mr sticky

This is a question I have asked myself over and again...If there is no God, how can you explain morality?

I understand the reasons why religious people are moral, but what's in it for atheists?

Altruism and survival are universally opposed to one another. These concepts of "good" and "evil" are religious by nature. What's in it for the Darwinian mindset to be "good"? What happened to survival of the fittest? How is helping the old and infirm add to our society? What is the void that love fills? Why monogamy? It seems to me that those who expouse an atheistic belief structure are limiting the growth of their personal individualism by playing by the rules of the religious.

In other words...if no God, then no final judgement. Who are you trying to please by living a moral life? Why amper your self with "feel-good" tenets? Sure, society has dictated laws and rules, but these came from religion. Even the nicest of farmers cull their herd.

Personally, I believe in God, and I live by those beliefs (if imperfectly), but I don't see why those that don't believe would care. What's the point really?

I think we all know, there is more than just the individual, but why would an atheist show traits of morality?

And when answering, remember, "right" and "wrong" and " good" and "bad" are the concepts I'm trying to elucidate. Be more specific when counterpointing.

__________________
The sad thing is... as you get older you come to realize that you don't so much pilot your life, as you just try to hold on, in a screaming, defiant ball of white-knuckle anxious fury

Fallon

I think the reason why I follow by what is right or wrong because if I don't follow what is right or wrong for the religious, I get penalized for it. I get people looking at me differently, speaking harshly behind my back, hell stabbing me in the back. I lose the ability to possibly get a job, and live my life the way that I want it. Even though I'm not religious, doesn't mean that I don't respect someone elses life(one of the religious laws). Hell, I probably respect it more then most religious people because they are afraid of what that person represents or what they know. Why do I believe in Monogomy? I know that polygomy works for some people. For me, I'm a jealous person. I wouldn't be able to stand sharing, or being shared. As scary as it sounds, I'd like to live a normal life, and if I didn't follow your( or other religious peoples believes, then I'd not be able to live my life to what I enjoy.
The morals that you say are inspired by religion work for me. I've tried going against the grain enough in my life. Sure it's fun some times, but I'm growing up and respecting other people and their things.

lurkette

Not necessarily true. Even in some animal species, it's been shown that altruistic behavior can actually enhance the chances of survival for the individual who practices it. And in a species with as complex a social structure as humans, looking out only for your own survival (a pure sociopath, say) is likely to reduce your rate of success, rather than enhance it.

Quote:

These concepts of "good" and "evil" are religious by nature. What's in it for the Darwinian mindset to be "good"?

Again, Darwin doesn't apply to human society, really. We live in a society where there are rules that are derived from popular consent. While many of these rules were religious in origin, most of them are based on common sense, and are aimed at creating and maintaining a stable society, which is pretty much in your best interests whether you believe in god or not. Not all atheists are anarchists.

Quote:

What happened to survival of the fittest? How is helping the old and infirm add to our society?

You have to drop this simplistic "survival of the fittest" stuff to understand. And I don't know how you got the idea that all atheists are darwinists as well. Helping the old and infirm adds to our society by 1. reinforcing bonds of affection; 2. preserving a knowledge, memory, and experience base; 3. in some cultures, keeping someone to watch the little kids while the work-age folk go off to work; etc. Just because you can't necessarily contribute to the genetic pool any more doesn't mean you can't contribute to the social pool.

Quote:

What is the void that love fills?

I'm not quite sure what this question means...if you want to look at it in purely psychological terms, each human being has an experience of oneness with the mother until they're born. Even after they're born, for some time they have no concept of self/other. When the concept of self emerges, there's a powerful realization of aloneness that is partially ameliorated by physical contact, bonds of affection, chemical processes that reassure and teach us to reassure ourselves. I think that's the seed of love, and pretty much all love afterward is some kind of bond with someone who helps fill that void left by the realization of aloneness and dissociation from the Whole that happens when we learn that there is a Self and a Not-Self.

Quote:

Why monogamy?

