I'm sorry if this subject has already been exausted in other occasions. If so, could someone give me a link to the thread?

I was discussing this with a friend of mine in another board, and he seems to believe that there is no motivation to be moral when there is no god.

I gave him a quick basic argument of utilitarism among other points from the humanistic point of view, and my personal opinion that what motivates a person to be moral is the capacity to feel guilt. But he seemed not to be convinced.

What is everyone's opinion on this?

There are very moral, ethical, and decent people by the millions who don't believe in God. All the atheist Buddhists, for example.

And some very moral people who claim to have no religion, such as the Navajo.

Is someone actually contending that only theists have morals and ethics? That would be very silly.

If people had no built in sense of morality, they would not be able to recognize the precepts of their religion as moral ones.

I'm sorry if this subject has already been exausted in other occasions. If so, could someone give me a link to the thread?

I was discussing this with a friend of mine in another board, and he seems to believe that there is no motivation to be moral when there is no god.

I gave him a quick basic argument of utilitarism among other points from the humanistic point of view, and my personal opinion that what motivates a person to be moral is the capacity to feel guilt. But he seemed not to be convinced.

What is everyone's opinion on this?

Silly question really, since morals already exist without religion. And better morals too.

And better morals too.
subjective and caustic.

seriously...

Yep. An absurd step too far.

There are very moral, ethical, and decent people by the millions who don't believe in God. All the atheist Buddhists, for example.

And some very moral people who claim to have no religion, such as the Navajo.

Is someone actually contending that only theists have morals and ethics? That would be very silly.

If people had no built in sense of morality, they would not be able to recognize the precepts of their religion as moral ones.

But Buddhism is a religion, and Buddhism is not atheistic, the Buddhist scriptures (pali canons) mention many gods (devas), and the creator (Brahma), and other beings like that....

Morals are merely a subjective code of behaviour that one applies to oneself that is developed through their experience to date.
Ethics are the code of conduct/behaviour established by the society in which the individual finds themselves.

If a person never has exposure to religion - they will still have their own morals based upon their own upbringing - and will probably match the ethics of their society.

The ethics of a society are built up from the need to live together - not much more - and it is more or less driven by the majority view. If the majority are religious then the ethics of the society will be led by it to a degree.

All my opinion, though.

So yes, I think morals exist without religion. They would be formed by any individual in any circumstance - but might as a result be very different from the morals we are used to.

Sarkus said it very well. Anyone can have morals depending on what they're taught and what they believe to be true.

"Morals" is subjective and means different things to different people.

I think the difference between me and an atheist is that I *want* to be pleasing to God. I *want* to hear "well done" when I get to Heaven. I *want* to do the "great commission" (get people saved).:)

Making decisions that are pleasing to God got a lot easier after I was saved and committed to Him.:)

I'm trying to take wrong thoughts captive but sometimes it's really hard.

The Bible says in I Corinthians 2:16:
I have the mind of Christ; therefore I can know the thoughts of my Lord that He may instruct me. That's a big responsibility. I'm working on mine.;)

subjective and caustic.

seriously...


Secular standards, Sharia Law or Medieval Christian rule? No contest. Any popular vote on morals by theists normally goes down that road. Christians in America are on the verge of the same thing with only a thin barrier of secularism holding them back.

The Bible says in I Corinthians 2:16:
I have the mind of Christ; therefore I can know the thoughts of my Lord that He may instruct me. That's a big responsibility. I'm working on mine.;)I would not be to proud of that, you now might start cursing fig trees and stating children should be killed, and families to hate each other, all because you dont bring peace, but death.
matt 10:34, matt 10:21, matt 19:29, matt 15:4-7, mark 7:9, mark 11:13, luke 12:47

you obey your god, right, so if you god told you to kill Mr X for working on the sabbath, would you disobey your god or kill the guy.

I don't bring death to anyone--death to their old thoughts and beliefs maybe, but not physical death.

