What Happens When You Remove Faith

But it's not a rhetorical question, it's an incorrect and faulty idea.
Sure all things can work to benefit us. All things can work to harm us in some way too. It absolutely does not mean that they do.I don't see anything different in looking for rewards here or eternally either. My point is that there's a difference between looking for rewards and not looking for rewards. If I don't look for rewards, here or eternally or anywhere, then it wasn't greedy in any way. Sure we do. Or at least, I do. That's exactly why I held the door open for my co-worker. Look at all the reasons I gave explicitly in message 67: Message 67.I did it to hopefully increase their personal feelings in a positive manner. To put it shortly, I did it "because it was right". I did not do it for any sort of expected or hoped for benefit. No benefit here, no benefit now, no benefit 10 years from now, no benefit in the next life, no benefit in eternity, no benefit ever.No, I don't. I've told you already what my reason was. I do nice things in order to possibly increase the positive feelings in other people. Morality 101, The Easy Guide to Human InteractionIt can be very difficult to glimpse any minute specifics in morality, but the large scheme is very easily shown and discussed with any intelligent being. Of course "right" exists. "Right" is just another word for good. They are just subjective terms indicating differences in how situations affect others.There are 3 ways to affect other people:1. Have a positive effect --> "Good"
2. Have a neutral effect --> "Meh"
3. Have a negative effect --> "Bad"Of course, the only way to know if what you did was good, bad, or meh is to gain the information from the person you affected.Sometimes it may be obvious:1. Smiling --> Good
2. Shrugging --> Meh
3. Frowning --> BadOther times you may have to talk to them.That's it. That's morality.The problems begin when self-righteous people think they can tell other people what makes them feel good or bad or meh. No, it essentially describes morality. It is the easy way to say:---------------------
1. I interact with others.
2. Interacting with others will cause me to have an affect on them.
3. This can leave Good, Bad, or Meh effects.
4. I am capable of empathy.
5. If I had a choice, I would like Good things to happen to me.
6. Since I do have a choice on how I affect others, I will attempt to leave Good effects rather then Bad or Meh effects.
7. When I interact with others, I'm going to do my best to cause Good effects.
---------------------Which is: I do right because it is not wrong or neutral.
Which is: I do right because it is right.Now, lots of people confuse step 5 and 6 to read like this:
5. I want Good things to happen to me.
6. If I do good to others, hopefully good things will happen to me eventually.This is greedy. My list is not inherently greedy. Because the greedy 5/6 is visibily indifferent from the non-greedy 5/6 (in the short-term, anyway), many people slip into that greedy frame of thought.I try my best not to.

If you believe the result is inevitable.. then you are indeed expecting it, and being greedy.I do not believe any benefit back to me is inevitable in any way. ..and it makes it greedy.
That's not what I do, at all. What I do is not greedy and you're not showing how it is. I do positive actions. That's it. Nothing after that. I'm not looking for my actions to be "worth it". I'm not hoping that they may one day be "worth it". I just do them because at that instant I want to have a positive effect on whoever's there. Regardless of any resulting action.How is that greedy? Although I'm not convinced it's inevitable, it doesn't matter one way or the other.If you're nice to people and expecting inevitable positive results, then you are being greedy.
If you're nice to people because at that instant in time you want to have a positive effect on those people, then you are not being greedy. Regardless if you recieve beneficial results later. Regardless of those results being inevitable. Yes, it is greedy.
In the grand scheme of things I am a moral person in order to help any other people I may come in contact with in my lifetime.
This is not greedy.It depends on why you're doing it. If you're doing it "because it has better prospects for your interests" then you're greedy. If you're doing it "to leave positive effects on others" then you're not being greedy. Exactly. The result doesn't matter, it's the intent that matters. Yes, that conclusion is greedy. That conclusion is far from universal in my experience as well. I do see how some small things (opening doors...) may have inevitable small beneficial results. But I think it's quite a leap to say that it will "always have an overall positive result for your own self-interests". You've never heard that nice-guys finish last? It may be a cliche, but it wasn't created for no reason.But, regardless. If you're being good for the long-term benefits, then yes, you're being greedy. However, that's not the only reason to be good. You can be good for the sake of helping others, expecting no benefits or returns, and not be greedy. Sure, yet I still don't see how you've shown this to be true for anyone but yourself or possibly Phat.I'm not disagreeing that you are greedy. I think the things you've been describing fit the word "greedy" just fine. I don't see how you've made this universally apply to other people. You certainly haven't made it apply to me.When I act morally, I am not acting in a greedy manner. It is entirely possible to be a good person, and do nice things, and not be greedy.I've explicitly layed out the basics of my morality in message 106: Message 106. Show me where I'm being greedy in those steps. That's a very nice synopsis of your development. How does it possibly extend onto anyone else?Here's mine:I used to be moral because my parents told me to, I eventually had to decide for more personal reasons why I would continue to be moral. My outlook led me to see that morality does have its place in a Godless society, its best for leaving positive effects on others. I do not need God to be moral, I just need the desire to affect others in a positive way.How is that greedy?

