If There is No God, is Murder Wrong? (a Reply to Dennis Prager)

Murder can be perfectly logical..

 

Then do it...oh wait....the boogeyman won't let you. Lol. Thank god I don't see it that way

 

Here we go again. there a lots of methods to teach right from wrong, morality, decency, integrity and to encourage compliance with that social or ethical standard. Using a God, or a holy book is one of them. Using a fear of afterlife consequences or 'punishment' to deter bad behavior may be effective for a segment, but it has its limitations, especially with people who learn to doubt that God punishes and rewards in an afterlife, or doubt that God cares, or decide that they are already heading to hell anyway.

There is also a segment who tend towards sociopathic behavior but do still think and plan for the long-term. For those, only a punishment/ reward system has any impact . If they have zero chance of being caught by mortals, maybe eternal damnation may remain a sufficient threat to deter. Both of these represent are small sliver of people.

Most people are taught from a very early age, to feel shame, guilt, empathy and sympathy. It happens in religious homes. It happens in secular homes. Most people also are taught to weigh moral and ethical considerations in their daily lives. This happens in secular homes and religious homes. The same ideas may be taught, using different phrasing or a different perspective, but they get to the same place.

We know statistically that atheists do not commit more murders than theists or even a higher percentage of crime than theists, so atheist families must be managing to accomplish this moral scruple education well enough.

 

Right,there would be no God to create evil!!!

Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

 

Yep. It's in the book. Must be true. Lol

 

????? Are you debating yourself?????????

 

So I'd expect it to appear, to those of questionable sanity.

You might as well ask where I get the idea that without precipitation there can't be a Mississippi River.

Your premise being irrelevant to anything I said, your conclusion is unfounded.

which you know to be correct how, exactly?

Zero. You're welcome.

Sure there are, and they're all wrong.

Really, you have no idea.

 

You are what I call a "pseudo-intellectual".
I am sure you think you showed everyone, right?
You can keep your imaginary friend - I don't care, but don't come here and ask a question if you aren't prepared to deal with answers.

 

Was there some sort of rebuttal of my post in here? How about you tell me how they are all wrong. That might make your answer a little deeper than, "I like peas; I hate cabbage." Actually say something beyond cryptic and superficial three or four word inanities.

 

"If There is No God, is Murder Wrong?"

Murder is wrong, and there is no God, so yes.....

that is why we have laws, there is no god to handle it

 

Nah, it's perfectly possible to construct a society without a Western Civ. notion of God as the basis of all moral law. In fact, it was pretty much required; the various Jewish faiths in general even up to this day - as far as I know - didn't & don't proselytize much. Christianity breaks away from Judaism, starting with the death of Jesus, & it takes Christianity about another century or two to set the Biblical canon (New Testament), nail down the doctrine, break into the Western & Eastern Church, & so on.

So Western Christianity isn't really on the job until 200CE or so.

Of course, it's possible to construct an ethical society without reference to God - it's not guaranteed to succeed (nor is any other), but it's certainly possible.

 

What happens if a person is taught to feel guilt, empathy and the like but then due to a life changing event there mind flushes it all down the toilet.

Can such a person be cured or are they doomed to try and remember what it was like to care. Is a fear of going to a bad after life the only option left?

Well actually most core moral's seem to be naturally programed much like the Bible states with God putting his law into the heart's of man. I say that as it's rare for a parent to need to teach there child to feel guilty about murder or something else of that level.

 

Wouldn’t that mean that all temporal laws, even church laws, are entirely meaningless and we have absolutely zero reason to follow them? All we have to do is keep to “Gods law”, however we determine and interpret what that is?

 

Yes there's a rational basis for ethics. Doesn't have to be prescribed by some deity, only agreed upon by people as the best way forward. Some behaviours are 'universally preferable'.

In fact you can condense ethics into two golden rules: do not initiate force, and honour your contracts

The average person is actually pretty good at adhering to these two rules, regardless of their spiritual persuasions.

 

"""" I guess you are evil and need a bogeyman to scare you into being good""""

YUPPERS! THAT pretty much sums up believers .......... GREAT POST!!!!!!!

 

But not the President....

 

Whether there's a godsy or not, if you kill there are still REAL people who will strongly object to it and take you in hand and apply consequences

 

Except we have actual proof that the water cycle is the cause of rivers. What proof do you have that god is necessary for good to exist?

 

I would recommend this debate between William Lane Craig and Shelly Kagan:

It's a bit on the long side, but I think Kagan's view is refreshingly presented in a comprehensive and respectful way.

 

right and wrong is relative to what is agreed to, between two or more living beings who can come to an agreement and hold themselves to the agreement. hence if it is agreed I stay on this side of a line and you stay on the other, if one crosses that line without the other's expressed permission, the agreement is breached broken and the offender is wrong incorrect according to what is agreed to. so if its incorrect according to the US constitution (which is an agreement of a people) then its considered immoral, if an act is considered correct to the US constitution then it is considered moral, but be sure to understand that it's moral only to the those that agree to live within the territory's ruled by the US of A.

no different then any law set by a group of people, like a nation for example.

in the case of the Ten Commandments, the Lord God of Israel called the Ten Commandments a covenant (meaning agreement) between Him and the Children of Israel (Jacob). even in the case of A&E in the garden, the commandment given was a covenant, between the Lord God and Adam.

so if man is to have a peaceful relationship with his Maker, then a agreement fulfilled to God's satisfaction is required. therefore no matter what, man has to have agreements to coexist with not only each other, but God also.
man can't be with each other without an agreement and therefore must come to the reality that what is called moral, right and wrong good and evil, is required for man's existence, otherwise he's just another animal in the jungle.

 

Come Christians. We march to ___________________________ to destroy the infidels in the name of our God Jesus Christ.

 

Yes, it's always great to hear from thoughtful, erudite theists who have something of substance to offer. I was impressed by the Alister McGrath & Richard Dawkins debate also and would recommend it to anyone. That one does not go after just the moral questions, of course.

 

Different jungle animals have different ways of getting along with others. Our fellow primates are likewise social animals with moral sensibilities and rules, even if they're more or less unspoken rules.

It's disingenuous to call the Ten Commandments an agreement between humans and a god when the god in question doesn't exist and is only spoken about by other humans..

 

I'm not sure if I'm missing parts of this argument somehow, but law equals morality seems to me a troublesome position. Were the nazi "involuntary euthanasia" moral just because it was legal? What if you don't agree with the constitution, are you considered to be in agreement until you leave? What if a convicted murderer withdraws the agreement which gives the state the power to keep him in prison?

 

Morality is not an easy issue, even if many people would like to pretend that it is. Those who say it comes from (their) God fail to appreciate that men put words and ideas in God's mouth in the first place, and that God's alleged moral dictates change from time to time and place to place, and of course from one religious tradition or culture to another.

As social animals, we generally have a sense of morality and ethics that usually lines up pretty consistently, at least in broad terms. Not all people are equal in this regard, though, as some are narcissists and sociopaths, and/or changed by life circumstances that can lead them to some very different views and actions. When we condemn their amoral acts, we do so on the basis of law, not on the basis of moral absolutes. We do not base our laws on moral absolutes, either.