If God doesn't exist, is there any point in being a good person?

[Spock]

OK, that’s fine: so what is the argument that I shouldn’t harm another person if it is in my best interest to do so?

If you are convinced that it is in your best inerest to do so, by all means, go ahead and do it. I presume that you mean that you can get away with it, you do not suffer from conscience and the result of that harm warrants the “excitement” of maybe getting caught.

I would agree with this; I don’t think there is any argument beyond ones personal inclination by which to morally judge another person’s behavior. Morality is whatever we believe it to be.

As a personal assessment, yes. We call another person’s behavior “moral”, if we like it, and call it “immoral” if we do not like it. Generally the word moral describes the prevailing set of written and unwritten rules which pertain to “good behavior”. But everyone can disagree with them. If that disagreement is manifested in actions, then the person will have to carry the consequences. If the particular norm is codified in laws, and the person is “caught”, the repercussions will be legal. If the act is legal, but against the customs, and the person is caught, he will have to face some kind of social stigma.

 

[Nate13]

I like to think about it like economists do in terms of opportunity cost. For someone who believes in heaven, there is nothing that outweighs the opportunity cost of that and someone who really believes in heaven will structurally base their life around that idea. How we all chose to do that is based in what religion we associate ourselves with. An atheist doesn’t believe in heaven and therefore has much less direction coming out of the gate. Now the reason heaven is the ultimate opportunity for Christians is because it offers happiness for eternity. Thus the real pursuit is happiness, which I believe most sane people would put down as their ultimate goal in life if they really thought about it.

So the answer to your question is yes, an atheist will be “good” if they believe it will further their happiness in life. It just so happens that a lot of atheist are smart enough to see that following a lot of Christian ideals helps lead to some happiness here on Earth. This leaves the question, to those that accuse of us of following the same superstition that ignorant man has followed for thousands of years, what do they think of the fact that the principles they live their lives by were founded thousands of years ago, by people who couldn’t fully understand the positive implications of doing so as we can today?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

If the particular norm is codified in laws, and the person is “caught”, the repercussions will be legal. If the act is legal, but against the customs, and the person is caught, he will have to face some kind of social stigma.

This is some what of an odd parallel to the wallet situation with an unexpected out come.

I received a laptop from a flight attendant and was asked to wipe the hard drive and reinstall an OS; he said he had a virus. He also replied “No” when I asked if he needed his files backed up. I decided to back them up as a courtesy to burn to disc any way.

Skipping over a lot of details I discovered the laptop wasn’t his. I confronted him on it and got some story about how he wanted to return it but didn’t know how to find the owner. So I found the owner’s phone numbers, the phone numbers of his coworkers, and his schedule and produced it. The flight attendants response was that I better not get righteous on him. So I called the owner, verified the laptop was his (he told me of loosing a laptop on a plane from the same Airline that employed the flight attendant) and shipped it off to the owner. When the flight attendant found out he was furious. He made threats to do something to me. So I invited him to sit down and discuss it with me, the person that lost the laptop (whose employer already said they were prepared to prosecute the person that gave me the laptop if he gave me problems) and the employer of the flight attendant (which would have resulted in termination once they verified the events). The flight attendant decline to take things further and let the issue go.

This is when things took an unexpected turn. I told my coworkers about the situation and they criticized me for it. They declared the right things were to either do nothing and return the laptop or proceed with fulfilling the request but separate myself from any responsibility in the matter. I was told that I was “wrong” for what I did. I can’t remember if I challenged them on this or not. I just would not have expected to have been criticized for doing the right thing.

 

[Spock]

My idea was that people would try to deprive others from using the parking spaces by conspiring to stay at a spot by having someone pay for them. I was drawing the distinction between someone coming along and seeing someone’s meter about to expire and, in good faith, helping them out versus people intentionally conspiring.

I see. Very farfetched, I think. People usually do not enjoy paying for parking, and I cannot imagine anyone staying longer in those downtown areas than absolutely necessary. The most probable scenario is something like this: you need to go to some office on some business. You need to wait. You had to draw a number to indicate when your turn comes. You had to put some money into the meter. It looks like that the meter will expire before you are done, and thus ask someone to put a few dimes into the meter for you. Where is the “crime” in that?

Oh yes, I’ve heard of that. It is very popular. I do not think it is very meaningful or correct. Keep in mind I said America, meaning the nation and not the state, which would be the United States government.

