NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people on this forum and in other places countor the notion that God is nessecary for morality by saying that humans can of course develop a sense of what is right and wrong without being religious. However that essentially comes down to humans regulating human morality, in other words self regulation. Any instution of any kind which is self regulating is naturally going to lead itself to corruption, imagine a government who was only accountable to itself, or a police force that when accused of criminal malpractice investigated itself. Surely its more sensable to have an independent outside body regulate it. Self regulating human morallity essentially means that the morallity will be compromised and become flawed and corrupt. Can people here understand what I am getting at. Logicly you need an outside body to regulate something properly, that outside force in the case of morality being God. And if you look into it deeper, you will see that when you need outside regulation, it has to be independent. And who is independent of humanity? God.

If you assume (as I do) that people have free will, then even in a system with God, humans are regulating their own morality.

So you're back to square one.

The same problem arises with religious morality. You have a moral code written down in whatever holy book you choose, but it's open to interpretation, there are loopholes, and people still violate the laws. How many times have religous laws been corrupted to get more power and wealth for the church? How often have people used the name of god to get laid, often with underage partners?

Involving religion in morality doesn't make it incorruptible.

Morality in only the application of sympathy. Sympathy is evolutionary trait.

Well, it really depends on what you mean by "morality".

Killing people, accepting bribes, discrimination, theft, adultery, and rape are definitely wrong. But we disagree on whether making out in public, homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia are right or wrong. Morality is a mater of opinion, and usually regulated by families. What your parents think is moral will have more influence on you than what God thinks is moral, or Neo Cannen for that matter (unless he/she happens to be your parent).

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Remember that even some atheists believe that there is objective right and wrong in the universe.

Human beings regulate their own beliefs on morality one way or another - whatever the source.

I believe in right and wrong, although I am an atheist. Atheism is not immoral. Like I said, morality is a matter of opinion.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

The same problem arises with religious morality. You have a moral code written down in whatever holy book you choose, but it's open to interpretation, there are loopholes, and people still violate the laws. How many times have religous laws been corrupted to get more power and wealth for the church? How often have people used the name of god to get laid, often with underage partners?

Involving religion in morality doesn't make it incorruptible.Sad but true. Almighty God is, of course, independent of His creation, but He doesn't seem to hold us to account until after we've died. So, while we still live this life, we have to regulate our own morality. On top of that, Gods existence is neither proven nor disproven, so both believers and non-believers have to be reasonably accomodated.

My position is this: Each person has the right to live their life however they choose so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of other people to do the same.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

Any instution of any kind which is self regulating is naturally going to lead itself to corruption

I'm genuinely sorry that you think like that. I have a bit more faith in humans to self-regulate than that. It will take a long, long time, but we'll get there eventually.

Of course, you also need to be assured that God's own self-regulation will not lead to corruption. Presumably you meant that "any institution of any kind EXCEPT GOD which is self regulating is naturally going to lead itself to corruption"?

The same problem arises with religious morality. You have a moral code written down in whatever holy book you choose, but it's open to interpretation, there are loopholes, and people still violate the laws. How many times have religous laws been corrupted to get more power and wealth for the church? How often have people used the name of god to get laid, often with underage partners?

Involving religion in morality doesn't make it incorruptible.

I agree with you to an extent. My point was however that you can't claim an objective right or wrong without the existance of God.

Remember that even some atheists believe that there is objective right and wrong in the universe.

Well, it's pretty simple really - helping people is good, hurting people is bad. Hurting a little in order to help a lot is good overall, and helping a little to hurt a lot is bad overall. Etcetera.

My position is this: Each person has the right to live their life however they choose so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of other people to do the same.My views exactly. We seem to agree on a lot of things (also that flaming is a bad thing for example ;)).

In my mind, the only thing that should be illegal is crime.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I agree with you to an extent. My point was however that you can't claim an objective right or wrong without the existance of God.
some of us think there is no objective morality (and even with a god would that not make the morality he imposes on us subjective to him)

I agree with you to an extent. My point was however that you can't claim an objective right or wrong without the existance of God.

...which is a silly claim to make.

There can be objective right and wrong in the universe based on the very existence of the universe itself.

Of course, you also need to be assured that God's own self-regulation will not lead to corruption. Presumably you meant that "any institution of any kind EXCEPT GOD which is self regulating is naturally going to lead itself to corruption"?

I was talking about human institutions and humans in general. God is very diffrent.

I agree with you to an extent. My point was however that you can't claim an objective right or wrong without the existance of God.