Secular standards, Sharia Law or Medieval Christian rule? No contest. Any popular vote on morals by theists normally goes down that road. Christians in America are on the verge of the same thing with only a thin barrier of secularism holding them back.

the irony of your original statement is too much to bear.
"my non-god is bigger than your god."
:p

I don't bring death to anyone--death to their old thoughts and beliefs maybe, but not physical death.but if you think like jesus you will.

could you answer the question I posed.
"you obey your god, right, so if you god told you to kill Mr X for working on the sabbath, would you disobey your god or kill the guy."

Yes, They can exist, While there are some common morals, each one of us has different ideas on its scope, "our range" so to speak. those whose ranges exist to the point where the moral can be twisted into doing anything are those without morals.

I didn't realize that was a question since I didn't see a question mark :confused:

MY God is not going to tell me to kill anyone for working on the Sabbath so that is a ludicrous question.:rolleyes:

I didn't realize that was a question since I didn't see a question mark :confused:

MY God is not going to tell me to kill anyone for working on the Sabbath so that is a ludicrous question.:rolleyes:we are talking about the god of the bible (old and new), the one that told abraham to kill isaac Gen 22:2-13, the same one who told moses, aaron, and the sons of levi to kill there nieghbours Exo 32:27-28, the same god that gave you the ten commandments.
if he told you to kill somebody for some other reason, any other reason, would you do it, or would you disobey your god?
it's a simple yes or no answer.

He's not going to tell me to kill someone so the question is dumb and I'm not playing.

we are talking about the god of the bible (old and new), the one that told abraham to kill isaac Gen 22:2-13, the same one who told moses, aaron, and the sons of levi to kill there nieghbours Exo 32:27-28, the same god that gave you the ten commandments.
if he told you to kill somebody for some other reason, any other reason, would you do it, or would you disobey your god?
it's a simple yes or no answer.

The excellent teachings of peace and love by Jesus contradict badly with the often evil,hatefull nature of Yahweh which should tell you that the bible is indeed corrupt with man created dogmatic b/s.

He's not going to tell me to kill someone so the question is dumb and I'm not playing.

So your answer is actually yes.

And if you read your bible, your god clearly has told people to murder which makes you a liar of liars. Very interesting mind you have- denial, pretense and lies work for you.

He's not going to tell me to kill someone so the question is dumb and I'm not playing.so I take your lack of an answer to mean yes.
The excellent teachings of peace and love by Jesus contradict badly with the often evil,hatefull nature of Yahweh which should tell you that the bible is indeed corrupt with man created dogmatic b/s.is this the same hateful Yahweh, that gave you the ten commandments.

are these some of those excellent teachings of peace and love from jesus
KJV NT Luke 16:16, The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.
17, And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

KJV NT Matt 5,17 : "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil."
so it looks like jesus likes what Yehweh has done, in plain english, he's saying that the laws of the OT, should be followed to the letter in the NT.

KJV NT Matt 10,34: "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword."

the point I was to be making is no fantasy/nobody can make me kill, but the religious do it everyday, thus the morals of a nonbeliever are vastly superior to any theist.

What does morality achieve? The answer to that question may lead us to a clearer understanding of what it is.

Morality, when successfully applied, delivers several results that are beneficial to the individual and to their society.
a) Encourages co-operation between individuals and groups
b) Favours respect for personal space, property and rights
c) Contributes to the protection of the weak, the sick, and the elderly

Thus, morality is a tool that promotes suvival of the individual and of the group. Morals are an intrinsic attempt to protect the human species from itself. They are quite independent of any belief or non-belief in God, or Gods, or even gods.

[Deleted per rule #7]

If this turns into a Religion X is better than Religion Y because Religion Y kills at a higher rate thread, I'll close it.

