If GOD does not exist, then everything is permissible.

[fromderinside]

What about morality as social concordance. No god (God) there.

What does "morality as social concordance" means, and how does it address the claim that nothing is immoral if God doesn't exist?

Some groups treat as moral activities and permissions withheld by others. Enough groups and enough differences surely there will groups exceptions to everything considered immoral by most. "Which group" covers the same space as does "which god". therefore it is clear there is no difference in possibilities that nothing is immoral with or without a god (God). Social equivalence with god (God) means there is no difference between them in the discussion.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Some groups treat as moral activities and permissions withheld by others.

1. It's unclear whether by "moral" you mean "morally permissible" or "morally obligatory". Could you clarify please?
2. Either way, some individuals have different beliefs about what's impermissible, obligatory or merely permissible. Some beliefs are prevalent among some social groups. All that is true, and theist defenders of a metaethical argument would agree. But you that does not address their argument.

Enough groups and enough differences surely there will groups exceptions to everything considered immoral by most.

You mean in an infinite universe?
I guess. But a human society where the prevalent belief is that it's not immoral to torture and rape people for fun is a society of seriously ill individuals. Or maybe a society composed mostly of consistent error theorists, which is even more difficult to find. I guess in an infinite universe...

In any event, that does not challenge anything theists defenders of the metaethical argument are saying.

"Which group" covers the same space as does "which god". therefore it is clear there is no difference in possibilities that nothing is immoral with or without a god (God). Social equivalence with god (God) means there is no difference between them in the discussion.

I don't fully know what that means, but I do get that your argument is about what people believe is morally wrong (i.e., immoral), whereas a theist defender of a metaethical doesn't care about that in his main argument; at most, he might address some issues about belief in some side arguments, but also not related to your reply.

In short, you too misunderstand the theistic argument.

 

[Juma]

Exactly.

What does "morality as social concordance" means, and how does it address the claim that nothing is immoral if God doesn't exist?

how does it address the claim that nothing is immoral if God doesn't exist?

It shows how something is moral without the need of a god.

First, if by "moral" you mean "morally permissible", well, some theists are claiming that everything is permissible if God does not exist, so showing that something is permissible would be no objection. One could argue that if a moral error theory of that sort were true, moral permissibility would not instantiate, either. But that's a very contentious matter of moral semantics, which in any case the point you make does not address.
Second, if by "moral" you mean "morally obligatory", how would morality as social concordance shows that something is morally obligatory?
Third, what does "morality as social concordance" even means?
That's not a usual expression, so I'm asking what it means.

This us what you stated:

"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.

Thus showing that behavior can be said to be immoral without any god will destroy the theists argument.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Thus showing that behavior can be said to be immoral without any god will destroy the theists argument.

Yes, of course it would (as long as the "can be said" means "can be truthfully said"). But you said "It shows how something is moral without the need of a god."
You did not say that it shows that something is immoral without the need of a god.
Again, the word "moral" is quite ambiguous, but if by "moral" you mean "morally permissible", well, some theists are claiming that everything is permissible if God does not exist, so showing that something is permissible would be no objection.
On the other hand, if you meant "morally obligatory", then that would work (indirectly or directly depending of the specifics of the theistic metaethical argument you're going up against), but in that case, my questions were:

a. How would morality as social concordance shows that something is morally obligatory?
b. What does "morality as social concordance" even means?

As it happens, fromderinside already explained what he meant, and I already replied to him. But if you think that his answer somehow shows that something can be immoral without God, then please explain.
That said, if you're trying that something can be immoral without God, then at least you are on the right path on that point. That's what the argument really is about. But the best strategy is to reject the burden, say there is no particular reason to even suspect that nothing can be immoral if God does not exist, say the atheists who say otherwise are very mistaken, and address the theistic arguments one by one ("arguments" as in "arguing a case"), showing why they're bad ones.

 

[jimrich]

consequences

Saw that in a comment on a reply to an article on why atheists are wrong.

It struck me, though, that everything is permissible even with a God.

I think it is permissible and so is the consequences of actions or deeds. I believe most of us consider the consequences of some things like jumping off of a tall building or sticking hand in a flame BEFORE we do it.

Seriously, there's no act so evil that God will come down and stay the evildoer's hand.

I don't know what something called 'god' does or doesn't "do" but I've learned to think of consequences and accountability by now.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The problem is, God as a concept is so flexible that God cannot be considered as useful as to deciding morality. For example, we find the cruelty and stupidity of ISIL to be immoral in the extreme. Yet they claim they are doing God's will, following God's commands in the Quran and hadiths. The past bad behavior of Christianity with it's religious wars, inquisitions and savagery show us that religion does not necessarily cause us to be moral, when our religious leaders behave such.

