bennyb

Here it goes...

The reason that i act in a fashion which I believe would not be punished by god, although I do not believe in god is because I feel the need to be accepted in society. If i kill, steal... etc, i know that I will be an outcast.

Also, I believe I live a good life, which allows me to not believe in god. I have never suffered a hardship which would force me to turn to someone high up in the clouds and ask for advice. My brain has served me well for the past few years, how can i believe that something exists if there is no proof? Bible shmible, that is not proof that some greater being exists. I do believe in supernatural powers, but they are all probably things that the human brain cannot comprehend at the moment.

So you ask, why I act in a civil matter? Because I have no reason to.

Spritebox

I think it deals more with psychology, sociology, and more specifically, social norms and expectations.

__________________
it's all nice on ice alright
and it's not day
and it's not night
but it's all nice on ice alright

johnnymysto

But if you believe you lead a good life, where does your sense of good come from? Something you came up with on your own?

What proof do you have that God does not exist? Can you really prove that there is no God? Even if you subscribe to the Big Bang theory of creation, where did the infinitely dense mass come from? There must be some point of origin. I believe God is that point of origin.

You mean because you have not reason NOT to?

__________________
"I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request." - Capt. Barbossa

TIO

So...you believe that the universe must have a point of origin, but not God?

__________________
Strewth

rudy200

x

rudy200

I believe organized religion should be banned. Had this been done a few thousand years ago, countless millions would not have died horrible deaths, and the majority of today's problems would no exist.
To base morality on religion is also difficult to believe. Christianity bases it's rules of behavior on the fairy tale of Moses coming from the mountain with the Ten Commandments written in stone.
I am convinced these same ten rules have existed long before Moses made his entry. Tribes discovered during the last century, all behave as if Moses had personally talked to them.

I do believe in a higher intelligence. To look up at night at a non light poluted sky, to read up on details of the workings of any part of a living body, and the methods of propagation of some basic lifeforms are enough reason for me to believe in a creator, or, if evolution is real, to believe in the force behind evolution. It just seems a lot easier to give credit to a creator for it all then to credit accidental meetings of molecules and come up with all these fantastic results, even if there were a few billion years to do it in.

But when I look at all the man made forms of religion, I again think they should be done away with. Live your spiritual life within yourself, that is where the action is. Not on the front row benches of our places of organized worship. After all, look what we ended up with............BUSH

bennyb

My sense of good came from society. By what i said, i ment that there are no hardships in my life, that would posess me to turn to an "All powerful" force.


Of course i cannot. If i could i would be a very wealthy man, with a price on my head for millions of dollars by your corrupt church. But I would rather believe in not believing, than stupidly give up and say god. god Is just a word used in referral to something that was confusing to someone, and one point in time.


Ahhhh the age old debate.... Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Am i correct? How can i believe something exists because there is no proof against it?


It is nice to believe that there is something "higher" out there right? A certian comfort? I feel none of that.

TIO

Profound...

__________________
Strewth

TIO

That's a big call, and can only be made on the assumption that all organised religion is wrong. I don't believe in God, but I think people have a right to do so if I want. There are plenty of people out there who believe that the majority of today's problems would be solved if all us filthy atheists weren't running around making havoc, and that religion were enforced by the government. They are probably right.
Besides, if I were convinced that paradise was waiting, and that all I had to do for a ticket was ask Jesus for one, what kind of a prick would I be not to organise a few mates to tell as many people about it as possible?

[QUOTE]To base morality on religion is also difficult to believe. Christianity bases it's rules of behavior on the fairy tale of Moses coming from the mountain with the Ten Commandments written in stone.
I am convinced these same ten rules have existed long before Moses made his entry. Tribes discovered during the last century, all behave as if Moses had personally talked to them.[quote]

Your calling the story of Moses a fairy tale could be deemed quite offensive to some. Please try to select your words more tactfully in future.

Evolution is real. It happens, and we've observed it. The question you're after is "Is the sole force behind the development of our species, and all the others, natural selection?"

