What would you do if it were proven...?

[Candide_West]

I would be very confused. The existence of God is just another fact in life, and I cannot really deny it like I cannot deny that I am sitting on this computer chair right now. If it were proven that my computer chair does not exist, even though I am sitting on it, I would be very confused.

Hi Windfish,

I think I know what you mean, I was raised Christian and only started to really question early in my twenties. Up until then I’d always considered it as fact. I have to say I found it rather confusing at times.

So yep, fair play. Thanks for taking the time to write.

 

[samiam1611]

Not simply satisfies, but rather the concept of God absolutely fulfils my objective existential nature as a living person in its entirety, without which no objective fulfilment would be possible nor any dignity as I understand the word. I want absolute existential fulfilment; and I am willing to make what ever sacrifices necessary because I absolutely value my existence and thus in so doing I wish my nature the greatest possible good. The greatest objective good would be eternal heaven. If there is even a small possibility of there being a heaven, then I am going to have faith in that small possibility, because in that possibility I find my humanity complete, fulfilled, and absolutely dignified both morally and spiritually.

In order to preserve and fulfil my humanity I have to believe that my life has an objective moral value transcendent of human opinion, coupled with an objective purpose, and an objective meaning. If reality is anything less than that, then reality is meaningless and absolutely worthless to me, since it falls short of what “I” require in-order to be fulfilled. Some people seem willing to settle for a life that is objectively meaningless, purposeless, and without any true moral value. Perhaps your genetic structure has wired you differently in such a way that you do not require such things. I refuse to settle for fleeting moments of potential pleasure and what I “know” to be nothing more than a subjective ideology invented to pleasure myself with false meaning. I do not want to live with the knowledge that I am nothing more than the firing of synapses with the illusion of freewill and self worth.

So different than me! How interesting to read. Can I ask a question? Would you say that your behavior and morals you have are nearly entirely motivated by your desire to go to Heaven? In other words, you do what is right bc God says that is right and you do what God says bc you want to make Him happy so that you get to go to Heaven. (???)
Most of what I do/don’t do is a result of hedonism and/or humanism. That seems to be pretty different than you, if not the exact opposite. (Correct me if I’m wrong, that’s just the feelings I’m getting.) Do you not do good thing/not do bad things bc of their impact on others? For instance, I have not killed myself yet bc my mom said it would ruin her life if I did. I care about her and do not want to be the cause of the ruining of her life. Would you say that you have not killed yourself bc it is a sin, and God might not send you to Heaven if you commit that sin? Would you say God’s judgement of you - your fate when you die - matters more than anything else, including what is best for you in the moment, even what is best for you in the future (of your regular life I mean) and what is best for people around you? Dare I say…it’s almost…selfish? (Not to say that my behavior, especially the hedonistic behavior is not…just wondering if you see it that way at all.)
That may not be the best example if you have not ever felt suicidal, but I can try to think of another one if you can’t answer that.

 

[Catmando]

I’d have to redefine my ethics and such in light of the lack of absolute morality. How I’d live my life depends on my conclusions on that; for example, if I decided that without absolute morality, eugenics are permissible, I’d work toward improving the life of humans via genetic engineering. It’s hard to say for sure what would happen, though; perhaps I should leave that question for the real philosophers.

 

[Windfish]

Hi Windfish,

I think I know what you mean, I was raised Christian and only started to really question early in my twenties. Up until then I’d always considered it as fact. I have to say I found it rather confusing at times.

So yep, fair play. Thanks for taking the time to write.

In Catholic teaching, the existence of God can be known with certainty through reason. And I have found that teaching to be true - God is just another feature of reality. Well, not “just” another, but you get my point.

 

[shoe]

Yes, like what happened with slavery.

