atheistic morality

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]
One might say this is crazy, but if you have legitimate reason to believe that hell really exists, and that you could possibly suffer there eternally (sort of a Pascal's wager type thought), then even if there's just a .00001% chance that Christianity is true (I dont see how you could ever come up with such a %- i was just reading that post about the odds on God's existence; while comical, i dont see how anyone could possibly ever put a line on such a question), you'd be a fool to not believe, thereby risking eternity in hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've seen this "argument" so many times...

That's not "belief", that's Covering Your Ass. If the million to one shot (or whatever probability you want to assign) was true, I'm sure that Yaweh would see through any such pathetic charade without too much trouble.

[VoraciousReader]

you said:" W/o an all good, all powerful God, there is no way to determine whether mass murder is wrong."

Without an objective standard of morality that exists apart from God, there is no way you can say God is "all good".

If you try, the question then becomes, God is good according to whom? If God is "all good", God is clearly being measured against some sort of scale. God scores 100 on the 1-100 scale of "Goodness". The scale is the objective standard, not God, and exists, independent of God or of anyone's belief in a god.

If you argue that GOD is the source of the scale, than the statement "God is good" is meaningless. I can invent my own scale of goodness and say that ultimate moral goodness is embodied by a woman who loves her family, tries to do right by everyone, lives with her boyfriend, sometimes lies (little ones--generally to spare people's feelings), and frequently forgets that it's her turn to change the kitty litter.

WOW! I'm the Ultimate Good. (Wait till I tell my Mom...she'll be so proud...)

The point being, if there is no objective standard of morality apart from that being given by God, why is God more good than (for argument's sake) Satan? God gets to be good because he came first? I hardly think that the universal standard of good and evil can be decided by a supernatural game of "dibs".

If there is no standard to which God is morally accountable, mass murder could be morally correct in a theistic philosophy. All that is necessary for mass murder to be good is for God to demand it of us. Since God is good by definition...

And then devout believers fly airplanes into buildings.

[ QUOTE ]
My belief is that atheistic morality is instead entirely subjective and (ultimately) w/o any true meaning apart from that placed upon it by each individual in his lifetime.

[/ QUOTE ]Can't that be said of any morality?

What is it that gives a set of beliefs substance, validity or import? Why are those beliefs based upon the Bible of substance, while those that are based upon the absence of a god lacking substance?

[ QUOTE ]
W/o an all good, all powerful God, there is no way to determine whether mass murder is wrong. To even posit the question is meaningless.

[/ QUOTE ]You mean we couldn't determine this with a mostly good god of little power?

[ QUOTE ]
We all experience guilt at times. If there is no absolute truth, from where does guilt come?

[/ QUOTE ]From our personal ideas of truth. The fact that different people feel guilty about different things should prove that guilt is not derived solely from an absolute truth.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

The point being, if there is no objective standard of morality part from that being given by God


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just Euthyphro. But an independent objective standard suffers the same fate. How do you know your standard is absolute? By a higher standard. And so on.

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The point being, if there is no objective standard of morality part from that being given by God


[/ QUOTE ]

This is just Euthyphro. But an independent objective standard suffers the same fate. How do you know your standard is absolute? By a higher standard. And so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I know, only theists claim to have an "absolute" standard of morality - but such claims don't seem to be able to stand up to much scrutiny.

[txag007]

"The fact that different people feel guilty about different things should prove that guilt is not derived solely from an absolute truth."

Do we really? Or does it all come down to selfishness? Look at past civilizations of the world. All the basic laws are the same: We should be unselfish.

To quote C.S. Lewis: "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

[txag007]

"There's no rule that life has to be carbon-based, or oxygen-breathing, or moderate-temperature-seeking, or any of the other things your analysis assumes."

I'll buy you're argument if you show me human life that's not carbon based, oxygen breathing, etc.

[txag007]

"maybe language is a better example. i dont think anyone claims that language is in and of itself some great objective truth, just a mechanism that allows humans to thrive."

Yeah, but languages vary among societies. Values don't. Every major civilization has had the same fundamental value for their set of laws: Don't be unselfish.