And George Washington. And St Francis of Assisi. And gospel music. And Mother Theresa. And Princess Diana. And Martin Luther King, Jr. And St John's ambulances. And the Salvation Army.

I'm not defending the atrocities committed in the name of religion. Just saying that it's unfair to ban organised religion in its entirety because of the actions of a misguided few.

__________________
Strewth

TIO

That's a big call, and can only be made on the assumption that all organised religion is wrong. I don't believe in God, but I think people have a right to do so if I want. There are plenty of people out there who believe that the majority of today's problems would be solved if all us filthy atheists weren't running around making havoc, and that religion were enforced by the government. They are probably right.
Besides, if I were convinced that paradise was waiting, and that all I had to do for a ticket was ask Jesus for one, what kind of a prick would I be not to organise a few mates to tell as many people about it as possible?

Your calling the story of Moses a fairy tale could be deemed quite offensive to some. Please try to select your words more tactfully in future.

Evolution is real. It happens, and we've observed it. The question you're after is "Is the sole force behind the development of our species, and all the others, natural selection?"

And George Washington. And St Francis of Assisi. And gospel music. And Mother Theresa. And Princess Diana. And Martin Luther King, Jr. And St John's ambulances. And the Salvation Army.

I'm not defending the atrocities committed in the name of religion. Just saying that it's unfair to ban organised religion in its entirety because of the actions of a misguided few.

__________________
Strewth

GarytheSnail

Xerxes

mr. sticky; I must say that I'm afraid that you're making a horrible mistake in assuming that "good" is a religious term. "Good" was originally a Platonic concept. So, you could just assume that "good" is a form-- an independent idea that commands conformity through reason, or something of that nature.
Further, it seems like you have a real problem distinguishing between the percieved and the in-its-self (the noumenal). This world-as-it-is cannot be the same as the world of experience (because we percieve things that are not primary qualities-- that is to say qualities that only exist in our head-- like color (in the real world there is only wavelength-- which is different than color)). So, it is at least possible to assume that there is a natural order to the noumenal world-- thus doing anything against this nature might be the absolute measure of "wrong"-- which is noticiably different from Christian moral theory.
It is important to remember that the method and motivation behind a moral system does not have to look anything like contemporary Christian moral theory. In fact, most people don't follow a Christian conception of morality in the US. Things are much more along the lines of emotive-morality (ethical non-cognitivism), whereby peole don't have a system, but our emotions serve as a day-by-day guide to the moral weight of a given situation.
One last point: if there were no such thing as morality in darwinism-- or to say that morality is not needed in Darwinism, then you could argue that the fittest being could do whatever they want. If, for example, I was the fittest being on earth, and my only goal or satisfaction was in destroying other creatures-- eventually I would be the only creature left. No more world. I think this actually belies a misunderstanding of Darwin's theory on your part-- Darwin's theory was also about systems. Creatures who are effiecent are the ones who survive. Part of that efficientcy might just be love, and caring for others in our society-- as a method of perpetuating ourselves; the selfish gene, if you will.

Signed,

Your freindly neighborhood philosophy major.

Xerxes

a second hateful reply to all the other posters on this board:

Sweet Jesus people! 1) If there had been no Catholic church, then the idea of inteligent design would not have been prominent in the west. This means there would have been no majestical God-given system to understand (at least in people's heads at the time), so therefore-- no science. The Catholic church was the biggest supporter of modern, western science since it's inception. So please try to realize that even though we might have problems with the institution-- it has given us the benifits that you now so richly enjoy.
2)If you want to propose to do away with all forms of doctrination ask yourself this: is hard science completely objective? If you honestly think that "hard science" can completely answer all the probelms of the world then there are a few things that you haven't considered-- science is empirical, and humans are fallable-- further, empirical observations are always contingent on who observed them and when and where. What you're left with is faith in science. And this is no different than religious faith.
3)Whereas it may have become socially acceptable to make an argument with no propositions, and a rebuttle can be constituted by merely saying 'X is evil/ wrong/ responible for republicans', this is actually not worth anything as a claim. For the love of the ever-living Christ-child, give us reasons for what you're saying.

