A question to those who advocate for the elimination of religion

[Deleted member]

Where do you get your ethical views?

I'm sure most of you think that stealing is wrong. But why is it wrong?

In Plato's Republic Thrasymachus states that an unjust life perfectly lived is ultimately a better life than the so-called "just" life. In other words, a man who cheats, lies, and steals (without getting caught, obviously) will have more material wealth than the sap who lives a normal, civilized life.

If you want to see the "blight" of religion gone from this earth, then you probably:

a) Should not believe in Karma or any sort of Divine Retribution - Heaven and Hell are not concepts that should concern you. Because of this, you are then:

b) Free to exploit others. Since you aren't religious, you obviously don't need to worry about any repercussions affecting you in the afterlife.

Therefore:

c) You should befriend the religious, prey upon the gullible, and exploit the foolish. Ironically, it is the religious who are obliged to forgive. Steal the collection box in church one Sunday. If caught, plead desperate and receive forgiveness. Rinse and repeat. [nb]: When you are on your death bed, feel free to repent. If the parishioners of a church can forgive, then their God can too. It's the Atheist's Wager!

So. I ask all who apply: why be "good" when there's so many naive, forgiving suckers? Aside from laws that attempt to protect society (which are easily avoided), what's stopping you from living the perfectly lived "unjust" life?

There's a point to this thread, which I'll elaborate on when I get some responses.

To my fellow DH veterans: be honest!

 

[manhunter098]

Arent you making the incorrect assumption that material wealth will bring the majority of people happiness? Sure some is better, but when you can make enough money, forge friendships, and in general not be hated by everyone, why would you resort to stealing to bring you happiness?


Personally I just want to live a comfortable life, have a family, plenty of good friends, and be able to go out and have fun when I please, and honestly I think playing video games is a lot more fun than being an *** towards society.

 

[cman]

a) Should not believe in Karma or any sort of Divine Retribution - Heaven and Hell are not concepts that should concern you. Because of this, you are then:

b) Free to exploit others. Since you aren't religious, you obviously don't need to worry about any repercussions affecting you in the afterlife.

These don't follow. Hell/heaven/karma/beervolcano aren't the only reasons to live a 'good' life. Punishment by society, the expectations of other people, etc. are pretty good (and very tangible) motivators to not exploit others. You assume that religious reasons are the only ones, and this is not true.

 

[Deleted member]

I'm afraid you both misunderstand the perfection aspect. If you aren't caught, then how can you be the social pariah? In the long run, why does it truly matter if you're good towards society? How does it tangibly reflect upon yourself?

 

[AltF4]

The fact that we can even agree to a vast majority of what is "morally right" indicates that there is something inherent in the laws we set for ourselves. They aggregately work best for society.

I don't like to steal. It makes me feel bad. My brain is biochemically predisposed to not lie, cheat, steal, etc... This must obviously be an evolutionary trait. It would make sense as so, at least.


I find two fundamental flawed assumptions in your reasoning, Del:

1) Everyone acts only according to self-interest. Even in the christian case, every christian is only acting "justly" in order to benefit themselves in the afterlife. So it's still selfish reasons. But why must I be so? I gladly sacrifice my time and efforts for friends and family IRL all the time.

There's no reason to assume that a kind of "moral capitalism" is the only possibility. I, for one, like to think I do a lot "for the greater good" as opposed to just myself.

2) There must be some higher meaning to morality. An atheist and materialist does not believe in any "ultimate punishment". Some have told me that I think "we are all just particles floating in space". And I agree, except for the 'just'. I fail to see how life becomes worthless just because there is no big invisible man waiting to judge me.

It would be like playing a video game, and discovering halfway through that the game doesn't keep score. Why bother playing? Because it's a fun game! Who cares about score anyway?!

 

[RDK]

While preying on the gullible and exploiting the foolish is really only helping natural selection, there's the point of personal ethics that you have to take into account.

What if those things don't specifically make a person happy? If doing the opposite of those things fulfills a person, then they're just as fulfilled as the guy who cheats and steals in order to be happy.

TL ; DR : each to his own.

 

[Deleted member]

The fact that we can even agree to a vast majority of what is "morally right" indicates that there is something inherent in the laws we set for ourselves. They aggregately work best for society.

