If GOD does not exist, then everything is permissible.

[Learner]

Yes, money, but religion gave money the "moral ground" to do evil legally...That "moral ground" didn't come from God, it came from people who benefited from the claim that it was coming from God...

Indeed If you explain it that way. I agree and understand now..a clever quote. The 'value' of money in all its forms and what it can buy was my thought at the time.

 

[Learner]

Reply to your post I use my previous post. But it is also evident today;

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes money

Then you have not understood the quotations above. They say to still have been in good faith when doing bad, you must have been religious.

If someone does something bad due to money it is because (s)he is greedy. Greedy is not good. Agree?

Got it, money just came to mind at the time probably still would not of seen it but I agree.

 

[ronburgundy]

"Everything is permissible" does not mean the same as "Everything is permitted".
Usually, when theists claim that if God does not exist, everything is permissible, they are making a metaethical claim.
The claim is that if God did not exist, no behavior would be morally impermissible (i.e., immoral).

That sort of claim is the basis of, say, Craig's metaethical argument for God's existence. Their arguments are not good, but they're not about what is in fact permitted or not, but about moral permissibility.

So, if there is no god, no god will judge my behavior.

That seems kind of self-evident.

But this was offered as a rebuttal to atheism.

Right, but your giving theist too much credit. The only way their rebuttal has any logical relevance to the question of whether God actually exists, is if they mean that God's existence impacts what is factually possible in the world. You seem to be interpreting the theists argument as though this is what they mean. What they actually mean is nothing more than "Since we want some actions to be viewed as immoral, and only God's existence allows that, then God must exist." Not only are they presuming without any basis that God is required to morally judge and action, but even more sad is that they think that just because we would prefer the type of world where God exists, must mean he does exists. IOW, they have no concept that what they prefer to be true might be independent of what is true.

Their argument is as absurd as saying "Because I would like a million dollars, it must be true that I actually have a million dollars." It's a form of argument that conflates "is" versus "ought" questions and emotions with evidence. Theists themselves laugh at such absurd notions about any other issue, but are somehow blind to the absurdity when it comes to God's existence, afterlife, and other religious wishful thinking.

 

[Atheos]

I agree in principle with what you're saying ronburgundy, but I think the topic here is whether or not it is true that a god's existence would make it possible for there to be an absolute morality.

I do not believe this to be the case in part because of the  Euthyphro dilemma: If this god demands a certain set of morals because they are the correct set then there is some moral standard by said god can be evaluated; a moral standard that exists independently of this god. If that is the case then the god is not necessary to exist for the moral standard to exist. God is merely the messenger.

But if this god commands this set of moral directives without such an objective standard then we're back to "might makes right." We have no way to determine if these commands really are "good" so to speak. People are simply kissing god's ass and saying they're good. Like in the Twilight Zoner where Billy Mumy's character whisks people off into the cornfield.

The existence of a god only gives believers a resting point. Not an end point.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I seriously doubt (and have not seen) that theists, in general, argue from any "deep" philosophical position. I see them arguing from baseless beliefs they accepted unquestionably. Even if they did argue philosophically, your explanation of their basis is piss poor philosophy. It requires accepting, as fact, a premise that is the core of the argument, that there is a god. Their second premise would have to be that all "true morals" come from this god. Both are assuming the conclusion that any supposed moral beliefs from any other source are not "true morals".

I think Angra Mainyu missed one mistake (bolded). So let me try to correct that.
The argument discussed doesn't assume (or "require accepting") the premise that there is a god. On the contrary it's a reductio ad absurdum argument starting with the premise that god doesn't exist, to show that you arrive necessarily at a contradiction, or at least what contradiction they think there is, namely that everything is morally permissible because there's no god and yet not everything is permissible. From that they conclude that the premise that god doesn't exist is false, and therefore that god does exist after all.

You do get right the fact that they sneak in the premise on the existence of absolute moral rules. So they shift the problem of the existence of God to the problem of the existence of absolute moral rules. Unfortunately for them, there's no evidence nor good reason to believe that there is such a thing.

However, to be convincing, the argumennt doesn't need to be correct. Instead, it is enough that the unbeliever to be converted have a belief in the existence of absolute moral rules, as many uncritical people do, and have nonetheless enough of a rational mind to draw the intended conclusion. It's kind of jujitsu.
EB

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Well the phrase " confusing morality with obedience to power " would be more fitting to a non God world.

Can you explain that further? I don't understand what you are saying here.

how does there being or not being a God make morality any more or less objective? And in the case of them following what God says and calling that morality, how is that not confusing obedience for morality? Isn't that a total "Might makes Right" way of thinking?