This non-theist posed a good question to think about:


Ethics Without God
-- or --
God Without Ethics
by Jerry Billings


It is standard operating procedure for a Christian apologist to point out that all ethics and morals come from God. It is, so they claim, therefore impossible for the Atheist to be a moral person. Many Atheists counter this argument by pointing out that as a matter of fact they are ethical persons and that they know the difference between right and wrong.

"In fact," says the Atheist, "it is the Christian who admits that the difference between right and wrong is unclear; all the Christian knows is what is sin according to God and what is not sin."

The Atheist continues: "What a pity that the only reason you, a Christian, do not steal is because your god threatened you with horrible punishment if you do. I'm sorry you don't know that stealing is wrong. It causes innocent people to suffer and the inflicting of needless pain is the worst of all crimes."

But now there's a new reason to say it is impossible for morality to be based on this religious belief. I's so simple that some will wonder why something so obvious is not brought more often.

Let us imagine a particular person. And just for fun let's call her Madalyn. Now Madalyn has never had religion. By this Christian definition Madalyn is without morals of any kind. Along comes a missionary and tells Madalyn all about Yahveh and Jesus. He tells bible stories that illustrate what wonderful, upright examples they set for sinful mankind. He tells about the ten commandments and how all morals come from the deity.

Here is the quandary:

How is Madalyn, whom we agree has no morals, able to judge if this deity is a moral god? We might observe that one should not worship a god unless that god is worthy of worship. Surely, one would not love a god unless that god was worthy of love.

In other words, Madalyn must first make an independent judgment -- based upon Madalyn's own godless moral values, that God is worthy of love and worship. Until that independent value judgment is made, Madalyn's conversion to Christianity or any other religion is -- to use a very old expression -- putting the cart before the horse.

The next time you hear that tired old claim that you can't be moral without God, just ask, "Let's assume what you say is true. Since I have no knowledge of morality, how is it possible for me to understand what you are saying?"

Another approach you might prefer is to observe, "Since you just now pointed out to me that I can have no morals without God, what standards do you suggest I use to make up my own mind that your god is a good god and aught to be my god, too?"


http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/jerethic.htm

When we look at morality and compare the supposed origin of those morals we stand with the word or god against the word of man. My problem is that if there was an all knowing unmatched intelligence it would have to be she who created the fossil record who reveals evolutionary history, it would be her who created the genetic and precice patterns that also can be chased down the same course and all the other evidence that leads to the evolutionary conclusion in elegant and exclusive detail.
Why else would all these things excist?
I would dare say that when looking at things like this its like she is trying to tell us something.

If there really was one true god, it should be a singular composite of every religion’s gods, an uber-galactic super-genius, and the ultimate entity of the entire cosmos and if that is the case even beyond. I feel that if a being of such magnitude ever wrote a book it would be completely dominant everywhere in this world we walk with no predecessors or paralels Because mere human writers couldn't POSSIBLE compete with it and if that was the case I imagine that the book would hold wisdom and profound morality greatly beyond human capacity could ever dream of reaching. Because if god wrote it, lets be honest we could expect no less.

When we look at all the books who claim to be the words of god inspired, or to be fair the writings of scholars who was divinely inspired and wrote down what she told them. When all these books claim to be holding the 'Absolute Truth' and the real words of the "true god" and they all claim that the other books decieve I can only logically conclude that in some degree all of the books we currently have must fall under the decieving catagory.

None of the books we have competing have any advantage over each others, and all of them require faith as all of them holds inconsistances between each others and also when measured against science, some people would say the books require faith because they hold absurdaties.

This goes for all of the books, they were all written by men this fact is infalible and supported by all scholars who study these books as far as im aware so I find it most reasonable to conclude that we don't have the book with the words of such a god as it would simply blow all other books OUT of the way.
With that said I therefor find it unfair to suggest that people inspired by these books should hold stronger moral than those who doesn't.

Jerry needs to do more "opposition research."