I firmly believe a majority of the fundamental laws we take for granted have been inspired by the obvious religious history that North America has. You said this in another thread:

...Christians define morality to be that which god favors. Therefore to them, whatever god says is by definition the best way to go. If god said **** and murder were morally right actions (and in the bible it often says to do just that) then those would be morally right. Regardless of anything else.

I don't want to strawman you, but I suspect that there really isn't much inherent in the way we live our lives. Besides, even if they are "inherent", they are still imagined rules in this game of life.

I don't like to steal. It makes me feel bad. My brain is biochemically predisposed to not lie, cheat, steal, etc... This must obviously be an evolutionary trait. It would make sense as so, at least.

Well, you're going to have a hard time proving that our ethics are hereditary. They're customs that are ingrained into us from the very beginning.

1) Everyone acts only according to self-interest. Even in the christian case, every christian is only acting "justly" in order to benefit themselves in the afterlife. So it's still selfish reasons. But why must I be so? I gladly sacrifice my time and efforts for friends and family IRL all the time.

There's no reason to assume that a kind of "moral capitalism" is the only possibility. I, for one, like to think I do a lot "for the greater good" as opposed to just myself.

Okay, but to what end does the "greater good" serve? What is its purpose, its telos? Humour me for a second: don't you think it's possible to cheat and steal but also be selfless to friends? I would hope so. I don't think cheating and stealing sets you up to be blind to favours and other selfless acts.

2) There must be some higher meaning to morality. An atheist and materialist does not believe in any "ultimate punishment". Some have told me that I think "we are all just particles floating in space". And I agree, except for the 'just'. I fail to see how life becomes worthless just because there is no big invisible man waiting to judge me.

I never said life would become worthless. I just think that it would set the stage nicely to live a perfectly unjust life; one without repercussions.

It would be like playing a video game, and discovering halfway through that the game doesn't keep score. Why bother playing? Because it's a fun game! Who cares about score anyway?!

Such a game exists. The latest Fallout incorporates a Karma system that is (ultimately) superfluous. You can finish the game as evil or good, but the game doesn't care. Additionally, the game doesn't provide much incentive to be good either. If you live unjustly in Fallout, you get money, experience, and weapons extremely easily. What do you get if you win? A bonus ending? An imagined sense of righteousness? In the Smash world we call that not playing to win.

Further:

If life is a video game, then those who are not perfectly unjust are not playing to win.

If life is survival, then those who aren't perfectly unjust are simply deer in the wild. As humans, we're already at the top of the food chain - but who's at the top of the top of the food chain? Excluding politicians, the answer is the person who secretly lives unjustly.

While preying on the gullible and exploiting the foolish is really only helping natural selection, there's the point of personal ethics that you have to take into account.

What if those things don't specifically make a person happy? If doing the opposite of those things fulfills a person, then they're just as fulfilled as the guy who cheats and steals in order to be happy.

TL ; DR : each to his own.

Right, but where are your personal ethics coming from, and what are you basing them off of? Again, you talk about fulfillment when that doesn't mean diddly in the grand scheme of things. In a godless realm, your personal fulfillment isn't going to take you anywhere special, and you would be wise to begin the exploitation, because the unjust man does not cheat and steal to be happy. He cheats and steals to get ahead.

 

[manhunter098]

But if everyone stole we COULDNT support the type of society we life in. We ARE more effective as a society and as a species when we work together to accomplish goals. If you work with friends and create a successful business, sure it might be a lot more hard work than stealing, but you will have a source of income that will last you your entire life, rather than just living day by day stealing to get by.

 

[arrowhead]

cooperation and not being a ***** is all part of my self-interest. i want people to be pleasant, so i'm not going to go around stealing and taking advantage of people, or they may start doing the same.

 

[Ryusuta]

First of all, you should read up on such subjects as The Social Contract.

We behave in a civilized way because it benefits us for fit into a society rather than compete against it. It's EXTREMELY simple.

Even if you don't believe that someone can just have a good heart and care for others without religion, it's the absolute most logical way to go about your life. It seems pretty easy to follow, actually.

