It's a FACT you need God to have morals. Otherwise, killing someone is no different from giving them a plate of food.
84 comments
Well, you see, we have this thing called empathy. See, if we killed someone, it would not only affect that person, but it would also hurt many other people who care about that person. We can see the consequences of the action and how much devastation it would cause.
We can also see the consequences of giving someone food: they would have a full belly.
If you can't come to the same two conclusions and deduce why one is preferable to the other, then you are the one who has a problem with morality.
We don't need the invisible man's dictation for us to understand why the first action is wrong.
"you need God to have morals"
Yet strangely whenever anyone looks into what morals religious people ascribe to their god, they always seem to be exactly the moral positions they themselves take. Even when different people have conflicting views, they both say God's view is the same as theirs [*]. Even when they change their views, God changes his views too so that they and he are still perfectly aligned [**].
You don't get your morals from God, SM, you endow God with your morals. A true moral compass, like its magnetic counterpart, would always point in the same direction. Your compass only ever points in the direction you are already facing.
[* When a group asked people to pray for God's guidence on same-sex marriages, 49 people claimed God had revealed his wisdom to them, 26 said he was okay with it, 23 said he was not. No-one received a "revelation from God" that was at odds with their opinion on SSMs prior to praying.]
[** A University of Chicago test got people to guess what the opinions God and various real-life figures would have on various loaded topics. After completing tasks designed to subtly alter the person's views on those topics, the researchers found that the subjects estimation of God's views had also changed but that of the RL people's had not.]
The study of ethics was around hundreds of years before Christianity came into existence. Back then, it was considered a matter of philosophy, not religion. Your "FACT" is blatantly erroneous, but somehow I don't think that will make much of a difference on your opinion.
"It's a FACT you need God to have morals. Otherwise, killing someone is no different from giving them a plate of food."
Here's some food for thought:
I (and all Atheists like myself) go by the simple philosophy of 'Treat others as you'd like them to treat you', and 'I wouldn't like to be killed, harmed and/or have my property stolen/damaged, so why should I want to do the same to others?'. Commit acts of gratuitous kindness. Be good for goodness' sake.
No invisible sky daddy required.
Now chew on that , Self-Mutation.
Yeah, because you need to a god to decide that "hey, I wouldn't want this to happen to me, so maybe this other person wouldn't want it to happen to them. So maybe I shouldn't do it to them."
I always imagine the fundies that say things like this to look at us atheists, see that we are quite normal people, and try to imagine why we AREN'T killing, raping and stealing our way through life. Then their heads explode and they post this 'you just CAN'T be moral without God!' stuff.
Otherwise, killing someone is no different from giving them a plate of food.
What do you mean "otherwise"? Are you suggesting people who believe in God never kill anyone? Not only do they kill people, they are statistically more likely to kill someone than non-believers. And sometimes, they kill people because they believe in God and think they're doing His will. Were Eric Rudolph and the 9/11 bombers atheists? I don't think so!
Without God (or gods), this may be the only chance anyone gets at life, so what right do we have to take it away from them prematurely? If there is no afterlife, then everyone has the right to live to a ripe old age and die without pain or fear. To murder someone would violate those rights.
Voila! Ethics without gods!
"... killing someone is no different from giving them a plate of food."
Thank you, Lucretia Borgia.
Hmm, Death By Chocolate, anyone?
Where as if you are a Christian, you can go on a killing and raping spree, repent, ask Jesus Christ for forgiveness and it was like nothing happened. How can you be moral when you have a blank cheque of forgiveness?
"Otherwise, killing someone is no different from giving them a plate of food."
Look, I'm sure that plenty of people, Godless, God-fearing, or God-indifferent know there is a huge ass difference between feeding someone and killing them. Except for poisoned food: Two birds, one stone!
@LC
"Cake or death?"
The cake is a lie.
;)
"You need God to have morals."
I Wonder where my daughter got hers from. She gave all of the money from her piggy-bank to the people in Haiti because she thought it was the right thing to do. She is kind to her schoolmates and always finds something nice to say about them. She lives the concept of treat others as you want to be treated. She is 6 and has been raised with no religion.
How sad that she is more moral than most adults who profess to be religious.
Really? Does giving someone a plate of food harm them in some way? Would they WISH you to give them a plate of food?
Now, does killing someone harm them in some way? Would they WISH you to kill them?
NB this comment assumes that the person receiving the plate of food is hungry and in need of assistance and the person being killed would rather be alive (i.e. it's murder not euthanasia).
