Is Murder Wrong If There Is No God?

I'm a Christian, not a nihilist. I am unaware that moral relativism implies randomness. Society coming to consensus about morals is moral relativism. At least, that's what I meant by moral relativism. If that's improper definition, mea culpa.
Actually Christians are nihilists in practice. If a belief system supposedly derived from a single source can inspire people to both save and kill lives, brother that's nihilism. Of course Christians won't admit it, and each of the factions, the kill and the save factions, both believe their interpretation is THE correct one. Can't believe opposite things and have the source not therefore be considered worthless.So Christian = nihilist now? OK . . . . "Interpretations" are going beyond what I've written. Christians believe in the RESURRECTION of Christ. While there are today reportedly thousands of differing interpretations of the RESURRECTION, and what it means for us today in our daily lives, the RESURRECTION itself is the "central" and "crowning" truth* of the one Christian faith, and the belief thereof is what constitutes being a Christian. * - The Catechism of the Catholic Church

Is Murder Right if there is a God?
Seems to me a lot of Murders have been committed in the Name of God.
George Carlin put all this in proper perspective. George Carlin - Kill for God! - YouTube

If we are not to have moral relativism, we need to establish what the objective criteria is for judging that murder is wrong.
Nothing is wrong, if there is no Maker; not in any other way than whatever material consequences follow from actions and choices. There is no "evil," if there is no God. It's a made up concept. You're stuck with moral relativism. Which most people are OK with. I can remember coming across moral relativism arguments in forums years ago. At the time, I didn't immediately form an opinion and jump in. I looked around, Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt. I'm wondering if you have done any of that? Do you consider yourself an expert on moral theories? Or did you just hear the term, decide there isn't any other option and start looking for forums where you could tell people what you discovered? Seriously, I'd really like to know what motivated you.
I can remember coming across moral relativism arguments in forums years ago. At the time, I didn't immediately form an opinion and jump in. I looked around, Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt. I'm wondering if you have done any of that? Do you consider yourself an expert on moral theories? Or did you just hear the term, decide there isn't any other option and start looking for forums where you could tell people what you discovered? Seriously, I'd really like to know what motivated you.
And I don't care what you'd really like to know.
I can remember coming across moral relativism arguments in forums years ago. At the time, I didn't immediately form an opinion and jump in. I looked around, Steven Pinker, Jonathan Haidt. I'm wondering if you have done any of that? Do you consider yourself an expert on moral theories? Or did you just hear the term, decide there isn't any other option and start looking for forums where you could tell people what you discovered? Seriously, I'd really like to know what motivated you.
And I don't care what you'd really like to know. Nihilo so slavery was moral in the past as condoned by your "God" in the Bible but not now??
A fundamental requirement of many animal societies is cooperation. Optimizing function of cooperating members benefits the society. Eliminating contributing members disrupts the function of society. Disapproval of murder discourages eliminating functional members of a society. Societies that disapprove of murder have a positive "fitness point" in their evolutionary favor.
That makes sense to me, and is well stated. But it also raises the question of whether making the case in a dry logical intellectual form like this is an adequate method of persuading vast populations to not murder. As example, would we use the above explanation, accurate as it seems to be, to explain to children why they should not murder? Would that explanation even be sufficient to persuade us to not murder, assuming we found ourselves in a circumstance where that option was being considered? How important is the prohibition on murder to society? How serious are we about having a "positive fitness point in our evolutionary favor"? Are we serious enough to present the case in a manner which is most persuasive to the greatest number of people? Or will we limit our presentation to those methods which we ourselves find the most agreeable? If a God is needed as a threat to keep large populations from accepting murder as a way of life, will we accept a God?

It!s just as wrong as if there is one. It all comes doen to individual opinion. Nothing more. Just because you make up a god to support your opinion doesn’t give it any credibility. Opinion os opinion whether you make up a god to agree with you or not.

Humans are social animals, different from solitary predatory species.
All social animals tend to have a common cause, maintaining the social structure and common defense of the group…
This common cause incentive can already be found in hive insects, herd animals, monkeys, and other hominoids.
It is a natural survival mechanism. Nothing special about it. Even as within the group there may be competition for dominance, in times of an emergency threatening the existence of the hive, herd, or troupe, everyone pulls together.