That's about as absurd as saying you can't have mathematics without the existance of God.

Fill in the blank with any concept you like. It's fallacious.

Sad but true. Almighty God is, of course, independent of His creation, but He doesn't seem to hold us to account until after we've died. So, while we still live this life, we have to regulate our own morality. On top of that, Gods existence is neither proven nor disproven, so both believers and non-believers have to be reasonably accomodated.

My position is this: Each person has the right to live their life however they choose so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of other people to do the same.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation
One of my devout Christian friends said about the same thing to me last night over a few beers at the Elks.

I agree with you to an extent. My point was however that you can't claim an objective right or wrong without the existance of God.
I base it on human rights and empathy. I wouldn't want someone to rob me or kill me, so I don't do it to others. I respect the value of a thinking and feeling human being so I don't try to harm him or her. I beleive in objective right and wrong, but I don't beleive in god.

I agree with you to an extent. My point was however that you can't claim an objective right or wrong without the existance of God.

So, say for example, those who have lived with a concept of the Christian God, for example, the plains Indians of the USA, the native aboriginals of Australia, they have no morality, no objective right or wrong, because they have no concept of God?

So, say for example, those who have lived with a concept of the Christian God, for example, the plains Indians of the USA, the native aboriginals of Australia, they have no morality, no objective right or wrong, because they have no concept of God?And atheism is also immoral? Buddhists? Muslims? Jews? Aliens??

...and I might add that I am not the only person in the universe who can decide what's right or wrong, I leave that to individual people. Neo Cannen, don't think that morality can't exist without Me, because my morals themselves are extremely liberal. Look at all the stuff I allow people to do!


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

So, say for example, those who have lived with a concept of the Christian God, for example, the plains Indians of the USA, the native aboriginals of Australia, they have no morality because they have no concept of God?

Note how I said existance of God. I didnt say you had to be Christian to know true right and wrong. I only said that an objective right and wrong cannot exist without some form of external body, else morrality is self regulated by the minds of humans and without God there is nothing seprate from humans to regulate morality. Obviously you can be moral and not a Christian, my point was that you cannot claim an objective morality without the existance of God.

And atheism is also immoral? Buddhists? Muslims? Jews? Aliens??

...and I might add that I am not the only person in the universe who can decide what's right or wrong, I leave that to individual people. Neo Cannen, don't think that morality can't exist without Me, because my morals themselves are extremely liberal. Look at all the stuff I allow people to do!


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. My point was that according to Neo Cannen's hypothesis, it would mean that those people who had never had a concept of the Judeo/Christian/Islamic God, would not have any clue of objective right or wrong nor any clue of morality. Something which I find quite daft really.

Any instution of any kind which is self regulating is naturally going to lead itself to corruption, imagine a government who was only accountable to itself, or a police force that when accused of criminal malpractice investigated itself.
That would be every government and police force then. But cheer up, you're right! Except about the God thing. Morals are just a way of recognising your long term interest. By not beating people up or stealing you make it less likely that you'll be beaten up or killed which is why we evolved moral feelings in the first place. Being nice to people also means more friends and trading partners, which makes you happier. Getting people to behave "morally" is just a matter of showing them what is in their long term best interests.

Note how I said existance of God. I didnt say you had to be Christian to know true right and wrong. I only said that an objective right and wrong cannot exist without some form of external body, else morrality is self regulated by the minds of humans and without God there is nothing seprate from humans to regulate morality. Obviously you can be moral and not a Christian, my point was that you cannot claim an objective morality without the existance of God.

Then you are saying that for all intense and purposes God existence does not matter, as if Gods existence is not revealed to a person but they live to a strict moral code, never knowing why, what is the point of God existence?

Everyone has some kind of system of morals. It may be really screwed up, but they have one. It has nothing to do with some minor deity might tell them. I, Supreme Ruler of the Universe, can't make people be moral. I can only give them the choice. My universe was ranked a "Benevolent Dictatorship" by the UN, which proves what my views are.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I was talking about human institutions and humans in general. God is very diffrent.

You did say "any institution of ANY KIND". How is God different, and how are you sure that (s)he does not need to be regulated in order to avoid corruption? I presume that this is a matter of faith. If so, then we are very similar - I have faith that humanity will be able to self-regulate without corruption. As I noted before, I think that it will take us time, perhaps thousands of years, but I do have faith that we'll get there.

No human can survive soley on his own for very long. This survival instinct will create a morality that will him/her & all those around him/her maintain a level of stability.
Nature is the true check & balance out there. Otherwise humans never would have survived a harsh long winter or a scorching hot dry summer.

