What Happens When You Remove Faith

Sure they are, because we have free will and a high level of intelligence.I don't believe that social interactions are the same thing as morality, however.The point of morality IMO is to develope a way of life that guides and simplifies decisions. It's like creating the perfect balanced diet, and has little to do with what we feel like eating or even the drive to eat.What I believe people are saying is that without God they may go back to eating junk food or whatever comes along and they are in the mood for. Most of us live like that anyway, and most of us make moral decisions spur of the moment. It's only falling back to what is convenient and won't make us immediately sick.We humans are primarily cncerned with ourselves. That is my conclusive belief. Have you ever looked at the many different faces of pride? Is there anything that you can do for someone that can not reflect back to making yourself feel good? The point is to do good to others because it is the 'right' thing to do. You know that, we all know that. Why is it right? I have my answer, which is: all men are a reflection of God and loved by God, and it is the will of God that we respect the life He has created. 'I do right because it is right' is lame-o answer, as is 'it is hard-wired into me' or 'I learned how' or 'I am afraid of the consequences'.But life IS complicated, and a combination of these reasons makes most people fairly decent.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I have my answer, which is: all men are a reflection of God and loved by God, and it is the will of God that we respect the life He has created. 'I do right because it is right' is lame-o answer, as is 'it is hard-wired into me' or 'I learned how' or 'I am afraid of the consequences'.

---

There is nothing more lame-o than an adult who resorts to invoking a woo-woo magical authoritarian parent to attempt to explain anything, including why we have morality.I realize that you find a mundane, non-woo, incomplete (though fact-based) explanation unsatisfying, but hey, real life will never be able to compete with fantastic imagined supernatural fantasy.Feel free to believe whatever makes you feel good. Of course, believing "what makes you feel good" is not likely to lead you to any truth about human psychology.

Well, the first thing that happened is that Iano quit the forum in protest.

Normally I don't take their word for it. I might then refer them to a book like the selfish gene. I'd be disgusted with any human who only behaved with humanity out of fear of being punished. Riots and mobs are not about a removal a pressure, but the application of unfair pressure (racism, lack of work, natural disaster). As I also said, violence isn't inherently against our humanity and certain situations will positively engender it - in groups and out groups. Mobs and riots are pure us versus them. Right. As I said - I don't think a local majority of fuck y'alls happens very often in social animals - it tends to lead to a survival problem. If schraf doesn't think humans are a warlike group of savages who care deeply for their own but care less and less for more distant groupings, then I disagree with schraf. However, I don't think schraf means that. Locally humans are very nice to each other. No. It is 'after the event' justification. As in, God would just be the reason we give for either going to battle, or avoiding going to battle. It would only come into it after the mind has been made up. Religion is certainly not the cause of outgrouping. Evolution is the cause of outgrouping. I'm not blaming a label, I'm saying the fewer labels available the better. I don't think the gap will be filled quite the same as religion. I can only think of race as beign a grouping as large as religion. The next is country area (middle east, africa....), we already have that grouping level in operation so its not going to replace religion's layer.With regards to the South Park episode, one has to look at the next level of subtlety in play here. What were the atheists fighting over? What to call themselves. I can believe people killing over paradise and hell and how to get there, but not over what to call themselves. Being aware that you are being good for selfish reasons isn't nihilism of course and it doesn't have to lead that way. If you truly believe in god, it is difficult to simply stop. Personally I took a long journey into disbelief in religion which began with disbelieving in the Christian deity and went through several other religions until religion became less and less important. That way I didn't quit cold turkey, and my a-theist philosophy was allowed to mature. I think fear of punishment is the most selfish reason for good behaviour going. I agree that there will be plenty of other things to fight over. Like those communists, the French, and shifty asian women. We fight over them already - I can't see any disadvantages to remvoving one reason to fight over something, and only advantages to be had.

