Good Without God: Is God Necessary for Morality? Kile Jones vs. David Wood

Can we be good without God? In one sense, we obviously can, for we can all do things that human beings regard as “good,” whether we believe in God or not. But in a deeper sense, moral judgments presuppose objective moral values, moral duties, and responsibility for our actions, and some thinkers are convinced that such presuppositions are inconsistent with Atheism.

In this debate, Kile Jones and David Wood discuss two different views of the relationship between God and morality.

Embarrassing atheist defense.

there was no Religion Gd before 1200 bc… dont U think Humans lived with No Gd ?? how did that work out for us?? … did early man hv Gd or Morality?? I always though the first Muslim were the cave man that hit the women over the head and took her… was he wrong to do that?? Murder was common… and it worked… just kill the ones U hate in the tribe and the tribe is happy… cannibalism was only outlawed in the 1900ad, do those Tribes hv Gd Morals.>? hv u ever read the sexual behavior of the Romans or the Rape and pillage in war…before the Christ Gd… Gd show himself only bc he heard the cry and suffering… I guess the question is what is moral to me might not be for you… I dont think Jeff Domer would be happy in a light place… who said doing dark stuff would not be fun for him… and darkness would be his choice… its the same here… Morals count for the whole tribe… some ppl are happy shrinking heads and having big butt stew… who are we to judge?? answer… G*d

We give robots the laws of robotics, so of course God gave us morals. You wouldn’t want flesh terminators now right? XD

While he smacked him around pretty good, I think wood should’ve driven home the point about free will a little harder. If God does not exist, then the concept of free will is completely irrelevant and the notion of moral responsibility is anachronistic.

The best atheists can do is argue from the point of view of utilitarianism, but even that is but post-hoc rationalization to explain away something that could’ve never arisen naturally.

That’s why honest atheists abandon the notion of morals and free will entirely; any other position is simply untenable. But most won’t come around to that because they realize the implications are grim.

The atheist position is:" 1. “My moral experience is completely separate from the question of God’s existence, therefore I can be good without God”.
2. “Anyone who only does good, because he believes in God, isn’t really good”

To 1: The argument in honest form is: “What I perceive(!) to be a “moral” experience is completely separate from the question of God’s existence” and this is true. Is the human moral experience corruptable, is it unchangeable, is it universally constant between humans? If the human moral experience is not constant, then it is a variable (changing over time, over place, over emotional state, over genetics, over need). If it is a variable, then there’s no way to weigh one person’s “morality” against another person’s. By what measure except by a changing benchmark would it be weighed? It is like measuring length with a randomly shrinking and expanding yardstick.
→ The depressing conclusion is that humans indeed have moral experiences, but they are not particularly trustworthy, especially when fleshly desires, emotional trauma, material needs corrupt them. This is why no atheist will have an excuse on judgement day: Their conscience testifies of God, their corruptability testifies of their need for a savior, yet they are not looking. Why? Because they worship their corrupt “experiences” tainted by pride (1), comfort (2) and lust (3). This makes them blind to the humility/simplicity (1), repentance (2) and self-denial (3) of perfect, sinless Jesus Christ, our Lord.

To 2: The argument in honest form is an affirmation: “I am good, because I do not act against moral experiences”. It is not hard to be “good” when any experience they have is by default a “moral experience” and, hence “good”. They deny that there’s never any conflict of interest:
When your “moral experience” demands you be charitable to a stranger,
but your stomach demands you spend the money on food, …
and your ambition demands you spend it to further your business, …
and your pride whispers “do not commune with outcasts” or “he is guilty of his own wretchedness”, …
and your lust demands you should focus on etertainment and sex instead, …
and your comfort whispers “he will be fine without me” or “someone else will do it”.
All of these are masquerading as “good” experiences. In their boastful claim: “I can reliably untangle the desires of the flesh from the moral experience” they invalidate their own claim by pridefully elevating themselves above all of past humanity which proves with its wars, destruction, persecution, corruption, crime, starvation and pestilence that this is not the case.

