Would any theists here behave less morally if "there was no God"?

[Zafran]

Salaam

- Kants idea of duty and morality are good reasons..........ofcourse I still believe to be moral is a duty on humanity becasue of God making us Bani Adam - so there is always a Inherent idea of duty and morality.

In reality I'm far from perfect - Just have to put it into practice.

peace

 

[جوري]

Salaam

- Kants idea of duty and morality are good reasons..........

peace

any form pf philosophy that anyone subscribes to or agrees with, is simply a lesser form of religion. People can't escape their needs or their human condition no matter how far removed they'd like to believe they are from all of it..

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

any form pf philosophy that anyone subscribes to or agrees with, is simply a lesser form of religion. People can't escape their needs or their human condition no matter how far removed they'd like to believe they are from all of it..

Someone's philosophy is closer to being an opinion. Or maybe you think opinions are a lesser form of religion, too?

As for the people who've said they'd commit crimes if they didn't believe in god, I'm definitely going with the sociopath interpretation. Clearly those people don't value morality nearly as much as they value mindless obedience.

Peace

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Its is a typo. I just got here yesterday. Who are you?

Makes sense.

And yet here we atheists are, behaving just as if not more morally than you theists.

As if we all agree on a set of moral rules where you can make that judgement. Get real. But its nice to see you not taking the implications a totally physical universe to their logical extensions. I'm also glad that you are enjoying whatever fruits of fitra are left in your ravaged soul.

So like I said, you are admitting you are a sociopath here. No, that isn't me looking to insult you. It fits what you are saying. You have stated that you would be ammoral if not for your God belief, so I hope you don't ever lose your faith.

Grow up Pygo. But actually... let me humor you for a sec. If I was indeed a sociopath, I would not like a religion like Islam which requires me not to be everything a sociopath is. I'd have preferred...maybe nihilism? Anyways, I hope that you never wake up and realize what your state of disbelief opens the doors to.

Next.

 

[جوري]

Greetings,


Someone's philosophy is closer to being an opinion. Or maybe you think opinions are a lesser form of religion, too?

As for the people who've said they'd commit crimes if they didn't believe in god, I'm definitely going with the sociopath interpretation. Clearly those people don't value morality nearly as much as they value mindless obedience.

Peace

It depends on the opinion.. if your opinion is that butterscotch is better than vanilla, then I don't see how it can have a bearing on religion. If your opinion is an organized form of a moral code and is usually accepted as authoritative by some group or school then it is a lesser form of religion that divorces itself from bigger obligation.
terms differ so you don't have a skewed understanding?.. Acute Stress Disorder differs from Posttraumatic Stress Disorder even though they share alot in common they are not one in the same, as one becomes an adult his understanding of the world and concepts should evolve right along don't you think?

Morality is a very subjective find, I have already given an example above of how some might view vigilante justice as a form of good moral upstanding. A belief is a belief it doesn't matter whether you put it under the heading of Religion or some esoteric 'innate goodness' that we are born with. If you can't articulate your beliefs in a logical manner, you are not really much different from what it is you are divorcing yourself and casting under the heading of obedience!

all the best

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Actually, it was deep enough in some form or another for Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Mill, Rawls and most of the other important political philosophers over the last few centuries, although I suspect they all gave the matter rather more thought than you have. I really would be totally wasting my time if I tried to explain why, wouldn't I?

Really? It wasn't sufficient for the thousands upon thousands of Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars and leaders. I'd suspect they gave it much thought too. You already wasted your time when you started out with an argument from authority.

Quick hint, though. Far from a "done deal" your limited arrangement with your 'partners in crime' would leave you little if any better off than you were before. Partly because most of the rest of the human race would be somebody else's partners in crime, but mostly because you couldn't trust your own partners as far as you could throw them. As they couldn't trust you either, it just comes to who pre-empts who with a knife in the back first.

Thankyou for that hint, however useless it was. All partners in crime are not created equal. And since according to you, the rest of the human race are someone else's partners, I'll take my chance with whoever offers me the best deal. Besides, I doubt stealing some macbooks requires "stabbing in the back." Moreover, many criminals live to a ripe old age, provided that they prove themselves. Actually now that I think of it, people like Israeli assassins are criminals in the eyes of many here but are hailed as heroes by many there. So....

Next.

 

[Zafran]

any form pf philosophy that anyone subscribes to or agrees with, is simply a lesser form of religion. People can't escape their needs or their human condition no matter how far removed they'd like to believe they are from all of it..

I agree the human condition is need of guidence - most people who dont follow religion or Philosophies just follow socities moral code most of the time.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Greetings,


Someone's philosophy is closer to being an opinion. Or maybe you think opinions are a lesser form of religion, too?