I think you hit the nail on the head with this statement anastasia. I believe that morality is mainly an expression of greed. The act of doing something "good" can have benefits on the individual.What reason would a person have for not robbing his neighbor, sleeping with his wife, or even killing this person? Self preservation. I don't rob my neighbor in hopes that he does not rob me. I live in a society where such acts are against the law, as a result I obey these laws in hopes that I do not become a victim. In a state of lawlessness I could run around doing as I please - and so can everyone else. With these laws in place I came to the decision that stealing another persons property was not worth the risk of jailtime, criminal record, and the likely result of the people I care about disliking me.What has motivated me to be a "moral" person? I don't want to loose my freedoms (jailtime), I want people to generally like me, and I don't want to get robbed, raped, killed, or even have someone call me names. I do believe in the golden rule, do unto others, I believe in it because I am greedy. I would like to live in a stress free environment and the most logical place to start is by not creating stress for others. The reason its the right thing to do is that one has the possibility of reward at the end of it all. Religion is no different in its reasons.For most people doing good has more benefits that doing bad. There are certainly examples of bad people living like kings (or presidents!), but for the most part the individual is best served to be nice to other people, stay within the laws set by society/religion - and in most cases the persons greedy nature will benefit.Edited by Vacate, : Spell check

I'm just wondering what it is you're actually trying to say here. Because this part seems contradictory to me:

quote:

---

There doesn't seem to be any reason to be nice 'just because'.

---

Well, of course there's no reason to be nice "just because". That's exactly the point, that someone is being nice for no reason.

Sure it can. But if those benefits aren't the motivation for doing the good thing, how is it an expression of greed?I'll take a very simple example. Just this morning I was walking into work and a co-worker came up to the door just behind me. I opened the door for them, let them walk in, and then I walked in behind them.It is possible that perhaps they will open the door for me another day. It is possible that someone else saw this and might do something else nice for me in return. But I didn't open the door for either of those reasons.I didn't open the door in hopes of getting a smile in return.
I didn't open the door in hopes that anyone would think I was a good person.
I didn't open the door in hopes that anyone would think anything "better" or "differently" about me.
I didn't open the door in hopes of having a door opened for me one day.
I didn't open the door because it might make me feel good.
I didn't open the door for any sort of Karma-like return of anything positive.I opened the door for them because I was in front of it, and the person behind me was there, and hopefully their personal internal feelings may increase in some positive manner. Yes. Self preservation certainly is one reason someone may not do such things. And it's also a greedy reason. It's not the only reason, however. I wouldn't do those things because I don't think it's right to treat others that way. Very true (I assume you're not lying about yourself, anyway). And I agree that your reasons are very greedy. However those are not my reasons for acting in a similar manner. I obey the laws we have because I agree to live here under those laws. I agree that the majority of the laws are the right way things should be. So really I don't "obey the laws" so much as most of the laws we have agree with what I think is right. Losing my freedoms (jailtime) does not motivate me to be a moral person.
Wanting people to like me does not motivate me to be a moral person.
Not getting robbed, raped, killed or being called names does not motivate me to be a moral person.
I believe in the theory of the Golden Rule, because I think it is right.I agree that I don't want jailtime, to be raped, killed, or called names... but they have nothing to do with my moral motivations. I do not agree. I think that the most logical place to start is to choose to live in an environment that is conducive to being stress free. That is, choosing to live in North America or Europe or Australia or any other well-developed area is going to be much more stress-free than choosing to live in the middle of a 3rd world country ghetto.Not creating stress for others is a logical way to continue living stress free. But there are much better plans "for starters". But that's not the reason. At least, it's not my reason. And I'm pretty sure I'm not the only person in the entire world who thinks this way. The reason I do good things is because it's the right thing to do. Sometime I even do them for no reason at all. I kind of agree. I would be hard pressed to prove that most people don't act in this way. But it's simple to prove to you that all people don't, I don't.I do not try to be a moral person for greedy reasons. To me, that wouldn't be moving in the positive direction of morality in the firstplace, pretty counter-productive. I try to be a moral person because it's the right thing to do.

Perhaps most people. Definitely not all people. Mother Teresa and Ghandi come to mind. Yes.I opened the door for someone else on my way into work this morning. It did not make myself feel good. It did not make myself feel bad either. It really didn't have any affect whatsoever on how I felt about myself. I really don't get what you're trying to say here. I think you're contradicting yourself.

quote:

---

The point is to do good to others because it is the 'right' thing to do. You know that, we all know that. ... 'I do right because it is right' is lame-o answer

---

Do good because it's the right thing to do. We all know that.
Do right because it's the right thing to do. Is a lame-o answer.We all know it's a lame-o answer?
Why is it considered lame-o in the first place? Is there something wrong with it?
It just seems simple, basic and "right" to me.If I say that "doing good because we are a reflection of God and it is the will of God" is a lame-o answer how is that any different?Well, it's definitely lame-o to me, but that's just because I don't think this God you're talking about exists.If we take why I think your answer is lame back to why you think my answer is lame... does that mean you don't think "right" exists?Ahhhh... maybe if you think right=God... this whole lame-o thing actually makes sense. I just don't believe that right=God. I think right exists. I do not think the God you talk about exists. I believe that some God may exist, but it has no bearing on my finding that right actually does exist.Edited by Stile, : Final revelation.

