A question I've always wanted to have answered.

To clarify, I AM NOT ASKING "Can people be moral people and not believe in God." I AM asking if there is any good reason to have a moral standard if there is no God.

Yes!

Next..

Yes!

Next..

Clarify.

Say I don't believe God exists. Why shouldn't I act entirely for my own self-interest?

Pretend I knew how to steal money from someone else and not get caught, is there any reason I shouldn't short of "It's not right?" And, can one say "That's not right," without an absolute moral system?

Clarify.

Say I don't believe God exists. Why shouldn't I act entirely for my own self-interest?

Pretend I knew how to steal money from someone else and not get caught, is there any reason I shouldn't short of "It's not right?" And, can one say "That's not right," without an absolute moral system?

Well, you know atheists exist don't you ?

Well, you know atheists exist don't you ?

Yes.

And I know atheists who don't believe in any morality whatsoever, and I know atheists who do. I am curious as to how the former think the world should function and how the latter justify that belief.

Yes.

And I know atheists who don't believe in any morality whatsoever, and I know atheists who do.
Well, there you go. Thread answered.


I am curious as to how the former think the world should function..
No idea.


..and how the latter justify that belief.
Evolution.

Clarify.

Say I don't believe God exists. Why shouldn't I act entirely for my own self-interest?

Pretend I knew how to steal money from someone else and not get caught, is there any reason I shouldn't short of "It's not right?" And, can one say "That's not right," without an absolute moral system?

Because if I harm someone, I'm wrong and he suffers. This thing makes me feel bad... It's called empathy. We are better than theists here, because some of them do the right thing only for personal interest.

Because if I harm someone, I'm wrong and he suffers. This thing makes me feel bad... It's called empathy. We are better than theists here, because some of them do the right thing only for personal interest.

Ah.

I'm not being clear.

Pretend I'm an athiest. What stops me from saying "You know this empathy stuff? That's total BS, there's no reason I should be nice to other people?"

My question was not on mechanics "what causes morality" (in this case, evolution, as Enmos pointed out). My question was on how Athiests justify to themselves following some sort of code even though they believe there's no exterior reason to do so.

Can people who believe in a God me immoral? Of course they can and are.

My question was not on mechanics "what causes morality" (in this case, evolution, as Enmos pointed out). My question was on how Athiests justify to themselves following some sort of code even though they believe there's no exterior reason to do so.Well apart from laws and the punishments which enforce them, people are generally ethical and moral. People recognize that society (which includes them) benefits when people are altruistic or at least respectful of others.

What is a concern is that some religious people think that the fear of one of the many sky gods is the only thing stopping them from killing their neighbors and stealing their stuff.

Ah.

I'm not being clear.

Pretend I'm an athiest. What stops me from saying "You know this empathy stuff? That's total BS, there's no reason I should be nice to other people?"

My question was not on mechanics "what causes morality" (in this case, evolution, as Enmos pointed out). My question was on how Athiests justify to themselves following some sort of code even though they believe there's no exterior reason to do so.

Philosophy... The fact that someone suffers because of your actions. Without philosophy, nothing could prevent an atheist man from doing bad actions except law. Besides, a good theist would be a good atheist, and a bad theist would be a bad atheist. Religion or not, the man is the man.

Well apart from laws and the punishments which enforce them, people are generally ethical and moral. People recognize that society (which includes them) benefits when people are altruistic or at least respectful of others.

What is a concern is that some religious people think that the fear of one of the many sky gods is the only thing stopping them from killing their neighbors and stealing their stuff.


Philosophy... The fact that someone suffers because of your actions. Without philosophy, nothing could prevent an atheist man from doing bad actions except law. Besides, a good theist would be a good atheist, and a bad theist would be a bad atheist. Religion or not, the man is the man.

So, human nature?

Some people are altruistic and some are not? And will be that way regardless of beliefs?

I don't really buy that. I know I for one try a lot harder since I converted. Although that's anecdotal evidence.

Say I don't believe God exists. Why shouldn't I act entirely for my own self-interest?

Because presumably you want to live in a society with other people. Of necessity, that requires that you respect certain interests that other people have. If you do not, you will quickly find yourself ostracised.

Also, cooperative behaviour is often mutually beneficial to all parties involved. If you choose to opt out of accepted moral codes, you'll quickly find that people won't want to associate with you, and you will suffer as a result.

In short, it is in your own interests, if for no other reason, to act morally.


Pretend I knew how to steal money from someone else and not get caught, is there any reason I shouldn't short of "It's not right?"

Yes. Take Kant's categorical imperative, for example. Would you advocate a general rule for all people of "steal money whenever you can if you think you won't get caught"? If you wouldn't advocate such a general rule, then I would suggest that your advocating that rule of behaviour for yourself is, at the very least, self-serving and inconsistent.


And, can one say "That's not right," without an absolute moral system?

What do you mean by "absolute"?


Pretend I'm an athiest. What stops me from saying "You know this empathy stuff? That's total BS, there's no reason I should be nice to other people?"

The kinds of reasons I've given above, for a start.

A question I've always wanted to have answered.

To clarify, I AM NOT ASKING "Can people be moral people and not believe in God." I AM asking if there is any good reason to have a moral standard if there is no God.
Of course yes .
The best example is given by the humanists and the pacifists who do a superb human work .

Because presumably you want to live in a society with other people. Of necessity, that requires that you respect certain interests that other people have. If you do not, you will quickly find yourself ostracised.

OK, so the primary motivation for morality is to fit in with society? Morality can only be trusted if someone is keeping an eye on it?



Also, cooperative behaviour is often mutually beneficial to all parties involved. If you choose to opt out of accepted moral codes, you'll quickly find that people won't want to associate with you, and you will suffer as a result.


Society is not always mutually beneficial. Take people with down's syndrome, for example. Since they do not contribute to society, shouldn't they be euthanized? Or the elderly?



Yes. Take Kant's categorical imperative, for example. Would you advocate a general rule for all people of "steal money whenever you can if you think you won't get caught"? If you wouldn't advocate such a general rule, then I would suggest that your advocating that rule of behaviour for yourself is, at the very least, self-serving and inconsistent.


Well, I think the topic is going somewhere. But you see, I'm not trying to peddle some worldwide philosophy.

The hypothetical me who lives in a world with no morality is wondering if there is any real reason not to steal and not get caught? Why should I care about being consistent, or not self-serving?

There's the real question. Are there any purely logical/practical motivations for morality or a certain code of ethics? Or is morality just a vague set of philosophical rules that people follow more from convention and habit than for any actual purpose?

Of course yes .
The best example is given by the humanists and the pacifists who do a superb human work .

Please Elaborate. My question is WHY the humanists and pacifists feel the need to do such superb work. NOT what evolutionary processes led them to favor humanitarian work, what is their thought process?

What is the rationale behind non-religious morality?

The human inner conscience would apply some kind of morality . Laws, politics.....etc were started by a kind of morality .

I AM asking if there is any good reason to have a moral standard if there is no God.

I would say that that is the only way to have a reasonable morality.

fiicere,


My question was on how Athiests justify to themselves following some sort of code even though they believe there's no exterior reason to do so. But believing there is a god makes no difference. All Christians for example are all immoral, they are specifically told they are all sinners, that's why they have a savior they expect to come rescue them.

Atheists are exactly the same except that don't expect to be rescued.

The reasoning behind what is good and bad is shared among theists and atheists alike, with the main exception that atheists are able to figure it out for themselves but the theists depend on rules set some 1 or 2 millenia years ago for past ignorant societies.

fiicere,


I AM asking if there is any good reason to have a moral standard if there is no God. Survival is the primary reason. Everyone in modern times depends on a thriving and cooperative society.

Atheists have the superior position, they are good because it makes sense, theists do good because of threat of punishment.

fiicere,

Survival is the primary reason. Everyone in modern times depends on a thriving and cooperative society.

Atheists have the superior position, they are good because it makes sense, theists do good because of threat of punishment.

Heh, hardly. I don't fear punishment. I don't even think hell exists in the traditional sense.

Maybe it would help if I gave some background. I was an atheist, and am religions now for 2 reasons, because I believe the data is incontrovertable, and because it represents the chance for me to do something in this lifetime which is actually worthwhile.

I'm not asking what to do if there's no God holding a big stick threatning people into staying in line. I'm asking what happens if there's no chance of us ever serving any purpose larger than ourselves.


Which leads to my interest in this question. Is the goal to survive and prosper the highest achievement an atheist can hope for? Or is there a logical or practical reason to believe in a different standard similar to the ones religious people believe in?


But, you have not answered the objection to the survival argument. Why do we no euthanize the elderly, retarded, crippled; essentially all those who CANNOT add value to society? If the advancement of society is of the highest importance, is this not then the logical course of action? Is a Huxlean world the utopian society?

BUT (always a but isn't there?) I definitely take issue with this:

So you think atheists don't do something with their lives? Don't do anything good? That belief in god is required to feed the beggar on the road? To do something noble?

You're right, there's no point arguing with you at all.

Instead I'll simply extend my sympathy to you and hope you learn something along the way.

What the hell is your problem? Are you trying to pick a fight with me? Why do you assume that because I post something, I must by definition be making criticisms of your beliefs?

If you read that thread, you would realize I wasn't making points, I was asking questions and honestly looking for answers. You see, unlike you, I actually look for background knowledge before I draw conclusions, and give the other side all the benefits of the doubt, AND chances to explain, before I jump into a debate.

This thread was not me making a point. It's me trying to understand something which is not native to my thought process. So someone who isn't just here to argue, riddle me this riddle:


If there is no God, there is no absolute (objective) moral compass. So what happens to morality? In a universe like that:

What does it mean to be "good?"
If our civilization rises and falls in the blink of the universe's eye, do individual human emotions matter? Why?
If everyone dies anyways, does saving a life mean anything? Why?
What reason do we have to be not selfish, if our own lives are all we have?

I'm asking what happens if there's no chance of us ever serving any purpose larger than ourselves.
No chance of "serving a purpose larger than ourselves"?
Family.
Friends.
Community.
Our children.
Grandchildren.
:shrug:


But, you have not answered the objection to the survival argument. Why do we no euthanize the elderly, retarded, crippled; essentially all those who CANNOT add value to society? If the advancement of society is of the highest importance, is this not then the logical course of action? Is a Huxlean world the utopian society?
Where do you get the idea that "advancement of society" is of the highest importance?
Society is a nebulous concept at best and the future (past next week's bills or next year's holiday) even more so.
One reason they're not euthanised could be fellow-feeling.
And possibly a bit of self-interest: "It could be me there one day".

A question I've always wanted to have answered.

To clarify, I AM NOT ASKING "Can people be moral people and not believe in God." I AM asking if there is any good reason to have a moral standard if there is no God.Morality is a concept. It attempts to dissolve an action into two separate categorizes; good and evil. Good and evil have no absolutes and can not be said to exist, there for making morality defunct.

Societies view on morality today is geared towards a more cooperative, beneficial relation with each other. Which usual leads to human advancement(More of a vanilla term, I wouldn't call it advancement); Science, babies, blah blah. Now that isn't always good let me remind you.

I don't know where God plays into this, he is unprovable. But I can not say there is a good reason for humans to have morality, even though through ever action you make a moral decision. Breathing is good, not breathing is bad.

I'm just throwing out some words, it's 3 in the morning here.

What the hell is your problem? Are you trying to pick a fight with me? Why do you assume that because I post something, I must by definition be making criticisms of your beliefs?
Defensive much?
My beliefs?
We've been through that.


If you read that thread, you would realize I wasn't making points, I was asking questions and honestly looking for answers.
Looking for answers?
Really?

One last word to the atheists who are reading this:
I don’t actually care to debate you.

. If you’re looking for an argument, or a fight, or even a debate, you’ll not find one here. Go elsewhere.
Yup, that's looking for answers: but you only want them from theists it seems.


You see, unlike you, I actually look for background knowledge before I draw conclusions, and give the other side all the benefits of the doubt, AND chances to explain, before I jump into a debate.
Since you ALREADY stated in that document you are NOT interested in debate on the subject, but have assumed (from the general tone) that atheists don't conform to those criteria link (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2327765&postcount=44) to pertinent comments given then I simply replied to that part of it.
Explain to me again how you look before jumping...


This thread was not me making a point. It's me trying to understand something which is not native to my thought process. So someone who isn't just here to argue, riddle me this riddle:
Right: trying to understand by assuming that atheists can't be good/ noble but not prepared to debate about it.


If there is no God, there is no absolute (objective) moral compass. So what happens to morality?
Null question.
God is not the basis for morality, it's biological.


In a universe like that:
What does it mean to be "good?"
Whatever human nature/ thinking/ biology decides it to be.


If our civilization rises and falls in the blink of the universe's eye, do individual human emotions matter? Why?
If everyone dies anyways, does saving a life mean anything? Why?
Pick your answer: you're not the only one to ask (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=93332)


What reason do we have to be not selfish, if our own lives are all we have?
Conscience.
Empathy.
Biology.
Love.
Self-preservation.
More?

No chance of "serving a purpose larger than ourselves"?
Family.
Friends.
Community.
Our children.
Grandchildren.
:shrug:



So, "good" is utilitarian? And it doesn't disturb you that everybody dies eventually, so any "good" you may have done will fade?

Or is our goal to write ourselves so deeply into history textbooks that we'll never be forgotten, and your impact will last as long as humanity?




Where do you get the idea that "advancement of society" is of the highest importance?
Society is a nebulous concept at best and the future (past next week's bills or next year's holiday) even more so.

Yeah, that was what was puzzling me as well. That's why I questioned it.



One reason they're not euthanised could be fellow-feeling.
And possibly a bit of self-interest: "It could be me there one day".

Hmmm. Good point. So we don't euthanise "useless" people because we worry about it happening to us?

So, "good" is utilitarian?
No, good is what society (and the individual) define it to be.
In some societies it's good to eat humans (in fact in one it's good to kill two pubescent teens of your own tribe and eat THEM), in others (limited circulation of course) it's good to be vegetarian...


And it doesn't disturb you that everybody dies eventually, so any "good" you may have done will fade?
That's up to the individual.
There's a link to a relevant thread given in my previous post.
Personally, it disturbs me deeply on bad days and never occurs to me at all on good days.


Or is our goal to write ourselves so deeply into history textbooks that we'll never be forgotten, and your impact will last as long as humanity?
Again it depends on the individual.
Some people just want to get by, some would rather go early provided their name lives as long as possible.


Hmmm. Good point. So we don't euthanise "useless" people because we worry about it happening to us?
That's one explanation.
Another is, as I said, fellow-feeling.
I may not be able to picture myself as drooling congenital idiot of no "use" to anyone, but I do know that I'd rather not be "put down" if I were simply because someone else thinks I have no value.

Looking for answers?
Really?

Always. What did I say that makes you doubt it? I converted once, what makes you think I'm not liable to do it again?



Since you ALREADY stated in that document you are NOT interested in debate on the subject, but have assumed (from the general tone) that atheists don't conform to those criteria link (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2327765&postcount=44) to pertinent comments given then I simply replied to that part of it.
Explain to me again how you look before jumping...
I will assume anything until I have evidence against it. Instead of going off on a tangent at how i'm being unreasonable, how about explaining WHY what I believe is wrong?

The difference between a debate and a discussion is that in a discussion, regardless of what I start out believing, I'm willing to hear you out AND change my position if I think there's merit. In a debate, the objective is to win, by any cost.

By going into an ad hominem attack without even pausing to explain WHY any of my points were irrational, you showed you don't actually care for an exchange of information, only to try to prove that your information is correct.



Right: trying to understand by assuming that atheists can't be good/ noble but not prepared to debate about it.

Sure, because saying "You're so biased I can't even talk to you" is an excellent way to start a productive debate.

