beebleblah

[Derek]

If you are agnostic or atheist, what reason do you have for being good to other human beings? Do you give no credit to your (very likely) religious heritage for gradually developing these morals over a long period of time and teaching them to you? Can an atheist worldview provide motivation for discovering more truth (about morality, in particular, since it cannot be studied as easily as scientists study atoms, for example)? If so, why?

[pianistimo]

it is 'unintellectual' to be excited about being rewarded for good behavior.  thus, it is done out of no motive at all excepting to be a pillar in the community (of which i have seen many many atheists and agnostics do).  the only problem is - in who's eyes are we great?  job was a man after God's heart - and yet he was tested to see if he was being generous because of all his blessings or if he could be generous in poverty.  God raised him back to blessings because he did not forsake God (as his wife suggested) when things went sour.

i think God holds hope when nothing else does.  (sorry to respond so soon) 

the story of job also brings out humility.  a lot of great leaders have this.  they have experienced the ups and downs enough to know that if it's not God's law - it's murphy's law.  therefore - they learn to be nice.  i think.  it works.  it's like the law of gravity.  be nice to others and they'll be nice back.  community.  frankly, a lot of agnostics could be christians in disguise if they wanted to.  and same with athiests.  they may 'say' that they don't believ e- but in their works they might be judged better than some christians.  so - our hope is really in God's mercy and not judgement.

*perhaps this is judgemental on my part - but i divide groups into christian and non-christian by how much they swear.  but, on occasion i have sworn when things weren't going too well.  so, if you sin once or a thousand times - it's no different.  you're still a sinner.  now, i'm not saying to just keep swearing - but - it's a bit of a relief when God says that He came to save sinners - and then one of the disciples (paul) said that he was chief among them.  it was the ability to recognize sin that distinguished him from the others he used to hang out with.

[counterpoint]

I would like to make only a very little change/addition in the initial question:

What reason do you have for not being good to others?

[ramseytheii]

If you are agnostic or atheist, what reason do you have for being good to other human beings? Do you give no credit to your (very likely) religious heritage for gradually developing these morals over a long period of time and teaching them to you? Can an atheist worldview provide motivation for discovering more truth (about morality, in particular, since it cannot be studied as easily as scientists study atoms, for example)? If so, why?

I have zero religious heritage, and rather than thinking religion has a monopoly on being good citizens, I think it is the other way around.  Religion's morality only works by offering rewards for good behavior, while the atheist needs no such reward, or "treasures stored in heaven." 

If I found a wallet stuffed with cash, and a drivers license, I would return it, because it doesn't belong to me, I know what it feels like to lose a wad of cash, and I lose nothing by doing so.  Also, I keep my integrity by not taking money which I didn't earn.  No religious dictum ever even enters the equation.

But the religious tract is, return the wallet, because God will be happy and you will be rewarded.  If you don't, God will be displeased and you will be punished.  This is morality for a child, not a grown person who doesn't need rewards or punishments to do the right thing.

I never understood what believing in God has anything to do with being good.  Believing in God is what causes people to commit the most heinous crimes, and inspires them to police other people's lives.  These aren't the fanatics, these are the people who actually have the courage to follow what the Holy Books tell them, rather than those that lack the courage either to obey God's will, or denounce it as wrong.

The only motivation for learning more is the senses.  We sense, and we desire to learn more.  God never enters the equation; thus any religious person, non-religious person, or anyone in between is motivated to learn and experience.

Walter Ramsey


PS You may now congratulate yourself for receiving replies to your post.

[Derek]

I have zero religious heritage

Really? Do you mean direct, parental heritage or for tens of generations? This isn't important to our discussion though so don't bother answering that if you don't want to.

 I know what it feels like to lose a wad of cash, and I lose nothing by doing so.  Also, I keep my integrity by not taking money which I didn't earn. 

What motivates you to keep your integrity?

But the religious tract is, return the wallet, because God will be happy and you will be rewarded.  If you don't, God will be displeased and you will be punished. 

To me, this is just the basics. As one becomes more intellectually and emotionally involved with a religion, a deeper motivation becomes a reality in one's heart: Loving God.

I never understood what believing in God has anything to do with being good. 