 

[RDK]

Right, but where are your personal ethics coming from, and what are you basing them off of? Again, you talk about fulfillment when that doesn't mean diddly in the grand scheme of things. In a godless realm, your personal fulfillment isn't going to take you anywhere special, and you would be wise to begin the exploitation, because the unjust man does not cheat and steal to be happy. He cheats and steals to get ahead.

Getting ahead just so happens to be what makes me happy, so there are no contradictions here. If the actual act of cheating and stealing also makes me happy, then kudos and more power to me.

Also: vitrually everything we do is out of self-interest. Not always rational self-interest, but self-interest nonetheless. You only do things because it pleases you to do so, even if that means buying McDonalds for some bum sitting on a stoop in Detroit, simply because if gives you a moral boost and makes you feel good about yourself.

Even when you do things out of seemingly selfless motivations, such as doing favors for your friends at a personal sacrifice, it's because you've placed a special value in those friends and it pleases you to see them happy. Everyone is selfish; that's just how life works.

 

[AltF4]

Such a game exists. The latest Fallout incorporates a Karma system that is (ultimately) superfluous. You can finish the game as evil or good, but the game doesn't care. Additionally, the game doesn't provide much incentive to be good either. If you live unjustly in Fallout, you get money, experience, and weapons extremely easily. What do you get if you win? A bonus ending? An imagined sense of righteousness? In the Smash world we call that not playing to win.

Further:

If life is a video game, then those who are not perfectly unjust are not playing to win.

If life is survival, then those who aren't perfectly unjust are simply deer in the wild. As humans, we're already at the top of the food chain - but who's at the top of the top of the food chain? Excluding politicians, the answer is the person who secretly lives unjustly.

Why must we play life "to win"? In fact, that term doesn't even really apply here. There is no winning and losing. You still seem to be assuming that all humans MUST act selfishly. Anything less than maximizing your own goals (at the expense of others) is sub-optimal to you. But why must you make that assumption?

 

[Airgemini]

So. I ask all who apply: why be "good" when there's so many naive, forgiving suckers? Aside from laws that attempt to protect society (which are easily avoided), what's stopping you from living the perfectly lived "unjust" life?

Because not being "good" doesnt really get you anywhere in life. Being "good" helps you have a more successful life. Nothing is stopping me from living an "unjust" life, besides maybe my choice and decision not to. To me, I dont think I'll end up anywhere where I want to be if I dont live to my "good" potential. This is all IMO by the way.

I hope I understood the point of the thread right.

 

[Deleted member]

RDK, I think we understand each other.

Why must we play life "to win"? In fact, that term doesn't even really apply here. There is no winning and losing. You still seem to be assuming that all humans MUST act selfishly. Anything less than maximizing your own goals (at the expense of others) is sub-optimal to you. But why must you make that assumption?

You don't have to live to win. But when you realize that your limits and boundaries are simply social constructs, you can freely break them. If there is no God, I don't see how anything can be greater than material wealth.

This hypothetical is like the Matrix that way; once they realize that gravity is just a rule, they begin to bend it. Society gives us rules. But why obey rules if there's no punishment?

Airgemini, arrowhead, Sir Orion, and manhunter: I want you to read this, as you do not understand the thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_gyges

I would like to also explain myself a little. My theory is that without religion (re: fear of divine retribution or anything akin to that), society simply won't work the way we expect it to. I believe a vast majority of actions are decided with the thought that the divine is potentially watching.

 

[Mewter]

To my fellow DH veterans: be honest!

Wow. This is stupid.
Alright. This is a thread of ethics which will go nowhere, where you accuse people of acting completely selfishly.
You also say society works only on the basis of people trying to save their own skin? You say people act always selfishly. Where does this get us? Why would you ask this, and what is the point? I'm sure there are people out there who act unselfishly a vast majority of the time. Who ever said the complete and utter elimination of religion from the big picture would make life better? If someone needs a deity just to act fairly and justly, then their life is a lie.
This is probably my first and last post in this thread.

 

[RDK]

Whether or not people act selfishly isn't really up for debate. People are selfish; that's how life works.

Acting "unselfishly", whatever that means, is merely a means to an end when it comes to self-fulfillment. You give to charity or help the little old lady shovel her driveway because it pleases you to do so. If it didn't, you wouldn't do it.

 

[Deleted member]

This is probably my first and last post in this thread.