But for the record, I was saying that atheists can never serve an objective morality, merely a subjective one.

Always. What did I say that makes you doubt it? I converted once, what makes you think I'm not liable to do it again?
I took the "One last word to the atheists who are reading this: I don’t actually care to debate you.If you’re looking for an argument, or a fight, or even a debate, you’ll not find one here. Go elsewhere." as a dismissal of atheists and their opinions in general.


I will assume anything until I have evidence against it. Instead of going off on a tangent at how i'm being unreasonable, how about explaining WHY what I believe is wrong?
That's easier: or are you claiming that no atheist is or has ever been noble? Or generous to beggars (real or metaphorical) or don't do anything with their lives?


The difference between a debate and a discussion is that in a discussion, regardless of what I start out believing, I'm willing to hear you out AND change my position if I think there's merit. In a debate, the objective is to win, by any cost.
Ah okay.
I apologise.


By going into an ad hominem attack without even pausing to explain WHY any of my points were irrational, you showed you don't actually care for an exchange of information, only to try to prove that your information is correct.
As to why see comments above.


Sure, because saying "You're so biased I can't even talk to you" is an excellent way to start a productive debate.
That's how it read to me.
And we're not debating we're discussing ;)


But for the record, I was saying that atheists can never serve an objective morality, merely a subjective one.
Understood, and agreed.
We've got umpty-gazillion threads about that and it's more or less unanimous as a viewpoint for atheists. (Unless I missed someone's post disagreeing :D).

No, good is what society (and the individual) define it to be.
In some societies it's good to eat humans (in fact in one it's good to kill two pubescent teens of your own tribe and eat THEM), in others (limited circulation of course) it's good to be vegetarian...

Hmmm. That makes sense to me. Thank you.

In a semi-related question, is war then necessary? In the event those two societies ever run into each other?

fiicere


Heh, hardly. I don't fear punishment. I don't even think hell exists in the traditional sense.Then why be moral as a theist? What's YOUR motivation?


...and am religions now for 2 reasons, because I believe the data is incontrovertableWhat data?


, and because it represents the chance for me to do something in this lifetime which is actually worthwhile.Such as? What can you do that an atheist cannot?


I'm asking what happens if there's no chance of us ever serving any purpose larger than ourselves.What does that mean? What purpose do you think you have found?


Is the goal to survive and prosper the highest achievement an atheist can hope for? Or is there a logical or practical reason to believe in a different standard similar to the ones religious people believe in?Both have the same goals. Both want to survive and prosper. The theist expects to survive death, that's why they are theists, the entire purpose of following the rules of a religion - to achieve immortality - i.e. to survive.

Ultimately survival and happiness are the only meaningful goals, whether theist or atheist. Do you have a better goal?


But, you have not answered the objection to the survival argument. Why do we no euthanize the elderly, retarded, crippled; essentially all those who CANNOT add value to society?Because the value to society is not a goal, at least not in the western world. The rights of the individual still come first.


If the advancement of society is of the highest importance, is this not then the logical course of action? Is a Huxlean world the utopian society?I sincerly hope we never get to such a dreadful state. The rights of the individual MUST always outweigh the rights of the society. Society is comprised of individuals and if they don't come first then what value is the society?

The issues of the elderly, crippled, and retarded, are challenges for science to resolve, that comes down to human ingenuity and creativity. Anti-aging research will likely solve the disease of aging, by far the biggest killer of all time, and the reason why religions exist.

fiicere

Then why be moral as a theist? What's YOUR motivation?


I think I can permanently alter the state of the universe. Theists believe in the human soul, which is eternal, and is therefore infinitely more important than merely physical occurences.



What data?


Usename: fiicere@yahoo.com
Password: free



Such as? What can you do that an atheist cannot?

Commit actions which have permanent consequences.




Both have the same goals. Both want to survive and prosper. The theist expects to survive death, that's why they are theists, the entire purpose of following the rules of a religion - to achieve immortality - i.e. to survive.

Ultimately survival and happiness are the only meaningful goals, whether theist or atheist. Do you have a better goal?

Sort of. I don't really think survival is an issue.

Now we're getting into something fuzzy. I just want to clarify that I have no proof (although it works out nicely with my other beliefs for consistency. If you're curious, ask) for what I'm about to say. Obviously, I assume souls exist.

The problem for me has always been time. How can God be both eternal AND in the present moment? How can we? How can God see the future without it being predetermined? My take on it is that things have a nature. For example, think of Gravity. It applies different forces on different objects at different times, but it itself is always the same. Similarly, if you knew me well enough, you'd know that when I come home and see a box of chocolate on the table, I'll help myself to one. It doesn't mean that I had no choice in the matter, but, after a fashion, I already MADE my choice by choosing to be the kind of person who eats chocolate.

So, it would seem to me that life is the state where a soul is making a choice. THE choice, if that helps. I believe, through the interactions I have with others, that I can change the outcome of that choice.

Personally, I don't believe in hell or heaven in the traditional sense. No torture rooms or burning lakes for me except as metaphors. What I do believe is consequence. The consequence of living a certain lifestyle is true inner peace and harmony, because one is fulfilling one's purpose in the universe. Consider that feeling you get when you are hanging out with the people you truly care about and who truly understand you. The consequence of living the other is the discord of knowing that you are at odds with everything else in the Universe. Consider the feeling of guilt you would feel if you knew you had done something important so monumentally wrong it is irredeemable.

If I, in my life, can help anyone else to be a "better" person, then I truly believe that it will have repercussions for all eternity FOR THAT PERSON. Heck, even if I can't convert anyone, it's not a black and white thing. If someone were to become a marginally better person because of me, they would live with the consequences of that change forever.

Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat forever.

In a semi-related question, is war then necessary? In the event those two societies ever run into each other?
Oh, good question.
The answer is (IMO) "Probably, so long as we remain human".
I think it's probably part of our nature, but we seem (some of us) to be learning to control it, so it may get "phased out" although I'm fairly sure (gut feeling) that something will take its place...

-=-

The Holy Babble is the worst example of morals. It is vile, disgusting & repulsive. And contradictory. God is a trillion times worse than Hitler, Bundy & all human villains combined.
I've yet to hear of any moral gods. They are all created in the image of man with more negative than positive.
I strongly warn against Jesus or God as a role model.

-=-

The Holy Babble is the worst example of morals. It is vile, disgusting & repulsive. And contradictory. God is a trillion times worse than Hitler, Bundy & all human villains combined.
I've yet to hear of any moral gods. They are all created in the image of man with more negative than positive.
I strongly warn against Jesus or God as a role model.

Evidence?

A question I've always wanted to have answered :

SciForums.com : Philosophy : Religion
Can Morality Exist Without God?

To clarify, I AM NOT ASKING "Can people be moral people and not believe in God." I AM asking if there is any good reason to have a moral standard if there is no God.



Heh, hardly. I don't fear punishment. I don't even think hell exists in the traditional sense.

Maybe it would help if I gave some background. I was an atheist, and am religions now for 2 reasons, because I believe the data is incontrovertable, and because it represents the chance for me to do something in this lifetime which is actually worthwhile.

I'm not asking what to do if there's no God holding a big stick threatning people into staying in line. I'm asking what happens if there's no chance of us ever serving any purpose larger than ourselves.



You're contradicting yourself. Or having great difficulty expressing yourself.

You're contradicting yourself. Or having great difficulty expressing yourself.

I could say the same. I have no problem answering questions, but I really don't understand WHERE you think I am contradicting myself. Please, clarify for me.

I said that one of my primary motivations is not the fear of punishment but the hope of doing something worthwhile. And I question, if God does not exist, how I may do any lasting good for the world I live in.

If there is no God, there is no absolute (objective) moral compass. So what happens to morality?


If there is a God, there is no absolute (objective) moral compass.

If there is a God, there is no absolute (objective) moral compass.

Ah interesting. OK, I concede that there may indeed be other forces in the universe other than God which determine morality. Personally, I don't think things like evolutionary morality are respectable enough for me to dedicate myself to their standard, but if you think you can change my mind, go for it.

So, who/what do you think determines objective morality?

Philosophy provides a moral compass... Actually, it's better than religion.

-=-

If there is a God, its morals are not objective.

“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
The Holy Babble is the worst example of morals. It is vile, disgusting & repulsive. And contradictory. God is 333 camplextrillion times worse than Hitler, Bundy & all human villains combined.
I've yet to hear of any moral gods. They are all created in the image of man with more negative than positive.
I strongly warn against Jesus or God as a role model. ”



Evidence?


Have you not read it???

Well, I don't know how to define objective morality short of "a standard of behavior held by a higher perspective than a human one"


“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa

Have you not read it???

Yes I have.

Dude, are you gonna stop wasting my time with monosyllabic responses and actually post something worthwhile, or will you satisfy yourself with your own ignorant bias and oh-so-clever mispelling of the name of the Book you're referring to, minus any actual examples, of course?

I AM asking if there is any good reason to have a moral standard if there is no God.

Yes. Without a societal moral standard of some sort, there'd be no society. Humans evolved a system of ethics in order to survive as social animals in large, potentially volatile, groups. Without that development, we'd have killed each other...well, killed each other more.

Whether or not that cognitive evolution was divinely inspired is irrelevant to the fact that we, as a species, developed the concept of ethics.

Philosophy provides a moral compass... Actually, it's better than religion.
Of course .
However do you not see that religion started from a sort of philosophy based on the definition of the word philosophy ?.

fiicere,

Survival is the primary reason. Everyone in modern times depends on a thriving and cooperative society.

Atheists have the superior position, they are good because it makes sense, theists do good because of threat of punishment.

I think it is their conscience and not their will for survival .

One way to approach this issue (morality) is looking at nature. Animal researchers constantly finds various examples that indicate different level of social bonds among non-human creatures. There is a passage from Science website of New York Times:

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

It is possible to find many other similar semi-moral behaviour examples. Nature provides some sort of base for social bond, with or without humans. Like other animals, we are armed with a set of moral elements in our existence, it's within the package, we have nothing to do with it.

However, "being human" signifies something different: Consciouss codification. Just as we codified some voices to construct grammatic languages, we have also tried to establish a culturally coded (so we can share the idea with others) moral values. So morality was rooted before the idea of creator God emerged among humans. Moral codes were coming from the heritage of ancestors, giving meanings to natural environment, realising the fact that communal harmony brings better survival chance, happier and secure (not always) and wealtier (not for everyone) opportunities. My answer to OP is yes, there is a possibility of morality without the existence of God idea, it has been in human history before and still there are people who follow certain moral and ethic codes without believing in any sort of God.

Actually, some of these people also find it immoral to behave morally just because otherwise God would punish us. That means if God or the idea of God was not around, there would not be any need to follow any moral value. Wrong. Because morality is about responsibility and respect to each other and to nature; God does not need it, we need it.

Actually, some of these people also find it immoral to behave morally just because otherwise God would punish us. That means if God or the idea of God was not around, there would not be any need to follow any moral value. Wrong. Because morality is about responsibility and respect to each other and to nature; God does not need it, we need it.
:bravo: !.

Of course .
However do you not see that religion started from a sort of philosophy based on the definition of the word philosophy ?.

Not really.

One way to approach this issue (morality) is looking at nature. Animal researchers constantly finds various examples that indicate different level of social bonds among non-human creatures. There is a passage from Science website of New York Times:

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

It is possible to find many other similar semi-moral behaviour examples. Nature provides some sort of base for social bond, with or without humans. Like other animals, we are armed with a set of moral elements in our existence, it's within the package, we have nothing to do with it.

However, "being human" signifies something different: Consciouss codification. Just as we codified some voices to construct grammatic languages, we have also tried to establish a culturally coded (so we can share the idea with others) moral values. So morality was rooted before the idea of creator God emerged among humans. Moral codes were coming from the heritage of ancestors, giving meanings to natural environment, realising the fact that communal harmony brings better survival chance, happier and secure (not always) and wealtier (not for everyone) opportunities. My answer to OP is yes, there is a possibility of morality without the existence of God idea, it has been in human history before and still there are people who follow certain moral and ethic codes without believing in any sort of God.

Actually, some of these people also find it immoral to behave morally just because otherwise God would punish us. That means if God or the idea of God was not around, there would not be any need to follow any moral value. Wrong. Because morality is about responsibility and respect to each other and to nature; God does not need it, we need it.

OK, good point. More questions!

Do we, as intelligent, logical beings (well, some of us more than others), decide that the old "morality" that nature has drilled into us has served its purpose? Will we ever reach a state where we can discard these evolutionary impulses and find a better system? If so, what system?

Not really.

Philosophy is searching for the truth and a man's made religion is somehow seeking the truth by guessing there is a god or multiple gods....etc .

Philosophy is searching for the truth and a man's man religion is somehow seeking the truth by guessing there is a god or multiple gods....etc .

It's still speculation.

It's still speculation.

So indeed philosophy is a mere speculation powered by logic .

fiicere,


I think I can permanently alter the state of the universe.Why would that be desirable or important?


Theists believe in the human soul, which is eternal, and is therefore infinitely more important than merely physical occurences.How do you weigh the values between a soul and something physical? A soul if it could exist appears to depend entirely on the physical for its identity, memory, ability to think, etc. Without these things a soul has no value, whether it is eternal or not.


“ Originally Posted by Cris
Such as? What can you do that an atheist cannot? ”

Commit actions which have permanent consequences.For example? Walt Disney was an atheist and the Disney phenomena is now a permanent mark in the history of the universe.


Ultimately survival and happiness are the only meaningful goals, whether theist or atheist. Do you have a better goal? ”

Sort of. I don't really think survival is an issue.The basic promise of every religion is survival, that's why you believe in an eternal soul. Or perhaps more importantly people don't want to die, and religions promise an escape.


Obviously, I assume souls exist. Understood.


... How can God see the future without it being predetermined? I believe that to be a fundamental paradox to the theist claims for omniscience and free will - they are mutually exclusive. If omniscience exists then what you think of as choice is only your delusion, if what you think is your chocie is known before the event then you had no real free choice, your actions were predetermined. Calling it your nature makes no difference.


The consequence of living a certain lifestyle is true inner peace and harmony, because one is fulfilling one's purpose in the universe. Consider that feeling you get when you are hanging out with the people you truly care about and who truly understand you. But you don't have to be a theist to achieve the same thing. Your purpose in life is not made for you it is something you choose.


The consequence of living the other is the discord of knowing that you are at odds with everything else in the Universe. Consider the feeling of guilt you would feel if you knew you had done something important so monumentally wrong it is irredeemable. Yes this is taking responsibility for your actions, there is no escape. Once something is done it cannot be undone. If you do something wrong that you regret then you must live with it. Religions again give the deluson that there is an escape, like the delusion that you can survive death. These are both things we would like and religions pander to those inner desires and play on our weaknesses.


If I, in my life, can help anyone else to be a "better" person, then I truly believe that it will have repercussions for all eternity FOR THAT PERSON. Heck, even if I can't convert anyone, it's not a black and white thing. If someone were to become a marginally better person because of me, they would live with the consequences of that change forever.If it makes you happy to help others and you see that is your purpose in life, then fine. You don't need to believe in a god to do the same thing.


Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he will eat forever. Equally applies to atheists.

Do we, as intelligent, logical beings (well, some of us more than others), decide that the old "morality" that nature has drilled into us has served its purpose? Will we ever reach a state where we can discard these evolutionary impulses and find a better system? If so, what system?

We have been replacing some old "morality" with new ones and sometimes just been modifying them since the dawn of time. Today, our entire moral set is based on unnatural human knowledge, even the ones that look like very natural to us; even the ones which are consumed and produced by very much natural behaving hunter-gatherer tribes: Because we put them into words, we symbolize them, teach them and learn them. They don't come from natural process; they totally depend on human individuals in a given social or communal existence. “Evolutionary impulses” or what “nature has drilled into us” have gone from our existence long ago.

