Can A Code of Morality/Ethics Exist without God?

[Cristar Mymine]

what makes you believe that simply saying "the ability to choose is due to the composition of the brain" somehow eliminates God from the equation??

Please read my posts Ahk ....i hardly believe in any "sky God".

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like you're only looking for an excuse to use the word God. If God, to you, is the creative force of the universe, the universe itself, everything and all things, why not just call those things what they are? What do you gain from calling the universe "God"? Why not just call the universe the universe? Why call the goodness of man and woman God? Why not just call that the goodness in people?

 

[Cristar Mymine]

Laughing at you cats cherry picking from the "weaker" sector of "religious folk."

And always doing it. That's the bases of your arguement: sheep.

You have an image in your mind that portrays religious people as being weak. And that's all it is, an image. When in fact, religious people are some of the more "stronger," kinder and brave people of our society.

You would be shitting in your pants if these people were not amongst us. They hold the balance. But you don't have any appreciation for that.

It takes a lot for one to truly believe in something higher than himself IMO. And bet his life on it. And bet his life on it. And bet his "sole" existence on it.

Agnostics, play the fence IMO, and that's easier. Myself included.

Proclaimed athiest who are kind, also have an agenda: "see we don't need religion to be civil."

But a person such as yourself simply sees "religious folk" simply believing in a preacher or some picture in the "good book."

Based off a few corrupt practices by "folk" withing the church.

An ode to the idea, "I believe in what I see." You see a man (preacher) being a guide to spirituality and you immediately dismiss it.

Religious people are making a choice. Some, some, some will discriminate against others that do not believe in what they believe in. But will pray for them later.

They are living their lives through faith. And that's braver. That's more courageous IMO.

Not simply faith, in a preacher, as you would think. As your eyes would tell it. Many of those people change churches and pastors. But faith in something higher than themselves. Which is what a lot of nonbelievers couldn't fathom.

Am I the only one who find an obvious contradiction with this?

 

[RBGrider]

Why go through such contortions to avoid considering that a supremely intelligent force did not create and sustain the world? Why couldn't the wonderful world we live in just be attributed to the laws of our universe of which our existence is dependent on? If the laws that govern everything is intelligent in the way it works in our favor, then that is fine by me. And if people want to think that there is higher intelligence out there, then fine. But for people to have to find themselves thinking to the point that the universe would have been unable to eventually have us and, therefore, it must've been a higher being that did it, doesn't work for me.

There are no contortions required. Atheistic science has contorted all logic and their own scientific cannons in order to postulate theories eliminating God from creation....ie "life arose from irritability", "evolution", "by chance" etc all of them absurd. science does not create it merely observes the universe and the only way to understand the world is through quantitative and qualitative logic ie intelligence... From the formation of most basic elements making up the universe to the DNA code ALL were formed INTELLIGENTLY not based on irritability or chance or however the contorted minds of atheistic so called scientist conceive. Now the only thing you can do to avoid this is to redefine what intelligence is...which I would not put past these savages. But really I could care less what they think or believe. I do care when my people begin to adopt their ways of thinking and viewing the world. After all who could argue that the world isn't exactly becoming a more pleasant place....certainly not for our people. We need to resurrect OUR way of life and cosmological view of the world....because "materialism" doesn't work for me or any of the non-white world.

 

[Cristar Mymine]

There are no contortions required. Atheistic science has contorted all logic and their own scientific cannons in order to postulate theories eliminating God from creation....ie "life arose from irritability", "evolution", "by chance" etc all of them absurd. science does not create it merely observes the universe and the only way to understand the world is through quantitative and qualitative logic ie intelligence... From the formation of most basic elements making up the universe to the DNA code ALL were formed INTELLIGENTLY not based on irritability or chance or however the contorted minds of atheistic so called scientist conceive. Now the only thing you can do to avoid this is to redefine what intelligence is...which I would not put past these savages. But really I could care less what they think or believe. I do care when my people begin to adopt their ways of thinking and viewing the world. After all who could argue that the world isn't exactly becoming a more pleasant place....certainly not for our people. We need to resurrect OUR way of life and cosmological view of the world....because "materialism" doesn't work for me or any of the non-white world.