Because it's stable. I don't think the Bible has much to say about monogamy (correct me please if I'm wrong), which was a cultural practice long before it was reified by religion. Monogamy creates stability, which is better for the whole society.

I think wherever you look at religiously-proscribed beliefs, you'll find at the heart of it a common-sense practice that makes a society more stable. And that stability necessarily comes at the cost of individual freedom. Some people choose to take the individual freedom and risk the displeasure of the rest of the society anyhow.

Quote:

It seems to me that those who expouse an atheistic belief structure are limiting the growth of their personal individualism by playing by the rules of the religious.

Not necessarily. A lot of people, religious or atheists, obey those rules and mores that are ultimately to their benefit (going to school, holding a job, not popping stupid people on the nose), and break the ones that they don't think should apply (having polyamorous relationships, not having children, cheating on income taxes, etc.)

Quote:

In other words...if no God, then no final judgement. Who are you trying to please by living a moral life?

Myself, really. Granted, a lot of my moral tenets have been formed by the society I live in, and may have religions bases. But I've considered and discarded a lot of them, too, and kept the ones that I think are most likely to enhance my own life. I am kind to other people because I like it when people are kind to me, and if everyone were kind the world would be a good place. I am charitable in part because it's ultimately in my best interest if a lot of the people who are worse off than I am have a way out, a way to prosperity, rather than seeing themselves as hopeless and possibly committing crimes. I have a monogamous relationship because I love my husband and we make each other feel good in a lot of ways. If we ever decided to have an open relationship, I would accept that because it enriched our lives in some way that was worth the possible risk to the stability of our relationship. Etc. I don't need much more than the wisdom of the golden rule (which is not religiously based) to guide me.

I think the key difference between religious people's morality and atheist's morality is that religious people tend to follow beliefs blindly, because they were "given by god," while atheists are free to examine their beliefs, and the religiously-derived beliefs of their society, and discard the morals that seem unfounded or nonsensical.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

filtherton

Dang lurkette!! you said a moufull.

I don't think religion is a nescessity for morals. I think the golden rule applies to most of my morally hued actions. As much as religion can claim itself to be the source of the golden rule, it is really just the way one has to see the world if one has any compassion and/or sympathy.
Religion can atttempt to teach people morals, but it can't force them to be moral. It often tries to coerce using the threat of eternal damnation-a fairly immoral and therefore ironic- to instill morals.
Religion can also be the justification for really disgusting and bigoted antimorals.

The concept of good and evil is a manufactured one. Things just are.
We may think of infanticide as an evil act, but it is one thing that every species has in common and is generally justifiable by the logic of the more natural world. In the world of natural selection it is actually good policy under certain circumstances.

chavos

Ditto lurkette. She be smart.

Altruism can be an evolved behavior. Altruism that saves offspring is genetically rewarded...saving near blood relatives is too, to a lesser extent. Check out prarie dogs for a good example of how this works out. One guy gets to scream out loud when a hawk comes by, and may well bite it, but his/her family dives for cover. Survivial of the fittest does not immediatly mean "kill the weak." The elederly contribute the stability of society, and provide backup childcare for families in distress. The infirm...that's less of a evolution question. During the period in which our species evolved, most injuries that would potentially end life did so quickly. If a person was hurt at all, a lack of medical care meant fairly quick fatalities. They didn't burden society for very long, and so there was no strong impetetus towards euthansia.

duckznutz

impressed by lurkette . . . . . . .
If I give up my seat to an old person or a young pregnant mother then I feel 'good'. Perhaps because I feel that one day i might be in need myself and would expect that in return . . . . . .so its not as selfless as you might think . . . . . I see no conflict between that and choosing not to beleive in god.

__________________
Where your talents and the needs of the world cross . . there lies your vocation.

Easytiger

Lurkette, that was an amazing response! Bravo!

lurkette

*takes a bow*

Thanks!