Sorry, I'm propagating that as well, I will stop. I would assume that just because rational reasons exist does not mean that the person understands those reasons. That is, if a person has spent many adult-years thinking that God is what keeps them a moral person... they're not searching for any other reasons. Why would you if you already had The Answer? Even though they've come across other reasons, they aren't necessarily understood, respected, or even retained.As you originally theorized, the thought of The Answer being incorrect probably produces the knee-jerk reaction of "there's no reason at all!" It does take a while to understand that other reasons may be equally valid. Especially when The Answer is placed upon such a pedestal.There's just no motivation to search out alternative backing or reasoning. In fact, there's motivational pressures to not search out such alternatives. Basically, I'd guess it's just something they've never questioned or thought about.

That is not quite the argument that is being made.Essentially, these people who have expressed the sentiment in the OP are doing so in order to justify faith by the reasoning that it is useful in preventing "immoral" behavior. Ignoring for the moment that they also claim that the faith itself defines what is immoral, it is a rediculous argument in and of itself to claim that your religion is right because it has (questionable) meta-physical usefulness.Moreover, they seem to admit (mpb1 did at least) that the only reason this is true is BECAUSE their morality is build upon their faith. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that there is an understanding that if their morality had been build from reason, that they would be immune from this supposed effect of loosing their faith.It just seems like the argument destroys itself. I just want to know why then it seems to be so pervasive whenever the issue of , "what if there was no god" seems to be raised. You inevitably get some religious person claiming that either they or the rest of the world would turn into a marriageless orgy of self-only-interest.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

If such a response was given I think I would be equally as baffled by it.For a set of people who seem to spend a significant portion of their time worrying about moral issues, it seems strange that they would be able to abandon even the thought of reconstructing their morality. Part of the reason claimed by religious people for why religion is good is because it turned them away from things that they independently considered bad. For example, how many times have you heard that finding God helped someone cure a gambling addiction. Its not like they didn't know before they suddenly "gained" this power over their addiction that made them realize it was bad. They knew about it beforehand, religion was just the solution and they proffer this as a reason why their religion is right.That is why my guess in the OP stated that I feel that in reality the vast majority of religious people would hardly change their effective morality. If X' is their morality after figuring out that god does not exist then X and X' would be very similar.I still don't think any of the folk who have expressed the sentiment in the OP or agree with it are willing to come into this thread and defend their statements. I think they realize that it makes them look bad and their religion worse.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

Ah. Missed that. Assuming the conclusion in the premise logical fallacy imho. Agreed. The fact remains that this does not occur every time: I believe that every YEC turned atheist on this forum has testified otherwise. This alone makes the conclusion invalid.You may get some that do, but you also get many religious nuts that kill their kids because some voice told them to: that particular immoral behavior is not prevented by their pet religion either, so it is doubly false to so assert.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I am going to lay aside the greed part for now.You still have to think about doing right because it's 'right'.That is a useless statement without a premise for why or how a thing is right.Why is it right to do good to others?Even if you don't answer that question, I hope you can see that you can not cater your morals to meet everyone's needs.The smiles, shrugs, or frowns of other people do not indicate what is good or bad. They only can indicate what that person likes. It is very GOOD of you to wish to please people. We have a concensus that this is a good thing. If that is your desire, even a frown can not make you immoral.Say you tell a joke because you want to cheer up your friend. Say it hits a really sore spot with him, and he gets even more depressed, even mad at you. All you can do is hope he appreciates the thought that you tried.That is a simplistic example of why it is not appropriate to judge morality by the affect you have on others. We can not produce another morality from our shirt sleeves if someone isn't in love with ours.I hope you see that treating people 'good' is important, but is not the answer to what IS good. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