Yes, exactly like what happened with slavery, and also like what happened with communism and fascism. Hitler wanted to build a strong moral society (and world) by banishing the God of the Bible as the source of objective morality. And had Hitler (who was following evolution to its logical conclusion) succeeded in his pursuit for world control, then, according to atheistic morality, Nazi morality would be right since atheists believe that morals are subjective and not objective; that is to say atheists believe that morals do not transcend genetic makeup, culture, or subjective preferences. And the last I heard, the Guinness Book of World Records had atheistic moralist Mao down as the worst mass murderer in all history; though Alexander Solzhenitsyn estimated that under atheistic moralists Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev more people lost their lives than they did under atheistic moralist Mao.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

You seem to be saying that the experience of being alive is not valuable unless it is permanent. Does that accurately reflect your view? If so I must disagree.Firstly I don’t think dying negates the value of the experience of being alive. Being dead doesn’t mean I was never alive.

No, but whether you were alive or not, what difference would it make to you, or to anyone else when they are dead (according to your beliefs)?

Secondly, value is a human term and we can only really consider it from a human perspective (after all it’s what we are). Consider, what is valuable to a rock, or the sun? Nothing. They are not conscious and therefore do not value anything. From my point of view something is valuable if someone values it. Therefore my life is valuable because it’s valuable to me.*I also value the lives of other because they are valuable to others.

It may not matter from a objective perspective but then again my experience of existence is by definition subjective. There is I am sure no “objective” value in me eating my lunch, but subjectively I’m hungry so I am eating it.*

I guess the key is that something doesn’t have to be infinite to be valuable.*

Hmmm - I can value a feather to be a million pounds, but does it make it a million pounds? It does not. I can think that happiness lies at the bottom of a bottle, but does it? Probably not. We can value things, but that in no way means they have that value to us.

Either these things have value to us or not. I can accumulate wealth - when I’m dead, what value has it?

Of course, while we are alive, these things can have value, but this value, for each of us, will reduce to zero upon death if we cease to exist as conscious beings - and the same is true for each other. Or is that ‘subjective’?

Agreed that generally belief in continued awareness beyond death emerge from religion. However, I’m not convinced that I would find the reality of such a thing pleasant. Sure it is reassuring to consider from the perspective of having been alive a short period of time, but really, what would I do after the first billion years. Or after the next trillion… Infinite continued existence seems a pleasant answer to death but I can’t even imagine what it would be like to be a few thousand years old, let alone trillions of years and still with no end even conceivable.*

Well, if any of the promises are true, we’re unlikely to have such short attention spans

With regards to moral imperatives, the same argument applies as with value -what is moral to the sun? Nothing. The question doesn’t work outside of conscious minds able to conceive the concept of moral. The absence of God doesn’t make moral standards impossible. It just makes them our responsibility.

It still makes them pointless - your previous comments regarding subjective purpose make a farce of morality afterall! If we can invent whatever purposes we fancy, what kind of standard could conceivably regulate that? A standard of mood?

 

[fbl9]

Hi,

I’m new here on CAF but thought I’d post a question which interests me.

For those who are theists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does not exist”

For those who are atheists - “What would you do if it were proven to your satisfaction that God does exist”

Thanks for taking the time.

There is one problem as there is nothing that could satisfy me that God does not exist.For it is the existence of God which satisfies me.

 

[Candide_West]

**My belief in God is quite literally a revolt, a revolution against the ideology that I am nothing more than a secretion of chemicals. **

You can have the consequences of that ideology. You can live your life free of a belief in God if that’s what pleases you; enjoy your free lunch, you’re welcome to it.

I don’t want it.

Very passionately written MindOverMatter2, thanks.

I have to say I agree with you that for you religion is absolutely the right thing. I think it would be extremely damaging to you if you lost your faith. From what you have written I can see that you do indeed need to believe in “objective value” etc.

I’m hoping to start a new thread on that topic (although it will have to wait a couple weeks since i’m travelling tomorrow). Hopefully Betterave may join me on that one, perhaps you would be interested in the discussion too?