I need to clarify something:
The question is not exactly if morals can exist, since moral is essential to living in a society. The question is, without religion, what is the motivation a person has to be moral?

quoting my friend:
But conventions that allow us to live as social organisms simply don't constitute any sort of moral imperative. And if we reach a point where we find these conventions inconvenient, on what basis do we reject breaching them? That is, why not be a sociopath? What is to prevent the individual will from overruling social convention?

What he means is that, if you can do something imoral that is pleasurable to you, and there is no chance you will get caught, why be moral?

If this turns into a Religion X is better than Religion Y because Religion Y kills at a higher rate thread, I'll close it.

This has nothing to do with the suject of the thread and I'd apreciate if this was kept out of the thread so it doesnt get closed.
Play nice, kids

I need to clarify something:
The question is not exactly if morals can exist, since moral is essential to living in a society. The question is, without religion, what is the motivation a person has to be moral?

What he means is that, if you can do something imoral that is pleasurable to you, and there is no chance you will get caught, why be moral?

Quite simply: respect for your fellow man. There are many different philosophies of morality, justice and ethics that allow for "doing good" without the need -indeed, in spite of- religion. The Greater Happiness Principle of John Stuart Mill; the requirement to avoid a state of nature by Hobbes; and so on.

Modern humanists live by the philosophy that all humans are worthy of good deeds and seek to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few.

I need to clarify something:
The question is not exactly if morals can exist, since moral is essential to living in a society. The question is, without religion, what is the motivation a person has to be moral?dont you mean the reverse here.
what is the motivation to be moral with religion, according to the bible scriptures you cannot say that either god or jesus are moral, far from it.What he means is that, if you can do something imoral that is pleasurable to you, and there is no chance you will get caught, why be moral? if your doing things that are morally bad for pleasure, then your not a moral person anyway, and religion has nothing to do with it.

my brother a devout xian, when he's been angered, he has said if it wasn't for he's fear of god he could kill someone. I have been angered and I have no fear of a god(or believe in any god) and killing anybody does not enter my head.
my personal opinion is religion is the most immoral cult on this planet.
I cant remember who said it exactly and if the quote is vebatum, but here goes "bad people do bad things, good people do good things, for a good person to do bad things takes religion"

What he means is that, if you can do something imoral that is pleasurable to you, and there is no chance you will get caught, why be moral?


essentially,empathy.this sounds like hippy crap,but if i even suspect i have made someone feel bad unnecessarily i feel terrible.


Sarkus said it very well. Anyone can have morals depending on what they're taught and what they believe to be true.

"Morals" is subjective and means different things to different people.

I think the difference between me and an atheist is that I *want* to be pleasing to God. I *want* to hear "well done" when I get to Heaven. I *want* to do the "great commission" (get people saved).:)

Making decisions that are pleasing to God got a lot easier after I was saved and committed to Him.:)

I'm trying to take wrong thoughts captive but sometimes it's really hard.

The Bible says in I Corinthians 2:16:
I have the mind of Christ; therefore I can know the thoughts of my Lord that He may instruct me. That's a big responsibility. I'm working on mine.;)

i think that people's "religious" morals are hugely influenced by their "personal" morals, and most people cherry pick from various religious texts based on a preformed moral structure.

I don't bring death to anyone--death to their old thoughts and beliefs maybe, but not physical death.

*************
M*W: Sandy, how do you know what you're doing is right by bringing "death to their old thoughts and beliefs..."? Only 25% of the world's population believes in christianity. The other 75% believe christianity is a lie. Why would you want to make people believe in lies?

Is that why you chose to infiltrate a predominantly atheistic forum to spread your christian lies? Why did you come here if not to spread the filth of christianity?

MY God is not going to tell me to kill anyone for working on the Sabbath so that is a ludicrous question.:rolleyes:

*************
M*W: But that's what your god said in your bible. If that god is not your god, then who is your god? Your god can't have it both ways.

He's not going to tell me to kill someone so the question is dumb and I'm not playing.

*************
M*W: Then who is your god? He's obviously NOT the god of your bible. So who is he? Who is this god you worship?

