Judgment Day

[ToranagaSama]

This post is directly inspired by the What are your beliefs thread and is a reflection of The Good the Bad the Ugly Pt. II thread, though composed before.

Regarding, What are your beliefs (please see initial post), its impossible to vote as some questions are contrary in addition to the fact that one can believe in an amalgamation of questions 1, 2 and 3.

I'd like to ask the Atheist and Agnositics a question, if you all would be so kind as to answer, I thank you.

1) If there is no G_d, then, do you have a sense of morality, and what is it based upon and/or where does it come from?

2) Without G_d's morality, commandments and the consequence of Damnation, what then is your motivation for moral action and to live a moral life (presuming the general understanding of morality).

In addition, what would be the motivation for anyone to live a moral life? Wouldn't you agree that in a G_dless world, that anyone can then determine one's own definition of morality and conduct one's life accordingly? Would this NOT then result in a worldstate of Anarchy.

Given the realities of the above paragraph, and that Anarchy isn't appealing, then your Belief and Faith must reside in Government, and particularly, the Law--that is--the Legal System? In effect, from a religious point of view or a G_d view, then your Faith is in your fellow Man. Man who is without Morality or, at best/worst, defines his own, individual, Morality.

[Hmmm...the above might be a good description for Hell, an existence without Morality....hmmmm.]

Damnation is G_d's moral consequence. If one's Faith and Belief is in the Law, the obvious question, then, is where is the Law's moral consequence?

Can Man's Law define morality for all of man? The Law's consequence for immoral actions contrary to the Law is Prison, is it not? Yet, this consequence is escapable in a number and variety of ways; AND the Law's consequence is rendered inequitably. I would argue that this is the state in which we live (anarchanistic). The Law's consequence provides no true motivation toward morality for those, who, are willing and/or are capable of enduring or escaping the Law's consequence. Consquently, there is little or no habor nor ultimate protection for Man.

G_d's consequence, on the other hand, is absolute, inescapable and equitable. It serves as a moral compass and inhibitor to a degree that the Law, Man's Law, can NEVER serve.

Damnation is a strong (individual) motivator. What is the individual motivation for moral action under Man's Law? It can only be a sensical group attempt to forestall some or certain, presumably, accepted and agreed negative consequences to Anarchy. Yet, if any individual does not cede to the accepted or agreed (or the presumption) then he is morally free to define his morality and conduct his life and actions.

In addition to the individualist nature to morality, there is the group attempt at morality I mention above. The consequences of one group's morality differing from another group's has all too clearly been exhibited inumerably and devestatingly in history, and is, again, being played out on a world stage as I type and you read.

Such is the make of the Hilters of this world. While the Hilter's can be cited as an extreme example of the fallacy's of Man's Law, and are short-lived, the immorality that they've wrought is not, and to a far greater extent are the immoral actions of lesser Hitlers, those who define their own morality. There numbers are greater, there effect is cumulative and there is no Judgment day for them.


---

I also ask, if you believe in the concepts of Good and Evil (this does not have to be defined in a biblical sense, but in whatever worldly sense you prefer, but I ask the question in the generally accepted concept of Good and Evil)?

If there is, in fact, Good and Evil, how can it be defined? Without a *certain* (literal definition) moral base, can Good and/or Evil be defined and known? Doesn't Morality require a certainty.


----


IMHO, I believe that many who are without Faith or Belief, are so, greatly, because of a confusion between G_d and religion. The two are not the same and that's another thread....

[katar]

finally, a few sensible questions

1) If there is no G_d, then, do you have a sense of morality

yep, i do have a sence of morality, it is based upon my feelings of right and wrong, not because a book or preacher told me to think one way or another.

if you see someone hurt, would you help them or not?
i would help them, they are a human being, as am i.

no devine intervention is necessary for such a decision, on the contrary, some people would not help BECAUSE they follow a DIFFERENT FAITH than the person who is hurt (i`m sure a lot of people here know of the parable of good samaratin&#33.

and what is it based upon and/or where does it come from?

it comes from my parents telling me what was right and what was wrong and later on from what i myself thought i could accept or reject as good or bad and be able to accept that choice in my conscence(spelling?).

most religions have good points on what is helpful to your fellow man, but sorting it out from all of the accumulated dross can be a problem.

