From http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html



The Ineffable Carrot and the Infinite Stick



An atheist's view of morality



"A common, though ignorant, objection raised to atheism by theists is that atheists have no basis for morality. In its simplest form, the argument can be phrased like this: if there is no God and thus no justice after death, why bother to be a good person and treat others with respect? Why not just do whatever you want, secure in the knowledge that there will be no divine retribution? Of course, the problem is that most atheists are in fact decent people regardless, but theists typically work this into their argument, concluding with a smirk that since atheists are not all evil and selfish, they must believe in God after all, even if they profess otherwise.

Of course, this is completely ridiculous. But lacking a just deity, what is an atheist's basis for morality? What entices us to do good, if not the promise of a Heaven? What frightens us away from doing evil, if not the threat of a Hell?

There are many potential answers to this question, and I do not claim to speak for all atheists. Many have invoked the social contract between government and the people, the necessity of an orderly society, the very real human-created systems of justice, and so on. But while these are valid answers, I believe there is a better one. There is a very good basis for an atheist's morality, a basis better by far than the puerile version offered by fundamentalists. It is, in fact, the same basis for morality employed by most enlightened theists, even if they do not realize it.

Simply put, the basis for an atheist's morality is respect - for himself, for his fellow human beings and for the world in general.

An atheist knows that to do harm to others is only to degrade himself. He recognizes that he is surrounded by fellow human beings who can also feel love, hate, sadness, joy, pain, and all the other things that make us human. And he realizes what a rare and precious gift it is to be alive and conscious, a gift that is all the more valuable because it lasts for only a brief time and then is gone. To be hateful, ignorant, greedy or cruel would be an unimaginably tragic waste of the priceless opportunity that everyone has only once; not only that, it would be a violation of the respect all people should have for their fellow human beings - indeed, their fellow living things - who can feel pain and suffer, just as they can.

In other words, the basis for an atheist's morality is the Golden Rule, "Treat others as you wish to be treated," a timeless, simple, obvious maxim that precedes the later religions which sought to take credit for inventing it. More importantly, it is a secular principle that relies not on the rules of any deity, but on the basic human trait of empathy. If morality must have an absolute grounding point, then that grounding point is this: That which decreases pain and suffering is good; that which increases pain and suffering is bad. Simple - no god necessary.

Naturally, this is a general rule and trade-offs must be made; for example, surgery causes a temporary increase in pain that results in a greater decrease in the long run. This is fully in keeping with the atheist model of morality, which requires people to think for themselves and use their own best judgment. Some fundamentalists would doubtless feel more comfortable with an absolute set of rules that will instantly tell a believer what to do in any given situation, no independent thought necessary, but even if this truly were desirable, such a thing could never be created in practice. It is simply not possible to foresee every potential situation, at least not for us, and if God gave us a comprehensive list of guidelines covering every decision that might ever need to be made, the book of laws would be rather weighty. (One would need a wheelbarrow to carry the Bible around.) In any event, reality is rarely, if ever, black and white. Context and circumstance must be judged whenever a decision is made. If this is moral relativism, so be it - the alternative, to blindly and dogmatically apply the same rule in every situation without ever considering extenuating factors, is far worse. Surely the theists would not claim that the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness" forces a German family during World War II to tell the Nazi enforcers, "Why yes, since you ask, we are hiding a Jewish family in our basement" - or that the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" prevents the Allied fighters from attacking them. Every rule has exceptions, and if we are to decide what is right, then we have no alternative but to rely on our own empathy, logic, and common sense, guided by the general utilitarian rule of always seeking to maximize the good. This, in a nutshell, is atheist morality.

This system is in sharp contrast to the juvenile basis for morality offered by fundamentalist theists, which typically goes something like this: Do what God says and you'll get into Heaven; disobey him and you'll go to Hell.

In the first place, this is arbitrary. Who is to say what God wants people to do? The Bible? It's open to countless different interpretations, many wildly different from each other. Religious leaders? How do you know they're not just making up the rules for their own benefit? Personal revelation? How can you ever be sure you're not just talking to yourself and letting your own subconscious tell you what you want to hear? The tragic proof of the inconsistency of this doctrine is how many atrocities and injustices it has given rise to throughout history. "God told me to do it" was the justification for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Salem witch trials, and countless other events that shame all of humanity.

In the second place, this would still be arbitrary even if God's instructions to humanity were clearly defined and unmistakable. If we do things only because God tells us to do them, then morality is based on nothing more than his whim. If God told us to rape, torture and murder people - and indeed, he does give exactly those instructions on several occasions in the Bible - then rape, torture and murder would be right, and not doing those things would be wrong. (If one instead argues that God has a consistent, objective basis for making moral decisions, then an atheist can use that same basis himself and cut God out of the picture entirely.) The atheist's morality, by contrast, is logically grounded, consistent and not subject to change by divine fiat. To an atheist, rape and murder are always wrong, and will be wrong regardless of what any deity says.

Thirdly, this system offers numerous justifications and rationalizations for immoral actions, or apathy in the face of such actions, that the atheist's system does not. To name just the most obvious example, if there is an afterlife where justice will be served at last and everyone will get what they deserve, why bother instituting any sort of earthly justice? Why fight an evil dictator or tyrant if he'll eventually get what's coming to him anyway? Why try to help the poor or the disadvantaged if they will be rewarded later for their suffering now?

In a similar but more subtle vein, a theist could reason that, if God controls the universe, then nothing can happen that is not in line with his will, and if God is loving, he will not allow purposeless evil. Therefore, any evil that does happen is in line with his will, allowed as part of a greater purpose unknown to us. The logical conclusion, therefore, is that we should not try to alleviate evil and suffering in this world. God must have purposes for allowing it to happen. Who are we to interfere with his grand plan?

The atheist's moral system offers no such convenient escape hatches. In this system, this life is all we have, and no higher power is letting bad things happen for mysterious reasons of its own. Therefore, it is our duty to make the world a better place for everyone.

