Here's my view:

People who are religious often act primarily out of fear of eternal retribution(yeah, i know theres exceptions), while good athiests act well out of empathy, reason and responsibility.

should it matter WHY a person acts well?

This has been bugging me.

thoughts?

quote:Originally posted by Food:

Here's my view:

People who are religious often act primarily out of fear of eternal retribution(yeah, i know theres exceptions), while good athiests act well out of empathy, reason and responsibility.

should it matter WHY a person acts well?

This has been bugging me.

thoughts?

Absolutely it matters. A deed should be judged on *both* nature and motive. The effects may be more tangible, but the thought behind it is what makes it meaningful. If someone does something out of fear for their own skin (or immortal soul, as the case may be) then isn't it ultimately a selfish act? It's a calculated move for self-preservation.

quote:Originally posted by Squakey:

Absolutely it matters. A deed should be judged on *both* nature and motive. The effects may be more tangible, but the thought behind it is what makes it meaningful. If someone does something out of fear for their own skin (or immortal soul, as the case may be) then isn't it ultimately a selfish act? It's a calculated move for self-preservation.

Exactly. Doing something good out of fear is more an act of submission than of good.

Which is why christianity is not doing things out of fear haha, and whoever has that view has the wrong one. Christ is a comfort. It is knowing that you are saved not by your own volition but by the death and ressurection of our Lord Jesus Christ. So whoever does those things to save their own skin doesnt quite believe in Christ, or is very misdirected. And yes, if you are doing things to save your own skin, then that is selfish, which is why almost all religions are selfish, Christianity being the exception. For all other religions demand works.

But you have to accept Jesus Christ as lord of your life and savour to get into heaven, right? All us atheists are going to hell. Believe and follow the lord or perish. Sounds like putting a gun to someone’s head and saying ‘do what I tell you to’ to me.

Not to mention that there is also the promise of great reward too. That's somewhat of a corrupting influence, why not do good just for goods sake?

buddhism is a lot less it is more of a pee shooter than a gun so saying christianity isn't and all others are is just ignorance

although buddhism has strict morality, atheism demands the most out of people morally. they don't do it because they will rot in eternal fire(or have suffering in the case of buddhim) they do it because it is right which is what everyone should do

quote:Originally posted by Overman:

But you have to accept Jesus Christ as lord of your life and savour to get into heaven, right? All us atheists are going to hell. Believe and follow the lord or perish. Sounds like putting a gun to someone’s head and saying ‘do what I tell you to’ to me.

Depends on what denomination you talk to. But all around that is the optimal situation, yes.

I wouldn't quite call it putting a gun to someone's head.

I am christian... I don't like christians that just believe because they were brought up that way... I would say athiests are normally more intelligant/knowledgable about religion unless ur a emo/goth/vampire person just trying to get attention because it means u question the norm

This is a pathetic topic.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

This is a pathetic topic.

Thanks. Your input is appreciated.

People only believe because they can't accept the possibility that there might not be anymore than what there is.

Be Good for Goodness sake, then when you die, you might wake up and get some juice and a thank you note.

quote:Originally posted by Food:

Thanks. Your input is appreciated.

When you start a debate with an assumption like this:

quote:People who are religious often act primarily out of fear of eternal retribution

No reasonable discussion can follow.

Have you been to any religion-affiliated charity event? Do the people volunteering their time really seem to do so because they are scared of hell?

To be completely honest, I don't see how Christianity is based on love. It isn't love if you are threatened with Hell. Sounds like an abusive relationship to me.

quote:Originally posted by Abrahim:

Be Good for Goodness sake, then when you die, you might wake up and get some juice and a thank you note.

i like juice

Haha, I believe what Bishop has stated is probably the truest statement here. And again, it is not a gun held to your hand. It is freedom to do what is right, or freedom to do what is wrong. Any thing you do has consequences, some good some bad. The consequence of rejecting a free gift that in its very essence offers you freedom or rather the consequence of choosing something else is simply what happens. There is no gun held to your head. It is simply a consequence. And besides, Christianity only asks you to do good, therefore if you are doing good for goodness sake, then why not accept Christ as your savior and free yourself of sin and death? He asks nothing of you but to love and shows you what love is, which is loving your neighbor and the Lord.

Just like being shot in the brain is a consequence of not doing as a gunman tells you to.

Also, a lot of morals in the bible are barbaric, sickening, and don't fit into modern society.

And I do good for goodness sake, but I might as well except Jesus Christ, Mohammed, Zues, and all those other gods just to save my ass.



[This message has been edited by Overman (edited 08-01-2006).]

