[henry_bone]

Humans are nothing if not self interested. But that's beside the point here.

Why "kind and empathetic"? Who said that's how we should be?

If we are nothing more than an arbitrary arrangement of matter, formed according to arbitrary laws of physics, and only for a relative moment, then what is "kind" and "empathetic"?

In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock. The only sound position you can then take is that there is no such thing as morality.

[toofy]

> In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock.

Can you think of anything in between? Why the extreme jump to “it’s either all or nothing”?

To state that The Only way to not be a meaningless hunk of rock is to worship your god seems like a pretty big lack of imagination.

I don’t need your god or your god’s rules to appreciate that you’re probably an amazing person in many ways. My partner is “godless” and she’s far more amazing than a rock.

If you want to argue that certain people need religion and that it may provide more benefit to society when those people personally worship their god I can see how this may be a sound argument. Some people really do need jesus, but this hardly means everyone needs jesus or some other sky god to see the value of other people.

This is such a good example of why I push back on organized religions and their foot soldier bible thumpers… this all or nothing thing. I don’t want your god, I don’t want your religious prudery. I thinks it’s amazing that you find meaning there, i really genuinely do. But it isn’t for me. No. I don’t want your god. I still see your value and still care—and, honestly it’s not a wild impossibility that I see value in others and that I do this without a god.

[Jensson]

People feel good when they help others and feel bad when they get scolded by their peers. That is our inner moral compass and is the core to all morals even religious ones. Religion doesn't make it better, at best it is as good. Humans are pack animals, we put in a lot of effort to help the pack.

[mlrtime]

>feel bad when they get scolded by their peers.

This is the way it ought to work, but often does not. Or, when your peer group associates criminal or antisocial behavior with positive attributes.

Shaming does not work in a large population of antisocial people. Religion is not THE answer however for a large population of people it is necessary (currently).

[henry_bone]

What I'm trying to get across is that a sense of morality is with us all. We have a generally shared understand of goodness, justice, etc. My point is that that morality is impossible to justify in a godless universe.

"People feel good when they help ...". No argument. But is morality just about the feels? No, it isn't.

[heylook]

> My point is that that morality is impossible to justify in a godless universe.

You say that, and it's good that you did because the arguments you're making don't work together to prove your point in the way that you think they do. What about a godless universe makes morality impossible to justify? Is it that god is the only possible source of morality or meaning or value or something? Because you haven't proven that and can't just take it as axiom.

[NineStarPoint]

In order for morality to have any worth at all, it has to be an intrinsic truth (or rational determination) separate from god anyway. If the only reason something is moral is because an original creator declared it so then I don’t personally see the difference to us attempting to determine our own sense of morality based on what feels right. If it’s just an appeal to authority, why does it make a difference if that authority is god or human?

Now, if one believes in a creator that is many orders of magnitude (or infinitely) more intelligent than a human, sure, saying that they probably have a better insight into morality and we should listen to them makes sense. But it would be because of their greater ability to understand what is moral, not them being the law maker of morality.

[thfuran]

>If the only reason something is moral is because an original creator declared it so then I don’t personally see the difference to us attempting to determine our own sense of morality based on what feels right. If it’s just an appeal to authority, why does it make a difference if that authority is god or human?

Well, because the god can stick you in a fire for all eternity if you follow the human's moral code instead. That's not really a great case for the soundness of their moral teachings but nonetheless presents a compelling argument for obedience.

[alistairSH]

In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock.

That's a rough approximation of my beliefs. The universe is massive and long-lived. I am neither.

I want to leave the world a better place than when I entered it. That trickles down to my daily life - are things better or worse when I go to bed than when I awoke? Being as insignificant as a rock doesn't preclude that desire.

And frankly, it's kind of offensive when Christians tell me I'm less-than-moral because I don't need their scripture to decide what's good or bad.

[henry_bone]

"And frankly, it's kind of offensive when Christians tell me I'm less-than-moral because I don't need their scripture to decide what's good or bad."

The moral argument isn't telling you that. You people (HN readers) seem intent on misunderstanding my initial statements.

It's not that atheists are not moral. Not even less moral than religious people.

The point I am trying, and failing, to express is that morality must come from a higher, non-human source. If it does not, then it is just a product of fallible human minds and is entirely meaningless. That's it.

[alistairSH]

...entirely meaningless...

At the scale of the universe, everything we do is meaningless. We simply are what we are and that's that. Realizing this causes me no small amount of existential angst. So I try to live in the moment as best I can and leave the world ever so slightly better than I found it.

So maybe we actually agree (on what lack of religion means, not on what we personally believe about morality or existence)?

[pstuart]

Ok, so then if we all follow the Quran we should be good, right? It is the official word of God, right?

[The_Colonel]

The argument would work better if the Abrahamic god wasn't so clearly immoral, like in the example of Sodom and Gomorrah, killing of Uzzah, the Flood. The god appears to be a narcissist (the faith in him is the most important quality in a person), putting reverence and obedience above all (commanding Abraham to murder his son for no good reason). God as described in bible is a morally despicable person and surely no example to follow.

[arkey]

By which standard are you (blasphemously) attempting (and failing to) judge God by, though?

Because you clearly don't understand the context or reasoning behind any of the situations you listed, you resort to simply condemning God upon your own authority.

You think of yourself as better than God.

And that is what sin is.

Try acknowledging God as the authority, as He is your maker, and then you might even get to understand all the events you are ignorantly referring to.

[The_Colonel]

> By which standard are you (blasphemously) attempting (and failing to) judge God by, though?

I think most people would agree that mass murders are morally wrong.

> You think of yourself as better than God.

I have my own problems, but otherwise I don't murder people.

> Try acknowledging God as the authority, as He is your maker, and then you might even get to understand all the events you are ignorantly referring to.

Fortunately the god doesn't exist, and the bible is just poorly written fiction.

But even if I was convinced that the Abrahamic god exists, it wouldn't change my opinion that the god is a narcissist psychopath.

[bdowling]

This is God’s world, we just live in it. To think that you exist purely for your own sake is pure hubris.