Not a valid distinction. “America” is just a vernacular, referring to the US. And the Treaty is very explicit.

America was very much founded on Christian principles.

Come on. Starting with selling poisoned food to the natives? And buying Manhattan for 24 dollars?

Many of the states were very explicit in this. Many of the states had in their constitutions rule restricting government to those who believed in Christianity but not just that specifically Protestant Christianity. States like Massachusetts used public money to instruct people in the Gospel and included the clause with its purpose in their constitution. I believe all the states had state churches.

No doubt. In South Carolina only a few years ago was the constitution amended to allow non-belivers to hold public office. Though it is true that the intolerance against any dissent, which is permeating the Bible (starting with the first commandment) is reflected in some of the local laws. Personally I would not be proud of such “Christian heritage”.

So in early America Christianity was tied to the state and the state to the church. There was no separation of church and state *except *at the federal level. It is a common error, made by most folks, to ignore the fact that the US is supposed to be a confederation and that the order was overturned by the War Between the States which determined that the federal government was a blood in, blood out gang.

In short the US states were anything but secular. They were not just Christian in principle but had state churches which means taxes were used to support the church and this after the founding of the US government.

No, the US was secular. The Founding Fathers were very much aware of the dangers of mixing politics into religion - no wonder, since they were fleeing religious persecution. The US is founded on the Constitution, which does not contain any reference to Christianity.

 

[Spock]

This is some what of an odd parallel to the wallet situation with an unexpected out come.

I received a laptop from a flight attendant and was asked to wipe the hard drive and reinstall an OS; he said he had a virus. He also replied “No” when I asked if he needed his files backed up. I decided to back them up as a courtesy to burn to disc any way.

Skipping over a lot of details I discovered the laptop wasn’t his. I confronted him on it and got some story about how he wanted to return it but didn’t know how to find the owner. So I found the owner’s phone numbers, the phone numbers of his coworkers, and his schedule and produced it. The flight attendants response was that I better not get righteous on him. So I called the owner, verified the laptop was his (he told me of loosing a laptop on a plane from the same Airline that employed the flight attendant) and shipped it off to the owner. When the flight attendant found out he was furious. He made threats to do something to me. So I invited him to sit down and discuss it with me, the person that lost the laptop (whose employer already said they were prepared to prosecute the person that gave me the laptop if he gave me problems) and the employer of the flight attendant (which would have resulted in termination once they verified the events). The flight attendant decline to take things further and let the issue go.

This is when things took an unexpected turn. I told my coworkers about the situation and they criticized me for it. They declared the right things were to either do nothing and return the laptop or proceed with fulfilling the request but separate myself from any responsibility in the matter. I was told that I was “wrong” for what I did. I can’t remember if I challenged them on this or not. I just would not have expected to have been criticized for doing the right thing.

Very interesting story! Thanks for sharing. Of course I agree with you in all your actions. Needless to say, the other guy was an idiot. All he had to do is issue the “format C:” command (good old DOS), and then he would have been in the clear. I only wish that stupidity would be painful. I would gladly suffer the inconvenience of wearing earplugs when going out to some public place. It would be a small price to pay to see all the idiots screaming from their own stupidity.

 

[Spock]

Well then, Spock, it seems as if we are merely disagreeing about semantics then.

You do have “guidelines”/principles/morals/rules that assist you in making decisions regarding good/evil.

That’s what Believers have also.

Our “guidelines” are simply informed by the Divine Law.

We still have a minor thing to clarify. My guidelines are partly “suggestions” and partly “codified laws”. Your “divine law” is commanded - backed by the irresistible force of God (if you believe in God). To follow the commandments is just about as “moral” as obeying a mafioso, who holds a gun to the head of your loved ones, and says: “obey me, or else…”. Maybe you see this as mere semantics. I think it is a tad more serious than that.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

To follow the commandments is just about as “moral” as obeying a mafioso, who holds a gun to the head of your loved ones, and says: “obey me, or else…”.

Well just remember, in that situation you have free will to decide if you will choose the path that leads to the trigger being pulled or not. And whether you think I am being sarcastic or not, you’re right!

 

[Spock]

Well just remember, in that situation you have free will to decide if you will choose the path that leads to the trigger being pulled or not. And whether you think I am being sarcastic or not, you’re right!

Exactly… just like that woman who is about to be gang-raped… she is still “free” to lay back and enjoy it.

