Actually, it isn't. Maybe the title is slightly misleading with the word "secular" in it. The thread is asking specifically about Christianity being false. In fact, one of the examples from the OP is "Would you still believe in a different god?"

It is very coincidental if you get to shape these "apparent" absolute truths the way you subjectively want them to be and then claim they're objectively right because you have God behind you. That's a lot to swallow in one sentence, so I'll give an example.

Suppose I said to you, "The Bible is a great collection, and contains many things that match up with my own beliefs. I find the NT parables about that Jesus guy especially inspiring."

Would I be justified in feeling that way? If yes, why? If no, why not?

Statements like these are what really get me when it comes to religion. The argument from morality is just about the worst apologetic there is. It is worse than Pascal's Wager.

First, whether or not you like it, objective morality can exist without a dictator arbitrarily assigning rules and calling them 'morality.' Utilitarianism, for instance, is a means of attaining an objective morality. You may not like the idea of adhering to objective morality derived from utilitarianism, but we are not talking about whether or not you like it; we are talking about whether or not it can exist. So the argument that 'good' and 'bad' can only exist via arbitrarily dictated rules is crap.

Second, to illustrate that the claim 'an objective morality cannot exist without a god' is fallacious is extremely easy. For instance, we could derive an objective morality by simply flipping a coin to decide morality. Is murder morally okay? Let us flip the coin. Heads? Okay, murder is morally unacceptable. Now we have a standard. And it is objective.

Third, adhering to dictated rules is not morality. It is an appeal to authority. Morality is necessarily what you consider to be right or wrong. If something does not agree with your moral code, then it is not moral to you. It is as simple as that.

There are plenty of theists on here who agree that they would still consider murder wrong if they found out there were no god. There are also some who would claim the opposite. Most, if not all, who would claim the opposite are lying. To those who are not lying, I hope you have your ass in church every day and twice on Sunday (though the more appropriate place would be a mental ward). The moral argument is essentially to claim that if rules are not arbitrarily dictated then we cannot, by any means, identify which actions are more beneficial or harmful to us, or that all actions are equal. But murder is not 'bad' or 'wrong' because of some arbitrary rule, it is wrong because it hurts people. And you know that.

I've already said that I would not change my beliefs. I would just no longer consider them rational. But no one wants to actually read what I am writing.

I can't say this with authority but it's my own opinion: God loves faithfulness and hates divorce. Perhaps in situations like this, if the couple have genuinely committed to each other, which seems obvious after 40 years, God would consider them to be married. If they have bad motives for not formalizing their relationship then that may be a strike against them, but they may not be "living in sin". Also, some jurisdictions recognize common law marriage, so they might even be "legal".

No, Jerok never attributed what he doesn't do, or what he would do if, to "getting caught". It has nothing to do with getting caught.



This is what I am saying.

What is "decency"? Again, you seem to have this emotional bias that you cannot seem to get passed ITT. It has nothing to do with "coming up with" this rule or that. No one said anything like that. Why would one care about "Doing unto others..." if it was not advantageous?

Again, you seem to be avoiding answering any of the questions that I am asking and just turning to this emotional issue you have. You also seem to be completely ignoring everything that I have said ITT thread as to how I would act if I found out that God does not exist tomorrow.

If you are just going to stick with ad hominem emotional responses then I don't see how we can have a real conversation. It's like talking to a 13 years old girl.

That's utility or maybe preference, not morality. You don't seem to understand the difference.

So many things wrong with this.

First Christians believe being made in God's image gives us a basic sense of morality. Not a perfect sense because that image was corrupted in the Fall. So everyone has it and everyone can be impacted by environment, family values, education, etc.

Then you overlook the overwhelming positive transference that has occurred by the adoption of Judeo-Christian values that occurred when the Septaguint was given to the ancient Greeks then updated by Paul with the Gospel message.

On top of everything human experience and emotion ascertains that certain morals are important. Having someone steal something from you does bother you or having someone screw around with your significant other is bothersome as well. Generally lying is also not a good foundation to build society on because if everyone had permission to lie all the time then you couldn't trust anything or establish relationships/organizations. People need to establish relationships and organizations to progress and do many significant activities that advance mankind. A steady foundation is required and doubting impedes the laying of the foundations of progress.

And last but not least God in the person of Jesus anchors the foundation. If the foundation is firm (authoritative) then you can proceed with confidence. If not you will never get anywheres.

I don't know how you can say that I'm the one with an emotional bias. You're the one who can't seem to see things objectively, because you have god on the brain. That you can't fathom what decency might mean without a god to pin it on says everything about why we can't get anywhere on this subject.

A "Do unto others" philosophy IS advantageous and I don't apologize for it. If you treat others people poorly, you will be treated poorly (on average) in return. There's no denying this and I'm not sure why you can't understand that what you call morality has evolved from this simple fact. We are not the only animal to display altruism. Tell me, do you think god handed down morality to these other animals as well?

You are correct that I don't think there is any such thing as an ultimate morality. One definitive way to assess what is right and wrong or good and bad. And if you weren't so emotionally biased I think you'd agree. Surely, you'd admit that there are numerous situations where it is very unclear which is the best moral position to take. Why would that be if some ultimate morality exists and truly was handed down by god?