Jazzns, I know we have been jumping around.I am not one of those who feel I would lose my morality if I lost my faith. People who say this are simply not thinking.My contention thus far is only that the motives for morality without faith are at the least hard for people to explain and inconsistant.Most people are saying that doing good to others is just right, with no idea why. They also can not explain how they know a thing is the right thing to do to others.They will say that society dictates what is right. If that is true, doing right because it's right has no meaning. All a person is saying is that they are doing something because it's popular. You MUST know what I mean.Most people have a strong opinion about abortion. NO ONE wants to come out and say it is good in itself. What they want to say is that giving a person a choice is moral, because it reflects on love of neighbor. It is popular to agree with this thought, and also tempting because it sounds so good to our moral sense. Before you think I am preaching, just know that I am only giving an obvious example of how some moral questions are not answered, only obscured.It is still important to make our own moral judgements. When it comes to ourselves, the concensus that freedom is good does not help us decide which path to take. At times, it can mislead us into feeling that all paths are equal, that there is no right or wrong associated with an action. I can respect that a person may feel there is nothing inherently wrong or right in life, but that is not the gist I am getting from yours and other's posts. You all keep saying that things are just right because they are. In the same breath you say there is no absolute morality. If a thing were indeed good in itself, if such a thing exists, allowing us to have free will in choosing it is exactly no different from when we had no moral code and had no idea what was right. Society in general has essentially made it popular to have no determination about abortion and many other things. The popularity of choice has done NOTHING in determining morality of a choice. IMHO we are corrupting the ideal of love thy neighbor by loving them in all things to spite whatever may be honestly good or bad about their actions. It is no longer 'love the sinner not the sin', but 'love the sin because it will spare the feelings of the sinner'.Now, without faith, I can make some guesses about whether or not abortion affects a fetus. I can make no determination about whether it affects a soul, or God's plan for that human life. If I don't believe in God, I CAN rely on science to help me understand what is going on in the womb. Then I can feel good or bad about the act, and if I act according to my conscience and what I know, I can be considered a moral person. That does not mean I am right or wrong. I may still be judged as being wrong by others. The important thing is that no one else can judge your morality by how you behave. Only you can judge. Even you can not know for certain if you are right or wrong...so long story short, one MUST have a philosophy for determining what is right in their own mind. While I don't contend that mainstream faith is the only possibility, I have yet to see many viable alternatives.It may not be important to determine what is right, as 'right' is subjective and changes, but I absolutely can not take any more of 'I do right because it's right'. Coupled with the idea that right changes, that makes no sense. Nothing then is right. It is only popular, and we should call it for what it is. Not morality, for Pete's sake. As I have already posted, morality is about what IS right.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

In the controversial new Creation Museum created by the Group Answers in Genesis, an area is dedicated to their interpretation of a society that rejects faith. They believe that without faith, the world will be a terrible place filled with sadness and misery.
The museum obviously focuses on creationism and proving that creationism is a valid scientific theory.
My friends and I went to this museum and made a documentary featuring interviews from evolutionists and people who believe in creationism. Check it out if you like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UhbmRCNxIA

silencio,I sincerely hope that you are not using EvC to promote your documentary, and that you will stick around awhile.You may have noticed we have a thread devoted entirely to the Creation Museum. I think your video would be appreciated over there. For myself, I had no idea that this museum would be so depressing-looking and so focused on doctrine. I am sure that I would NOT agree with what these people are teaching regardless of the science aspect, and I am disappointed that they would not seek to tell the 'truth' without the confines of their sectarian doctrines. IOW, if you believe in creation, fine. If you believe in the validity of the Bible, fine. But DO NOT try to preach your own version of Christianity as the only version. Don't make folks say things about how Christianity is going to ruin this country, by doing something so foolish as putting the '7 C's' of YOUR denomination up on the wall of what is supposed to be a science exhibit.If something is true it will be true for ALL denominations. I think I have seen enough to know that Ham is not only pushing for Creationism, but for his own version of the entire Bible. That bothers me.Aside from this, I am not sure how you wished to tie your video to the morality discussion.

