Is there morality without God?

Question

My co-worker and were arguing about this over lunch.

Acknowledging that one could consider themseleves moral without believing in God, is there any point?

If I don't believe in God do I have certain morals in order to stay within the norms of society. I feel like I couldn't care less what society thinks (yes, I notice the glaring contradiction as I am posing a question to society). If there was no God, I would feel justified in doing what I wanted to, when I wanted to. Especially if there was a disagreement in morals by different societies.

So, are there morals without God? Does it matter what I do outside of the way society treats me for it?

PS - conscience is not the correct answer, one's guilt is subjective.

Answer 1

More so than with. When was the last time you heard of an atheist suicide bomber

Answer 2

Yes, because you don't need a god to be moral. Morals are dictated by the society in which you live, not by any god. Even a pea brain can understand that the world is much nicer without everyone trying to hurt each other constantly. If you need a bible to tell you that, there's a serious problem. People with no conscience are called sociopaths. Thats not a good thing.

Answer 3

i'm an atheist as nicely. Morality without god is obviously a organic prevalence. Altruism and team spirit are innate characteristics in only about each organism on earth (even micro organism). The problematical ingredient approximately many non secular human beings is they assume altruism won't be able to exist without god to impose it. it is basically not actual. Altruism has an evolutionary benefit basically as finished selfishness has an evolutionary benefit. besides the undeniable fact that, the extremes of the two are exploited with the help of the different. In different words, if all of us have been egocentric, a pair persons working mutually altruistically could have an obtrusive benefit for survival. on the different hand, if all of us have been altruistic, some egocentric persons could have an obtrusive benefit for survival vs. the gang. Evolution has chanced on a satisfied center have been organisms behave altruistically for the main area, yet hold some egocentric characteristics.

Answer 4

A good question to be sure my friend. But the answer is a hard one. In my view, there are no morals without God. IF there were no God, then there would be no reason not to sin. IF there were no God, there would be no reason to feel guilt. IF there were no God, I doubt anyone would have a conscience, although guilt is subjective, it is usually a sign of wrong doing in your own mind. You have the point I believe, without God, there would be no grace, which means there would only be evil, which means what we did would have no affect on the other person. But in real life, with a real God, everything we do does affect the other people involved. You can argue with your friend all you want, but the bottom line is, there is no right and wrong if there is no right to begin with. IF God didn't exist, there would be no right, therefore there would be no wrong to commit. Which means of course, that you could go on your marry way doing everything wrong in the face of the public, without it truly being wrong. God is the right, without Right, there is no wrong. So without God, there is no morals. You can't simply be a good person and hope to gain something from it, and you can't simply be a bad person and hope no one notices. Morals don't exist without the Rules, and Rules don't exist if there not Created, and Created, doesn't exist, without the CREATOR.
God Bless you. And MERRY CHRISTMAS

Answer 5

Of course. The source of morality is evolution, which applies to societies as well as to species: a society with sound moral values will survive preferably to one that does not. We can conclude at once that an action is moral if it advances society, immoral if it degrades it, and is morally neutral if its effect on society is negligible. Note that this applies to religions also: a religion with good moral principles (and its theology is irrelevant) will survive; without, it will fail. (The Shakers are gone now.) So we, as individuals, act morally because we recognize that it is in our interest to do so -- in order to live in a good society.
Postscript: I have now read previous responses, and note considerable agreement with my points, which is of course pleasing.

Answer 6

Morality and sin are inventions of man based on the conventions of society.

What is judged moral by people in one time or place is considered immoral by others.

God is perfect Love. Radiating the Love of the Creator towards all others is walking the path back to God. There is only one score that matters to God. How much Love?

Answer 7

Which God? The Christian God? In that case over 4 billion people would be running around raping, murdering, stealing, etc. Do you see that happening? No.

We ALL get our morals from the same place. No, not a god. From Natural Selection. Ever heard of a little thing called Evolution? Yeah... there you go. Let the little light bulb in your head light up.

Answer 8

To exist as social animals, there needs to be certain understandings between individuals. I got my hair cut today. The only reason I could do this comfortably is because I had confidence that the guy cutting my hair was not going to suddenly stab me through the head with his scissors and steal my money. Society would disband without certain rules, and the easiest way to enforce these rules is to engrain them into people's minds so they become second-nature.

Answer 9

Of course!

Considering how widespread morality concepts are, it becomes obvious how little religion affects them. For example, many experiments have been performed involving hypothetical situations and the solutions for said situations. From widespread results, it was found that, in general, everyone agreed on certain subjects, despite how far apart they lived or their religious preference.

As for why, natural selection of memes is seen to be a possible answer. For example, in clan life of the human race, an individual gains strong ties to his/her kin, for the clan life requires dispersed responsibilities. Similarly, clan life involves the interaction between many people- if you see someone, you will most likely see them again, which bred the rule of, "do unto others and you wish they to do unto you." If you were to treat someone in your clan badly, then the repercussion is that the other person will probably treat you badly in return. Also, the feeling of protection of children easily stems from a parent's need to keep their genes passed onto the next generation. Many of the current human moralities can be explained through this process, for clan-life would obviously strongly impact relations between the clan's members and between clans in general.

Such guidelines created far in humanity's past continue to be followed today, and they provide a structure of human morality. While certain factors of this morality may change, the basics stay relatively constant.

As for how religion fits in, it actually HURTS morality. For example, the Bible preaches that, if one entertains the idea of switching religion/beliefs, the said person would have to die. Studies on children involving religious actions, such as the destruction of entire cities just because of differing religious ideas, show that children are easily malleable to such beliefs, and they often declare that genocide can be acceptable and good as long as their god(s) declares it so. (Jewish children were tested on such a religious situation that is detailed in their religious text, and most of them agreed that the leader did the right thing in destroying EVERYTHING in the city, citing assimilation as being the "reason" to do so. Also, those that disagreed with the handling declared it bad because the Jewish army could've kept the land for themselves instead of burning it. However, when Jewish schoolchildren were given the same situation, just with the names replaced and religious involvement destroyed, the results flip-flopped, resulting with most of the children disagreeing with the genocide.)

As for people saying that the Ten Commandments is the basis of morality, how does that make any sense? Are you saying that, in the two million or so years before the creation of the Bible or monotheism, the human race was just completely barbaric? I don't recall classical civilizations (Rome, China) being particularly uncivilized. Also, what makes the Ten Commandments so great? Most of them don't even have to do with traditional morality, focusing instead upon how to react to foreign religions, whether or not to worship graven images, and such religious ideas. Plus, isn't it true that if one disobeys the Ten Commandments they are to be killed? I do not see how that counts as the "basis of morality," to be honest.

Answer 10

It is logical to limit yourself. If you did everything that popped into your head you would have nothing and be nothing. People need each others help to survive, these rules we've made keep people in line and are good for society as a whole. You go and do whatever immoral thing you think that you'd do without God and see where you end up in a week. It really is to your own interest to help others.

Answer 11

Yes, you are right, as long as you stay within certain societal norms, otherwise you might end up behind bars or something worse.. There are those however who need a compass and God serves as that.