But most of all, the theistic basis for morality is lacking because it offers no better reason to behave than the promise of reward and the threat of punishment - in other words, a carrot and stick. It is a system of "might makes right". It assumes that people are basically immoral and cannot be trusted to do right unless they are lured into it, nor can they be trusted to abstain from wrong unless they are frightened away from it. Like untrained animals, we have to be constantly chastised by a transcendent lawgiver whenever we stray from the straight and narrow. The psychologically harmful repercussions of holding such a dim view of one's own human nature should be obvious. If we're all depraved, hopeless sinners who can't help doing evil things, why even try to be a good person?

Furthermore, this basis for morality actually denies the compassion and empathy that should be at the heart of any ethical system. Instead of encouraging us to do the right thing for its own sake, it promotes fear and selfishness. Do the fundamentalists really mean to imply that their fear of divine punishment is the only thing preventing them from doing evil to everyone around them? Are they claiming that they would never do any good if they didn't expect to get something in return? When I stand next to one of these people, is his fear of that lake of fire the only thing keeping him from lunging at me and trying to tear my throat out with his teeth? (If so, forgive me for not wanting to be around him - I don't consider that much of an assurance no matter how strongly he believes.) Whenever a fundamentalist holds a door or picks up a book for someone, is he only doing it because he's picturing at that moment the rewards he'll get for it in his heavenly mansion? If any of these things are the case, then these theists really aren't very moral people at all, are they?

By contrast, the atheistic basis for morality is one that respects human intelligence and decency. It assumes that people can be trusted to do what's right without being promised a Heaven or threatened with a Hell. Most importantly, it encourages free thought: rather than coerce people with brute force threats or accustom them to unquestioning obedience, it requires that they learn the basics of ethical behavior and come to accept them freely. Unlike the theists' system, it can be questioned, refined and changed as society changes. Although it remains based around a simple, central principle, it is flexible and adaptive, not an immutable set of rules chiseled in stone tablets. While some would charge this with being "situational ethics," that is not a weakness, but a strength. As humanity evolves, new situations are bound to come up that no one in the previous generation foresaw. When that occurs, atheist morality will be ready to meet them while theists fumble for answers in obscure passages of their Bibles. (For example, many Christians strongly oppose abortion, but there is no explicit condemnation of it anywhere in Scripture.)

Furthermore, the situational atheist morality has remained remarkably diverse and strong while the solid, unchanging rock of theist morality now seems more than a little outdated, even - dare we say it? - barbaric; embarrassingly so for those who believe in it. For example, while Christians proudly proclaim that their Bible has not changed in two thousand years, there are many parts of it that they relegate to back shelves and generally do their best to forget about. Who today follows the Bible's rules on how hard to beat slaves (Exodus 21:20-21), or what price is acceptable when selling a wife or daughter? (Leviticus 27:3-7 - females are worth about half as much as males, for the curious.) Who obeys the Old Testament's law commanding the execution by stoning of homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), "witches" (Exodus 22:18), disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), and people who pick up sticks on the Sabbath? (Numbers 15:32-36)

It is verses like the above that reveal theistic morality for what it is: a cruel and inhumane relic of a primitive era. Humanity has grown beyond this, and so it deserves to be replaced with a better alternative. As we flow inevitably forward into the future, atheist morality - the only system of morality that does not rely on an ineffable carrot and an infinite stick - is the only possible choice to guide our progress in the days to come."



Just food for thought.

Wait, we have no morals? When did this happen? Hmmm, I think I need to hear from someone that agrees with the statement "Atheists have no morals". http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Gustave:

Wait, we have no morals? When did this happen? Hmmm, I think I need to hear from someone that agrees with the statement "Atheists have no morals". http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

When I posted this, I had Sniper Piper in mind, who considers them "godless, evil, and corrupt" people.

... when you talk to Christians you have to be ready for that. By the way many of them consider everyone who disagrees with them an atheist.

From my own experiance.

Gustave, I think they probably claim that you have no morals independant of religious teaching, which clearly is difficult to prove because morals and philosophy go hand in hand with theology and it is very hard to talk about one subject without referring to the other.

Many would argue that religions such as Christianity and Judaism teach that respect is a prime reason for morality.

Proof of this can be found in the maxim "Treat others as you would like to be treated", which means that if you treat others badly and only think about yourself, they will lose their respect for you and in turn treat you badly.

I am only referring to Judaism and Christianity in this post because I think that this teaching is reflected by both Jesus and Hillel.

This article has been written in an elitist tone implying the author is more interested in the kudos of his fellow atheists than actually presenting a valid arguement.

The atheist would have to proove that this reason of respect is totally alienated from religion in order to gain any proof, which is absurd because both Judaism and Christianity claim respect of fellows as a prime reason to do good, thus whilst attempting to sound intelligent, this un-named atheist is merely restating a religious arguement removed from it's religious context, and is therefore a dick.

The question to ask onesself is: "If no religion existed would the atheist have come to this conclusion independantly?"

I believe that this is impossible to prove but arguably very unlikely considering belief in Deity seems to be built into man's phyche.





EDIT: The atheist has further incriminated himself by making a direct attack on parts of the Bible, such action appears valid at first until we realise that the Talmud gave the answers to his questions several thousand years before he was born, and that he is therefore merely ignorant.

The atheist doesn't claim to posess morality individual from religion rather than to take a stab at the source of morality for many Christians and Jews.

(He also doesn't name himself because he's a stupid SOB that knows his essay wouldn't hold up to a class of 16 year olds studying philosopy)

[This message has been edited by Aphelion Corona (edited 07-12-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Aphelion Corona:

I am only referring to Judaism and Christianity in this post because I think that this teaching is reflected by both Jesus and Hillel.

May I ask you who is Hillel?

Was he the man who taught "Treat others as you would like to be treated" principle some years before Jesus was born?

He died and rose from the dead as well.

Though I am not sure about his name... is this the Hillel you mentioned?

[This message has been edited by Sniper (edited 07-12-2004).]

"a religious arguement removed from it's religious context"

If the argument still holds even out of context, it can be concluded that religion is unnecessary for the basis of morality to exist.

quote:Originally posted by Sniper:

May I ask you who is Hillel?