And we know from history that human mental universe and its real world constantly change, so the society. Morality must satisfy the needs of society, if it does not, it will be changed. It once regulated by the human meanings for natural environment, then agricultural societies pushed it to other stage; Gods and Philosophy (“if we can control livestock somebody must be controlling us” logic). Our crops and largely populated new cities required blessings; today they just do well with enough electricity. Now first time in the history, human beings started to believe only in themselves. New morality will be based on according to the needs and expectations of this new society. So my reply for your “Will we ever reach a state where we can discard these evolutionary impulses and find a better system?” question is “suitable”, “more functional” systems, instead of “better”. We now love environment; we think that we have moral responsibility for the nature and its habitat. Why? Two reasons: One: artistic as well as scientific view has evolved us into a level of wisdom that we started to realize our position in the court of natural universe. Second: We just realized that nature needs attention and constructed new moral discourse accordingly and pragmatically. They are both same thing: Functional mental tools for apes...

What system it would be? This would be fortune telling, but I will restrain myself seeing the dynamics of this system, rather than the end result: God driven societies had to rely upon taboo creation and boundaries, alongside using natural energy of fear. They started their journey by agricultural revolution 10 000 years ago and they have reached their utmost stage as empires and nation states. Now number driven societies are challenging taboos and borders, alongside using every means of human creations; technology and principles. The moral system will be adopted accordingly.

To clarify, I AM NOT ASKING "Can people be moral people and not believe in God." I AM asking if there is any good reason to have a moral standard if there is no God.
of course morality can and does exist without god.
have you seen any gods lately telling us how to live?
which ones
www.godchecker.com
or is this your source of morals
www.evilbible.com

kinda obsolete those religious morals wouldnt you think?

now try www.atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/atheism/About_Atheism

fiicere:


OK, so the primary motivation for morality is to fit in with society?

Morals only exist between multiple conscious agents. If it was a one-person universe, morality would have no meaning.


Society is not always mutually beneficial. Take people with down's syndrome, for example. Since they do not contribute to society, shouldn't they be euthanized? Or the elderly?

I'm not sure that they do not contribute to society. You must be thinking of a particular type of contribution.

On the topic of euthanasing people with Down Syndrome or the elderly, I guess the question to ask is: would you agree to be euthanased once you reached a certain age, regardless of your state of health, mental faculties etc.? If not, then advocating it for other people is inconsistent.


The hypothetical me who lives in a world with no morality is wondering if there is any real reason not to steal and not get caught? Why should I care about being consistent, or not self-serving?

I thought I'd already given several reasons in my first response to you. You sound like you read them and you responded, but then you go back as if these things weren't said. Strange.

Originally Posted by fiicere
Do we, as intelligent, logical beings (well, some of us more than others), decide that the old "morality" that nature has drilled into us has served its purpose? Will we ever reach a state where we can discard these evolutionary impulses and find a better system? If so, what system?
good question,
perhaps better suited for the political forum?

I suspect the old capitalist system will keep on chugging for a long while yet,with a touch of socialist ideas thrown in to make it bit more stable,like we've just seen..

eventualy when people become inteligent enough to realize that money isnt everything
(only way to reach that would be to have guaranteed existence/job for life) then we may reach something like a Star trek society where no one is poor or hungry.
heres one idea thats been around for a while
www.technocracy.org

religions unfortunately wont help us to get there as all they do is make people stupid,by teaching them lies and hate and even denying simple fact such as evolution etc..

The answer is yes. Morality is inborn to human animals. Like many other species, we have a natural aversion to killing each other without cause or provocation.

Furthermore, if "god" exists...

(1) Then "god" created everything that exists, including extreme evil. This "god" does nothing to intervene with that evil. Thus, this "god" is evil.
(2) This "god' requires worship. This "god" must be vain and insecure. Thus this "god" is not worthy of worship.
(3) This "god" created humans as his/her supposedly "chosen" race. This "god" then allows humans to suffer. Thus this "god" is petty and cruel.
(4) This "god" created everything, yet "everything" includes this "god." You cannot create yourself. Thus, this "god" cannot exist.


So then, if "god" does not exist...

(1) Humans need to stop wrapping themselves in a myth and start facing the true and natural reasons for their existence.
(2) Humans need to start accepting those natural reasons and stop claiming semi-divine status for themselves in the universe.
(3) Humans need to stop hiding behind a preposterous myth and using it to rationalize their own murderous cruelty and childish insecurities.
(4) Humans need to start existing in reality instead of indulging in dangerous magical thinking.

The hypothetical me who lives in a world with no morality is wondering if there is any real reason not to steal and not get caught?
I think you already know why,
if not then why dont you try it,
but first go visit any prison and see what kind of scumbag psychos you'll be sharing a small cage with for a very long time!
it aint pretty
and yes they all do get caught.

So then, if "god" does not exist...

(1) Humans need to stop wrapping themselves in a myth and start facing the true and natural reasons for their existence.
(2) Humans need to start accepting those natural reasons and stop claiming semi-divine status for themselves in the universe.
(3) Humans need to stop hiding behind a preposterous myth and using it to rationalize their own murderous cruelty and childish insecurities.
(4) Humans need to start existing in reality instead of indulging in dangerous magical thinking.

I think all four numbered sentences say the same thing, so why are there four separate numbers? Did I miss a detail?

I think all four numbered sentences say the same thing, so why are there four separate numbers? Did I miss a detail?

I see at least 4 different conclusions here .:cool: .

I see at least 4 different conclusions here .:cool: .
Good for you, because all I can see is "humans need to stop mythical reasoning and start natural reasoning".

Good for you, because all I can see is "humans need to stop mythical reasoning and start natural reasoning".

Like mike said, they are four related yet distinct conclusions. You not seeing them doesn't change that. :cool:

fiicere,

Why would that be desirable or important?

How do you weigh the values between a soul and something physical? A soul if it could exist appears to depend entirely on the physical for its identity, memory, ability to think, etc. Without these things a soul has no value, whether it is eternal or not.

For example? Walt Disney was an atheist and the Disney phenomena is now a permanent mark in the history of the universe.

The basic promise of every religion is survival, that's why you believe in an eternal soul. Or perhaps more importantly people don't want to die, and religions promise an escape.

Understood.

I believe that to be a fundamental paradox to the theist claims for omniscience and free will - they are mutually exclusive. If omniscience exists then what you think of as choice is only your delusion, if what you think is your chocie is known before the event then you had no real free choice, your actions were predetermined. Calling it your nature makes no difference.

But you don't have to be a theist to achieve the same thing. Your purpose in life is not made for you it is something you choose.

Yes this is taking responsibility for your actions, there is no escape. Once something is done it cannot be undone. If you do something wrong that you regret then you must live with it. Religions again give the deluson that there is an escape, like the delusion that you can survive death. These are both things we would like and religions pander to those inner desires and play on our weaknesses.

If it makes you happy to help others and you see that is your purpose in life, then fine. You don't need to believe in a god to do the same thing.

Equally applies to atheists.

You misunderstand me. You see, an athiest believes that there is no afterlife, and that humans are therefore not eternal.

So, let's say I choose today to give food to a homeless man. If we fast forward a day, he'll be hungry again. So let's say I teach him to work and get him a job. Fast forward a year, and he'll be more happy and successful. But fast forward a hundred years, and he'll be dead. In fact, fast forward a hundred years and he'll be dead NO MATTER what I do for him.

That's what I mean by permanance. You referenced Walt Disney, and his work may indeed last a long time, but even the effects of that are not "permanent" as you suggested. Consider Julius and Augustus Caesar, who forged the greatest empire ever seen on the face of the Earth. You'd be hard pressed now to find any repercussion of their rule still around today.

And that is precisely what I mean by permanence. There is a time limit on any effect you might have on anything. There is no time limit on what I do.

Essentially, to take Utilitarian standards, imagine you were to save the entire world. Say 9 billion people. The amount of Good you would have done is equal to all the happiness and joys of the entire human race from this day forward. Monumental, is it not? Yet if I were to benefit one person, even in the slightest, the good I would have done them will last for an eternity, every "day" benefiting the person I helped, even long after humanity has ceased to exist. This far outweighs even the monumental good you would have accomplished.

But, you asked a good question. How does the soul differ from the physical, if the two obviously overlap? The soul must start in balance, then eventually make a decision, which essentially decides the final state of the soul. The physical provides more factors to judge but is not essential to the choice. Consider a test. You are asked to write an essay. When the time's up, you will have something written, but how much you studied the night before will influence what it is you have written. I don't think the memories themselves, specifically, are important, except in relation to how they change the soul.

Well, all these discussions are based on a primary idea. Its like GOD is our boss and if we know that he is not around, ITS PARTY TIME. Man has been on this planet even before he coined the concept of a Supreme Power. I believe its more to do with one's conscience. But i also do agree that religion and the concept of GOD (to whom we believe are answerable) are playing a major role in grooming one's character.
So, as long as one believes that he is accountable to GOD for his actions and refrains from doing unethical or immoral things solely for that reason, it will always be a party time for those guys, if somebody proves that all these matter came to existence by itself.
As for me, whether by the belief in GOD or my natural conscience, i have been groomed to be stopped by a voice inside, if i intend to hurt someone. And the existence of GOD would not make a major difference in this context. And ya. i forgot to tell you. I am no atheist :)

of course morality can and does exist without god.
have you seen any gods lately telling us how to live?
which ones
www.godchecker.com
or is this your source of morals
www.evilbible.com

kinda obsolete those religious morals wouldnt you think?

now try www.atheists.org
http://www.atheists.org/atheism/About_Atheism


The answer is yes. Morality is inborn to human animals. Like many other species, we have a natural aversion to killing each other without cause or provocation.

Furthermore, if "god" exists...

(1) Then "god" created everything that exists, including extreme evil. This "god" does nothing to intervene with that evil. Thus, this "god" is evil.
(2) This "god' requires worship. This "god" must be vain and insecure. Thus this "god" is not worthy of worship.
(3) This "god" created humans as his/her supposedly "chosen" race. This "god" then allows humans to suffer. Thus this "god" is petty and cruel.
(4) This "god" created everything, yet "everything" includes this "god." You cannot create yourself. Thus, this "god" cannot exist.


So then, if "god" does not exist...

(1) Humans need to stop wrapping themselves in a myth and start facing the true and natural reasons for their existence.
(2) Humans need to start accepting those natural reasons and stop claiming semi-divine status for themselves in the universe.
(3) Humans need to stop hiding behind a preposterous myth and using it to rationalize their own murderous cruelty and childish insecurities.
(4) Humans need to start existing in reality instead of indulging in dangerous magical thinking.

Questions on the morality of God (aka, "is God a good entity", or, more correctly, "why god is not a good entity") are very good points of discussion. Unfortunately, it's off topic, so I have redirected it here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=95084

You will find a (hopefully explanatory) response.

fiicere,


You misunderstand me. You see, an athiest believes that there is no afterlife, Close enough.


and that humans are therefore not eternal.At the moment, but we are working on changing that.

See - http://www.imminst.org

Anti-aging and uploads, and all aspects of post-humanity are very actively being worked around the world. The referenced site has links to most of the active research currently in progress and the forums discuss the many aspects and practical repurcussions of the new science and technologies currently being developed. Involuntary human death is unlikely to continue to be the enevitable outcome we have come to expect.


There is a time limit on any effect you might have on anything. There is no time limit on what I do.I don't follow your need to make a permanent mark on the universe or its connection with religion. This feels to be merely ego seeking attention. There are many famous people now who will be remembered for their actions for many centuries, and yet there are billions more who simply live their lives and where very few will ever know them. Yet many feel entirely satisfied and fullfilled with the their lives. The fact that they left no mark is of no consequence, they neither care and neither do most others.


Essentially, to take Utilitarian standards, imagine you were to save the entire world. Say 9 billion people. The amount of Good you would have done is equal to all the happiness and joys of the entire human race from this day forward. Monumental, is it not? Yet if I were to benefit one person, even in the slightest, the good I would have done them will last for an eternity, every "day" benefiting the person I helped, even long after humanity has ceased to exist. This far outweighs even the monumental good you would have accomplished.Which is all entirely irrelevant if we all have eternal souls. If we reach a utopian paradise in an afterlife where there is no suffering and everyone has what they need, then what? Any previous actions you took to help become of zero value, wiped out because of post-death perfection. And what will you now do for eternity if no one any longer needs any help? If making a permanent mark is your goal then once achieved you then have eternity in which to "think" about your fame, perhaps. It's an empty and worthless ego trip.

Ultimately the only value for our existence is personal survival and personal happiness.


But, you asked a good question. How does the soul differ from the physical, if the two obviously overlap? The soul must start in balance, then eventually make a decision, which essentially decides the final state of the soul. The physical provides more factors to judge but is not essential to the choice. Consider a test. You are asked to write an essay. When the time's up, you will have something written, but how much you studied the night before will influence what it is you have written. I don't think the memories themselves, specifically, are important, except in relation to how they change the soul. I'll clarify a little more. We know the brain accounts for identity, memory, ability to think, and emotions. We know this because when parts of the brain are damaged clinical studies show all these attributes can be either lost permanently or are seriously limited. The question then becomes what role does a soul play here? If the soul is the "holder" of identity, memory, emotions, etc, then these things cannot be lost when physical damage occurs, but they are. This raises the question then of what exactly is a soul and what does it do? If you die and enter an afetrlife, what goes with you? You brain is dead so you will not know who you are, you will have no memories of what has happened to you, you will feel no emotions or experience them, and you will not be able to form any thoughts. So what exactly are you in this state? A soul that has no abilities. That is synonomous with non existence.

Souls do not exist, there is no purpose left for them to do. The concept was derived long before we had any clue about how the brain functioned. The soul is a redundant concept, and hence the afterlife concept is similar nonsense. In this case you are doomed to be non-eternal and any attempt at a lasting mark you might make will only survive as long as people choose to remember it or it is recorded in history books, just like Disney or Julius Ceasar.

fiicere,

Close enough.

At the moment, but we are working on changing that.

See - http://www.imminst.org

Anti-aging and uploads, and all aspects of post-humanity are very actively being worked around the world. The referenced site has links to most of the active research currently in progress and the forums discuss the many aspects and practical repurcussions of the new science and technologies currently being developed. Involuntary human death is unlikely to continue to be the enevitable outcome we have come to expect.

Wrong, sorry. We are nowhere even close to changing that. If you knew enough biology you'd realize that the problem is impossibly complex due to the continual specification of DNA. But even if it is solved, we'll all die when the solar system collapses. Or the universe, if you're hopelessly optomistic and believe that even if we could travel the necessary light years, we wouldn't find just inhospitable living areas.

I trust you're not optomistic (imbecillic) enough to suggest that we might avoid the heat death of the universe.




I don't follow your need to make a permanent mark on the universe or its connection with religion. This feels to be merely ego seeking attention. There are many famous people now who will be remembered for their actions for many centuries, and yet there are billions more who simply live their lives and where very few will ever know them. Yet many feel entirely satisfied and fullfilled with the their lives. The fact that they left no mark is of no consequence, they neither care and neither do most others.

I care. I never said that you had to. Your point?

Oh, an incidentially, this is where I smack you over the head with a version of Pascal's wager. You have absolutely nothing to lose by believing me, and the possibility of losing something big by not doing so.




Which is all entirely irrelevant if we all have eternal souls. If we reach a utopian paradise in an afterlife where there is no suffering and everyone has what they need, then what? Any previous actions you took to help become of zero value, wiped out because of post-death perfection. And what will you now do for eternity if no one any longer needs any help? If making a permanent mark is your goal then once achieved you then have eternity in which to "think" about your fame, perhaps. It's an empty and worthless ego trip.