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

PKL2

I think the Philosophies of Confucius sum it all up. Humans are social beings and have an instinctual drive to associate. Morality comes out of our social nature we want to be in groups therefore what is good for the group is moral, what is bad for the group is immoral

mr sticky

Good posts! I love this arena where people actually read and think rather than just pontificate where you leave off.

Add double kudos to Lurkette, for very well thought out ideas and a banger job of communicating them.

__________________
The sad thing is... as you get older you come to realize that you don't so much pilot your life, as you just try to hold on, in a screaming, defiant ball of white-knuckle anxious fury

Shpoop

Its like the picture of dorian gray... this idea commonly recurs: the only you forbid yourself from pleasure is the fear of society.

but thats how it should be... we are social animals, so the society dictates the way we act... if we ignored society it would be chaos. Same thing with dogs, if they ignore the social structure and respect, they will go hungry.

GrayWolf

Morality is not something that has to have the basis of religion. Morality is a set of guidelines by which you live that indicate the basis for what is right, and what is wrong. Religion can guide people in a direction, yes, but it is not a governing body of morality. While the two can have links, one CAN exist without the other.

I myself am agnostic. As such, I can still follow certain guidelines set down by myself and society which I dub as morals.

XenuHubbard

THe question itself is frightening, since it implies that the people who ARE religious would be murdering bastards if they weren't afraid of going to hell.

For me, it's important to be nice to people and cause as little pain as possible, since there is no great equalizer after death.

I don't believe for a second that religion is the basis of morals.
Tribalism brought us empathy, since it was necessary for survival. It still is, the tribes have just grown bigger.

A prime example is Sweden. Scandinavia is probably the most atheist region on the planet; there are no major differences between morals there and any religious country.

__________________
The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me.

"What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

Dragonlich

Suppose religion is the cause of morality, and god is the one that punishes amoral people... how moral are the "good" people if they're only good because they'll be punished if they're not?

And how is that different from an atheist being good because he'll be punished by society if he's not? And that's supposing atheists cannot be good because they *want* to be good...

TIO

You took the words right out of my mouth, Lurkette! Thanks for posting; your posts in Philosophy are always well thought out, and I enjoy reading them.
However, one of my Christian friends made the counterpoint the other day: if he violates his morals, he is going to spend the rest of eternity in the fiery pits of hell (well, not that drastic, but you get the idea). If I violate my morals, I'm going to feel bad about it for a while. My morals are made by my own thought, and I understand them...but which of us has more incentive not to deviate?

I will make this known; I do not believe there to be any such things as absolute right, good, wrong, or bad. However, I am happy enough to identify relative ideas, and use the words in context. So if I say 'right,' I simply use the term because it is easier to say than "the socio-behavioral construct which suggests acceptable courses of action, most commonly known as 'right.'"

As for my morals: I believe that I have a responsibility to my fellow man, because he is a part of the society in which I thrive, and without him my life may sooner or later commence to suck. This responsibility is not a cosmic expectation; it is simply my acknowledgement that it is unreasonable for me to expect someone to act kindly towards me, unless I am prepared to act kindly towards him.
I also believe that I have 80 years (give or take) on this planet, after which I am dead. Kaput. There is nothing else at all; this 80 years is all I have, and all I ever will have. Likewise, you also have your 80 years, and nothing else (to the best of my knowledge). So it follows that the only true sin I can commit is to take even one second of that 80 years from you. So I will never commit murder. To take everything, quite literally everything that someone has, away from them, is such a shocking crime that I would not give it a second's consideration, not if it were my worst enemy.
But I am further obliged: I must also strive to make your 80 years comfortable and enjoyable, or at the very least, refrain from making any part of them worse. So I will not rape, I will not steal the products of your labour, and I shall try to refrain from calling you nasty things and making you miserable. In return, I feel that I am not being unreasonable to expect the same from you.
So that's where my morals come from: my desire for you to help me enjoy my 80 years, and my realisation that it is only reasonable, then, for you to expect the same from me.