You just lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. Go take your petty racialization of concepts elsewhere and let grown folks talk.

 

[utappedout]

From the formation of most basic elements making up the universe to the DNA code ALL were formed INTELLIGENTLY not based on irritability or chance or however the contorted minds of atheistic so called scientist conceive.

You obviously have no concept of time or evolution. Can you fathom the amount of time it took for all of this to take place. Just because you cannot understand evolution or science do not be intellectually lazy and write it off as the intelligent being defense. Its obvious you are a smart individual, a shame to see it wasted so lazily. You seem to be leaning towards intelligent design here, saying that the complexity of DNA could not have possibly been created with out some higher power, but that is so far from the truth. The universe has had billions of years to sort all of this out.

 

[jwilliam85]

A long read, but touches on what you're talking about:

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior

Damn yall, this is the damn answer right here, yall dont have to drag this shit out to five pages.

Basically "morals" are innate feelings derived over time to help social creatures survive. Almost all social creatures have a hierarchy aka rules aka morals that helps the species as a whole survive. It aint deep its evolution.

 

[concepts25]

this thread is silly of course u can have ethics without god. the two aren't connected , religion wants you to believe they are. but they aren't.

 

[gene cisco]

Well of course morals can exist without god. Basically things like not killing unless self defense, dont steal or rob, if you make a commitment keep it.

I think us agnostics can operate fine not knowing whether a god exists or not. Most religious folks have never thought outside their upbringing so cant imagine the idea of having morals without a boogeyman in the sky threatening them with eternal damnation.

 

[HAR125LEM]

There's been so much talk on BGOL lately concerning issues of Atheism and Agnosticism, I don't even know where to start as far as my own feelings are concerned.

I will say that I've been listening to "SNAKES & ARROWS" by the band RUSH. A hell of a lot. This is the most one of the intense records dealing with questions of faith and spirituality I've ever heard. These two songs I feel speak to topic at hand. But most of the record is like this.

That Neil Peart's a DEEP cat.

ARMOR AND SWORD
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/zDejLrzSPHA&feature=related[/FLASH]


FAITHLESS
[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/njU2zrHAE-8[/FLASH]

 

[RBGrider]

Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like you're only looking for an excuse to use the word God. If God, to you, is the creative force of the universe, the universe itself, everything and all things, why not just call those things what they are? What do you gain from calling the universe "God"? Why not just call the universe the universe? Why call the goodness of man and woman God? Why not just call that the goodness in people?

Why call the limbic brain the limbic brain? Why call the aortic valve the aortic valve? why not just say....the body? These atheistic crackkkas have us afraid to say let alone deal with Neter. Sad. But as I said I could care less what these people think or believe. I speak from the ways and culture of my ancestors who created and ordered their entire societies on GOD. The remnants, principals and monuments of those societies still survive and run through so called modern society.... & long after all of this that they think is so impressive has passed into dust they will still be here. So no I have no problem saying God, seeing God's intelligence, allowing His/Her wisdom to guide and inform me either through my Shepsu (ancestors) or the great Oracle systems introduced to the world by African people.

ONE

 

[RBGrider]

You just lost all credibility as far as I'm concerned. Go take your petty racialization of concepts elsewhere and let grown folks talk.

Truth hurts.

 

[RBGrider]

You obviously have no concept of time or evolution. Can you fathom the amount of time it took for all of this to take place. Just because you cannot understand evolution or science do not be intellectually lazy and write it off as the intelligent being defense. Its obvious you are a smart individual, a shame to see it wasted so lazily. You seem to be leaning towards intelligent design here, saying that the complexity of DNA could not have possibly been created with out some higher power, but that is so far from the truth. The universe has had billions of years to sort all of this out.

What is the truth utappedout? until Watson and Crick atheistic science would have us think the truth is "irritability" is how living things adapted and developed. Oh well too bad it is intelligence (DNA) that determines how things function and developed in the world.

I can assure you I am not "lazy".