Xell101

My theory is that morality would resemble "your rights end where mine begin".

The.Lunatic

possible yes, difficult yes, worth it no

religion++

this is comming from a non relgious person.

__________________
Proud memeber of the Insomniac Club.

matthew330

"evolution doesn't explain creation"

Kneejerk reaction to a quick glance through this post.

I would also give ascribe more value to the purpose of religion than many have suggested. I don't think most adults use religion as a "moral" guide - I think it is frequently used to put into perspective ones fear of death. Children on the other hand are a different story - I think religion is very effective to instilling a sense of morality in a child. I also think you can trust that these children, as most do - will question everything they've been taught as they go through adolescence and early adulthood, and come to some spiritual ground through contemplation. The morals and values instilled in these children through religion; however, are generally not lost through this rebellion and self-determination.

1337haxor

I am atheist and I have very high moral standards I think. To me morals are rules I feel are right and I set them for myself believing it will make me a better person.

][)ick}{ea][)

I'm an atheist. That didn't come with a free Darwin membership card either. I'm a free thinker and a dreamer and a lover of the chaotic moment. I've always lived in the right now, after all, at what point in your life has it ever not been right now? You were born in a right now and you live in a right now and you'll die in a right now. Without God, there is no longer any objective standard by which to judge good and evil. This realization was very troubling to philosophers a few decades ago, but it hasn't really had much of an effect in other circles. Most people still seem to think that a universal morality can be grounded in something other than God' laws: in what is good for people, in what is good for society, in what we feel called upon to do. But explanations of why these standards necessarily constitute "universal moral law" are hard to come by. Usually, the arguments for the existence of moral law are emotional rather than rational: "But don't you think RAPE is wrong?" moralists ask, as if a shared opinion were a proof of universal truth. "But don't you think people need to believe in something greater than themselves?" they appeal, as if needing to believe in something can make it true. Occasionally, they even resort to threats: "but what would happen if everyone decided that there is no good or evil? Wouldn't we all kill each other?"
The real problem with the idea of universal moral law is that it asserts the existence of something that we have no way to know anything about. Believers in good and evil would have us believe that there are "moral truths" -that is, there are things that are morally true of this word, in the same why that it is true that the sky is blue. They claim that it is true of this world that murder is morally wrong just as it is true that water freezes at thirty-two degrees. But we can investigate the freezing temperature of water: we can measure it and agree together that we have arrived at some kind of "objective" truth, insofar as such a thing is possible. On the other hand, what do we observe if we want to investigate whether it is true that murder is evil? There is no tablet of moral law on a mountaintop for us to consult, there are no commandments carved into the sky above us; all we have to go on are our own instincts and the words of a bunch of priests and other self-appointed moral experts, many of whom can't even agree amongst themselves. As for the words of the religious and the moralists, if they can't offer any hard evidence from this world, why should we believe their claims? And regarding our instincts-if we feel that something is right or wrong, that may make it right or wrong for us, but that's not proof that it is UNIVERSALLY good or evil. Thus, the idea that there are universal moral laws is mere supersstition: it is a claim that things exist in this world which we can never actually experience or learn anything about. And we would do well not to waste our time wondering about things we can never know anything about.
When two people disagree over right and wrong, there is no way to resolve the debate. There is nothing in this world to which they can refer to see which one is correct-because there really are no moral laws, just personal evaluations. So the only important question is where your values come from: do you create them yourself, according to your own desired, or do you accept them from someone else... someone else who has disguised their opinions as "morality?"

I believe that there is no universal moral code that should dictate human behavior. There is no such thing as good or evil, there is no universal standard of right and wrong. Our values and morals come from us and belong to us, whether we like it or not, so we should claim them proudly for ourselves, as our own creations, rather than seeking some external justification for them.

Climbing off the soapbox...backing away...