"LOVE ME OR DIE." -JESUS

A question: From where does God derive his ethics? If you are moral for fear of retribution from God, aren't you automatically using the axiom "Might is right" as the basis for your ethical systems?

[This message has been edited by Zinkovich (edited 08-02-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Zinkovich:

A question: From where does God derive his ethics? If you are moral for fear of retribution from God, aren't you automatically using the axiom "Might is right" as the basis for your ethical systems?





The well has already been poisoned.

quote:Here's my view:

People who are religious often act primarily out of fear of eternal retribution(yeah, i know theres exceptions), while good athiests act well out of empathy, reason and responsibility.

should it matter WHY a person acts well?

This has been bugging me.

thoughts?

I couldnt agree more w/ this i mean if ur onlydoing good shit cuz ur scared 4 urself then u rly arent that good after all

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

It is not a gun held to your hand. It is freedom to do what is right, or freedom to do what is wrong. Any thing you do has consequences, some good some bad. You have the freedom of choice but what you choose may easily lead you to an eternity of damnation of hell in the afterlife. Even if God isn't blatantly threatening us there are still immensely coercive factors surrounding your decisions. We can't know how sincere and selfless many christians are with their religion unless the incredible incentive to be religious(heaven) and more significantly the incredible consequence of not being religious(hell) didn't exist. People can't make truly genuine religous choices or have genuine convictions in christianity when heaven and hell are there telling them what their outcome is going to be.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

The consequence of rejecting a free gift that in its very essence offers you freedom or rather the consequence of choosing something else is simply what happens.

Your basically saying God offers me this wonderful gift but there are consequences if i don't want to accept it. This is just weird. Shouldn't we be able to choose to accept his "gift", as you call it, without him getting offended and throwing us in hell.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:



There is no gun held to your head.



A gun to your head is a valid analogy to what the biblical God binds our existence to. You know that there is a gun to your head and that is a deterrence because if you choose to not comply to what is being demanded you suffer the consequence of being shot. You know that there is hell in the afterlife and that is a deterrence because if you choose to not comply to what is being demanded you suffer the consequence of being thrown in there and being subject to eternal damnation.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:



And besides, Christianity only asks you to do good, therefore if you are doing good for goodness sake, then why not accept Christ as your savior and free yourself of sin and death? He asks nothing of you but to love and shows you what love is, which is loving your neighbor and the Lord.



He tells us to follow his ethics so ultimately we can build a stronger relationship with him. In the end above everything in christianity it all comes down to loving God. A God that intends his creation to be focused on loving him and gives us little choice is nothing but a despicably vain God.



[This message has been edited by -big_Z- (edited 08-03-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:



The well has already been poisoned.

yet people still drink from it

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

No reasonable discussion can follow.



quote:Originally posted by -big_Z-:

Would you not call this reasonable discussion?

quote:Originally posted by Food:

(yeah, i know theres exceptions)

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Have you been to any religion-affiliated charity event? Do the people volunteering their time really seem to do so because they are scared of hell?

Wouldn't you call that an exception to his theory?

quote:Originally posted by azalie:

People only believe because they can't accept the possibility that there might not be anymore than what there is.



What about the people who don't beleive in a god because they can't accept the possibility that there might be a higher being often called god?

I myself do not beleive that there is a supreme creator, but I have to bring the flaw s in your reasoning to light.

quote:Originally posted by Cooking with Zyklon B:

Wouldn't you call that an exception to his theory?



Just saying "yeah, i know there's exceptions" is a copout.

If i made a thread saying "Black people are primarily racists because they blame white people for all their problems (yeah, i know there are exceptions)", do you really think anything reasonable could come from it?

The thread starter based the discussion on a fundemental misunderstanding of why theists do good deeds and skewed the debate for atheists to have a moral leg-up.

pathetic.

quote:Originally posted by Truth is all:

...if you are doing good for goodness sake, then why not accept Christ as your savior and free yourself of sin and death?

The inference I made here was that being moral -- "doing good for goodness' sake" -- is only a small step from recognising and accepting Christ into your life. If that's incorrect, ignore everything that follows. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Not everyone automatically relates morals to religion. They don't necessarily have to have anything to do with each other. They are stand-alone concepts; you don't have to be moral to follow / believe in a religion, and you don't have to be religious to have morals and live your life according to them.

The idea of accepting Christ as even existing in the first place is a huge step, an enormous change in a person's mind and worldview. It can mean changing from one religion to another, or from atheist to theist. Christ is not just 'a person', he represents far more than just himself because he is the Son ie part of the Trinity including the omnipotent etc God.

So you see it's just not that simple!