You say that immoral behaviour is not prevented by a pet religion. That is imho not the issue. The issue is whether said immoral behavious is dictated by said pet religion.Where is this notion that a behaviour is immoral [like killing your child] coming from?It is completely impossible to decide whether religion makes or breaks morality without deciding how we got morality in the first place. The folks who argue on the faith side are not saying that religion makes you moral. They are saying that religion decides what IS moral. In the absence of the word religion, I would be fine with the word philosophy. The question at its core is whether it is a super imposed ideaology defining moral code, or something more instinctual.I am betting on the idea that instinct defines morality. BUT, because of free will and intelligence, as I have said, we have abandoned instinct to a degree. We rely on ideas to bring us into accord with our purpose. We also check our ideas against what we instinctually feel.If that makes no sense, let me try to explain.We instinctually desire reproduction. Our philosophy of equality and respect will not allow us to rape. One of these actions is instinct, the other ideal. The philosophy of respect can be checked against reality...it makes others happy, and in the long term makes for good survival skills. Thus, the good social idea of respect benefits the instinct to reproduce. If both urges are instinctual, only intelligence can decide which is most useful. Only intelligence can decide if respect or reproduction is MORE useful. If we were to say that all men were equal, and that respecting them was by far a greater good than having offspring, even if you were alone on a island...which would you choose? Does the idea of respect begetting children still measure up?For this discussion, I feel the main issue is to determine how we came to the conclusions of what is moral, before we can judge whether we would be moral or not without these conclusions.If I love because Jesus said so, it will be a poor motive. If I love because it makes sense, it will be a better motive. If I understand why Jesus said to love, I can be loving even without thinking of Jesus. It is very possible for non believers to love because it makes sense. What is harder is to get non believers to explain why and how it makes sense.It is crucial, because so many have this same problem, to determine what IS moral, before we can pass judgements on the morality of religious people.When you complain of a Christian killing or hating, you are complaining on behalf of the indoctrinated CHRISTIAN idea that killing and hating are immoral. You are defending Jesus Himself. I absolutely know that this idea is not unique to Christians, but I think it is safe to say that our appreciation of the concept stems from long familiarity as a society with Christian ideals themselves.What you or anyone needs to do in order to prove otherwise, is to provide evidence that love is so instinctual as to not only make Jesus right about its worth, but to make all people, aside of the amoral, desirous of selfless acts without need for faith, and solely based on their merits alone. I DO believe they are capable of the first, because I believe that Jesus showed us some of our most basic needs in order to be fulfulled, and that these needs affect everyone regardless of faith. What is lacking is the underlying thought process for why we desire selflessness aside from our own greed and gratification.

