Ethics without God ? - Canada by Adam Deen

[deenman]

Do non muslims have morals ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRyLp...response_watch

[Follower]

Do all Muslims have morals?

[Pygoscelis]

Define "morals".

From what I can tell "morals" as in Islam and Christianity is nothing but obedience to he with the ultimate power.

Those of us who are not blindly obedient to power still have empathy and social norms. And I dare say that many "religious" people are more reliant on empathy and social norms than obedience anyway - these are the ones who will pick and choose what parts of their holy book to follow (based on their own god-independent moral compas from what I can tell).

[aamirsaab]

Do non muslims have morals ?

Yes. All human beings have morals and are capable of behaving morally.

...
From what I can tell "morals" as in Islam and Christianity is nothing but obedience to he with the ultimate power....

That comes into it certainly (in Islam that is, not so sure about Christianity - maybe Glo or Eric H can provide an answer on that front) but it's not the sole reason for behaving morally in Islam.

You feel it in you when you do something good/act morally; you see something on the other persons face or see the 'fruits of your labour' etc. You get some positive feedback from behaving morally, so instinctively you'll repeat it (or do something similar of that nature). Only difference in Islam (compared to non-religious) is that you're given extra encouragement through the teachings.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Yanal]

What is moral? After someone tells me this I can answer the question. JazakAllah to who those.

[Yanal]

Nevermind I got the definition,yes everyone with a religion I think has the capability of having a moral even if they are non Muslims . Jewish people have morals,Sikh people have morals,you need to understand the concept of morals first,after that you can answer your own question.

A moral is basically a message learned from a actual epic(real story about heroic) in Muslims case Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is our epic hero,hero because without him leading our ummah we would be non Muslims,and that means he'll for us. Most morals in Islam are related to Prophets and some to their companions. Everyone has different morals they follow and we should respect that as they would respect ours.

[AntiKarateKid]

Without Allah, I don't see the point in being "good".

There is no guarantee that peace will triumph over oppression.

Morals would be a man made item which I could discard when they got too burdensome.

Nothing would really matter, morals are a cruel joke in an uncaring universe.

I'd just be a bunch of vibrating atoms with nothing more to me than my chemical makeup.

Really, what does it matter?

[Pygoscelis]

Without Allah, I don't see the point in being "good".

There is no guarantee that peace will triumph over oppression.

Morals would be a man made item which I could discard when they got too burdensome.

Nothing would really matter, morals are a cruel joke in an uncaring universe.

I'd just be a bunch of vibrating atoms with nothing more to me than my chemical makeup.

Really, what does it matter?

I think you know it matters. I think you have a sense of empathy. I think you instinctively dislike seeing others suffer. That has nothing to do with authority (God) or any promise (heaven) or threat (hell). It goes beyond cost/benefit analysis. Its part of who you are as a human being. Yes, even in an uncaring universe, I think you'd still care.

[crayon]

I agree with Pygo.

In Islam, everyone is born upon the fitra, it is simply society that corrupts them eventually. Fitra is not limited to worshiping one God, it is essence of all natural human nature, to be good, kind, generous, etc. Even if the fitra of worshiping one God is erased, doesn't mean the entire fitra is.

People are innately good, they have a conscience that compels them to do good and refrain from commiting evil. Most people remain that way throughout their lives, unless they're seriously corrupted. Of course, there's also the problem of what is considered "good" and what is not, which is determined almost entirely by society. As an example, some years back, the "good", normal people were those that condemned homosexuality and gay marriage; now those people are considered bad.

However, simply having good ethics and morals is not enough, since the correct intention for being a good person is not there. For a good deed to be accepted, it must be done purely for the sake of Allah, and in accordance with the sunnah of the prophet. So if someone does not acknowledge the existence of Allah in the first place, or commits shirk, all good deeds are rendered useless in the hereafter (although any nonmuslim who does good deeds will still be dealt with justly- they will either reap their reward in this world, which is the only one that concerns them, or their punishment in the afterlife made less severe.)

[burdenofbeing]

using morals is coded in ourselves. they are non-beneficial in some circumstances, and are beneficial in other circumstances. when the majority of the people have strong morals, bein immoral is more beneficial. it is explained in detail in "the selfish gene" by richard dawkins.

one could argue that religion is a strong force in shaping people's moral values, and keeping people immoral in nature from behaving so. this is not different than having laws. belief and religion is beyond morality and laws. they are not the things that set religions apart from other things.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Do non muslims have morals ?

Is that a serious question or some kind of weird joke?

Peace

[AntiKarateKid]

I think you know it matters. I think you have a sense of empathy. I think you instinctively dislike seeing others suffer. That has nothing to do with authority (God) or any promise (heaven) or threat (hell). It goes beyond cost/benefit analysis. Its part of who you are as a human being. Yes, even in an uncaring universe, I think you'd still care.

Part of me being a human being? What is that supposed to mean? Without a metaphysical aspect, I am just blob of atoms having chemical interactions with each other.

Empathy, dislike of suffering etc only go so far. You would be hard pressed to find these to any significant extent in some people. Scientifically, as long as it benefits me I might do it. I might donate to feel good about myself or to let me friends see me as a charitable person, or to get something in return.

I like to take things to their logical ends. "Without God," the more I think about it the more worthless these supposed morals people thrust upon me are. It just doesn't matter. "With God," concepts of ultimate justice come into play which are much more compelling.

By the way, for an atheist you sure describe morals in a sorta-metaphysical manner.

[burdenofbeing]

I like to take things to their logical ends. "Without God," the more I think about it the more worthless these supposed morals people thrust upon me are. It just doesn't matter. "With God," concepts of ultimate justice come into play which are much more compelling.

It's quite normal for you to feel that way, but it's far from being the truth. People of different religions, pagans, followers of magic and of course today with a much higher frequency, atheists have morals as well. Any person who thinks there should be a law about something, have morals. That's how laws are born.

[AntiKarateKid]

It's quite normal for you to feel that way, but it's far from being the truth. People of different religions, pagans, followers of magic and of course today with a much higher frequency, atheists have morals as well. Any person who thinks there should be a law about something, have morals. That's how laws are born.

I'm afraid you misread my post. I am not talking about IF people have "morals" as Allah has created us all with the ability to have them, but that without Allah these "morals" are pointless, burdensome, man-made creations.

Also, their "morals" are not truly moral unless their are aligned with what Allah revealed through his messenger who truly was the most moral human being, being one of the Prophets of Mankind.

[burdenofbeing]

that is clearly an islamic perspective, but not necessarily the only logical way.

besides, morals can't be man-made creations, even in an islamic p.o.v, as you yourself has stated, Allah has given us. the psyche of men, id, ego and super ego is also existant in Islamic thought and Quran. where there is super ego, there is morals. end of story.

[alcurad]

I'm afraid you misread my post. I am not talking about IF people have "morals" as Allah has created us all with the ability to have them, but that without Allah these "morals" are pointless, burdensome, man-made creations.

Also, their "morals" are not truly moral unless their are aligned with what Allah revealed through his messenger who truly was the most moral human being, being one of the Prophets of Mankind.

but brother, morals are for the benefit of mankind, how could any morals be pointless etc?
morals are man made I think. humans will have morals regardless, notice there are people to this day whom the religion hasn't been preached to, yet posses morals.

[glo]

Define "morals".

From what I can tell "morals" as in Islam and Christianity is nothing but obedience to he with the ultimate power.

