Morality without God is impossible

Since theology was created by humans within a society, it circles back on itself.Morality makes no sense once it is taken out of the human context. If God ordered humanity to do something that went against our most basic moral sense then it is immoral for God to make that command. There is no way around it. If morality is simply based on what God commands then we are no different than dogs who take commands or computers. Following orders isn't morality.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

So says a human. If someone claims that God ordered them to slay a bunch of innocent people, what do we do? Do we throw them in jail?

Morality doesn't make any sense outside of human existence. If there was this alleged objective morality that existed outside of human existence and it went against everything humans believed to be moral, then what good is that objective morality? If an objective morality told us that we should randomly kill half of all children under the age of 5, would we obey that objective moral code? Would we even want to?The source of morality is interaction between emotional beings. When one person can harm another it gives birth to morality. Morality doesn't exist outside of that interaction. Furthermore, each intelligent, sentient, and emotional species is going to have their own moral code defined by their specific interactions and emotions. We even see this with life on Earth. We don't arrest animals that kill another member of their species like we do in our own species.

The Golden Rule is an entirely subjective morality. It is based solely on our own subjective opinions of how we want to be treated, what would harm us, and what would benefit us. It is based entirely on the human condition. You may want to think about that one for a while. Injustice, pain, harm, and well being are all emotions, and they form the foundation of morality.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Absolutely. This is why views on morality have changed through many ages. As our philosophies and worldviews change our morality changes with it. That's the way it should be. How awful would it be to have an unchanging moral code that no longer reflects the beliefs of the human population? Then what is?

Here are a couple of good references I have found on objective and subjective morality. They reflect my own conclusions on the subject.

quote:

---

Is it even possible to have an objective morality? I would argue that it is not possible, and even if such existed it would be irrelevant because we could not know about it. Further, there is no compelling evidence that anyone, any group or society, has access to an objective morality.

​

The notion of an objective morality assumes that morality is something that can make sense apart from the context in which it is used (in our case, human society). Is it objectively wrong, according to some moral law of the universe, to harm another creature? If you try to justify this moral position, then you are actually engaging in moral philosophy — the complex and messy human understanding of morals.

​

This is what leads proponents of objective morality to the conclusion that objective morals require a lawgiver (actually, I think they work backward from their desire to prove a lawgiver, but that is a separate point). This does not solve the problem, however, just removes it one degree. How, then, does the lawgiver derive their morality? This leads to Euthyprho’s dilemma — are the morals of God right because God says so or does God say so because they are objectively right? Of course, it can be both, but that does not really solve anything. We are still left with the problem of what possible basis there can be for objective morality. If it’s not God says so then what is it?
Objective vs Subjective Morality - NeuroLogica Blog

---

quote:

---

Thus, if morality were an absolute set by a god, something could be immoral even if every human disagreed. If, instead, human feelings and desires are what ultimately count, then that is a subjective morality.

​

Thus, a subjective morality is strongly preferable to an objective one! That’s because, by definition, it is about what we humans want. Would we prefer to be told by some third party what we should do, even if it is directly contrary to our own deeply held sense of morality?

​

Given that an objective morality would be highly undesirable, why do so many philosophers and others continue to try hard to rescue an objective morality?

​

I suspect that they’re actually trying to attain objective backing for what is merely their own subjective opinion of what is moral. This is the trick the religious have long played, inventing a god in their own image who can back them up by turning I want into God wants .
Six reasons why objective morality is nonsense | coelsblog

---

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

It also begs the question of why different gods have different moral codes. For all the effort spent propping up a theistic objective morality, we see those same people objecting to the idea of having to follow Sharia law, an objective moral law laid down by God (allegedly). The massive contradictions between alleged objective moral codes should be a big warning sign for those who ascribe to an absolute objective morality.

Are you following a religion made in the image of someone else? The Golden Rule isn't universal. It only applies to humans.