While Christian denominations differ, it is not universally the Christian view that an atheist cannot be a moral person. For that matter, when did it become the atheist view that the only reason a Christian does not steal is because of the threat of punishment?

Aquinas argued that any sane adult could, on rational grounds, conclude that stealing is wrong, and so might refrain from stealing because it is wrong. Aquinas does not claim that all moral questions can be resolved this way, but his view of the situation is a far cry from



Whether there would be more or less stealing depending on whether punishment, secular or divine, was more or less widely feared is a different question altogether. Whether you would trust me to "do the right thing" depending on whether I am god-fearing or state-fearing is a different question, too.

What are morals but that which people have been told is moral by a higher power? You cannot abide by your own morals and at the same time tell me to abide by morals IF you don't believe in God. Without a God there is no reason whatsoever for me to behave morally. Pure and simple.

I am not moral because I am threatened with punishment, my religion does not have a concept of eternal punishment. I am moral because it means more for me to be moral when there is no threat of punishment or damnation. An Atheist is perfectly capable of behaving morally because there IS a God. Without a God we don't exist, and even if we did exist, without a God there would be no morals.


According to Judaism, humans are born with the capability to do inherent good and inherent evil. But what is good and evil without God? The Atheist begins with the belief that there is no set moral structure by which one should live. However, regardless of what the Atheist would like to believe, there is a set moral structure. Thus, the Atheists perceives that he can do good without belief in a God. In fact, it's true. You can behave morally whilst not believing in God. However, if there truly is no God (more than you just believing it) then one cannot behave morally because one does not exist.


The whole argument is based on the fact that there is a God, and because of it, the Atheist (who denies God's existence) believes he/she is capable of doing good without God. This is one of the many flaws of Atheism. If there is a God, and you don't believe in him, you add to your list of abilities things that you wouldn't have if there were no God. It's almost like a delusion.

Sorry but that is completely not true. Morals for a start predate religion. They are a genetic survival trait, not a religious ideal. We are a social animal and that means we need as an animal to be able to act correctly in a social situation. This is the basis of morality, not religions. Sorry your whole argument holds no water.

Morals = survival trait not religious concept.

Source?



The why don't animals have morals?


What morals, then, should people live by? Isn't murder immoral? Why shouldn't I murder if there is no set moral structure?

It is obvious that morals predate religion since the human race pre-dates religion and clearly we did not go wiping each other out. Unless you can prove religion predate Homo sapiens then my point stands

Animals do have morals, in fact some are far more moral socially than we are. Hyaenas and vultures show altruism, the neediest individual eats first. That is just the the start. I could go into a long essay on animal behaviour, but I quite frankly can't be bothered.

Well you have your own mind telling you it is wrong, this is a genetic make up because for a social animal it is not advantageous. Before Abrahambic religions do you think people murdered each other all the time or something?

It's not about religion. God predates the existence of homosapeins.



Of course I don't think they murdered each other all the time. Because God created them, and an Atheist is capable of being good without believing in God. The fact that you deny God's existence doesn't mean that there isn't one. I know that there is a God, and for that reason I know that an Atheist (who does not see God's existence) would seem to think that we are capable of goodness without a God.


This is untrue, without a God we are not capable of goodness. Without a belief in God we are capable of goodness. See the difference?

The title of this thread is not "ethics without religion" its ethics without God. Humans predate religion, but God predates humans. You have the presumption that God started with religion. This is untrue.

God is conjecture. So unless you can prove it my point stands.

The fact that you believe in God does not mean there is one. We could both have it wrong and the could be a pantheon of gods and Ra masturbated the world into existence.

And with out God we are quite capable of goodness and as I said unless you prove there was God before Homo sapiens then you can not prove that point and again it is conjecture. It again is a social survival trait. Unless of course hyaena's are closer to God than we are, because I'd say the are nicer to each other than us.

~Kaizen CJM~, is there any life situation that you can conceive happening that is not covered by the Bible in explicit detail. Since there is such a quandary about what the Bible actually means, with varied interpretations - I am willing to be bold and claim that the Bible does not cover every conceivable situation you may find yourself in.