Hi Pygo

I have never really seen it like that.
You make it sound like believers only ever act in order to obey God.

Like I really can't be bothered to help the old lady across the street ... but I better, because God wants me to.
Like I would love to beat up my neighbour ... but I better not, because the Bible tells me not to.
Like I fancy sleeping around ... but I better not, because God wants me to be a faithful wife.

Of course it isn't really like that.
Is that what you imagine drives believers?

I think people mostly do good things because it brings joy - joy to the other person, joy to oneself and - in the case of those who believe in God - joy to God.

However, there certainly are situations when I am ready to throw in the towel, when I am worn down or when my own moods or desires are about to get the better of me - and when I believe to only continue on or act 'correctly' by the power of God rather than my own strength.
I wonder what makes a non-believer persevere at such a point ...
(But that takes us probably to a different discussion)

Peace :)

[AntiKarateKid]

that is clearly an islamic perspective, but not necessarily the only logical way.

besides, morals can't be man-made creations, even in an islamic p.o.v, as you yourself has stated, Allah has given us. the psyche of men, id, ego and super ego is also existant in Islamic thought and Quran. where there is super ego, there is morals. end of story.

No. Not end of story.

Hypothetical Scenario: I'm on an Island away from civilization. There is an old man with a stash of jewelry and gold. Noone knows him, noone is watching what happens. WHy the hell can't I kill him and take his stuff? Cause we have "morals"? LOL. I'm going to die soon anyways, the least I can do is live large and well before I do. I care about myself and not the man, because it just doesn't matter whichever way I go.

You don't seem to understand still.

It-Doesn't-Matter.

Sure I'll follow them when there's some immediate benefit, but I'm not an animal that I work for the herd. If I want to be selfish I will, I don't give a **** about the other guy unless it suits me in some way, however minute, be it me "feeling" good that I gave the guy a dollar. It all comes down to ME.

[AntiKarateKid]

but brother, morals are for the benefit of mankind, how could any morals be pointless etc?
morals are man made I think. humans will have morals regardless, notice there are people to this day whom the religion hasn't been preached to, yet posses morals.

See my example above. Why should I care? Because of some ambiguous instinct that you claim we all possess. I'm a thinking man and not at the whims of my instinct. And I think that if it doesn't benefit me I don't care. There is no reason I should either. Scientifically there is no need unless it benefits.

Like I said before. No matter how you live your life or how "moral" you are it doesn't matter in the end. The human race is going to die soon. Everything does. And we are all just dust.




I'm talking hypothetically, in reality Allah has given us morals.

[burdenofbeing]

Scientifically there is no need unless it benefits.

scientifically morals are beneficial in a species scale.

let me ask you this, why do people make children? how is it beneficial to spend your time money health on some guy you don't even know :) but you see people doing it. because we have the urge within ourselves. feels of shame and guilt; conscience is embedded within us.

I really understand why you think you would do the "evil things" islam keeps you from doing now, if you weren't a muslim. but that's your reasoning coming to surface unconsciously. probably.

it is end of story by the way. super ego is morals, and everybody has it.

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
Ethics and morals exist at the very least as a social construct. The motivation behind those acts are different for each individual but all fit the bill of reward (in some way shape or form).

For the religious, it is to please God/benefit in the hereafter; for the non-religious it is to please others (obviously, the two motivators are not mutually exclusive and can thus apply to both. Also, this is not to negate other motivating factors - just pointing out a common and general perspective based on reward).

There is nothing inherently wrong with either case or motivating factor in and of themselves. I should also mention that motivation and hope are very closely linked: if you are motivated to work 24 hours, you do so because of hope of reward.

Without that hope and motivation offered by religion (specifically Islam), doing anything is pointless - especially if you behave immoral or unethically. In fact, you're more inclined to do so (without following religion) since:
* no recompense/ - if you get caught, so what? If you are truly immoral/unethical you won't get caught (you will break rules) and if you do get caught it won't stop you. If you don't get caught, you won't be held accountable to your acts (judgement day doesn't exist to you).
* you gain from the act - self-rewarding acts are self-motivating so you will repeat it.

Essentially, there is more to gain from being immoral and unethical. Not that I am condoning such actions - neither will society for that matter (or maybe that is just hope talking ;)).
Edit: obviously the above doesn't mean all non-religious folk will commit unethical/immoral acts. Just that religion (or rather Islam) reinforces moral/ethic behaviour through a stronger motivating factor and so by following the teachings (properly) you won't commit immoral/unethical acts.

The motivation and hope offered by mankind (as good as it is - don't take me for some player hater :p) is lower than that offered through religion since the latter offers a much longer-term reward (paradise, life after death), and the former a much shorter-term reward (limited to this world only such as marriage, kids, money, accomodation etc).

I do not mean to downplay the reward in this life, but simply to say what is offered in the long term is much greater. Even if it is nothing more than hope of a reward - it at least offers a substantial motivating factor.

The main differences between religious and non-religious folk therefore is the overall motivating factor. One peaks in this life; the other peaks in the hereafter.

Cynics/islam-haters may burst into tears now.

[burdenofbeing]

oh, I absolutely agree. The reward for being a moral person (even though it's dictated by quran, most of the rules are natural and universal rules, as ibn rushd pointed out hundreds of years ago) for a muslim is truly great. I would like heaven please.

but, I disagree that being immoral has more benefits. its only the case when the majority of the person's environment is moral, and then only materialistically so. the person would have to deal with conscience issues and try to convince himself rationally that what he does is ok. just like how we muslims have nafs as non-muslims, they too have conscience as muslims.

[AntiKarateKid]

oh, I absolutely agree. The reward for being a moral person (even though it's dictated by quran, most of the rules are natural and universal rules, as ibn rushd pointed out hundreds of years ago) for a muslim is truly great. I would like heaven please.

but, I disagree that being immoral has more benefits. its only the case when the majority of the person's environment is moral, and then only materialistically so. the person would have to deal with conscience issues and try to convince himself rationally that what he does is ok. just like how we muslims have nafs as non-muslims, they too have conscience as muslims.

Hmmm.... could you specify what you mean by "moral" and "immoral", you act as if they have meanings unanimously agreed upon by your hypothetical society. I'm afraid you are oversimplifying it. What one person thinks is moral could be greed and miserlyness, basically putting yourself first, which is extremely beneficial for the individual. People who can't stand up for themselves will be rooted out, survival of the fittest baby.

[burdenofbeing]

going from your example of greed, and selfishness.
in a situation where most of the population is selfish and greedy, an altruist and community driven pack/tribe would thrive more than the greedy individuals. it fits the survival of the fittest. then the community gets saturated by altruists, and being selfish and greedy becomes beneficial again.

[AntiKarateKid]

going from your example of greed, and selfishness.
in a situation where most of the population is selfish and greedy, an altruist and community driven pack/tribe would thrive more than the greedy individuals. it fits the survival of the fittest. then the community gets saturated by altruists, and being selfish and greedy becomes beneficial again.

Or not. Their altruism would make them susceptible to the greedy people around them. Think about it. Their altruism would be taken advantage of until they themselves turn greedy in response.

In no way whatsoever would the altruistic group thrive.