Nihilo so slavery was moral in the past as condoned by your "God" in the Bible but not now??
What?
Humans are social animals, different from solitary predatory species. All social animals tend to have a common cause, maintaining the social structure and common defense of the group.. This common cause incentive can already be found in hive insects, herd animals, monkeys, and other hominoids. It is a natural survival mechanism. Nothing special about it. Even as within the group there may be competition for dominance, in times of an emergency threatening the existence of the hive, herd, or troupe, everyone pulls together.
Very concise and accurate. Also points out the problem of tribalism. It's good to work together, but that sometimes means working against a rival tribe. Of course that tribe sees it as good that they are working together too.
Nihilo so slavery was moral in the past as condoned by your "God" in the Bible but not now??
What? If the maker decides what is good, how do we judge if the maker is good?
Nihilo so slavery was moral in the past as condoned by your "God" in the Bible but not now??
What?If the maker decides what is good, how do we judge if the maker is good?What? Who cares? There's no "wrong" if there's no Maker, thus the answer to the question, "Is Murder Wrong If There Is No God?" which is the title of the thread, is, "No." Even if we could prove definitively that the Maker both exists nonfictionally, and is "wrong[/evil]," what on earth could we do about it? We would remain at the mercy of the Maker, regardless, and for my money, I'd be more inclined to determining my best course of action, taking into very careful consideration to whether the Maker has instructed me in any particular way, as I make my determination about what is my best course of action, and just what I would do. As a Christian, I am instructed to do one essential thing, and it is that I ought to "confess with [my] mouth the Lord Jesus," and to, "believe in [my] heart that God hath raised him from the dead," as Romans chapter 10 verse nine says. So my choice is whether or not to believe the RESURRECTION. And it's an easy choice.
Nihilo said, What? Who cares? There’s no “wrong" if there’s no Maker, thus the answer to the question, “Is Murder Wrong If There Is No God?" which is the title of the thread, is, “No." ................... As a Christian, I am instructed to do one essential thing, and it is that I ought to “confess with [my] mouth the Lord Jesus," and to, “believe in [my] heart that God hath raised him from the dead," as Romans chapter 10 verse nine says. So my choice is whether or not to believe the RESURRECTION. And it’s an easy choice.
But what has that to do with the question if Murder is wrong if there is no God? Explain the importance of the RESURRECTION to me and how that affects the MORAL concept of MURDER? Do you think that if you are murdered, you will be resurrected, if only you believe hard enough? Afterthought, if there was no God then Jesus would not be the son of God and his murder would not be wrong? This is getting very confused. Seems, you want it both ways.
Nihilo said, What? Who cares? There’s no “wrong" if there’s no Maker, thus the answer to the question, “Is Murder Wrong If There Is No God?" which is the title of the thread, is, “No." ................... As a Christian, I am instructed to do one essential thing, and it is that I ought to “confess with [my] mouth the Lord Jesus," and to, “believe in [my] heart that God hath raised him from the dead," as Romans chapter 10 verse nine says. So my choice is whether or not to believe the RESURRECTION. And it’s an easy choice.
But what has that to do with the question if Murder is wrong if there is no God?
As a Christian, everything. If the RESURRECTION of Jesus is fiction, then the whole thing is a sham; it's not a question of throwing out babies and bathwater; all of our moral roots are in Christian soil, so if the "central" and "crowning" truth of the Christian faith is fiction, then it positively rules out morality as anything other than another fiction; a fiction because it's based on a fiction. Morality can't be supported by anything else than the RESURRECTION. I can say this because I'm a Christian, and I realize that if you're not a Christian, then you can't, but I can't apologize for, that being a Christian provides a philosophical bulwark upon which I can lean, and forever.
Explain the importance of the RESURRECTION to me and how that affects the MORAL concept of MURDER?
If the RESURRECTION is nonfiction, then that means an awful lot. Among which, is that we should listen to anything that He can be confirmed to have taught, regarding moral matters, such as murder. And it turns out, that He entrusted the administration of a brand new earthly organization that we today call the Catholic Church, to Twelve Apostles, Paul (Saul of Tarsus) being the Twelfth. And this organization teaches on matters of both faith and morals, which roughly divides between what we ought to think, and what we ought to do, but there is wide overlap, for instance, we ought to do this or that because we think this or that, or to remind us that we think this or that, or some other conceptual or logical connection between the two. This organization teaches that murder is a grave sin, an example of grave matter, and that murder forfeits any future salvation the murderer might have otherwise enjoyed; it is among the most serious sins, IOW. Beyond this, the Catholic Church teaches that murder automatically renders a Catholic excommunicated, and furthermore, Catholics are also formally excommunicated when they are known to have committed murder. So if the RESURRECTION is nonfiction, then murder is wrong; and if it is fiction, then murder can't be wrong.
Do you think that if you are murdered, you will be resurrected, if only you believe hard enough?
We will all rise from the dead. Some will enter the kingdom of God, and some will not.
Afterthought, if there was no God then Jesus would not be the son of God and his murder would not be wrong?
If the RESURRECTION is fiction, then murder is not wrong. That other stuff doesn't matter. It's ancillary.
This is getting very confused. Seems, you want it both ways.
I don't want it both ways, I want it one way, but it has to be a cogent, reasonable, realistic, stable, and reliable way. Believing that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, meets my specifications.
Write4U said, Explain the importance of the RESURRECTION to me Afterthought, if there was no God then Jesus would not be the son of God and his murder would not be wrong?
Nihilo said, If the RESURRECTION is fiction, then murder is not wrong. That other stuff doesn't matter. It's ancillary.
Write4U, This is getting very confused. Seems, you want it both ways.
Nihilo said, I don't want it both ways, I want it one way, but it has to be a cogent, reasonable, realistic, stable, and reliable way. Believing that Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, meets my specifications.
Sorry to say, your specifications don't meet mine. I prefer Critical thinking over Wishful thinking. But if it makes you happy, I am the last person to murder your Illusion. It's not nice.