As for the people who've said they'd commit crimes if they didn't believe in god, I'm definitely going with the sociopath interpretation. Clearly those people don't value morality nearly as much as they value mindless obedience.

Peace

Hilarious! Mindless obediance huh? If after so long here, you can't fathom even the most basic aspects of religion... nevermind, whats the use?

The logical extension of something like Islam is, a universe where your actions matter, good will beat evil, being human is being kind to your neighbors, and the noble pauper is better than the vile king.

A lack of belief taken to its logical extremes means that what you call morals are as man made as the computer I'm typing on and vary from place to place. Moreover, there is no reason why someone should value say, not stealing except for the usual argument of "if you steal from someone, its ok for people to steal from you" which is such a selfish way of supporting morals which you suppose would make you not selfish (if that is even worth holding in esteem). So basically you have nothing.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Hilarious! Mindless obediance huh? If after so long here, you can't fathom even the most basic aspects of religion... nevermind, whats the use?

To be fair, you've got a point. I can't understand why anyone would believe many of the aspects of various religions.

The logical extension of something like Islam is, a universe where your actions matter, good will beat evil, being human is being kind to your neighbors, and the noble pauper is better than the vile king.

A lack of belief taken to its logical extremes means that what you call morals are as man made as the computer I'm typing on and vary from place to place. Moreover, there is no reason why someone should value say, not stealing except for the usual argument of "if you steal from someone, its ok for people to steal from you" which is such a selfish way of supporting morals which you suppose would make you not selfish (if that is even worth holding in esteem). So basically you have nothing.

Well, you've really thought through all of the options, haven't you.

Peace

 

[Trumble]

Really? It wasn't sufficient for the thousands upon thousands of Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars and leaders. I'd suspect they gave it much thought too. You already wasted your time when you started out with an argument from authority.

Yes, I suppose it was, although I'm afraid you have only yourself to blame for that. Based on your previous contributions, I genuinely believe actually reproducing those arguments would be a complete waste of my time as the only person's opinion that interests you is your own. I would, though, like to see something from a few of these Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars firmly convinced they would fall back on a life of crime and complete disregard for their fellow human beings were God simply to disappear. However, let us move on.

All partners in crime are not created equal. And since according to you, the rest of the human race are someone else's partners, I'll take my chance with whoever offers me the best deal.

You cannot trust 'whoever offers the best deal'. They cannot trust you. The consequence should be obvious.

Besides, I doubt stealing some macbooks requires "stabbing in the back."

What do macbooks have to do with it? The very scenario you are setting up can have no limits (where would they come from)? Everything, and everyone is fair game.

Moreover, many criminals live to a ripe old age, provided that they prove themselves.

And most don't. The point is though, the same one.. those people live in an environment where there are rules that most follow, even if they don't. But you are floating a world with no rules.

Actually now that I think of it, people like Israeli assassins are criminals in the eyes of many here but are hailed as heroes by many there. So....

So?! :rollseyes

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Yes, I suppose it was, although I'm afraid you have only yourself to blame for that. Based on your previous contributions, I genuinely believe actually reproducing those arguments would be a complete waste of my time as the only person's opinion that interests you is your own. I would, though, like to see something from a few of these Jewish, Christian and Muslim scholars firmly convinced they would fall back on a life of crime and complete disregard for their fellow human beings were God simply to disappear. However, let us move on.



You cannot trust 'whoever offers the best deal'. They cannot trust you. The consequence should be obvious.



What do macbooks have to do with it? The very scenario you are setting up can have no limits (where would they come from)? Everything, and everyone is fair game.



And most don't. The point is though, the same one.. those people live in an environment where there are rules that most follow, even if they don't. But you are floating a world with no rules.



So?! :rollseyes

The only one who's opinion I'm interested is mine? The only time I get disinterested in anyone else's opinion is when they start spewing nonsense like that. Which, come to think of it, is your trademark.

Tell me, what reason would a person have for not stealing a new TV from a store, if noone would know, and noone would get hurt.

 

[Muhaba]

According to Psychology book:

There are three levels of moral development: At the preconventional level, moral thinking is guided by self-interest and the consequences of actions (punishment, reward, or an exchange of favors). In the Conventional stage, reasoning is based on a desire to please others or to follow socially accepted rules and values. The advanced moral reasoning of the postconventional level follows higher, self-accepted moral principles, not those supplied by outside authorities. ... People advance through the stages at different rates and many fail to reach the postconventional stage. In fact, many do not even reach the conventional level. For example, a survey in England revealed that 11 percent of men and 3 percent of women would commit murder for $1 million if they could be sure of getting away with the crime.