[burdenofbeing]

:) green beard effect is in play. the group only tend to each other, not the other greedy type. "This view explains altruism at the individual level in nature, especially in kin relationships: when an individual sacrifices its own life to protect the lives of kin, it is acting in the interest of its own genes"

seriously there are lots of material in this regard, if you are interested. and a (in)famous book named "the selfish gene"

[AntiKarateKid]

:) green beard effect is in play. the group only tend to each other, not the other greedy type. "This view explains altruism at the individual level in nature, especially in kin relationships: when an individual sacrifices its own life to protect the lives of kin, it is acting in the interest of its own genes"

seriously there are lots of material in this regard, if you are interested. and a (in)famous book named "the selfish gene"

Thanks for the book recommendation but I am just playing devil's advocate. I find that the real question here is not if atheists or w/e have morals, but rather are these "morals" worthy of being upheld?

[Joe98]

is not if atheists or w/e have morals, but rather are these "morals" worthy of being upheld?

Athiests morals are very simple. I can do anything I want so long as I don't hurt somebody else.

Therefore I cannot steal, cannot commit adultry and cannot do lots of things. That's the highest level of morals you can get!

Religious peole must follow the rules of their religion - if the rule is silly the it " is the will of Allah". But its still silly.

It is not a high level of morality. it is following a rule blindly.

Have a nice day.
-

[AntiKarateKid]

Athiests morals are very simple. I can do anything I want so long as I don't hurt somebody else.

Therefore I cannot steal, cannot commit adultry and cannot do lots of things. That's the highest level of morals you can get!

Religious peole must follow the rules of their religion - if the rule is silly the it " is the will of Allah". But its still silly.

It is not a high level of morality. it is following a rule blindly.

Have a nice day.
-

Peace Joe,

Last time I checked, atheists weren't united on any one issue. Also "I can't hurt anyone" is vague. Ontop of that, despite you having a significant post count here you remain spectacularly ignorant about how people go about following Islamic morals.

Personally I suspect that statement was posted more as a self glorifying and condescending statement "Oh religious people follow blindly" than something you wish to discuss rationally and thoughtfully. Therefore, please refrain from posting such silly statements, at least in regards to Islam.

But just to continue your bizarre humor.

"Atheistic morals, which they're not even united upon, are based upon their society's whims or their own personal ones. Not particularly appealing for one looking for truth."

Have a nice day!

[burdenofbeing]

joe, you still follow the rules of your country even if you think they are silly right? there is a difference between laws and morals.

there is a mixup I believe. there are laws, and then there are ethics, and morals.
muslims always have their religious laws. atheists have their secular laws, laws of the country.

muslims form their morals based on the values in quran, ahadiith and their societies, and their nature.
atheists form their morals based on the values in their societies, their rationality, and their nature.

they both have them, and as I've said before, conscience and super ego of the human psyche in general makes every human that is not out of order, capable of morals.

debating over the quality of morals and ethic values of different cultural groups is the silliest thing ever. but we do it anyway, to strengthen our belief in our group, and values.

[Joe98]

atheists form their morals based on the values in their societies, their rationality, and their nature.

No, I can do anything I want so long as I dont hurt anybody else.

The local laws say that smoking is allowed. I would never smoke in public because the smoke hurts other people.

Smoking is allowed in Islam and other people breathe that smoke all the time!
-


-

[AntiKarateKid]

No, I can do anything I want so long as I dont hurt anybody else.

The local laws say that smoking is allowed. I would never smoke in public because the smoke hurts other people.

Smoking is allowed in Islam and other people breathe that smoke all the time!
-


-

Again with the false assumptions. Yes many Muslims smoke but is that because it is permitted or because of the culture of smoking?

I don't have much time but here.

http://islam.about.com/library/weekly/aa090600a.htm

Islam doesn't condone smoking at all. In fact it is discouraged as evidenced by the above. Please Joe, don't speak without knowledge.

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

Well there are two types of moral people. Not counting immoral people.
There are moral absolutist. Some this are moral some are not just because. Muslims are in this group. Most theists are.
There are moral conaquentalist. Some is more or immorial depending on the amount of suffering it causes or alleviates.


*does that help?*

[Woodrow]

We all live under multiple guidelines of ethics. these are usually based upon:

religion

Society

Family

peers

All of us are week and we do tend to slip a little when we shift from one group to another.

People tend to drop their concepts of social ethics when they visit or move to another country. etc.

We seem to judge our own ethics based upon how we see people we admire behave. Often feeling our sense of ethics is better- Or as an old member had in her signature: "A man sees his own fleas as gazelles."

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

We all live under multiple guidelines of ethics. these are usually based upon:

religion

Society

Family

peers

Woodrow do you want to know the Best part about out? as the generations go by the peer ethic values determine the family ethic values which eventualy determine the societal values and they eventual set the religious ethical values.

[alcurad]

actually athiestofpeace, muslims could be either absolutist & Consequentialist. some laws are absolute, some not so.

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

actually athiestofpeace, muslims could be either absolutist & Consequentialist. some laws are absolute, some not so.

They would still be absolutist with a majority or large part of things being immoral just cause,. (yes I know cause of Allah). Could you go over some of the non absolutes.

[VizierX]

I've not watched the video yet but I'll say this . Their can't be a real morality without God. Without a Transcendental Standard, morality becomes arbitrary and subjective. Even Nietzsche admitted this. Logically atheism therefore leads to moral nihilism.

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

I've not watched the video yet but I'll say this . Their can't be a real morality without God. Without a Transcendental Standard, morality becomes arbitrary and subjective. Even Nietzsche admitted this. Logically atheism therefore leads to moral nihilism.

Unless we evolved a set standard of ethics and morality.

[Danah]

First, lets identify what is moral or ethics to each one...what I think is good thing to do may be a bad thing to do in another culture or societies.
But in general, I think everyone have morals but they differ on how much they carry them, the origin of the human is goodness, the surrounding, people, or even religions can affect the kind of morals everyone have

Many non-muslims or even non-religious have moral but again they differ from one to another

to me, I think that religion is a way to organize moral and direct them to the right place. Religion is a way to maintain and keep the moral that people originally have by instinct

[glo]

Unless we evolved a set standard of ethics and morality.

Tell me more how ethics and morality might have evolved.

Personally, I favour this version of events:
The Lord declares "I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds"

peace :)

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

Tell me more how ethics and morality might have evolved.

Personally, I favour this version of events:
The Lord declares "I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds"

peace :)

Our survival was interlinked with the survival of our tribe. The members of our tribe were family and shared our genes. Not killing them hekos you survive. Not killing them helps your gense survive. So a gene that made us not kill people would help its own survival.



It gets used in a different way now.

[AntiKarateKid]

Our survival was interlinked with the survival of our tribe. The members of our tribe were family and shared our genes. Not killing them hekos you survive. Not killing them helps your gense survive. So a gene that made us not kill people would help its own survival.



It gets used in a different way now.

Are you trying to say that a gene controls the conscious act of murder? A bit deterministic huh? But atheism is, after all, pure determinism.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

But atheism is, after all, pure determinism.

Untrue.

Atheism is non-belief in the existence of god. That's it.

Peace

[glo]

Our survival was interlinked with the survival of our tribe. The members of our tribe were family and shared our genes. Not killing them hekos you survive. Not killing them helps your gense survive. So a gene that made us not kill people would help its own survival.



It gets used in a different way now.

That sounds a little simplistic to me.

Much as I understand the concept of ensuring the survival of one's own family/tribe/people, how did we evolve to think it is also morally wrong to kill those outside our own family/tribe/people?
Why do we (at least sometimes) show compassion to our enemies?
Why do we (at least strive to) extend human rights to people of other nations and tribes?
Why do we (at least consider) sharing wealth and resources with foreigners in need?