Okay, I think I can let you get away with that. But you must believe in something intangible, such as "goodness" or "beauty" or "love" etc? In other words, you are not a nihilist?  To me, "God" is just a way of characterizing these things in a way that is more inspiring to the human heart, and in so doing, is perhaps more "real" than just thinking about those intangibles as they are. Perhaps it isn't to you...and perhaps it doesn't need to be to anyone.

The only motivation for learning more is the senses.  We sense, and we desire to learn more.  God never enters the equation; thus any religious person, non-religious person, or anyone in between is motivated to learn and experience.

You mentioned earlier that God has motivated people to kill. So have the senses. Serial killers/rapists sense their prey with their sight, etc. Their senses tell them that it would be appealing to kill/rape etc.


Now an addition: Say that religion were wiped from the face of the earth. Do you think the amount of good that people are currently doing for one another would increase/decrease in proportion to the bad, or stay the same?  What if we started from a "clean slate" i.e. no taught morality to our children?  Where did we learn these things, anyway?

[jakev2.0]

If you are agnostic or atheist, what reason do you have for being good to other human beings? Do you give no credit to your (very likely) religious heritage for gradually developing these morals over a long period of time and teaching them to you? Can an atheist worldview provide motivation for discovering more truth (about morality, in particular, since it cannot be studied as easily as scientists study atoms, for example)? If so, why?

Empathy.

[opus10no2]

For them to be good back.

It hasn't got much to do with religous heritage, it's the *only* way a society can really work.

I think it's an innate quality, but has to be fostered in order to come out during an upbringing.

It has become an innate quality because humans get nowhere alone.

[ramseytheii]

Thanks for your interesting reply!

Really? Do you mean direct, parental heritage or for tens of generations? This isn't important to our discussion though so don't bother answering that if you don't want to.

Who can say?  But it has no direct influence on me, because both my parents and both sets of grandparents were atheists.  Religion is not heridtary unless it claims to be: Judaism is inherited from the mother, but Christianity is not.  I know that's not quite what you mean, but just I think it is a mistake commonly made.

What motivates you to keep your integrity?

Because I have values which I strive to keep; if I thought it right that I could keep any wallet I found, then I must think it right that my wallet, if lost, is never returned.  I find it right to return objects which don't belong to me, if I know their rightful owner: it doesn't guarantee the same will happen to me, but I keep my integrity, and don't compromise myself in recourse to theft.  The equation of after-death punishment or reward has nothing to do with it.

Okay, I think I can let you get away with that. But you must believe in something intangible, such as "goodness" or "beauty" or "love" etc? In other words, you are not a nihilist?  To me, "God" is just a way of characterizing these things in a way that is more inspiring to the human heart, and in so doing, is perhaps more "real" than just thinking about those intangibles as they are. Perhaps it isn't to you...and perhaps it doesn't need to be to anyone.

Well there is certainly nothing wrong with that, if that is how you approach things.  But I think my values can be shown to be "good" rationally.  Good is what continues my survival as a human being.  You may say, but if you are starving, it becomes good to keep the wallet.  But I am rather strict about these things, and I believe it is not good to take what is not yours, no matter what your material circumstances.  Is it also right if you are starving, to pickpocket?

You mentioned earlier that God has motivated people to kill. So have the senses. Serial killers/rapists sense their prey with their sight, etc. Their senses tell them that it would be appealing to kill/rape etc.

That seems non sequitur, but there is no doubt you are talking about perverse people.  Give yourself credit - do you really need a God to tell you that murder and rape is wrong?

Now an addition: Say that religion were wiped from the face of the earth. Do you think the amount of good that people are currently doing for one another would increase/decrease in proportion to the bad, or stay the same?  What if we started from a "clean slate" i.e. no taught morality to our children?  Where did we learn these things, anyway?

I love the idea that good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but to get good people to do bad things, you need religion.  If you wiped religion from the face of the earth, or if it had never existed, I would tend to think that the balance between good and bad would be even, rather than now, with the balances tipped in favor of the evil, because of that clause.  Not only are bad people doing bad things, but potentially good people are doing bad things in the name of religion.  If there was no such thing, then people would do what they would do.