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

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
- Blaise Pascal

 

[Atheos]

Saw that in a comment on a reply to an article on why atheists are wrong.

It struck me, though, that everything is permissible even with a God....

I think you are committing an equivocation fallacy here.

In what sense are the police and the courts "permitting" criminals to commit crime?

The vast majority of obedient (moral) citizens know that crime is NOT permitted and they know why it is not permissible.

But when an apologist talking about atheism says "without God everything is permissible" they are challenging the atheist to explain why that would not be the case.

No law maker. No law giver. No law enforcer. No certain punishment at the final judgement.

...why wouldn't a person be able live like there's no tomorrow???

This argument fails for a number of reasons, some of which Keith has already pointed out. One that he did not mention, and which you used as a "get out of jail" card was that cops wait until after a crime (e.g., speeding) is in progress and then stop it.

While this is true up to a point it once again points out the difference between non-omniscient / non-omnipotent police and a god with these traits.

Because police do routinely stop crimes before they ever happen. Sometimes they get tips and use said tips to prevent crimes. Conversely if it can be demonstrated that a police officer had good reason to suspect that a person was about to kill someone and failed to act upon that knowledge the officer would be in some very hot water and likely lose his job. If a gunman is threatening to kill someone and a police sniper has a clear shot, guess what's going to happen? Boom. Not gonna let him do it.

The NSA constantly brags about how many acts of terror they have stopped before they ever occurred. A tremendous amount of legislation in nearly every country on the planet is preventive, not punitive. Gun legislation and controlled substance laws are but two examples of many possible that attempt to circumvent crimes before they are ever committed.

It can be clearly demonstrated that in all cases where possible law enforcement would much prefer to stop crimes before they ever happen rather than toss more folks in the slammer for committing crimes. Indeed, most of us would consider our leaders remiss if they did little else than retro-actively deal with crimes that had already been committed. And that is so even considering the many reasons it is difficult for mere human beings with limited knowledge and power to effect such things.

But somehow an omnipotent and omniscient being gets a pass from those who believe in it. They rationalize and excuse this being's choice not to stop crimes it knows are in the process of being committed. A young girl screaming in terror as a rapist abuses and eventually kills her gets no more evidence of concern from this god-thing than a church lady who is disappointed that the nail color her manicurist used clashes slightly with the dress she's putting on. But just let one of its favorite children pray to it for a parking space in a dimly lit area of town and it comes running. (I miss Self Mutation ).

 

[Gila Guerilla]

...

It struck me, though, that everything is permissible even with a God.

...

Quite true, so long as one imagines or believes that "God" has commanded it. You only have to read the Bible to find that out. Recall what Richard Dawkins has said about "God":-

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully".

Many acts which we would consider to be despicable, acts which Dawkins alludes to in his quoted words, were, (allegedly), done by humans, but commanded by "God". One person who endorses the despicable nastiness of that god is WLC, ("God" is the boss - works in mysterious ways - has reasons - will balance it all out in the end - discussion is useless ??? ) Still: {everything is permissible even with a god}.

Furthermore; {If "God" does not exist, then everything is permissible}, (presumably from a moral standpoint). All right, so what? If there is no god^A, and if the previous {statement} is true^B, then we have to live with that^C. So what ?
IF ... A and IF ... B THEN C. So what are we to do about it ? This has been answered by others in this thread. One thing we might do is to invent a god, (ie. "God"). But invention of a god doesn't make that god real, nor does it solve the problem in question, except by fabricating false demands by an invented non-entity, with invented non-consequences, (don't forget the IF A ... & IF B ...THEN ... C).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why would anybody accept the implicit assumption that with a God there is objective morality? How does there being or not being a God change if there can be objective morality? They just seem to be confusing morality with obedience to power. That is dangerous.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Everything is permissible with Jesus as God at least for sure. He will stop nothing and all will be forgiven, so how can they say anything is being judged or is wrong etc?

 

[Learner]

Why would anybody accept the implicit assumption that with a God there is objective morality? How does there being or not being a God change if there can be objective morality? They just seem to be confusing morality with obedience to power. That is dangerous.

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

Lion IRC
No law maker. No law giver. No law enforcer. No certain punishment at the final judgement.

...why wouldn't a person be able live like there's no tomorrow???

I think Lion is right . Humans will always,always disagree. Without God that makes the law that 'cannot' be amended as humans do. Morality would NOT then be Objective. What if you did make laws for morality, who decides what is what, and would you all agree? It is all then purely 'relative' and 'subjective' to individuals.