__________________
Basically, if you don't agree with everything I say... you're stupid.

Johnny Rotten

The thing is, most people don't want to have to take that leap and would much rather just have an arbitrary leader decide what is arbitrarily best for them. When you've got a wife, kids, bills, mortgage, investments, office politics, etc., the last thing you want to have to do at the end of the day is be an arbitrator of your own. For most people, it's just not practical, however beneficial it may be in the long run.

][)ick}{ea][)

The cruel, absurd abuses of power, the self-satisfied authority that the teachers and principals lorded over you, the intimidation and ridicule of your classmates don't end at graduation. Those things are all present in the adult world, only more so. If you thought you lacked freedom before, wait until you have to answer to shift leaders, managers, owners, landlords, creditors, tax collectors, city councils, draft boards, law courts and police. When you get out of school you may escape the jurisdiction of some authorities, but you enter the control of even more domineering ones. Do you enjoy being controlled by others who don't understand or care about your wants and needs? Do you get anything out of obeying the instructions of employers, the restrictions of landlords, the laws of magistrates, people who have powers over you that you would never have given them willingly?
How is it that these "abitrary leaders" get all this power anyway? The answer is HIERARCHY.
Hierarchy is a value system in which your worth is measured by the number of people and things you control, and how dutifully you obey those above you. Weight is exerted downward throught the power structure: everyone is forced to accept and conform to this system by everone else. You're afraid to disobey those above you because they can bring to bear against you the power of everyone and everything under them. You're afraid to abdicate your power over those below you because they might end up above you. In our hierarchical system, we're all so busy trying to protect ourselves from each other that we never have a chance to stop and ask if this is really the best way our society could be organized. If we could think about it, we'd probably agree that it isn't; for we all know happiness comes from control over our own lives, not other people's lives. And as long as we're busy accepting what "arbitrary leaders decide what is arbitrarily best" for us, we're bound to be victims of control.
Morality has been justified externally for so long that today we hardly know how to conceive of it in any other way. We have always had to claim that our values proceeded from something external to us, because basing values on our own desires was (not surprisingly) branded evil by the preachers of so-called moral law. Today we still fill instinctively that our actions must be justified by something outside of ourselves, something "greater" than ourselves-if not by God, then by moral law, state law, public opinion, justice, "love of man," etc. We have been so conditioned by centuries of asking permission to feel things and do things, of being forbidden to base any decisions on our own needs, that we still want to think we are obeying a higher power even when we act on our own desires and beliefs; smoehow, it seems more defensible to act out of submission to some kind of authority than in the service of our own inclinations. We feel so ashamed of our aspirations and desires that we would rather attribute our actions to something "higher." But what could be greater than our own desires, what could possibly provide better justification for our actions? Should we be serving something external without consulting our desires, perhaps serving against our desires?
This question of justification is where so many otherwise radical individuals and groups have gone wrong. They attack what they see as injustice not on the grounds that they don't want to see such things happen, but on the grounds that it is "morally wrong." By doing so, they seek the support of everyone who still believes in the fable of moral law, and they get to see themselves as the servants of TRUTH. These people should not be taking advantage of popular delusions to make their points, but should be challenging assumptions and questioning traditions in everything they do. An improvement in, for example, animal rights, which is achieved in the name of justice and morality, is a step forward at the cost of two steps back: it solves one problem while reinforcing and perpetuating another. Certainly such improvements could be fought for and attained on the grounds that they are desirable (nobody who truly considered it would really WANT to needlessly slaughter and mistreat animals, would they?), rather than with tactics leftover from Christian superstition. Unfortunately, because of centuries of conditioning imposed by self appointed "moral" leaders, many people are all to willing to accept what is "arbitrarily best" from their "arbitrary leaders."

__________________
Basically, if you don't agree with everything I say... you're stupid.

feartheraiders6

Of course not, I believe that the fear of God does drive me to behave more morally than most people I know, however it is exactly as it was said in many earlier posts... I believe God instilled in me the propensity for feeling deep down inside below anything else what exactly is right and wrong.