I will ask you again. Why did you come to a predominantly atheistic forum to preach your lies?

Only two types of morality...like discipline. Imposed and self.

Religion is often imposed discipline, philosophy often leads to self morality.

dont you mean the reverse here.
what is the motivation to be moral with religion, according to the bible scriptures you cannot say that either god or jesus are moral, far from it. if your doing things that are morally bad for pleasure, then your not a moral person anyway, and religion has nothing to do with it.

my brother a devout xian, when he's been angered, he has said if it wasn't for he's fear of god he could kill someone. I have been angered and I have no fear of a god(or believe in any god) and killing anybody does not enter my head.
my personal opinion is religion is the most immoral cult on this planet.
I cant remember who said it exactly and if the quote is vebatum, but here goes "bad people do bad things, good people do good things, for a good person to do bad things takes religion"

killing someone is a bit of an extreme example... killing a person is something that not a lot of people would be capable to do because it is very easy to see it as wrong because of the value we give our own lives... also there is the iminent punishment of going to prison for life or maybe even being executed to pay for the crime

In order to understand the question, I'll give an example that is not so extreme: shop lifting. There are tons of people who do it, sometimes the things they lift are not even very valuable and might not even be missed, but it is imoral nontheless. If it's something that you want, nobody will miss it and you are not going to get caught doing it, why not do it?

The answer I gave my friend is similar to the answer that sandy gave here. She said that she wants to please god and wants him to thing she did the right thing. In my case, I replace god with my parents. Because of the way I was brought up, I'm usually very moral, because I feel extremely guilty when I do something that I know my parents would think it's wrong. I like to be able to stand up in front of my father and be able to look him in the eyes, because of that I try to be moral.

The idea that one is moral to other humans simply to please a deity is not really moral. The motivation behind it lacks true empathy or respect and is inclined toward narcissism as if it's a selfish prize to be won for jumping the hoops. Morality is simply awareness of cause and effect of what damages or is beneficial by our actions to ourselves and others. If you value life for it's own sake or the feelings of others you will be inclined to be moral.

I personally think simply educating kids on logic, basic morality will lead to a broad, non-religiously confrontational,(that is most religions should not be angered by) morality that people will follow yes indeed FOR their own good(peace - non destructive behaviour).

The answer to the thread title "question" is, of course, obviously and inarguably, Yes.

It isn't even a question. to even act as if there were any serious doubt about it is just an accusation... yet another of religion's endless supply of hateful accusations against the unbrainwashed.

I'm sorry if this subject has already been exausted in other occasions. If so, could someone give me a link to the thread?

I was discussing this with a friend of mine in another board, and he seems to believe that there is no motivation to be moral when there is no god.

I gave him a quick basic argument of utilitarism among other points from the humanistic point of view, and my personal opinion that what motivates a person to be moral is the capacity to feel guilt. But he seemed not to be convinced.


www.atheists.org/Atheism/ethics.html

I gave him a quick basic argument of utilitarism among other points from the humanistic point of view...
Is your own psychology dominated entirely by utility?

I was discussing this with a friend of mine in another board, and he seems to believe that there is no motivation to be moral when there is no god.

if you can do something imoral that is pleasurable to you, and there is no chance you will get caught, why be moral?

I think it is quite safe to state that chimpanzees do not worship or believe in gods. It is also quite safe to state that generally speaking a chimpanzee can do something 'immoral' without getting caught and punished. And yet what we see are these godless chimps getting along with one another - gently plucking fleas out of each others hair. Why? They have no god or religious moral code to prevent them from going around mass slaughtering each other.

It's risky, it takes a lot of effort and even when tried, you'll soon learn who is dominant and therefore not try again. Morals aside, because I could happily kill anyone that got in my face, it is simply easier to get along with others - and from a selfish point of view serves my needs well. I want to spread my genes, I have to be nice to get what I want, to get enough food because I am not capable of getting it all myself I need companions etc.