Last I checked, Jesus didn't write the gospels.

Google searches are free. Why don't you use them?

quote:

---

Higgins DG, Labeit S, Gautel M, Gibson TJ. The evolution of titin and related giant muscle proteins. J Mol Evol. 1994 Apr;38(4):395-404. doi: 10.1007/BF00163156. PMID: 8007007.

​

Titin and twitchin are giant proteins expressed in muscle. They are mainly composed of domains belonging to the fibronectin class III and immunoglobulin c2 families, repeated many times. In addition, both proteins have a protein kinase domain near the C-terminus. This paper explores the evolution of these and related muscle proteins in an attempt to determine the order of events that gave rise to the different repeat patterns and the order of appearance of the proteins. Despite their great similarity at the level of sequence organization, titin and twitchin diverged from each other at least as early as the divergence between vertebrates and nematodes. Most of the repeating units in titin and twitchin were estimated to derive from three original domains. Chicken smooth-muscle myosin light-chain kinase (smMLCK) also has a kinase domain, several immunoglobulin domains, and a fibronectin domain. From a comparison of the kinase domains, titin is predicted to have appeared first during the evolution of the family, followed by twitchin and with the vertebrate MLCKs last to appear. The so-called C-protein from chicken is also a member of this family but has no kinase domain. Its origin remains unclear but it most probably pre-dates the titin/twitchin duplication.

​

The evolution of titin and related giant muscle proteins - PubMed

---

Titin evolved WELL after the first life appeared on Earth as shown by the absence of titin in any prokaryotic genome. If you think titin had to occur through abiogenesis then you don't understand abiogenesis, evolution, or even basic biology.Titin evolved by many duplications of a handful of sequences, not one codon at a time.There is also massive variation in titin sequences across life, demonstrating that there are many, many different protein sequences that will perform this function.Why don't you join us here in the real world?

You implied abiogenesis here:"Only Levorotary (left-handed) amino acids were used, not Dextrorotary (right-handed) amino acids, so 1 in 10 to the 49,618th power has to be multiplied by 1/2 to the 38,138th power or 1 in 10 to the 11,480th power. One more time for all consecutive peptide bonds, which are equally probable as the random formation of non-peptide bonds, thus 1/2 to the 38,138th power."This would only apply to abiogenesis since the pathways that build amino acids in life have no problem with only producing left handed amino acids, nor do they have a problem with repeatedly linking amino acids through peptide bonds in the same order over and over and over.Or do you think each and every protein in the human body is the product of some supernatural miracle? Do you reject the known and well understood process of protein translation? Titin was already present in the common ancestor of all vertebrates. Ahh, we finally come to the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. You are painting the bulls eye around the bullet hole.The handful of sequences repeated over and over is exactly what titin is. You can look for yourself here:titin [Homo sapiens] - Protein - NCBILook at all of the domains listed. Notice how they are all related to Ig? That's immunoglobulin. It's just a bunch of repeats of immunoglobulin motifs with some fibronectin motifs thrown in. I can show you a simple experiment that disproves your claim.Get a deck of playing cards. Shuffle them. Lay out the cards one by one face up, and record the order of the cards. The order of cards you just produced has a 1 in 52! chance of occuring, or 1 in 8x10^67 chance of occurring. And yet, you did it on the very first try.Impossible? Hardly. Events with those types of probabilities happen every nanosecond on Earth. You are committing the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy. They are valid why? Because you say so?You think monetary wealth is a measure of fitness? If so, I can understand why scientists would laugh at you. I find it hilarious when religionists try to discredit the theory of evolution by calling it a religion. Hoisting and petards come to mind.If you are going to argue that evolution is false because it resembles your own beliefs then perhaps you should rethink your argument.

Did neither of these people teach you what protein translation is or how it works?Do you think the proteins in your cells are just randomly assembled sequences from an equimolar pool of both L- and D- amino acids?

Permission granted.