Do we need God for Morality? [Spirituality & Religion]

@Speedyman This is what you do all the time man.

No my friend this is the realm of the atheists@Entwistle

@Speedyman and what reasoning do you entertain?

Just the reasoning of atheists. Nietzsche said that without the Christian God there is absolutely no reason for Christian morality. If you are just a bunch of chemicals like atheists claim, put together by chance, Then why shouldn’t one morality be as good as another? Why shouldn’t Hitler’s morality be as good as your morality? There is no logical reason why one morality should be better than another just different. Atheists have seen it that way. The times they had diverted because of their inheritance of Christian morality in their own lives@Yulianna

@Speedyman 1. morality existed long before christianity

2. nietzche was actually insane - if he is your only witness, your case falls flat.

3. hitler is condemned by atheists as much as by christians - and many of his supporters were self professed christians.

4. if you are concerned about logical reasons for adopting one morality over an other, what is logical reason to adopt christian morality? christian philosophy is based on illogical beliefs, so it it would seem to be illogical to follow a moral code rooted in it.

@Yulianna one correction, nietzche wasn't insane, he eventually got dementia around 44 after he'd written everything he published and It was likely because of a cancer he had.

@Ryannnnnn this is true, but does not actually exclude the possibility that he was mad before he got dementia...

but we both know "mad" is a meaningless term, anyway, so you are right to pull me up for using it 🙂

@Yulianna Its just a common generalisation people say as we tend to remember people by notable things about them.

He was a professor at 15 or something like that so he was definitely abnormal to say the least and perhaps you could say that he was intelligent to a point of maybe being slightly "mad" before that happened.
So even if he was mad, the content and ability of his writing is probably unparraleled to anyone else I've read so far. Frighteningly smart man. lol rant over 🤣 please continue your conversation.

@Ryannnnnn that's ok, this conversation is probably more interesting 😅

Morality existed it it was the strong ruling over the weak type. Read the history of the ancient world. @Yulianna

The only reason that Hitler is condemned by atheists is that atheists have picked up Christian morality. Atheists like Stalin who had no such Christian morality were the natural consequence of atheist morality. Hitler’s supporters were not Christians they were pagans or materialists. The only logical reason to adopt Christian morality is if the Christian faith is actually true. I mean who wants to love their enemies?.@Yulianna

@Speedyman you are so ignorant and confused, i cannot tell if you are stupid.

laws existed in rome and ancient greece to protect weak from strong - based on pre christian morality.

hitler was supported by many christians - he could not have achieved the election results he did without the votes of millions of german christians. (i do not blame christians for hitler, but we must be realistic in our analysis of history - otherwise we can never learn, and we all end up like you.)

[quote]The only logical reason to adopt Christian morality is if the Christian faith is actually true.[/quote]

[quote]The only reason that Hitler is condemned by atheists is that atheists have picked up Christian morality.[/quote]

how do you reconcile these two statements? are you actually saying that atheists have picked up christian morality because they believe it is true?

in which case, you must agree that christian morality has no root in a god, as atheists by definition, do not believe in any god, christian or not.

Yes laws existed but what sort? Allowed slavery, crucifixion, etc. They did not protect the weak from the strong. You are believing I’m afraid. Roman society was utterly brutal. Greek society was little better. Ever heard of Sparta? The reason atheist believe in Christian morality is because they have picked it up in their culture over the years. If society continues to be secular, it will drift back into what it was.
Concerning Hitler, I think you really need to see how he got into government. You really need to do some proper reading instead of believing in fairytales@Yulianna

@Speedyman please tell me how hitler got into power

Hitler got 8nto power because he was appointed chancellor by misguided Hindenburg appointed him. Hindenburg reckoned Hitler would be short lived. @Yulianna

@Speedyman You said:

[quote]If you are just a bunch of chemicals like atheists claim, put together by chance, Then why shouldn’t one morality be as good as another? Why shouldn’t Hitler’s morality be as good as your morality? [/quote]

I wish they'd teach evolution more in schools or otherwise you'd know that every animal including yourself has self preservation, fight or flight, cooperation, motherly instincts in order to adapt and survive. Without religion, human beings would still be moral for the above reasons, in fact probably more so:

[b]https://www.aclu.org/blog/reproductive-freedom/religion-and-reproductive-rights/catholic-hospitals-denied-these-women[/b]

@Speedyman [quote]Yes laws existed but what sort? Allowed slavery, crucifixion, etc. They did not protect the weak from the strong.[/quote]

I recognize there's many different sects of Christianity with varied belief systems. With that said, it's wrong to say that Christians were not involved with slavery and they didn't have a direct role in colonization because they did. It's just looking at religion through rose tinted glasses.

[b]http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gaa_slavery.htm[/b]
[b]http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gab_racism.htm
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gac_capial.htm
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gan_insane.htm
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gad_penal.htm
http://www.badnewsaboutchristianity.com/gaf_women.htm[/b]

So they had crucifixions and that was barbaric, agreed but Christianity, Islam and Catholicism in particular have been the main aggressors for the better part of the modern age. Certainly NOT the Romans who were polytheist before all that monotheism came about.