2) Without G_d's morality, commandments and the consequence of Damnation, what then is your motivation for moral action and to live a moral life (presuming the general understanding of morality).

being able to look in a mirror and not feel pain or guilt in regard to my actions, to know that i helped someone without reward or recompence.

i may not be remembered for anything in my life, but i will know that i have chosen well in what i have done with it.

regarding consequences; at the end of the day i am my own judge and exicutioner.

In addition, what would be the motivation for anyone to live a moral life? Wouldn't you agree that in a G_dless world, that anyone can then determine one's own definition of morality and conduct one's life accordingly? Would this NOT then result in a worldstate of Anarchy.

motivation; feeling good, feeling fufilled.

result in anarchy?

no, you don`t need to be an atheist to be a murderer... etc.. ,

and according to some extreme versions of several religions you can get a free entrance ticket to heaven by doing exactly that

can you tell me where the morals are in that?

Doesn't Morality require a certainty.

we live, we die.

that is my moral certainty, you can deal with it however you wish.

p.s. why do you spell God as G_d ?

[econ21]

ToranagaSama, I don't think the connection between morality and damnation is as close as you suggest, even for the religious. I believe many systems of religious belief do not stress damnation or even the reward of an afterlife, but nonetheless promote morality.

As an aetheist, I find the idea that someone only does the right thing because he is afraid of being fried in the afterlife alternately amusing and frankly scarey. If someone was really only doing what is right in order to promote his own interests (albeit in an afterlife), that would reduce my respect for his good behaviour considerably. To me, the essence of morality is that it is at heart not self-interest (however enlightened) but something that constrains self-interest.

We do what is right because an inner voice tells us it is what should be done. Yes, sometimes we are weak and ignore that voice, but even then we still hear it and know that we have done wrong. We may walk away unobserved and go scot free, but there remains a lingering guilt and conscience inside. Do it wrong too often and we feel lesser beings, and the worth of our life becomes diminished in our own eyes.

I suspect the previous paragraph describes the real ethical motivations of many religious people as well as aetheists, regardless of their professed doctrines.

[Archlight]

Quote[/b] ]1) If there is no G_d, then, do you have a sense of morality, and what is it based upon and/or where does it come from?

I do have a sense of morality and it is based on my interactions with human beings as well as the influence of my parents. I know that I have done things that have hurt people in the past, whether mentally/emotionally or physically(never seriously) and even just seeing the look on their face makes me feel so terrible I can barely stand it. How would I feel if I were that person? There is one of the christian tenents I actually agree with. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I know that not everyone will live by that, but that is my personal choice. Maybe I could be considered weak because of it, but at least I can live with myself. I suppose this answers #2 partly as well.

Quote[/b] ]In addition, what would be the motivation for anyone to live a moral life? Wouldn't you agree that in a G_dless world, that anyone can then determine one's own definition of morality and conduct one's life accordingly? Would this NOT then result in a worldstate of Anarchy.

Anarchy my or may not result as those with the same moral convictions would group together and not accept the actions of those they considered amoral. If there are large enough groups, then there would most likely be nations formed based on these ideals. Just like the Constitution could be likened to the morals of the United States in general.

Quote[/b] ]Given the realities of the above paragraph, and that Anarchy isn't appealing, then your Belief and Faith must reside in Government, and particularly, the Law--that is--the Legal System?

Just because someone does not believe in God does not automatically mean they believe in their government. I myself feel that our government is broken and in need of fixing. Going about that is another matter. So along these lines I guess I'm just a faithless cur.

Quote[/b] ]Damnation is G_d's moral consequence. If one's Faith and Belief is in the Law, the obvious question, then, is where is the Law's moral consequence?

It's called capital punishment(the death penalty). People oppose it, but I say to the religious fundamentalists that oppose it, Isn't it just speeding that person to God's Judgement? If we're wrong about the person, well then he'll go to heaven.... On a more secular note, at least that person will never commit those crimes again. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you... On the prison subject. Our prisons here aren't prisons, they're summer camps for thugs. If they're going to prison it should be PRISON No TV, no books, no conjugal visits, no extensive workout facilities. I say hard labor if they want to get into shape.

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]We do what is right because an inner voice tells us it is what should be done. Yes, sometimes we are weak and ignore that voice, but even then we still hear it and know that we have done wrong. We may walk away unobserved and go scot free, but there remains a lingering guilt and conscience inside. Do it wrong too often and we feel lesser beings, and the worth of our life becomes diminished in our own eyes.

i took half a page to explain myself and you sum it up a lot better in four lines, nice one

[Archlight]

GAH Hit the wrong button and posted before done.... Is there an edit post button that I'm missing?