 

[utappedout]

What is the truth utappedout? until Watson and Crick atheistic science would have us think the truth is "irritability" is how living things adapted and developed. Oh well too bad it is intelligence (DNA) that determines how things function and developed in the world.

I can assure you I am not "lazy".

How does this have anything to do with what you said before. You didn't not address a single thing I said, other than ask yet another question. Your circular logic astounds me. It still doesn't explain how you believe in a primitive form of thinking over science. And what is atheistic science....as opposed to religious science. You seem to have a lot of hostility against science, which tends to make me believe you don't get it. Now go google some more and get back to me.

 

[The Lawnmower Man]

Re: Can An Egg Exist WIthout A Chicken?

Goddamn! WTF is that smell...

Yeah, that's me, I'm the shit.

 

[RBGrider]

How does this have anything to do with what you said before. You didn't not address a single thing I said, other than ask yet another question. Your circular logic astounds me. It still doesn't explain how you believe in a primitive form of thinking over science. And what is atheistic science....as opposed to religious science. You seem to have a lot of hostility against science, which tends to make me believe you don't get it. Now go google some more and get back to me.

Oh so now you gonna dismiss me. How does DNA have anything to do with evolution? and I need to do some googling and get back to you??? yes astounding. Let's be clear one I don't "believe" anything. What is "primitive" thinking?...it is the thinking that is vexed by concepts of science and religion...it is the thinking that believes the two are antagonistic opposites....it is the thinking that is unable to unite things that are in fact one. Do some research on the etymology of word religion. I have no hostility against real science....I have no time or respect for junk science with a political and social agenda...as a Black man I am sensitive to such trash...it still rears its head in vain attempts to paint me as quote a "primitive" or in pathetic attempts to erase God with fanatical materialist ideas of the origins of life and the universe.

 

[exiledking]

Morality is a part of the general makeup of the DNA in humans ad more than likely other species. It's a code that exists with variations among different groups that lends itself to survival and reciprocity. Some aspects of morality seem easier to fogure out than others i.e. THOU SHALT NOT KILL-- you shouldn't do that, not because some mystery God will kill you , but because, you stand the chance of suffering retribution from someone who loved that person you murdered. For some that isn't enough, but for many it works.

But as imperfect as it is, it is just as reliable as the GOD implication of morality, as evidenced by the crime and indecency that existed and comtinues to exist in our so called religious societies.

Your question was answered in the first few posts, but you didnt'e seem to want to grasp that, responding with the same question once again.

My question is, when was this GOD given morality so much more effective? GOD continues to give out laws and they keep being ignored- when does it end? oh yeah, "final judgement"- good luck with that.


When I first questioned religion before I gave it up altogether , I also thought that would mean I should give up morality as well. I thought it meant I could just do wat I wanted to do, but the real world doesn't work like that. You still have to have respect for your relationship with others, an there are very severe penalties for not doing so. And it aint some mysterious hocus pocus, it's real tangible, reliable, run of the mill stuff that you see, thatcan affect you if you do't respond to it correctly.

 

[ak_rep]

Morals and ethics come from our evolution. We have evolved to the point where we can have a conversation and reason on what is the best way to live our lives. We don't need to appeal to some celestial being who, obviously, doesn't even live up to his own morals and ethics.

I think a more interesting question would be: How can you derive morals from a book that devalues and advocates the control and access to women? Women must be silent in the church and learn from the men. Why are women having such a struggle to gain priesthood?

Also, how is the advocation of being a slave for a divine being be moral? Apostle Paul called himself a slave of Christ and taught that all human thought must be in captivity of the lord. That is very much a dictatorship. Didn't we figure out that slavery was immoral and dehumanizing?

And notice this... even if it were true that humans needed God to derive morality from, God doesn't bother to tell us. He appoints human beings on earth to preach the morals to us. So, basically, we told each other what was moral anyway. And I think this hurts the argument of a creator because, objectively, all we see in history is people telling people what is moral.

I.E. another angry atheist.

A person who would like you to believe he doesn't have an agenda, but does.


