Re: Atheists? Do you believe in them?

Me
>> Yes well I certainly agree with that, but I would really like to know then, in the absence of God(s) how do you define what is moral?


Steven
> Happiness and suffering are objective, if hard to measure accurately.
>
> What increases happiness overall is moral.

Whos happiness. An individuals, a groups, a countries, the worlds?

> What increases suffering overall is immoral.
>
> This is what is meant by morality. It is just what we mean by the word
> moral. No need for a god for that, no more than we need a god to tell
> us what the word 'green' means.
>
> Of course, doing the calculations of what increases happiness and what
> decreases suffering is fraught with difficulties.
>
> But basically, you don't need a rule maker to decide what sort of
> things increase happiness or suffering, no more than you need a rule
> maker to decide what sort of things increase the number of trees in the
> world, or the number of clouds.
>
> I don't need a god to tell me that if I want more trees in the world,
> then I should do something about planting more trees.
>
> If I want more happiness in the world, then I don't need a god to tell
> me that I should do something to help the lot of my fellow man.
>
>
> But if you have a god who arbitrarily decides that he doesn't like
> trees, but prefers rose-bushes instead, then why should his desire for
> rose bushes carry more weight than my desire for trees?
>
> Similarly, if a god decides that the aroma of sacrificed animals is
> pleasing to him, and declares that it is moral to sacrifice animals to
> him, why should that carry any weight?
>
> Basing morality on the likes and dislikes of a being is the very
> definition of subjective morality. It means that a god who tolerates
> the existence of 'X-factor' means that the existence of 'X-factor' is
> moral, and that we should allow it to exist.
>
> That can't be right surely?
>
> Similarly, Christmas reminds us that it is moral to save our child from
> the clutches of an evil tyrant, and allow him to kill other people's
> children. That is, if you believe it is moral for God to do what he did
> in the Bible - save his own child from Herod and let the others look
> out for themselves.

Actually in many ways I agree with most of what you say, and one of the reasons I still "believe" is that it has been my experience that without God I generally fail to understand the best ways of creating and sustaining happiness.
That being said I still don't understand why, without God(s), you would call your base premise "morality". Isn't it simply the way *you* see things? Arn't you therefore implying that you are some kind of god yourself?

Peter R
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: "Spot on?" (Re: Why did they do that to the Jews?)
    ... but one doesn't need God to learn from suffering. ... Further, please keep in mind that while I don't see the relevance of God, ... is the Absolute Infinite and the One doing the Creating, ... Which means you can't give 100% pure happiness, ...
    (soc.culture.jewish.moderated)
  • Re: Atheists? Do you believe in them?
    ... Happiness and suffering are objective, ... No need for a god for that, no more than we need a god to tell ... I don't need a god to tell me that if I want more trees in the world, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: What are you asking God to do about Burma?
    ... as asking the external God? ... The standard prayer is in the back of their booklet ... and asks amongst other things that all sentient beings have happiness ... are free from suffering and the causes ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Is there a war going on in heaven
    ... as If it had been really important God would have made ... Recent studies on the distribution of human happiness find that it is ... the New Testament back to the Old Testament, ... cure disease, ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... I'd agree that is the case within the bounds of how you would define moral goodness in the context of what a God could create, but of course I don't agree with that definition :-) ... But it sounds to me as if that is saying amounts to - in effect - that a supremely good omnipotent being would never create any lifeforms that are capable of seeing evil or bad in anything around them. ... that in some way reflected his own nature. ... In particular, for happiness, you probably need to read some kind of inner peace: The term 'happiness' is a broad one and probably covers some states of mind - eg. satisfaction at having exacted revenge on someone - that I don't intend. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)