Was he the man who taught "Treat others as you would like to be treated" principle some years before Jesus was born?

He died and rose from the dead as well.

Though I am not sure about his name... is this the Hillel you mentioned?

[This message has been edited by Sniper (edited 07-12-2004).]



if memory serves, Hillel was basically a Jewish commentator or interpreter of Biblical law, somewhere around the middle to end of the 1st century BC

edit added... i think he put the golden rule in the negative phrasing ie Dont do unto...

[This message has been edited by xtreem5150ahm (edited 07-13-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

To be hateful, ignorant, greedy or cruel would be an unimaginably tragic waste of the priceless opportunity that everyone has only once; not only that, it would be a violation of the respect all people should have for their fellow human beings - indeed, their fellow living things - who can feel pain and suffer, just as they can.

Not that all evolutionists are atheists or that all atheists are evolutionists but this does not sound like 'survival of the fittest', nor does it even souNd like reality. All people have some measure of hatefulness, ignorance, greed or cruelty..atheist and theist alike. And what you are implying is that a completely "devout" athiest would be the most moral person the world has ever known, unemcummbered by greed, cruelty, anger or (especially) ignorance... totally tolerant of his more hampered "planet-mates".



quote:

More importantly, it is a secular principle that relies not on the rules of any deity, but on the basic human trait of empathy. If morality must have an absolute grounding point, then that grounding point is this: That which decreases pain and suffering is good; that which increases pain and suffering is bad. Simple - no god necessary. Naturally, this is a general rule and trade-offs must be made



just checking: If there were a fire at a music festival, and people trampled others to save their own skin, would that be a good thing, or a bad thing?

quote:

Some fundamentalists would doubtless feel more comfortable with an absolute set of rules that will instantly tell a believer what to do in any given situation, no independent thought necessary, but even if this truly were desirable, such a thing could never be created in practice. It is simply not possible to foresee every potential situation, at least not for us, and if God gave us a comprehensive list of guidelines covering every decision that might ever need to be made, the book of laws would be rather weighty.

Even Jesus taught this. When He answered about healing on the Sabbath or when He and His disiples went through the corn field and plucked ears and ate, rubbing them in their hands.

quote: Surely the theists would not claim that the commandment "Thou shalt not bear false witness" forces a German family during World War II to tell the Nazi enforcers, "Why yes, since you ask, we are hiding a Jewish family in our basement"

Since you have been on the academic side, please allow me to make a few "should be's "

statements...

According to Dr. Luther's Catechism, the First Commandment, Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

What does this mean? We should fear, love and trust in God above all things.

Second Commandment, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vain.

What does this mean? We should fear and love God that we may not curse, swear, use witchcraft,lie, or decieve by His name, but call apon it in every trouble, pray, praise and give thanks.

So where you quoted the eighth commandment, the command on lying (according to Luther) would really be the 2nd.

And before that, your German family (if they were Christian) SHOULD HAVE first reguarded the 1st commandment and put their trust in God. That IS easier said than done, because we are weak creatures... but it SHOULD not be difficult for a believer.

quote:

This system is in sharp contrast to the juvenile basis for morality offered by fundamentalist theists, which typically goes something like this: Do what God says and you'll get into Heaven; disobey him and you'll go to Hell.

Unfortunately, this is the incomplete, general understanding of what is believed to be the total Christian teaching, by both many Christians and non-Christians alike, but i think it IS the general theology of Judaism (keep God's Law). The Christain Doctrine states that the Law is basically a mirror, showing us that we are not blameless, and that, since through man, sin entered the world, only a blameless Man (God in human form.. Jesus) could be the only, just payment. And that is a gift from God, to be accepted simply by faith (belief in Jesus as the Messiah).

quote: The tragic proof of the inconsistency of this doctrine is how many atrocities and injustices it has given rise to throughout history. "God told me to do it" was the justification for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Salem witch trials, and countless other events that shame all of humanity.

All this "proof" is only proof of how fallible we humans can be. You mentioned earlier of the possibilty of the religious leaders reason for interpretation of God's Word to be for their own benifit. Yes! It has been used that way. That does not make God's Word errant, only its use by people (leaders). "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely."

Even during the temptations of The Christ, Satan used God's Word to (try to) tempt Jesus.

quote:

In the second place, this would still be arbitrary even if God's instructions to humanity were clearly defined and unmistakable. If we do things only because God tells us to do them, then morality is based on nothing more than his whim. If God told us to rape, torture and murder people - and indeed, he does give exactly those instructions on several occasions in the Bible - then rape, torture and murder would be right, and not doing those things would be wrong.



You are very right. And it is God who defines what is right and wrong, according to His will (in your words, whim).

quote:

(If one instead argues that God has a consistent, objective basis for making moral decisions, then an atheist can use that same basis himself and cut God out of the picture entirely.) The atheist's morality, by contrast, is logically grounded, consistent and not subject to change by divine fiat. To an atheist, rape and murder are always wrong, and will be wrong regardless of what any deity says.

Sorry, but you cant use that same basis nor can you argue that an atheist's morallity is consistant because you said:

quote: Naturally, this is a general rule and trade-offs must be made; for example, surgery causes a temporary increase in pain that results in a greater decrease in the long run. This is fully in keeping with the atheist model of morality, which requires people to think for themselves and use their own best judgment.

******************************************

quote:

But most of all, the theistic basis for morality is lacking because it offers no better reason to behave than the promise of reward and the threat of punishment - in other words, a carrot and stick.

Again, this is the misunderstanding of Christian Doctrine... back to the "should be's"... doing good "should be" because of our love for God and "should be" because of His command, or rather, the greatest commandments:

Matthew 22:36-40 "Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."

quote:

It is a system of "might makes right". It assumes that people are basically immoral and cannot be trusted to do right unless they are lured into it, nor can they be trusted to abstain from wrong unless they are frightened away from it. Like untrained animals, we have to be constantly chastised by a transcendent lawgiver whenever we stray from the straight and narrow. The psychologically harmful repercussions of holding such a dim view of one's own human nature should be obvious. If we're all depraved, hopeless sinners who can't help doing evil things, why even try to be a good person?