Then you are saying that for all intense and purposes God existence does not matter, as if Gods existence is not revealed to a person but they live to a strict moral code, never knowing why, what is the point of God existence?

Your mileage may very, but...

I believe God exists. I also believe we have free will. The point of his existence is irrelevant to us. I also believe that God is not such an asshole that just because you never heard the word, or didn't care to believe, that he'll make you smoke a turd in hell.

I believe that God is big on forgiveness. If you read the story of the prodigal son, you'll know what I'm talking about.

I'm not saying you should now run out and start murdering people - but a lot of the moral weaknesses that some are fond of pointing out and shouting about are not the moral weaknesses that God sees as somehow irreparable.

The main message I got from reading the red words was be good to each other and forgive each other. And for that, they nailed him to a tree.

Your mileage may very, but...

I believe God exists. I also believe we have free will. The point of his existence is irrelevant to us. I also believe that God is not such an asshole that just because you never heard the word, or didn't care to believe, that he'll make you smoke a turd in hell.

I believe that God is big on forgiveness. If you read the story of the prodigal son, you'll know what I'm talking about.

I'm not saying you should now run out and start murdering people - but a lot of the moral weaknesses that some are fond of pointing out and shouting about are not the moral weaknesses that God sees as somehow irreparable.

The main message I got from reading the red words was be good to each other and forgive each other. And for that, they nailed him to a tree.You're right on every count. I won't forgive mass murderers who go out and kill "in my name", because I'm too soft-hearted to kill them myself. Just remember that Jesus was nailed to a tree because his teachings threatend the Roman Empire, not because he simply taught them.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Your mileage may very, but...

I believe God exists. I also believe we have free will. The point of his existence is irrelevant to us. I also believe that God is not such an asshole that just because you never heard the word, or didn't care to believe, that he'll make you smoke a turd in hell.

I believe that God is big on forgiveness. If you read the story of the prodigal son, you'll know what I'm talking about.

I'm not saying you should now run out and start murdering people - but a lot of the moral weaknesses that some are fond of pointing out and shouting about are not the moral weaknesses that God sees as somehow irreparable.

The main message I got from reading the red words was be good to each other and forgive each other. And for that, they nailed him to a tree.
I couldn't have said it better myself whisper.

Many people on this forum and in other places countor the notion that God is nessecary for morality by saying that humans can of course develop a sense of what is right and wrong without being religious. However that essentially comes down to humans regulating human morality, in other words self regulation. Any instution of any kind which is self regulating is naturally going to lead itself to corruption, imagine a government who was only accountable to itself, or a police force that when accused of criminal malpractice investigated itself. Surely its more sensable to have an independent outside body regulate it. Self regulating human morallity essentially means that the morallity will be compromised and become flawed and corrupt. Can people here understand what I am getting at. Logicly you need an outside body to regulate something properly, that outside force in the case of morality being God. And if you look into it deeper, you will see that when you need outside regulation, it has to be independent. And who is independent of humanity? God.
We are independent of each other. We are each individual life-forms, individual entities, with individual hearts and minds. We each have a "sense of what is right and wrong" because we interact with other individuals and learn what works and what does not. It's not inherent.

We are both self-regulated and regulated by the groups we are a part of. We are accountable to each other for everything we do as a unit, just as we are accountable to ourselves for things we do on our own behalf. It's not an either-or situation.

You're right on every count. I won't forgive mass murderers who go out and kill "in my name", because I'm too soft-hearted to kill them myself. Just remember that Jesus was nailed to a tree because his teachings threatend the Roman Empire, not because he simply taught them.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe
Then the Romans accepted Jesus & then decided people should either convert or die.Killed & enslaved people in mass thus tainting the message Jesus died to bring us in the first place.

Note how I said existance of God. I didnt say you had to be Christian to know true right and wrong. I only said that an objective right and wrong cannot exist without some form of external body, else morrality is self regulated by the minds of humans and without God there is nothing seprate from humans to regulate morality. Obviously you can be moral and not a Christian, my point was that you cannot claim an objective morality without the existance of God.
it seems to me that some strong man decides what is and isnt moral THEN uses the authority of god to certify it. if you look through just christian history, acknowledging that it is similar for all religious tradtions, you see that morality has changed radically over the past 2000 years.

for example, the early christians wouldnt serve in the roman army because killing was a sin. today its considered by many to be your christian duty to serve. (given that not all christians believe the same but doesnt that cover my point quite well in itself?)

paul exhorts christain women to keep quiet in church but today many many denominations have female ministers. that is quite a change eh?

even the american conservative christian claim that liberals are immoral, which many of their followers believe, has no basis in GOD but only in the mind of the men who make the claim. (this can of course be turned around with liberals being the bad guy but that also just covers my point well)

all sorts of things are justified as being the will of god, and thus moral, that if you took god out of the equation, would be utterly immoral.... the crusades for example, the 30 years war, witch burnings, 9/11, it could go on forever.