To finish, Morality does not stem from religion or religious institutions. Certain religions may promote a certain set of morals, but that does not mean that with no religion or no god that there are no proper morals.

Yes, various groups' morals will be vastly different and cause conflict. Such is life. Humans ARE still goverened by survival of the fittest, though we try our hardest to circumvent it.

OK I'm out of banter for now. I look forward to reading more replies, and thank you for the thought provoking thread.

[Archlight]

Togakure, You bring up an interesting scenario, thank you for posting.

In the Beliefs thread someone mentioned that God wasn't a being per se, but was the energy of the universe and more. Quite the possibility. One reason I'm an agnostic and not an outright atheist.

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]For me, the inner voice you mentioned--that which causes us to feel good or bad about a thing--is the voice of God.

as far as i`m concerned that inner voice i feel is ME, not some outside controlling force.

[rory_20_uk]

As an agnostic, I feel scared that religious people feel that the only reason that they are good is because they fear damnation
On a personal level, I think that my own moral code is set by myself. I think that religion sets the norms for society in virtually all cases, and those that are not complete god bods usually follow the dictats of society.
I personally feel no need to help anyone that is not either a friend or member of my family unless I've got nothing else to do, or it is of gain to myself. On a similar note, I feel that if the situation arose I would do almost anything to protect a friend or member of family - even if this meant the death of many others... But that's just me.
I think that you have got this the wrong way round: do wolves / dolphins / schools of fish / flocks of birds / nests of beavers require a G_D to tell them how to behave in a group? Not as far as I am aware.
I think that humans link to religion qualities that most humans instinctively do in any case: not killing members of the social group is of course benefit to the group - just as killing with religious fervour is laudable if the people are outside of the group.
Indeed, religions can be thought of as parasites of the mind: infect others, provide money (tithes) to spread the infection, build buildings (churches) to keep the populace infected, and DESTROY other similar infections.
Other apects of religion are there to protect us: Mulsims view pigs as unclean - and they are a scource of intestinal parasites. Hindus view cows as sacred - and they are another scourse of parasites. Savred anduncean may seem very different, but the result is that neither animal is eaten. But I digress...

The bottom line is that religion is something that has survived everything that has been thrown at it. It's one of the most amazing diesases that is unique to the human race.

[Duke John]

So ToranagaSama you're saying that for you believers the only reason to behave socially is because you will be judged?

Isn't this a bit egoistic and totally asocial?

Really you can't say with an honest heart that believing improves peace and happiness for everybody. Especially saying it on a forum where the focus is on the Medieval times where the crusades killed thousands of people, so-called witches were burned and the church milked out the poor.

Cheers, Duke John

[el_slapper]

I believe in god(that makes of me an alien in France, but that is offtopic). But it is not what defines my morals.

What defines my morals is that I like to live in a good world, and that depends of the existence of morals. Those morals, though, may vary upon life conditions. People living in harsher conditions need harsher reaction to survive, while in our civilized & rich world, it does make no sense to be violent. Thou shall not kill, IMHO, is far more useful now than at Moses's times.....

[rory_20_uk]

Decrees such as thou shalt not kill being viewed as being open to debate or viewed as thou shalt not kill - unless you REALLY need to, or they are foreign, or you've got a damn good reason. Things were tough in Moses's time, but so what? The plea but I am down on my luck IMO holds little sway either legally or morally.
Personally, I have never killed anyone, and I hope that I never have to. BUT in extreme situations I would do so without much in the way of compunction. That is my own belief, admittedly one so loosely structured as to allow practically anything under sufficiently difficult situations.
The extreme situations do not mean poverty or wealth, as such things are only useful for the things that they can do. Poverty may bring me closer to stealing from friends to survive, but only threats to my life would cause me to kill others.

[mystic brew]

Speaking as an atheist, I would say that for religious and non-religious people the urge 'to be good' comes from within. Largely, anyway.

Being religious, having a belief in god, is absolutely not synonynous with morality. For those with a belief in the grand plan and the big picture - from there comes the thinking of the inquisition and Vietnam - it was necessary to kill these people to save their souls/ it became necessary to destroy the village in order to save it

Put it this way - a very good summary of the secular humanist position
- if there is no grand plan; if there is no big picture; if nothing we do matters, then all that matters is what we do.

i don't know if this makes it any clearer.