You know, I simply cannot understand these people. The first requirement of any meaningful “free will” is the ability to carry out what you wish to do. Maybe it is not a nice thing to say, but I really wish that they would be forced to learn from their own experience. Maybe they would learn then… actually, I am certain that they would learn.

 

[fhansen]

We still have a minor thing to clarify. My guidelines are partly “suggestions” and partly “codified laws”. Your “divine law” is commanded - backed by the irresistible force of God (if you believe in God). To follow the commandments is just about as “moral” as obeying a mafioso, who holds a gun to the head of your loved ones, and says: “obey me, or else…”. Maybe you see this as mere semantics. I think it is a tad more serious than that.

The question still involves whether or not anything is objectively right or objectively wrong-in an absolute sense. The notion of divine commands is merely reflective of the belief that such morality does indeed exist. You’re own take on morality seems to be much less decisive, but nonetheless based on some criteria or another.

The idea behind the commandments is that no one would ever need to even * know* of them if everyone followed the same laws instilled in our consciences. IOW, no one would be pulling triggers on guns pointed at other human beings to begin with, no one would steal, no one would lie, no one would commit adultery, etc.

 

[Spock]

The question still involves whether or not anything is objectively right or objectively wrong-in an absolute sense. The notion of divine commands is merely reflective of the belief that such morality does indeed exist. You’re own take on morality seems to be much less decisive, but nonetheless based on some criteria or another.

The idea behind the commandments is that no one would ever need to even * know* of them if everyone followed the same laws instilled in our consciences. IOW, no one would be pulling triggers on guns pointed at other human beings to begin with, no one would steal, no one would lie, no one would commit adultery, etc.

Unfortunately there is no such “law” instilled in our consciences. To say that there is one, but many people choose to disregard it, is simply a cop-out. There is no “natural law” instilled in all of us. It would be nice if there were one.

 

[exnihilo]

This is when things took an unexpected turn. I told my coworkers about the situation and they criticized me for it. They declared the right things were to either do nothing and return the laptop or proceed with fulfilling the request but separate myself from any responsibility in the matter. I was told that I was “wrong” for what I did. I can’t remember if I challenged them on this or not. I just would not have expected to have been criticized for doing the right thing.

I’d watch out for your coworkers!

Not a valid distinction. “America” is just a vernacular, referring to the US. And the Treaty is very explicit.

The Treaty refers to the United States federal government. I can not refer to the states since they very much, at that time, had state churches, religious tests and more. That is unless the treaty is misstating facts.

Come on. Starting with selling poisoned food to the natives? And buying Manhattan for 24 dollars?

You seem to be mistaking Christian principles for moral perfection. I’m not aware of anyone who claims Christian principles cause moral perfection. Of course if you have no principles it is much easier to hit the mark.

No doubt. In South Carolina only a few years ago was the constitution amended to allow non-belivers to hold public office. Though it is true that the intolerance against any dissent, which is permeating the Bible (starting with the first commandment) is reflected in some of the local laws. Personally I would not be proud of such “Christian heritage”.

I’m not sure why I’d be proud of modern America and its terrible wars and abortion.

The amazing thing is that people of all religions were able to come to America and live freely. You wont find any greater religious freedom anywhere in the world than in Christian America. If you doubt it go proselytize some Muslims in Saudi Arabia or join a Christian church in China.

No, the US was secular. The Founding Fathers were very much aware of the dangers of mixing politics into religion - no wonder, since they were fleeing religious persecution. The US is founded on the Constitution, which does not contain any reference to Christianity.

You seem to have ignored that I was addressing the states and pointing out that they had official state churches etc. Are you denying the evidence or are you simply saying that the states dont and never did exist? The ‘Founding Fathers’ founded the current US federal government. But everything that defines a people is not found in their government. And besides we have the states and they tell a different story.

 

[fhansen]

Unfortunately there is no such “law” instilled in our consciences. To say that there is one, but many people choose to disregard it, is simply a cop-out. There is no “natural law” instilled in all of us. It would be nice if there were one.

There is no such law if we’re satisfied that evil doesn’t really exist, that it’s natural for man to lie, cheat, steal, torture, rape, kill, etc- to commit acts consciously designed to inflict the most harm and shame on another human being. If there is no natural law then there’s no such thing as moral responsibility, no reason for moral outrage or righteous indignation aimed at some perceived injustice. It’s all relative.

