My Immoral Morals

[Persephone]

I am an atheist. As such, many people claim i have no morals because i don't believe in god. Here are my "morals" then. Please inform me; how are the following statement immoral?

1. Don't kill people, unless it's self defense, or for the protection of others (I.E if your mother is cowering in a corner about to get raped, go ahead and shoot him.)

2. Do not under any circumstances rape another human being or sexually molest them in any way.

3. Be kind to other people. Try not to take out anger or frustration on them, because how would that make you feel? Not good. Philosophy: I know when i get a compliment or nice gesture it makes me feel good. I should do the same to others so that they can feel good too. This goes for charitable acts, helping people, ect.

4. Try to see everything from both sides before you form an opinion on it.

5. Do not do anything you are not educated in, are not mature enough, or responsible enough to do. I.e, yes i have had pre-marital sex with my boyfriend. We talked about it, felt comfortable with it, learned the fine mechanics, discussed what might happen and how we would deal with it, and even set aside money as an emergency fund for such consequences. We use two forms of protection every time, it is always consensual, and plays no real importance in our relationship. (If we could not have sex it would not change our relationship at all.)

6. Know when you are beat and acknowledge it. If someone beat you out for a promotion, congratulate them, don't be jealous if they beat you fair and square.

7. Racism, sexism, profoundly outspoken judgmental religion, and other forms if ignorance and bigotry should be avoided. It shows you to be stupid as well as hateful.


So on and so-forth. Other than number 5, these pretty much mirror "real" morals. How exactly are mine fake?

[FinalEnigma]

The argument that there cannot be morals without God also results in meaninglessness.

Because in that case, there cannot be morals due to God either.

Euthyphro anyone?

are moral actions moral because God said they are moral? or are they moral anyway and he just told us?

Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... =&gs_rfai=
Right: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right

The Christian God is generally defined as Just and Good. Thus it follows that actions God finds in accordance with justice and goodness are by definition Just and Good, which makes them Right by definition, and thus Moral by definition.

so they're good becasue someone who is defined as generally just and good said so.

Doesn't that make them arbitrary? Why did God chose the things he did to be moral/immoral? Did he make them up out of thin air, or was there a reason for it?

[ChaosBorders]

The argument that there cannot be morals without God also results in meaninglessness.

Because in that case, there cannot be morals due to God either.

Euthyphro anyone?

are moral actions moral because God said they are moral? or are they moral anyway and he just told us?

Moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe ... =&gs_rfai=
Right: being in accordance with what is just, good, or proper
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right

The Christian God is generally defined as Just and Good. Thus it follows that actions God finds in accordance with justice and goodness are by definition Just and Good, which makes them Right by definition, and thus Moral by definition.

so they're good becasue someone who is defined as generally just and good said so.

Doesn't that make them arbitrary? Why did God chose the things he did to be moral/immoral? Did he make them up out of thin air, or was there a reason for it?

The assumption there is that God had a "choice" in the matter is perhaps presumptious. Given that the premise is an all-knowing and eternal God, thus has always known everything it would do, I'm not sure when such a being would have been able to "choose" to do anything. It just Is. (or to relate it in biblical terms, Exodus 3:14 "God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, 'I AM has sent me to you.'")

[FinalEnigma]

Ahh. So he merely pointed out to us then, which actions were moral?

[ChaosBorders]

Ahh. So he merely pointed out to us then, which actions were moral?

If one is using the Bible as one's premise, that is presumably what occurred.

[FinalEnigma]

Ahh. So he merely pointed out to us then, which actions were moral?

If one is using the Bible as one's premise, that is presumably what occurred.

Ahh. So then the existence of objective morals is not dependent upon God, because he merely pointed them out, and thus arguing that one cannot have objective morals without God is senseless.

What is the meaning of your qualification?

(which I have never heard a logical argument for in absence of using God as a premise)

[ChaosBorders]

Ahh. So he merely pointed out to us then, which actions were moral?