When I held the door open for my co-worker I did it because the alternative (shutting the door on them) is not conductive to a good working atmosphere. Eight hours with someone who thinks I am a jerk will not be a good shift. I did it because being nice to someone does have its benefits. I agree. We have over thousands of years created a society that has decided that one persons greed should not come at the cost of others. We have not perfected this yet, but for the most part we all try to live in respect of others because we wish to have that respect returned to us. Is this Greed? Possibly not, given that greed has a negative connotation. Is it wrong to say its greed that causes me to hold the door open for someone because it makes me feel good? Well, in a way - it had a benefit to me. I live in Canada because I feel it is a safe and friendly country where I can be happy with my family and friends. The alternative, Iraq say, is a hellhole and its a place where I would not feel safe, the people I care about would not be safe, and the bombing would make my internet unstable while reading EVC (I would not like that) If you did live in such a place it might be a good idea to continue to live as a moral person - you would likely live longer. The fact that you choose to live in a well-developed area is exactly my point. I do too. When I was in the hospital for a lung collapse I was miserable. It was not my idea of a fun way to spend Christmas, the nurses however where always nice and tried their best. The day after I got out I hobbled up to the Wal-mart to buy a gift package for them - I hoped that a nice gesture would improve their day. Maybe if my family member or friend ends up there they will also get the same good care that I recieved. One could say I did it for "no reason at all", I certainly did not have to give them anything. I did it because I hope good care from that facility continues, and a good gesture may help it to continue.I am not a moral person simply because I don't want to go to jail. Its more complex that such a generalization. Being a good person makes me feel good, being friendly often results in the people I am with being friendly to me, being moral results in the people I trust not abusing my generosity - I benefit more from being good than being bad.The reward at the end of it all is not instant, much like you holding the door but not simply to get a smile in return. I hold the door open for anyone that happens to be behind me - I also find that behavior like this has positive results for me. I don't have fights with my co-workers and I believe its partly because I am always polite. Its the right thing to do, and I benefit being in a more pleasant environment.

That's good, and I see why you think that can be seen as greedy. I agree that it is slightly-greedy. That's still not the reason why I did it. I told you why I did it, and I did not do it for any sort of benefit. Or any sort of even slightly-greedy reason. The possibility that some benefit may possibly come from the act does not make it greedy. It is greedy only if you're expecting or hoping for such a return.Look at this another way:
Tom and Bob are playing nintendo together. Bob wants his turn, and break's Tom's arm in order to get the controller. The next day Tom can't go to his soccer game because of his broken arm so he stays home. Tom's soccer coach has a cold and gives it to all kids on the team. Tom didn't get sick. A good thing happened. It was a side-effect, a possibility.. just something that happened. The fact that something good happened does not make Bob breaking Tom's arm a good thing. Bob broke Tom's arm because he was selfish, it was a bad thing.Side-effects and possibilities do not change the initial motivation for an action.Because something good eventually comes from an act does not make that act greedy.
An act is greedy if and only if it is performed in the hopes of or expecation of something beneficial to the performer.
Without hope or expectation to the performer, an act is not greedy. Even if some benefit does incidentally come from the act. In this scenario, yes. It was greedy. You wanted a good working atmosphere.In my scenario, no. It was not greedy. I wanted nothing for myself. I agree, it might be. I would say that if I lived in such a place, it would be a good idea to not step on any toes - I would likely live longer. But that is not a moral-idea. Not to me, anyway. And, of course, this is not "for starters" we've already found ourselves in the situation.I'm not saying I'm never greedy, or never trying to benefit myself. I'm saying that these are not positive moral acts. And that positive moral acts are not greedy and neither do they benefit one's self. I know. What I'm saying is that it's not greedy if you're not looking for that reward at all, at any time.If you hold doors open because you're looking for positive results for yourself, be they instantaneous or in the next life, you're being greedy.
If you hold doors open because you want to try to add positively to someone else's personal feelings and you give no thought whatsoever about getting any sort of positive result for yourself (instantaneously or in the next life or ever) then you are not being greedy.

quote:

---

If schraf doesn't think humans are a warlike group of savages who care deeply for their own but care less and less for more distant groupings, then I disagree with schraf. However, I don't think schraf means that. Locally humans are very nice to each other.