To think that without a god it would be perfectly okay to pillage, rape, and plunder, is more the 13 year old mentality. As in: When mommy and daddy aren't around I can behave however I want. Why not? In fact, it's much worse than a 13 year old mentality. More like a 5 year old maybe.

One error here seems to be the assumption that there exists a "most moral" choice. That is, one right choice and a whole bunch of wrong choices. Morality is structured more as a system of guidelines to follow, not a step-by-step plan of action to produce the "best results" (whatever that might be).

So besides you calling it a "13 year old mentality", why wouldn't it be okay? I don't think you've actually addressed the issue.

What does this mean? If you heard a sad story, you'd still be sad, but wouldn't know why?

You see, the problem is that you are thinking only in selfish terms. It's all about you. If there were no god, then why shouldn't you do whatever you want regardless if it hurts others? But try and take the focus off of just you for a second...

Are you saying that if you saw a homeless mother and child on the street: Without a god, you wouldn't care. But with a god, you'd all of a sudden find compassion?

You are saying that without a god, not only would it be logical to do whatever you wanted regardless of whether it hurt others, but you would have no compassion for others. Not only would it be okay for you to rape someone if you wanted to, but if you saw someone else being raped, it wouldn't bother you a bit. Only with a god would you think; "Hmm.. Maybe I should do something to try and stop that?".

If you honestly can't understand what I'm getting at here, it's a hopeless conversation. All I can say is that I'm glad people like you have something to believe in so they can fit into society.

I, for one, don't claim that without God there is no "right" and "wrong." Quite the contrary: without God there are potentially as many ideas of right and wrong as there are people. It's all a matter of opinion then. As much tediously moralizing rhetoric as you pile up from your favorite set of premises, someone else will simply disagree with those premises when it suits their current preferences. A free market in morality, as it were.

It does seem like a hopeless conversation as you seem to be incapable of differentiating between emotions and morality. Your whole post is dealing with an emotional reaction to a situation or an act. Not whether or not the situation or the act is "moral".

Me feeling compassion or empathy for someone has nothing to do with morals.

As far as "fitting into society" or society being better when we "do unto others" is a matter of utility, not morality. If society worked better if everyone did what they wanted and held no regard for others, would things like murder and rape become moral?

I can agree with this and I think it speaks to what I'm getting at. Because morality is subjective, the best we can do is to construct a system of guidelines to follow. If morality were objective and derived from a god, this shouldn't be the case. There truly would be only one right choice and that would be god's choice.


I have addressed it. The simple answer is that if you are okay living in a society rife with rape, pillaging, and plundering, then there is is nothing inherently wrong with it. Knock yourself out. But for those of us who do not wish to live in such societies, we deem those actions as wrong and punishable.

The difference between someone like myself and Jib (or Jerok), is I do not try and have it both ways. There is nothing objectively morally wrong with you killing someone for your own gain if you can get away with it, AND... You do not possess the compassion to care about other aspects of your deed such as the taking away of someone's life, father, friend, and loved one, etc.

This is what's called being honest and consistent. At least, I'm trying to be consistent and if you were to point out flaws, I would reevaluate my position. As I explained to Jib, I think you guys are all being too self centered and unable to think about this objectively. That you don't even factor compassion into the equation is telling. You WOULD care if you saw a little girl being abused! Presumably, you think the only reason you'd care is because of some invisible god. If you figured out there was no god, then this wouldn't bother you in the least? That's disgusting.

What impetus is there to be non-selfish?

Without a god, why *should* I care? Because *you* think I should care?

Why *should* I have compassion?

I don't speak for Jib, but I know what you're getting at. The problem is that in the absence of a God who defines morality, you're left with a relativistic system. Moral relativism is bankrupt. No matter what you assert to be right or wrong, there's no underlying principle that you can force me to stand on to agree with you. There's nothing objective at all about this type of morality.

Why not?

Consider any sport. There are all sorts of objective rules that define what is good and bad. But within those rules, there's considerable freedom for how the players can act.

That's fine. If there is no God, then might can make right. And if there are people who believe that such things are acceptable, and they kill everyone else, then that's also acceptable.

It's not about having it both ways. It's a question of how you are defining "morality." I've addressed this in my other post, but I'll add another thought here. Some people think it's immoral to kill an animal. Can you convince this person that this system of morality is wrong? Can that person convince you that this system of morality is right? This is the bankruptcy of moral relativism. There is no impetus for anyone to do anything other than what they want to do. If you want people to behave in a certain way, then it's right for you to coerce them into behaving that way (say, by punishing those who don't act that way).

You keep throwing the word "objective" around as if it's meaningful in this context. It really isn't. I don't know how to convince you of this.

I don't really care what you think because in my mind you're asserting a hypothetical that is so far removed from my life and experiences that I really don't know what it means.