The exact same line of reasoning applies to “human reasoning” itself. It is also not infallible, not uncorruptible, not unchanging and tainted by the same conflicts of interest.

can we be Good Without God?
this isn’t just about atheists vs christians;
I believe in the god, in the supernatural,
but I believe the bible has no idea
what the real god wants of humans.
. god is the creator of bloody evolution
where most living beings survive only by
murdering other living beings.
. god made us with a nature full of temptations
that urges our neighbors to murder us.
. what makes us feel better is rational humans
telling us that if we make all humans feel good
that will result in our own selves feeling good
because if every one protects everyone,
that will protect everyone.
. only by the purely selfish golden rule
or a human love of human-loving feelings
are we saved from the hell that god built for us.
. eugenics, abortion, and euthanasia
are all considered to be murder
by the holy spirit or God the Father
but the real purpose of avoiding such “murder”
is that it would reduce human suffering,
and inhibit evolution of medical technology.
. the god promotes privacy and trust
which are the keys to maintaining evil.
. the god is here to diversify our experience
and ensure our survival and evolution,
which has nothing to do with morality or justice.

Kile just needs to hear the Gospel I hope he has since this as he clearly hadn’t.

The personal story of how David was before becoming Christian was the best evidence of all for no objective morality from the atheist position.

David can show where morality comes from (God), but Kyle can’t and even admits it eventually. Then he says we shouldn’t try to seek an answer to the question. Why even have philosophical debates on anything then?

This was the weakest atheist argument ive seen so far

Dat gal with knee

Tell him to debate Dr. Kent Hovind. To debate call 855-DINO

As usual the Christian uses good logic and solid arguments, and the atheist basically says, “I don’t think there’s a God.”

Not sure whether this will be a helpful analogy or not but imagine a future where humans have massively improved ourselves to the extent that we have abilities that the humans of today would see as indistinguishable from magic. And then imagine we created a factory that could instantly create intelligent life (albeit much less intelligent) from simple ingredients. What would we think about these people if they created intelligent life and told them what they can and can’t do ? Could the disobedience of the life we created be considered objectively wrong despite the fact that it’s just the futuristic humans collective opinion ? I think many of us, theist and atheist would say that it’s not. Obviously God is different to these hypothetical people in many ways but I don’t see how any of the differences mean Gods moral codes are any more objective. Are Gods morals more objective because he is one entity not many ? in that case simply substitute the group for one person. Are they more objective because God creates things from nothing rather than pre-existing material ? If so why ? The best objection I can think of is, Gods morals are more objective because he is omnipotent and omniscience rather than just being far wiser than his creations. The problem with this however is, I don’t know how we could distinguish between a limited being vastly more powerful than us and a truly limitless being

If something’s gonna hurt us and lower our chances of survival, what’s the point if everybody’s gonna die one day? I can’t IMAGINE how hopeless being an atheist is! I’m so glad i have this hope for life in Jesus Christ!!

David - Atheists have an amazing amount of freedom and Kile is trying to steal your freedom

Kile - Wait, What?

well we onlye know thet gods give us the rules .
end i did’t saw an athiest prolting cristianty
so yes thenk god for rules end thenk god we change the once who make no scence
end we haw a lowes in outher countrys if athiest say rules a bad then stop obaying the lowes then stupid .
if you end in prison will onlye up to you not from the gods thet you stile lisanig to the same rules as evry body els outh ther

Eugenics is good under atheism. Is it not better to reduce greater suffering of the genetically inferior to prevent even more suffering in the future and thoughtfully guide our own evolution? Eugenics is right with subjective moral values and logical reasoning that reduces the greater harm. With God, we have no right to destroy his creations because we assume it is inferior in our own small-minded-naturalistic opinion. With God and spirituality, even the most genetically inferior being can still have tremendous value. You must see the future, have omnipotence, and omnipresence in order to correctly determine the absolute greater good because if you don’t, you will certainly make grave mistakes.

Eugenics was the primary reason Hitler did what he did and no he was not Christian even though he lied in order to gain the vote of religious communities (and hid his hideous actions from the common people).

God’s morals are eternal and man’s can change on a whim depending on which way the wind blows. God’s morals are the pristine foundation for our own morals.

2+2 doesn’t necessarily equal 4 … ask Gödel