My position is this: Each person has the right to live their life however they choose so long as they don't infringe upon the rights of other people to do the same.

--The Democratic States of Cogitation

My thoughts exactly Cogitation.

Your mileage may very, but...

I believe God exists. I also believe we have free will. The point of his existence is irrelevant to us. I also believe that God is not such an asshole that just because you never heard the word, or didn't care to believe, that he'll make you smoke a turd in hell.

I believe that God is big on forgiveness. If you read the story of the prodigal son, you'll know what I'm talking about.

I'm not saying you should now run out and start murdering people - but a lot of the moral weaknesses that some are fond of pointing out and shouting about are not the moral weaknesses that God sees as somehow irreparable.

The main message I got from reading the red words was be good to each other and forgive each other. And for that, they nailed him to a tree.


Now I'm not sure of Gods existence. I was brought up going to Church every Sunday, and the God who I was taught to believe in was the one you describe here. But as I grew older I found myself doubting Gods existence purely because of this point. I came to the conclusion that as long as I lived my life trying to be the best person possible, even if I did not believe in God, but when the time comes I stood in front of the Maker, his infinite compassion would see that I truly did not forsake him because I thought he was wrong, I did it purly because I was searching for the best way I could live my life. Now if such a God is truly merciful then I believe he would forgive me.

This is why I think morals exist independently of God. The ideas of not killing one another for various reasons, protecting your family and those close to you have always existed in us. Why? In my opinion because they are what we need to survive, not because some one said so. I think its that simple.

If God exists and created us, he put us here on this planet and left us to it. We have our morals through our own actions and own thought.

I agree with you to an extent. My point was however that you can't claim an objective right or wrong without the existance of God.
Why not?

You really need to learn to think outside the box and stop seeing everything as black or white.

Many people on this forum and in other places countor the notion that God is nessecary for morality by saying that humans can of course develop a sense of what is right and wrong without being religious.

Anyone who has the balls to suggest I can't form my own perceptions of the world around me deserves little more than an angry crack on the jaw, preferably while I'm wearing some sort of hard, cold apparatus on my hands. preferably brass knucks.

However that essentially comes down to humans regulating human morality, in other words self regulation. Any instution of any kind which is self regulating is naturally going to lead itself to corruption, imagine a government who was only accountable to itself, or a police force that when accused of criminal malpractice investigated itself. Surely its more sensable to have an independent outside body regulate it.

I'd rather 'regulate it' myself. Even if we do willingly submit that the existence of a 'moral code' is dependent on God, we're still doing so because we want to. It's no different a form of self regulation; and it is by definition an evasion of thought and responsibility. I do not accept this argument.

Self regulating human morallity essentially means that the morallity will be compromised and become flawed and corrupt. Can people here understand what I am getting at. Logicly you need an outside body to regulate something properly, that outside force in the case of morality being God. And if you look into it deeper, you will see that when you need outside regulation, it has to be independent. And who is independent of humanity? God.

Who the hell says you need an "outside body?" Making a claim like this only strengthens my belief that people who depend on "God" for morality are shirking their responsibility as a human being to form their own concepts and execute their own will. "Outside bodies" are only necessary for regulation when the concept or idea being regulated is being done by a group of people. Individuals do not need "outside bodies" to tell them their thoughts or perceptions.

Don't mistake me for an atheist; I think all forms of creation in this universe require a catalyst and I'm sure the birth of our universe was no exception. The concept I reject, as a point of fact, is that humanity as a whole is to live up to a certain standard in regards to what modern theologists define as "God" in the traditional sense. I also reject the idea that we are the direct result of his labors: I think we exist more as a consequence of creation rather than the purpose of it.

My POV? Well, God's existence is unknown to me (I do not feel I can believe, but I've covered this in other threads) yet I subjectively feel that I'm fairly moral.

What I really want to pass on is that in Game Theory experiments ("Prisoners' Dilemma" sort of thing, and others) there tends to be a stage whereby as the number of players increases enough to support such subtelties, there are two 'stable' situations.
1) A large number of 'fair' players with a small number of 'cheats',
2) A large number of 'cheats' with a small number of 'fair' players.