But it is a fallacy that the godless man is without morals. just as it is a fallacy that those who have a loving relationship with god are moral by definition.

[LestaT]

Just a thought but not sure wether i'm in the right topic. Has the world been a better place since medieval times when more and more people for go religion and God ? Have we seen and experience less war ?

Just a thought...

[Fortebraccio]

I am an atheist, and funny enough, I never thought my
non-religious affiliation could have anything to do with morality.
I think that morality is basically a matter of expectations. What I expect from others and what I expect from myself concur to define my morality. Where such expectations come from? From my instinctive nature, from my (mis)understanding of life's dynamics, from my cultural background. Morality is not equal to reason...it is not equal to emotion, and it is certainly not equal to social environment. Yet, you would not understand what morality is if you don't consider each of those factors, and the expectations they create.

[el_slapper]

Ah, forgot to give a broader example. In my beloved country, there are privately funded organizations that help the poor, thanks to donations. Biggest of them are Secours Catholique & Secours populaire. No need to translate, I think. They do exactly the same very good job. Only difference is some believe in god, others don't. Despite that difference, they have the same morals : helping the poor on their spare time. And I praise both.

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]Just a thought but not sure wether i'm in the right topic. Has the world been a better place since medieval times when more and more people for go religion and God ? Have we seen and experience less war ?

with or without religion you seem to have discovered one of the main flaws in humanity; just because you know right from wrong does not mean that you have to follow the correct path.

lots of people who do bad things already know that it is bad, but it suits them to choose otherwise.

[Parmenio]

Human beings are far from a optimal evolved design physically. Obvious examples include the backbone (inappropriate for vertical weight distribution in a biped, though excellent for horizontal quadrupeds,) the appendix (left over obsolete organ occasionally requiring surgical removal) and feet (neither hand nor paw nor hoof.) Still for the most part they work and get us around.

I suspect that the human mind too is of similar condition.

At some point the ability to believe in and act upon things that could not be immediately seen or heard or otherwise detected, and existed only in an imagined future, became a survival trait of singular importance to our ancestors. The addition of language and tool-making not being enough in and of themselves.

There is a subset of mathematics called Game Theory in which co-operation is shown to be more profitable under certain conditions. Further it can be demonstrated that game behaviour that might be interpreted as ‘morality’ or ‘honour’ has long term advantage in sequences of games, though occasional games may need to be deliberately lost or ‘thrown’ by adherence to such concepts.

Scientifically then, morality needs no God, to be a useful long term survival trait in terms of oneself and one’s genetic descendants.

Yet God or Gods or other belief systems are very useful things.

It is the nature of human minds to equate strength of action in proportion to strength of belief. Absolute belief, enables one to perform heroic actions otherwise considered dangerous, irrational or in some cases inhuman.

The addition attribute of absolute belief systems - being easy to graft hierarchical power structures onto – is of course of extreme interest to those who would wield power and shape human societies. Religion and propaganda share much common ground.

“If God did not exist he would have to be invented.” – Voltaire

I personally require no God. I understand that ‘morality’ or at least the outward appearance of adherence to morality is a stratagem in acquiring power.

And I am very much interested in power.

[Archlight]

Quote[/b] ]I personally require no God. I understand that ‘morality’ or at least the outward appearance of adherence to morality is a stratagem in acquiring power.

And I am very much interested in power.

Yet another flaw in human make-up. Desire for power and it's corrupting influence.

[bhutavarna]

mr toranagasama,

what's with g_d???? can't you just say god?

i want to point out a flaw in your argument. god's law of morality is nothing but compilation of group or individual human law of morality, because god's law is written by human. your questions implies that there is difference in god's moral laws and atheist moral laws, in that god's law is actually written by god.

so unless you can prove to me that god exists and it actually wrote god's laws, i can throw the same questions you asked to the god believing folks, including yourself i presume.

[Sigurd]

Quote[/b] (Parmenio @ Sep. 18 2003,03:32)]Human beings are far from a optimal evolved design physically. Obvious examples include the backbone (inappropriate for vertical weight distribution in a biped, though excellent for horizontal quadrupeds,) the appendix (left over obsolete organ occasionally requiring surgical removal) and feet (neither hand nor paw nor hoof.) Still for the most part they work and get us around.
I suspect that the human mind too is of similar condition.