What would you do then?

Do you not rationally assess what harm shall befall those who are affected by your actions?

As a community we can discuss how we wish fellow members to act - there will always be new concepts/behaviours/technology for which the Bible holds no answer. Perhaps it is better that we learn to flex our 'moral muscle' decision making capabilities, before they become atrophied by religion

In very simple terms, my view is that god exists and has done his best to impart a productive and safe way of living to humanity. This message has been heard and adapted in different ways by different societies , but fundamentally forms the most basic of human values, on which ethical systems are based.(beginning with the sanctity of human life, and moving out to our treatment of other humans and animals, right out to basic simple rules for effective governance, and in some cases a healthty life style)

However, if god did not personally impart this wisdom to humanity, through various mechanisms (because perhaps he did not exist) then human sentience evolved this moral ethical code and at the same time evolved a concept of god. For some reason the human psyche linked the concept of god with the values which it had actually created itself (most world religions claim their basic precepts and values were disclosed or revealed in some form, from/by god)

Thus these values and the ethical moral systems based upon them form a distilled wisdom of the human race , perhaps refined and presented through some of the most self aware and thus wise people in human history.

Which ever of these scenarios is the case, the values, and the moral/ ethical systems evolved from them, which have been formed through the worlds religions, form a far superior system than any which an ordinary individual may create from their singular world views, no matter how well informed that may be in the context of their own time and place (and there have been a number of individual humans who have added valid ethical points, from the greek philosophers to more modern ones.)

Dangers lie mostly in the acceptance that any one individuals values/ethical /moral beliefs are as valid or workable as anothers, and in the idea that basic values, attitudes and moralities are dependent on cultural context.

This leads to ideas like the one that our modern society should not utilise old ethical/ moral systems because they are no longer relevant.

Because true moral and ethical values are connected to the nature of humanity, rather than to the nature of any society humanity may construct, (including technological or social, improvements/adaptations) then basic, or core, human values actually change very slowly, if they do so at all.

Humans often choose not to act on those values or ethical beliefs, even when the are well known, but probably since homo sapiens evolved, and certainly since the time of cromagnon and neanderthal man, they have existed largely unchanged.
The evidence for this is in the nature/structure of families and clan groups in those societies. For these to operate successfully humans need to have developed a similar moral/ ethical code to that we use today and use it to manage interpersonal relationships within families, clan groups and tribes.

I've never understood the 'it is impossible to have morals without god' or the 'God tells us what is right and what is wrong' argument.

It's VERY, VERY simple if you ask me people. The rules are like common sense:

--Intentionally Doing anything that directly hurts others physically or physiologically is wrong, unless you have a very good reason for doing it.(IE- Abortion is sometimes the right thing to do and sometimes not the right thing to do)

--Doing things that help others prosper and become happier is good.(Giving to charity, saving the environment)

--In all, one should try and direct one's actions towards the beneficial of mankind over one's self.

--If something does not directly hurt others, but you personally do not approve of it, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is wrong to force your view on others.

I believe following these basic, obvious principles is all one could need to solve every political, emotional, and worldly problem.
In the end, the goal of following them is to increase one's own happiness, increase the happiness of others, increase one's own wisdom and intelligence, and contribute to the progress and peace of mankind as a whole.

I don't understand why some people need a vulgar and hateful 2,000 year old book to tell them what to think and how to act.

These rules seem rudimentary. Of course, none of us always follow them, no one is perfect, but at least we can strive for them.

I would agree that moral and ethical principles, in general, are deeply connected to our nature as social animals. Social animals need 'rules of engagement' for the survival of the whole community. Because we are the way we are, our societies and hence morals are pretty similar - yet the inherant flux of existence/circumstance does require us to change - when situations change so must behaviour. Sometimes these 'inherent rule breakers' give us a new way to survive - when the environment/ needs change. Being environmentally conscious - new need - that we must respond to. Sometimes the best politicians not only respect tradition but 'look outside the box'.