Incidentally does anyone believe that you (or anyone else for that matter) are nothing more than a secretion of chemicals??? I’m curious, I’ve not heard this ideology before.

Take care.

 

[Candide_West]

In Catholic teaching, the existence of God can be known with certainty through reason. And I have found that teaching to be true - God is just another feature of reality. Well, not “just” another, but you get my point.

Yep, definately do. As I said the position you’d be in is very much like the position I was in back then (except for me the change in view came about primarily from continuous searching and questioning rather than being given some kind of proof as in my scenario here).

 

[Candide_West]

Of course we have different perspectives. It doesn’t follow that whatever we are looking at isn’t ‘objective.’

Agreed, it doesn’t follow from that. However, the point of the example was to demonstrate me making a value judgement in the absense of “objective value” to show how that works ie accepting that both your own and other peoples judgement of what is valuable is valid.

Your beliefs obviously determine your perspective, but they don’t determine reality, since they might be wrong. And since you acknowledge that they might be wrong, this awareness of your own fallibility must, objectively speaking, form part of your perspective. I will quote julia’s recent post from another thread (“Is religion a scam?”) as food for thought on this point:

I agree I am fallible, including in my perspective but again the example was deliberately intended only to demonstrate judgement of value in the absense of objective value. Objective value was deliberately excluded from the example (by use of my perspective) to avoid needing to refer to it. Otherwise the example would have failed.

In Rahner’s book, Foundations of Christian Faith: An Introduction to the Idea of Christianity, Rahner says in Chapter 2, Man in the Presence of Absolute Mystery, that we can only know words and language to describe things which we have experienced. Therefore, “we can say that what is most simple and most inescapable for man with regard to the question of God is the fact that the word “God” exists in his intellectual and spiritual existence” (p. 45).

I don’t think I agree that we can only use words to describe things we have experienced, off the top of my head, levitation, teleportation, hypnotism, electrocution, infinity, … i haven’t experienced any of these things but I can use the words and describe them as concepts. I’m not sure I understand what the quote after ‘Therefore…’ means. it appears to be saying that we know the word exists?

He goes on to say that the Atheist who says that there is no God, prolongs the existence of the word God. If he truly wanted the word ‘God’ to be dead, he would have to keep “dead silent” and not declare himself to be an atheist.

Not sure I entirely agree there either. Firstly an atheist doesn’t necessarily want other people to stop believing, I myself think that a great many people who are religious are better off to remain so. Secondly for those (relatively few i suspect) who really want people to not be religious I don’t think it is the word ‘God’ that they want to get rid of but rather the concept (or at least the religions which surround those concepts). As for remaining silent, I fail to see the benefit to this, in any direction.

Then he comments, on page 47, what a world would be like if the word God did not exist, “Man would no longer be brought face to face with the single whole of reality, nor with the single whole of his own existence.” Without the word ‘God,’ man would no longer be able to question the existence of God, he would no longer be able to question himself or his own questions. “He would have ceased being a man. He would have regressed to the level of a clever animal” (p. 48).

Again I fear I don’t agree, I am able to actively question myself and the process I use to question as well as the questions themselves. I don’t involve God or even the word ‘God’ in that analysis. Why would I? Equally why do I need to use the word (or concept for that matter) of God to question about existence. I see no connection here.

“Man really exists as a man only when he uses the word ‘God,’” now Rahner does acknowledge that in using this word, we use it as a question to which we either accept or reject. However, if the word ‘God’ ceased to exist, it would indicate that “man himself has died” (p. 49).

Again, I’m afraid I don’t agree, I can’t see how a word or concept ceasing to exist would indicate that man had died. Perhaps you could say that humanity had ceased to be religious (although not necessarily of course).

But an important distinction Rahner makes is that the word ‘God’ is not based on the phonetic sound of the word or the language in which you speak it. The way that we pronouce and speak the word is a human creation, however the concept of ‘God’ is not. “Rather it creates us because it makes us men” (p. 50).