Good. You don't contribute anything anyway.

 

[SuperBowser]

You don't have to live to win. But when you realize that your limits and boundaries are simply social constructs, you can freely break them. If there is no God, I don't see how anything can be greater than material wealth.

...being happy? Material wealth is only one aspect of being happy. Personally, I wouldn't want to be friends with someone who actively improves their own life by ruining others'.

Having said that, there are situations where you can sometimes get away with ''bad'' things. The other day I bought some shoes in the post-Christmas sales. I changed my mind during the day and went back to return it. I ended up with an extra 20 pounds but didn't notice till I left the shop. I was too lazy to go back, but I felt bad about it so I ended up donating the money to charity. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't but then... this wasn't something I set out to acheive. I just didn't correct the problem when I noticed.

 

[arrowhead]

If there is no God, I don't see how anything can be greater than material wealth.

what about sex??

Airgemini, arrowhead, Sir Orion, and manhunter: I want you to read this, as you do not understand the thread:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_gyges

oh, well then my answer is just because i would feel really bad if a cheated someone. no, really.

 

[Jam Stunna]

I just had this conversation with my mother a few weeks ago. I came to the conclusion that religion does not create morality, it simply codifies it. Stealing was wrong in ancient Greek culture, right? That was before the existence of the Judeo-Christian religious faith. The Torah and the Bible are just another way of writing down the social and moral norms of the time (which is also why we don't follow everything the Torah and the Bible say today, because our social and moral norms have changed).

 

[Hive]

you can't believe all actions are completely selfish I don't think.. doesn't that eliminate any external forces?


I still believe the elimination of any religion or belief system that advocates empathy is unprecedented and ignorant....

happiness and social norms also can't establish the existence of all morality...they can't limit what actions can be good or bad because they are completely subjective.
happiness in a way ends up being a circular argument anyways, because you are saying that what you think is a "good" action is good as a result. this doesn't limit which actions can be good and furthermore can not let you say that another's action is anymore wrong as a result, which of course is useless because it pretty much allows any action that exists to be already good.
social norms is just an extension of this. if people as a whole defined what is good or bad it is still just as subjective, just on a larger scale. And can't address then if people disagree with the social norms (i.e. mlk appealing civil injustices in the south AGAINST the social norm of that era), or if commit crimes that aren't punished or outside of a socities influence. If you believe this is the only criteria for ethics than you must believe that all social norms today are legitimate as well... i.e. homosexuals shouldn't marry <.<... etc....
Many people will try to say than that an individual can still be good even if his views are against the societies as a whole (he can break certain agreed norms that he individually doesn't agree with and still be good to solve this) but this of course means that:
if the the individual has the capacity to ignore rules that he doesn't like, than how can you say society actually can limit anything? what stops someone from breaking any rules he doesn't like?
or you can try to say that only certain things can be challenged... which again links us back into you trying to limit certain actions which was the question in the first place...

even if you did believe in these even though they are easily flawed they still wouldn't be able to allow you to limit belief in god as well under their own basis... since these are not against social norms OR the personal happiness to most people.

also, there is no way that science can account for ethics either... and given that science is the study of what we know, I think this would prove that any sort of belief in ethics must be in some way apart from logic.
I'd like to see anyone here try to prove (scientifically) that the atoms that compose your centers for happiness have anymore meaning/precedent than other emotions and atoms... science can't differentiate between these...
you have to believe in something outside of this (illogical) to account for it...

I personally believe the best that we can do is to believe that the things that we need to be meaningful (i.e. existence, free will, identity.. for which I believe meaning could not exist without...) and apply these at a universal basis....
the idea is that we believe we are meaningful therefore we must also believe these things exist as well.
Apart from violence, bigotry etc.... I really don't think people should/can be able to dictate beliefs...

I don't think you could even if you tried lol

religions shouldn't be limited... nor should atheism.... the only things that should be limited are the desire to kill/hurt people/limit people's personal choices apart from violence

 

[Deleted member]

I just had this conversation with my mother a few weeks ago. I came to the conclusion that religion does not create morality, it simply codifies it. Stealing was wrong in ancient Greek culture, right? That was before the existence of the Judeo-Christian religious faith. The Torah and the Bible are just another way of writing down the social and moral norms of the time (which is also why we don't follow everything the Torah and the Bible say today, because our social and moral norms have changed).