If one is using the Bible as one's premise, that is presumably what occurred.

Ahh. So then the existence of objective morals is not dependent upon God, because he merely pointed them out, and thus arguing that one cannot have objective morals without God is senseless.

What is the meaning of your qualification?

(which I have never heard a logical argument for in absence of using God as a premise)

My apologies, I overlooked your word "merely". I believe the full argument would be something along the lines of:

1. If the Bible is accurate
2. Then God objectively exists
3. And God is defined as being good
4. Thus good objectively exists
5. (Relation of good to morality previously stated) Sorry got to go to bed soon.
6. Thus morals objectively exist.

1. If God did not exist
2. There is no evidence of objective good
3. Thus there is no evidence of objective morals

And simply that. I have not heard an argument yet that appeared to me to lead to objective morality that could not be deconstructed, without in some way incorporating a deity in the premise.

[FinalEnigma]

Ahh. So he merely pointed out to us then, which actions were moral?

If one is using the Bible as one's premise, that is presumably what occurred.

Ahh. So then the existence of objective morals is not dependent upon God, because he merely pointed them out, and thus arguing that one cannot have objective morals without God is senseless.

What is the meaning of your qualification?

(which I have never heard a logical argument for in absence of using God as a premise)

My apologies, I overlooked your word "merely". I believe the full argument would be something along the lines of:

1. If the Bible is accurate
2. Then God objectively exists
3. And God is defined as being good
4. Thus good objectively exists
5. (Relation of good to morality previously stated) Sorry got to go to bed soon.
6. Thus morals objectively exist.

This argument is an interesting one, and if I may say, elegant to my appreciation. However, If you assume it to be true, then it is also unnecessary, becasue God's existence is irrelevant to the existence of good. Good only happens to exist becasue the bible mentions it, and we are assuming the bible to be correct.

Further, if we assume it to be true, by the way, then your previous statement (in italics) is false:

if your disbelief in God is accurate, then morality is a meaningless concept.

Because good exists irrespective of whether or not God exists.

in addition, your argument has unnecessary steps. God is inserted for no reason whatsoever. I will proceed to show an argument for the existence of objective morals that is precisely as sound as yours, without reference to God.

1. If the Bible is accurate
2. Then good objectively exists
3. (Relation of good to morality previously stated).
4. Thus morals objectively exist.

and even further, I can call into question the soundness of your argument by objecting to the logic between steps 1 and 2. It is possible for the bible to be accurate without the existence of God being true (for example, non-literal meaning).

[ChaosBorders]

Ahh. So he merely pointed out to us then, which actions were moral?

If one is using the Bible as one's premise, that is presumably what occurred.

Ahh. So then the existence of objective morals is not dependent upon God, because he merely pointed them out, and thus arguing that one cannot have objective morals without God is senseless.

What is the meaning of your qualification?

(which I have never heard a logical argument for in absence of using God as a premise)

My apologies, I overlooked your word "merely". I believe the full argument would be something along the lines of:

1. If the Bible is accurate
2. Then God objectively exists
3. And God is defined as being good
4. Thus good objectively exists
5. (Relation of good to morality previously stated) Sorry got to go to bed soon.
6. Thus morals objectively exist.

This argument is an interesting one, and if I may say, elegant to my appreciation. However, If you assume it to be true, then it is also unnecessary, becasue God's existence is irrelevant to the existence of good. Good only happens to exist becasue the bible mentions it, and we are assuming the bible to be correct.

Further, if we assume it to be true, by the way, then your previous statement (in italics) is false:

if your disbelief in God is accurate, then morality is a meaningless concept.

Because good exists irrespective of whether or not God exists.

in addition, your argument has unnecessary steps. God is inserted for no reason whatsoever. I will proceed to show an argument for the existence of objective morals that is precisely as sound as yours, without reference to God.