This my friend, is giving ammo to the ones that believe we are Gods in the making…

I agree to Parmenio’s view of the morality question, that our species survival depends on or benefits from a moral code. Moreover, I think Religion was instituted as a channel to teach and implement this notion.

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]This my friend, is giving ammo to the ones that believe we are Gods in the making…

humanity as gods?

that has got to be one of the silliest ideas iv`e ever heard in my life

anyone who who thinks that is a loon.

[squippy]

Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 18 2003,02:58)]

Quote[/b] ]This my friend, is giving ammo to the ones that believe we are Gods in the making…

humanity as gods?

that has got to be one of the silliest ideas iv`e ever heard in my life

anyone who who thinks that is a loon.

Really? I think gods a wuss by comaprison with humanity.

God burned down the odd city here and there. We burned Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

God killed the first born sons of egypt in one night. We could do that with biowarfare, now or soon.

God was apparently ignorant of the fact that the earth rotated around the sun; humanity is not so ignorant.

God offers us imortality of the spirit, but humanity is working diligently on immortality in the flesh.

We kick gods butt.

[rory_20_uk]

Giod thinks of himself as all powerful and tried to control us. We, whilst knowing that wer are not still strive to control our environment, make discoveries and understand our world. individually we are weaker, but we show far more grit in attempting to push back the boundries, even knowing that there is no great reason to do so.
God doesn't want us in Eden. Well, we don't want him here.

[LestaT]

Another thought. Isn't atheist is religion itself ? To believe in denying the existence of God (and other spritual beings) is a form of belief itself, right ?

[A.Saturnus]

Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 18 2003,09:58)]

Quote[/b] ]This my friend, is giving ammo to the ones that believe we are Gods in the making…

humanity as gods?

that has got to be one of the silliest ideas iv`e ever heard in my life

anyone who who thinks that is a loon.

Every man and every woman is a star - Aleister Crowley



As I have pointed out in another thread, morality can not be founded on the divine without connecting it with the divine power to punish the mortals. God`s law is the law of the strongest. Otherwise, any theological foundation of morality is as relativistic as secular ones.
But a relativistic moral can work. Actually, the idea it couldn`t is probably based on the false assumtion that man can decide upon his behaviour out of a 'free will'. Which is of course, wrong. 'Relativistic' ethic refers to the philosophical reasoning behind it. Anyone may be able to define his moral theoretically, but the conscience is a product of socialization. Kids take over the moral code their parents (and the rest of society) educate upon them. Ethical behaviour can be learned just like any other behaviour.

Quote[/b] ]Another thought. Isn't atheist is religion itself ? To believe in denying the existence of God (and other spritual beings) is a form of belief itself, right ?

Hasn`t that been discussed to death in several other threads now?

[katar]

Quote[/b] ]Another thought. Isn't atheist is religion itself ? To believe in denying the existence of God (and other spritual beings) is a form of belief itself, right ?

if you keep thinking like that you`ll just end up like a dog chasing it`s own tail, eternally frustrated

[Sigurd]

Quote[/b] (squippy @ Sep. 18 2003,20:17)]

Quote[/b] (katar @ Sep. 18 2003,02:58)]

Quote[/b] ]This my friend, is giving ammo to the ones that believe we are Gods in the making…

humanity as gods?
that has got to be one of the silliest ideas iv`e ever heard in my life
anyone who who thinks that is a loon.

Really? I think gods a wuss by comaprison with humanity.
God burned down the odd city here and there. We burned Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
God killed the first born sons of egypt in one night. We could do that with biowarfare, now or soon.
God was apparently ignorant of the fact that the earth rotated around the sun; humanity is not so ignorant.
God offers us imortality of the spirit, but humanity is working diligently on immortality in the flesh.
We kick gods butt.

Exactly,
Most “miracles” of the Old Testament is possible for us to do by using known science.
Who knows what is possible in 1000 years time (if we manage to keep humanity alive for that long).
We might be the new “gods” of this universe, able to Terraform planets and implement ecosystems etc.
We could even stumble across systems with life bearing planets.
It would be interesting to see how ‘they’ would view us IF we did find life in other systems.
I am not a believer in the “Chariots of the Gods” theories, but find such readings interesting as an alternative explanation for the stories in e.g. the Bible.

[Gregoshi]

Let's keep this to intelligent debate - not My non-god can kick your god's butt (or vis-versa).

[Sigurd]

I thought we had buried this thread...