As for the question in the op, I am not even going to think about it because I think it would be a sin to do so. But if the question were something like: If God hadn't set laws for us regarding how to act and wouldn't judge us or punish us for our actions then would you behave less morally? My answer would be, I hope I wouldn't act less morally.

Edit:When I wrote this, i was pretty tired as i hadn't slept all night & so couldn't think.

Actually, what i'd do would depend on whether under such circumstances Allah has given us sense of morality and right & wrong. If not, then we might do just about anything without even realizing they are wrong. On the other hand, if We were given sense of morality then i guess i'd try to be moral and do good, not harming others, etc. but at the same time, do all things enjoyable, like listening to music, watching movies,etc.

I believe it's possible for a person to be so perfect that they wouldn't do anything wrong even if Allah gave them the permission to do whatever they like as is shown in the Holy Quraan, Surah 18 (Al-Kahf) Verses 83-88:


83. And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: "I shall recite to you something of his story."

84. Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything.

85. So he followed a way.

86. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people. We (Allah) said (by inspiration): "O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness."

87. He said: "As for him (a disbeliever in the Oneness of Allah) who does wrong, we shall punish him; and then he will be brought back unto his Lord; Who will punish him with a terrible torment (Hell).

88. "But as for him who believes (in Allah's Oneness) and works righteousness, he shall have the best reward, (Paradise), and we (Dhul-Qarnain) shall speak unto him mild words (as instructions)."


I believe everyone should strive to attain such perfection. It may be the nafsul mutmainnah as stated in the Quraan Surah 89 (Al-Fajr) verses 27 - 30:


27. (It will be said to the pious): "O (you) the one in (complete) rest and satisfaction!

28. "Come back to your Lord, Well-pleased (yourself) and well-pleasing unto Him!

29. "Enter you, then, among My honoured slaves,

30. "And enter you My Paradise!"

 

[AntiKarateKid]

According to Psychology book:

There are three levels of moral development: At the preconventional level, moral thinking is guided by self-interest and the consequences of actions (punishment, reward, or an exchange of favors). In the Conventional stage, reasoning is based on a desire to please others or to follow socially accepted rules and values. The advanced moral reasoning of the postconventional level follows higher, self-accepted moral principles, not thos supplied by outside authorities. ... People advance through the stages at different rates and many fail to reach the postconventional stage. In fact, many do not even reach the conventional level. For example, a survey in England revealed that 11 percent of men and 3 percent of women would commit murder for $1 million if they could be sure of getting away with the crime.


As for the question in the op, I am not even going to think about it because I think it would be a sin to do so. But if the question were something like: If God hadn't set laws for us regarding how to act and wouldn't judge us or punish us for our actions then would you behave less morally? My answer would be, I hope I wouldn't act less morally.

I believe it's possible for a person to be so perfect that they wouldn't do anything wrong even if Allah gave them the permission to do whatever they like as is shown in the Holy Quraan, Surah 18 (Al-Kahf) Verses 83-88:


83. And they ask you about Dhul-Qarnain. Say: "I shall recite to you something of his story."

84. Verily, We established him in the earth, and We gave him the means of everything.

85. So he followed a way.

86. Until, when he reached the setting place of the sun, he found it setting in a spring of black muddy (or hot) water. And he found near it a people. We (Allah) said (by inspiration): "O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness."

87. He said: "As for him (a disbeliever in the Oneness of Allah) who does wrong, we shall punish him; and then he will be brought back unto his Lord; Who will punish him with a terrible torment (Hell).

88. "But as for him who believes (in Allah's Oneness) and works righteousness, he shall have the best reward, (Paradise), and we (Dhul-Qarnain) shall speak unto him mild words (as instructions)."


I believe everyone should strive to attain such perfection. It may be the nafsul mutmainnah as stated in the Quraan Surah 89 (Al-Fajr) verses 27 - 30:


27. (It will be said to the pious): "O (you) the one in (complete) rest and satisfaction!

28. "Come back to your Lord, Well-pleased (yourself) and well-pleasing unto Him!

29. "Enter you, then, among My honoured slaves,

30. "And enter you My Paradise!"

Sister I don't understand how that supports your theory. To my knowledge, that idea has no basis in Islam.

 

[Sarada]

According to Psychology book:

There are three levels of moral development: At the preconventional level, moral thinking is guided by self-interest and the consequences of actions (punishment, reward, or an exchange of favors).

In the Conventional stage, reasoning is based on a desire to please others or to follow socially accepted rules and values. T

The advanced moral reasoning of the postconventional level follows higher, self-accepted moral principles, not those supplied by outside authorities. ...

People advance through the stages at different rates and many fail to reach the postconventional stage.

In fact, many do not even reach the conventional level. [/i]

I agree with that statement.