1. If the Bible is accurate
2. Then good objectively exists
3. (Relation of good to morality previously stated).
4. Thus morals objectively exist.

and even further, I can call into question the soundness of your argument by objecting to the logic between steps 1 and 2. It is possible for the bible to be accurate without the existence of God being true (for example, non-literal meaning).

I think that the argument would generally be if the Bible were objectively accurate that all good originates with God, so I'm actually missing a step. But I do not have the time to find scriptural support for that right now. If you want me to try, let me know and I'll do my best to when I get home (though in fair warning that might be late tonight).

Regarding a non-literal translation I would make the assertion if it is not literal then it is not objectively (defined here as having actual existence or reality uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices) accurate (defined as conforming exactly to fact). Thus would not lead to the conclusion of there being objective morality.

Regarding my own beliefs, I just skip a step and use "God is good and all good originates with God" as my premise. But given most people accusing others of not having morals for not believing in God are 'Christian', I think seeing if the argument can be made using the Bible as a premise is an interesting endeavor.

[FinalEnigma]

This argument is an interesting one, and if I may say, elegant to my appreciation. However, If you assume it to be true, then it is also unnecessary, becasue God's existence is irrelevant to the existence of good. Good only happens to exist becasue the bible mentions it, and we are assuming the bible to be correct.

Further, if we assume it to be true, by the way, then your previous statement (in italics) is false:

if your disbelief in God is accurate, then morality is a meaningless concept.

Because good exists irrespective of whether or not God exists.

in addition, your argument has unnecessary steps. God is inserted for no reason whatsoever. I will proceed to show an argument for the existence of objective morals that is precisely as sound as yours, without reference to God.

1. If the Bible is accurate
2. Then good objectively exists
3. (Relation of good to morality previously stated).
4. Thus morals objectively exist.

and even further, I can call into question the soundness of your argument by objecting to the logic between steps 1 and 2. It is possible for the bible to be accurate without the existence of God being true (for example, non-literal meaning).

I think that the argument would generally be if the Bible were objectively accurate that all good originates with God, so I'm actually missing a step.

This doesn't help your argument, and actually makes it weaker. lets add this step and take a look:

1. If the Bible is accurate
2. Then God objectively exists
3. And God is defined as being good
3.5 And all good originates from God
4. Thus good objectively exists
5. (Relation of good to morality previously stated) Sorry got to go to bed soon.
6. Thus morals objectively exist.

steps 3 and 3.5 result in circularity. Defining or describing God as something that originates from him is invalid, because you are defining him as himself.

your argument is now reaching further and further into unnecessary steps. You now have three unnecessary steps. You have ceased trying to show that morality objectively exists and are now trying to show that morality objectively exists as a result of God.

and in addition, your added step also adds equivocation. You are defining God as good(adhering to right values), and saying that all that is good(right actions) originate from God. This does not mean that the principal of goodness itself originates from God - all good actions do because he adheres to goodness!

Regarding my own beliefs, I just skip a step and use "God is good and all good originates with God" as my premise.

And this is even further equivocation. this breaks down into
1) God is good(moral)
and
2) all good(moral actions) originates with God

This does not establish in any way that the principal of good itself comes from God.

And beyond that, your premises are getting less and less acceptable. I'm already granting a great deal of leeway in accepting as an undisputed premise that the bible is accurate.
You are attempting to pose an argument to show that morals require God. Your actual argument is that objective morals exist, however, you are using this argument to show that they originate from God.

If you wish to show that morals originate from God, I will not accept as a premise that morals originate from God.