As for your specific questions:
I don't care how old and infirm you are, you still have some of your 80 years left, so I will not take that from you. But while you're around, there's a lot I can probably learn from you that will improve the quality of my life.
I have no moral problem with polygamy. If you want an open relationship, go for your life. I, however, am wired with a desire for companionship, and I have found that my companionship with a girl is most effective and most secure when we are in an exclusive relationship, so I prefer monogamy and expect it in my partner. And please, don't call me amoral for supporting open relationships. My morals may not agree with yours at every point, but they do exist and I do take offense at the suggestion that they are any less real or legitimate than yours.

So my morals are free of the need for religion, but I propose that governmental structures are, as well. You seem to have a tacit assumption that atheists are anarchists, but I am quite happy in the capitalist democracy in which I live. Allow me to demonstrate:
We start with an anarchy of nonreligious persons. None of them are associated with each other. Sooner or later, though, they realise that if a few of them get together and pool their resources and talents, they will do better. Wham, you've got tribes.
Now those tribes are competing for resources, and fairly quickly discover that unless they band together, they will soon be taken out by other tribes. So groups of tribes band together under the most powerful warlords, and you soon have feudalism.
From there, the groups will all sooner or later fall to, or surrender to, the strongest warlord. There's your monarchy.
Now that most of the fighting is done with, people have some time to sit down and do some serious advancing, and with the technology comes communication and spare time, and big ideas start getting thought and passed around. Pretty soon, they start to demand a voice in how things are done (having forgotten that their ancestors surrendered to the ancestors of the king), and you have either a democracy or a constitutional monarchy.
Either way, now that some of the commoners are in power, all of the commoners want power, and it's pretty hard to stop people becoming equal before the law. But now that you are your own man, and you own your own stuff, and nobody is forcing you to work, you want rewards for your efforts, and when money is invented as a measure of the worth of a task, people start wanting more money to get more stuff, and you get capitalism.
There's one more step from there: people will then realise that Bill Gates has all the money, and wonder why he deserves it and they don't. It's possible that they will revolt and you'll end up with socialism or communism, but this will typically only happen if the vast majority of the population is composed of either the very poor, or idiots.

Anyway, I got a bit sidetracked, but I think I've said just about all I want to say now.

__________________
Strewth

Johnny Rotten

Lurkette, will you marry me?

Just kidding! Moving right along. For me, altruism has always been a primitive extension of group survival. It may not make much sense to a person on an intellectual level to pull a stranger out of harm's way, but it stems from our ancient tribal instincts. We help the old because they are wise and always have something to give back. Helping the infirm is also an instinctive tribal holdover. A man with a broken leg can still sharpen a spearhead.

In my experience, I haven't needed much religious guidance in order to understand or appreciate the right thing to do. Some people want that and need that, and more power to them. Whatever blows your hair back. Some people need the fear of hellfire and brimstone in order to do good. If that's what it takes, then bring it on.

__________________
"The idea that money doesn't buy you happiness is a lie put about by the rich, to stop the poor from killing them." -- Michael Caine

docbungle

This would seem to imply that religious people, in being religious, are not "free" to examine their own beliefs, and wander through life blindly, oblivious to their surroundings, which I disagree with. All humans have the power of introspection, and it is up to the individual if they use it or not. My being religious does not take this ability away from me or make me blind in any way.

__________________
Bad Luck City

Johnny Rotten

But as you are led, you will follow. Water in the river as carved in a book.

maddemon802

Lurkette said it all best, you all would probably enjoy reading Ayn Rand...you (lurkette)almost gave a synopsis of her Virtue of Selfishness essay. Her fiction works should be standard reading too. As MR sticky well knows...the only reason I don't go around "bonking stupid people on the nose" is because I don't like Jail (don't think I would anyway) and besides Somebody's ogt to cook my fries at McD's

__________________
don't worry, I'm not lookin at you

lurkette

ACK!!!

Did I accidentally channel Ayn Rand? Poop!