I would say we are both fluid and fixed in terms of responding to environmental and ethical demands.

(lol or other ways to say the same thing may be we are biologically predisposed to be "inherently adaptable" or "flexible by nature")

Yes I have to agree with you, that accusing Theists that they would have no morals if they didn't fear god's punishment is insulting to be sure as is the opposite accusation accusing Atheists of having no morals, but some are like THIS and some are like THAT.

It goes for both sides. I must say that I admire the Atheist that gives freely in many ways without promise of a heaven or personal gain except a thakyou from some people he /she helped . But I also suspect/know that there are Theists that would do the same regardless>>it is in their nature>>they are simply of good character and possess great empathy. it could be linked to brain biology/genetics/emotional intelligence.

This can be observed in children at a VERY early age. Some are kind, gentle, & giving and some are selfish, cruel & just plain mean. This is so even if they have the same upbringing (siblings).


Good folks is good folks............period.

The Torah covers every conceivable situation I would find myself in. If you can conceive of a situation where the Torah does not have an option that should be taken, then please present it.



Of course I do, because that's how God created me. If I were not created that way I wouldn't think that way. Everyone thinks that way because God made everyone that way. It should be obvious to Atheists that they can convince themselves that the good they do is of themselves even if God does exist. Deny him, and you think that you yourself have done something good.


Can we? I happen to be a strong individual. Without God/religion (a central moral authority), there is nothing to stop me from going around and forcing people to do what I want them to do. After all, why shouldn't I?


Like? Please, give an example.


Common sense only because you have been created with that common sense. It didn't just happen.


Says who? What if i want to kill someone who makes me angry?


Says who? Giving to charity takes money from me. It's not my fault poor people don't work hard.


Why the hell should I do that? Mankind can help itself, I will worry about me and THEN I'll think about mankind.



Isn't life about survival of the fittest? If I am more powerful and more able to push my views on others than is it wrong for me to? If it is wrong, by whose authority is it wrong?


Uh huh....


As nice as your rules are, they mean nothing. What is good and what isn't is determined by God. Your rules are nice to you, if there is no central authority on how people should behave, then the world is open to chaos.

~Kaizen CJM~, you frankly scare the **** out of me. What you are saying is that if there is no god that you would go out and do horrific things. Stay away from me and my family because you, sir, are capable of committing great atrocities.

The Christian does not steal because he has been taught by his parents that it is wrong.

The atheist does not steal because he has been taught by his parents that it is wrong.

This may came from religion somewhere in the familes history.

Haha, I'm not saying I would go out and commit genocide. What I'm saying is that, if there is no God, what is to stop me from doing things like killing those who anger me?

After all, without God we don't exist. Thus, in my world of non-existence, I can do whatever the hell I please. You are asking me to try and picture this from a view where there is no God. That's ridiculous. It's like saying that we could live without oxygen.

Kaizen, sorry but it would seem that your reasoning skills are seriously flawed. Hypothetically, if there is no god, what's stopping you from killing people? Absolutely nothing. But ask yourself this, hypothetically if there was a god, still, what's stopping you from going out and killing people? Same answer, absolutely nothing. In either situation whether a god existed or not, you still have the ability to go out and kill people, nothing would stop you. Now, if your god actually did exist, there would be a "fear of punishment" which would make you deeply reluctant to kill people; but still the fear can be disreguarded if you truely wanted to kill someone, meaning you'd still have the ability to do it. There is also something else you're failing to acknowledge besides God's punishment for committing murders.....social reprocussions. I think you'd worry about being apprehended by the authorities or being murdered in prision before you'd consider eternal punishment. And actually, you could really get off without any punishment from God in Christianity, go murder 50+ people or so then genuinely repent and accept Jesus Christ as your lord and savior then get into heaven, simple and easy.