The way the former works is that most people playing fair tends to keep the society running smoothly, assuming fairness on everyone's part, and a small number of cheats can profit and survive within this society, but not too many otherwise the stability falls down (and if too few cheat, there's a 'stagnation', I think, which puts paid to Utopia).

The latter essentially works with a society working on an "everyone for themselves" basis and as long as those being fair are able to 'play the game' with the knowledge that they are liable to be cheated against, their overall position benefits from not being as predictably cheating as everyone else thinks they should be and benefiting from everyone else's misconcnceptions...


It's more complicated than that, and I haven't explained it well (wish I had a link handy) but hopefully you understand.


As to morality without God, I think that's because society works best under the former stable situation, and so rules are developed (attributed to a deity or just to Someone With A Big Stick (TM)) or even 'evolved', in a way, such that any society that succesfully develops a limiting rule of law tends to survive longer than a pure anarchy. And the memes of the ideas from largely successful civilisations tend to get passed onto later civilisations and survive even when forces conspire against the stability and the originator falls silent.

Also, if you look at parts of the world (even some neighbourhoods, but gaded against a much smaller scale of divergance) where the "rule of the cheats" version of stability exists, only when you get killing it tends to have different dynamics from that which a mere 'cheating and honesty' split, I would suggest.

Then the Romans accepted Jesus & then decided people should either convert or die.Killed & enslaved people in mass thus tainting the message Jesus died to bring us in the first place.I think the Romans were crazy. To quote Astérix et Obelix, "Ils sont fous ces romains!" (Replace "romains" with the nationality of just about anyone who's acting weird to quote in context.)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Many people on this forum and in other places countor the notion that God is nessecary for morality by saying that humans can of course develop a sense of what is right and wrong without being religious. However that essentially comes down to humans regulating human morality, in other words self regulation. Any instution of any kind which is self regulating is naturally going to lead itself to corruption, imagine a government who was only accountable to itself, or a police force that when accused of criminal malpractice investigated itself. Surely its more sensable to have an independent outside body regulate it. Self regulating human morallity essentially means that the morallity will be compromised and become flawed and corrupt. Can people here understand what I am getting at. Logicly you need an outside body to regulate something properly, that outside force in the case of morality being God. And if you look into it deeper, you will see that when you need outside regulation, it has to be independent. And who is independent of humanity? God.

Why even use morality at all? Ethics are a perfectly viable way of determining right and wrong behavior by means of reason, and God doesn't have to come into the picture. I know plenty of people who believe in God that do/have done wrong things. God doesn't stop them. One does not need to be accountable to an outside force or power in order to do good.

I think the Romans were crazy. To quote Astérix et Obelix, "Ils sont fous ces romains!" (Replace "romains" with the nationality of just about anyone who's acting weird to quote in context.)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Asterix > all (http://img261.echo.cx/img261/1714/asterixgif0qb.jpg)

Damn straight :D

EDIT: crap that was a big pic.... :eek:

One does not need to be accountable to an outside force or power in order to do good.

Testify!

Asterix > all (http://img261.echo.cx/img261/1714/asterixgif0qb.jpg)

Damn straight :D

EDIT: crap that was a big pic.... :eek:I don't mind. I didn't look at it. :D

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

I agree with you to an extent. My point was however that you can't claim an objective right or wrong without the existance of God.

What about Kant's Categorical Imperative (Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.)? Objective morality in one sentence with no reference to god.

Also, I think that the field of what could objectively be deemed moral or immoral is very small. This is because most people mistakenly put a "morality" label on issues that have nothing to do with morality as such (e.g. dresscode). The perception of what is moral and what isn't changes considerably over time.

I my opinion the question whether there can be an objective moral without a god is very interesting, but somehow this discussion is pointless, because for a decent discussion one should have defined what "objective" refering to moral means.
For example if you are Christian you could claim moral objective, because one will be punished if you disobey the rules.

Everyone has an in-built sense of empathy. They also have a desire to act in self-interest. With or without God, that doesn't change. The difficulties come firstly on a personal level in cases where the two are contradicting, in which case the individual must make a conscious decision to favour themselves or the other parties involved.

For me, the important thing is to try to pick a decision that isn't deliberately self damaging, but that does bare the thoughts and feelings of the other person and doesn't set them aside. In that respect, in the current world, I think it's simply enough for God to provide the motive some people need in order to relate to others in a sympathetic manner. The existence of God is really a null point to me in morality terms, but the idea of turning selfish desire to caring for your fellow man that the church's teachings promote is incredibly valued within society.