[burdenofbeing]

another very simple explanation from that point of view:

because they make us happy. so in the end, we are still selfish.

I'll remind you of old japan. Akira kurosawa writes in his "something like an autobiography" about the suicide of a hundred million. he tells how everyone were serious and determined, with their blades unsheathed and waiting for the emperor to order their deaths. he adds that, he also would kill himself that day. also adds that he can't quite understand now, how they were seasoned so much that they would take their own lives by a word of an emperor.

no jihad, no nothing. people can throw their lives away, for an emperor. for their lovers. for anything they believe worthy.

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


Untrue.

Atheism is non-belief in the existence of god. That's it.

Peace

Peace CZ,

I was not talking about it's definition. But rather what it logically leads to.

[AntiKarateKid]

Our survival was interlinked with the survival of our tribe. The members of our tribe were family and shared our genes. Not killing them hekos you survive. Not killing them helps your gense survive. So a gene that made us not kill people would help its own survival.



It gets used in a different way now.

Peace, AoP

Your explanation is flawed. Why would I show mercy to a member of an opposing tribe who tried to kill mine, without asking anything from him or seeking any type of gain?

Why then, if genes are all about benefit, why would I not murder a decrepit old man, who's gonna die soon anyways, to get his valuables, even if absolutely noone would know about it?

It would benefit me, it wouldnt harm society, seems like a win win huh?


I wouln't ascribe morals to genes if I were you. Giving them an arbitrary basis like that is dangerous. What if someone messes with those genes? Can we blame people with faulty "moral genes"? Why shouldn't we then make those genes better? Obviously alot of our morality is burdensome such as not killing of severely disabled people and deformed babies.

[glo]

another very simple explanation from that point of view:

because they make us happy. so in the end, we are still selfish.

So people may act altruistically purely to make themselves feel better.
After all, what other benefits are there for me to help an old lady across the street or to give money to charity?

It still leaves the question of why would it make us feel good to help others?
Would it not be more logical to be happy about getting home sooner, rather than helping the old lady?
Or be happy about spending money on myself, rather than giving it away?
From a survival/evolution standpoint surely being selfish should be more beneficial than being selfless.

How and why should we have evolved to 'feel good' about 'doing good'?

[burdenofbeing]

if you are familiar with the concept of evolution, you should find the answer easily.
people masses that do good to each other has a higher survival rate. it's been repeated numerously in this thread as well.

speaking of logic, why would people make children? it's nothing but trouble. and it has very little personal benefit. wouldn't it be more logical if we didn't make children? sure, it would make sure our genes don't transfer but... still.

and I don't understand where this debate is going. if the question is having ethics or being altruistic without god, only the example of bill gates should be enough.

[glo]

if you are familiar with the concept of evolution, you should find the answer easily.
people masses that do good to each other has a higher survival rate. it's been repeated numerously in this thread as well.

I understand a reasonable amount about evolution.
As I said in a previous post I can understand how we may have evolved to look out for and protect our own family/tribe/people.
But what about people outside that group?
Why should I care about a stranger in the street, or a starving child on the other side of the planet?
Why should I feel compassion for somebody who may politically be considered my enemy?
Those are the areas in which I struggle to understand how we may have evolved to such a level of morality and ethics ...

speaking of logic, why would people make children? it's nothing but trouble. and it has very little personal benefit. wouldn't it be more logical if we didn't make children? sure, it would make sure our genes don't transfer but... still.

I am a mother of two teenagers, so you are touching a nerve here ... tempting, TEMPTING ...! :D

and I don't understand where this debate is going. if the question is having ethics or being altruistic without god, only the example of bill gates should be enough.

Threads sometimes go that way - they take off at a tangent.
To be honest I just jumped right in, without checking how this thread evolved ...
The mods will sort out any threads which get too much out of hand. That's what they get paid for! (Or not :D)

Peace

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

if you are familiar with the concept of evolution, you should find the answer easily.
people masses that do good to each other has a higher survival rate. it's been repeated numerously in this thread as well.

speaking of logic, why would people make children? it's nothing but trouble. and it has very little personal benefit. wouldn't it be more logical if we didn't make children? sure, it would make sure our genes don't transfer but... still.

and I don't understand where this debate is going. if the question is having ethics or being altruistic without god, only the example of bill gates should be enough.

:bump1:What he said. Thanks. though what was with the bit about bill gates?

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

I understand a reasonable amount about evolution.
As I said in a previous post I can understand how we may have evolved to look out for and protect our own family/tribe/people.
But what about people outside that group?

When we evloved this altruistic tendency we were not dealing with such large groups of people. So the gene could/would just be misfireing. Also our in group has grown.

[glo]

When we evloved this altruistic tendency we were not dealing with such large groups of people. So the gene could/would just be misfireing. Also our in group has grown.

You are saying this with some confidence.

Is there any evidence which would suggest this?
Or is this just supposition?

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

You are saying this with some confidence.

Is there any evidence which would suggest this?
Or is this just supposition?

This is at the frindge of my understanding and reasrch. I am only a layman. I'll see what I can dig up. The thing is suppositions are fine. If there is a way it is possible then God is no longer needed.

[AntiKarateKid]

When we evloved this altruistic tendency we were not dealing with such large groups of people. So the gene could/would just be misfireing. Also our in group has grown.

Ah I see, so tell me, if having an altruistic tendency is an evolved trait, why should I practice altruism if I don't care about it.

You can't say "oh because it is a part of your human nature", I can deny parts of my human nature easily. Every hear of celibates or gays?

You're argument for the evolutionary nature of ethics will backfire on you. Nothing in your argument says WHY we should. And I can just as well override these evolutionary tendencies of mine and steal from my neighbor or push a little kid off a bike an laugh maniacally.

[FatimaAsSideqah]

A moral sense is inborn in man and, through the ages, it has served as the common man’s standard of moral behaviour, approving certain qualities and condemning others. While this instinctive faculty may vary from person to person, human conscience has consistently declared certain moral qualities to be good and others to be bad. In assessing the standards of good and bad in the collective behaviour of society as a whole, only those societies have been considered worthy of honour which have possessed the virtues of organisation, discipline, mutual attention and compassion and which have established a social order based on justice, freedom and equality.

[glo]

If there is a way it is possible then God is no longer needed.

What do you mean?
If there is a way that what is possible?

[FatimaAsSideqah]

the Qur’an good is called Ma’rif (a well-known thing) and evil munkar (an unknown thing); that is to say, good is known to be desirable and evil is known not to commend itself in any way. As the Qur’an says:

Allah has revealed to human nature the consciousness and cognition of good and evil. (al-Shams 91: 8)

[AntiKarateKid]

This is at the frindge of my understanding and reasrch. I am only a layman. I'll see what I can dig up. The thing is suppositions are fine. If there is a way it is possible then God is no longer needed.

Yes he is. The mere fact that a "evil" man and a "good" man end up the same way in the end in an atheistic universe (whatever that means) is enough reason for me not to give a ****.

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

Ah I see, so tell me, if having an altruistic tendency is an evolved trait, why should I practice altruism if I don't care about it.

You can't say "oh because it is a part of your human nature", I can deny parts of my human nature easily. Every hear of celibates or gays?

You're argument for the evolutionary nature of ethics will backfire on you. You will never be able to use science to tell me why I should be a good person.

Sorry but thats where the second part of the picture comes in. The subjectivity of morals come into play. The alltructic tendencies get backed up and confirmed by social norms and pressures. So no backfire so far.