My friend, I think you skipped elementary school and it's stress on the comprehension half of reading. Note I said I believed that I could change the state of people's souls? That is precisely what I meant to say.

What I did not say, or intend to say, was that I believe all souls go to some utopian paradise or become perfect "post death." I believe some souls are more perfect than others.

But, since you asked what I would do in my eternity: I would probably spend it doing what I'm doing now. Striving towards perfection. And helping others to do the same.

Finally, it has little to do with fame. It has much to do with worth. What I do not want is to die knowing that I have wasted my life and my purpose for being.




Ultimately the only value for our existence is personal survival and personal happiness.
So, you are saying that you don't believe in a moral code of any kind? Everyone should do what they think is best to aid their own survival and personal happiness?




I'll clarify a little more. We know the brain accounts for identity, memory, ability to think, and emotions. We know this because when parts of the brain are damaged clinical studies show all these attributes can be either lost permanently or are seriously limited. The question then becomes what role does a soul play here? If the soul is the "holder" of identity, memory, emotions, etc, then these things cannot be lost when physical damage occurs, but they are. This raises the question then of what exactly is a soul and what does it do? If you die and enter an afetrlife, what goes with you? You brain is dead so you will not know who you are, you will have no memories of what has happened to you, you will feel no emotions or experience them, and you will not be able to form any thoughts. So what exactly are you in this state? A soul that has no abilities. That is synonomous with non existence.
A statement made with little supporting evidence, so far as I can see. But, unfortunately, for you, I DO have evidence.

Did you know neurotechnology is actually quite advanced? We are capable of causing people to move, walk, and even make speechlike sounds by passing signals through the brain. The exact same signals, in fact, that people use to do the same motions. You know the funny thing? Everyone they tried this on could tell you the difference between them choosing to move their limbs and you controlling you. Funny, since scientists were inputting the EXACT SAME SIGNAL PATTERNS. And since signal patterns directly change chemical concentrations in the brain according to the laws of physics and chemistry, the two identical signals should have identical effects.

Furthermore, what you are saying makes no sense. Obviously parts of you are lost if, wait for it, parts of you are lost. If I lose my right hand, OBVIOUSLY I will be, well, right hand-less. Meaning I'll never be able to wear right-handed gloves, for example. Similarly, If I lose my optic nerve, I'll obviously lose my sight.

But what you don't seem to be comprehending (funny, cause it's really not a complicated concept) is that I believe there's a part of you which doesn't reside in your brain. Meaning, even if your physical brain is lost, GASP, this part might not be lost either.

There are also philosophical ramifications for your statement. There are people who have lost large segments of their brains due to accidents. Should they be treated less like people? Like animals, perhaps? If the brain is all there is to it, why not?





Souls do not exist, there is no purpose left for them to do. The concept was derived long before we had any clue about how the brain functioned. The soul is a redundant concept, and hence the afterlife concept is similar nonsense. In this case you are doomed to be non-eternal and any attempt at a lasting mark you might make will only survive as long as people choose to remember it or it is recorded in history books, just like Disney or Julius Ceasar.

Free will? But you obviously don't believe that, despite all your lifelong experiences telling you it exists, and no actual reason to believe it doesn't. Aside from the (entirely baseless) assumption that EVERYTHING follows a set of pre-determined rules known as physics.

And yet, you live your every day life as if, wait, free will existed! You choose (or act like you do) what music to listen to, which job to work at, which food to eat, and, wait, which philosophy to believe in. To be logically consistent, why don't you act as if all the corollaries to that statement are also true?

Strange thread.
I got a better question, can you believe in something others might perceive as God, without believing in any religion? Yes, I do :D

Religion is full of violence, hatred, greed, jelousy, selfishness, etc... why would you need to believe in religion to have a moral standard?
Religious followers believe there beliefs so strongly that they can't accept others that don't have the same blind faith! Religion seperates from others much more then the op seems to realize. I don't see how any religion is trying to unite the world. All religion operate under the same idealogy that if you don't believe, you will go to hell. Religion supports man vs man violence because not all people believe the same religion, and all religious followers think there religion is the only 'right' one.

I am not religious whatsoever. And I seek a united, free world. So the real question the op is trying to ask is, Can you love the whole world without needing a tool like blind faith? Answer is of coarse you can.

Strange thread.
I got a better question, can you believe in something others might perceive as God, without believing in any religion? Yes, I do :D

Are you saying that you believe there is a God just that none of the religions have it right?



Religion is full of violence, hatred, greed, jelousy, selfishness, etc... why would you need to believe in religion to have a moral standard?
Religious followers believe there beliefs so strongly that they can't accept others that don't have the same blind faith! Religion seperates from others much more then the op seems to realize. I don't see how any religion is trying to unite the world. All religion operate under the same idealogy that if you don't believe, you will go to hell. Religion supports man vs man violence because not all people believe the same religion, and all religious followers think there religion is the only 'right' one.

WHOAWHOAWHOA. A LOT of unsubstantiated arguments. For example:

"Blind faith"
The belief that just because 2 people disagree, there will be violence.
The statement that all religions believe in hell. They all don't.
Heck, if you even thought about it, you'd realize that the problem isn't too few religions trying to "unite the world," it's too many!

But, I will clarify that I was not discussing organized religion. That's why I specificially said "without God" in the title, not "without religion"




I am not religious whatsoever. And I seek a united, free world. So the real question the op is trying to ask is, Can you love the whole world without needing a tool like blind faith? Answer is of coarse you can.

Ummm. No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if morality can be justified in a world without objective morality. In other words, short of saying "It's just the right thing to do!" is there a way to come up with a moral code (preferrably one which is in accordance with Kant's First Formulation).

fiicere,


I care. I never said that you had to. Your point?Yes I understand. Like so many who ask the questions, why am I here, there must be more to life than this? There must be more than just being, born, living and dying? The assumption is that there are answers, yet we see nothing that indicates we have any independent purpose other than living. Those who cannot live with that create religions or as in your case create a variation of religious beliefs that make you feel comfortbale, as many others have done.


Oh, an incidentially, this is where I smack you over the head with a version of Pascal's wager. You have absolutely nothing to lose by believing me, and the possibility of losing something big by not doing so.But which god? Man has defined some nearly 3000 of them over the past several thousands years, that's an average of about 1 each year. What if you choose the wrong one and the real one laughs at you? And wouldn't a real god see through any pretense at belief? Pascal's wager has been torn to shreds repeatedly here.


Note I said I believed that I could change the state of people's souls? That is precisely what I meant to say.I see. How? Define a soul first and what it has that can be changed.


What I did not say, or intend to say, was that I believe all souls go to some utopian paradise or become perfect "post death." I believe some souls are more perfect than others.So what is the nature of the afterlife, what is a soul, and what is perfection, and how many degrees of perfection are there, and how do you know?


Finally, it has little to do with fame. It has much to do with worth. What I do not want is to die knowing that I have wasted my life and my purpose for being.Understood. A common reason people follow a religion.


“ Originally Posted by Cris
Ultimately the only value for our existence is personal survival and personal happiness. ”

So, you are saying that you don't believe in a moral code of any kind? Everyone should do what they think is best to aid their own survival and personal happiness?Why equate survival and happiness with immorality? For example you want to help others because it makes you happy. Or put another way you are unhappy with a life where you think there is no purpose. Your entire perspective here is your personal happiness, that it may well make others happy is incidental to your core intention, i.e. your personal satisfaction (your personal happiness).


But what you don't seem to be comprehending (funny, cause it's really not a complicated concept) is that I believe there's a part of you which doesn't reside in your brain. Meaning, even if your physical brain is lost, GASP, this part might not be lost either.OK, go ahead and show me someone alive without a brain. And where is this thing that doesn't reside in the brain, and what is its nature, and how do you know?


There are also philosophical ramifications for your statement. There are people who have lost large segments of their brains due to accidents. Should they be treated less like people? Like animals, perhaps? If the brain is all there is to it, why not?If they are unable to function and their bodies kept alive via machines yet there is no brain activity, i.e. permamently commatose, presents a massive social problem, usually for their families. Without a funtioning brain that person has essentially ceased to exist. I have no answer to that. It is simply very sad.


Free will? But you obviously don't believe that, despite all your lifelong experiences telling you it exists, and no actual reason to believe it doesn't. Aside from the (entirely baseless) assumption that EVERYTHING follows a set of pre-determined rules known as physics.Not sure where you are going with that. I have no real perspective on whether free will exists or not, apart from it being incompatible with omniscience.


And yet, you live your every day life as if, wait, free will existed! You choose (or act like you do) what music to listen to, which job to work at, which food to eat, and, wait, which philosophy to believe in. To be logically consistent, why don't you act as if all the corollaries to that statement are also true? I've lost you. What was your point? I have no problem living as if I have free will, I have no reason to do otherwise. But if omniscience exists then what I think is free will is simply a delusion. I would have no real choices since everything would have been pre-determind.I'd be nothing more than a sophisticated puppet.

fiicere,


....I believe there's a part of you which doesn't reside in your brain. ...But not all of you. You admit you depend on your brain which wouldn't survive a transition to an "afterlife".

So exactly what would you be in an afterlife? Would you have any emory or ability to think? And if so how would that be achieved without a brain?

A question I've always wanted to have answered.

It should be obvious from the behavior of the religious that morality has nothing to do with god.


I AM asking if there is any good reason to have a moral standard if there is no God.

You mean like the Buddhists have done for 2500 years? Or the Jains? Or the followers of Epicurus? Or any number of Animists, Atheists and Agnostics?

Morality is about how you live with others. God has never been more than just an excuse.

Say I don't believe God exists.

He doesn't.


Why shouldn't I act entirely for my own self-interest?

So why don't you?


Pretend I knew how to steal money from someone else and not get caught

Why pretend? In 5 minutes I can tell you how to kill people and not get caught. Are you tempted? Why not? Because of a bunch of myths nobody really believes? What is the difference between you and Ted Haggard?


without an absolute moral system?

There has never been an absolute moral system, but if it helps you can always pretend.

Pretend I'm an athiest.

Why pretend?


What stops me from saying "You know this empathy stuff? That's total BS, there's no reason I should be nice to other people?"

So why don't? Baron Max is like that.


My question was on how Athiests justify to themselves following some sort of code even though they believe there's no exterior reason to do so.

If it is based in evolution, there isn't any code, but there are exterior reasons, just not absolute ones carved by sky fairies in baloney.

What is a concern is that some religious people think that the fear of one of the many sky gods is the only thing stopping them from killing their neighbors and stealing their stuff.

Ain't that the truth. Religious people are scary. You never know when their cult leader is going to snap and they all kill themselves or worse, kill others.

fiicere,

Yes I understand. Like so many who ask the questions, why am I here, there must be more to life than this? There must be more than just being, born, living and dying? The assumption is that there are answers, yet we see nothing that indicates we have any independent purpose other than living. Those who cannot live with that create religions or as in your case create a variation of religious beliefs that make you feel comfortbale, as many others have done.

Answers are for those who look for them. We (humans) had never seen anything which indicated that our world (cars, planes, lightbulb, computers) were even possible, and yet somebody took a chance on them and here we are today. Granted, often a person will be wrong, but the only way to ever go forward is to try, fail, try again, and keep trying until someone gets it right. You are proposing that we give up, which I find unacceptable.

To a man in a Nazi gas chamber, you could use the same argument. "The assumption is that there is a way out, yet we see nothing that indicates that there is." True as it may be, that sure as hell won't keep me from trying anyways.



But which god? Man has defined some nearly 3000 of them over the past several thousands years, that's an average of about 1 each year. What if you choose the wrong one and the real one laughs at you? And wouldn't a real god see through any pretense at belief? Pascal's wager has been torn to shreds repeatedly here.

First, 3000 is irrelevant according to the wager. It could be 300 billion, and the wager would still work.

But I wasn't talking about gaming it. It's a matter of intention, as you (and many others who oppose the wager have said). I'm not trying to find my way into heaven because I believe that's what benefits me the most. I'm trying to find my way there because if I ever do, it will be the affirmation I've been looking for that I actually did something right. That I served the purpose I'm here for. And that maybe I was a part of something bigger than myself, and my petty hates, fears, joys, or sorrows.

So you see, Pascal's wager is often used incorrectly by the religious who have never truly understood what their God is about, but it can be used correctly. It is, however, often misunderstood. Heck, it's even in the bible:


44"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

45"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. 46When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.


I do not seek God for what he can offer me. I seek him because, if there is any chance of me doing something "good" or "right," it is with him.




I see. How? Define a soul first and what it has that can be changed.
Good question. A soul is something made "in God's image." Namely, it is metaphysical (aka, immesurable by science), and is capable of making choices independent of such things as physical constraints. Beyond that, it's hard for me to define as it is metaphysical and therefore I can't do any experiments on it. But, if we are to believe it's existence in the Christian sense, I'm going to say it's what determines a person's morality. If you want me to go out on a limb, I'd say that ultimately the soul represents the choice between who owns your life, God or you. On one hand, following God means that you will serve the purpose you are created for, be part of something bigger, and be at harmony with the universe but at the expense of some of your anonymity. On the other hand, following yourself allows complete anonymity, but at the expense of serving any higher purpose. A fundamentally selfish existence.



So what is the nature of the afterlife, what is a soul, and what is perfection, and how many degrees of perfection are there, and how do you know?


The best way to think about it (perfection) is to either have read some CS Lewis, or to understand math. I'll assume the latter. So you are aware of escaping series? Given infinite time, some series will go to infinity, some to negative infinity, and some to a constant. Perfection is like that, but without the middle road of approaching a constant. I believe there's no limit to how good a person can be, but nobody can ever be fully good. Kind of like how there's no limit to how big a number can be, but it will never be infinity. Same for the negative.

Lewis sums it up in the following way: "Again, Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live for ever, and this must be either true or false. Now there are a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously if I am going to live for ever. Perhaps my bad temper or my jealousy are gradually getting worse —so gradually that the increase in seventy years will not be very noticeable. But it might be absolute hell in a million years: in fact, if Christianity is true, Hell is the precisely correct technical term for what it would be."


As for how I know? I don't. Philosophy and religion require different standards of weeding out useless theories than Science. All I can say is that, if we accept the base premise (the soul exists), this view is:

1) not self-contradictory, nor contradictory with any of my assumptions, nor with Kant's first formulation, nor with any standard I know of for measuring contradiction.
2) Makes a good deal of sense. It's not built on flawed reasoning, and seems rather obvious in hindsight.
3) Explains some of our observations. For example, I have observed that it is possible for me to make choices and have never had any good reason to disbelieve that fact.



Understood. A common reason people follow a religion.

Why equate survival and happiness with immorality? For example you want to help others because it makes you happy. Or put another way you are unhappy with a life where you think there is no purpose. Your entire perspective here is your personal happiness, that it may well make others happy is incidental to your core intention, i.e. your personal satisfaction (your personal happiness).

OK, go ahead and show me someone alive without a brain. And where is this thing that doesn't reside in the brain, and what is its nature, and how do you know?
If the soul is metaphysical, then I would need some way to show you something metaphysical, right? Essentially, we can only see the soul based on it's interaction with other objects, just as we can only see physical things based on their interactions with other objects. (for example, if light bounces off an object, we can see it, or if it touches us, we can feel it). So far as I'm aware, the soul only interacts with the brain, so with no brain, we'd be unable to see it. Just like you couldn't see me if we were in a room and the light suddenly went out.



If they are unable to function and their bodies kept alive via machines yet there is no brain activity, i.e. permamently commatose, presents a massive social problem, usually for their families. Without a funtioning brain that person has essentially ceased to exist. I have no answer to that. It is simply very sad.