Christianity is perfect for the modern egocentric western society. Ultimately, it changes an underlying selfish personal desire for eternal life into an external show of compassion. While a display might be all it turns out to be, good deeds are valued by their recepients regardless of motive, and if you through your ways make the lives of those around you more enriched, fulfilling and rewarding, you're welcome to whatever intentions you might have.

I, however, believe that kindness for kindness' sake is enough motivation for me. Those I come into contact with every day are people, as I am, and experience sadness, regret, boredom, despair, happiness and love, as I do. Is that not in itself reason enough to lend them a helping hand, a friendly gesture, a listening ear and a compassionate smile?

Therefore, I don't believe that morality is non-existent without God. I'm more than willing to admit, however, that the teachings of those who claim to follow him have been a great source of inspiration and are definately one way to overcome one's own limitations to find a way of empathetically relating with the world.

Many people on this forum and in other places countor the notion that God is nessecary for morality by saying that humans can of course develop a sense of what is right and wrong without being religious. However that essentially comes down to humans regulating human morality, in other words self regulation. Any instution of any kind which is self regulating is naturally going to lead itself to corruption, imagine a government who was only accountable to itself, or a police force that when accused of criminal malpractice investigated itself. Surely its more sensable to have an independent outside body regulate it. Self regulating human morallity essentially means that the morallity will be compromised and become flawed and corrupt. Can people here understand what I am getting at. Logicly you need an outside body to regulate something properly, that outside force in the case of morality being God. And if you look into it deeper, you will see that when you need outside regulation, it has to be independent. And who is independent of humanity? God.

My best counter to that is that there is a whole planet of published philosophy, and discourse on morality that can be extremley useful guides. Also, there are governments (which enforces views about morality). In addition to that, people can and generally do act in good will torward one another when they want to cooperate and get things done or establish friendships.

Our own good judgement develops as we grow up and are raised and learn lessons (school, family, friends, etc.) There are plenty of atheists that have strong friendships with people and live satisfactory lives, and can co-operate with people, and make fair and accurate judgements without reffering to religion.

You don't necissarily need an outside independent body, because your idea that humans are beyond co-operating and learning is flatly wrong. Our survival depends on it and there will be rational people that form a sense of morality. It has been done. And if and when they can prove that their beleifs lead to progress and opportunity, those ideas can gain support and weight.

I think you want to use this argument to justify a need of God because you are christian.

Morality is a mater of opinion, and usually regulated by families. What your parents think is moral will have more influence on you than what God thinks is moral, or Neo Cannen for that matter (unless he/she happens to be your parent).

I gotta disagree with this. I think there is a definate morality and morality itself does not depend on one's opinion, but on the raw results it produces.

Many people on this forum and in other places countor the notion that God is nessecary for morality by saying that humans can of course develop a sense of what is right and wrong without being religious. However that essentially comes down to humans regulating human morality, in other words self regulation. Any instution of any kind which is self regulating is naturally going to lead itself to corruption, imagine a government who was only accountable to itself, or a police force that when accused of criminal malpractice investigated itself. Surely its more sensable to have an independent outside body regulate it. Self regulating human morallity essentially means that the morallity will be compromised and become flawed and corrupt. Can people here understand what I am getting at. Logicly you need an outside body to regulate something properly, that outside force in the case of morality being God. And if you look into it deeper, you will see that when you need outside regulation, it has to be independent. And who is independent of humanity? God.


Forgive me, because I didn't read all the posts. Somebody might have said this already, but here goes.
The question of morality has something to do with evolution. As we evolved, we realized that something's gotta give. We cannot live together if we keep killing and stealing from each other. So we - being the intelligent beings we are - came up with morals. They are necessary for our survival. We don't need a reward or punishment in the afterlife when it comes to morality. We get one in the life.
It's just an agnostic's point of view.

I believe that self-governing is the best and only way to ensure morality. Without a sense of self, there is no morality. If we simply did things because we believed that this "God" fellow wants us to, and that made it right...then what about all the people in asylums that believe they are the second coming of Christ? The people that killed because they said that "God" was telling them to? The people that said that "God" hates blacks, Jews, and anyone else different?

Are they right because they believe "God" is telling them that this is what is moral? This is what they honestly and truly see as the truth...one is not born with a sense of right and wrong. Instead, we learn as we go...oh, taking my playmate's toys are wrong...but playing with him, with the toys...is okay. Alright. So...stealing is wrong. Huh, imagine that.