I don't see why you think this. I haven't gone into depth on this myself but I find it suspect that you are making this claim based on what has been said so far. Just because the people you have been speaking to have not quoted "chapter and verse" does not mean that they haven't told you why. I don't want to get too deep into this discussion but I feel it is important to dispel this myth that a rational morality is floating upon a sea of uncertainty.The only thing that has happened so far is that people have not given you justification for YOUR standards as to what it would take to have a grounded morality based on reason and empathy. I see nothing wrong with using the golden rule as a basis for a rational morality. Christianity certainly does not have a patent out on it. I certainly have not said that. Perhaps I have not read this thread in enough depth but I don't think anyone else has said that either. If someone in front of me gets into a car accident it is right to stop and help for very specific rational reasons. I am perhaps in the best position to help due to my proximity and it may be necessary for to be a witness to the scene. It is also the reason why I DONT stop to help out at an accident where there are already people out and about helping the victims. There is nothing wrong with that rational and flexible morality about the situation.Nothing about that situation need be dictated by principles from religion. It certainly CAN be, but it does not have to be. I certainly have not said that. I don't recall ever making that claim. If there is an absolute morality though we certainly have not found it yet. If there is an absolute morality, it MOST DEFINITLY is not derived from any of the Abrahamic faiths. That is partly attested to by the fact that no one thus far has been able to point to a religiously derived absolute morality. The conversation tends to degrade into a discussion about the conscious and how God gave us all that "little voice inside us" even when we don't believe the completely contradictory scriptures that are supposed to tell us how to live. That is totally and completely false. I would argue against anyone claiming that the rational justification for choice is its popularity. The rational justification for choice revolves around the consequences of restricting or eliminating choice. We have data and real life anecdotes that show us direct negative outcomes for not having choice. Why not? This seems totally ridiculous! We judge peoples morality all the time. In fact that is exactly what we are here to do in this thread. I feel justified that I have a very good logical reason to think that the statements that Phat, Catholic Scientists, and mpb1 made are indicative of a weak moral framework. The best part is, I don't even have to use my own morality to make that determination. The weakness is built into the claims they made about how easily they would abandon their morality if they lost their faith.Self-contradiction is the most basic of evidences for rationally abandoning a moral framework. Christians do it constantly with regard to Talmudic law. Have you ever tried to construct a rational morality? Must someone carve it into stone tables with a fiery finger for it to be valid? Is your only issue that it cannot be enumerated? I certainly don't deny that. I also don't find any conflict with that statement and anything else I have read thus far.I think your biggest problem is that you cannot accept the existence of a fluid yet rational morality. It may be because you feel that if you acknowledge that it COULD exist that you may diminish the value of your own claimed "absolute" morality.I don't want to get into the topic of if an absolute morality exists. You can claim that it does all you want and I would not care. The only line of reasoning I would want to understand is why you would or would not keep it if you to be shown tomorrow definitively that God does not exist. Your answer to that question, IMO, determines the value of that morality.The other related question is why some people like to offer the argument that the frailty of their morality is a good reason to think that their religion is "good", "right", or at the very least "useful".I say so what! It may very well be true that believing in certain fairy tales make some people act in redeeming ways without going through the effort of discovering a rational morality. It should be obvious that this does not lend one ounce of strength to the claims of religion.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

That is fine, when I do an act of kindness I don't stop to consider if there will be a benefit to me. I don't feel the need to stop and consider each action that I am about to do and decide if I will have some sort of positive return. In hindsight - its inevitable. I don't deny that, If I made that claim I am sorry. What I have tried to express is that regardless of whether I think about it, mull over it, or "do nothing after that" - good deeds on others result in good deeds done to me. I know from my actions and the long term effects that its had; compared to some jerks I know; that I stand a better chance of gaining the respect of my peers. Regardless of my intent at the time, that I would also consider "selfless" - I can also see the end result as being good for me. And I am saying that I have observed that these positive effects have a dramatic effect on the environment that I choose to be in. Does my awareness somehow taint any such action that I can take from now on? I have heard it, yet I choose to "finish last" because the ones who finish first are certainly not the happiest people out there. Pick up a copy of a celebrity magazine and you will see that success should not always be defined by the size of the wallet. As I said before - I just wish for a pleasant journey into the dirt, I am perfectly comfortable with calling this "greed". Thats a mirror of my basics also. What I notice is that a "bad" effect does not happen, a "meh" effect leaves a situation at zero, and a "good" effect is a reason to do something for no reason. No need to talk to the person to gauge their reaction, a positive reaction is inevitable eventually. Great, the way I see it is I simply took it one step further when I see such actions having an effect on me. Good or bad it comes back. I don't worry if my view extends to anyone else really. That would be self-righteous, and I can't stand such behavior.ABE: Thanks Stile for the exchange, and I am sorry Jazzns. If I continue I will try to keep the discussion on topic. Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

A reply here would further take Jazzns' topic off into the murky depths.So I've requested to start a new thread, which has been approved: Message 1Edited by Stile, : Updated thread link

I was going to start a new thread for our discussion as well, but: That's the only point I wanted to get across, so I really have nothing more to defend Nice chatting with you too.