Again, you are saying that it is, humanly possible to be "good" without (a) God. Well, i guess practice makes perfect... literally.

Would you be willing to do an experiment?

See if you can go one whole week, practicing the golden rule completely. Go to an extreme, and include even your thoughts...you cant even get mad at someone behind their back, even by keeping it in. Like i said, extreme.. not even one lie... not even a small one... not even the (technical) truth if it was meant to be decietful. This experiment is on the honor system, the MAIN honesty is to yourself, because you would be the only one to know your honor and honesty. If you fail, start over with a new week, if you succede, see how long you can do this. This is just a test for yourself, to prove to yourself whether your (anti)stick and carrot theory holds water. Just stick to the basics of courtesy and honesty. Although adultery, greed and lust (these are covet commandments) would also violate the golden rule.

I do wish you luck, should you try this experiment.

quote:

Furthermore, this basis for morality actually denies the compassion and empathy that should be at the heart of any ethical system.

Part of The Lord's Prayer says, "forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us" and Jesus said, "Judge not, lest ye be judged" and He said, "Turn the other cheek"

If this is not compassion and empathy (and justice), then i am missing alot more than i thought, from what i was taught and learned.

quote: Instead of encouraging us to do the right thing for its own sake, it promotes fear and selfishness. Do the fundamentalists really mean to imply that their fear of divine punishment is the only thing preventing them from doing evil to everyone around them? Are they claiming that they would never do any good if they didn't expect to get something in return?

Again, it is NOT someones actions that recieve heaven or hell!! "All have fell short of the glory of God"

"I am the truth and the light. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

quote:

By contrast, the atheistic basis for morality is one that respects human intelligence and decency.

Of the few "openly" atheists that i have met in real life, all have proclaimed that they are good, for goodness sake. All have been arrogent (not only to me, while we discussed theology, but to others in different instances ). All have been "rude" to the point of (loudly) interupting. And most have been condiscending, saying how stupid a belief in God is.

quote:Unlike the theists' system, it can be questioned, refined and changed as society changes.

This is stated from the presumtion that theist are wrong about God vs. not god. But if there is God, then the theists' system should not be questioned (except to know exactly what God says, compared to what religious leaders teach). If what has been taught by religious leaders, is in fact, what God says to do, then this system should not be changed and cannot be refined any better than God has already done.

quote: (For example, many Christians strongly oppose abortion, but there is no explicit condemnation of it anywhere in Scripture.)

Other than the 5th commandment??

Its not that Atheists have no morals, but it is true that there are many that don't. It would be more correct to say that Atheists have no set system of morals. I believe any Atheist that claims to have a set system of morals cannot truthfully call himself an Atheist.

There are good people out there who call themselves Atheists. They follow a system of morals that closely resemble the Ten Commandments (i.e., not to steal, cheat, murder, etc.), but whats stopping them from going on a killing spree? Lying to the Federal government? Committing insurance fraud? What are they really afraid of? If they believe there is no God, what do they have to fear from committing a few petty crimes, or anything else they would consider "immoral?" There is no fear for the immortal soul, no fear of God, nor the devil.

So what, I ask, are you all really afraid of?

[This message has been edited by Brother Maynard (edited 07-13-2004).]

^so fear is security...

who would have thought Orwell's Big Brother could be best exemplified by the mindset of the religious establishment?

morals ARE relative. SORRY. that's just how it is.

they are COMPLETELY dependent on the specific circumstances of the situation, because, guess what (ready? big surprise here), NO ONE PERSON OR THING has all the answers. morals are not set laws, they are the conscious and sub-conscious exercise of judgement, based on general GUIDE-lines consciously and sub-consciously extrapolated from previous analogous experiences. as such, they are ever-evolving and morphing as needed. what's infinitely more interesting is not the quality of the specific moral state, but the flexibility it possesses as the reflection of a living mind's thought processes.

everything there may be to experience has not been plotted out, not every situation can be addressed by following a conveniently outlined course of action, and the appropriateness of every course of action is not evident. it's so disheartening to have to state the obvious, (but for the sake of those who complicate the mundane) life is carried out in real-time.

quote:Originally posted by Brother Maynard:

Its not that Atheists have no morals, but it is true that there are many that don't. It would be more correct to say that Atheists have no set system of morals. I believe any Atheist that claims to have a set system of morals cannot truthfully call himself an Atheist.

There are good people out there who call themselves Atheists. They follow a system of morals that closely resemble the Ten Commandments (i.e., not to steal, cheat, murder, etc.), but whats stopping them from going on a killing spree? Lying to the Federal government? Committing insurance fraud? What are they really afraid of? If they believe there is no God, what do they have to fear from committing a few petty crimes, or anything else they would consider "immoral?" There is no fear for the immortal soul, no fear of God, nor the devil.

So what, I ask, are you all really afraid of?

[This message has been edited by Brother Maynard (edited 07-13-2004).]

A person does not have to be afraid of punishment to have morals.

I honestly have a difficult time understanding why so many theists cannot accept the fact that morals do not depend on religion.

One does not have to believe in a God to understand that murder, theft, lying,cheating, etc, is detrimental to a functional society.Right and Wrong are not concepts understood only by theists.

A person should do what is right for the simple reason that it is the right thing to do , not because the person fears punishment from their God for not doing it.

Which is more moral? Someone who does the right thing on their own accord, or someone who does the right thing through fear of punishment?

Theism is not needed for a person to posess character and integrity.

Well said Eil, Truckfixr.

In response to Brother Maynard:

As others have stated, you don't need fear to be a moral person. Actually, in my mind, fear is a pathetic reason to have morals. If you remove this fear, will this person reveal who they truly are? An immoral human being?

If you need something to scare you into doing the right thing... this tells me that, deep down, you do not possess your own morals. This should be an obvious point, yet many accept fear as a useful tool... kind of like training a puppy. I think the human race needs to move beyond scare tactics to enforce morality.

quote: A person should do what is right for the simple reason that it is the right thing to do , not because the person fears punishment from their God for not doing it.