Well, the Greeks believed in a plethora of Gods, so I don't really follow you. :/

Do you agree that fear of God heavily influences decisions?

Hive.. anyone wanna summarize his post? I can't read it.

 

[Hive]

Hive.. anyone wanna summarize HER post? I can't read it.

<- btw


I know its confusing but its basic philosophy of religion stuff... I'm sorry I can't really summarize it anymore... ; ;

idk... to paraphrase I guess... no one has the right to dictate beliefs apart from violence is really my point...
people should be tolerant of both religion and atheism.....
the real question we are asking at the heart of most ethics anyways is if someone violent or not? regardless if they believe in theism or atheism...

 

[SuperBowser]

Do you agree that fear of God heavily influences decisions?

I don't see why this is relevant? Just look at every atheist that doesn't commit crime. Religion isn't a prerequisite for acting ''good''.

 

[~ Gheb ~]

Well, the Greeks believed in a plethora of Gods, so I don't really follow you. :/

Are you earnestly comparing the gods of the ancient greeks with the gods of the modern world-religions? I can't even say how wrong it is but it is very wrong. There are so many differences which makes them completely incomparable.

...

To answer the main question: You completely ignore the fact that there actually are people, who steal and they will probably tell you that it's not wrong. Do you really think that people without homes to live in care whether they do what's right? They steal because they have to and to them it is indeed right - in it's own way. I mean it would a drastic situation to live in but if you look at the outrageous amounts of poverty in Africa and even within the US it's not uncommon for people to actually steal merely for the sake of surviving. Of course you'd never think of such a situation - you can sit in front of your computer and ask us why it's wrong, despite the fact that it's never a question of whether it's right or wrong in the first place. Nobody steals if he doesn't need to ... because he doesn't need to. What good will it do to go steal food from the supermarket if I can just buy it and don't risk to get jailed for it? I don't need to steal, therefore I don't do it.

Questions about what's "right" or "wrong" are always difficult though I admit, since these terms need to be defined and it's always possible that ethical concepts are based on religious ideas but that doesn't mean that it's necessarily a religious idea but it rather just happens that an ethical concept and religion share their ideas for other reasons.

 

[BFDD]

People who steal don't believe that all stealing is right. Just try stealing form them, I'm sure they will be very upset about it. They steal knowing it is wrong and do it anyways or believe that some kinds of stealing is ok. Same goes for murder and many other crimes.

People agree about a lot of what is right and wrong when it is done to them. The problem is they don't always care if they do it to someone else. This goes back to human selfishness. As RDK said all humans are selfish and always act in their own self interest. If people didn't act in self interest humans would have died out a long time ago. This may sound like a pessimistic outlook, but it doesn't mean that charity and doing nice things for people are any less admirable. You are still giving up time/physical materials, who cares if you are doing because it gives you that warm fuzzy feeling inside.

This is where religion comes in. Knowing that people act in there own self interest, people came up with the idea of heaven and hell. It is now in their best to do good things if they believe in that. A majority of religions including the three biggest have some form of punishment for bad people and reward for the good.

*In order to avoid necessary arguments: I am not claiming that this is the only purpose of religion I am only saying this is just one of the reasons for the belief of reward or punishment after death.*

It is entirely possible to be good without the threat of punishment. The problem is that many people need to be threatened to be good. More and more I see that. Some people can't understand why they should be good people unless they fear god's judgment.

 

[Deleted member]

I don't see why this is relevant? Just look at every atheist that doesn't commit crime. Religion isn't a prerequisite for acting ''good''.

...um. We've established countless times that true atheists are hard to come by. Most atheists you see around these parts will openly accept the existence of a God when solid proof arises. However, your example only backs my point. A majority of crimes aren't carried out by the individual because they fear repercussion, be it tangible or otherwise. I'm not only referring to religion, but also non-descript higher beings that would potentially be your final judge.

Are you earnestly comparing the gods of the ancient greeks with the gods of the modern world-religions? I can't even say how wrong it is but it is very wrong. There are so many differences which makes them completely incomparable.