Agree about it being sensible to detach the phonics from the concept. Disagree about the concept of God not being a human creation. This seems to be a bald assertion in the quote.

Finally, Rahner tells us that we cannot fully comprehend the transcendental meaning of this word. If we did, we would be hearing it as a word “obvious and comprehensible” as the other words we use and, therefore, “we would have heard something that has nothing in common with the true word ‘God’ except for its phonetic sound” (p. 51).

I perhaps don’t get where this piece as a whole is aimed. Please enlighten me if i’ve missed something but the above seems to be a set of unsupported assertions or perhaps just a statement of the authors beliefs. If so then fair enough but I don’t share them.

Again I would say that your belief that your actions are “isolated from everything else” is, as you admit, a fallible one. And from my perspective, I don’t see how it could be. If you’d like, I’d be happy to discuss the “objective value” issue in another thread (or here).

Thanks, I think it’d be interesting. I’m going travelling tomorrow and won’t be back for a couple weeks so it’ll have to wait a bit if i can impose on your patience?

 

[Candide_West]

I’d have to redefine my ethics and such in light of the lack of absolute morality. How I’d live my life depends on my conclusions on that; for example, if I decided that without absolute morality, eugenics are permissible, I’d work toward improving the life of humans via genetic engineering. It’s hard to say for sure what would happen, though; perhaps I should leave that question for the real philosophers.

Hi Catmando,

Thanks for writing. I agree with you that you would need to define and justify (to yourself if nobody else) a code of ethics. Since in the absence of an external “absolute” set of rules they become your responsibility.*

Eugenics seems like a odd example though, was there a specific reason for picking that one? Is it something you feel we should be doing? If so, I’m afraid I don’t agree but I’d be interested in your thoughts.*

Thanks

 

[julia07734]

I don’t think I agree that we can only use words to describe things we have experienced, off the top of my head, levitation, teleportation, hypnotism, electrocution, infinity, … i haven’t experienced any of these things but I can use the words and describe them as concepts. I’m not sure I understand what the quote after ‘Therefore…’ means. it appears to be saying that we know the word exists?

I am able to actively question myself and the process I use to question as well as the questions themselves. I don’t involve God or even the word ‘God’ in that analysis. Why would I? Equally why do I need to use the word (or concept for that matter) of God to question about existence. I see no connection here.

I can’t see how a word or concept ceasing to exist would indicate that man had died. Perhaps you could say that humanity had ceased to be religious (although not necessarily of course).

Agree about it being sensible to detach the phonics from the concept. Disagree about the concept of God not being a human creation. This seems to be a bald assertion in the quote.

I perhaps don’t get where this piece as a whole is aimed. Please enlighten me if i’ve missed something but the above seems to be a set of unsupported assertions or perhaps just a statement of the authors beliefs. If so then fair enough but I don’t share them.

Hi there, so I am the original poster of the quote from another forum and I wanted to try to see if I can elucidate a few things. First, forgive me if I am not very coherent this morning as I have been getting less and less sleep each night with Easter Preparations, papers due and finals coming up (working on an MA in Theology)…

So, with that said, I am not sure I understand how you can say that you disagree with Rahner based on the text I wrote. In order to truly say that you disagree, you would need to read Rahner, comprehend what he is saying and then say you do not agree. However, in order to do that, you might also need to read Immanual Kant as well as Thomas Aquinas as the thoughts of these two philosophers are assumed in Rahner’s texts.

The simple fact that you said that levitation, etc is not something you have experienced but can comprehend, is a clear sign that you do not understand Rahner. Rahner’s theory is that we have a concrete awareness of the world around us and a transcendental awareness as well. The concrete awareness is based on our experiences - this is how animals see the world. It is all senses, instincts, kind of like the world of immediacy in basic philosophy.

