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

Your problem is that atheism has no logical base for morality, If we are just a collection of random chemicals brought together by an accident of nature then of course one morality is equally as good as another and Hitler’s morality is as equally valid as yours. Of course your morality probably comes from 2000 years of Christian morality in western society so there is that influence. But if you have no reference point then why are not the flesh eating cannibals who exist in some parts of the world just as moral as you are? @SW-User

@Speedyman Your belief system has no basis for morality, since your God only exists in your imagination.

Yo belief system has no basis at all as you appear to have lost your ability to think. But then you are just a random collection of chemicals brought together by accident so it’s not surprising@HazelMotes]

@Speedyman

[quote]Your problem is that atheism has no logical base for morality[/quote]

I think you need to rethink that statement slightly because it seems to me that what you're trying to say is that you feel the atheist has no objective source for morality.

But to say that an atheist as no [i]logical[/i] basis for morality is, well...illogical.
Of course we do. We can logically agree that human well-being is a good basis for morality.
How?
We can logically agree that life is generally preferable to death, that health is generally preferable to sickness and that flourishing is generally preferable to suffering.

You see what i'm saying?

So you can assert that without god there is no external source of morality if you like but i think i've shown you a good reason to reconsider the characterization of an atheist's morality as having no logical basis.

As you are just an accident of nature and a collection of chemicals with no meaning why is one morality better than another?you have shown absolutely nothing. Life being preferable to death is not morality it is survival instinct. Sorry argument totally invalid!

@Pikachu

@Speedyman

[quote]why is one morality better than another[/quote]

This is a separate question and in asking it you confirm my suspicion that what you [i]actually[/i] mean to say is that you do not believe there is an objective, external source for morality if one is an atheist.

Recall, speedy that all i am doing here is correcting your assertion that the atheist has no [i]logical[/i] basis for morality.
If you would like to posit that it is [i]illogical[/i] to assert that life is preferable to death, health preferable to sickness and flourishing preferable to suffering then you may do so now.

[quote] Life being preferable to death is not morality it is survival instinct[/quote]

You would be correct if that were purely applied [i]by[/i] the individual [i]to[/i] the individual. However, since we apply this principle not only to ourselves but to the other it is no longer survival instinct. Along with flourishing and health as applied to the other, it is a system of morality.

You confirmed my suspicion that you do not understand anything. Don’t you realise the preference of life over death is not a matter of morality but the matter of survival instinct. The problem with you is you mix up your arguments because you don’t really understand what you’re doing as you cannot follow a logical train of thought through. This is probably not your fault as you’ve never been trained properly. This is probably not your fault as you’ve never been trained properly. That’s why you think that daft cartoons are a substitute for logical argument. Just a sign of an immature mind@Pikachu

@Speedyman


[quote] Don’t you realise the preference of life over death is not a matter of morality but the matter of survival instinct. [/quote]

I specifically addressed this an rebutted it.
Here:
[i]You would be correct if that were purely applied by the individual to the individual. However, since we apply this principle not only to ourselves but to the other it is no longer survival instinct. Along with flourishing and health as applied to the other, it is a system of morality.[/i]

If you would like to make a counter argument then you may do so. Simply repeating your assertion is insufficient.


....and sadly that was the only sentence in your post which was actually related to the subject matter.

I have made an argument for why there is indeed a logical basis for the atheist's morality.
If you disagree then make your rebuttal.

I really won't coddle you on this one, speedy. The arguments (or lack therefor) will speak for themselves.

@Pikachu

@Speedyman oh come on at least try to reply to

[quote]You would be correct if that were purely applied by the individual to the individual. However, since we apply this principle not only to ourselves but to the other it is no longer survival instinct. Along with flourishing and health as applied to the other, it is a system of morality[/quote]

That's a good point and requires an answer surely...

It’s not a good point it’s a complete load of rubbish. Survival is not morality is a basic instinct which is in everyone. For goodness sake even the basis creature has a survival instinct. Stalin had a survival instinct@SW-User

@Speedyman

I know reaction pics are a new thing for you, but you generally aren't supposed to spam the same one for every response.

The fact is that i have offered you the opportunity to make a logical counter argument and you have elected not to do so.
Repeatedly.

Think about your arguments and next time be better prepared, ok?

But you haven’t made a logical point that is right. Only in your own tiny little mind which cannot think. Why don’t you go and get some education instead of clogging up the Internet with your stupidity?@Pikachu

@Speedyman

[quote]But you haven’t made a logical point that is right.[/quote]

That's a solid opening statement.

But you're still missing the part where you demonstrate through argument that the points i made were illogical.
Can you do that, speedy? Or are you just going to keep playing pigeon chess?

Last chance. Waddaya say?

@Speedyman Well if you can't give any form of logical response to a perfectly formed argument it's a


From me

Well you might reject it but nobody of any intelligence would. Survival instinct is not the same as morality. When you start making it so we get a fascist state but no doubt that’s what you like@SW-User

@Speedyman have a go at me about anything but [b][i]NEVER[/i][/b] call me a fascist.

I fought the NF and BNF on the streets, my grandfather fought in Cable Street. I'll never be a fascist.

Arguably @Pikachu's point [quote]... since we apply this principle not only to ourselves but to the other... [/quote] is more about socialism or communism at its core.

@SW-User Well said. I fought the BNP and the NF too.

I never said you were a fascist what I did say was that when we put survival instinct as a form of morality we end up with the sort of survivalist state which can be fascism or at the other extreme of course can be an extreme form of communism@SW-User

@Speedyman

[quote] when we put survival instinct as a form of morality[/quote]

At this stage, is it still your understanding that, that was what i was describing?

@Speedyman Have you read the history of the church's past actions or really ANY theological country despite what religion they are at all? That's fascism at its core tenets so that can't be true what you said about survival instinct turning into communism 🤷‍♀️

@Speedyman Capitalism is the ultimate survivalist system.

Yes but it’s the only system that works fallen humanity. Interesting during the Cold War the good Socialist republics were having to build walls to keep people in them to keep them escaping to the dreadful capitalist ones@LeopoldBloom

At what stage do you understand what you yourself were saying? I don’t think you even understand anything @Pikachu

Of course I’ve read about the actions of those who professed Christianity which had nothing to do with Christ’s teachings. I’ve also read about the atheistic regime to the 21st-century which murdered 100 million people. @SatanBurger