[AntiKarateKid]

Sorry but thats where the second part of the picture comes in. The subjectivity of morals come into play. The alltructic tendencies get backed up and confirmed by social norms and pressures. So no backfire so far.

You are assuming way too much. Social norms and pressure? Last time I checked, by being a Muslim and religious, I'm against the social norms and pressure here in America. People can easily resist social norms just look around you.

You gotta have something better than that.

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

You are assuming way too much. Social norms and pressure? Last time I checked, by being a Muslim and religious, I'm against the social norms and pressure here in America. People can easily resist social norms just look around you.

You gotta have something better than that.

What social norms that would also be an altrustic tendency are you resisting? Also which ones did you gain with Islam? IE Islam will be your social norms....

[AntiKarateKid]

What social norms that would also be an altrustic tendency are you resisting? Also which ones did you gain with Islam? IE Islam will be your social norms....

Or not lol. What about converts to Islam in overwhelmingly athiestic areas such as Czechoslovakia or one of the other eastern euro countries. Oh and I gained modesty. So I don't stare at every scantily clad girl my peers do.

I can resist giving to charity or poor people. I can steal when I think noone is looking etc etc cmon.

You have nothing except hoping society presures you which is a weak argument, really.

Society can pressure you to smoke. Is smoking good for you?

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

Or not lol. What about converts to Islam in overwhelmingly athiestic areas such as Czechoslovakia or one of the other eastern euro countries. Oh and I gained modesty. So I don't stare at every scantily clad girl my peers do.

I can resist giving to charity or poor people. I can steal when I think noone is looking etc etc cmon.

You have nothing except hoping society presures you which is a weak argument, really.

Society can pressure you to smoke. Is smoking good for you?

tendencies..... I send tendencies this meand you are not forced by your genes.

[glo]

Hang on, if we are talking about the evolution of social norms and attitudes, then we are not just talking abut one person resisting certain social pressures - we are talking about whole groups/societies of people changing over the course of generations.

Admittedly Islam has weathered the centuries without changing much, certainly it seems to have gone through less changes than the Christian faith, for example.

Some may say that adapting to new and changing circumstances is a good thing, others would disagree. That depends on your point of view.

[AntiKarateKid]

tendencies..... I send tendencies this meand you are not forced by your genes.

Fine, why should I follow these "altruistic" tendencies? For, now I'll overlook the fact that the term altruism is itself vague.

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

Attention we have now left the topic of evolutionayr bilogy and entered philisophy.

[no1]

you have got to remember religion is a religion

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

I'll be back to this thread a little latter tonight. Not to long just an hour or so.

[no1]

if a religion didnt have morals then it wouldnt be a religion would it?
pretty simple i guess

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

you have got to remember religion is a religion

No religion is a culture and a philisophy and a theology rolled into one.

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

if a religion didnt have morals then it wouldnt be a religion would it?
pretty simple i guess

so? What is your point because it is far from self evident.

[alcurad]

Some may say that adapting to new and changing circumstances is a good thing, others would disagree. That depends on your point of view.

or that what you began with was not good enough so it changed, no :)?

[VizierX]

Unless we evolved a set standard of ethics and morality.

Naturalistic fallacy? Besides evolutionary psychologists argue that we've evolved to rape, murder and wage war . Are they 'good' as well?

[VizierX]

Greetings,


Untrue.

Atheism is non-belief in the existence of god. That's it.

Peace

Actually, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the positive belief that God does not exist. It cannot be evidentially justified so is irrational.

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

Actually, that's agnosticism. Atheism is the positive belief that God does not exist. It cannot be evidentially justified so is irrational.

Wrong agnostisms is not knowing. Atheism is not beiliving.

I am both.

[Ali_Cena]

edit: i have pmed to the person

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I'm staggered that VizierX seems to think I've managed to spend nearly four years on this board without ever having discovered the difference between atheism and agnosticism. I don't know whether to be insulted or just amazed.

Actually, that's agnosticism.

Agnosticism takes no position on the question of whether god exists, so no, that's not agnosticism.

Atheism is the positive belief that God does not exist.

Which is equivalent to saying "non-belief in the existence of god". You might recognise those words from earlier.

It cannot be evidentially justified so is irrational.

Can you provide any evidence for the non-existence of anything?

Peace

[burdenofbeing]

AoP is correct. though, if muslims started saying they were agnostic muslims (and well they could, iman bil-ghaib), it would surely make many agnostics work about semantics.

[~Raynn~]

^ Right, so if it's just a matter of not knowing, does that not mean everyone's an agnostic?? :S
I've always understood it as, like, a scale of theism--agnosticism--atheism, where you couldn't come under both agnostic and atheist, but I see that's not technically right...

More on topic...I realize this is gonna be totally vague, but of course non-muslims have a sense of morality (though, okay, the definition of 'morals' varies from person to person)...and they obviously see these morals as worth upholding, even if their rewards are limited to this life, or whatever...that seems, to me, to be enough...

[Uthman]

Right, so if it's just a matter of not knowing, does that not mean everyone's an agnostic?? :S

Ah, but there's the rub. See, I am 100% sure that Allah exists. :)

[~Raynn~]

Ah, but there's the rub. See, I am 100% sure that Allah exists. :)

Lol, okay, you have complete faith He exists...still, no one can really knowww...?? I guess the line between knowing and believing isn't really as clear as you'd expect, lol...

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you all,

Thirty thousand children die needlessly every day from grinding poverty and preventable disease. About a billion people go to bed hungry every day, they live on less than a dollar a day.

This is morally and ethically wrong when there is enough food in the world to feed every one.

We glorify people like Bill Gates who are good for our economy and give work to thousands of people. He has earned billions by charging us far too much for his products, simply because he can. He might give away a few hundred million to good causes; but some of that money he is giving away came from me paying him far too much for my computer.

Morality and ethics are grounded in justice for the poor and oppressed, the marginalised, the widow and orphan.

Religions do spell this out but we do tend to overlook this.

Fear of God is the start of wisdom, if we feared God we would put the needs of the poor and oppressed first. At some point we all have to stand before God.

In the spirit of praying for justice for the poor.

Eric

[glo]

^
Amen to that, Eric!

[VizierX]

Greetings,

I'm staggered that VizierX seems to think I've managed to spend nearly four years on this board without ever having discovered the difference between atheism and agnosticism. I don't know whether to be insulted or just amazed.

In my experience most atheists are either ignorant of the logical distinction or purposely equivocate.

Agnosticism takes no position on the question of whether god exists, so no, that's not agnosticism.

Its a lack of belief unlike atheism.

Which is equivalent to saying "non-belief in the existence of god". You might recognise those words from earlier.

That's sophistry. It is not equivalent at all. There is a world of difference between the two. Atheists take the stance that God does not exist, its a positive statement about the state of reality. The atheist position has a burden of proof attached to it.

Can you provide any evidence for the non-existence of anything?

Peace

Its not my problem, atheists shouldn't make such grandiose claims to begin with.

[Nihila]

"Greetings and peace be with you all,

Thirty thousand children die needlessly every day from grinding poverty and preventable disease. About a billion people go to bed hungry every day, they live on less than a dollar a day.

This is morally and ethically wrong when there is enough food in the world to feed every one.

We glorify people like Bill Gates who are good for our economy and give work to thousands of people. He has earned billions by charging us far too much for his products, simply because he can. He might give away a few hundred million to good causes; but some of that money he is giving away came from me paying him far too much for my computer.