It really doesn't matter regardless in the end though, Christians probably cared for their families. I'm sure Romans did also. The reason they treated the mentally ill so badly was because of ignorance surrounding mental illness, if you only have your eyes to go on, this is what happens. The reason most centuries were barbaric was lack of education, they just simply didn't know any better.

I'm sure the Romans had some sort of moral code, I'm sure tribes people do, I'm sure many other religions or non religious have moral codes. It wasn't that they were evil or lawless, it's lack of education, Christians were capable of the same fallacies that every else was.

There is no such thing as perfect morality for the above reasons alone.

@Speedyman oh dear, it seems almost cruel to do this, but you set yourself up as student of history, so here goes - can we at least take it common ground that, by 1932 hitler was leader of nazi party? ok?

right

july 1932 reichstag elections nazi party won 37% of vote - 13.75m german voters.

november 1932 reichstag elections they won 33% - 11.7m german voters.

nazi party was largest in reichstag and, when no majority government could be formed, in january 1933 president hindenburg appointed hitler chancellor. no other candidate enjoyed the support of so many of the german electorate.

hitler called further elections in march 1933, at which the nazi polled 44% - 17.3m german voters, reinforcing their hold on the reichstag, under goring and hitler's position as chancellor.

that same month, hitler and goring pushed the enabling act through the reichstag, with the help of the conservative and centre parties. this act gave the chancellor the power to enact legislation without passing it through the reichstag.

hitler, with the support of the german people and the political right, had made himself dictator, a position which he further consolidated in august 1934, on the death of hindenburg, by combining the offices of chancellor and president.

hindenberg was not "misguided" when he appointed hitler as chancellor. in fact, he was very clearly "guided" by an overriding desire to keep the socialists and communists away from power. hitler also lead the largest party in the reichstag, had a solidbase of support throughout the german electorate, particularly among the protestant christian religious sects.

hindenberg did not "reckon Hitler would be short lived". he hoped to buy some time to find another solution, but neither von papen nor schleicher
wouls ever be able to muster the support needed to challenge both hitler and the left.

[quote]Hitler got 8nto power because he was appointed chancellor by misguided Hindenburg appointed him. [/quote]

[quote]Hitler’s supporters were not Christians they were pagans or materialists.
[/quote]

sorry, no, it was much more complicated than that and, to return to my original contention which you tried to dispute, hitler's power was founded on the votes of millions of german christians, all professing the christian morality that you place above all other forms of morality.

and a little word of advice to end with. i don't suffer fools gladly. if you are going to dispute with me, at least do me the courtesy of getting your facts correct, marshalling some coherent argument and presenting it in a coherent way.

@Yulianna but did anyone realise where Hitler was going to lead Germany?The
Enabling Act is amongst worst passed by any Parliament.

Each animal just fights for its own preservation. As Dawkins says under scientific atheism there is no morality:
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”@SatanBurger

You gave a warped view of history. The rise of the Nazis was dueto the economic situation in Germany and the promises Hitler made to make Germany great again. The people believed his promises and Hindenburg appointed him believing that his rain will be short lived and that people would sooner see what the Nazis were about. Of course they did and the reign of terror began. Hitler revealed himself not as a Christian but as an atheist as the leader of a cult with himself as god. If you look at the Nuremberg rallies they are very carefully staged to look like religious ceremonies. I have talked to former members of the Nazi youth and they told me this. Hitler was an atheist and he trick people into believing that his intentions were good whereas in fact his intention was world domination.His next target after the Jews was the church and its elimination and in fact the elimination of all religion. However he came to power the Nazi party is the example of materialistic atheism @Yulianna

@SatanBurger You are of course totally wrong in that the Roman and Greek societies were pretty brutal and it wasn’t until Christianity came along that there was the kind of morality and civil rights introduced into society that we have gradually seen come to the surface today

@Speedyman You're misinformed, Darwin never said there was no morality rather that it was supportive of natural morality. You haven't studied animal behavior or evolution, otherwise you'd know that.

Paraphrased:

[b]https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/learning/universities/darwin-and-human-nature/moral-nature[/b]

Darwin argued that human morality evolved from the social instincts of animals, especially the bonds of sympathy and love.

From sacrifices of social insects, the affection of female apes and offspring to the loyalty of dogs and their masters.

I could also argue that highly intelligent birds do mourn their dead at least instinctively. Crows actually know there's a threat if one of their own has died and will regards humans with suspicion and even warn each other. They can tell the difference between a pigeon and one of their own. Ravens, Jays and magpies are the same way.

Species wouldn't have evolved without cooperation and love, that's the bottom line.

I think Darwin knew very little of the social instincts of animals actually as his theory was made up of very little research. If you look at ancient societies you will see the brutality of them. Unfortunately you have been sold a pup and believed gullibly in the fact that these people were the noble people of popular myth whereas in fact they were a bunch of thugs@SatanBurger

@Speedyman For the fact you said that Darwin stated there was no morality means you haven't studied it. "You think" and "you know" are two different things. Nobles were tied to monarchies and monarchies are tied to theocracies and theocracies are by definition authoritarian. Authoritarian by definition isn't equality therefore I don't see how Darwins kind were barbaric.

People who said the earth was round long before we went into space got murdered by theocracies.

Which brings me to secularism yeah?