Yes, these views came from any number of religions' "God," but if it were this omnipresent being enforcing this morality in us, would it not be inborn? What makes the Christian "God" so much better than any other deity, when most others have the same basic morals and ethics? Answer me that.

I post this as an agnostic...meaning, of course, that I don't know who is running this world, but neither do you, for sure...=)

Just to add something that I don't think anyone's added (I'll shut up if they have), the self-policing problem is actually more of an issue for monotheism than atheism. In an atheist system there are billions of people who contradict eachother deciding morality. Checks and balances, that sort of thing. In a system with a God on the other hand morality is entirely the purview of one being. Nothing is to stop God from justifying anything he wants by just changing moral law. So with a God morality is more arbitrary and self-serving.

Many people on this forum and in other places countor the notion that God is nessecary for morality by saying that humans can of course develop a sense of what is right and wrong without being religious. However that essentially comes down to humans regulating human morality, in other words self regulation. Any instution of any kind which is self regulating is naturally going to lead itself to corruption, imagine a government who was only accountable to itself, or a police force that when accused of criminal malpractice investigated itself. Surely its more sensable to have an independent outside body regulate it. Self regulating human morallity essentially means that the morallity will be compromised and become flawed and corrupt. Can people here understand what I am getting at. Logicly you need an outside body to regulate something properly, that outside force in the case of morality being God. And if you look into it deeper, you will see that when you need outside regulation, it has to be independent. And who is independent of humanity? God.

I realise this will probably put you into shock, Neo... but I'm going to argue with one of your assertions!!! I know, I know... how could something so bizarre and unusual happen???!!!!

You assume that ALL self-regulating bodies MUST become corrupt?

What about sharks? Not as an organisation, of course... but sharks have interesting metbolisms, etc... basically... sharks just keep repairing their own genetic material. This is why sharks are considered a possible avenue of research for curing cancer. They are, in effect, a self-regulating system that also corrects any corruption.

Also - back to something less allegorical... while a society MAY produce occasional corrupt morality, or corrupted individuals... it also has the capacity to repair that damage. One has only to look at what happens (eventually) to EVERY corrupt regime. Even in American Politics, which is, let's face it, a nest of vipers, there are some individuals who regulate the 'morality' of the organisation, exposing and repairing corruption. In this case, they are called the "Ethics Committee", I believe.

Your logic doesn't work... why MUST a system become corrupt?

Why MUST the regulation come from outside?

Why MUST that outside source be 'god'?

Why MUST we assume that any 'god' must be YOUR god?


Answer those questions to my satisfaction, and we can continue.

Any instution of any kind which is self regulating is naturally going to lead itself to corruption...

Ergo, God as a self-regulating being is naturally going to lead itself to corruption?

God does not exist, it is an idea without an impression.... A nothing! There is no morality in the Universe as well, everything is premitted and nothing forbidden.

Thus when one says Human morality is based upon God (or God's law, divine command, ect.) one is saying that Human morality is based upon nothing... After all any-one can create the idea of God for their own perposes, any little child is capable of imageneings to justify their actions or choices...

When morality is moved to the individual Human Being it is based upon a foundation. All are responsible for their actions and choices, if not to other people then too themselves... One is free, whether liberated or condemed, to choose ones moral path...

Your logic doesn't work... why MUST a system become corrupt?

Why MUST the regulation come from outside?

It doesn't have to become corrupt but it becomes much more likely to be corrupt if it is self regulating as opposed to externally regulated. For example say there was an institution where an individual broke the rules of that institution on a minor but regular basis. Eventually these minor offences ammount to a situation where the individual needs to be disiplined to the level of being investigated, and if evidence is found against him, fired. However the head of that instution knows that this individual is a valuable asset and if they do fire him they will lose out substansially. Now if that institution is self regulating it is far easier for that head to simpley set up an investigation that will not find the evidence as it is in that companies best interest to keep him on. However if there is an external investigation, then there is no concern for the interest of the company, merely as to assertaining the truth.


Why MUST that outside source be 'god'?

Why MUST we assume that any 'god' must be YOUR god?


Well you need something which is actually independent of humanity and is not constrained by the same failings. Now while I cant prove its the Christian God for certianty, it must be, as you can see, a God of some sort.

Well you need something which is actually independent of humanity and is not constrained by the same failings. Now while I cant prove its the Christian God for certianty, it must be, as you can see, a God of some sort.

A typical humanist viewpoint.