Not sure where you are going with that. I have no real perspective on whether free will exists or not, apart from it being incompatible with omniscience.

I've lost you. What was your point? I have no problem living as if I have free will, I have no reason to do otherwise. But if omniscience exists then what I think is free will is simply a delusion. I would have no real choices since everything would have been pre-determind.I'd be nothing more than a sophisticated puppet.

That's actually why I created my theory of the soul. It reconciles Eternal Time with Physical Time. It holds that your actions (physical actions) ARE determined if one knew the state of your soul. (anything is determined if all it's constituent parts are determined). So all God has to do to be omniscient is observe the state of your soul, and thereby all your actions (physical, anyways) are predicted.

How God's omnicience interacts with a single instant of free will is still something which I'm trying to work out. I feel it has a great deal to do with the difference between Eternal time and Physical time, also having much to do with the theory of Grace.

If you have any insight, please let me know :)

BTW, thanks for an interesting (and insightful) discussion.

Please Elaborate.

People survive better when they preferentially work for both their own interests and the interests of the group.

I believe the data is incontrovertable

Then you fail to understand it fully.


it represents the chance for me to do something in this lifetime which is actually worthwhile.

Now that is funny.


I'm asking what happens if there's no chance of us ever serving any purpose larger than ourselves.

You mean like serving your community? Those in need? What does god have to do with serving real purposes larger then yourself?


Is the goal to survive and prosper the highest achievement an atheist can hope for?

Is it the highest achievement you can hope for?


Or is there a logical or practical reason to believe in a different standard similar to the ones religious people believe in?

How does pretending magic sky faries exist help anything?


Why do we no euthanize the elderly, retarded, crippled; essentially all those who CANNOT add value to society?

You mean like xtians murder heretics, pagans and heathens? Atheists have higher standards. They understand the value of life.

If there is no God, there is no absolute (objective) moral compass. So what happens to morality? In a universe like that:

That is the actual state so what happens is what is currently happening.


What does it mean to be "good?"

Don't you know???


If everyone dies anyways, does saving a life mean anything? Why?

If the "soul" is what's important why do you care if I kill you?


What reason do we have to be not selfish

It doesn't work well.

So, "good" is utilitarian?

Sure, good is what works well for every one involved.


And it doesn't disturb you that everybody dies eventually, so any "good" you may have done will fade?

No. Does it bother you? It must. Why else pretend "god" cares.

That is the actual state so what happens is what is currently happening.


Ummm. OK. What is the justification we use for what is happening now?



Don't you know???
I know what I believe. I don't know what you do. Unless you are implying by that question that morality is built into the human psyche and that we both believe in the same good. Which I wouldn't agree with.



If the "soul" is what's important why do you care if I kill you?

Obviously because that would prevent me from helping other's souls and my own.

If you are a collection of atoms no more significant than any other cluster, what difference would a couple ounces of steel through the middle of your head make?



It doesn't work well.

Really? I though survival of the fittest was supposed to be excellent at improving a species.


Sure, good is what works well for every one involved.

What happens if two goods collide? For example, if there is a shortage of natural resource. Is war then the product of your "good"

I contest that your definition of good fails Kant's First Formulation.



No. Does it bother you? It must. Why else pretend "god" cares.

You got me. I don't like the idea of all my work being wasted. What's your motivation? Why do you like to pretend your life is objectively meaningless?

Well, I don't know how to define objective morality short of "a standard of behavior held by a higher perspective than a human one"

How would that be objective?

Are our moral objective for rats because we are a higher perspective?


Yes I have.

Read it yes. Understood it? Obviously not.

However do you not see that religion started from a sort of philosophy based on the definition of the word philosophy?

Nope.


Will we ever reach a state where we can discard these evolutionary impulses and find a better system?

What's wrong with these "evolutionary impulses?"


Philosophy is searching for the truth and a man's made religion is somehow seeking the truth by guessing there is a god or multiple gods....etc .

Wel except it isn't. By positing "god" as the indesputible "answer" to all the tough questions, religion is actually inhibiting the search for truth.


I think I can permanently alter the state of the universe. Theists believe in the human soul, which is eternal, and is therefore infinitely more important than merely physical occurences.

You realize you are delusional?


You see, an athiest believes that there is no afterlife, and that humans are therefore not eternal.

Its not a matter of belief.


he'll be dead.

So will you. Helping him now is important now, not 100 years from now. Also feeding him and teaching him aren't mutually exclusive. You can do both.



Consider Julius and Augustus Caesar, who forged the greatest empire ever seen on the face of the Earth. You'd be hard pressed now to find any repercussion of their rule still around today.

Oh, you have to be kidding! There are remminants of Rome all over the place. Ever heard of July and August? You see these Roman letters? Roman grammar? I bet you can't go 10' in any direction and not hit something touched by Rome. Roads, sanitaion, laws, plumbing, ... you need to work on your history.


There is a time limit on any effect you might have on anything.

All compounded things are imperminant.


There is no time limit on what I do.

Being deluded doesn't change your imperminence.


good I would have done them will last for an eternity

You do know that is false?


You misunderstand

So if you were given a choice of doing god's will or doing what is right, which would you choose?


I trust you're not optomistic (imbecillic) enough to suggest that we might avoid the heat death of the universe.

Actually there is enough fuel just in this solar system to keep us nice and toasty for at least through the possibility of proton decay in 3.3 trillion years. That seems a pretty good run if we can figure out how to do it.

FYI immortality is not a blessing. It is a curse. Being omniscient is to be damned.


Oh, an incidentially, this is where I smack you over the head with a version of Pascal's wager. You have absolutely nothing to lose by believing me, and the possibility of losing something big by not doing so.

False dilemma. There is no reason to believe any good god would prefer the company of some one willing to subourn their integrity for the possibility of a reward over some one willing to stand by their convictions even faced with a threat. Only if your god is both petty and evil would the wager apply and even then I'd rather not spend eternity with a petty evil god like yours.


I said I believed that I could change the state of people's souls?

Yes you are delusional, we know.


It has much to do with worth. What I do not want is to die knowing that I have wasted my life and my purpose for being.

Yet that is precisely what you are currently doing.


What is the justification we use for what is happening now?

Your justification seems to be your fantasy "god."



I know what I believe.

There you go then.


Obviously because that would prevent me from helping other's souls and my own.

You already aren't helping them so what is the dif?


If you are a collection of atoms no more significant

Ah, but I am more significant.


Really? I though survival of the fittest was supposed to be excellent at improving a species.

That isn't survival of the fittest. Individual suboptimization degrades the species' performance as a whole for humans. It is part of us being a social species.

Also "fit" is as in "fit for a purpose" not "fit" as in "physically fit" or some other personal fitness.

Finally there isn't any goal to evolution. A species improving or not improving is an incidental side effect either of which is a legitimate outcome.


What happens if two goods collide?

Just because good is what works well for every one involved, that doesn't mean all out comes are good. War is obviously a non good outcome, which I think is something pretty much every one is coming to understand except the religious and the greedy.


For example, if there is a shortage of natural resource.

As long as it is resolved in a manner which works well for everyone, then there is a good outcome. Again. Not every outcome is a good one.

Here are two simple rules to facilitate a good outcome in such circumstances:

Every one gets a first helping before any one gets a second helping.
The one who devides the resource chooses last.
Every one takes a turn at each role.


I contest that your definition of good fails Kant's First Formulation.

Hmm, do I care about Kant??? Checking....No. I don't seem to care about Kant.


You got me. I don't like the idea of all my work being wasted. What's your motivation?

I enjoy doing what I do in and of itself, for its own sake. Try it some time.


Why do you like to pretend your life is objectively meaningless?

Don't need to. That sort of thing has never bothered me. Talk about empty boog-a-boos. MEEEAANINGLESSSSS!!!! OOOOooooo.....

Are you scared yet?

Its not a matter of belief.

OK then, prove it.



So will you. Helping him now is important now, not 100 years from now. Also feeding him and teaching him aren't mutually exclusive. You can do both.

Obviously. You, however, cannot.



Oh, you have to be kidding! There are remminants of Rome all over the place. Ever heard of July and August? You see these Roman letters? Roman grammar? I bet you can't go 10' in any direction and not hit something touched by Rome. Roads, sanitaion, laws, plumbing, ... you need to work on your history.
Heh. Do they make our lives any better, having months named July and August? Are you so naive to believe that we would never have developed letters had it not been for the Romans? Plumbing was not a roman invention, the Indus Valley had it long before the Romans. And while, yes, the Romans built lots of roads, they did not invent them.

But this is besides the point. I said JULIUS CAESAR. Unless you're referring to the great Julius Caesar the Plumber (who, I must admit, I've never heard of), your point is moot. Obviously an entire race of people can make more contribution to the universe than a single one. But even then, you didn't know that the indus valley had plumbing before the romans. Even whole civilizations are forgotten over time.



All compounded things are imperminant.
Being deluded doesn't change your imperminence.
You do know that is false?

I'd like to see some evidence that I'm deluded, and that anything I'm saying is false. For people who claim to be intelligent, rational beings, you guys certainly do throw about a whole lot of unsupported claims.



So if you were given a choice of doing god's will or doing what is right, which would you choose?

False Dilemma. They are the same.


What's wrong with these "evolutionary impulses?"
They fail Kant's First Formulation


False dilemma. There is no reason to believe any good god would prefer the company of some one willing to subourn their integrity for the possibility of a reward over some one willing to stand by their convictions even faced with a threat. Only if your god is both petty and evil would the wager apply and even then I'd rather not spend eternity with a petty evil god like yours.

YAWN. You don't read too well, do you? I've already answered this question (several times). If you're not even going to read the responses, stop wasting my (and everyone else's) time by posting the same thing over and over.


Wel except it isn't. By positing "god" as the indesputible "answer" to all the tough questions, religion is actually inhibiting the search for truth.

Whereas, you are searching for truth how? By posting "you're clearly delusional" after every post? Oh, wait, never mind, clearly you are offering a really profound argument here with lots of evidence to back it up. I can't seem to find any, perhaps you'd like to repost it? Or do you think your response "there is no god" is being treated any more indisputably in your mind?

Go talk to Stranger, I'm sure the two of you will get along just fine, and I will be able to manage a discussion which is mostly governed by good logic, evidence, and open minds in your absence. Discussions of your mindless hate of beliefs you don't understand are nonproductive and a waste of my time.

fiicere,


Answers are for those who look for them. We (humans) had never seen anything which indicated that our world (cars, planes, lightbulb, computers) were even possible, and yet somebody took a chance on them and here we are today. Granted, often a person will be wrong, but the only way to ever go forward is to try, fail, try again, and keep trying until someone gets it right. You are proposing that we give up, which I find unacceptable.NO, no, quite the reverse. Why do you think I pointed you at the Imortaility Institute. This is scientists trying very hard to solve real difficult problems, and they are making headway. In the same way that science and technology have been gradually improving and enhancing the way we live for the past few centuries. It is the very reason that religious beliefs are so damaging to the human race. It is religious beliefs that say man can't solve the real problems, so let's invent a fantasy so we can feel good about ourselves and ultimate fate. It is that absolute defeatism that I find so annoying about religious activity. Religions have traditonally stood in the way of scientific development and still do so today. Our survival as a species very likely depends totally on our science and technology to prevent our extinction the next time an asteroid hits the planet, for example, which is inevitable. Praying it won't happen ensures our extinction.


I'm not trying to find my way into heaven because I believe that's what benefits me the most. I'm trying to find my way there because if I ever do, it will be the affirmation I've been looking for that I actually did something right. That I served the purpose I'm here for. And that maybe I was a part of something bigger than myself, and my petty hates, fears, joys, or sorrows.Yes, I understand, and that is what is known as personal satisfaction and personal happiness. The essential object in every sentence there is "I". You are the same as me, you do what makes you happy.


I do not seek God for what he can offer me. I seek him because, if there is any chance of me doing something "good" or "right," it is with him.But you don't know it isn't a fantasy and you could well be wasting your time. I play a great deal of online poker, when the odds are against me I fold my hand. I see no evidence that a soul might exist to warrant even limping in with a small bet.


A soul is something made "in God's image." Namely, it is metaphysical (aka, immesurable by science), and is capable of making choices independent of such things as physical constraints. Then why do we have such a complex structure in our head called a brain? I've estimated this to be some 20,000 times more powerful than the most powerful computer man has yet developed. If the soul is the essence of life and is an image of god why does it need an incredibly complex brain to be alive on this planet? Why in fact if it can exist in an afterlife does God even bother with a before life?

But you still feel that you will still be you when you die, despite all your memories and ability to think, and emote, all gone because your physical brain holds all of that. It is all of these things that make us what we are, our experiences, our knowledge, our relationships with others, our developed sense of morality, etc, all gone when you die. What then will you be? Asserting it is metaphysical says absolutely nothing other than it is indistingishable from the more honest term of "fantasy".


If you want me to go out on a limb, I'd say that ultimately the soul represents the choice between who owns your life, God or you. On one hand, following God means that you will serve the purpose you are created for, be part of something bigger, and be at harmony with the universe but at the expense of some of your anonymity. On the other hand, following yourself allows complete anonymity, but at the expense of serving any higher purpose. A fundamentally selfish existence.Only whle you are alive and with a brain that enables you to think, but after death, what then?


All I can say is that, if we accept the base premise (the soul exists), this view is:

1) not self-contradictory, nor contradictory with any of my assumptions, nor with Kant's first formulation, nor with any standard I know of for measuring contradiction.
2) Makes a good deal of sense. It's not built on flawed reasoning, and seems rather obvious in hindsight.
3) Explains some of our observations. For example, I have observed that it is possible for me to make choices and have never had any good reason to disbelieve that fact.

None of which supports the existence of a soul over the normal functioning of a brain that we know exists.


So far as I'm aware, the soul only interacts with the brain, so with no brain, we'd be unable to see it. Just like you couldn't see me if we were in a room and the light suddenly went out.Or feel, or think, or be able to remember. I don't see any role for a soul, it appears from all you said to be no more than a benign parasite. Harmless but useless.


That's actually why I created my theory of the soul. It reconciles Eternal Time with Physical Time. It holds that your actions (physical actions) ARE determined if one knew the state of your soul. (anything is determined if all it's constituent parts are determined). So all God has to do to be omniscient is observe the state of your soul, and thereby all your actions (physical, anyways) are predicted. This still depends on what states a soul can maintain independent of a brain, nothing you have said yet indicates that the soul can do anything independently.


How God's omnicience interacts with a single instant of free will is still something which I'm trying to work out. I feel it has a great deal to do with the difference between Eternal time and Physical time, also having much to do with the theory of Grace.

If you have any insight, please let me know If a god can see all of time at the same instant (omniscience) then every action throughout enternity is fixed and predetermined. That you will be good or bad, will suffer in a hell, or not, or whatever, is already known and at the instant of creation. What you feel are your desires now are quite futile in this scenario. Our only hope for real freedom and free will is that omniscience does not exist, that the future is unknown and cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, and that there is no ultimate plan for us. I find the idea that my ultimate fate has already been determined even before I was born to be very distasteful.

For this to be true then omniscience cannot be possible, and that is one major property of an omnipotent god. Without beng able to see everything then omnipotence becomes impossible. What is left is, no God.


BTW, thanks for an interesting (and insightful) discussion. You are very welcome.

The issue of the soul is essential to resolve since this is the primary entity in an afterlife. If souls are just the fantasy I suspect then there is no afterlife and since that is the "spiritual" realm of gods then whether there is a god or not becomes quite irrelevant. The concept of soul came from "air" or "breath" and it seems was the conclusion of early peoples when they observed that dead people had no breath, i.e. their breath was their vital life essence and it had left the body. They had no concept of what a brain could do. Interesting that early Egyptions thought the heart was the key to life and they preserved that quite carefully during mummifycation, and at the same time they destroyed all the brain matter.