Whatever buddy. You've just proven how little you know about Greek mythology. Their gods dished out wrath with style. What's funny is that I didn't even compare them, all I did was say that even the Greeks feared their Gods. Go home, lol.

It is entirely possible to be good without the threat of punishment. The problem is that many people need to be threatened to be good. More and more I see that. Some people can't understand why they should be good people unless they fear god's judgment.

We have a winner!

 

[SuperBowser]

A majority of crimes aren't carried out by the individual because they fear repercussion, be it tangible or otherwise.

Prove it. I'd say a majority of crimes are done out of desperation. I have friends who study law that would disagree quite strongly with you...

I'm not only referring to religion, but also non-descript higher beings that would potentially be your final judge.

...and most atheists don't believe in such a thing. I'm not sure if you could call yourself atheist if you did.

 

[marthanoob]

So. I ask all who apply: why be "good" when there's so many naive, forgiving suckers? Aside from laws that attempt to protect society (which are easily avoided), what's stopping you from living the perfectly lived "unjust" life?

To my fellow DH veterans: be honest!

You are saying if you had power, what would stop you from abusing it?

Personally, I probably would abuse it, but it depends.
Others might say they would not abuse it because a balance of power is what society requires to function.
And others might say they wouldn't because they fear the wrath of God.
Meh...as RDK said, to each his own.

 

[AltF4]

...um. We've established countless times that true atheists are hard to come by. Most atheists you see around these parts will openly accept the existence of a God when solid proof arises.

Are you insinuating that a "true atheist" has to refuse any evidence to the contrary? Ignoring evidence makes you ignorant, nothing more. Being atheist has nothing to do with being unwilling to change.

 

[Mewter]

Good. You don't contribute anything anyway.

Pointless post.
Besides, saying all actions are selfish is kind of nitpicking, don't you think? Of course, you could say everything is selfish, from helping an old couple out of a restaurant to volunteering for the community. True, the selfishness has helped us survive, so far. Personally, I think some forms of selfishness are better than others.
Also, why would someone need a god to act in a good way? It's just wrong.

a) Should not believe in Karma or any sort of Divine Retribution - Heaven and Hell are not concepts that should concern you. Because of this, you are then:
b) Free to exploit others. Since you aren't religious, you obviously don't need to worry about any repercussions affecting you in the afterlife.
c) You should befriend the religious, prey upon the gullible, and exploit the foolish. Ironically, it is the religious who are obliged to forgive. Steal the collection box in church one Sunday. If caught, plead desperate and receive forgiveness. Rinse and repeat. [nb]: When you are on your death bed, feel free to repent. If the parishioners of a church can forgive, then their God can too. It's the Atheist's Wager!

This quote, taken from the first post, states that atheists have no morals, and are free to do whatever they want and be the most profitable. Crime depends on the personality of the person. Atheists have morals, as do religious people. To some people (no particular group in particular), doing good pleases them more than doing bad, and to others, it's the other way around. Obviously, some people wouldn't want to do something just because they believe it is wrong: even if they can't be caught. Anyone can do what you described above.

Posted By Altf4warrior
Are you insinuating that a "true atheist" has to refuse any evidence to the contrary?

Yes, he is.

 

[Deleted member]

Are you insinuating that a "true atheist" has to refuse any evidence to the contrary? Ignoring evidence makes you ignorant, nothing more. Being atheist has nothing to do with being unwilling to change.

Not at all. I'm just saying you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would blindly and stubbornly believe there's no God (even if evidence came about), rather than someone with simply a lack of belief. I think we understand each other. This isn't me being agnosticy, Dawkins says this in God Delusion. I'm at work right now (book store), I'll quote him if you want

Pointless post.

It wasn't pointless at all. If some random noob calls me out without reading the thread, you can expect me to want you to leave.

Besides, saying all actions are selfish is kind of nitpicking, don't you think? Of course, you could say everything is selfish, from helping an old couple out of a restaurant to volunteering for the community. True, the selfishness has helped us survive, so far. Personally, I think some forms of selfishness are better than others.
Also, why would someone need a god to act in a good way? It's just wrong.

What's wrong about it? And how is classifying every action as selfish nitpicking? Your diction is spectacular.

This quote, taken from the first post...

Are you writing an essay or something?