So what keeps you from committing tax fraud, or even mass murder? Are you concerned with personal fulfillment from doing good deeds? What good does it do? What difference does it make whether you do right or wrong, if there is nothing governing your existence but yourself?

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

One does not have to believe in a God to understand that murder, theft, lying,cheating, etc, is detrimental to a functional society.

So you replace religion with a dedication to society? It seems I need to clarify my use of "fear." "Fear" is used in the Bible and elsewhere as a connotation for "respect (i.e., fear your parents)."

I don't mean to sound hostile or anything, I'm just curious. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:

So what, I ask, are you all really afraid of?



I don't know if I speak for all athiests, but I'm afraid of the 6', 700lbs man in jail by the name of Bubba.....

Aside from that, it is not an conscience fear on the minds of some people, but it is the fear of doing a crime equates to the idealisms by the masses to where you are shunned, and by the way humanity has "evolved" and become what it is now, we humans, no matter who you are, fear being shunned. To be shunned is probally the most common sub-conscience fear anyone has, though seeing as it is, few people truely are able to understand and accept this.

[This message has been edited by Gyhth (edited 07-15-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Gyhth (edited 07-15-2004).]

"So what keeps you from committing tax fraud, or even mass murder? Are you concerned with personal fulfillment from doing good deeds? What good does it do?"

It's called karma. You treat others like shit, you will be treated like shit. Simple, no?

To expand:

Mass murder? Okay, so then you end up in prison for the rest of your short existence. Yippee. You don't have to have religious faith to enjoy life. Is it so difficult to understand that realizing the consequences of your actions is reason enough to restrain yourself? If I kill someone, my life will be ruined. Even if I hate this person, I can restrain myself knowing that my life will also go down the shitter.

quote:Originally posted by Brother Maynard:

So you replace religion with a dedication to society? It seems I need to clarify my use of "fear." "Fear" is used in the Bible and elsewhere as a connotation for "respect (i.e., fear your parents)."



No offense intended, but you didn't use the term fear in the context of respect in your post.You said "...There is no fear for the immortal soul, no fear of God, nor the devil.So what, I ask, are you all really afraid of?...". Fear for the imortal soul is just what it says...Fear.

I do not replace religion with dedication to society.I do what is best for my family and myself.I am a functional member of society , thus I am partly responsible for the continued success of said society.

Let me repeat myself from my previous post " Right and Wrong are not concepts understood only by theists".I do not cheat on taxes,steal,or commit murder, for the simple fact that these things are wrong. I know how it feels to have something stolen from me and I have suffered the loss of loved ones. I have no desire to inflict the pain that would be caused by my doing these things to others.

You asked ..." but whats stopping them from going on a killing spree? Lying to the Federal government? Committing insurance fraud? What are they really afraid of? If they believe there is no God, what do they have to fear from committing a few petty crimes, or anything else they would consider "immoral?"...

Fear has nothing to do with it. The answer is within your question. We do not do these things because they are immoral acts.

The person who does not commit sin because they are afraid is always morally inferior to the person who does not commit said sin because they realize that it is wrong. This is always true. It is not an opinion, it simply is. Does anybody honestly disagree with this? Because if you do, I hate to break it to you, but you are a bad person. Nobody loves you, including Jesus. You are the theological equivolent of a tattle-tale in pre-school. You do for the sake of praise from powers you consider to be above you rather than for the good of your peers. The end.

I might be repeating someone, but who cares?

I belive that a persons view on morals and morality change with the situation. Is it true that an atheist might not commit a murder on the assumption that it is wrong? Yes. But that murder might only be wrong in that circumstance, like if said person is contemplating killing a nun. But that exact same person might have no qualms about killing a pedophile, even though it is murder. The reason that the person is able to kill one person, but not another is because morals depend on the situation at hand. I read some people talking about a "set of morals", but in my opinion that is impossible. I think that most people's morals change no matter what set of beliefs they follow. I know christians that are vehemently opposed abortion, but I know for a fact that they'll change their opinion the second thet their 12 year old daughter is raped and impregnated.

I also know that I tend to ramble on, so forgive me.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

No offense intended, but you didn't use the term fear in the context of respect in your post.You said "...There is no fear for the immortal soul, no fear of God, nor the devil.So what, I ask, are you all really afraid of?...". Fear for the imortal soul is just what it says...Fear.

I don't feel like getting into semantics, but I used both connotations there; subtlely, if you will. You'll just have to figure which one out for yourself. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Freer Mage:

The person who does not commit sin because they are afraid is always morally inferior to the person who does not commit said sin because they realize that it is wrong. This is always true. It is not an opinion, it simply is. Does anybody honestly disagree with this? Because if you do, I hate to break it to you, but you are a bad person. Nobody loves you, including Jesus. You are the theological equivolent of a tattle-tale in pre-school. You do for the sake of praise from powers you consider to be above you rather than for the good of your peers. The end.

Sorry, but I almost feel offended by this. Christianity and most other religions in general are not based on a literal "fear" of doing wrong. We have a set of morals which we are encouraged to follow. Needless to say it would be a lot better to go to heaven than to hell. I don't know if its a misinterpretation or something, but it sounds like you don't know what you're talking about. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by napoleon_complex:

I belive that a persons view on morals and morality change with the situation. Is it true that an atheist might not commit a murder on the assumption that it is wrong? Yes. But that murder might only be wrong in that circumstance, like if said person is contemplating killing a nun. But that exact same person might have no qualms about killing a pedophile, even though it is murder. The reason that the person is able to kill one person, but not another is because morals depend on the situation at hand. I read some people talking about a "set of morals", but in my opinion that is impossible. I think that most people's morals change no matter what set of beliefs they follow. I know christians that are vehemently opposed abortion, but I know for a fact that they'll change their opinion the second thet their 12 year old daughter is raped and impregnated.

Thanks, I think this is what I was getting at. For example, you could have two Atheists: a serial killer and a congressman. One obviously has a different system of morals from the other, yet they are the same in their "beliefs (or lack thereof)." By the same token, you could have an Atheist with absolutely no morals. But not all, I guess. Thanks for clearing this up.

