Morality Without God

"The main point here is not whether there is God or not, the main point is whether we believe in Him or not." Whether there can logically be a God or not has a great deal to do with it. If believing in him is unreasonable and our moral system is based off our belief in him than our moral system is equally unreasonable. And I contend that it is indeed unreasonable to believe in him as you can see I have clearly pointed out in my past debates. "So if we believe in Him, We are in a triangular loop where there is Us, society and the God. So that is not a shaky foundation, for we believe in him, and so the three determinants would be always there" Anything founded on faith is a shaky foundation. If it can be called a foundation at all. "On the other hand if we do not believe in him, there is just us and the society." And you again missed the point that if there is no God than it's just us and society anyway, whether we believe in him or not. And since believing in him is founded on faith and faith is unreasonable, than any moral system you denote being derived from him is also unreasonable. "The point I was making was that we are constantly changing. Our perception may change from today to tomorrow, our close society, i.e our group of friends may change too, they would have different ideologies. So, that, is what I think would be a shaky foundation, because both the determinants –society and us too would change." Besides it being entirely unclear how you were trying to make that point to begin with--how is it relevant? Whether God exists or not, or whether we believe in him or not, we are still the constantly changing people we are. "Our moral systems must be founded on reason, and I agree to that. Let us take an example, let us say that I believe that if I would steal anything from anyone, the deed will bring misfortune for me in future. So, for not stealing, that is a reason enough for me. Because if I really, Really STRONGLY want the thing, just the fact that it is wrong to steal, would not stop me. I might rationalize it out, saying that it is just one time, or that I really need it, or the person wouldn't notice… the excuses are endless. But my belief that stealing would harm my future would stop me. Because now the action would affect me. Adversely." Ha. This seems reasonable to you. But if your belief that you will be punished afterward is unfounded than it definitely unreasonable. You say you believe in karma, and it is your belief in karma which pushes you to be a moral being. But your belief in karma is founded solely on faith, with nothing to back it up. Which makes the belief in karma irrational. We can only be sure our moral system is just if it is based entirely off of rationality. I say we will indeed be punished for being immoral. But not because of karma. My assertion is not founded on faith, but on reason. And we will not have to wait for any after-life or reincarnation to feel it. For my morality is the one of consequentionalism. And the one of this life which we hold now. "I have actually stated that being a selfish being, "if he thinks he can get away with something, there is very little to hold him back, and only a man of infinite patience and calmness can actually follow his moral principles just because it is wrong to do so." As I explained, with example in the previous paragraph." But you are taking completely and wrongly under assumption that in this person's moral code, selfishness is a bad thing. Why is being selfish immoral? Indeed, according to my code of rationalism, it is not. Rather, quite the contrary. It is our selfishness which pushes us to be moral beings, those who seek pleasure and avoid displeasure. I contend that you are actually the same! But do not realize it. Your code based on karma is one which is also based on selfishness. You say you will not steal because you believe it will bring you displeasure later. This means you are acting in selfishness. I too espouse a system like this but without the need for faith. We can quite clearly see during the life we have now what will bring us pleasure and displeasure. Faith is a way to keep the simple-minded in line. Those who do not realize they can have the morality they seek, based on reason instead. "That is what is the first step to a vicious cycle. Of course it is rational to pursue your own pleasure, but this can give a ‘reason' to many crimes. This is where faith and the relation between God and morality come into play." I assert that any "crime" committed against humanity in the name of selfishness was done out of irrationality because the person wrongfully judged what is truly in their self-interest. Which I will get to later. "We live our lives. We have work to do, and we are, generally speaking- caught in the duties and aspirations and the rat race and whatnot of life. In this race, sometimes, or rather many a times, we would be tempted to nudge across the line of morals, of doing wrong things, for revenge, out of jealousy, etc, etc. This is natural and I think we both agree on this. Now, our difference mainly arise on choosing the system to overrule or barricade this temptation." You propose faith, I propose reason. "So, we are tempted to cross the line. If we were to make our own rules," Which we do. "we can justify revenge.(‘A person did wrong to me, so it is fair for me to do wrong to him'), pride (‘I did good, I am better than most, it's the truth, I can't do anything about that'), envy , many many sins. Because we are our own masters, we make our own rules, so we can tweak them a little. And that's what most of the time bring us down. " Nah, ah, ah. We could try. But it may or may not still be illogical. You seem to think taking God out of the picture means that whatever humans do is justifiable because we "make our own rules". But whether we make them or not, they can still be logical or illogical. I propose that the correct moral system is to live by pursuing logic best we can. Logic is essential my God. "The point I'm trying to make is that we NEED something stable in our lives; we need something that does not change. We need to have a basis or something that gives us the knowledge about what wrong and right is. Maybe some people believe that they can make their own rules, and that they can actually follow them, but fighting with yourself is most of the times much, much easier. This isn't pessimistic; it's just the truth, or realistic view of the problem." The unchanging thing we need is LOGIC. Not faith! Everything that is logical is going to stay logical and everything that is illogical is going to stay illogical, whether we decide it or not. It's just a matter of figuring them out. Which is the art of rationality. Thus pursuing reason is our only true morality. ===Continuation of my case=== I have already stated how rationality is our only true morality. I have stated what this means is realizing what we do and do not know, then accepting them as such for what they are. Which is the rejection of faith. I then stated what it is we know. Now I will state what that translates to in everyday life. What keeps me from killing people, stealing from people or many other things largely considered to be immoral. It is clear we must pursue happiness. The way in which happiness can be most logically obtained is through an integrated system on an individual's environment which applies the desired outcome of that universally. That is, a system which causes the most happiness for every individual contained within it. One must merely ask themselves when deciding if something is wrong to do: "If everyone did it, would it be beneficial to me?" One best achieves happiness from a proper society. For your own happiness, you must also pursue the happiness of others. So to create this proper society. Cooperation is also essential to this morality.