Morality and ethics are grounded in justice for the poor and oppressed, the marginalised, the widow and orphan.

Religions do spell this out but we do tend to overlook this.

Fear of God is the start of wisdom, if we feared God we would put the needs of the poor and oppressed first. At some point we all have to stand before God.

In the spirit of praying for justice for the poor.

Eric "

Strikingly put. And incredibly true.

We all have morals; or a moral compass. We all have feelings about the difference between right and wrong from a very young age. Whether this is due to our surroundings or innate is a different question....and if the answer is both, to what extent is also questionable...but, yes, everyone has a moral compass.

[VizierX]

if you are familiar with the concept of evolution, you should find the answer easily.
people masses that do good to each other has a higher survival rate. it's been repeated numerously in this thread as well.

speaking of logic, why would people make children? it's nothing but trouble. and it has very little personal benefit. wouldn't it be more logical if we didn't make children? sure, it would make sure our genes don't transfer but... still.

and I don't understand where this debate is going. if the question is having ethics or being altruistic without god, only the example of bill gates should be enough.

You miss the point. There is no question that atheists can behave morally. But how can they logically justify? Why should an atheist be good and how would an atheist go about determining what is good without an objective, transcendental standard? You can't invoke evolution because any such justification would be fallacious (its known as the naturalistic fallacy).

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

I think murder is bad. I feel this deep down in my "heart". I think Life should be cheerished. I was raised in a society that thinks this way.

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

You miss the point. There is no question that atheists can behave morally. But how can they logically justify? Why should an atheist be good and how would an atheist go about determining what is good without an objective, transcendental standard? You can't invoke evolution because any such justification would be fallacious (its known as the naturalistic fallacy).

Explain please.

[AntiKarateKid]

Explain please.

He's asking the same thing I asked you before, to which you couldn't give a response to.

Why bother being good? You said it benefits your group or w/e. I say, so what? I can choose to me opportunistic and greedy whenever I want. I dont have to give a ****.

So c'mon why should a transient blob of atoms like me burden exert himself in behavior which may not benefit me? Without God, I sure as hell will steal that kid's wallet when I know he isn't looking.

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

Thats messed up cause I did not go and steal his wallet.

Sorry to hear you need your beilife in God to be a moral person. Thats kinda sad.

So why should I behave? hmm Well if every one said $%#^ it I'll do what I want then bad things will happen to me and those I love. So I will behave in hopes others behave. The Golden Rule and society helps us function this way. There are many who beilive in God and do bad.

[glo]

Sorry to hear you need your beilife in God to be a moral person.

Perhaps that means you now have a free licence to do what you like?!

Honestly, my husband is an atheist. I have known him for 23 years, and although he may not be perfect in every way (I'm working on that! :D), he is one of the most thoughtful, considerate and morally/ethically aware people I know!

This idea that only believers have morals is simply untrue ...

[burdenofbeing]

There are many who beilive in God and do bad.

Regarding that, some will tell you that "yeah, but because they are not good believers!"

Psyche is a wondrous thing.

[AntiKarateKid]

Thats messed up cause I did not go and steal his wallet.

Sorry to hear you need your beilife in God to be a moral person. Thats kinda sad.

So why should I behave? hmm Well if every one said $%#^ it I'll do what I want then bad things will happen to me and those I love. So I will behave in hopes others behave. The Golden Rule and society helps us function this way. There are many who beilive in God and do bad.

Let's not get into extreme hypothetical situations with everyone not caring. I'm talking about everyday life. Hmm, so you follow morals just so you and your family don't get hurt. Well, if you had to murder a person to get food for your starving family would you? If don't kill for food, your family starves to death.

According to the logic you gave me, I think you would kill them, seeing as how "bad things would happen to you and those you love" if you didn't.

And also, "I am sorry that you would follow such a ridiculously burdensome bunch of rules that you call morality. While you are content following a bunch of man-made rules which don't matter in the long run, I'll be using the money in that wallet to buy a flat screen TV. I'm a bad person? Boo hoo. Both of us are dust, I'm just gonna have more fun before I die."

By the way, I don't understand the bolded part. I never said YOU stole his wallet, I said if I didn't believe in God, I would have.

[AntiKarateKid]

Regarding that, some will tell you that "yeah, but because they are not good believers!"

Psyche is a wondrous thing.

Name me one religion that required a murderous, aggressive, miserly attitude to be a good believer.

Lets get real here, religion isn't an on and off switch, you have to FOLLOW the rules.

I could declare myself an atheist and kill someone tomorrow, would you blame atheism? I don't think atheism requires murder right?

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

Let's not get into extreme hypothetical situations with everyone not caring. I'm talking about everyday life. Hmm, so you follow morals just so you and your family don't get hurt. Well, if you had to murder a person to get food for your starving family would you? If don't kill for food, your family starves to death.

According to the logic you gave me, I think you would kill them, seeing as how "bad things would happen to you and those you love" if you didn't.


By the way, I don't understand the bolded part. I never said YOU stole his wallet, I said if I didn't believe in God, I would have.

Who would I have to kill to feed my family? I am not aure if I could but I do not look down upon one who would.

[AntiKarateKid]

Who would I have to kill to feed my family? I am not aure if I could but I do not look down upon one who would.

Mind answering the rest of my post? I'm still have not received a proper answer.

[burdenofbeing]

I could declare myself an atheist and kill someone tomorrow, would you blame atheism? I don't think atheism requires murder right?

Doesn't look that way to me...

Without God, I sure as hell will steal that kid's wallet when I know he isn't looking.

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

Mind answering the rest of my post? I'm still have not received a proper answer.

Which part have I ignored? I have given you a few reason for us to have morals and I have commented on how horrible it is that you need God not to be a mean pearson. Really I mean I could say how saddened I am to hear that you would treat your fellow man like gabage if you were not so fearful of your god.

[AntiKarateKid]

Doesn't look that way to me...

What are you trying to get at? Those are two separate statements.

Murdering isn't a REQUIREMENT for being atheist. But you sure as hell can and still validly consider yourself one.

This is getting off topic though. We're talking about the purpose of ethics without God and not atheism and murderers.

[AntiKarateKid]

Which part have I ignored? I have given you a few reason for us to have morals and I have commented on how horrible it is that you need God not to be a mean pearson. Really I mean I could say how saddened I am to hear that you would treat your fellow man like gabage if you were not so fearful of your god.

Fearful? Again an atheistic misconception. For someone who posts so much on an Islamic forum and "talked" to so many Christians, you'd think you understand our relationship with Allah better.

Fear of hellfire is a part of the equation. Hope for paradise is another. Love for your creator and thankfulness for his blessings is yet another. And of course, knowledge that your actions matter and are immortal and that good will win over evil is also one. Hmm.... what else, oh yes, and that it is your destiny to follow Allah and perfect your character. Seems like a winning combo and judging by the character of the Prophet and the greatest generation of Muslims, it is the path to ultimate and true morality. You simply can't touch them.


I find it sad that all you have going for your morals is that "If I do X then I might get hurt". You have given me nothing except spurious supposed biological roots comments, a "i wont get hurt" reason.

I hope you find a higher purpose than what your biochemistry allows.

[Gator]

Here is a stream of consciousness on what I believe regarding “morality”. (And the caveat is that everything is on AVERAGE.)

There are 2 forces at work regarding a naturalistic basis for societal behavior.
The individual and the gene (going off dawkins, and wilson’s and many other’s “selfish gene” concept).

Individuals will react to further their utility and successful genes will further the perpetuity.