But in the interest of Critical analysis of the history of the Catholic Religion, I believe this may be informative,

The 1578 edition of the Directorium Inquisitorum (a standard Inquisitorial manual) spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties*: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur (translation: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit").
* this included "torture", "burning at the stake", "drowning" (to prove someone was "innocent" rather than "guilty"), and just plain old good Murder, all sanctioned (proscribed by Holy Law of God), by the Church. Sounds more like a terrorist handbook, don't you agree?
But in the interest of Critical analysis of the history of the Catholic Religion, I believe this may be informative,
The 1578 edition of the Directorium Inquisitorum (a standard Inquisitorial manual) spelled out the purpose of inquisitorial penalties*: ... quoniam punitio non refertur primo & per se in correctionem & bonum eius qui punitur, sed in bonum publicum ut alij terreantur, & a malis committendis avocentur (translation: "... for punishment does not take place primarily and per se for the correction and good of the person punished, but for the public good in order that others may become terrified and weaned away from the evils they would commit").
* this included "torture", "burning at the stake", "drowning" (to prove someone was "innocent" rather than "guilty"), and just plain old good Murder, all sanctioned (proscribed by Holy Law of God), by the Church. Sounds more like a terrorist handbook, don't you agree?
There are some terrifically horrific crimes that people have done, and censored, they deserve to be tortured. If you disagree, then I disagree over-the-top-all-in, because sometimes people have done some terrible, terrible things. It's not right to not torture these most awful of capital criminals. Instead, we should acknowledge this campaign of mercy, that the West is waging right now, in providing such leniency as the public working (taxes) for the capital criminal's continuing existence, meaning not only are we not torturing and killing them, we're working to ensure that they continue to live, even while we keep them confined with hostility. We pay for that, too. The mercy we're showing them is crazy. I think that the Church's influence has infected our civil government with this mission of mercy. As you've shown, obviously the Church has some experience with torture, and for her part, she would prefer that we outlaw torture, even for the worst capital criminals, no matter the magnitude of their harm against no matter how many other people. If I weren't against this, like, if I weren't a supporter of the separation between religion (including the Christian Church) and civil government, then I would just not mention about how deep this thorn's in our culture, a massive pricker right in our civil flesh. We've been duped into believing there's something wrong with torturing horrible people. That's not true at all! It's also not wrong to show people mercy, no matter how grave the crimes that people may commit. So let's at least acknowledge that it's what we're collectively doing. We are performing a massive experiment, to see if we can vanquish capital crime forever from our species, and we're doing it by not torturing anybody for any crime, no matter how horrible or terrible or perverse. When we do kill for a criminal penalty, we study how to kill most painlessly and most quickly, making the coup de grace the only option now-a-days, instead of in olden days, when we'd only deliver the coup de grace when the horrible capital criminal repented of their crime during torture.

Their justly administered torture.

If the RESURRECTION is fiction, then murder is not wrong.
"Thou shalt not kill" is rumored to have been written in stone long before the JC story even began. Intentional homicide was punishable by death in Athens hundreds of years before JC was rumored to exist. Looks like JC and resurrection are getting way off thread besides being quite inaccurate.