But I don’t believe that. We have no control over where and when we’re born, what gender we’ll be, what we’ll look like, how we’ll metabolize food or respire and move gases throughout our bodies, or whether or not we’ll die. The one little place we have control -where we have no limitations, only because there’s nothing stopping us-is in the realm of morality-and I’d suggest that we often blow it big time in that area, sometimes with devastating results.

So I’d agree with what you seem to imply-if there is no god, there is no morality, other than the one we make up.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t understand how my general guidelines do not permit “heroic virtue.” Which part of them prohibit it?

Nothing in your “general guidelines” prohibits or endorses heroic virtue.

That’s just the point. Heroic virtue is not even a consideration.

 

[PRmerger]

This is different from saying ‘I personally have not found this type of heroic virtue in atheistic circles’. You said that this type of heroic virtue is not found. Yet you are not God. You don’t know what happens in the world. You have no way to prove or disprove your statement. You shouldn’t make statements that you can’t support. That is all I wanted to point out.

I can say: there are no flying pink pigs who speak Tagalog.

Now, if you disagree with me, it’s up to you to prove your assertion.

And, let’s say I’m on a forum where I ask objectors, “Please provide an example of a flying pink pig who speaks Tagalog” and, time after time, no one provides an example, well, then I am assured that my assertion is unfalsifiable.

 

[PRmerger]

We still have a minor thing to clarify. My guidelines are partly “suggestions” and partly “codified laws”. Your “divine law” is commanded - backed by the irresistible force of God (if you believe in God).

Perhaps you misunderstand Christianity, Spock?

God’s laws are, indeed “resistible” .(See Genesis/Adam/Eve.)

To follow the commandments is just about as “moral” as obeying a mafioso, who holds a gun to the head of your loved ones, and says: “obey me, or else…”

If one did follow the commands of God because he feared the “or else”, then that would be unfortunate.

However, this is not the Christian ethos. The Christian paradigm is a love story.

As St. Augustine posited centuries ago: “Does love bring about the keeping of the commandments, or does the keeping of the commandments bring about love?” And he answers: “But who can doubt that love comes first? For the one who does not love has no reason for keeping the commandments”.

 

[PRmerger]

The first requirement of any meaningful “free will” is the ability to carry out what you wish to do.

This is very Catholic of you to say, Spock!

Truth enlightens our intelligence and shapes our freedom, however.
The late, great Pope JPII addressed this very issue in his magnificent encyclical, Veritatis Splendor.

 

[PRmerger]

There is no “natural law” instilled in all of us.

Another black/white statement, eh, Spock?

You guys think that everything can be declared either black or white, based upon some dogmatic foundation.

 

[Spock]

There is no such law if we’re satisfied that evil doesn’t really exist, that it’s natural for man to lie, cheat, steal, torture, rape, kill, etc- to commit acts consciously designed to inflict the most harm and shame on another human being.

Evil is not a “thing” that can exist on its own. It is just as natural for people to inflict harm on others as it is to help others. Love and hate are both natural emotions, and their expressions are also natural. If there would be a benevolent God, then he would have “designed” us without the ability to “hate”, but keep the ability to “love”. And I hope you are not going to say that without “hate” there is no “love”. I have seen that nonsense far too many times already.

If there is no natural law then there’s no such thing as moral responsibility, no reason for moral outrage or righteous indignation aimed at some perceived injustice. It’s all relative.

It is all relative to the societies. In the ancient times it was perfectly acceptable to leave the old and the infirm to die, when there was a shortage of food. It was perfectly acceptable to eat the meat of the conquered tribes, because meat was in short supply.

But I don’t believe that.

You believe whatever you believe. It is your right and prerogative.

So I’d agree with what you seem to imply-if there is no god, there is no morality, other than the one we make up.

Exactly.

 

[Spock]

Another black/white statement, eh, Spock?

Just a statement of a fact. Facts are “stubborn” things, they are there even if we do not like them. And no wishful thinking (aka: faith) can get rid of them.

 

[Spock]

If one did follow the commands of God because he feared the “or else”, then that would be unfortunate.

Many Christians say that it is necessary to fear God. They say that out of fear comes “love”.

This is very Catholic of you to say, Spock!

I wish. I have hardly ever seen (if at all) that a Catholic poster would agree that being able to carry out your desire is a prerequisite to freedom. They said that the “free will” of a woman to be gang-raped is in no jeopardy, since she has the “freedom” to lay back and enjoy it.