As has been stated, societal cooperation is more successful than just individual action.
How do genes promote societal cooperation? By incorporating Empathy in their hosts (us and other animals).

Empathy has been documented in many animals.

So genes affect a person’s utility function.

But empathy to a certain degree.

If someone breaks society’s rules they must be punished.

This has also been observed in other complex animal groups.

How do genes promote punishment of antisocial behavior? Anger and justification to punish.

A recent example is a person I know was over recently and I had just told her that the teenage AK-47 totting, hostage taking Somali kids had just been killed and the African food-aid delivering captain released. Now this is the nicest person in the world, much nicer than all the people who believe in hell for people for the slightest infraction, and she said “Great! I feel nothing for them”.

To her, members of her tribal group had been attacked and threatened, so something in her evolution based make up has suppressed her natural empathy for others. Why? Because they broke rules as to how to act in the best way to accord survival. She had tremendous empathy for the captain, but none for the people who took the captain hostage.

Why (on average) don’t you steal that wallet when no one is looking? Classic Nash-Baysian equilibrium. Because you would not want someone to steal your wallet when you’re not looking.

Why do people steal that wallet when no one is looking? Again, classic game theory. Because the reward of not getting caught is weighted higher than the punishment if you do get caught.

So here’s the thought experiment.

If GOD exists and he has in fact sent down a system of social policy (let’s call it Shariah) and he knows that (since he created people) deterring people from doing something would involve the person’s subjective probability of getting caught and the correct amount of punishment to weigh in the negative in following Shariah’s favor.

Well we know the punishment, which is arguably eternal torture.

What is God’s supposition on the thoughts of human’s subjective probability that he exists?

It must be pretty close to zero.

Thanks.

[Gator]

I find it sad that all you have going for your morals is that "If I do X then I might get hurt".

And how does your argument differ from that? Do good and go to heaven or go to hell?

Same carrots and sticks.

Thanks.

[Pygoscelis]

No. Not end of story.

Hypothetical Scenario: I'm on an Island away from civilization. There is an old man with a stash of jewelry and gold. Noone knows him, noone is watching what happens. WHy the hell can't I kill him and take his stuff? Cause we have "morals"? LOL. I'm going to die soon anyways, the least I can do is live large and well before I do. I care about myself and not the man, because it just doesn't matter whichever way I go.

You don't seem to understand still.

It-Doesn't-Matter.

Sure I'll follow them when there's some immediate benefit, but I'm not an animal that I work for the herd. If I want to be selfish I will, I don't give a **** about the other guy unless it suits me in some way, however minute, be it me "feeling" good that I gave the guy a dollar. It all comes down to ME.

If you lack empathy and have no moral values without your fear of punishment and promise of reward from authority (God in this case), that would make you a sociopath. Such people are rare, and I really don't think you are one.

I suppose it could be claimed that religion can control sociopaths, who would otherwise have no sense of morality. But I fear the reverse is more often true, sociopaths using religion to control and take advantage of others. Televangelists who live in their million dollar homes come immediately to mind.

[AntiKarateKid]

Here is a stream of consciousness on what I believe regarding “morality”. (And the caveat is that everything is on AVERAGE.)

There are 2 forces at work regarding a naturalistic basis for societal behavior.
The individual and the gene (going off dawkins, and wilson’s and many other’s “selfish gene” concept).

Individuals will react to further their utility and successful genes will further the perpetuity.

As has been stated, societal cooperation is more successful than just individual action.
How do genes promote societal cooperation? By incorporating Empathy in their hosts (us and other animals).

Empathy has been documented in many animals.

So genes affect a person’s utility function.

But empathy to a certain degree.

If someone breaks society’s rules they must be punished.

This has also been observed in other complex animal groups.

How do genes promote punishment of antisocial behavior? Anger and justification to punish.

A recent example is a person I know was over recently and I had just told her that the teenage AK-47 totting, hostage taking Somali kids had just been killed and the African food-aid delivering captain released. Now this is the nicest person in the world, much nicer than all the people who believe in hell for people for the slightest infraction, and she said “Great! I feel nothing for them”.

To her, members of her tribal group had been attacked and threatened, so something in her evolution based make up has suppressed her natural empathy for others. Why? Because they broke rules as to how to act in the best way to accord survival. She had tremendous empathy for the captain, but none for the people who took the captain hostage.

Why (on average) don’t you steal that wallet when no one is looking? Classic Nash-Baysian equilibrium. Because you would not want someone to steal your wallet when you’re not looking.

Why do people steal that wallet when no one is looking? Again, classic game theory. Because the reward of not getting caught is weighted higher than the punishment if you do get caught.

So here’s the thought experiment.

If GOD exists and he has in fact sent down a system of social policy (let’s call it Shariah) and he knows that (since he created people) deterring people from doing something would involve the person’s subjective probability of getting caught and the correct amount of punishment to weigh in the negative in following Shariah’s favor.

Well we know the punishment, which is arguably eternal torture.

What is God’s supposition on the thoughts of human’s subjective probability that he exists?

It must be pretty close to zero.

Thanks.

Could you distill that into a smaller answer. I couldn't follow you and some of it seemed off topic. Let's stick to ethics without God please during this discussion.

[AntiKarateKid]

And how does your argument differ from that? Do good and go to heaven or go to hell?

Same carrots and sticks.

Thanks.

See my previous post. It is not merely fear, as you put it.

[AntiKarateKid]

If you lack empathy and have no moral values without your fear of punishment and promise of reward from authority (God in this case), that would make you a sociopath. Such people are rare, and I really don't think you are one.

I suppose it could be claimed that religion can control sociopaths, who would otherwise have no sense of morality. But I fear the reverse is more often true, sociopaths using religion to control and take advantage of others. Televangelists who live in their million dollar homes come immediately to mind.

Ontopic please, not mind-controlling televangelists.

So why should I not opportunistically use my empathy and tweak my "morals" to a very greedy version of them?

I could donate to charity to get admiration from my friends. Why burden my mind with thoughts about babies dying when I can choose to ignore their plight?

Again, you don't need to be a sociopath to steal a wallet. Let's not get ridiculous here. I could steal it then use it to buy my friends a free meal and myself a nice home theater system.

So why should I follow the popular version of morality? And I say popular because atheists aren't exactly unified on what type of morality is best.

I'll reiterate myself for the millionth time. We are all, according to atheists, a blob of atoms and biochemical reactions. We will die and turn to dust and be forgotten soon. WHy should I be a stingy, greedy, and opportunistic person who is just trying to enjoy himself as much as he can before he kicks the bucket?

[aamirsaab]

:sl:
The only reply I could think of that athiests should use in relation to AKK's question is that by performing a moral or ethical act (in general terms), that person gets some sort of internal feedback - from their own body (blushing/ butterflies in your stomach etc). This ''good'' feeling acts as a form of reinforcement for that person and thus the act is continued/repeated. The act usually carries a double-reward in the form of the other person(s) saying thank you or something similar. So you have an internal and external reward system that encourages you to perform the act again (that's why you don't see someone commit suicide immediately after saving someone elses life)

All humans have that mechanism built into them, probably as a means of survival (you save someone from the jaws of a sabertooth tiger, you feel good about it and that person gives you a hot dinner, you just got two rewards and instintively your mind is registers that saving people from the jaws of a sabertooth tiger is beneficial to you, so do it again.) Critics would argue that is a considerably cynical mechanism as it is more to do with self preservation than helping others (altruism), but I'd counter with: ''next time your in deep trouble and you're crying out for help, I'll turn a blind eye''. That should shut them up. Although, the more polite response is: ''sorry, it's in my nature''

Now, the only difference between a theist and athiest in this regard is that with thiests we have an additional (and arguably better, overall) form of encouragement through the religious teachings. So, whilst athiests have 2 streams of encouragement, thiests have 3 - which is what I was trying to get at in my last, lengthy post on this thread.