Creatures can lack any sense of morals, any beliefs in gods and yet they still will not go round whacking each other for the mere sake of it. Even ants with a brain the size of ----> . <---- don't do it.

(Yes you will find fights amongst animal kind for territory/mating rights etc etc but mankind does the exact same thing, but only when the risk is worth taking. It's not worth picking a fight for no good reason).

Indeed, termites have a natural sense of mutual co-operation that human societies have seldom attained.

Humans are the only species that will deliberately exterminate members of their own gene pool.

What does that suggest?

Theist are the most immoral people. They do things not based on ethics but on whats written or told to them.

Indeed, termites have a natural sense of mutual co-operation that human societies have seldom attained.

Humans are the only species that will deliberately exterminate members of their own gene pool.

What does that suggest?

What about *shudder* spiders?

Animals also do not make cities...they give each other as much territory as needed, or they also fight. We have morally made rules which allow us to increasingly live more and more closer, and we can immorally undo them.

It's not worth picking a fight for no good reason).But it can be such fun.:o

I think that [prior to going into detalied answers] seculars have to admit that morals come FROM Biblical sources.

But it can be such fun

Not if the other guy wins :D

http://www.sfbg.com/39/21/cover_fight.html

I think that [prior to going into detalied answers] seculars have to admit that morals come FROM Biblical sources.

Complete and utter nonsense. Needless to say, before the bible was written the people that wrote the bible would have had to have morals to be able to write about those morals - ergo, it cannot be biblically sourced.

Furthermore, the biblical laws have their origins in much earlier texts such as the code of Hammurabi.

Your statement is incorrect.

I think that [prior to going into detalied answers] seculars have to admit that morals come FROM Biblical sources.

So, before the writing of the bible, there was no such thing as morality? That's a bit silly.

I think that [prior to going into detalied answers] seculars have to admit that morals come FROM Biblical sources.

*************
M*W: Humans by nature have morals. The bible is a latter day document compared to the Code of Hammurabi which contained the original commandments (more than ten, as I recall) before the bible scribes copied the Code and plagarized it in the bible.

*************
M*W: Humans by nature have morals. The bible is a latter day document compared to the Code of Hammurabi which contained the original commandments (more than ten, as I recall) before the bible scribes copied the Code and plagarized it in the bible.

No wonder all the religion have morals as integral part of them.

The bible is a latter day document compared to the Code of Hammurabi which contained the original commandments before the bible scribes copied the Code and plagarized it in the bible.
The Code of Hammurabi contains 282 laws, none of which reads like any of the ten Hebrew commandments.

Medicine Woman, it's only plegiarism if you claim it's original work.

Medicine Woman, it's only plegiarism if you claim it's original work.

*************
M*W: Isn't that what the authors of the OT did?

The Code of Hammurabi contains 282 laws, none of which reads like any of the ten Hebrew commandments.

Your statement is in error. The "ten commandments" are not the only laws found in the OT. There are dozens if not hundreds of laws featured in the OT from what to do with diseased people to how to treat slaves, from how to grow crop on your land to what kind of clothing you can or can not wear. These views and laws on what is right and wrong vastly predate the biblical laws and are indeed the predecessor to them - thus showing Terras statement to be utterly without worth.

Furthermore it is worth asking what exactly Terra refers to to begin with. It has to be stated that it's unlikely those "biblically sourced" morals would include keeping slaves, stoning prostitutes, witches and naughty children etc etc and so forth. This in itself shows that morals are not "biblically sourced", because when it comes down to these 'morals' pretty much every one of us disagrees with those biblical morals.

The "ten commandments" are not the only laws found in the OT. There are dozens if not hundreds of laws featured in the OT from what to do with diseased people to how to treat slaves, from how to grow crop on your land to what kind of clothing you can or can not wear.
Yes, but the Code of Hammurabi bears only a marginal and coincidental resemblence.