---

You don't disagree with schraf.

Perhaps Phat you would like to comment on this example that I recalled. Since mpb1 is on right now, perhaps he can join us and explain himself further.Ironically, I found it pretty easy once I went to the board's search engine and searched for "cheat wife" This thread was first, the following thread was 2nd.The exchange starts here.
Message 8Here are some of the quotes I find relevant to this discussion. I find this last quote telling because it goes back to what I said when I believed this is an issue of conditioning. If you are conditioned to believe that the only reason for being "good" is because of religion, you have missed out on all of the real and rational reasons there are for being "good". It may be very difficult and perhaps impossible for some to go back and re-learn thos reasons. Some will come out of necessity. I am sure that if mpb1 really did start becoming a hedonist that it would have implications on his marriage, finances, children, job, etc that he might not think of as "pleasure" at all. IMO, many people find that a loving relationship is more pleasureable over time than the hot skin-on-skin action with anyone you want right now. In fact, our biology dictates that this must be true. That is how humans reproduce. If we didn't have pair-bonding, all of us may not be having this discussion right now. Instead we may be poking at termite hills with sticks.After being confronted by schraf, mpb1 starts to soften his rhetoric a little bit, but it is still pretty rediculous to me. (emphasis mine) (emphasis mine again)Here we see that the problem is that there is exists no concept in his mind of a rational morality. In this delusional concept of reality, the only thing holding an atheist back from committing attrocities is the chance that they will be punished. This seems strange to me because I am pretty sure we can dig up some evidence let alone present the obvious anecdotal observations that this does not seem to be the real state of the world if you were to look outside your window. I am starting to think that it was a figment of my imagination that mpb1 ever backed down from this. What I get different out of this quote is the addition of "self-destructive lifestyle" as a consequence of loosing faith based morality. Also, he seems to be fully admitting that the only reason this is a problem is BECAUSE Christians have an built in expectation that all morality is religious based!Ahh... Here is mpb1 backing down: He goes into an explanation of that that is interesting to read. The whole post is here Message 100.I also remember some prime examples from FSTDT.com although it is more difficult to locate them on that site. I know I have seen them before, does anyone have any other examples that can help us drive this discussion?

---

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

Why do you need to explain why we have morality? Isnt it obviously because we are not instinctually going to do good things? Are you confused? We don't need an explanation for morality. We don't even agree on what is moral. I feel no competition between woo and no woo, it is all part of creation.So, what are your motives for respecting others? To learn about human psychology? Morality does not seek to explain or learn about human behaviour, it is a thing which we create to rectify and utilize the range of human behaviour. The question I asked was 'why'? I am really not looking for a science experiment, I am looking for a way of living that produces people motivated to care for each other. I have not found that any of the books I have read on spirituality or on God-based behaviour modification, have been without great insight. If I look to my own behaviour and follow these guides, I can see real true visible results in the lives of people around me. I don't know what is less woo-woo than results.Being moral isn't complicated. It is not about human social interactions. It is about one's self. It doesn't need explanation, it needs motivation. The scope of the thread was to discuss some motives without God. Of course there are some. I never said there weren't. Being moral really has nothing to do with what 'makes me feel good'. It has to do with what works.

Or maybe it is old ladies who are the only nice ones.I'm not talking about mobs or mosh pits. I'm talking about everyday, mundane life.
But as an aside, I have indeed been in a mosh pit or two. At the Lilith Fair, for example, I was never groped even though I was surrounded by lots of lesbians and quite a few men. I just went to a great English Beat show and was right down there in front dancing and jumping with everybody else and didn't have a problem. I even left my purse unattended at my seat.

quote:

---

Most of the people I encounter are not “moral (good) persons” as you described above.

---

Maybe because like attracts like? Well, actually, I’m quite charming I think the anonymity brings out the worst in me Consider yourself lucky. By performing the action anyways, even though it makes them feel bad. Or by ignoring their feelings. I didn’t say they could choose to not feel something.

Never read it Maybe I’ll take a look. Why? More than by a person who didn’t behave with humanity? Why does their motive matter so much as long as they are still humane? But it has happened in humans a lot. Go figure. I see that. I even mentioned something similar in my first message in this thread. It doesn’t always happen that way with me. I think that my belief in god helps make up my mind. Ok, I think I get your drift now. Thanks. Its not wholly “fear of punishment”, though. Just sayin’. But there are some advantages to having religion, so it comes down to how you weight it out.