Is an action good because of divine fiat? Or is the action so commanded because it is inherently good?
If morals are due to supernatural authority, then being moral is arbitrary and akin to following orders.
If morals exist naturally and are only commanded to be moral because of its inherent goodness, then the supernatural is unnecessary to being moral, and per Occam's Razor, can be eliminated.
Euthyphro Dilemma bitch.
Two questions:
Why are less religious nations (like Norway, Sweden, France, Germany) also nations that have less violent crime?
Why are the more "liberal, secular" parts of America those with less divorce and murder?
Actually, like everything else, morality has evolved. It is innate and morality is remarkably similar across the whole spectrum of humanity, regardless of your religion or your level of civilization.
I don't know why I am bothering to explain this to such an obvious douchebag though.
People, think about this for a second.
This person believes that without God, you see actions only as actions and without any moral value, and thus there's nothing wrong with killing.
It is ingrained in his psyche. It is part of him. So with that in mind, imagine what he'd be like if he became an atheist, believing there to be NO GOD.
Not very nice, is it?
Religion can affect people adversely in this way. VERY adversely.
Except that when you give someone food, that person will be nice to you in future, because you were nice to them.
If you kill someone, his friends and relatives will likely try to kill YOU.
Um, no. In one of those examples you're feeding someone, and in the other one you're, like, killing them?
I suppose it depends on what morals you want to have. For instance, if you want the morals of a typical bigot or of an unjust tyrrant, then believe in God, preferrably a fundamentalist one.
Otherwise, if you just want to enjoy your one chance of life by being just and treating others as you would like them to treat you, then be an atheist and don't ever worry about fantastic demons and gods and other horrible monsters. Instead, you can concentrate on all the important things that fundamentalist religion tries to distract you from concentrating on. Things like compassion, happiness, the well-being of yourself and others, education and peace.
If you believe that, then it is YOU who need to be scared of a God to be doing the right thing.
Among many legal theories for consent to law, which is not exactly morality but close enough for my arguement, is common good theory. I have things to do, so for simple, people consider themselves as a part of society and view everyone else as a member of society. If they harm or help another person, they are harming or helping themselves as they are a member of society. I.E. I killed this person because he made me angry, his father was a doctor who became depressed and quit his job. The doctor was the only one who could have diagnosed my brother's lung cancer, so he dies. I need a new kidney, my brother would have been a match, but he's dead. It's a little abstract of an example, but you get the idea. If we all act in favour of the common good, we all benefit.
Except that, in one case you are killing somebody and in the other case you are giving them a plate of food. Looks pretty different to me.
If you can't see the inherent difference between those two actions you are crazy, and probably a psychopath.
I have no wish to harm other people. I don't like to watch people suffer. I have compassion for others.
And even if I didn't, going around killing people is just plain dumb because sooner or later somebody is going to act to stop you, and you're going to end up dead or in jail. It's in everybody's long-term self-interest for them to play nice with others.
No, the only thing even close to a "fact" here is that you are too weak to handle the task of creating values for yourself. Don't feel bad though, most people are incapable of handling the death of God and few who are will ever face down the challenge.
#1137751
Then why don't animals kill other animals randomly for sport? Why are humans the only animals that kill for anything other than food or self-defense? Non-humans lack the cognitive capacity to believe in gods, yet often exhibit altruistic behaviors within their own communities (to an extent).
ME: Not to be nitpicky or anything (i love your posts you are very intelligent) but just to clarify... humans kill for more than just those two reasons. some murder because they just LOVE to murder. Some murder out of accident although then I guess its not really murder but its still taking the life of another living thing.
Also... did you know there are a species of apes (or monkeys) cant quite recall... that throw rocks up in the trees aiming at birds to kill them purely for the "sport" and joy of doing it and they just leave the corpses there. they dont eat the birds or anything. its closely related to our behavior of "hunting" or when we kill because we get a rush from it... weird huh?
"It's a FACT you need God to have morals. Otherwise, killing someone is no different from giving them a plate of food."
Uhh, there's always a big difference, idiot. For instance, you typically don't go to prison for the rest of your life for giving someone a plate of food.
Ok you can give me scrumptious steak dinner.
And afterwards I can stab you with a knife.
Then we'll compare notes to see how not different they are.
You proved that you could lie and that you had no god (because if you had god, you would not lie), but that the claim about a god could justify another lie (evidence that "having a god" may mean unethical).
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
