerns and not the blessings of society?

And when 'soceity' deems it nessary to infringe on the rights and practices of others, then what? Who is moral then?

Take all emotion out of the world events for the past 10 years or so, and just look at what western soceity has done to manipulate the world to ensure the western way of life maintains social dominance. We fought two wars, and are currently looking at possiable 2 more, just so our current 'moral values' are maintained. Why does this soceity get to dictate to the rest of the world what is and is not moral? If everything is relitive then should we not turn the other cheek when attacked? Don't those in the east and far east have the right to develop what is right, good and moral for them?

-Or is there some greater reason that our 'morality' is better or more complete than the stuff they are peddeling?

Were god's commandments made for the benefit of mankind, in a moral sense? Or just to fulfill this prophecy?

The laws of God were issued so that we may see our short commings and seek out the attonement we need for eternal life.

Thank you, Drich, you got there in the end. That's precisely my point: asking "why are you keeping to morality if you don't believe in god?" is useless, because those morals we do have serve a demonstrable purpose for the good of the group, and hence the individuals within them. The reason we're moral without god is because god commanding it isn't the only reason one should.

Indeed. Self perservation is always the driving force to any soceity's morality. The questions I ask are to get you all to see the trivial nature of what this soceity deems to be 'moral.'

To think beyond regaurding your current 'morality' as being an absolute. If you can learn to question your foundations then you can learn to be free from your soceitial limitations.