 

[Trumble]

Tell me, what reason would a person have for not stealing a new TV from a store, if noone would know, and noone would get hurt.

Why?! The scenario is irrelevant. According to you;

Without the soul, without a guarantee of good overcoming evil, without good and evil, there is nothing stopping someone from doing whatever they want.

"Whatever they want" has few limits; in the absence of God, according to you, where could those limits possibly come from? Your pink and fluffy scenario about stealing TVs is packed with provisos that, according you, shouldn't be there - why would it matter if someone was hurt? There are no law enforcement agencies to worry about it as, in your God-free world, there is no mechanism by which laws might come about that they could enforce (and agents would, of course, be infinitely corruptable anyway).

Let's put away the electronics and consider a relevant example. You might 'want' not TVs or Macbooks (in your world nobody is likely to be making them or generating the electricity to power them anyway), but - in the time honoured tradition of humanity - your neighbour's wife and land. The only way you can get those things is to kill your neighbour. We have established there is nothing stopping you doing that, as it is 'what you want'. Would you kill him then take his wife, unwillingly if necessary, or not? If not, and you have already suggested that you might draw the line at murder, then why not?

 

[Azy]

I'm thinking of going to church at least once a week, all this constant murdering is giving me RSI.

 

[Muhaba]

^ Consider going to the mosque too & learn a bit about Islam as it is the religion that teaches that God is watching us all the time, He will judge us on the Day of judgment and will reward us with Heaven or punish with Hell, everyone will be questioned about their faiths and actions no matter what (unlike the Christian belief which states that Jesus has taken everyone's sin and basically seems like giving the go-ahead to commiting sins/wrongdoing because after all your sins are taken by someone else and you've been forgiven whatever you do, then why should you even bother doing anything good?) The same isn't in Islam which states that everyone is responsible for his/her own actions and noone can bear the sins of another person.

 

[Muhaba]

Sister I don't understand how that supports your theory. To my knowledge, that idea has no basis in Islam.

Well, Allah might give a person authority over some people but that doesn't mean that the person can treat them however they like. A lot of people make the mistake that authority means total freedom, but that isn't the case. Allah will judge and ask how you used your authority. One example in Islam is the authority given to men over their wives. Men might think that they can order their wives anything (as long it is lawful in Islam) and the wife must obey but imo that is not the case. This is a particularly sensitive area for me because i've seen several men who treat their wives really terribly, telling them not to leave the house, not to let anyone into the house, yelling and fighting with the wives, hitting the wives, etc. so the wives are basically locked up in their houses all day. This is torture and totally unislamic behavior. Allah has said in various places in the Quraan to treat the wives gently, not to retain them in order to hurt them, etc.

In Surah 2 (Al-Baqarah) verse 231, Allah says:
And when you have divorced women and they have fulfilled the term of their prescribed period, either take them back on reasonable basis or set them free on reasonable basis. But do not take them back to hurt them, and whoever does that, then he has wronged himself. And treat not the Verses (Laws) of Allah as a jest, but remember Allah's Favours on you (i.e. Islam), and that which He has sent down to you of the Book (i.e. the Qur'an) and Al-Hikmah (the Prophet's Sunnah - legal ways - Islamic jurisprudence, etc.) whereby He instructs you. And fear Allah, and know that Allah is All-Aware of everything.

So imo, while a woman has to obey her husband, the husband isn't supposed to order to do something just to hurt her. He has to take into consideration how it will affect her. If he doesn't have justification for a command (such as not to leave the house) and it will hurt the woman, then he shouldn't order her, because Allah will ask him about it.

when Allah says to dhul Qarnain "O Dhul-Qarnain! Either you punish them, or treat them with kindness" He gave him authority over those people. If Allah had given such a command to someone today, they would take it to mean that they had total freedom and Allah wouldn't ask them about it. But that isn't true. such authority/freedom is actually to test the person and Dhul-Qarnain passed the test when he said "As for him (a disbeliever in the Oneness of Allah) who does wrong, we shall punish him; and then he will be brought back unto his Lord; Who will punish him with a terrible torment (Hell). But as for him who believes (in Allah's Oneness) and works righteousness, he shall have the best reward, (Paradise), and we (Dhul-Qarnain) shall speak unto him mild words (as instructions)."

 

[Sarada]

Sister Muhaba,

You are right. No authority comes without responsibility. Those in authority, while observing the law, must be fair and compassionate.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum
Interesting question. I guess this depends on what you mean by "acting moral". If you mean being altruistic and respectful and so on, then yes, I would still try and be good for people, as much as possible. However in such a hypothetical situation I might start indulging certain pleasures which I now restrain from (like cigarettes, alcohol and so on...)