You're making general assumptions. Real general.

You're making clumsy parallels based off your own interpretations of The Holy Bible.

Your tone exemplifies that you have an obvious, and specific vendetta against organized religion and the doctrine of The Holy Bible. Cool.

But you're still using religious practices, in particular christianity as a buffer to your non beliefs. The only buffer.

I'm not knocking you for trying to think outside the box. But your understanding of humanity and spirituality is very skewed.

And while you're talking, you atheists speak from the shoulders of religious people yourselves, i.e. the masses.

Not simply the "white slave masters," who instilled their "religion" upon blacks. And who weren't really spiritual (in practice) people at all IMO as you would love to site.

More scare tactics from another atheists with an agenda, who claims to not have one.

 

[Garifuna]

Just thinking, how do the Atheists and Agnostics on this board formulate their thinking on what is moral/ethical or immoral/unethical?

Consider this: Our American laws are slowly moving away from containing any moral underpinning in them ...

Consider this. Anerica's "moral underpinning" includes the genocide of Native Americans and the forced labor of African Slaves.

Our founding fathers proved that they could have God without morals and ethics. It only seems right that the opposite is also possible: you can have morals and ethics without God.

 

[GAMETHEORY]

will def come back for this..first gotta sort out the other one

 

[Dannyblueyes]

Did he ever ask you for money?



I disagree with you on being a slave. That's the wrong word and understanding - the purpose is worship.

Lets face it - everyone worships something: be it money or something else that we strive for.

Even the Pharaohs were atheists in the sense that they worshiped themselves.

Not all preachers are evil. In fact I can respect people who use Christianity or other religions as a way to change their lives for the better. That being said, the civil rights movement was not strictly a Christian organization. MLK learned many of his techniques from Gandhi. Many key civil rights participants such as Paul Robeson and Richard Wright were atheists. It's also worth mentioning that most, if not all, of the whites who opposed the movement were Christians who felt that integration was a sin.

 

[REMINGTON_BLACK]

STAR WARS is filled with a Codes of Morality.. but who is the "GOD" of their universe?

Hey, thats a very interesting question.

 

[mike123]

Yes, dont need outside forces to control my behavior. The weak use god, gods or spirits as a way to control others thru manipulation, ie: u need the "whatever mystical crap" in order to be a good person. They convince people they are to weak to think and act on their own. so they run around figuring any bad they do is caused by some evil spirit and all the good in the world is here cause of god. If spirits decide behavior and not the mind of the individual ( regardless how weak that mind is) then morality is an illusion, everybody can do what ever they want because it aint their fault, it was the bad spirits

 

[GAMETHEORY]

In brief: All codes of ethics are made up by humans. Some of them are then attributed to gods, which are also made up by humans.

 

[GAMETHEORY]

For those who believe in God, morality/ethics comes from God since its his universal code of human behavior.

No it doesn't.

Those who believe in God blindly accept a moral and ethical code that was invented by men who lived centuries ago. Those men based that code on the cultural mores of their time - there was nothing universal about it at all. In truth they made it up themselves and then pretended that god had done it in order to pursuade others to do as they thought best.

As a consequence most traditional religions include a number of undesirable characteristics inherited from the ancient cultures that invented them - such as sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, elitism and so on.

 

[Adam Knows]

Re: Can An Egg Exist Without A Chicken?

Nothing can exist without God.

you mean some people cannot exist without the notion of some being higher then them...




to outright answer the question, of course there can be a code of ethics and morality. It's not based upon a belief though, some would just call it common sense. you have the choice to do or to do not. i know hurtingi a person is wrong regardless if i knew what the law was or not. that is why ignorance of the law cannot be used as a defense.

you guys take it to the extreme in explaining these thing when the simplest answer will do.

 

[GAMETHEORY]

For Agnostics: I think they believe in a moral/ethical code since they believe in a God but just as the existence of God cannot be know, do they also believe that a moral/ethical code cannot be know or what specifically it provides (correct me if I'm wrong on this assumption of Agnostics). What are the Agnostics on this board's moral/ethical code? Do you have one & where is its source/rationale from?