Power and wealth can influence certain threshholds to laws and amendments can be decided every now and then to suit the times or the one issuing/teaching it. Sure we have the potential to be better but I doubt everyone will be content when it comes to - too many moral law makers/teachers biased to his kin creed. Theists we believe there has to be one ultimate, unbribable, truthful and fair, taking all the brunt moral law maker and judge.

 

[Learner]

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

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
- Blaise Pascal

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

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

Lion IRC
No law maker. No law giver. No law enforcer. No certain punishment at the final judgement.

...why wouldn't a person be able live like there's no tomorrow???

I think Lion is right . Humans will always,always disagree. Without God that makes the law that 'cannot' be amended as humans do. Morality would NOT then be Objective. What if you did make laws for morality, who decides what is what, and would you all agree? It is all then purely 'relative' and 'subjective' to individuals.

But how does a god existing make objective morality?

 

[Atheos]

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

Lion IRC
No law maker. No law giver. No law enforcer. No certain punishment at the final judgement.

...why wouldn't a person be able live like there's no tomorrow???

I think Lion is right . Humans will always,always disagree. Without God that makes the law that 'cannot' be amended as humans do. Morality would NOT then be Objective. What if you did make laws for morality, who decides what is what, and would you all agree? It is all then purely 'relative' and 'subjective' to individuals.

Power and wealth can influence certain threshholds to laws and amendments can be decided every now and then to suit the times or the one issuing/teaching it. Sure we have the potential to be better but I doubt everyone will be content when it comes to - too many moral law makers/teachers biased to his kin creed. Theists we believe there has to be one ultimate, unbribable, truthful and fair, taking all the brunt moral law maker and judge.

Morality is not objective with any god with which I am aware. To date no god has come down and talked directly with human beings and made clear any set of universal laws of morality. Instead we get messages from people claiming some god told them to tell a group to go and utterly destroy this or that village; or setting up god-sanctioned guidelines for buying, selling and beating slaves; or setting up eternal moral declarations about shellfish and pork being abominations, then rescinding the same absolute truths years later when it became less convenient; or having a man stoned to death just because he gathered some firewood on a Saturday.

In the name of one god or other people have been raped, murdered, tortured and enslaved. During the Spanish Inquisitions people were routinely imprisoned and tortured into "confessions" of orthodoxy or simple belief. Many hundreds were killed for heresy. Even today religious factions exist who torture and kill in the name of some god. The needle of the great moral compass swings just as widely with people believing in gods as anyone could imagine it swinging in the absence of such beliefs.

 

[Learner]

But how does a god existing make objective morality?

I will have to ask him to show me somehow ... not joking.

 

[Learner]

Morality is not objective with any god with which I am aware. To date no god has come down and talked directly with human beings and made clear any set of universal laws of morality. Instead we get messages from people claiming some god told them to tell a group to go and utterly destroy this or that village; or setting up god-sanctioned guidelines for buying, selling and beating slaves; or setting up eternal moral declarations about shellfish and pork being abominations, then rescinding the same absolute truths years later when it became less convenient; or having a man stoned to death just because he gathered some firewood on a Saturday.

You have to remember to a theist.. it is. (I am at fault for not first indicating it) There is a lot more to it in context than the 'best of' scary things.

In the name of one god or other people have been raped, murdered, tortured and enslaved. During the Spanish Inquisitions people were routinely imprisoned and tortured into "confessions" of orthodoxy or simple belief. Many hundreds were killed for heresy. Even today religious factions exist who torture and kill in the name of some god. The needle of the great moral compass swings just as widely with people believing in gods as anyone could imagine it swinging in the absence of such beliefs.

So unlike the way of Jesus. I agree with you.

 

[Thomas II]

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

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
- Blaise Pascal

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

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...

 

[Juma]

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

Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction.
- Blaise Pascal

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?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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?

That was my dad's favorite way to explain away "bad" behavior. I came to learn it isn't money, but secrecy. Think about it, if people knew these religious hucksters were in it for the money things might be different.

But maybe things would be the same. I know lots of people who maintain their religious ties for personal gain, not public good. When you get right down to it, the whole salvation heaven thing is about personal gain. What people call "sacrifice" is really just a deal.

Show me a religion where the payoff is a more peaceful, loving, compassionate planet, and not personal glorification.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Show me a religion where the payoff is a more peaceful, loving, compassionate planet, and not personal glorification.

Scientology. After you give me seven easy payments of $100,000 I'll tell you the secret of how it's all for the good of the planet and not myself ... maybe. I might need some more payments afterwards before I can do that.