Do we need a "God" to act morally?

[Paradoxium]

I believe we do not need a mythological figure of justification and good will to be able to function as what society deems, "Good." We can easily make our own choices and decide whether or not we want to do what we do, and if anyone follows an unproven, more than likely nonexistent deity to the exact fine point for their morals than I have nothing but pity for them.

 

[Color]

Moral is an extremely broad term. Murder may not conflict with your idea of morality so you don't see it as a bad thing. Of course it's possible, but things would much be different in all aspects of our lives without religion.

 

[Paradoxium]

Moral is an extremely broad term. Murder may not conflict with your idea of morality so you don't see it as a bad thing. Of course it's possible, but things would much be different in all aspects of our lives without religion.

I agree that morality is different among different cultures/people, but a majority of people know what the border line is when it comes to morals. As you said, it would cause a huge difference in the way modern society is now and would likely cause a much different version of life.

 

[Nevermind]

We do not, in anyway, need a god to act as moral beings. Morality comes from evolution, not religion. Yes, religion give us some moral teachings, but those are all common morals throughout the world. Everyone has generally the same set of basic morals, religion or not.

Plus, the fact that people say we need religion to be moral is insulting. I, as an atheist, do not have a god to watch over me and make sure that I am acting morally. Yet, I am able to be a moral being, and I am without a god. That alone proves to me that humans do not need a god to be moral.

People who say they need a god to act morally, aren't moral at all. The only reason they are being moral is because they think that someone is watching over them, or because they think they will be rewarded for their actions. This isn't morality at all. It is just pretending to be a good person, and sucking up to your supposed creator. People who are moral only because of these false precepts, are not good people at all.

 

[Cann!bal]

Morality derives from human nature, not god or religion.

Truthfully, the ones with whom believe in a god or have a faith are typically the most immoral ones. (I'll willingly guide you to some statistics if you believe otherwise, too.) Simply take a look at the guidelines of some religions, they're dreadfully demented. Islam: Kill the infidel. Christianity: Rape an animal, you and the animal die, however, rape a woman she becomes your wife forever and you pay her father twenty shekels. Judaism: Mutilate your newborn's genitals, then allow the rabbi to suck the blood off. Thankfully, secular and protestant characteristics have been implemented into our status quo's religion.

Religion is a malignant plague that must be remedied with reason.

 

[Executioner]

Morality derives from human nature, not god or religion.

Truthfully, the ones with whom believe in a god or have a faith are typically the most immoral ones. (I'll willingly guide you to some statistics if you believe otherwise, too.) Simply take a look at the guidelines of some religions, they're dreadfully demented. Islam: Kill the infidel. Christianity: Rape an animal, you and the animal die, however, rape a woman she becomes your wife forever and you pay her father twenty shekels. Judaism: Mutilate your newborn's genitals, then allow the rabbi to suck the blood off. Thankfully, secular and protestant characteristics have been implemented into our status quo's religion.

Religion is a malignant plague that must be remedied with reason.

You keep on comparing on human values and religious morals, People have their own free will, it's up to them on how they will handle their own self, remember, when something interecepts it's not freedom but controlled flow of it. There are certain terms and conditions in life we know that but humanity is not controlled by God, it is controlled by humanity also.

 

[Cann!bal]

You keep on comparing on human values and religious morals, People have their own free will, it's up to them on how they will handle their own self, remember, when something interecepts it's not freedom but controlled flow of it. There are certain terms and conditions in life we know that but humanity is not controlled by God, it is controlled by humanity also.

You have yet to prove your prerequisite if you want to begin to make that statement and persuade me to your theistic world viewpoint. You have demonstrate that there is a God beforehand. If you don't, you're response is copping out, evading logic.

 

[Executioner]

You have yet to prove your prerequisite if you want to begin to make that statement and persuade me to your theistic world viewpoint. You have demonstrate that there is a God beforehand. If you don't, you're response is copping out, evading logic.

Evading logic? So you're saying that humans are uncontrolled freaks of nature? and that nothing made it except nature and space time continuum? How logical is that?

 

[dmay]

Why can't we all just be agnostic? All you atheists are just as fundamentally irrational as, well, religious fundamentalists. Case in point: atheists live in this distorted bubble of (what they call) "logical" thinking; denouncing any claim that can't be proven whilst completely ignoring the fact that some lines of questioning simply can not be inquired into given the current set of tools/resources/scientific method. e.g. "why do we exist?", "is god real?", etc.
This line of thinking is just as illogical and irrational as the whole "I believe in God because of faith" argument. Does anyone realize that the only truly logical interpretation of such queries is and most likely always will be some form of agnosticism? I can't prove or disprove God. No one can. Not yet, at least as far as tangible proof goes. Move on and start worrying about your own lives and being the best you that you can be. Real mothafu**in talk. [/endrant]

 

[Cann!bal]

Evading logic? So you're saying that humans are uncontrolled freaks of nature? and that nothing made it except nature and space time continuum? How logical is that?

Yes, you're evading logic by not fulfilling its criteria. You have to prove the existence of God before you can assert anything involving him.

You're committing a straw man fallacy. We're not freaks of nature. We're the product of our universe. I suggest you study quantum mechanics when in an environment of absolute nothingness or watch some of Lawrence Krauss' lectures on a universe from nothing.

More logical than a God.

 

[dmay]

Yes, you're evading logic by not fulfilling its criteria. You have to prove the existence of God before you can assert anything involving him.