Why is it ok for Social Junker to post HUGE articles that he didn't write, but not for anyone else ?

I remember getting raked over the coals for doing this very thing.

Once again, I say...what is good for the goose (non-Christians) is NOT good for the gander (Christians).

Not crying about it, just making an interesting observation.

Digital_Savior,I have to admit that you make a valid point.It would probably have been better if he had copied a paragraph or two and provided a link.It was kind of long , but I found it interesting.

To be honest, I believe the main problem most members had when you began posting had more to do with the fact that you had several threads going at the same time and you were bumping your own threads repeatedly.Several topics were pushed off the front page.

I must say that in my opinion you have improved tremendously since you began posting, and are well on your way to being a respected member of the totse community.

Even though I don't share your beliefs,I do respect your right to your opinions.If everyone agreed all the time, how boring this place would become.

^ Agreed.

Once again, Digital Savior, we were not attacking your beliefs. We were attacking your behavior. Bumping 8 or 9 of your own threads gets very annoying. But let's not get into this again.

Brother Maynard :

In my opinion, most morality in religions is based on fear. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I see it. Be good or go to hell. Those are your options. Some do preach love and compassion for your fellow man. Still, it all seems to boil down to 'be nice or else'.

"For example, you could have two Atheists: a serial killer and a congressman. One obviously has a different system of morals from the other, yet they are the same in their "beliefs (or lack thereof)." By the same token, you could have an Atheist with absolutely no morals."

It all depends on the individual. I have known several church-going Christians that seem to have fewer morals than I (agnostic). You can't say that one man is moral for his beliefs, and another is immoral for his lack of any religious faith.

quote:Originally posted by UnknownVeritas:



Bumping 8 or 9 of your own threads gets very annoying. But let's not get into this again.



what is "bumping a thread"



quote:

I have known several church-going Christians that seem to have fewer morals than I (agnostic). You can't say that one man is moral for his beliefs, and another is immoral for his lack of any religious faith.

This is quite similar to what i said in a differant topic, even alot of Christians think that "being good" is the way to Heaven and I attributed that to ignorance of the faith, which angered someone who asked who made me in charge of Christianity...or something like that.

^ Bumping a thread is simply posting a reply so that it gets kicked to the top of the list. More people look at threads when they have recent replies.

"even alot of Christians think that "being good" is the way to Heaven and I attributed that to ignorance of the faith"

I have debated this point with some of my more religious friends (though I don't have many). Several of them believe that you just have to try to be a good person and you will be allowed into Heaven. I asked if they were doing good for the sole purpose of dodging their Hell. Most answered 'yes, they don't want to go to hell'. To me, this says that they don't really have their own set of morals, they don't really believe in what they are doing. They're simply trying to get the approval of whatever higher being they support.

quote:Originally posted by UnknownVeritas:



"even alot of Christians think that "being good" is the way to Heaven and I attributed that to ignorance of the faith"

I have debated this point with some of my more religious friends (though I don't have many). Several of them believe that you just have to try to be a good person and you will be allowed into Heaven. I asked if they were doing good for the sole purpose of dodging their Hell. Most answered 'yes, they don't want to go to hell'. To me, this says that they don't really have their own set of morals, they don't really believe in what they are doing. They're simply trying to get the approval of whatever higher being they support.

thanks for answering what "bumping" is.

Then from your point of view, i would have to agree with you about the set of morals. But it is still ignorance on the part of your friends and many Christians, reguarding the Christian teaching.

quote:Originally posted by Brother Maynard:

Its not that Atheists have no morals, but it is true that there are many that don't.

I have known some "Christians" (their word, not mine) who appear also to have no morals. One in my chruch group (when I still attended church) would preach to me about being tolerant of other people, then turn around and tell a nigger joke to someone else.

quote: but whats stopping them from going on a killing spree? Lying to the Federal government? Committing insurance fraud?

Are you telling me that the only thing that keeps you from committing murder is the fear of going to hell? The argument that people would kill freely if there was no fear of punishment is ridiculous.

quote:

What are they really afraid of? If they believe there is no God, what do they have to fear from committing a few petty crimes, or anything else they would consider "immoral?"



Themselves. I don't know about you, but I would have trouble sleeping at night after commiting a serious crime, not because I was afraid of God or going to hell, but because of the act itself.

[This message has been edited by Social Junker (edited 07-19-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by UnknownVeritas:

"even alot of Christians think that "being good" is the way to Heaven and I attributed that to ignorance of the faith"

I have debated this point with some of my more religious friends (though I don't have many). Several of them believe that you just have to try to be a good person and you will be allowed into Heaven. I asked if they were doing good for the sole purpose of dodging their Hell. Most answered 'yes, they don't want to go to hell'. To me, this says that they don't really have their own set of morals, they don't really believe in what they are doing. They're simply trying to get the approval of whatever higher being they support.

Agreed. Christianity is not just about "being good, or else." It is true there are people out there calling themselves "Christians," despite being hypocrites and displaying an inherent lack of morality; these people are referred to as "Sunday Christians." They believe that by going to church every Sunday and claiming to believe they will get to heaven. It just doesn't work that way. Sorry.

I'm sure if every Atheist knew a true Christian then they would not have such a disrespect for the faith. The world is full of false truths and anti-Christian propaganda because everyone thinks "Catholic" when someone says "Christian." Not trying to get off topic here, just a comment.

Blah blah blah.

quote:Are you telling me that the only thing that keeps you from committing murder is the fear of going to hell? The argument that people would kill freely if there was no fear of punishment is ridiculous.

No, the only thing that SHOULD keep Christians from committing murder is the guilt, and the ramifications of such actions.

Other than the certifiably insane, I don't believe there is one person on the planet that wouldn't feel remorse of some sort (even if the murder is humanly justifiable, such as in cases of rape, or child molestation/murder). To take life in such a manner causes change in emotional, mental and spiritual stability.

I don't fear hell for my actions...our actions create reactions, as well as results. Chances are, I'd be caught, and go to prison. That would ruin my life. The family of the deceased would also suffer, and that would haunt me for the rest of my days.