I've always hated her philosophy, but perhaps I should take another look.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

PKL2

Any religious person must examine their own religion to discover if indeed they believe it. After this examination they are not blindly adopting morals because they are told to, but rather that they believe in the structure that encompasses those morals. Atheists are just the same they must take a deep look inside to decide that they believe in no religion...then they ascribe to the morals that they see fit their belief structure.

In both groups of people ignorance abounds...there are thos that do not take pause for introspection...and be they aethist or religious they blindly go about their lives being ignorant of what they really believe...

maddemon802

Lurkette, I'm curious as to what you hated about Ayn Rand's philosophy...My only reservation was that she claimed to be content, but seemed like quite the bitter bitch(pardon my french) to me.

__________________
don't worry, I'm not lookin at you

woody1

How can people expect for you to beleive in there way's if they can't beleive in yours. It's simple do the right thing, like everybody and enjoy life because it is very short. Then it's over?

skinbag

I don't need a God to see cause and effect in action. As a counterpoint, our warmongering, religious zealot of a president is an example of letting one's interpretation of religion get in the way of the truth. I would argue that in many cases belief in God either results from or leads to a dualistic mindset, which leads to conflict and the us vs. them construct. If I believe in God and I am weak-minded, I can twist his image in my favor. As in"God bless America, and you're either with us or against us." Or take Israel as an example. I didn't mean to get political, but I was fishing for examples familiar to us all.
And Ayn Rand's philosophy is incomplete in its implicit denial of interdependence, which is why her applicatioin was missing vitality. IMHO.

iamjero

Great thread! I love all the thought involved.

__________________
"Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas?"

- Joseph Stalin

Mr Scorcex

As a moral agnostic my answer (which happens to not be nearly as thorough as lurkette's) is that basically I still follow the "golden rule". I'll care for those in need, because I'd very much like it if someone did it to me. I'm sure everyone's had things stolen or their property damaged at least once. It sucks, to put it bluntly and don't wish it upon anyone, such that it doesn't happen to me. That's kinda Darwinian.

lurkette

To be honest it's been a looooong time since I read any Rand (had to read The Fountainhead in 8th grade or something) and since then my only exposure to her has been other peoples' use of her arguments. So really, I'm objecting more to an interpretation of her philosophy than the philosophy itself.

That said, I usually object to how her philosophy is used by conservatives to justify rampant individualism. As Skinbag said, there's no recognition of interdpendence, and "what's good for me" usually stops, rather short-sightedly, with immediate cause-and-effect. There's no recognition, usually, in the application of Rand, of the systemic nature of our society and of the long-term consequences of aggregated individual actions. More money for me = good. Immediate, visible consequence. That completely neglects any sort of larger picture. Social programs, for example, might take some money out of my pocket now but a GOOD social program (e.g., a well-run and accountable Head Start program) would use that money to further a social good (literacy for poor children) that in the end would result in less money out of my pocket (e.g., higher cost of jailing criminals who turned to crime because of lack of education and therefore lack of job opportunities).

Anyhow, that's my poor understanding of Rand and how she's applied.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

maddemon802

Lurkette- you really should read some of her essays- she is a very strong advocate of individualism, But- her thought was that this would lead to greater harmony. If you look at the long run it works great - you gave a perfect example w/the head start program..she breaks it down to the point that it could be argued that it was selfish of you to contibrute to that program, but that it was good to be selfish...anyway, kinda like communism- worked good on paper, maybe not so good in real life...and maybe it only works for smart people
At any rate...do not discount her because of third party interpretation....reread fountainhead...read Atlas Shrugged and at the same time plow through her essays- they're short and enjoy!

__________________
don't worry, I'm not lookin at you

djm

I totally wrote a research paper about this once. This thread makes me wonder why, though, since I didn't really talk about any of this stuff.