The soul concept orginates from very ignorant times and there is nothing now that indicates one might exist or is even needed. The brain accounts for everything we ever applied to a soul. Continuing to pursue this ignorant idea seems entirely futile. But religions are all dependent on it because without a soul and an afterlife they would be unable to promise an answer to man's most desireable wish - to not die - the driving basis of every religion.

Are you saying that you believe there is a God just that none of the religions have it right?

I'm saying everything once was one. Everything is now a part of what once was one. I can see how the superforce that is everything that once was one could be perceived as God. Everything was created from that one.



WHOAWHOAWHOA. A LOT of unsubstantiated arguments. For example:

"Blind faith"
The belief that just because 2 people disagree, there will be violence.
The statement that all religions believe in hell. They all don't.
Heck, if you even thought about it, you'd realize that the problem isn't too few religions trying to "unite the world," it's too many!

No religion is trying to unite the world. The problem is if individuals don't believe in the religion, the believers always think they are right. It doesn't matter what religion it is, believers don't see nonbelievers as equals, plain and simple. They only try to unite other believers, they never try to unite the world. 2 disagreeing doesn't have to resort to violence, however when many disagree about strong beliefs violence has historically been a constant.
I have many problems with religion, but I'm not gonna get to deep into them. I will say Blind faith is very dangerous, just as Blind pride can be. Blind faith and blind pride are the 2 easiest ways to create soldiers that don't ask any political questions!


But, I will clarify that I was not discussing organized religion. That's why I specificially said "without God" in the title, not "without religion"

What does God have to do with our moral standards? Everything that makes us who we are is learned. We learn morals based on our experiences and how we perceive them. God has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, if I called everything that once was one God, my version of God would be quite different then everyone elses, so I needed to specify a few things ;).



Ummm. No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking if morality can be justified in a world without objective morality. In other words, short of saying "It's just the right thing to do!" is there a way to come up with a moral code (preferrably one which is in accordance with Kant's First Formulation).

The way I see it, if the world is ever gonna be unified, we need to look for common goals, and put those universal common goals ahead of our individual desires. There is a simple question that can lead to common goals that might also help with your moral code. What is best for the whole world?
It is tough to answer the question when the whole world isn't on the same page, and when we don't accurately know the amount of resources in the world, but it is a simple question to ask nonetheless.
We generally learn right and wrong from our parents or guardians. Everyone has slightly different versions of right and wrong. I am more interested in understanding why rather than judging what I think is right or wrong.

I'm saying everything once was one. Everything is now a part of what once was one. I can see how the superforce that is everything that once was one could be perceived as God. Everything was created from that one.

Gotcha. Interesting.

[QUOTE=Pipes75;2329720]
No religion is trying to unite the world. The problem is if individuals don't believe in the religion, the believers always think they are right.
Yes. How does that promote conflict.


I broke this section up, but, in essence, do your homework next time. Actually reading some of these books you're talking about might help.


It doesn't matter what religion it is, believers don't see nonbelievers as equals, plain and simple.
“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” Philippians 2:3



They only try to unite other believers, they never try to unite the world.
"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." - Matthew 28:19



disagreeing doesn't have to resort to violence, however when many disagree about strong beliefs violence has historically been a constant.

OK, but that's not an argument against religion. As some members of this forum demonstrate quite well, it's not just religious fanatics that are abroad in the world and are intolerant of other's views.



I have many problems with religion, but I'm not gonna get to deep into them. I will say Blind faith is very dangerous, just as Blind pride can be. Blind faith and blind pride are the 2 easiest ways to create soldiers that don't ask any political questions!
You assume faith is blind. It's not.



What does God have to do with our moral standards? Everything that makes us who we are is learned. We learn morals based on our experiences and how we perceive them. God has nothing to do with it. Furthermore, if I called everything that once was one God, my version of God would be quite different then everyone elses, so I needed to specify a few things ;).

This is really not a complicated concept. Without God, there is no objective moral value. Agree or disagree? If you Disagree, please explain. If you agree, please answer this question: Minus objective morals, is there any system of morals which both make sense and satisfy Kant's first formulation?



The way I see it, if the world is ever gonna be unified, we need to look for common goals, and put those universal common goals ahead of our individual desires. There is a simple question that can lead to common goals that might also help with your moral code. What is best for the whole world?
It is tough to answer the question when the whole world isn't on the same page, and when we don't accurately know the amount of resources in the world, but it is a simple question to ask nonetheless.
We generally learn right and wrong from our parents or guardians. Everyone has slightly different versions of right and wrong. I am more interested in understanding why rather than judging what I think is right or wrong.

OK, so do you believe we can get humanity to all agree on one system?

[QUOTE=Pipes75;2329720]This is really not a complicated concept. Without God, there is no objective moral value. Agree or disagree? If you Disagree, please explain. If you agree, please answer this question: Minus objective morals, is there any system of morals which both make sense and satisfy Kant's first formulation?

Please define "objective morality"-- and please do NOT do so in this manner: "a standard of behavior held by a higher perspective than a human one." That is hardly subjective, and necessarily pre-supposes a universal "Law-giver."

Kant's Categorical Imperative posits the existence of an a priori morality. If this is not the case, how can a "system of morality ... satisfy Kant's first formulation?" The question makes no sense.

OK then, prove it.

That people die hardly seems to need proving. Go to a hospice. Volunteer. See people die.


Obviously. You, however, cannot.

Why do you think I can't help some one who has both immediate needs and long term needs over come both? Do you think you have abilities others somehow lack?

I suppose you think I can't help some one better their "soul," but even there you are mistaken. I've done just that in the past and I'm sure the opportunity will come again.


Do they make our lives any better, having months named July and August?

Your education seems to lack the breadth to understand the significance of calendars which don't work well.


Are you so naive to believe that we would never have developed letters had it not been for the Romans?

The fact of the matter is we didn't and written language is far more thorny an issue than you give credit and it peaked with the Romans to a degree which is virtually unchanged to this day.


Plumbing was not a roman invention

Many things do not absolutely originate with the Romans, but they take the idea and bring it to a level which rivals the current day. No other civilization used plumbing to the degree and scale which the Romans did until the 19th century. Hot and cold running water. "Flush" toilets. Extensive aqueducts systems running up to a hundred miles to bring water to the city. Running water for the rich and poor.

The same can be said for such things as extensive use of concrete for construction projects, including concrete which hardens under water.

Lots of people had local "roads." The Romans had network of paved, drained and graded highways from Persia to German. Their paving is still usable today on many of those roads. Just find an abandoned road today and see if our roads will be around in 2000 years. They also built the super tankers of the day for hauling grain about.


I said JULIUS CAESAR.

Julius Caesar's commentaries on the Gaulic wars are still required reading in any military college. He greatly expanded the empire, centralized and reformed the government setting the next 500 years of empire. The French speak French because of him. He reformed the calendar and gave us the Julian calender and the month of July. I supposed I could go on but your ignorance seems well studied.


whole civilizations are forgotten over time.

And therefore didn't have the impact of those which are so easily remembered. The plumbing of the Indus valley is very primitive.


I'd like to see some evidence that I'm deluded

No you wouldn't. You just brush aside anything which challenges your delusion without even breaking stride for a moment. Nothing we present will have the least effect on you because your "reasoning" is irrational and you make up and accept imaginary "evidence" if it reinforces your delusion.


False Dilemma. They are the same.

They are not the same as people like you prove over and over and over.

Do you choose your god or what is right when there is a conflict?

Its an easy question to answer. Go ahead and give it a try.


They fail Kant's First Formulation

Please learn what Kant's First Formulation is: "The first formulation (Formula of Universal Law) of the moral imperative "requires that the maxims be chosen as though they should hold as universal laws of nature""

Your inability to use it correctly is annoying.

Then meditate on the fact that I don't hold Kant as a moral authority until rainbows stream from all your orifices.


I've already answered this question (several times).

I suppose false answers are still answers.

Pascal's wager assumes a petty and evil god who prefers conniving cowards over people of integrity. Simple enough for you?


Whereas, you are searching for truth how?

By observing reality as it is. Making use of reason to understand what I see. Drawing on the accumulated understanding of those who also employ such means to verify and expand my reach. Pretty boring compared to fantasies of god, but real.

Oh, posting that you're clearly delusional is just a public service. I doubt you'll shake your delusion any time soon, but there is always hope. Unfortunately no simply reasonable argument can penetrate the fortress of delusion you are trying to protect yourself with against the reality of death.


mostly governed by

"Mostly" isn't good enough and don't flatter yourself that you all so typical beliefs are worthy of much note.

Ok fiicere , I'll try to answer some of it again.

Almost all beliefs are blind. We believe we know when so much remains unknown. Having a strong belief in something unknown is blind. I don't care if you don't think your faith is blind, if it is not proven, that's exactly what it is.

Religion is just one of many that have strong beliefs in unknowns. Religion is not the only problem. But generally with religion, these beliefs are so strong, that believers will never even look at anything possible that contradicts their beliefs.

And your quotes from the bible are irrelevant.

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” Philippians 2:3

I see wars being fought over differing religious points of view on a regular basis. This quote is seldom followed. And you could have similuar 'morals' without the need for any religion.

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." - Matthew 28:19

And damn, this one sounds like they want to take over the world!! Make and enforce rules is what I get outta that.

When I said, No religion is trying to unite the world. The problem is if individuals don't believe in the religion, the believers always think they are right.

You responded, Yes. How does that promote conflict.

It promotes conflict because we are talking about strong beliefs. If someone strongly believes and someone else strongly does not believe, neither know, but both think they know, and conflict begins. Now imagine it's not just 1 believer and 1 non believer. But millions of believers and millions of non believers - now do you see how conflict is almost inevitable if we believe too strongly in unknowns.

So do I think humanity could ever agree on one system? Not if it's a belief. It would have to be something tested and proven, and it would still take a very long time to convert people from beliefs to facts. But before we can even begin, we need more facts!

I look for what is possible, but my beliefs are not strong because I know too much remains unknown. I keep many doors open, that way if one of my possibilities gets proven wrong, I have no problem with that. I'd actually be happy to be eliminating one of the possible answers.
However when people only have one door open, they put everything into that 1 and only possibility. If facts proved those beliefs wrong, the believers would avoid the facts. No amount of logic can make someone give up a strong belief if the believer sees nothing else possible.

-=-

Can morality exist with gods?

The answer to the thread title is no. WIthout any semantics involved I would . say hat there is no reason to consider moraliy exiting without god, as it is a release fromall of the supernatural deities and therefore and therein is imp ossible

fiicere,

NO, no, quite the reverse. Why do you think I pointed you at the Imortaility Institute. This is scientists trying very hard to solve real difficult problems, and they are making headway. In the same way that science and technology have been gradually improving and enhancing the way we live for the past few centuries. It is the very reason that religious beliefs are so damaging to the human race. It is religious beliefs that say man can't solve the real problems, so let's invent a fantasy so we can feel good about ourselves and ultimate fate. It is that absolute defeatism that I find so annoying about religious activity. Religions have traditonally stood in the way of scientific development and still do so today. Our survival as a species very likely depends totally on our science and technology to prevent our extinction the next time an asteroid hits the planet, for example, which is inevitable. Praying it won't happen ensures our extinction.

You are assuming the two are mutually exclusive. Since when has it become physically impossible to pray about the future and to develop it at the same time?



But you don't know it isn't a fantasy and you could well be wasting your time. I play a great deal of online poker, when the odds are against me I fold my hand. I see no evidence that a soul might exist to warrant even limping in with a small bet.
1) I'd hardly call it wasting my time. I follow the religion I do because its tenets match most closely to the morals I hold to be true.
2) You are neglecting to take odds into account.



Then why do we have such a complex structure in our head called a brain? I've estimated this to be some 20,000 times more powerful than the most powerful computer man has yet developed. If the soul is the essence of life and is an image of god why does it need an incredibly complex brain to be alive on this planet? Why in fact if it can exist in an afterlife does God even bother with a before life?
LOL. Fun fact of the day: The most powerful computer on earth is actually more powerful than the human brain, in terms of memory, processing ability, etc etc. It's actually our lack of programming ability which has been keeping computers behind humans when it comes to more complex tasks. The beauty of the human brain is its ability to recognize patterns and to categorize data.

If you are asking me to prove that the soul exists, I can point you to some tests they did. But if you're honestly hoping for an answer, I'd say that one of our major purposes of being here is to understand our own nature, and to shape that nature.



But you still feel that you will still be you when you die, despite all your memories and ability to think, and emote, all gone because your physical brain holds all of that. It is all of these things that make us what we are, our experiences, our knowledge, our relationships with others, our developed sense of morality, etc, all gone when you die. What then will you be? Asserting it is metaphysical says absolutely nothing other than it is indistingishable from the more honest term of "fantasy".
Stop arguing and start thinking. If I smash my laptop right now, does my portable hard drive which stores all my data terminate? Of course, I can't prove there is a portable hard drive attached to the computer, but the fact that you didn't think of such an obvious solution to your query shows that you are trying to pick a fight and not to learn.


Or feel, or think, or be able to remember. I don't see any role for a soul, it appears from all you said to be no more than a benign parasite. Harmless but useless.
Unless it has the ability to outlive me.


This still depends on what states a soul can maintain independent of a brain, nothing you have said yet indicates that the soul can do anything independently.
Indeed. I don't think a soul really "does" anything, in the traditional sense. I mean, if you are dead, then you don't need to make the petty decisions anymore (what to wear, what to eat, who to talk to).



If a god can see all of time at the same instant (omniscience) then every action throughout enternity is fixed and predetermined. That you will be good or bad, will suffer in a hell, or not, or whatever, is already known and at the instant of creation. What you feel are your desires now are quite futile in this scenario. Our only hope for real freedom and free will is that omniscience does not exist, that the future is unknown and cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty, and that there is no ultimate plan for us. I find the idea that my ultimate fate has already been determined even before I was born to be very distasteful. And yet you believe that you are merely a collection of atoms following a set course determined by the laws of physics? Forgive me if I find that just as distasteful as you do. In a funny way, the soul (a metaphysical entity) is the ONLY thing capable of making decisions in a physical universe.
But, to answer your tacit question, I don't believe time exists in the sense we perceive it. To be honest, linear time never made any sense at all in an infinite sense. Just thinking about it makes my head hurt. We've traversed an infinite amount of events to arrive at this one? At a linear rate?




The issue of the soul is essential to resolve since this is the primary entity in an afterlife. If souls are just the fantasy I suspect then there is no afterlife and since that is the "spiritual" realm of gods then whether there is a god or not becomes quite irrelevant. The concept of soul came from "air" or "breath" and it seems was the conclusion of early peoples when they observed that dead people had no breath, i.e. their breath was their vital life essence and it had left the body. They had no concept of what a brain could do. Interesting that early Egyptions thought the heart was the key to life and they preserved that quite carefully during mummifycation, and at the same time they destroyed all the brain matter.

The soul concept orginates from very ignorant times and there is nothing now that indicates one might exist or is even needed. The brain accounts for everything we ever applied to a soul. Continuing to pursue this ignorant idea seems entirely futile. But religions are all dependent on it because without a soul and an afterlife they would be unable to promise an answer to man's most desireable wish - to not die - the driving basis of every religion.
Except you ignore the fact that a brain cannot actually make decisions. A soul, perhaps, can.

Ok fiicere , I'll try to answer some of it again.

Almost all beliefs are blind. We believe we know when so much remains unknown. Having a strong belief in something unknown is blind. I don't care if you don't think your faith is blind, if it is not proven, that's exactly what it is.

Wait. So, what determines proof? It's an old saying that only mathematicians can prove things, and frankly, I'm not even sure they can.