Another thing you tend to do in your arguments is presuppose by default "God exist", when there currently is no proof to substantiate such a claim. You may think or "believe" you have proof a god of some sort exist but it's exactly that, ....a belief; nothing you can prove to anyone beyond yourself. If something is true it should be proveable, such as gravity. Gravity is an axiomatic subject to argue against, because it will result in a self-refutation. You can't claim "well without God we don't exist" when you haven't proven God to exist from the beginning. Basically your taking leaps of faith, your jumping from premise 1 straight to your own conclusion. To say something like "without god we don't exist" is to make the subject of god's existence indebatable and meaningless, because the believer(YOU) believes God exist absolutely which means nothing can be said to you which can disprove god. So it's a meaningless subject to discuss unless you admit the possibility you might be wrong and that your god might not exist...just for a second. 

In reguards to morality, almost every theistic religious system of morality is founded upon the premise that a god has created morality and has issued moral commands to humanity to obey. Thus the nature of this moral system is ultimately obedience to this god, regardless of what the commands are. The contradiction with obedience and morality combined is that real morality, however, cannot be mere obedience: for a person to be morally responsible they must be able to reason out their choices and decide for themselves. Theistic and religious moral systems typically include strong threats of punishment for disobedience, and even sometimes the famous "eternal punishment in hell" for the worst disobedience or disbelief. But a truely moral choice, cannot be dependent upon a desire to avoid punishment. Along side the threats of eternal punishment are the typical promises of "rewards" for obedience. People who obey God and his rules can be rewarded in various ways, including eternally. What many people are overlooking is, a truly moral choice, cannot be made on the basis of seeking rewards and certainly cannot be made in hopes of attaining an eternally blissful after-life. If a person does things merely for a reward, their choices are based upon selfishness and not moral values. 

To close, it’s immoral to sacrifice the needs of yourself and others in hopes of making things better for yourself in an afterlife which may not even exist anyway. And if you want to take it a step further, I could argue Christians cannot be considered to be moral fore they base they're decisions in life upon selfishness and rewards. If you base all your supposed "moral" decisions on your own reward or punishment, that's not morality. Kaizen......your otherwise nescient response??

Um, no. Because if God did not exist, neither would I. Thus, I couldn't necessarily go out and kill people. If God didn't exist, but somehow we still did exist, then we wouldn't have the set and ingrained moral structure that we have. God does exist, so everyone does have this set and ingrained moral structure. An Atheist's disbelief in God would logically lead the Atheist to believe that he doesn't need a diety to be good.


"fear of punishment"? My God does not work with fear tactics like the christian God does. There is no fear of punishment, its why good things happen to bad people and bad people seem to have great lives. Certainly you might worry about a temporary punishment in the afterlife, but that is only temporary, not an eternity.


I actually wouldn't. I know a number of ways that I could not get caught and still commit felonies. I wouldn't necessarily murder people.


I am not a christian, nor will I ever be again.


An Atheist presupposes by default that God does not exist. However, there is no logical reason for one to doubt the existence of a God. I say there is a God. What reason do you have to doubt my claim?
You say there is no God. That's nice...but this is a debate, and in debates people start out with different premises. If thought like you before we debated than there wouldn't be a debate now would there?



We cannot prove gravity without a doubt. In fact, proving anything without a doubt is impossible. I cannot prove God to you. I can, however, provide evidence of the probability of a God existing.



No, we believe in gravity because gravity has a high probability of working the next time you encounter it. We can't see gravity. We can't touch gravity. Etc etc etc.


I can make the claim, and if you have no evidence of probability of a not existing then my claim shouldn't be doubted.



I will admit the possibility of there being no God when you admit the possibility of gravity not existing. In any case, everyone starts with a premise. Why should I start with your premise? I have already explained (though maybe not clearly) that I can see how an atheist who denies God's existence would come to the conclusion that he can do good without God. That just leads us into a debate about God's existence. If we go there then I will be able to provide evidence of the probability of a God.




Do you insult theists by saying that a person who is theistic does not reason for themselves? Maybe you didn't know this, but we do not stand by our Bibles and look for an answer at every decision making point in our lives. Following God is a lifestyle. Following his commands is a process of internal reformation. You, the atheist, are quite rude to assume that because we have a religious set of ideals that we are incapable of decided for ourselves.