If agnostics believed in God then they probably shouldn't be called "agnostic", they'd be theists. Some may think that God is highly likely, while not proven, but I wouldn't put them in the majority of agnostics. Just as many probably think God is highly unlikely but not disproved.


They believe that they do have a sense of morality, and it doesn't come from some kind of higher deity. It comes from my upbringing, from my instincts, and from reasoning.

A lot of morality is fairly basic common sense. It seems clear to me that a society full of truth telling, polite, helpful people will thrive more then a society full of thieves, liars and murderers. I have a strong desire to see humanity in general, and some specific humans, prosper and so it makes sense to act in a way in which will help this happen.

For those who believe in God, morality/ethics comes from God since its his universal code of human behaviour.

Some morality also comes from instincts. There is a strong case to show that we have evolved many of our morals - the instinct to want to help those genetically close to us will help spread genes similar to our own, the instinct to respect elders can help the tribe to prosper, the instinct to avoid incest will avoid some genetic problems, the instinct not to kill fellow members of your tribe will avoid weakening the tribe and so on.

This may explain the existence of moral ideas common through out many different societies. They are common not because of some kind of universal cosmic moral certainty, but because we all share common genes.

To me the important thing is to be continuously re-evaluating one's moral stance, and to continue to work towards self improvement. To take a concrete view on something, by saying that an action and all its related and derived actions are always right/wrong can lead a person to bad things while thinking they are good.

That's what relative morality means to me - not so much that there is always a way to argue things are good or bad, but that we must never be satisfied that we have a static and final code of morality. It's the biggest flaw I find in the theocratic moral model, that it discourages analysis into the morality of some actions by declaring them forever bad or good.

 

[GAMETHEORY]

Re: Can An Egg Exist Without A Chicken?

The question is "Can morals exist without God."
[/B]

Since god doesn't exist we had best have some morals without god. Yes.

 

[RBGrider]

Morality is the result of our spiritual evolution wherein intrinsic emotional order (moral behavior) and intuitive cosmologically ordered thinking are natural. Cosmo-logical thinking, which is beyond and superior to syllogistic logic, is based on the ability to intuitively perceive the abstract general class (whole) to which the specific issues of life belong. Let's illustrate this principle. As the majority of people in the world have not yet evolved this faculty they are unable to intuit (learn from within)all of the specific manifestations of the general class "morality". All of their notions are extuited (learned from outside - ie from others) Such a person, for example, may believe himself to be moral because he would not steal, beat up others, or even pour a non-lethal dose of arsenic into someone's drink. Yet he fails to see the immorality of poisoning the body of those he smokes around, making others pay for his medical bills (medicaid, and medicare) for illnesses induced by such purposeless and irresponsible acts as smoking, or self poisoning by eating artificially colored, preserved and flavored foods, etc. Able to think only on a concrete level such people can only identify specific instances of immorality that have been pointed out to them by their instructors and society.

It is easy to see how the majority of the problems in the world arise. A government claims that the citizens don't have the right over their bodies, when it comes to taking unproven medicines for deadly illnesses (laetrile for cancer for example) yet it gives the citizens the right to poison themselves with tobacco, devastate themselves and each other through alcohol and so forth. There is a very far reaching and subtle principle at work here. The ability to perceive abstractions enables the person to connect and unify events and things that may differ widely in form and external appearance. It enables the person to see that the introduction of non-fatal amounts of tobacco into another's body is no different from lacing someones food with non-fatal doses of arsenic. In both cases the deadly cumulative effect is the same. As this faculty enables us to see through the differences between people, it is the intuitive intellectual basis of love.

This faculty in Man's spirit is symbolized in the Kamitic tradition by the Goddess of Law and Order, Ma'at.

In brief: All codes of ethics are made up by humans. Some of them are then attributed to gods, which are also made up by humans.

You are attempting to separate things which cannot be separated and are in fact one. Operating from the position that God is NOT some anthropomorphic superman sitting in the sky but in fact exists in and as all things created and considering what I have introduced above try revisiting this.