So, do you have blind faith that we're not living in the Matrix?
Is it called blind faith to believe that Gravity is a universal law, rather than a temporary coincidence?



Religion is just one of many that have strong beliefs in unknowns. Religion is not the only problem. But generally with religion, these beliefs are so strong, that believers will never even look at anything possible that contradicts their beliefs.
It works both ways, friend.


And your quotes from the bible are irrelevant.

“Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves.” Philippians 2:3

I see wars being fought over differing religious points of view on a regular basis. This quote is seldom followed. And you could have similuar 'morals' without the need for any religion.
We agree then. I was pointing out that it's not religion which makes man selfish. It's a part of human nature.



"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you." - Matthew 28:19

And damn, this one sounds like they want to take over the world!! Make and enforce rules is what I get outta that.
I take it you retract your statement "no religion is trying to unify the world"


When I said, No religion is trying to unite the world. The problem is if individuals don't believe in the religion, the believers always think they are right.

You responded, Yes. How does that promote conflict.

It promotes conflict because we are talking about strong beliefs. If someone strongly believes and someone else strongly does not believe, neither know, but both think they know, and conflict begins. Now imagine it's not just 1 believer and 1 non believer. But millions of believers and millions of non believers - now do you see how conflict is almost inevitable if we believe too strongly in unknowns.
Unfortunately, religion is not the only source of strong beliefs. Take an open, unbiased look at this very forum and you'll find a great many people with strong beliefs. You should also notice two things
1) Not all of the people with strong beliefs are religious
2) We haven't gotten into "conflict" yet. There have been disagreements, but most of us try to discuss them rationally.


So do I think humanity could ever agree on one system? Not if it's a belief. It would have to be something tested and proven, and it would still take a very long time to convert people from beliefs to facts. But before we can even begin, we need more facts!

I'm getting tired of saying this, but a great many people have been trotting out science as if it can "prove" things. It can't. It is based on the huge assumption that trends we have seen in the past can be extrapolated to the future, and trends exhibited in certain objects can be extrapolated to similar objects.



I look for what is possible, but my beliefs are not strong because I know too much remains unknown. I keep many doors open, that way if one of my possibilities gets proven wrong, I have no problem with that. I'd actually be happy to be eliminating one of the possible answers.
However when people only have one door open, they put everything into that 1 and only possibility. If facts proved those beliefs wrong, the believers would avoid the facts. No amount of logic can make someone give up a strong belief if the believer sees nothing else possible.
If that is what you are discouraging, I wholeheartedly agree with you.

A question I've always wanted to have answered.

To clarify, I AM NOT ASKING "Can people be moral people and not believe in God." I AM asking if there is any good reason to have a moral standard if there is no God.

Nowadays: Yes, humanity has evolved, does not need a god to tell it right from wrong.

Thousands of years ago: perhaps not, people were killing each other, abuse, slavery, and wars everywhere were the rule. Humanity was more primitive then, and perhaps religions were needed then just to give limits, otherwise we humans might have destroyed ourselves.

...I AM asking if there is any good reason to have a moral standard if there is no God.

Yes. To name a few:

1) Increase the duration of your life.
2) Increase the quality of your life.
3) Increase your control.
4) Increase your security.
5) Increase your resources.
6) Increase your dominance over those with poor moral standards.
7) Increase the quality of your offspring's life.
8) Decrease your stress.

Evolution.

That is like saying God did it, is it not?

REF POST 6



Atheists have the superior position, they are good because it makes sense, theists do good because of threat of punishment.

This is pure arrogance and non-sensical.

Yes. To name a few:

1) Increase the duration of your life.


Having a good moral standard doesn't mean you will live longer.



2) Increase the quality of your life.


The people with the worst moral standards seem to have a better quality of life.



3) Increase your control.


Control of what?



4) Increase your security.


Home security?



5) Increase your resources.


????



6) Increase your dominance over those with poor moral standards.


Not likely.



7) Increase the quality of your offspring's life.


Who knows, they could become serial killers...



8) Decrease your stress.

Rubbish.

The fact is that morality preceeded religion and religion only codified pre-existing standards of behavior. That is why the morality embodied in many religions is similar. Some moral standards are dependent on the time and place where they were invented, such as the Jewish and Islamic prohibition against eating pigs.

The fact is that morality preceeded religion and religion only codified pre-existing standards of behavior. That is why the morality embodied in many religions is similar. Some moral standards are dependent on the time and place where they were invented, such as the Jewish and Islamic prohibition against eating pigs.

This is a fact is it?

I would say that not even mortality would exist without god.... let alone morality.

This is a fact is it?

Yes. Is there a greater proportion of atheists in jails?

Having a good moral standard doesn't mean you will live longer.

It does and I'll explain. All human judge each other, themselves, and events via two questions:

1) Are you, me, something else mean?
2) Are you, me, something else valuable.

This judgment process is genetic. It's how we evolved as a cooperative species. Having a good moral standard means these questions will be optimally applied in your daily interactions with other people and other people will find compatibility in those optimizations. Compatibility leads to resource sharing and trust, both of which improve your chances at survival and elongate your life.



The people with the worst moral standards seem to have a better quality of life.

I disagree. They tend to end up in jail or dead.



Control of what?


Yourself, other people, your resources, etc.



Home security?


All forms. The cooperative behavior that solid moral standards encourage will help provide you with financial, physical, emotional, etc. security.



????


The sharing and cooperation resulting from solid moral standards grant you access you a higher diversity and quantity of resources.




Not likely.


Compare California to Darfur and I'll you'll be able to directly observe which soceity is dominant and the behavioral differences that maintain the dominance.



Who knows, they could become serial killers...

That's a possibility but I don't think it's a probability. Compare and contrast inner-city morality vs. upper-class morality in any major U.S. city.



Rubbish.

I bet if you chose to murder and rape everyone you came in contact with, you would have alot of stress about those whom would torture and kill you in an act of revenge.

The fact is that morality preceeded religion and religion only codified pre-existing standards of behavior. That is why the morality embodied in many religions is similar. Some moral standards are dependent on the time and place where they were invented, such as the Jewish and Islamic prohibition against eating pigs.


Yes. Is there a greater proportion of atheists in jails?

How does this make sense? Am I missing something?

It does and I'll explain. All human judge each other, themselves, and events via two questions:

1) Are you, me, something else mean?
2) Are you, me, something else valuable.

This judgment process is genetic. It's how we evolved as a cooperative species. Having a good moral standard means these questions will be optimally applied in your daily interactions with other people and other people will find compatibility in those optimizations. Compatibility leads to resource sharing and trust, both of which improve your chances at survival and elongate your life.


This is theory is wrong(imo). The environment in which a child is brought up does play a role for a start AND genetics (So I agree with you in bit part), genetics is obviously pure theory but I believe it does play a role. Then you have the kids who seemingly have good parents but they themselves drink or overdose themselves to death at 18.



I disagree. They tend to end up in jail or dead.


Most of the people who make it to the top of the ladder have stabbed a lot of people in the back to get there, survival of the fittest attitude.



Yourself, other people, your resources, etc.


And if you have no morals you don't get this?



All forms. The cooperative behavior that solid moral standards encourage will help provide you with financial, physical, emotional, etc. security.


Again, this can be achieved by someone without morals just the same.



The sharing and cooperation resulting from solid moral standards grant you access you a higher diversity and quantity of resources.


As above.



Compare California to Darfur and I'll you'll be able to directly observe which soceity is dominant and the behavioral differences that maintain the dominance.


I don't understand this comparison :confused:



That's a possibility but I don't think it's a probability. Compare and contrast inner-city morality vs. upper-class morality in any major U.S. city.


The kids normally become spoilt brats who have no respect for people of a lower class, even if the lower class person has better morals. It's called snobbery.



I bet if you chose to murder and rape everyone you came in contact with, you would have alot of stress about those whom would torture and kill you in an act of revenge.

I would personally, but there is a lot of cold blooded villains out there that seemingly have no conscience.

EDIT: Spelling mistakes :)

How does this make sense? Am I missing something?

Are religious people better people? Do they commit crimes to a lesser degree than non-believers? No, statistics point out they do not. Therefore, religion doesn't make anyone more moral.

The fact is that morality preceeded religion and religion only codified pre-existing standards of behavior. That is why the morality embodied in many religions is similar. Some moral standards are dependent on the time and place where they were invented, such as the Jewish and Islamic prohibition against eating pigs.

I asked if the above was a fact, in particular "The fact is that morality preceeded religion and religion only codified pre-existing standards of behavior."


Yes. Is there a greater proportion of atheists in jails?

You answered the above, which to me doesn't correlate with your first post.


Are religious people better people? Do they commit crimes to a lesser degree than non-believers? No, statistics point out they do not. Therefore, religion doesn't make anyone more moral.

Then you conclude with this. I don't disagree with your last two posts but I would like you to prove your first statement in your first post.

Tis all.

Oh, I'm sorry. We know for a fact that morality preceeded religion because moral codes are similar no matter what culture we talk about, so they are independent of religion. We can also observe that Apes have an innate moral sense.

We also observe that religions can overrule innate moral behavior such as the phenomenon of human sacrifice. It's not that they don't care about murder, it's seen as so significant a sacrifice to society that they offer it to a God for various reasons.

I would argue that organized religion encourages immorality, since it is based on following codes based on faith rather than reason or our innate moral sense. So religious people follow the letter of the law, but they miss the morality. For example, the people that kill abortion doctors, or the ones that hate gay people ostensibly for religious reasons.

No worries.


We can also observe that Apes have an innate moral sense.


I was wondering about the above, it actually makes sense.

It's in the blood, and I guess environment.

So my answer to the OP is yes, now it can because it now exists.

Pretty obvious.

To clarify, I AM NOT ASKING "Can people be moral people and not believe in God." I AM asking if there is any good reason to have a moral standard if there is no God.

I've not read the rest of the thread so apologies if anything is repeated. To answer your question: Yes, certainly.

In any species there will be 'correct' conduct and 'incorrect' conduct. These relate to things that are either beneficial or detrimental to the individual organism or the species. If a tiger forgoes hunting meat and instead tries to survive on buttercups, he'll soon find himself non-existent. As far as a meat eating species go, eating meat is 'correct' conduct.

We, that's humans, are social primates. We - unlike many other animals including the majority of reptiles, depend entirely upon others for survival. We develop bonds and emotional attachments which is simply essential to our survival. If your mother does not develop such bonds, you'll probably find yourself dead and stuffed in a plastic bag. As far as our species goes, (along with other social creatures), we rely upon the group. This could be anything from needing someone to fix your boiler to someone to fix your sexual needs. Even the most reclusive of individuals, (if survival is an issue), needs others, (no - he can't typically impregnate himself or give himself a heart bypass).

Certain types of behaviour are essential to group and genetic survival. The same is true for any social organism - even ants. If an ant, for some bizarre reason, decided to work contrary to the needs of the group, he would be doing a great detriment to it or would find himself swiftly annihilated. In serving the benefit of the group he also finds himself serving his own.

Morality is another way with which to say 'correct' conduct or 'incorrect conduct' which is simply another way of saying beneficial and detrimental. You will find, in a social primate, that something detrimental to the group is typically equally detrimental to the individual.

Now, survival is paramount. Group survival is individual survival - and hence the existence of morality.

regards,

The answer is yes. Morality is inborn to human animals. Like many other species, we have a natural aversion to killing each other without cause or provocation.

Furthermore, if "god" exists...

(1) Then "god" created everything that exists, including extreme evil. This "god" does nothing to intervene with that evil. Thus, this "god" is evil.
(2) This "god' requires worship. This "god" must be vain and insecure. Thus this "god" is not worthy of worship.
(3) This "god" created humans as his/her supposedly "chosen" race. This "god" then allows humans to suffer. Thus this "god" is petty and cruel.
(4) This "god" created everything, yet "everything" includes this "god." You cannot create yourself. Thus, this "god" cannot exist.


So then, if "god" does not exist...

(1) Humans need to stop wrapping themselves in a myth and start facing the true and natural reasons for their existence.
(2) Humans need to start accepting those natural reasons and stop claiming semi-divine status for themselves in the universe.
(3) Humans need to stop hiding behind a preposterous myth and using it to rationalize their own murderous cruelty and childish insecurities.
(4) Humans need to start existing in reality instead of indulging in dangerous magical thinking.

I like your way of thinking.

I think that what we considered evil sometimes is relative. To me slavery, war, taking advantage of the weak, making profit of other people, deceit, bullying is evil. Yet they are accepted or had been accepted by society at one point many peopple who consider themselves " good" or that others consider "good" people commit this kind of evil regularly.
This kind of "evil" is the most common and we are all more or less exposed to this every day. This evil is a consequence of our human primitiveness and is slowly disappearing from society as we evolve.

The other evil which is absolute like: murder, rape, is in general the exception
in a civilized society (most of them are at this time)
I believe these crimes do not play an important role on most people's lives unless they have been directly affected by them. Thosewho commit these acts are too primitive and usually end up in jail.

In other words, evil is only a symptom of our own primitivism, not comming from any god ( even if god really exists)

thank you very very much for the clear, conscice and easy to read and understand post..


The answer is yes. Morality is inborn to human animals. Like many other species, we have a natural aversion to killing each other without cause or provocation.

Furthermore, if "god" exists...

(1) Then "god" created everything that exists, including extreme evil. This "god" does nothing to intervene with that evil. Thus, this "god" is evil.
that is like blaming the sun for how cold the antarctic is, you can see god's "goodness" as heat, and evil as cold, evil doesn't have to be created, as much as it is the absence of god.

that's also like blaming a hair dresser for all the people with messed up hair, what is it to him if he opened his shop and no one came?

he can go and force them to come and fix their hair, if he didn't, does that mean he couldn't? maybe, but it can also be his choice not to.


(2) This "god' requires worship. This "god" must be vain and insecure. Thus this "god" is not worthy of worship.
why would god do anything if he doesn't need anything? he is at the best state of matters, why change to otherwise?
why? i don't know.
but he says that he doesn't need our worship, it doesn't affect him one bit.

but,

who does it affect?
you and me, if god did it that way who are we to argue? why would you object in the first place? he created us even though he doesn't need us and told us to do things or else, i'd rather do, you'd rather ask why, and discover the "else":D


(3) This "god" created humans as his/her supposedly "chosen" race. This "god" then allows humans to suffer. Thus this "god" is petty and cruel.

know nothing of them being his chosen race.

(4) This "god" created everything, yet "everything" includes this "god." You cannot create yourself. Thus, this "god" cannot exist.
silly limitations, your imagination needs a firmware update, go watch a pixar movie or some japanese anime.


So then, if "god" does not exist...

(1) Humans need to stop wrapping themselves in a myth and start facing the true and natural reasons for their existence.
which are none.:D


(2) Humans need to start accepting those natural reasons and stop claiming semi-divine status for themselves in the universe.
semi devine is haven, what about hell? semi what would that be?

and wait a sec, accepting those natural reasons? like that you are less significant than a bubble blown from a wand and will pop in a few seconds? let me see youu try accepting that.


(3) Humans need to stop hiding behind a preposterous myth and using it to rationalize their own murderous cruelty and childish insecurities.
:confused:

(4) Humans need to start existing in reality instead of indulging in dangerous magical thinking.
humans need to broaden their horizons for what magic reality could be instead for what they want it to be.

It's impossible for morality to have anything to do with a god whatsoever.

Did he choose what's right and wrong randomly? If so, morality is obeying the arbitrary whims of a malevolent psycho.

Did he choose right and wrong because they are inherently good actions and bad actions? If so, then he wasn't needed. He's morally-aware, but we can be too. In fact, I'm much more morally-aware than the xian and islam gods. Their rules were atrocious.