These things are non-existant in Judaism.



You make a lot of interesting statements that are completely and totally relative statements. A "truly moral choice"...."cannot be made on the basis of seeking rewards"? According to...you? Well who are you that you should decide what a "truly moral choice" is?

Do you not see my reasoning here?

Not to mention that you grossly underestimate the thinking ability of the Theist. How laced with pride you are to say that I, as a Theist, who obeys God (not for a reward just to let you know) am incapable of making a "choice for myself". I suppose you believe that Theists are also selfish people who don't make "truly moral choices"?

QUOTE

What religion does that? I do not sacrifice my needs or others because I want an afterlife. I personally don't believe in the commonly thought version of an Afterlife. I have to vouch for the christians as well because I know that they do not sacrifice people's needs for the sake of an afterlife. The people who do aren't following their religion. Clear and simple. You have to understand that not all Theists are so obsessed with an afterlife, or reward and punishment, that they should be moral for ONLY these reasons.

I am not a christian, and I don't care whether or not you argue about their morality. My mind isn't limited that when I see a Theist I assume him/her to be a christian. Such gross generalizations are not conducive to a healthy argument. Maybe you should try to think outside your anti-Theistic-bias when you post. christians aren't the only Theists on our planet. They most certainly don't have the most logical belief set.

See you start off with conjecture. God is a belief, not a fact.

Kaizen, you seriously don't understand what a human is.

It always floors me that some people want to pin morality as only coming from the bible. What about the Hyppocratic Oath? Far predates the bible and is still part of the medical ethical and moral ideology, "First do no harm". That did not come from the bible. History did not start with the bible, and I wish more people understood that.

The bolded part of this quote is your own opinion,and does not mean that it is the truth.

See,you start out with the opinion that God must predate humans,while humans may actually predate the concept of God.

In your eyes God must exist,and this is based upon your belief.But just because you believe it does not make it so.There are others who do not follow your belief who think that the concept of God(s) did not start until sometime well after the beginning of the human race.Who is right? We don't know,nor is it likely that we will ever know.For any side to claim that they are right and everyone else is wrong is purely personal opinion.



The bolded part above has a couple of answers.First,there is common sense.This should be enough.Another would be your own personality traits.We are all different,and each of us have the potential to do both good and bad.It may just be that our own personal choices based upon our own personalities are what drive us to lean towards one side or the other...or even keep a balance between the two.

Disbelief in God is a belief, not a fact. You start with your premises, I start with my premises. This is a debate on whether or not people can be ethical without God. The Atheist side says "Yes, I don't need a God to be good". The Theist side says "No, you only THINK you can do good without God because there IS a God and he created you as ultimately good." Then you have responded "You have started out with a conjecture/belief." As if you started out with a fact.



Care to enlighten me? I know exactly what a human is, maybe you don't?


We're not talking about the Bible. Thank you for showing us your anti-Biblical bias. We're talking about whether or not a person can be ethical without God and your first response is that the Bible wasn't the first thing around that was moral. Well, that isn't exactly relevant to the discussion is it? There was morality before the Bible. The moral people who are written about in the Bible lived long before the Bible's authoring....



Neither is your denial of it "objectivity".


I'm sure you would like to make that claim, but according to my definition of a human, humans do not predate the "concept" of God.


Other way around, in my eyes God DOES exist. My beliefs come after that. I believe in Torah because I KNOW there is a God and I believe that the Torah is his instruction to mankind. I didn't start by believing in Torah and THEN believing in God.


Unless a side can claim being right, and then present evidence that makes it probable that they are right.