...states that atheists have no morals, and are free to do whatever they want and be the most profitable. Crime depends on the personality of the person. Atheists have morals, as do religious people. To some people (no particular group in particular), doing good pleases them more than doing bad, and to others, it's the other way around. Obviously, some people wouldn't want to do something just because they believe it is wrong: even if they can't be caught. Anyone can do what you described above.

Like I said before, you have nothing to contribute. You come into this thread blindly and then you strawman me. Show me where I STATED atheists have no morales. I thought you said you were done here.

Yes, he is.

...

 

[RDK]

Not at all. I'm just saying you'd be hard pressed to find someone who would blindly and stubbornly believe there's no God (even if evidence came about), rather than someone with simply a lack of belief. I think we understand each other. This isn't me being agnosticy, Dawkins says this in God Delusion. I'm at work right now (book store), I'll quote him if you want

I think a lack of belief would indicate that you haven't had the idea proposed to you, much like I have a lack of belief about a magical council of white rabbits that determines the fate of every man on earth. I have a lack of belief because I've never been introduced to the idea (until just now, when I thought it up).

I can, however, believe with reasonable certainty that the Christian God does not exist, as well as any other god thought up by man, simply because of the lack of evidence. That's not ignorant at all.

Oh and BTW, Richard Dawkins is just as much a man as anyone else; atheists don't worship Charles Darwin or any other figurehead like the fundies do. He can be wrong.

 

[Deleted member]

Richard Dawkins is a robot. I thought everyone knew that.

http://www.theatheistconservative.com/pages/god-delusion-review

"Dawkins sets up a spectrum of belief in the probabilities for God’s existence, ranging believers from‘1. Strong theist. 100% probability of God, through 4.Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic, to 6. Very low probability, but short of zero, de facto atheists to 7. Strong atheist. “I know there is no God…’’ Dawkins puts himself at number 6, a de facto atheist, tending to 7. Why not squarely in 7? Because, he iterates, “reason alone could not propel one to total conviction that anything definitely does not exist”."

 

[RDK]

Richard Dawkins is a robot. I thought everyone knew that.

I think he prefers cyborg; kind of how like black people prefer African Americans and ******* prefer little people.

He has feelings too, dammit.

 

[aeghrur]

Your points apply under the ideal that you won't get caught when doing unjust deeds.
The thing is, there's always a risk:reward factor. Because of the law, we will still be ethical without religion because most of us prefer not to risk being caught.
If you say we won't get caught, then we'll all be monsters and unethical... well... your saying we'll be unjust in a religion-less anarchy(err, wrong use of word maybe). =/

 

[Overload]

So. I ask all who apply: why be "good" when there's so many naive, forgiving suckers? Aside from laws that attempt to protect society (which are easily avoided), what's stopping you from living the perfectly lived "unjust" life?

I'm sure most people don't live unjust lives because of the morals they learned growing up and not for religious reasons.

 

[BFDD]

I'm sure most people don't live unjust lives because of the morals they learned growing up and not for religious reasons.

Unfortunately, I believe this is not true. I would like to believe it, but as I talk to more religious people I can see that they simply can not comprehend being a good person if there was no reward or punishment after death.

If you look at some of the posts in the debate hall there are several occasions where people claim atheists have no logical reason for being good people.

This makes it very difficult to decide if removing religion would be a good or bad thing. It still serves to keep some people good. What really needs to happen is for there to be doubt in religion. If people weren't so sure of their belief in god they would be a lot more open minded. It would reduce the number of religious fanatics and people would be more likely to listen to evidence and reason.

 

[LordoftheMorning]

I agree with the original post completely! There is no real reason for an Atheist to be a good person at all! Which is why it's so contradicting when they talk about having ethics. Really, if you have the ethics, why not seal the deal and come to church? I've always thought that "moral" ought to clash with "atheist", and that's exactly why I'm Christian. By becoming a leech, you encourage others to do the same (kinda like communism). Eventually, no one has the will to be a non-leech anymore, so I guess a world without religion leads to total anarchy, death, and chaos where crime and starvation run rampant. And then when you die, nothing happens. Golly that would suck.

 

[Eor]

Did you bother to read the thread at all? I assume no, since you have shown to hate reading