Walter Ramsey

[Derek]

That seems non sequitur, but there is no doubt you are talking about perverse people.  Give yourself credit - do you really need a God to tell you that murder and rape is wrong?

I do need some sort of absolute morality to believe it is wrong, at the very least. But thinking of that absolute truth as a God that has a mind something like my own but unfathomably vaster seems to have an incredibly positive effect on me. I don't think it is even valuable for us to ask the question: "Is God a being, or is he simply just truth, beauty and love?"  What does that even mean? I don't think it's an either or. It is obvious that whatever causes there to be absolutes in the universe, it is far more mysterious and powerful than we are. Might as well think of it as a mind. I call it God. And Christianity, for me, lends richness to this idea.

with the balances tipped in favor of the evil

so you're a glass is half empty kind of guy huh?

[gilad]

Life is all about the people we share it with. We are one entity really.

[ted]

Well, I do not, in fact,  consider that I am good to others in any remarkable fashion. Indeed, some of my private thoughts, in particular, are often most uncharitable. I think the truthful answer for me is that I am good to others to the extent I was trained to it by my upbringing and by the example of my parents. My parents were both very kind individuals and, witnessing the effects of their many acts of kindness through the years of my childhood, I came into the habit of thinking that kindness was a pretty good idea. Had I been brought up by a pair of rogues, who knows what I would have turned out like. Perhaps this is not giving me sufficient credit for intelligence, and I know that there are always exceptions, but the influence of one's home and upbringing is a mighty powerful force. 

Neither of my parents had anything to do with religion and, of their parents, only my paternal grandmother's family followed a religion. However, the societal values prevalent a century ago were probably quite heavily influenced by religion, for good or ill I am not sure. It gets very complicated. I think character is probably a convoluted mixture of genetics, conditioning and personal experience, with the upbringing and the home being of paramount importance.   

Of course, I could answer that I personally detest pain and suffering in general, certainly not restricted to the human domain though, and in consequence I see merit in directing events, within my limited capacity, toward the overall reduction of these conditions. That is the simple answer, and I consider it a very worthy one. However, something tells me that this principle is to a large extent itself the result of my upbringing, rather than something acquired through philosophy, either rational or mystical.

[counterpoint]

Say that religion were wiped from the face of the earth. Do you think the amount of good that people are currently doing for one another would increase/decrease in proportion to the bad, or stay the same?  What if we started from a "clean slate" i.e. no taught morality to our children?  Where did we learn these things, anyway?

All evil comes from the thinking "I am better than you"

Religion is no cure for this fatal thinking.

I don't know, if the general social behaviour would be better without any sort of religion - but it surely would not be worse.

[Derek]

All evil comes from the thinking "I am better than you"

Religion is no cure for this fatal thinking.

I don't know, if the general social behaviour would be better without any sort of religion - but it surely would not be worse.

This is a very interesting implicit question you have raised. On the one hand, I definitely agree with you: people are going to do bad things, no matter what they say they believe in. On the other hand, I think that for a huge number of people, simply teaching them to be good might not be sufficient. I could be wrong though. Maybe as Ted mentioned, a good upbringing is all that is required. I didn't have religion forced down my throat. I wasn't even taken to church. both my parents were agnostic, and for many years before I was born, atheist. They had outright contempt for religion. I'm not sure what all eventually led my father to reading all kinds of Christian apologetics such as C.S. Lewis, but in addition to providing me with a good example he gave me these books to read (as well as reading them to me when I was very little) and talked to me about them. This eventually led to me considering myself a Christian, though usually when I talk about it with other Christians they often declare that I can't call myself a Christian. Maybe I shouldn't call myself a Christian...perhaps it doesn't even matter. Perhaps God himself doesn't even care. How could I know?

[pianowelsh]

Christian response is God has loved me - giving everything for me. We are to love others in the light of that..in fact we cant help it.

[pianistimo]

God's Holy Spirit IS a cure for thinking 'i'm better than you!'  He came to be a servant and told others to put down their thoughts of 'lording it over' people - and to serve them instead.  we cannot see each of our personal lives on a forum - but God sees each one of us.  what we do personally is important to God and some of it might be hidden from others and only visible to God.  so we cannot judge each other. 