A human being is a social animal, all attempts to claim that there are no morals without god, and that people would run wild and rape and murder and steal without an inescapable celestial dictatorship ignore that fact. Empathy is built in, we wouldn't have succeeded as a species with out it. It's just like ants, survival of the fittest doesn't mean each single member has to be the peak of fitness, it means how fit a species is for an environment. Ants on their own wouldn't survive, their survival relies on their social structure. Humans and our great ape relatives are the same, we need social structure, all the people who would have stolen from and killed their close relatives in their tribes would be kicked out and wouldn't get to procreate. Please, read some books on it before you make wild claims like that.

Just because morality was put down in writing first by the ancient jews doesn't mean it's divinely inspired.

Actually no. I am merely acting upon evidence presented (in this case none) so in this case I am not applying conjecture because none existence can be considered a default state.
What you are also saying YOUR point of view not the view of all theists. So my point stands, you are basing your whole argument on conjecture, I am basing mine on the available evidence.

#1: Your definition of a human is only your definition,not the same as the rest of the world.Again,you show that your own opinion overrides any possible chance of looking at things in a truly objective way.

#2: Ok...so you believed in a deity before you found your religion.That doesn't make what I said any different,because you had a belief in a deity.I did not state that your opinion was based upon your "religion".That would've made a difference.

#3: You say that you "know" there's a God.And that makes any difference how? Other people say that they "know" that Zeus,Odin,Diana,Herne,Cernunnos or any other deities exist.To these people,these deities truly exist,just as your God exists to you.So what? If it helps you in your life,then enjoy your belief...just don't try to claim that you know better than anyone else.It's all subjective.

#4: Not all evidence is trustworthy.You could present to the rest of us what you believe is evidence for God,but we may see it as evidence that no God exists.It's all subjective.

#5: It would be far better for everyone to keep their beliefs,but instead of claiming that their beliefs are the "truth"...they should simply say "This is what I believe...but I do not know for certain that it is correct or true".In other words...keep the "ego" out of the equation.

Kaizen, let me say this for everyone else. You are one of the most totally ignorant people I've come across on this forum, not merely because we disagree with each other but because you reason from ignorance..entirely. Other people have repeatedly corrected you yet you totally ignore what they say and just repeat your own belifs which you take as objective fact. You have no proof your God is real, and neither do the rest of us. You have a belief that your god is real, and simply because you believe god is real that doesnt make it real. What you do is try to take your beliefs and turn it into objective fact, something it isnt. People don't believe in things by default, people naturally disbelieve things by default. For you to come and claim "god exist", 1.that's a claim, 2. you have nothing to prove that claim correct to the general public. So how is it "logical or rational" to take your own opinion as objective fact when nothing in your opinion has been proven objectively? It all goes back to my initial statement, you reason from ignorance. I mean, have you taken any "critical thinking" classes? Read up on "logic" of any kind??? Until you get past presupposing god exist as fact, there is no point for anyone in this topic to continue to respond to you. You'd be wasting they're time, because nothing anyone can say to you can disprove what your saying because you believe your position is absolute. Can you "know" your God exist when the evidence you claim you have for yourself is based upon probability? Remember, probability is not certainty, so you can't possibly "know" god exist.


HAha! Really? Ok Kaizen, if your God exist, what's stopping you from doing immoral things right now?? Hmm?


Ok.........?


Rofl.  Atheist presuppose God doesn't exist? There is no logical reason to doubt the existence of a God??? lol! Are you serious?! Kaizen, one word: ignorance. As stated previously by many other posters,...PEOPLE DONT BELIEVE IN THINGS BY DEFAULT. THEY DISBELIEVE BY DEFAULT. If people believed things by default everyone would then believe in every concept there is despite having proof or any knowledge of it. What stops you from believing "Xiticalit" exist? If I use your reasoning then you do believe "Xitcalit" exist by default, ....even if you don't know what it is or let alone have proof of it! God is no different from the concept "Xitcalit", both concepts are "beliefs", which means they require proof if you claim to someone they exist. You have no proof, so disbelief is justified. You see Kaizen, you reason backwards. And it makes totally no-sense. How can you even ask the silly question of "what reason do I have to doubt your claim"? Um, lets see......we have every reason to doubt your claim. There's no proof it exist, theres no evidence, nuff said? And no, I don't start with the premise "there is no god", disbelieving in a god is the default position everyone starts at, so the burden of proof is on YOU to prove your god exist, not me to disprove it. Go read up on logic, please.