Plato had this figured out 2,000+ years ago, btw.

that is like blaming the sun for how cold the antarctic is, you can see god's "goodness" as heat, and evil as cold, evil doesn't have to be created, as much as it is the absence of god

Incorrect scifes:

”Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?”
(Lam. 3:38).

”For thus saith the Lord; as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them” (Jer. 32:42).

”...shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6).

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things". (Is. 45:7)

The biblical fact is that your god created evil and is responsible for all evil that exists in the world. It is by his mouth that all evil comes. There will never be evil that god has not created.

Is this about the time where you abandon your own book as fiction? Let's wait and see...

It's impossible for morality to have anything to do with a god whatsoever.

Did he choose what's right and wrong randomly? If so, morality is obeying the arbitrary whims of a malevolent psycho.

Did he choose right and wrong because they are inherently good actions and bad actions? If so, then he wasn't needed. He's morally-aware, but we can be too. In fact,
ok, you got all this mixed up.
why can't god create morality, in which case the two cases you gave are one.

you can say he chose what's right and wrong "randomly" at first, before which there was not right and wrong, the concepts didn't exist.

then you say if he chose them because they're inherently so, as if they're fixed, and this shows your limited understanding of the concept of a god who can do anything, god abides no rules, he makes them, he makes them with no point of reference, he is the point of reference, meaning; as i said, when he randomly chose good and bad, there was no good and bad before, and if he wanted to reverse good and bad he'd reverse them and we won't notice, as we can't hold on to a concept he haven't created, meaning we can't judge him using a scale of right and wrong he haven't given us.

this is all from the core god property of being able to do anything.

any conflict in understanding how the concept of god can be is a conflict in the human mind, here, you miss some imagination.


I'm much more morally-aware than the xian and islam gods. Their rules were atrocious.
not if god is who created morality, or just plain has more of it than you.
a difference in morality will affect judgments and outcomes, so just because you see morality different than how god does doesn't mean you have a better understanding, it's bound to be the opposite, my dear human.


Plato had this figured out 2,000+ years ago, btw.
so, what does that make him?
and i'm sure people answered him 2,000+ years ago, but as with all atheists, they turn a deaf ear to what they want.


Incorrect scifes:
first let me point out, i'm not a christian:D


”Is it not from the mouth of the Most High that good and evil come?”
(Lam. 3:38).
yes, that mouth sprouted things full of good, and things with little or no good.
a room can have different temperatures at different points, some cold and some hot, they don't have to all balance each other.


”For thus saith the Lord; as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them” (Jer. 32:42).
the christian god who is sorry for doing some thing?


”...shall there be evil in a city, and the Lord hath not done it?” (Amos 3:6).
so?
the lord hath done it by not doing good there, hence evil.
why?
:shrug:
but it can be done.


"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things". (Is. 45:7)
uh, i'll just call this the rule of opposites.


now, all my replies to you so far have been empty and argumentive.
why? because i don't see a problem in god creating evil -if he did create it-, because without evil, there would be no good, without hell, what is haven? without threats, what are rewards? i guess that's what you can call the rule of opposites as i just named-although i'm sure someone came up with it before-.
simply, for one side of a concept to exist, you need the other side to exist too, it would be the non of the other, either the nonexistence of it, or the existence of it's opposite, they're actually two faces of the same coin.

how will good doers do good and deserve haven if all life was good and there was no evil?

how would the word justice have a meaning if there was no opposite to it? how would things like forgiveness exist? forgiveness of what, if not evil? how can truth, love, kindness exist?

then comes the more important question, why should they exist then? why did god create such good concepts who some will have to pay for the dark ugly side for? god can do anything, why didn't he create a world with only good morals, it makes no sense to us now but he could've created a world with sense which accepts that, so why not create a utopia?
the answer is in three points:
1-he is god, he asks the questions other have to answer and have to answer no questions others ask.

2-utopia exist, that is haven, some loony atheists say it can't exist because they judge it using our world's values and scales, so they say we will bore ourselves to death in it, forgetting:
a- god can eliminate the concept "boredom".
b-i don't mind living forever here on earth, i think i can always do something new, you can always conjure up some new possibilities, so why not haven?
and the same can be said to any concepts making haven not pure happiness.

3- and this is the most important, shucks man, that's how it is, there's good and evil in this world, the god who created it wanted it so and had it so, what're you gonna do?
-you can wail like some people on board crying on how unfair it is and how such a god doesn't deserve worship, and i won't even bother showing them how he deserves worship because even if he doesn't you don't have much choice.
-or you can accept reality like a grown up and try your best to take as much of good as you can, and bad? that'll be for those who choose it, like for example. when god tells us to worship him to go to haven, aren't those who worship the smart ones who chose good for themselves and will get it in the end? shouldn't everyone be smart like that and choose good? shouldn't evil disappear from the world when everyone does? i guess so, but reality says there are a lot of stupid people around to keep evil alive for a long long coming time.

god is unblamed for creating hell, if he gave you the means of avoiding it.
and there is no one to blame for not going to haven when god gave you the means of entering it, but yourself.


The biblical fact is
no bible:D

that your god created evil
i don't mind.

and is responsible for all evil that exists in the world.
maybe, by giving us free will to do it, which is also free will not to do it.

It is by his mouth that all evil comes.
There will never be evil that god has not created.
like i said, maybe, but he doesn't do it indiscriminately, he tells you where the roads lead and give you the wheel.
why are there roadS and not a road? we discussed that before.

or of course you can say god doesn't exist and rest your head from all this headache :D

well, temporarily..

actually maybe not even temporarily:scratchin:

scifes, you miss the point. If he created good and bad from within himself, these actions are arbitrary. There was nothing about them inherently that makes them good or bad. It's just a mean dude's whim.

If he recognized good and bad because of something inherent in them, then he isn't needed for morality.

So, either he chose randomly, which means there's no morality, or he recognized good and evil, which means he's not needed.

scifes, you miss the point. If he created good and bad from within himself, these actions are arbitrary. There was nothing about them inherently that makes them good or bad. It's just a mean dude's whim.
yup, that's him.
"mean" has been discussed in length, what're you gonna do about it?


If he recognized good and bad because of something inherent in them, then he isn't needed for morality.
that applies to us, as he wanted good and bad to seem to us, to recognize them as so.

So, either he chose randomly, which means there's no morality,
just because something wasn't there once doesn't mean it isn't now.
also, god's will can be expressed as "randomly" by us, but there's more to it than that, more than we can know, and i'm no favor of calling it random.

or he recognized good and evil, which means he's not needed. that's not the case.

yup, that's him.
"mean" has been discussed in length, what're you gonna do about it?

I'm not gonna believe in him until he shows his chicken-sh*t face. And I'm gonna use my superior moral sense to recognize him as evil for punishing people according to arbitrary rules while programming us to break them.

I'm also going to hold people that can't see that god has nothing to do with morality in low esteem.

I'm not gonna believe in him until he shows his chicken-sh*t face.
now you're being a child, what if he doesn't want to? you're gonna make him?
didn't your dad teach you to choose your fights more wisely?

lol, lecturing as a grownup sure is fun:D

And I'm gonna use my superior moral sense
:roflmao:
oh pulleeeease!!

ok ok, so, how is god not moral? please tell me, as my god's morality complies with mine..please give me an example...

to recognize him as evil for punishing people according to arbitrary rules
any moral rules must have been arbitrary in their origin..

lol, so like what rules do you want to follow?


while programming us to break them.
this is VEEEEARY important..no mister, he programmed us with FREE WILL to break them or abide them, i mean i don't get you guys, once you're complaining that you have no free will and so don't like the idea of destiny, and now you're blaming god for giving you free will even against his own word?(temporarily of course)


I'm also going to hold people that can't see that god has nothing to do with morality in low esteem.
uh:huh: ok..

No body gives you free will except you.
Not even god.

If god can't choose to do evil, then she can't be moral.

like i said, maybe, but he doesn't do it indiscriminately, he tells you where the roads lead and give you the wheel.


Alright - I'll skip the short comments regarding the biblical quotes, (which are only going to serve as arguments against christians, which you apparently are not).

Here's a question though based upon your statement above. You see, I told my daughter not to stick her fingers in the plug socket. I advised her of the outcome and the dangers and so on. She, being inquisitive, stuck her fingers in there anyway.

As an "all-loving" father - that happens to have been fortunate enough to know in advance - I turned the electricity off just before she did it.

Hopefully you see the point.

Let me try it another way: I had a friend that wanted to skydive. I told him his parachute wasn't going to open but he didn't believe me. He jumped and - lo and behold - his parachute didn't open. Now, I had the ability to save him from going *squish* but didn't bother.

You need to recognise that not believing or not paying attention does not mean someone wants to suffer. Any "all-loving" parent would prevent the suffering if they could, (even if it's just a simple scenario like getting an injection), on the basis that the suffering is unwanted.

No, not-suffering does not make the world a worse place to be in. It actually makes it heaven. At the very least, I can assure you that most parents would do it if they could, (this negates some of those parents that do all sorts to their own kids. We have several names for them).

To use your analogy: I gave my daughter the wheel. Doesn't whatsoever mean I don't grab hold of it when she's about to drive into a river.

@ snakelord
I do not have children, I do not know anything about parenting, sorry if there is an obvious answer to this question. I would like to know how do you teach your daughter to be independent so she can take care of herself and protect herself when you are not around to do that for her?

A question I've always wanted to have answered.

To clarify, I AM NOT ASKING "Can people be moral people and not believe in God." I AM asking if there is any good reason to have a moral standard if there is no God.Oh, you mean, "is it okay for a person to go around acting like an asshat if there isn't a God there to say it's wrong?" Well, it would sure chap my ass. Next.

any moral rules must have been arbitrary in their origin..



Not true. Evolution selected for innate ethics that would allow individual genes to express themselves as much as possible. A built-in sense of "fairness" resides in us all. We can see this in game theory experiments as rewards are haggled over, gifts distributed, and iterations of "The Prisoner's Dilemma" are played out.

These results cut across cultures and have parallels in the animal kingdom, which means they aren't socially constructed nor arbitrary. In fact, these experiments and subsequent research seems to point to a biological origin for "The Golden Rule." This explains why it shows up in almost every religion and philosophy of ethics. Not arbitrary at all.

A question I've always wanted to have answered.

To clarify, I AM NOT ASKING "Can people be moral people and not believe in God." I AM asking if there is any good reason to have a moral standard if there is no God.

You should read “Beyond Good and Evil” by Nietzsche, especially the chapter “On morality and religion”.
Nietzche argues that god is dead in that conceptually mankind should have progressed to a point that belief in a supernatural overlord is not necessary.
There are no heavens or hells and no one to condemn or save your soul; there for the only judges of your moral turpitude are other human beings.
The question is would you still feel guilty without “God” looking over your shoulder?

Alright - I'll skip the short comments regarding the biblical quotes, (which are only going to serve as arguments against christians, which you apparently are not).

Here's a question though based upon your statement above. You see, I told my daughter not to stick her fingers in the plug socket. I advised her of the outcome and the dangers and so on. She, being inquisitive, stuck her fingers in there anyway.

As an "all-loving" father - that happens to have been fortunate enough to know in advance - I turned the electricity off just before she did it.

Hopefully you see the point.

Let me try it another way: I had a friend that wanted to skydive. I told him his parachute wasn't going to open but he didn't believe me. He jumped and - lo and behold - his parachute didn't open. Now, I had the ability to save him from going *squish* but didn't bother.

You need to recognise that not believing or not paying attention does not mean someone wants to suffer. Any "all-loving" parent would prevent the suffering if they could, (even if it's just a simple scenario like getting an injection), on the basis that the suffering is unwanted.

No, not-suffering does not make the world a worse place to be in. It actually makes it heaven. At the very least, I can assure you that most parents would do it if they could, (this negates some of those parents that do all sorts to their own kids. We have several names for them).

To use your analogy: I gave my daughter the wheel. Doesn't whatsoever mean I don't grab hold of it when she's about to drive into a river.

niiiice..
....
...ok
but hold on, if i try to apply your examples to god they wouldn't fit.
.
.
.
would it make it any easier to say god created humanity to send half of them to hell?

Not true. Evolution selected for innate ethics that would allow individual genes to express themselves as much as possible. A built-in sense of "fairness" resides in us all. We can see this in game theory experiments as rewards are haggled over, gifts distributed, and iterations of "The Prisoner's Dilemma" are played out.

These results cut across cultures and have parallels in the animal kingdom, which means they aren't socially constructed nor arbitrary. In fact, these experiments and subsequent research seems to point to a biological origin for "The Golden Rule." This explains why it shows up in almost every religion and philosophy of ethics. Not arbitrary at all.
:confused:
you don't get it...why was the golden rule implanted into the genes, why not some other platinum rule that would have made our whole world different?

and if our world did have a platinum rule iin their genes instead (which resulted in morality climaxing in eating your neighbor alive or something like that), if that's the world we lived in, can't we ask; why wouldn't we have had the golden rule implanted in our genes?

get out of the how, tell me why.

-=-

There is no why.

-=-

There is no why.

-=-
that's what i said:

any moral rules must have been arbitrary in their origin.
you need to pay closer attention.

-=-

That's not what you said. Reread your posts.

You're the 1 not paying attention. You're too focused on fear.

and if our world did have a platinum rule iin their genes instead (which resulted in morality climaxing in eating your neighbor alive or something like that), if that's the world we lived in, can't we ask; why wouldn't we have had the golden rule implanted in our genes?

We would have to ignore millions of years of evolution and begin conjuring wizards potions and waving magic wands.

But, you see, that isn't the world we live in, it's just the world you fantasize.

are you gonna stop wasting my time with monosyllabic responses and actually post something worthwhile, or will you satisfy yourself with your own ignorant bias and oh-so-clever mispelling of the name of the Book you're referring to, minus any actual examples, of course?


If anyone is wasting your time, it is you.

You're too focused on fear.

:scratchin:
.
.
.
.
.
.
:idea:
:runaway:

while programming us to break them.
”
this is VEEEEARY important..no mister, he programmed us with FREE WILL to break them or abide them, It's very difficult to perfectly resist the temptations and compulsions and delusions fostered somehow in human nature - very few people are programmed to always possess as much will, free or otherwise, as they would need.

The programmer loaded the dice, biased the program. We see the recognition of that in the bizarre lengths to which some believers will go in merely avoiding opportunity or temptation - making the girls wear shapeless bags and stay indoors, banning alcohol from entire areas, etc.

It's very difficult to perfectly resist the temptations and compulsions and delusions fostered somehow in human nature - very few people are programmed to always possess as much will, free or otherwise, as they would need.
giving in to these temptations, or "sinning" is accepted in religions, those which kick you out of a religion are rarely those of temptations.
also, that is where redemption and repentence come into view.. god doesn't mind people slipping once in a while if they aknowledge what they did is wrong.

The programmer loaded the dice, biased the program. We see the recognition of that in the bizarre lengths to which some believers will go in merely avoiding opportunity or temptation - making the girls wear shapeless bags and stay indoors, banning alcohol from entire areas, etc.
what's wrong with that?
experience of cultures based on such "boundaries" are more successful, even secular ones are adapting to that slowly..

The concept of God exists as a result of morality, not the other way around.

When one thinks about evolutionary theory, the concept of God explains itself.
The notion of God appeals only to those who can not accept a biological imperative without obvious direction.

Since the concept of god is based on a lie, god forms an inherantly immoral foundation.

Not necessarily.

It only gives a common reference point to whatever is deemed moral.
Give me a societies values, and I'll show you the attributes of its god/s.

Up until recently, of course.

god doesn't mind people slipping once in a while if they aknowledge what they did is wrong.

Sure, blow a few heads off, rob a few banks, acknowledge what you did was wrong and you're good to go a few more rounds.

This is theist morality and values. :bugeye: