No ABSOLUTES?

Question

Isn't believing in no moral absolutes far less rational than believing in the doctrine of Christ ,(love your neighbor as yourself) the moral standard of the Bible. No absolutes is saying that there is nothing defined as definitly right or wrong and that only what you or society regard as right or wrong is, but nothing is absolute. If there are no absolutes, if one person or society believes it's ok to rape and murder it would be acceptable to them . there has to be a supreme being that has a supreme set of rules and restrictions in place, if not we would annihilate and abuse ourselves., because no one would believe that wrong is wrong. Their would be no need for accountability or law.
Do you honestly believe there is not a standard that all people should live by, and that Man should do what is right in his own eyes


Why do most people who don’t believe in God call this rational thinking and Christianity irrational or mindless

Proverbs 12:
15. The way of a fool is RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise

Hope this makes sense

Answer 1

I feel it is a good question. I would like to answer well but it is too much deep as a question to really answer it well.
I believe there is no standard that all people should live by or in another way, I believe that there are as much truths as there are people on the world, for me the notions of right and wrong are often subjective and interchangeable (right can be wrong and vice versa). Knowing that I am wrong, I do not resist to consider as "normal" the majority (if the majority think like this, do like that, and so on : it should be "normal", "right").
I believe in "love your neigbor as yourself" but I have to admit that I never met anyone that live really this sentence in his every day life. Just imagine that everybody loves the others as himself : first it would mean that everybody respects himself and is in peace with himself (that would be already great), but then we would live only for the others, in an "absolute" devotion to the others. That is obviously not the case, very few persons succeed it. This is an ideal to which we can trend but not reach (I don't know why, perhaps because of the instinct inside : "struggle for life"?).
On the other way, as you said "if there are no absolute it ok to rape or murder" but here again : as we are not able to give an absolute love, we are not able to give an absolute hatred. We also have limits in this opposite case (very few have no limits).
However, men does not seem to be made to reach absolutes ; We are like "bridled", probably better like that. The only problem, as far as I am concerned, is that I feel much limited (my though breaks down) when I think about "absolute subjects" (ie : try to think about what contains infinity, what is it and what it reveals)...

Answer 2

Even scriptural standards have to be interpreted by the reader, which means you are still left with man doing right in his own eyes. For instance, all the Bible quote you gave necessarily means is "ask your friends before making up your mind". You still have to decide whose advice you value and how to take that advice.

Your question is more about absolute moral standards, and that's a little more tricky. It can't be done with rules, because no set of rules can substantiate themselves, and there are always exceptions. This was actually proven in the early 1940's by the logician Kurt Godel. It may be that morality (and even religion) have an empirical basis, but certain techniques and/or levels of personal develoment are necessary to have the requisite experiences. That's what many religions claim, and the rules they offer can be sen not as absolutes but established behavioral guidlines for such personal development. Some so called moral standards may be guideposts to see how much develoment one has accomplished (perhaps why the 10 Commandments are in future tense).

Answer 3

You're buying a strawman argument. Here are the facts: read 'em and learn, and never spout this ignorant nonsense again.

1 - There is no god. You may believe on the basis of faith, and if you understand that means that your belief is for you, and there is nothing remotely foolish about the rest of us not believing, then I'm perfectly okay with your faith-based belief. I don't see much of that among the vocal Christians out there, who seem to have no faith at all, but there it is.

2 - Morality does not depend on the existence of a god. In fact, a morality that IS grounded in the authority of a supreme being is a pretty shallow morality. My morals have a MUCH deeper foundation than that.

3 - The fact that a person does not believe in god does not imply that person does not believe in absolutes. I firmly believe that there are true statements and false statements (not "true for me" and "true for you", but just plain true). I firmly believe also that there are moral absolutes, though I would not be so arrogant as to claim to know them or to be able to put them into words. We'd just damned well better start thinking about them before we all kill each other, and right now religious belief is getting in the way of that.

4 - The reason that some people are atheists is not that they haven't thought about god - it's because they HAVE. You just recited for the umpteenth time the same poorly-thought through argument that we've heard for years. Atheists are WAY ahead of you on this. You're not telling us something we don't know, you're telling us something we know to be false. This post is like getting excited about Santa Claus, and assuming that nonbelievers simply haven't heard the whole Santa story yet. Yeah, we've heard this one already, kid.

5 - As someone else pointed out, you're assuming that anyone who doesn't believe what you believe must not believe anything at all. That's the ultimate in arrogance, and frankly, that arrogance is your main problem. You can't reason your way out of the hole you're in - you have to first admit that you don't know nearly as much as you think you do about it. I doubt that I've ever met an atheist who knew as little about this as you do, so if your goal is to challenge atheists, you'd better do a LOT of honest reading before you open your mouth again.

Daniel (below me): Your argument would be fine IF your assumptions were right. They're not. Atheism is not the product of a desire to answer only to one's self. It's the product of the fact that there is no evidence for god. Secondly, atheism does not imply disbelief in absolutes.
I think that your comments could be easily turned into good ones, if you simply dropped the false assumption about why people are atheists, and then aimed the "of course there are absolutes" point (about which you're 100% correct) at people who believe that "everything is relative", not at atheists.

Answer 4

You have made the standard Christian mistake of being holier than thou!! You should be ashamed of yourself.

Almost all other religions have far more moral and sensible codes than Christianity. Most primitive societies revere children and women. Rape, child abuse, theft and murder were unheard of. Whilst head hunting and other forms of violence did occur the tribes gradually moved away from this. All the violence and what you call sin was learnt from the Christians that invaded their countries!!

The law in virtually every country tends to be the same whatever religion prevails. You make the mistake of thinking Christianity invented them. Most were around hundreds if not thousands of years before Christianity!!!!

I have found that most atheists are far more moral, fair, honest and tolerant than Christians. They certainly all seem to want everyone to be free to believe and worship what they want in freedom. Sadly Christians find that abhorrent and refuse to leave others to live in the same freedoms.

Until Christians learn religious tolerance and humility wars and injustice will continue.

Answer 5

I think you've hit on the heart of the problem, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. You see, it's not about an ethical argument of right or wrong. It's more personal than that. If someone admits that there IS a God, a Supreme Being who created everything, then the next logical step is that we are under His authority. People who deny the existence of God don't want to have to answer to anyone. They want to do whatever suits them at the moment. Within that framework, you can justify anything. Of course that doesn't change the fact that God does exist and that everyone will answer for their actions. No absolutes? Try walking off the Empire State Building. You can believe all you want that there's no absolutes and you don't HAVE to hit the pavement if you don't want to, but I'm still gonna wait for the splat.

Answer 6

If you need a holy book to know right from wrong, and a big invisible guy in the sky to keep you doing right, well, then go right on believing, with my humanistic blessing.

"Behold, humanity, this fool child of yours, keep his eyes blinded and his ears deaf to the truth that there is no god, lest he forget right from wrong and do as he pleases. For witness, he is a fool, that believes in superstitions to give him what he seems to lack -- a knowledge of Good and Evil, so revile him not, grant him his delusions, and when he dies, the world will be a better place. Remember this and do as your heart requires. RAMEN!"

Answer 7

Get serious and stop your convoluted half assed pseudo logic. If you think you need a skydaddy to tell you right from wrong you are a very shallow ignorant person and no real logic will change your mind. If your skydaddy tells you to commit genocide like he already has in the Bible, then it's OK, right? If he tells you slavery is OK, then it's OK, right?

DuckPhup summed it up best.

Answer 8

Whenever I see a question like this, I am appalled to be reminded that there are people out there who are so out of touch with their basic humanity, and reality, that they would not have any idea how to conduct themselves in society, absent the code of an imaginary supernatural being, based on the myths, superstitions, fairy tales and fantastical delusions of an ignorant bunch of Bronze Age fishermen and wandering goat herders.

Cooperation and altruism are innate properties of human existence... a more sophisticated version of the social organization that you can see among pods of dolphins or orcas, packs of wolves, lion prides and troops of chimpanzees. Moral consensus, moral conscience and mutual empathy are evolved survival traits. These are evolved social constructs... the social lubrication that allows people to exist together. People come away with the misconception that they don't exist, absent religion. The religious puppet masters try to perpetuate that idea, in order to protect their conduits to wealth and power... but that is a canard. This has to do, entirely, with human nature.

***********************
"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." ~ Steven Weinberg
***********************

Answer 9

I think as we draw closer towards the end there is going to be many things said and done to confuse people about God. That's why everyone should read the Bible in total for themselves.

But to answer your question, there are absolute truths and to put a spin on something that is absolutely wrong in an attempt to make it right or justify it is wrong in itself.

.

Answer 10

rational thinking and rape have nothing to do with each other. rapists are wrong because they are hurting other people. when other people are hurt by your actions, and you know it and you still consciously hurt them, you are wrong.

however, whether or not you believe in god hurts no-one but you (if god exists). so it's non of your business to convince me to beileve in god. i don't believe and it's my decision and it's not affecting anyone but me in any way. so stop preaching.