You're committing a straw man fallacy. We're not freaks of nature. We're the product of our universe. I suggest you study quantum mechanics when in an environment of absolute nothingness or watch some of Lawrence Krauss' lectures on a universe from nothing.

More logical than a God.

Not to sound too scathing here, but frankly this post sums up my whole dilemma with the theist vs. atheist debate.

Ever think of it this way?
"the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence"
^This line of thinking was a fundamental building block in the development and progress of quantum physics. All of that said; it is truly a humbling experience to find a resident quantum physicist on these here message boards. Perhaps in your next post you can illustrate Schrödinger's cat (the experiment-- not the actual cat, silly) for our feeble minds using Crayola crayons, macaroni, and construction paper.

 

[Cann!bal]

Why can't we all just be agnostic? All you atheists are just as fundamentally irrational as, well, religious fundamentalists. Case in point: atheists live in this distorted bubble of (what they call) "logical" thinking; denouncing any claim that can't be proven whilst completely ignoring the fact that some lines of questioning simply can not be inquired into given the current set of tools/resources/scientific method. e.g. "why do we exist?", "is god real?", etc.
This line of thinking is just as illogical and irrational as the whole "I believe in God because of faith" argument. Does anyone realize that the only truly logical interpretation of such queries is and most likely always will be some form of agnosticism? I can't prove or disprove God. No one can. Not yet, at least as far as tangible proof goes. Move on and start worrying about your own lives and being the best you that you can be. Real mothafu**in talk. [/endrant]

That's faulty. Atheists are agnostics, and vice versa. (The only exceptions being agnostic theists and gnostic atheists.) Atheism isn't the belief there is no god. It's the rejection of a faith based belief, the lack of belief.

 

[dmay]

That's faulty. Atheists are agnostics, and vice versa. (The only exceptions being agnostic theists and gnostic atheists.) Atheism isn't the belief there is no god. It's the rejection of a faith based belief, the lack of belief.

The whole atheist I'm-always-right-you're-always-wrong snobbery and semantics totally reminds me of when I was in high school and just read Dawkins myself. Oh the good 'ol days! Before I lived in the real 3D world and had my head yanked out of my rectum.

 

[Executioner]

Yes, you're evading logic by not fulfilling its criteria. You have to prove the existence of God before you can assert anything involving him.

You're committing a straw man fallacy. We're not freaks of nature. We're the product of our universe. I suggest you study quantum mechanics when in an environment of absolute nothingness or watch some of Lawrence Krauss' lectures on a universe from nothing.

More logical than a God.

I giggled on that "product of our universe" line because its illogical that the universe created us but the components and the elements came from nothing? and that to blame is the atoms, or the nucleus of an atom, or deeper? I dont understand how you base of matter creating matter from space/nothing, which is 'Illogical.

Lets base off your absolute nothingness, imagine a room of darkness, and it's walls is expanding at a tremendous speed faster than light to overpass lets say the middle would be the atom, now I ask, how was the atom formed and why is it there? should you say that it just "appeared", Illogical!

You never understand nature in it's course, you just disbelieve until it appears itself to you.

 

[dmay]

Let's face it: who needs God when your own God complex is huge enough to proclaim to the rest of the world (or da INNANETZ) that you know you have the answers to the deepest questions regarding our universe, existence, and the very fibers that tie us all together.

 

[Cann!bal]

I giggled on that "product of our universe" line because its illogical that the universe created us but the components and the elements came from nothing? and that to blame is the atoms, or the nucleus of an atom, or deeper? I dont understand how you base of matter creating matter from space/nothing, which is 'Illogical.

Lets base off your absolute nothingness, imagine a room of darkness, and it's walls is expanding at a tremendous speed faster than light to overpass lets say the middle would be the atom, now I ask, how was the atom formed and why is it there? should you say that it just "appeared", Illogical!

You never understand nature in it's course, you just disbelieve until it appears itself to you.

"I suggest you study quantum mechanics when in an environment of absolute nothingness or watch some of Lawrence Krauss' lectures on a universe from nothing."

I will bet my life you made no real inquiry before responding.

 

[Executioner]

"I suggest you study quantum mechanics when in an environment of absolute nothingness or watch some of Lawrence Krauss' lectures on a universe from nothing."

I will bet my life you made no real inquiry before responding.

Have not watched it, will do later.

 

[Cann!bal]

The whole atheist I'm-always-right-you're-always-wrong snobbery and semantics totally reminds me of when I was in high school and just read Dawkins myself. Oh the good 'ol days! Before I lived in the real 3D world and had my head yanked out of my rectum.

I never proclaimed I'm always right. I don't read Dawkins.

 

[dmay]

"I suggest you study quantum mechanics when in an environment of absolute nothingness or watch some of Lawrence Krauss' lectures on a universe from nothing."

I will bet my life you made no real inquiry before responding.

We get it. You truly, fundamentally, and blindly subscribe to the ideas of this Lawrence Krauss fellow, without any of the necessary tools to prove or disprove his claims (i.e. a PhD in physics). Kind of like how people latch on to the ideas from the Q'uran, Old Testament, and New Testament blindly... don'tcha think?

---

I never proclaimed I'm always right. I don't read Dawkins.

Never said ya did... your words, not mine.

 

[Executioner]

We get it. You truly, fundamentally, and blindly subscribe to the ideas of this Lawrence Krauss fellow, without any of the necessary tools to prove or disprove his claims (i.e. a PhD in physics). Kind of like how people latch on to the ideas from the Q'uran, Old Testament, and New Testament blindly... don'tcha think?

---

Never said ya did... your words, not mine.

---

This, approved on the first line.