 

[AtomAnt]

Re: Can An Egg Exist Without A Chicken?

Thou shalt use spell check.

The Lord has no need.

the lord is an idiot!!! ..............



only on bgol

 

[Dert Bagg]

Re: Can An Egg Exist Without A Chicken?

the lord is an idiot!!! ..............

Now that, brother, is Gospel.

 

[Deacs]

Re: Can An Egg Exist Without A Chicken?

making too much out of a point which can't be proven either way

The only thing that matters is that you behave in harmony with those of this planet. Take only what you need, replace what you take, and give to those as those have given to you.

None of you could prove/disprove the existence of God, goodness, nor evil. You could have a pov about it, but that is as far as it goes.

It doesn't matter what religion you are, as long as it is for the betterment of not only yourself, but the effect which you hold on those around you.

We are all brothers and sisters, we have a duty towards each other regardless of creed.

~Odd thought~
The pursuit of self realization through your search for the most High is good, the formation and defense of religion is evil.

 

[keysersoze]

Well of course morals can exist without god. Basically things like not killing unless self defense, dont steal or rob, if you make a commitment keep it.

I think us agnostics can operate fine not knowing whether a god exists or not. Most religious folks have never thought outside their upbringing so cant imagine the idea of having morals without a boogeyman in the sky threatening them with eternal damnation.

Gene,

I think I should have specified whether a complex "Universal Code of Morality/Ethics" can exist without God behind it as the source as the basis.

I agree that moral/ethical codes existed before the advent of modern religions (Islam/Christianity/Judaism) but all those civilizations integrated those codes of morality into their legal systems. (i.e. Hammurabi's Code of Laws)

In contemporary times, we no longer see moral foundations for legal codes - strictly legal bases have replaced the moral ones for legal codes.

That brings the questions - since laws change overtime as did with the previous civilizations, their moral views also changed , does that mean that morality is something that is not fixed/universal/constant?

I think us agnostics can operate fine not knowing whether a god exists or not.

Depends upon what you define fine right? Do you believe that morality is fixed or universal in the sense that its at its complete form right now or do you believe that your moral views are something that can change overtime as well?

 

[LennyNero1972]

Im not an Atheist. I'm a Deist. I call God The Creative Force of the Universe and Yes, I do believe we are an extension of that Creative Force. MAN is not GOD but MAN is CONNECTED to the SOURCE.

 

[keysersoze]

i make good choices because i truly want to, not because i fear retribution from your white robed, long bearded easter bunny.

when i make poor choices, i may feel guilt about that choice, and try and learn from it, and try not to make it again. once again, it has nothing to do with any higher power, superstition, angels or demons.

if fear of retribution from an almighty god and eternal damnation in the fires of hell is all that keeps you a decent human being, then in actuality, you are quite the piece of crap.

Word!!! Basically it amazes me that we are still holding on to the "primative" man's way of thought. Atheist and Agnostics are generally MORE moral than religious folk due to the fact that many of them think this is their only shot. Better get it right the first time, other than, "i can fuck up and pray for forgiveness later."

1984,

I believe your premise on choices is flawed in the extent that you already have figured out what is the "good" - that assumes that you have moral code to help determine the good from the bad before you make the choices. See my point?

I think the way the real question should be can your moral/ethical code be universal in the sense that what you believe to be morality is something that you will believe to be same in future regardless of how things change. What I mean by that is that almost every moral system present and future will consider murder and theft to be immoral, regardless of it being based upon God or not but more complex issues such as say homosexuality is something that is not easily addressed such as murder/theft and has varied in history - the Greeks did not see anything wrong with it but many modern religions do find something wrong in it, and today's Greek Orthodox do find great wrong with homosexuality.

 

[keysersoze]

Re: Can An Egg Exist Without A Chicken?

We are all brothers and sisters, we have a duty towards each other regardless of creed.

I agree with you on that but I also believe in a more complex code of self conduct & society that would work to serve all those better.

That's probably the basis for much of moral framework but it does not end there - in fact thats a very primitive principle. One should begin with it, not end with it.