God gave us laws to live by in order to maintain order and happiness. Look at what happens when people sin...there is pain, and suffering, and discontentment.

He made the law for our benefit, not to prevent us from enjoying ourselves. (i.e. "Don't have pre-marital sex." Why ? Not because He doesn't want you to enjoy yourself in that exact moment, but because it causes unwanted children, and disease, and whether you know it or not, it takes a piece of you and you can never get it back...little pieces of you all over the planet, depending on how many people you have been with) Wouldn't it be better to be 'whole' for your future spouse ? Wouldn't it be better to have children that have BOTH parents to love and respect, who also love and respect each other ? Wouldn't it be better to not walk around with herpes, or even worse, HIV for the rest of your life ?

By the way, where does your sense of guilt come from ? Guilt says what you have done is wrong. If man decides what is wrong, then 'what' created that feeling of guilt ? The answer would be nothing. That guilt comes from another source.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

No, the only thing that SHOULD keep Christians from committing murder is the guilt, and the ramifications of such actions.



Agreed.

quote:

By the way, where does your sense of guilt come from ? Guilt says what you have done is wrong. If man decides what is wrong, then 'what' created that feeling of guilt ? The answer would be nothing. That guilt comes from another source.

You ask a interesting question. I was raised Lutheran (Buddhist now), which taught that only the belief in Jesus Christ as my savior was needed to save me from hell. Basically what I took away from that was that I could sin as much as I wanted too, and always be forgiven, since I believed in Jesus Christ as my savior. But I still felt guilty when I did stuff that didn't agree with my own code of morals. I felt guilty not because God said it was bad, or the government said it was bad, but because I felt it was bad. I call it my "karma" sense. Basically, my sense of right and wrong is this: What reduces suffering is good, what produces suffering is bad. It's a lot more complicated than that, but that's the simplest way I can express it. The guilt does come from somewhere, even if the person himself decides what is right or wrong. That person would feel guilty because he's betrayed himself when he breaks his own code, along with the guilt of the act itself. An example of this would be when I was still using drugs, and I had promised to myself that I would never use again, and then one day I did, and felt extremely guilty. Why?, because I had broken a promise to myself.

quote:Originally posted by Social Junker:

I was raised Lutheran (Buddhist now), which taught that only the belief in Jesus Christ as my savior was needed to save me from hell. Basically what I took away from that was that I could sin as much as I wanted too, and always be forgiven, since I believed in Jesus Christ as my savior.

forgive me if im wrong, but doesnt the Lutheran teaching repenting? i.e. asking Jesus for forgiveness

and if one is truly repentant (sorry), then how could one continue to "sin as much as you want"?

quote: Basically, my sense of right and wrong is this: What reduces suffering is good, what produces suffering is bad. It's a lot more complicated than that, but that's the simplest way I can express it.

So, it is a freezing, cold, winter day. You are homeless. A rich person walks by wearing a nice warm coat. Taking the coat would reduce your suffering from the elements, but increase rich person's suffering (atleast temperarily). And for the kicker.. if you dont take the coat, you will die.

what do you do?

You take the coat. That's not morality, that's survival instinct. Human morals are almost always second to survival, even in the religous. There are examples where this is false though, such as Mother Teresa, MLK, Ghandi, that one guy in Tienemen Square and such. Fucking God I'm drunk. Vodka be damned when you drink this much,. Fuck.

Meh, I suck at making arguments. I agree with Digital_Savior here.

Survival instinct still holds the burden of morality over it, because you wouldn't steal food from a starving child at the homeless shelter you're staying at, just so YOU wouldn't starve, now would you ? (some might, but most of us wouldn't)

You still know it is wrong to take the coat. Morality is still a factor in that scenario.

As in the case of the drugs, the guilt you felt was a result of you letting yourself down, this is true. But WHERE did the guilt come from ? (Tangibly) I am not referring to the source of the guilt, but the creation of guilt in general.

Man has always had guilt...when Adam and Eve ate that apple in the Garden, they immediately felt shame and guilt. To accomodate this, they attempted (in futility) to cover themselves with leaves to hide their naked bodies (the interesting thing is that they didn't realize they were naked until after they ate the apple. The knowledge of both good and evil created in them a sense of guilt and awareness that they did not have prior. It is reasonable to conclude then that knowledge of evil creates guilt, and evil is sin), and hid in a bush to avoid the judgement of God.

These were the first humans, and they obviously felt guilt. So, who taught them this emotion ? No one. It was inherantly embedded in their nature. Who created that nature ? They were the first...they had NO ONE to learn from, or compare themselves to.

Again, I ask, where did guilt come from ? I do not believe that this sort of emotion, not to exclude any of the others we possess, is the result of millions of years of adaptation. If this were true, then animals would have emotions, too.

A dog can be happy, but in a much simpler sense than we are. This is not a degree of happiness, this is a happiness that is a result of environment and instinct, and not of conscious thought. (what makes someone happy varies from person to person, which indicates that happiness is logical. We decide what makes us happy...some like blue, and some like green. All dogs like food, warmth, affection, and play. In the case of human infants, what makes them happy is slightly more finite, but only due to lack of experience and knowledge)

This leads me to conclude that God created the emotion of guilt.

Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Survival instinct still holds the burden of morality over it, because you wouldn't steal food from a starving child at the homeless shelter you're staying at, just so YOU wouldn't starve, now would you ? (some might, but most of us wouldn't)

Of course any normal person would not steal food from a child at a homeless shelter you're staying at.This isn't a very good example due to the fact that if you are staying at a shelter for the homeless, you suffer little threat of starving.Meals,meager as they may be , are generally provided at such shelters.

You still know it is wrong to take the coat. Morality is still a factor in that scenario.

Sure you know that it would be wrong to take the coat!But survival would probably win out over morality. Especially if it was obvious that the act would only be an inconvenience (although fairly major) to the rich man, who would be able to buy another coat. It wouldn't be the right thing to do. It would be the practical thing to do, if there were no other option to survive.