[prometheus]

What an absurd question. There is no one on this planet that is moral because of religion. But that means it's good you asked.


Let me just ask these question; were the crusaders real Christians? Were the people that flew the planes into the WTC and the pentagon real Muslims? What about Hindu's that attack Muslims in Kashmir?

What about a person like Paul Hill?

Are these people religious or not? And if they aren't, then why not? Because that's the important question.




Also, let's turn the question upside down. Why do you believe atheists are able to have morality? What do you think motivates atheists to first off decide that is wrong and what is right and then do what is right? Why do they do this?



After you have do so I will answer your question and talk about what Socrates and Plato had to say about this.

[Derek]

*edit* I will rewrite this later.

[ted]

Lewis, whether one agrees with him or not, was a very remarkable human being, gifted with an extraordinary ability to touch the sentiments of the common man with his humanity and imagination. He wasn't the most brilliant logical thinker, philosopher or  debater; some would say he was a woolly thinker. However, being a rather woolly thinker myself, I have a lot of time for him. Another Christian writer in the field of morality I have always admired was William Barclay. His "Plain Man's Guide to Ethics" I found myself unable to criticise, which was unusual for me back then, and it still sits on my bookshelf and gets a read every so often. I suppose it has to be said that Barclay seems to be regarded as an embarrassing anachronism by most Christian denominations at the moment. As I too am proudly a weed in the garden in this respect, I am, perversely, all the more attracted to his thoughts.

[amelialw]

well,if you want others to be nice to you, be nice to them

I guess I do it for that reason and I that's just my nature except when someone makes me really mad

[goldentone]

Love is its own reward.
 

[thalbergmad]

well,if you want others to be nice to you, be nice to them

Quoting from a lady at the Baptist Church:

"It is nice to be important, but it is more important to be nice"

[pianistimo]

coming from you, i shall assume the worst.  $100. donation to send me to the moon.  hmph. ps is the girlfriend still around?

[thalbergmad]

She is round not around.

[pianistimo]

you mean she is somewhere's around but not 'round at this moment.  or she's been 'round and isn't coming back?  what happened to her?  were you not nice?  did you say something about her weight?  she saw the post about the park?  learning experience.  never EVER speak to a woman about her weight.  always let her determine this herself - and never EVER agree with her.  say something like, 'you look fine just the way you are.'  then, she will lose the pounds because she won't get hungry from nerves and depression. 

[pianowolfi]

If you are agnostic or atheist, what reason do you have for being good to other human beings? Do you give no credit to your (very likely) religious heritage for gradually developing these morals over a long period of time and teaching them to you? Can an atheist worldview provide motivation for discovering more truth (about morality, in particular, since it cannot be studied as easily as scientists study atoms, for example)? If so, why?

Okay I thought quite a while about this. (btw I don't get why you changed your topic title). I have experienced to be in pain, very often, very intensely, no words can describe that, actually... What does pain do to you? Be it physical pain or psychic pain.... There is something like a one-to-one connection with a being that experiences pain. I just wish, very much, that nobody or no being experiences strong pain in any way. I just wish that, as long as I am a conscious and capable being, I hope I can contribute a tiny tiny bit to help or assist someone or some being to be happy or to be not in pain. Because I know how it feels to be in pain. Like we all do, I guess. So "atheists" and "believers" is an actually very secondary question, to me , after all. It is so simple. It is like calculating 2+2. It is one-to-one. "You help me so I try to help you" or " I don't know where you are coming from, I don't know why you can't help me, but I accept you exactly how you are" or " You have done so much to help other persons or beings" Or " what is different between your pain and my pain?" Or ...whatever. I think it's a really "instinctive" human "behaviour" and it is quite important and worth to ponder.
 

[prometheus]

I think that he realized that he should not have made a distinction because it is quite clear that what makes theists behave 'good' is just as big a mystery.

[Derek]

I never said any of this wasn't a mystery. It is all a huge mystery. It is even a mystery whether atheists, when they do good and compassionate things for their fellow man, are actually connecting with God whether they wish to see it that way or not. It is all a mystery.