Lmfao. Kaizen, we as humans can't prove gravity exist without a doubt? Ok. Let's do an experiment to "prove" it does. Go to the highest building you can get to, goto it's rooftop, now perform a nose dive and jump off. If you die, I win. If you hit the ground or travel down and not up, I win again. Gravity is evident, is axiomatic, if you attempt to refute gravity's existence you'll just refute yourself. Kaizen for the mere fact that your still here on earth and not in space proves gravity exist without a doubt. There is nothing to doubt because we have proof which is evident gravity exist. You're alive because of gravity. I dare you, go perform my experiment to see for yourself if gravity exist without a doubt.


Something such as gravity isnt something you need to "believe" in. It's evident reguardless if you believe it or not. You can believe gravity doesnt exist, that still wont stop it from existing.


Let me reinforce this belief.......your IGNORANT. I can claim "Xitcalitus" exist, you have no evidence of the probability of my claim not existing so my claim of "Xitcalitus" shouldnt be doubted. That's your mindset. And that's illogical.


Wrong Kaizen, you don't start with a premise, you start with a conclusion; god exist. That's not a solid argument nor is it the correct way you'd begin to debate.


Specific as I was, you still miss the point. I didnt say theist were incapable of desiding moral choices for themselves. What I said was mere obedience to god isnt morality, and neither is making choices on the basis of your own reward or punishment. Judaism or not.


I'm not the one who desides what a ''truely moral choice" is. You want to know what a moral choice is simply look at the meaning of the concept morality. Lets look it up: Morality: 1. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct. Morality is not choosing to make a decision based on if you get a reward or punishment. And that's what belief in god promotes, even in Judasim, as if it's any different. Just about all theistic religions require obedience to God, being merely obedient conflicts with moral decision making. If your only doing good because your god commands you to, you have no choice, because your not making the decision to do whatever based upon what YOU think is right or wrong, your making the decision based upon what your god commands you to think is right or wrong. Like stated, thats not morality.


You just proved my point and refuted yourself. For the fact that you "obey" god contradicts the notion that you have a choice of your own. Your not doing good things because you know its good, your doing good things because God commands you to, and you obey God. If there is a slave and the slave's master says "Anytime you go outside to pick cotton from the field if you see Ms.Windy's daughters you are to speak to them kindly and treat them to a glass of water, if you don't I'll punish you with 8 lashes from the whip." If the slave obeys as his master commands him, is that decision he makes of his own freewill or of the master's will? The slave doesnt care about Ms.Windy's daughters, but he speaks to them everyday and offers them a glass of water, not because he cares for them, but because his master commanded him to and if he doesnt obey he'll be punished. He isnt practicing morality by obeying his masters commands. Now what you do is replace the word "slave" with your name, and replace the word master with "GOD". And you should see the problem. If you don't, refer to the second sentence in my response to you.


And what you still fail to comprehend is that if you act good only because God commands you to, your not practicing morality. Your a slave to your god. If you only do good over evil because you may recieve a reward over a punishment, thats also not morality. This is what you're thinking:"I can go kill people I dont like if there is no police to stop me." If your a good person what you should be thinking is "I shouldn't kill people I dont like because its bad and I have a higher reguard for human life despite our differences."


Ooooh, really? You wanna talk about "health"? You wanna know what's not healthy? Thinking "My God exist, I can't prove it, but he does. You are to assume my God exist first then try to disprove his existence".


Kaizen, just to let you know. If I don't get any response from you beyond restating what others have corrected you on in your reasoning, I wont even respond to you because it would be pointless to futher discuss the topic when you believe yourself to be absolutely right. And how silly of me and others to point how how you can't assume things are true by default when your religion teaches you to do so in unquestioned obedience. Rule 1 of Judasim, "God exist". Proceed to step 2.