As in the case of the drugs, the guilt you felt was a result of you letting yourself down, this is true. But WHERE did the guilt come from ? (Tangibly) I am not referring to the source of the guilt, but the creation of guilt in general.

Guilt is a learned emotion. If you watch very small children playing and fighting together, you can easily see that guilt does not exist in their thought processes.They have to be taught to share,to play fairly, and to treat others as they would be treated.



Man has always had guilt...when Adam and Eve ate that apple in the Garden, they immediately felt shame and guilt. To accomodate this, they attempted (in futility) to cover themselves with leaves to hide their naked bodies (the interesting thing is that they didn't realize they were naked until after they ate the apple. The knowledge of both good and evil created in them a sense of guilt and awareness that they did not have prior. It is reasonable to conclude then that knowledge of evil creates guilt, and evil is sin), and hid in a bush to avoid the judgement of God.

These were the first humans, and they obviously felt guilt. So, who taught them this emotion ? No one. It was inherantly embedded in their nature. Who created that nature ? They were the first...they had NO ONE to learn from, or compare themselves to.

While this is a good story,it is based completely on the bible.While this is one possible explanation, it is not necessarily correct.Even though many people believe in the bible, the chances are that it is just another book written by people who explained the world using their very limited understanding of the universe.





Again, I ask, where did guilt come from ? I do not believe that this sort of emotion, not to exclude any of the others we possess, is the result of millions of years of adaptation. If this were true, then animals would have emotions, too.

A dog can be happy, but in a much simpler sense than we are. This is not a degree of happiness, this is a happiness that is a result of environment and instinct, and not of conscious thought. (what makes someone happy varies from person to person, which indicates that happiness is logical. We decide what makes us happy...some like blue, and some like green. All dogs like food, warmth, affection, and play. In the case of human infants, what makes them happy is slightly more finite, but only due to lack of experience and knowledge)



Animals do experience emotions, be it on a lesser level than humans. Their brains are not as developed as the human brain, so why would you expect them to have the same level of emotion?



This leads me to conclude that God created the emotion of guilt.

From a logical standpoint,it's just as likely that man developed the emotion of guilt,along with love,hate,sorrow,happiness,etc through mankinds own evolution process.Completely without the input of any God.





[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 07-22-2004).]

quote:Originally posted by Brother Maynard:

Its not that Atheists have no morals, but it is true that there are many that don't. It would be more correct to say that Atheists have no set system of morals. I believe any Atheist that claims to have a set system of morals cannot truthfully call himself an Atheist.

There are good people out there who call themselves Atheists. They follow a system of morals that closely resemble the Ten Commandments (i.e., not to steal, cheat, murder, etc.), but whats stopping them from going on a killing spree? Lying to the Federal government? Committing insurance fraud? What are they really afraid of? If they believe there is no God, what do they have to fear from committing a few petty crimes, or anything else they would consider "immoral?" There is no fear for the immortal soul, no fear of God, nor the devil.

So what, I ask, are you all really afraid of?

[This message has been edited by Brother Maynard (edited 07-13-2004).]

I'm afraid of myself. If I do something wrong, I feel bad because I know it was wrong. It hurt somebody that did nothing to me. The main thing that stops me from becoming a serial killer is prison. I enjoy my freedom.

You're saying I can't be an Atheist and have respect? That's a load of crap.

^if that's the main thing, please... if you don't mind... seek psychiatric help immediately.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Again, I ask, where did guilt come from ? I do not believe that this sort of emotion, not to exclude any of the others we possess, is the result of millions of years of adaptation. If this were true, then animals would have emotions, too.



first of all, whether animals experience emotions or not is a topic completely open to debate. we'll likely never know, since we can't experience life in their skins (well, without killing them first). but still, isn't it more tenable to believe that animals do possess emotions? depending on the given species in question, they generally exhibit complex behaviors and a wide range of possible responses to stimulii.

besides, if it were the case that animals should exactly experience emotions as humans do, then animals should have thumbs, walk upright, speak, and look exactly like us.

they do not, because emotions have evolutionary advantages as well - the peace-loving, compassionate lion is not one likely to survive. also, it may very well be the case that some animals experience emotions we can not.

digital, it really befuddles me why you appear to think you can prove your point of view by just spouting off what you believe, without any consideration to what is objective, empirical, testable fact that everyone can agree upon. i don't mean the theory of evolution, i mean your statement that adam & eve were the first man and woman. don't you realize that any logical person who does not agree with you on that issue will be compelled to disregard all your consequent assertions?

Just found this, so I figured this may help the topic http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)



quote:

Quote From Evil Bible, Common lies Christians tell that are ABSOLUTELY FALSE!(http://www.evilbible.com/common_lies.htm)

Atheists have no morals. All one has to do is take a look at the American prison system. Nearly 76% of violent criminals are Christian and NO, most of these Christians did not convert after conviction, they were Christian at the time of the crime. The greatest genocides in human history stemmed from the Christian faith. If you examine secular societies in comparison to religious societies; secular societies will consistently have less crime, unemployment, corruption and more freedom, share of wealth and a higher standard of living. Nearly EVERY single advancement towards morality (I.E: ceasing native genocide, freeing the slaves and women’s suffrage) was OPPOSED by the church and Christian organizations.



There are no atheists in foxholes. I hear this one on a weekly basis and it never ceases to amuse/disgust me. One third of the world’s population does not believe in a deity. The largest concentration of free thinkers is found in Asia, which participated in each world war and have been feuding over territory with the surrounding regions for thousands of years (especially Japan and China). My father is an atheist and served during the Berlin Crisis. I am an atheist and though I wasn’t in a fox hole, I faced death while giving birth and I tell you that the thought about God NEVER crossed my mind when I heard my condition could be fatal. I have had the privilege to meet hundreds of atheists who served in WW2 and Vietnam, each of whom sat in fox holes. For more information about atheists in the military see the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers website.

quote:Originally posted by Gyhth:



Nearly EVERY single advancement towards morality (I.E: ceasing native genocide, freeing the slaves and women’s suffrage) was OPPOSED by the church and Christian organizations.



Why does this not surprise me? http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Dogma's a bitch.