Granted this probably wasn't your main point but I just thought I'd let you know that we atheists are atheists because we've thought about it, and we recognise religion as a weighty matter. Thought you might be interested in "knowing thy enemy" and all that. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Have you been to any religion-affiliated charity event? Do the people volunteering their time really seem to do so because they are scared of hell?

They did say "often", not "always"...

quote:Originally posted by Cooking with Zyklon B:



What about the people who don't beleive in a god because they can't accept the possibility that there might be a higher being often called god?

I myself do not beleive that there is a supreme creator, but I have to bring the flaw s in your reasoning to light.

There are these people called apostate Christians. I did accept God as fact once but I renounced God. Does that make me exempt from your statement?

quote:Originally posted by ThePhoenix:

There are these people called apostate Christians. I did accept God as fact once but I renounced God. Does that make me exempt from your statement?





I merely reversed what he said the show him that he was weilding a double edged sword.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:

Just saying "yeah, i know there's exceptions" is a copout.

If i made a thread saying "Black people are primarily racists because they blame white people for all their problems (yeah, i know there are exceptions)", do you really think anything reasonable could come from it?

The thread starter based the discussion on a fundemental misunderstanding of why theists do good deeds and skewed the debate for atheists to have a moral leg-up.

pathetic.

Yes, I do infact beleive reasonable discussion could enuse a topic about black people being racist. Granted it can attract junk replies but serious, reasonable or intelligent discussion is possible.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:



The well has already been poisoned.

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

The question is entirely legimitate.

You'd have a point if the question couldn't have been made without the original statement by the OP, but the fact is that it definately could have. It's simply a question resting on a premise that doesn't have to be true in reality, only true when we consider the scenario it's posing.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 08-05-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

The question is entirely legimitate.

You'd have a point if the question couldn't have been made without the original statement by the OP, but the fact is that it definately could have. It's simply a question resting on a premise that doesn't have to be true in reality, only true when we consider the scenario it's posing.



The interesting discussion buried in this thread is where Athists derive morality, and how it compares to seemingly arbitrary morality derived from a supposedly omnipotent God.

But Food begins the thread with a faulty premise: that theists do good deeds out because of their fear of god. I know lots of theists, and i've yet to encounter anyone who fits this assumption.

So rather than an interesting discussion, the thread is instead an Atheist circle-jerk.

quote:Originally posted by theBishop:



But Food begins the thread with a faulty premise: that theists do good deeds out because of their fear of god. I know lots of theists, and i've yet to encounter anyone who fits this assumption.

So rather than an interesting discussion, the thread is instead an Atheist circle-jerk.

1. He used the quantifiers "most" and left room for exceptions. If you still disagree because you believe he is still exaggerating, then that is a conversation that you could take. It seems, however, that you're not willing to even take that route and instead have decided to complain with one line comments, which I'd say is much less productive.

2. The point I was making was that the question made by Zinkovich was legitimate. Zinkovich's question stands with or without the initial premise by Food.

If Food's premise is false, Zinkovich's question is still valid; if Food's premise is true, Zinkovich's question is still valid.

I would like to make a couple of comments regarding reasons for doing good/accepting God. This is from personal observation and I'm sure it doesn't apply to all Christians.

Several times in the past, when talking with Christians,the conversation has revealed that I am an atheist. The response by the Christian(often personal friends of mine), have always been words along the lines of " You know that you are going to Hell, don't you?". I have yet to hear one respond with "You realize that you are going to miss out on sharing an eternity of happiness with God in heaven, don't you?".

From my personal experience, it does appear that most Christian's primary reason to believe is out of fear of damnation.

^

It should also be mentioned that there is a substantial portion of the Christian community that believes faith without good acts is meaningless.

They therefore put as much an importance in doing good in order to receive salvation, than they to in actually having faith in Christ as the savior of humanity.

That is pretty much the embodimentt of the premise being broguht foward.

I tend to follow utilitarianism, with some rather distinct modifications to take into account the value of the individual and their potential to come up with an idea that will beniefit the collective.

Morals, being based on people, do not have to be based on what aligns with the nature of the universe. It can be based on what is best for yourself in the long run or for humanity as a whole. This is why, I, in a sense, think humanity having a limited perspective is a good thing, as otherwise ethical confusion/chaos would dominate.

To the theists: Irregardless of Food's post, my point still stands. If one must base their morals off of something greater than themselves, God has nothing concvievable to derive his morals from, as he, by definition, is the highest and most powerful being in all of existence.

TO the other poster: I think there are good theists and bad theists who do things out of fear, and good will, just as it is with atheists. Within all perceptions there are many kinds of people with differing intentions/true purposes behind what they do. Lets not stereotype here. This is still irrelevant to my initial point though, so it still stands.



[This message has been edited by Zinkovich (edited 08-07-2006).]