__________________
Don't call my name out your window; I'm leaving.

johnnymysto

I see a lot in here about the Golden Rule, and the consensus seems to be that it is something we should all do. Now, if it is in fact a common sense principle that we should all follow, why? If the answer is because 'it is good for the group', does that mean that the only 'immoral' actions are those that are bad for the group? If you're eating an ice cream cone, and I knock it out of your hand and onto the ground, that would be considered an immoral action, but at the same time it isn't bad for the group. It's bad for YOU, but the group doesn't feel the consequences of that. So, if the Golden Rule tells us what we should and shouldn't do to each other, what defines the sense of good actions and bad actions? It has to be something, some being that has the authority to do so. And that being is God.

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

lurkette

1. wasted resources = bad for group
2. conflict (if the other person reacts and fights with you) = instability = bad for the group

Quote:

So, if the Golden Rule tells us what we should and shouldn't do to each other, what defines the sense of good actions and bad actions? It has to be something, some being that has the authority to do so. And that being is God.

Whoa whoa whoa. That's a bit of a logical leap.

What defines the sense of good and bad actions - even in a theocracy - is always some kind of social agreement on good and bad. That social agreement might take the form of authority given to a group of mullahs or it might be interpretation of religious texts as in the case of sharia (look at Egypt vs. Saudi Arabia vs. Iran), or it might be a gradual evolution of mores in a secular society. Look at miscegenation. Interracial marriage used to be against the law in the U.S. As our society's ideas about race have evolved, so have the mores and laws about interracial marriage. It didn't take an appeal to religion to reverse those laws (which were themselves based in religion or at least backed up by selective appeal to scripture), all it took was some science, a lot of protesting, and a basic appeal to peoples' common sense and common decency. Eventually it has become more and more accepted.

The "being" that has the authority to define good vs. bad actions doesn't have to be god. It can just as easily be The People, and in fact usually IS the people. Sometimes they may make an appeal to religion to back up their ideas, but it's always the people defining things.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

bennyb

Omg that made my laugh. On another note, here's a state of mind that might answer your question:

How about the furthering of human knowledge of everything??? If something is immoral and someone who has no religious belief commits the immoral action, one might say that this is because they have no care of what might happen to them in the afterlife, rebirth... yadda yadda....

Anyway i would say someone who has no religious belief is able to comprehend that they do not need a religious belief to do what is expected of them. We humans live by some unspoken code... not laws... something else, possible instinct...

As you might be able to tell, i do NOT believe in god. Do i run around burning and killing? No. Why, you might ask. Because i understand what is expected of me, and i would like to live life to the fullest. For someone who enjoys causing pain and suffering it might be a different story.

God doesn't exist.

johnnymysto

Lurkette,

First of all, Happy Birthday!

Sorry for the leap there - let me try to fill in the gap a little better.

The sense of good and bad actions must be defined somewhere. If a social agreement or religious texts or common sense/decency, something has instilled within us a sense of good and bad, right and wrong. You feel it when you help an old lady carry her groceries and you feel it when you lie to your boss. I will grant that people define a lot of the good and bad things (our laws for instance), but where then does this ability to define good and bad come from? Wouldn't you agree that it's just not a great coincidence that we all share a lot of the same views as to what is good and bad? We all feel something compelling us to do the things we OUGHT to do, and not do the things we OUGHT NOT to do. Even cultures completely foreign to us have the same feeling without the same American laws or customs. So then, if we all feel that, we didn't make it up and we didn't all get it from the same social agreement, where did it come from? It must come from a higher source than people. The higher source is God.

Now that may seem like a big leap there at the end, but since this thread is about morality without religion, I'm stating that you cannot have morality without religion. It must come with religion, and God is the basis of that religion that I espouse.

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

johnnymysto

bennyb, stick around and you might learn how things usually get presented here.

"God is for the weak" won't make you a lot of friends in this forum.

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

bennyb

Im not trying to make any friends... this is my 100% whole hearted belief... But i will edit... ill get around to talking about that in a bit

lurkette

Thanks!