Oh, fair enough, you're a Christian; I'm not saying you're not, or indeed that the two are exclusive. But the concept of "a God" is very, very rooted in human perception. When you say God, you mean some individual working on some upper dimension or plane of existence free from humanity. But what is that if not the idealisation that whatever's in charge is a version of human that's higher up on the spiritual heirarchy and without blemish?

Basically what you're saying is because morality needs to be regulated, someone needs to regulate it. That is the very fact we refute; not that your God may or may not be responsible, but whether or not the force responsible needs to be a personal one. What's wrong with the eastern concept that the impersonal consciousness of existence itself is what watches over this ethical code? What about the sense of empathy built into the brains of every human being on this earth?

On another, rather silly little note, how could anything independent of humanity justifiably create a moral code for us? It doesn't make sense. It would be like a computer program trying to control a plastic comb without using any sort of physical mechanisms. The only way to realise how best we work together is to either work with us and get to know the foundation of who we are or to create us in the first place; neither of these are independent of us. We must exist in God's world in some form, otherwise there's no way for him to interact with us, and he must interact with us, otherwise his moral code is without value.

isnt it always some PERSON interpreting god's will and expecting the rest of us to go along with it?

Many people on this forum and in other places countor the notion that God is nessecary for morality by saying that humans can of course develop a sense of what is right and wrong without being religious. However that essentially comes down to humans regulating human morality, in other words self regulation. Any instution of any kind which is self regulating is naturally going to lead itself to corruption, imagine a government who was only accountable to itself, or a police force that when accused of criminal malpractice investigated itself. Surely its more sensable to have an independent outside body regulate it. Self regulating human morallity essentially means that the morallity will be compromised and become flawed and corrupt. Can people here understand what I am getting at. Logicly you need an outside body to regulate something properly, that outside force in the case of morality being God. And if you look into it deeper, you will see that when you need outside regulation, it has to be independent. And who is independent of humanity? God.

The threat of a GOD or DEVIL do not morality make.
Corrupt people will corrupt anything they are involved in,especially religion.
Moral people will bring honesty and virtue to anything they are involved in, especially religion.
The issue is not self regulation.It is the inherent evil and good in all of us.Evil defined as any action or inaction that causes mental, emotional, or physical harm to another sentient being, living organisms or the environment with no value to propagate the species or protect the greater community by the said action or inaction.

I am sorry that you need a GOD in order for you to treat your fellow human beings with decency and respect.

FACT: God's outside regulation of morality has thus far been a dismal success, or a splendid failure, whichever statement makes the most sense.

Well you need something which is actually independent of humanity and is not constrained by the same failings. Now while I cant prove its the Christian God for certianty, it must be, as you can see, a God of some sort.

Well I have to say, the ideas to which you are actually replying are very narrow in scope, and you haven't yet dealt with several much more important responses.. Is this because you can't?

It doesn't have to become corrupt but it becomes much more likely to be corrupt if it is self regulating as opposed to externally regulated.

I don't agree - and you can't prove it.

Thus, flawed assumption.

The example I gave, shark-biology, shows a system which is internally regulated but never becomes corrupted.


For example say there was an institution where an individual broke the rules of that institution on a minor but regular basis. Eventually these minor offences ammount to a situation where the individual needs to be disiplined to the level of being investigated, and if evidence is found against him, fired. However the head of that instution knows that this individual is a valuable asset and if they do fire him they will lose out substansially. Now if that institution is self regulating it is far easier for that head to simpley set up an investigation that will not find the evidence as it is in that companies best interest to keep him on. However if there is an external investigation, then there is no concern for the interest of the company, merely as to assertaining the truth.


The situation you suggest shows corruption ALREADY, long before the incident... otherwise the new 'corruption' wouldn't have been tolerated.

Perhaps it WOULD be easier to cover up, internally... but then again, there is no reason to assume that an OUTSIDE source would be any MORE stringent.

Last point on this... if the rest of the institution is NOT corrupt... it is a great stretch to assume that they would tolerate any new corruption.

I just do not accept the relevence of your model.

It relies on too many "but what if" assumptions.


Well you need something which is actually independent of humanity and is not constrained by the same failings. Now while I cant prove its the Christian God for certianty, it must be, as you can see, a God of some sort.

Zombies.... not constrained by any of the same feelings, etc.

Aliens... certainly not constrained by any necessary sympathy for 'human' constraints.

Fairies... the histories tell us they were here long before us humans... so they are OBVIOUSLY independent of our needs/desires.

What makes you assume the 'god' option at all?

Pure bias... there is nothing 'logical' about it.