Regarding a non-literal translation I would make the assertion if it is not literal then it is not objectively accurate

the phrase 'he/she is my rock' is not, of course, literal, however, it can be an accurate statement. If this he/she serves the purpose meant by this phrase, then the phrase is objectively accurate

[ChaosBorders]

This doesn't help your argument, and actually makes it weaker. lets add this step and take a look:
1. If the Bible is accurate
2. Then God objectively exists
3. And God is defined as being good
3.5 And all good originates from God
4. Thus good objectively exists
5. (Relation of good to morality previously stated) Sorry got to go to bed soon.
6. Thus morals objectively exist.

steps 3 and 3.5 result in circularity. Defining or describing God as something that originates from him is invalid, because you are defining him as himself.
your argument is now reaching further and further into unnecessary steps. You now have three unnecessary steps. You have ceased trying to show that morality objectively exists and are now trying to show that morality objectively exists as a result of God.
and in addition, your added step also adds equivocation. You are defining God as good(adhering to right values), and saying that all that is good(right actions) originate from God. This does not mean that the principal of goodness itself originates from God - all good actions do because he adheres to goodness!

Regarding my own beliefs, I just skip a step and use "God is good and all good originates with God" as my premise.

And this is even further equivocation. this breaks down into
1) God is good(moral)
and
2) all good(moral actions) originates with God
This does not establish in any way that the principal of good itself comes from God.
And beyond that, your premises are getting less and less acceptable. I'm already granting a great deal of leeway in accepting as an undisputed premise that the bible is accurate.
You are attempting to pose an argument to show that morals require God. Your actual argument is that objective morals exist, however, you are using this argument to show that they originate from God.
If you wish to show that morals originate from God, I will not accept as a premise that morals originate from God.

I’m wording my premises and argument poorly. (I don’t have much experience outlining formal arguments quite like this, so please have patience as I try to get it into proper form).
Regarding the Biblical argument:

Morals being defined as “Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character.� Judgment being defined as “The mental ability to perceive and distinguish relationships.�

For Morals to objectively exist, with objectively being defined as “Having actual existence or reality� and exists being defined as “Having actual being; real�, it would seem that Goodness must also objectively exist, as well as something that knows what that “goodness� is so that judgment can be rendered.

1. If the Bible is accurate, as defined by “conforming exactly to fact�, with fact defined as “a real occurrence�, with real defined as “Existing objectively in the world regardless of subjectivity or conventions of thought or language�
2. Then God objectively exists.
3. And God is good per Nahum 1:7 “The Lord is Good�.
3. And God is responsible for the existence of all things per Romans 11:33-36 “For from him and through him and to him are all things.�
4. Thus God is responsible for all Good (so Good cannot exist independently of God in this argument).
5. Good objectively exists
6. God is omniscient per Hebrews 4:13 “Nothing in all creation is hidden from God's sight�
7. Thus God is able to perceive what is objectively good.
8. God distinguishes between good and not good per 2 Corinthians 5:10 : For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.
9. Thus there is objective judgment of goodness or the lack thereof regarding human action and character, meaning morals objectively exist.
Regarding the statement of my own beliefs, I did not fully define my premise as well as I should have, given that the premise I stated is actually a conclusion based on other beliefs. But I was only stating it in contrast to the use of the Bible as a premise to clarify that I do not personally use the Bible as a premise, and thus may not be stating the general argument as well as someone who would actually use it from a more personal perspective. (In other words, if you find my argument faulty please do not come to a conclusion “Those Bible lovers suck at debating!� as a result).

the phrase 'he/she is my rock' is not, of course, literal, however, it can be an accurate statement. If this he/she serves the purpose meant by this phrase, then the phrase is objectively accurate

What definition are you using for accurate?

The definition you seem to be using for objectively is along the lines of “being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions�. I’ll admit I should have defined the meanings I was going with before the start of the argument and for the sake of debate asked whether you disputed them. But what I was meaning by objective is more along the lines of having actual existence or reality independent of subjective human thought. Non-literal interpretation is inherently subjective, so by the definition of objective I am going for I do not think the conclusion of objective good can be drawn without going through the steps involving God.
Even if good could be established as objectively real, I am not sure how objective morality could be established without someone having the mental capacity to be able to perceive that good, and to distinguish the difference between good and not good.