The transcendental dimension is available to us and it is here that we encounter God. First, we are not always cognitively aware of this dimension. Some people can become aware of it and once they are, they can grow in that awareness. However, most likely the majority of the people access this dimension without ever being aware of it. . In basic philosophy, this is what enables humanity to surpass animals by asking questions about our world of immediacy in order to find meaning, and then to questions those findings in order to find Truth and then to question those findings in order to find Love.

So, what we can “experience,” albeit a priori, in the transcendental dimension is then used to understand things in the concrete reality and what we experience in the concrete reality is used to understand things in the transcedental dimension.

And so understanding words like levitation does not mean that we have levitated, but that does not mean the feeling of being weightless is unknown to us…we are describing something of which we have no direct experience a posterori, but that on a transcendent level, the meaning or the concept of levitation is available to us.

Because the transcendent self is the locus of God, when Rahner says that if there were no God, we’d be clever animals what he is saying is that our ability to question our experiences comes from the transcendental dimension, it comes from God. Without Him, we could not even question the existence of God.

Rahner is considered to be renowned in his theology as what he did was define theology in a modern world in order to show us that we can be autonomous, free-thinkers. We can choose to accept or reject God. However, our ability to do so is because God exists.

I hope this helped clear a few things up, but if not, I invite you to read Foundations of Christian Faith. It is dense reading and very philosphical but I found it extremely intersting.

Have fun while your out of town!

 

[Candide_West]

Mystic banana (cool name btw), thanks, really interesting post, loads to reply to. I fear my reply may be rather long, hopefully you’ll have patience with me.

No, but whether you were alive or not, what difference would it make to you, or to anyone else when they are dead (according to your beliefs)?

Once I am dead it won’t make any difference to me, because there will be no “me” to do any valuing. “I” won’t be able to value something any more than a rock can. That does not mean that what I value now doesn’t matter, it just means that it is not permanent. To me value is subjective, which makes sense if valuing something occurs in a mind…*

Incidentally I’m going to answer all your questions from my perspective since I think this is what you are asking about. I know you may and probably do have a different perspective. So I thought I’d preface with this paragraph rather than writing “from my point of view” at the start of each.

Hmmm - I can value a feather to be a million pounds, but does it make it a million pounds? It does not. I can think that happiness lies at the bottom of a bottle, but does it? Probably not. We can value things, but that in no way means they have that value to us.

Valuing something doesn’t change what it is. So no, simply valuing a feather as worth a million pounds to you would not transform it into a million pounds, or make it worth a million pounds to other people.*

However, I must disagree with regards to your last sentence. If I value something (to whatever measure of it’s worth), then that is it’s value to me. What else are you doing in valuing something. You cannot say “I value this feather at a million pounds but it doesn’t have that value to me.”. That sentence makes no sense. If you value something it has value to you. If you don’t value it, it has no value to you.

If you said that it doesn’t mean that the value I place on something is automatically the same as the value others place on it then I’d agree (you only need to consider items of sentimental value to see this demonstrated).*

Either these things have value to us or not. I can accumulate wealth - when I’m dead, what value has it?

The value of your wealth to other people will be quite high probably. However, once you are dead you won’t be able do do any valuing so “you” won’t value it at all. For that matter “you” won’t be.

Of course, while we are alive, these things can have value, but this value, for each of us, will reduce to zero upon death if we cease to exist as conscious beings - and the same is true for each other. Or is that ‘subjective’?

Agreed, once I’m dead I will no longer value anything. “I” will no longer exist to do any valuing. That does not mean that I cannot value something while I’m alive.*

Well, if any of the promises are true, we’re unlikely to have such short attention spans *

But our experience of time and personal perspective are intimately tied to who and what we are as people. If “I” was going to live for eternity (either in heaven or hell), I would either have to become something different from what I know of or can imagine as me (so I would not be “me” in any way that I can conceive) or I suspect, eventually go bonkers.*

It still makes them pointless - your previous comments regarding subjective purpose make a farce of morality afterall! If we can invent whatever purposes we fancy, what kind of standard could conceivably regulate that? A standard of mood?