[AntiKarateKid]

:sl:
The only reply I could think of that athiests should use in relation to AKK's question is that by performing a moral or ethical act (in general terms), that person gets some sort of internal feedback - from their own body (blushing/ butterflies in your stomach etc). This ''good'' feeling acts as a form of reinforcement for that person and thus the act is continued/repeated. The act usually carries a double-reward in the form of the other person(s) saying thank you or something similar. So you have an internal and external reward system that encourages you to perform the act again (that's why you don't see someone commit suicide immediately after saving someone elses life)

All humans have that mechanism built into them, probably as a means of survival (you save someone from the jaws of a sabertooth tiger, you feel good about it and that person gives you a hot dinner, you just got two rewards and instintively your mind is registers that saving people from the jaws of a sabertooth tiger is beneficial to you, so do it again.) Critics would argue that is a considerably cynical mechanism as it is more to do with self preservation than helping others (altruism), but I'd counter with: ''next time your in deep trouble and you're crying out for help, I'll turn a blind eye''. That should shut them up. Although, the more polite response is: ''sorry, it's in my nature''

Now, the only difference between a theist and athiest in this regard is that with thiests we have an additional (and arguably better, overall) form of encouragement through the religious teachings. So, whilst athiests have 2 streams of encouragement, thiests have 3 - which is what I was trying to get at in my last, lengthy post on this thread.

Bro, I agree with you but could you also weigh in on my other point which was that in an "atheistic" universe, your actions and personal character don't matter because the "charitable and friendly" and "miserly and manipulative" people both end up dead and dust. The only difference being the evil person got a better ride through life by taking advantage of people.

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

So Akk if what you say is true why are there moral atheist? Why do I treat people well if I will just be dust?

[aamirsaab]

Bro, I agree with you but could you also weigh in on my other point which was that in an "atheistic" universe, your actions and personal character don't matter because the "charitable and friendly" and "miserly and manipulative" people both end up dead and dust. The only difference being the evil person got a better ride through life by taking advantage of people.

Oh yes certainly I agree with that notion - where ultimately, nothing you do matters so why not just be an ass? I think however that describes a nihilist more so than an athiests; athiests have no God-related ethos (other than the belief God doesn't exist), whereas (true) nihilists have no ethos at all.

Even athiests agree in their heart of hearts they have some purpose in life (or ethos) - even if it is only for this life. That is what keeps them going and not acting immoral/unethical....most of the time anyway.

[AntiKarateKid]

So Akk if what you say is true why are there moral atheist? Why do I treat people well if I will just be dust?

I was talking theoretically, if you think about it, you could be a really evil guy and it wouldn't matter.

Now as for your question....

Because Allah, the most Merciful, has given each of us the ability to do good or evil and has bestowed upon humanity Fitrah, or the inclination towards morality.

Thus, as a being who is more than the sum of his chemicals, a being with a soul, you have a sense of morality, purpose, being and the capacity to take these characteristics to the greatest heights.

Thus does Allah bless you, in spite of your rejection.

[Pygoscelis]

Now, the only difference between a theist and athiest in this regard is that with thiests we have an additional (and arguably better, overall) form of encouragement through the religious teachings. So, whilst athiests have 2 streams of encouragement, thiests have 3 - which is what I was trying to get at in my last, lengthy post on this thread.

This 3rd piece you mention can swing both ways. It may encourage a believer to give to charity, or it may encourage them to drink poisoned cool aid or shun outsiders (it often creates a powerful us vs them dynamic). It all depends on how those who the believer believes to speak for God (be it a holy book or a preacher).

[aamirsaab]

This 3rd piece you mention can swing both ways. It may encourage a believer to give to charity, or it may encourage them to drink poisoned cool aid or shun outsiders (it often creates a powerful us vs them dynamic). It all depends on how those who the believer believes to speak for God (be it a holy book or a preacher).

What you say is true. I'd add that you could also argue that same thought process for the other two forms of encouragement (that are prevalent in both thiests and athiests).

Depending on the reaction of others and if anything is gained via acting immorraly/unethically, a human being will pursue that action. E.g. I steal someones chocolate bar. My peers cheer me (external encouragement), I gain a chocolate bar (external encouragement), I feel good about myself (internal encouragement), I steal chocolate bars again to repeat the cycle. Even if I am acting alone (without peers), the mere fact that I got something (albeit insignificant all things considered) is enough feedback/encouragement for me to repeat the action again. It's like a twisted form of carrot/stick approach.

Now, the mechanism (internal encouragement to repeat an action) itself is neither good nor bad as it depends on the circumstance. However, at a core level it helps promote survival so it has the backing of psychology and thus tends to have a positive connotation. It's a case of ''good for the goose, good for the gander''. Of course, as you rightfully pointed out, it can be abused depending on the circumstance - as with most things.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Oh yes certainly I agree with that notion - where ultimately, nothing you do matters so why not just be an ass?

You've answered your own question in a later post:

Now, the mechanism (internal encouragement to repeat an action) itself is neither good nor bad as it depends on the circumstance. However, at a core level it helps promote survival so it has the backing of psychology and thus tends to have a positive connotation.

I think morality exists as a way of protecting the species. Obviously a society where murder was permitted wouldn't last very long, whether it believed in god or not.

Peace

[aamirsaab]

Greetings,


You've answered your own question in a later post:

Hehehe you cut me off. I later on said what AKK was referring to is more of a nihilistic approach to life as opposed to athiestic. That was the crux of the point I was making.

I think morality exists as a way of protecting the species. Obviously a society where murder was permitted wouldn't last very long, whether it believed in god or not.

Peace

Oh absolutely agreed. I'm of the opinion that morality exists in all human beings - at least on a sociological level (i.e to appease or for the sake of others; family, friends etc).

I'm unsure as to whether or not morality is an inbuilt/inherent mechanism in humans (since there are differing opinions on and degrees of morality - usually shaped on our surroundings/environment) but I do agree that at least one of its functions (if not its only one) is to promote survival. Religion in this regard offers another stream or reason for behaving morally/ethically.

[Gator]

Could you distill that into a smaller answer. I couldn't follow you and some of it seemed off topic. Let's stick to ethics without God please during this discussion.

Sure, sorry about how unclear it came out.

Short answer - Our genes influence us act in a way that gives them a chance to perpetuate themselves. This is where the "internal moral compass" comes from.

That's why you may feel bad when you do bad and feel good when you do good.

Thanks.

[ATHEISTofPEACE]

Sure, sorry about how unclear it came out.

Short answer - Our genes influence us act in a way that gives them a chance to perpetuate themselves. This is where the "internal moral compass" comes from.

That's why you may feel bad when you do bad and feel good when you do good.

Thanks.

We have the ability to know what suffering is and if we are causing it.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Hehehe you cut me off. I later on said what AKK was referring to is more of a nihilistic approach to life as opposed to athiestic. That was the crux of the point I was making.

I only quoted your question because I wanted to make it clear which part of your text I was referring to. Do be assured that I did read all of your post the first time round. :)

Peace