In the Christian system the propensity for cruelty is an act of turning from God.
The differences in morality standards can be accounted for in that those societies believed in different gods.... or... a seperation from the one true God. Religion didn't create morals, God created morals.... and throughout history the societies that have been more in tune with the God of the Christians.... unless blinded by an overzealous time of regression (aka Crusades)... have been the most moral. But at the same time... proving that morals is not an entirely God given trait does not disprove the existence of God.

__________________
I never saw my shadow till I saw the light, but now I need more light to drown it out.

Johnny Rotten

As I said before, people let others guide them because of the weight of dealing with the world that our parents never told us about. As it stands now, the arbitrary leader is more a solution than he is a problem. You can only expect so much of a regular person.

Hierarchy is also a natural development of dealing with large amounts of people and their corresponding systems of commerce and communication.

As long as there are powerful people who want to do bad things, we will need this hierarchy, even with them as a part of it. Hierarchy is organization, not necessarily an element of an authoritarian regime. And you need to be organized to do battle.

Most importantly, however, an effective personal code of conduct requires a significant amount of experience, education and intelligence. I don't think existentialist anarchy would suffice with our current system of educating the youth (both inside and outside the official curriculum).

][)ick}{ea][)

Well, I must say I hadn't thought about reading between the lines in your original reply. By the way, happy birthday.

I don't think we disagree... entirely.

You do have me pegged incorrectly as an anarchist though. I stand outside all belief systems as an objective thinker. I'm an atheist that supports the cyclic time theories as proposed throughout many ancient religions and in Frank J. Tipler's book, "The Physics of Immortality." I'm also a big fan of any political literature, but the only true politics in life that I find enjoyable are the politics of the persuit of pleasure. I don't necessarily think that we should drop the system entirely... but I think we can all agree that work needs to be done to put the world back on the right path.

Nothing wrong with a little leadership... but when the leaders forget who put them there, they need to be removed.

__________________
Basically, if you don't agree with everything I say... you're stupid.

Johnny Rotten

Respectfully, that position is a little more difficult to attain than you might think. Thanks for wishing me a happy birthday, though .

I think what we're dealing with is a kind of large-scale social entropy (although some will argue that entropy actually develops towards order rather than chaos). But as a system becomes large enough to require a bureaucracy, it begins to show symptoms of the very problems it's trying to solve. I think in order for us to manage civilization on our current scale, we will have to accept some technological intrusion, as much as I find that personally abhorrent. Either that, or divide further into manageable groups--at the cost of greatly slowing overall social progress.

gremlinx8

I am not a religious person, and I do not believe that I have to answer to a higher being or supernatural power, but I believe that I have high moral standards. I don't uphold them for a god like I said, but rather, I uphold them for myself. If I was not a moral person I don't believe that I would be happy with myself. Being and doing so called "good" things makes me feel good about myself and the those around me. I don't think my life would be complete without my morals.

__________________
Time you enjoy wasting, was not wasted. -Lennon

arael

Nah, you don't need God too justify that. Go read some Aristotle and flourish

gabshu

I think St. Thomas Aquinas would have a good answer for this based on natural law. Natural law is based on do good and avoid evil, and even if you are not a religious it still applies to you. It is a certain set of values that everyone has, or should have. The topic is a lot more complicated than this and a lot of people disagree with Aquinas, but I think he can give a good answer to why there can be morality without religion

__________________
Go Kool Aid. OH YEAAHH

http://www.retrocrush.com/archive2003/koolaid/

Tman144

The reason our morality isn't derived form a higher being, is that for every moral you think is right there is most likely a society that thinks its right. If morality is inherent in all people than societies in general should have the same morals. The ancient Aztecs probally killed children in a fire evey year. Ancient warrior cultures were know to rape, kill, and eat the surrounding tribes and even the people within their own group. Morality is taught to children at a young age by the culture in which they grow up in. Its an evolutionary process devleoped by a social animal. Ants don't believe in a God, but they help each other at the sake of thier own lives.