Afraid I don’t think I’m following you here, how does subjective measurement of value make a farce of morality?*

Peoples conception of value and indeed morality has been continuously changing throughout the ages. People once mostly thought confession under torture and burning at the stake, crucifixion, slavery etc (to name a few) were morally acceptable. People now mostly don’t. Peoples views on morality even change during their own lives, through changes of perspective, gaining understanding of others or equally through negative experience.

I guess you could argue that there is a set of “objective” moral standards, created by God which never change. But in practice human morality (to which you, me and everyone else contribute incidentally) does change from person to person and through time (which as far as I can see means it is subjective). That doesn’t mean that morality is a farce. You appear to be writing off all human applications of morality.

As for what standards can regulate it. Well in practice there are some axiomatic points in morality (as with any system) which serve as a practicably useful starting point for creating standards. For example “suffering is bad”. It’s based on the definition of “suffering” rather than any reasoned and justified position. If you wanted to change that then you’d need to redefine “suffering”, in which case another word would simply replace it.*

In any case the concepts of negative experience described by words like “suffering” and positive experience described by words like “happiness” provide practicably objective starting points for morality without need for reference to absolutes like God concepts.*

Anyway I’ve rambled a bit so I’ll leave it there for now. Kind regards

 

[samiam1611]

In any case **the concepts of negative experience described by words like “suffering” and positive experience described by words like “happiness” provide practicably objective starting points for morality *without need for reference to absolutes like God concepts.

Nail on the head. We don’t need God or the promise of an afterlife to obtain a standard morality for mankind. To a certain extent, it’s built into our psyche. Every human being knows what suffering feels like and what happiness feels like so if it were proven that God did not exist, we’d just go from there.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

We don’t need God or the promise of an afterlife to obtain a standard morality for mankind.

Why do you feel the need to justify yourself morally?

You say that a moral standard can exist without God. But that would depend on what one means by the word morality or good. Of course human beings can bargain and make agreements that conforms to a need or desire for social stability and security. Pleasure and pain can be one of the means by which we judge. But we cannot know what is truly right and wrong for us if there is no such thing. Morality is relative to the sacrifices that you are willing to make. What’s moral for you isn’t necessarily what is moral for me; and pleasure and pain and how our experiences of them influences our motives does not necessarily create the existence of a moral or stable society; which is evident to anyone that is willing to look around them. There is a degree of stability, but not everybody is happy.

If there is no God, then the goal of life is not morality. What people think will make them happy or what gives people pleasure will vary from person to person, and sometimes quite drastically. One cannot expect people to make sacrifices if by that sacrifice life becomes less appealing, less pleasurable, less exciting. Most people are not just living to survive out of fear of death; rather they are also living for the hope of experiencing and maximising pleasure through what ever mode that happens to be available. How people are willing to treat others is measured by risk; the immediate gain and what is to be lost in actualising that gain. Constantly we see that desire wins over the social good because the ultimate goal of life for many - if not everybody - is the maximisation of pleasure, and those who do not have pleasure are left with no real reason to live accept for perhaps the hope that their situation may change. Better to live for five minutes with extreme pleasure rather than a whole life time of unhappiness and insecurity. The fear of death is what drives a lot of people into putting up with life’s ills; otherwise most people would not.

The bottom line, few people look at moral issues in a hedonistic manner. They look at moral issues with a real sense of moral truth. It really is wrong to rape a small child. It really is wrong to go around rapping women. It really is wrong to actively destroy and eliminate a race of people for financial gain. I really do have moral rights that are true regardless of whether people agree with it or not. Those who do not see it, either lack mental development or they are actively suppressing the true meaning of that which is self evident in those experiences.