Quote:

Even cultures completely foreign to us have the same feeling without the same American laws or customs. So then, if we all feel that, we didn't make it up and we didn't all get it from the same social agreement, where did it come from? It must come from a higher source than people. The higher source is God. Now that may seem like a big leap there at the end, but since this thread is about morality without religion, I'm stating that you cannot have morality without religion. It must come with religion, and God is the basis of that religion that I espouse.

I disagree that it HAS to come from religion. What about pre-religious societies, or animistic ones? They still have taboos, guidelines for behaviors, etc, without a concept of god. I think it's just as reasonable to assume that things that are beneficial/harmful for a society are codified into a series of beliefs that are then reinforced by the man-made institution of religion. The argument that cultures foreign to us have the same "feeling" of right and wrong speaks more for something inherent to humans, or more specifically human social structure, than given by god, given the radical differences in the conceptions of god between, say, Shinto Japan or Daoist China and Puritan England.

__________________
"If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."

- Anatole France

ccxcone

I don't believe in the whole heaven and hell deal, so I think I'm valid for answering this question.

Really, the only person I live for in the end is myself. Does that mean that I'm selfish? Of course not. I do kind things for others because I want to, because I like helping other people out. I'll gladly donate my money to charity (I've given beggars money too, on occasion, even though I often don't have enough for myself), and I'll lend my time and knowledge to anyone who asks. I don't do it because I'll feel a reward in the end, I just do it because it's the right thing to do. I personally don't believe in good and evil definining each other, either. I just can't imagine evil existing, becasue it's a concept completely foreign to me. For me, the question isn't why I should do the right thing, but why should I do the wrong thing? What motivation do I have to hurt others, to make them feel pain and suffering? I hate to see other people hurt, because I personally know how that feels. In my opinion, and in my philosophy, if you do good things for the sake of good, you make the world a little better. Call it karma, call it what you wish, but I try to be a good person, because I just like being a good guy.

bennyb

Just out of curiosity i would like to know if you personally believe in god. If you dont want to answer, so be it, but you make an excellent argument. He he, its so good, yet so simple. Exactly the point i was trying to make.

Doing everything to further along your life in the afterlife is waisting your precious time on this planet.

ccxcone

The answer to that one is on another thread, but I'll explain my view of it with the least words possible. I don't believe in a singular being (big guy with a beard) that is the god. I follow more of a buddhist belief (changed a bit, of course), in that I believe that the collective will of all beings (you, me, that tree in my yard) is the force that would be the ultimate god. Below that, I believe there are smaller divisions of god-beings who have achieved enlightenment. In the end, it's my belief that all enlightened beings become gods, and make their own creations (different universes). This being the case, I also believe in reincarnation, since I don't think life can be lived fairly only once. I have no evidence of this, nor does it really matter to me if I'm correct or not. It's like I said before, I live for me, and do good because I want to. Not because I have to.

brer lapin

This argument is interesting in an intellectual way, but very one sided. I'm trying to phrase this without being offensive, but it's difficult. It seems that what the question really boils down to is "Why would you treat others well if you're not going to be punished by god?" Completely aside from acts like murder and theft, which society will punish you for, actions like knocking an ice cream cone out of someone's hand, to borrow an earlier example, are pretty much universally accepted as wrong. So why wouldn't I do that? Well, physically, I run the risk of a beating. Good reason not to do it. There's more to it, though, because there are plenty of people that aren't phsyically intimidating to me, so I can treat them any way I want with little fear of physical retribution. However, I treat everyone well (mostly. I'm no saint) because A)I want to be treated the same way. B)My parents and family have always treated me well, and treated other people well, and I've learned from their example. Other factors may come into play as well, but these are the main reasons that drive me in my day to day life. God isn't even a consideration.

My question to the religous people is this - Is fear of god the only reason you behave morally? And if you believe that god has instilled us all with instinctive morality, how do you explain human propensity for cruelty? What about the differences in morality from culture to culture? Many core morals stay the same - don't kill, don't steal, treat each other well, etc, but things such as polygamy, sexual practices and numerous others vary widely.