I claim that you understand that a little girl being abused is "evil" because God has granted you a conscience that tells you about "good" and "evil." This conscience exists as a warning system for the reality of ultimate accountability (that is, God will hold you into account for your behavior). Then to say that you would *STILL* have a conscience even if God were not to exist is an open-ended question. The only reason anyone *should* be "good" is because you will be held accountable for your actions. If you won't be held into account, why should you bother with good? Why shouldn't you just live to please yourself?

The reason Jib, is because I don't think there is any such thing as objective morality! You continue using objective morality (which I don't accept) to accuse me of not accepting objective morality and being emotional! Can't you see that? You can't use a premise someone doesn't accept to argue for that very premise! It's circular.

I agree. And it has nothing to do with god. Do you agree with that?

I agree again. This is what I've been saying all along. Again, it has nothing to do with a god.

I think if murder and rape work to your advantage, then knock yourself out. Of course, this is provided that you don't feel compassion for your victims. Ugh... There I go being emotional again, right? The thing is, if you could steal food from a starving baby and not feel bad, then go ahead. I couldn't. And fortunately, I don't think most people could.

Do you get it yet? I am saying that there is nothing objectively immoral about stealing food from a starving baby! Okay? I addressed the morality of it. So don't accuse me of being emotional when I then say that most people would feel too much compassion for the baby to commit such a deed.

You see, in this way I can remain consistent. Situation: There are only two babies in this world. An unknown starving baby and my own starving baby. I am able to say that I would steal from the unknown starving baby to save my own starving baby. But how would YOU answer that question? Under what grounds could you justify stealing from an unknown starving baby to save your own? The fact is, you couldn't, because you believe in objective morality. It would be wrong. Yet, I'm willing to bet that you would!

This sentence is very confusing in light of the fact that you have made multiple accusations that we are unable to look at this "objectively."

This is a very interesting hypothetical because it shows how dramatically different your view is regarding "morality." That you think Jib *would* steal from the unknown baby does not make it moral.

It seems that your intent is to be able to justify your behavior, which is something than what is normally viewed as a system of "morality."

Excellent start. I look forward to reading about the errors.

I know many Christians believe this. Let us ignore whether or not you can demonstrate that it is true. Can you demonstrate that this is the only way one could achieve objective morality? If you recall, in my post which you quoted, I made no mention of how our morality came to be what it is. I was simply refuting that god is the only possible source for an objective morality.

And how does this 'positive transference' demonstrate that an objective morality can only come from a god?

Agreed (except for the last sentence, I think). What does any of this have to do with whether or not morality can come from somewhere other than a god?

As for the last sentence, if by 'doubting' you mean 'doubting the existence of a god' then this is not only an unsupported assertion, it is demonstrably false. There are largely atheistic societies which do well. In addition, your assertion is fundamentally wrong. Doubting gives us more options. You are right that we do need a foundation, but it is not theism. It is rationality which has proven to be the path to progress, not superstition.

Again, this appears to be false. It is rationality which has proven to be the best foundation.

If you are going to quote my posts in the future, please address the arguments within them rather than posting something entirely unrelated. Especially if you are going to claim that my posts are wrong. I expect and deserve at least that much.

This is pretty ridiculous. You are using a concept I do not accept (absolute morality) and using it to argue the importance of absolute morality!

There is an important distinction between objective and subjective morality. What is moral to me may not be moral to you. Or what is moral under one circumstance, may not be moral in another circumstance. Again, I do not accept an absolute morality! What is right and wrong changes depending on the bias of individuals and circumstances.

And of course, my intent is to justify behavior! You act as if there's something wrong with that!? I base my actions on what I consider to be best when all things are considered. You base your actions on what? What you think god wants? And if your interpretation is different than someone else, then too bad? Or worse...

If you had to save your own child over another, then what do you do? Save your child and hope god understands? Or do you just knowingly do a "bad" thing and take your licks from god when the time comes?

Sorry. I find people who can't find their way in life or think for themselves without god to be quite pathetic.

LOL. You don't even know what you're talking about!

My claim is true even in the sense of relativistic morality. Your use of the term "morality" is simply so far out of line with the common use of morality that you should really be using a completely different term so that you don't equivocate or cause equivocation.

Morality is normative. Justifying behavior is not normative. You're using words to mean things other than what they mean.

This is what i always wonder when this conversation breaks out.

If there is a God who wants people to live by certain rules then who would he look more favorably upon. The atheist who doesn't know Gods rules but follows them incidentally because of his nature and he think its the right thing to do. Or the person who says without Gods list of objective rules guiding them their nature would lead them to become brutes and thieves.

Not that i dont like your view more but i was under the impression all marriages have to be concentrated by God in front of whiteness otherwise they are considered adultery. This even goes for common law and courthouse secular marriages which are also adultery to some.

There is also the problem of a time-line and when did the unspoken marriage start. The first time they had sex. The tenth time. After they were committed to each other for the long term. After their first kid. Which parts of their relationship would God consider to be immoral?

Even if this be true, it of course does not imply that we cannot then come to a general consensus as to what is the most overall beneficial option.

We would first need to come to a general consensus on what it means to be "beneficial." To whom? To accomplish what? Within what boundaries?

To the population. To accomplish maximum happiness overall. Within the boundaries of possibility. For example.