It is this sense of right and wrong as a truth that causes people to do virtuous acts and make sacrifices for society.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Nail on the head. We don’t need God or the promise of an afterlife to obtain a standard morality for mankind. To a certain extent, it’s built into our psyche. Every human being knows what suffering feels like and what happiness feels like so if it were proven that God did not exist, we’d just go from there.

If there is no G-d then there is no morality at all, of any kind. There is only peoples opinion. History condemns such attempts at a secular morality apart from G-d. The golden rule wouldn’t exist, only the survival of the fittest.

 

[samiam1611]

If there is no G-d then there is no morality at all, of any kind. There is only peoples opinion. History condemns such attempts at a secular morality apart from G-d. The golden rule wouldn’t exist, only the survival of the fittest.

I disagree. People’s opinions count. I follow the Golden Rule just as well as the next guy. I don’t believe in God and I never have and I’m a decent enough person. My morality is for the most part, the result of my parents’ teachings. My parents don’t believe in God either so it’s not like God had a “once-removed” kind of impact on my morality. Therefore, God is not necessary to being a good person.
HOWEVER. If lots and lots of other people do need to know they’re being watched at all times and that if they’re bad, they won’t go to heaven in order for them to be a good person, then you’re right, a secular society would not work.
I guess it just depends on the person. The way I see it, compassion is the key to distinguishing what is morally right from opinion. Most humans have compassion, so I think a moral order with a strong resemblence to our current one would evolve in a reasonably short amount of time if everyone stopped believing in God.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I disagree. People’s opinions count. I follow the Golden Rule just as well as the next guy…The way I see it, compassion is the key to distinguishing what is morally right from opinion…

What about people who don’t share your opinion? If their opinion counts as much as yours then what ever they do is just as moral as what you choose to do. The Aztecs thought human sacrifice was moral. Nazis thought that Jewish genocide was moral. There are thousands of examples where people have thought it moral and or compassionate to commit crimes against humanity. The standard you are using here is a historical failure. People do not in fact drift to some moral standard. They are products of their cultures and take their moral cues from the larger society. Declaring oneself a good person by ones own standards is meaningless.

 

[shoe]

I think that one of the problems with practicing moral behavior that is not based on the perfect nature of God’s Being but on the imperfect nature of either an individual or a given society, is that when an individual or a society changes, so do the morals. And these new changes in the morals of an individual or a society can be completely cockeyed to their former ones and quite illogical. For instance, a few years ago abortion was considered immoral by society and was illegal, but now the taking of an unborn child’s life is considered moral and is legal. But this kind of upside-down thinking cannot happened to those who follow the moral teachings on abortion that come from God; for them the taking of an innocent, unborn child’s life will always be immoral, whether or not the secular morals of individuals and societies change.

 

[samiam1611]

Why do you feel the need to justify yourself morally?

I don’t particularly feel the need to justify myself morally, but just thought you should know that some people don’t need belief in God to come to the same morals that those who do believe in God have.

It is this sense of right and wrong as a truth that causes people to do virtuous acts and make sacrifices for society.

Again, just saying that some people don’t need to believe in God to know right from wrong.

My statement about compassion that warpspeedpetey seems to strongly disagree with was a response to quotes like this:

I’d have to redefine my ethics and such in light of the lack of absolute morality.

I suspect that Catmando might change his or her lifestyle a little bit, but would not suddenly start doing all the sorts of things he or she currently consideres bad bc they are bad. The Golden Rule would not just up and disappear from Catmando’s heart.​

Warpspeedpetey - I don’t think the Nazis or slave owners or any other number of examples were showing compassion. I don’t know how people could be so uncompassionate. I doubt they were all atheists though.​

If you have compassion, and use it regularly, you probably will be an okay person and probably will not have a detrimental effect on society. If you’re only good for the sake of your own salvation, then I would not call that compassion. Maybe the world is filled with more uncompassionate but God-fearing people than I realized.