Do you agree with this or no?

I'm interpreting Dostoyevsky quote as saying that if there is no unifying higher power or structure to the universe, then there is no moral foundation. So you can't say murder, for example, is wrong in an absolute sense.

To me it would be incredibly hard to be atheist (and there was a time I was an atheist) because to be an atheist means to take the world exactly as it appears, which is total chaos, molecules in constant motion. The world around us is constantly changing and in flux, so without a god there is no unifying structure, no higher purpose. Furthermore any crimes that happen against humanity can't really be considered wrong in an absolute sense.

Most atheists would respond by saying "well I don't need a god to tell me not to kill people." Maybe not. But you do need a god to show that murder is wrong.

Without a god, then murder is only wrong insofar as society says it is wrong. So society might deem some people more deserving of murder then others. Certain criminals for instance in our society receive the death penalty, as well as unborn children, and soldiers in war.

Or if you're the ubermensch and don't care about society, then murder is just a method of getting what you want, and it's only bad if happens to you. In that case You and not God are the moral center of the universe.

Any way you slice it, a world without god would be a horrifying, chaotic place to live. Anyone disagree, and how do you atheists cope? Do you just try not to think about it?

An atheist could (for thought experiment purposes) believe that the tree in his backyard is the source of universal morals, so no.

If you are referring to existential nihilists who happen to be atheists, they're merely saying that there is no intrinsic meaning to life. This doesn't equate to everything being equally just, quite the opposite - it would mean terms like "equally just" are meaningless. But while most existential nihilists may be atheists (though not all), most atheists are not existential nihilists.

Also, you could of course be a theist and not necessarily believe that "god" is the source of (all) morals or even necessarily a power on a universal level.

On issues like these, it is wise to to be more specific.

The Ubermensch concept doesn't mean what you think it means.

Yes this is clearly correct given that the first horn of the Euthyphro Dilemma is available to theists.

There's a lot wrong with the OP that I'm not sure I want to get into right now but there's nothing compelling about the argument the world must be horrendous without God.

Do you think the world is a horrifying, chaotic place to live? If not, why must I?

I think the OP is a little better than you are giving credit and your thought experiment is miscast. The OP is not talking about belief, but actuality. Even if he believes there is a God there is no absolute morality if he is in error. He simply believes that there is morality incorrectly.

In your tree experiment, if the tree is simply a tree then the OP's point still holds as above. If the tree is actually the arbiter and definer of absolute morality than the tree is God and therefore there is a God.

I agree that most atheists are not existential nihilists. I have always felt that there is a pretty profound cognitive disconnect for those who are not however. But they seem to be unaware of the issue so who am I to rock their boat.

Had a similar conversation with some guys at work who were Christians. They couldn't get their heads around the fact I was an atheist, but still knew murder etc was wrong.

A 2000 yr old fictional book has as much effect on how I live my life as a Harry Potter one.

If God is your guide for right and wrong, I'd be worried. He has murdered more people than anyone else after all.

Who has God murdered?

I do not agree with it.

If you abide by a god who decides what is moral, then you are simply following a dictator and not using your own moral compass. The overriding point to these discussions always comes down to this:

Whether or not you believe in god, you are using your own morality to decide what's moral. And if you can use your own morality, then you do not need a god to tell you what is and isn't "permitted". If you do not use your own morality to decide between right and wrong, but blindly follow what some god or book tells you to do, then you are no different than a trained dog who poops outside, but does not know why.

Erm no, that tree would not be god. Gods are not in reasonable discussions understood as "arbiters of absolute morality". You might believe that your God is, but that is another issue entirely.

Also, such a definition (or premise if you will) makes your entire point a tautology.

A fine understanding of morality that escapes thinly veiled claims that atheists must implicitly be nihilists is simply to see morality as a symbolic representation of actions and permissibility.

Under such a view a claim that morality could be anything is analogous to a claim that language could be anything. Which (paradox aside) is fairly bogus as it doesn't take much to understand that language follows certain similarities in human experience. In a similar vein you could argue that morality follows certain similarities in human experience.

Your compass analogy is apt but misinterpreted. In the absence of God, your moral compass is being used without the benefit of an external magnetic field. It will point whatever direction you want it to, which was exactly the OP's point. You can follow your "own morality" which is totally arbitrary.

All you're saying here is that if the world is disordered and chaotic, you'd want for there to be a god in order so you can make sense of things. Please understand that this has nothing to do with whether there actually is a god. Just because you want or prefer something to be true, doesn't mean it is.


This may be entirely true from what I can tell. So what?

