Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


ATTEMPTS TO FUSE MORALITY AND GOD ONLY GIVE AN AMORAL GOD AND THE FUSION IS ARTIFICIAL

Is what is immoral wrong simply because a God commands it to be or because it simply is bad even if God disagrees?  The choice is between divine command theory or objective morality.  Good is arbitrary or good is greater than God.  These are the only choices though good can be arbitrary and still greater than God.  We don't need to think about that for this study.

Pining for divine command

Divine command does not care about what God believes about morality or feels about it but about what he commands.  If a moral rule is merely God's belief then God cannot complain if we believe different for belief is never totally sure of what is believed in.  If it is based on feeling it is not morality at all.  You cannot make murder right by feeling it is right so neither can God.  The reason is that feelings and morality are separate things just like eyes and ears are separate.

Many say that any view of God that does not accept divine command is not a view of God at all.  They need God to be the same thing as morality otherwise morality ends up being more important than God and thus God is not really God or supreme.

Those who say they disagree usually say it is just their opinion that divine command is wrong. But that is too soft of a rejection and thus is immoral in itself or that reason.  If morality is real it needs to be recognised solidly as real.

Those who accept a God have to accept that if divine command is not true then it is a shame it cannot be. Those who reject divine command on logical and ethical grounds have to wish it were true for hypothetically, if God could make it love to kill a baby for fun then he should if he wishes and should not if he does not want to, and we should encourage him to make his choice and and be glad to obey if he commands us to kill. They then see the failure of divine command as a pity. They see whatever alternative to divine command they have as a necessary evil and not something to be happy about.

Even if God is not a God of divine command he necessarily commands us to wish he was. Thus we have to view all morality with that kind of regret. Our starting point is, “It really is wrong to hurt this baby. Pity you didn’t have the option God of making it right should you wish.”

We have learned already that belief in God instead of grounding morality only grounds a faked version that can look like the real thing. 

We do not need arguments or God to see that morality is right

You give your dinner to a starving child.  Is this good in itself?  Is it moral in itself?  If it is not then what is it?  Is it immoral or does it have nothing do with morality at all - is it just there and neither right or wrong?  To say it is neither right or wrong morally is to call it both!  It is possible for an action to be as bad as it is good.  So you cannot get away from the question.  Is it right or wrong?  If it is neutral then it is both or neither.  Those who claim to believe in no morals are necessarily lying.

We don't need anything then to recognise that morality exists.  We don't need God or anybody or any religion or any ethical system.  We also cannot need them.

Religion tries to base morality on God.

Anything that tries to make you need a moral base that you don't need does not really care about morality at all.

It is cruel to create needs that are not needed.

It is manipulative. 

It is falsely accusing people of not having a true morality when they realise that they cannot need God.

Religion accuses Good of Being Morally Neutral

Religion teaches that nothing is morally good or morally bad in itself.

So helping the child is evil or neutral until God decrees that it will be good.  Thus morality is whatever God wants it to be and decrees it to be regardless of how much harm it does.

In fact a God who makes feeding a child out to be bad or neutral until he gives a command which makes it good is in fact worse than one who openly commands violence against children.  Why? 

First he opposes anything that in principle can reject violence.   A neutral act is still half bad and he is saying it is good and thus condoning and blessing the bad side.

Second there is no logical way that something neutral can be turned good simply by a command.  It is nonsense.

Third it enables evil scriptures and religions which are drunk with evil commands supposedly from God.

It would be stupid to call yourself a Bible believer and then ignore or reject the evil commands of God in the Bible.  The commands are evidence and proof that the Bible thinks that there is no morality unless God commands it.