But murder is not ALWAYS wrong. You really can't think of any situations where killing someone would be more moral than not?

Humans are social being who DO (or should) care about society, because we all have to live in it. A lawless society, or senseless murdering of others, is bad for everyone.

That's one way to look at it. For me (when I figured out there was no god), it had the opposite effect. The world actually started making MORE sense to me. The fact is, the word IS horrifying and chaotic sometimes! Why do children starve? Why can nature be so cruel? It makes much more sense (to me) that it is so, precisely because there is no invisible father figure watching over us.

If the tree is the arbiter of absolute morality, it is a lot more than a tree. The definition of "tree" is easily checked and I would with some confidence expect to not see any mention of absolute morality in that definition.

You have endowed the tree with a power which is commonly associated with God, so I think your point is incorrect.


I am not sure I follow this.

Let me ask you this: Even if you think god sets the external magnetic field, how do you decide if his compass is set to the true magnetic north?

My point is, at some point you have to use your OWN judgment to decide what is moral. If not, then you are simply saying that anything god deems good, must be good. Or are you saying that if god tells you to commit a heinous act that you consider immoral, you'd do it anyway? If so, then what do you even need morality for? You'd be no different than a robot.

You can't have it both ways. Either you decide what's moral, or you simply commit to whatever your god says is moral, in which case, you by definition are not a moral person yourself.

Just one quick point because you are kind of mixing the point between the two sentences. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being. Killing someone is not always murder. Regarding murder, there may be some exceptions but it is pretty universally condemned.

Gotcha. I assumed OP was referring to any killing of human beings. I think my point stands though.

And btw- It's worth pointing out that our laws are not set by god. I think that speaks more to my point.

Within the framework of the OP, this is a little off the point. The point was that without God, there is no magnetic field. There is no north or up or moral direction. It is all the same. Nothing you are saying is inconsistent with the point of the OP.

If there is a God, essentially an extremely powerful knowledgeable creator of our universe, then what basis do you have for deciding that his north is not true north? What frame of reference is there that supersedes the ultimate Creator?

Concerning your final question, if "God" told me to do something that I felt was heinous, I would not do it. The simplest reason is that I could not be sure that it was actually God. I could be mentally unstable and hearing voices for example. Assuming I was still cognizant enough to realize that the act was heinous, I would hopefully also be cognizant enough to realize that I was experiencing something of a questionable nature. Of course, if I was too far gone to reason accurately then I could do anything, but that is not relevant to this discussion.

Finally, you could try to stipulate that I somehow "knew" it was God. But that stipulation cannot be admitted because I can not rationally differentiate between "knowing" and "perfectly deceived". Therefore no matter what I "knew" I would always rationally have to contend with the concept that I was "perfectly deceived" and would act appropriate to the moral framework I have created through my reading and prayer.

This is what I don't get... many fairly rational people would put seeing/hearing 'god' down to some sort of mental break.. but take the supposed word of unknowns with unknown motives to be (literally) gospel..over what they themselves can see and hear!?!?

For the purpose of this I was referring to the Christian god. So amongst others I guess you could say every living human apart from 2 , during the great flood..

Also, I often wondered.. I assume incest is ok in the eyes of God?? Being as there was only one family left (afaik) after the flood??

Now don't start bringing logic into this!...

Meh...If there is a God he does a piss poor job of informing what morals i/we need to obey. Its nothing but dead silence on the issue. Afaik murder and all the bad stuff is a ok with him. Think ill just keep making it up as i go. Since if he exist he leaves no other choice.

My point is that with or without god, there is no way to ascertain such a field unless it is through your own sense of rationality.

This is the point! My basis is the same as your basis. We use our OWN rationality and sense of morality! If not, then we are back to being the dog that poops outside and doesn't know why. We are essentially nothing more than robots and our own sense of morality doesn't matter one bit. But...

You would not do it, because you'd be using your OWN sense of morality! You'd be so sure it isn't right that you would first think you were hallucinating, before thinking it was the morally correct thing to do. So where does that come from? It can't be god!

Exactly. You cannot know whether your god is moral without using your own sense of morality to make that judgment. So you are getting into circular reasoning: We cannot know what is moral without god. How do you know your god is moral? Because my morality tells me so.

YOU decide what's moral. Not god.

I agree with everything except the last part... It is not the moral framework from reading and prayer. It is the moral framework that is both innate through evolution and what you have developed from living in a civilized society. I find it sad that you think your morality comes from a book and through prayer. You're giving yourself too little credit. As someone (I'm not sure who) once said: You are more moral than your god, and just don't know it.