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

[Muhaba]

I already have answered it, or at least I have in relation to relevant scenarios that don't include unjustifiable provisos that are, in fact, contrary to your whole thesis. Assuming you haven't had another sudden revelation that that thesis is completely different to what you first said it was, that is. The reason is that such conduct is contrary to a moral code that can, and indeed did 'evolve' without the intervention of God or gods because it was, in general terms (there will always be exceptions) beneficial to most members of the human race. I have also told you where to look for more detailed explanations as to why that might happen (call it 'argument by authority' if you like, but I have no intention of producing potted versions of all of them which you can easily Google up yourself - start with Hobbes and Rousseau). Going back some, Zafran suggested an alternative that a convinced metaphysician such as yourself might find rather more attractive in Kant's catagorical imperative.. something else you can look up for yourself should you have a genuine interest in finding an answer to your question.

[Removed personal attacks]

Thomas Hobbes's ideas were similar to AntiKarateKid's in this regard as Hobbes believed that humans are greedy and selfish and unless they were ruled by a powerful ruler who can "suppress dissent with an iron hand", disorder would be a constant threat.

Hobbes argued that the best possible state would be exceptionally strong, its laws pervasive, and its justice stern. Otherwise, because humans are greedy and selfish, disorder would represent a constant threat. In Hobbes's ideal world, an all-powerful ruler who can "suppress dissent with an iron hand" repesents the state. Introduction to Political Science

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Thomas Hobbes's ideas were similar to AntiKarateKid's in this regard as Hobbes believed that humans are greedy and selfish and unless they were ruled by a powerful ruler who can "suppress dissent with an iron hand", disorder would be a constant threat.

Hobbes argued that the best possible state would be exceptionally strong, its laws pervasive, and its justice stern. Otherwise, because humans are greedy and selfish, disorder would represent a constant threat. In Hobbes's ideal world, an all-powerful ruler who can "suppress dissent with an iron hand" repesents the state. Introduction to Political Science

Now, I never said humans were greedy. All I am saying is that our actions have a base in helping ourselves but humans have fitrah and are also inclined towards virtue.

 

[Trumble]

Thomas Hobbes's ideas were similar to AntiKarateKid's in this regard as Hobbes believed that humans are greedy and selfish and unless they were ruled by a powerful ruler who can "suppress dissent with an iron hand", disorder would be a constant threat.

In Leviathan, Hobbes famously claims that in a 'state of nature', our lives would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short' (XIII,9), a 'war of all against all'. He originated the inevitable dog-eat-dog scenario I explained to AntiKarateKid.

Hobbes then goes on to explain that while "everything and anything permitted" is a fundamental natural right (XIV,1), it is ultimately self-defeating for us to follow it. He sets out a set of 'natural laws', that can be derived purely by reason that demonstrate why we should accept certain moral obligations, a 'good' that is 'in accordance to our nature' (1). In other words, it makes sense for us to be moral providing everybody else does the same. The second of those laws, incidently, is

whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them (XIV,5)

which should sound very familiar!

That big problem is that, in the state of nature, there is no way in which we can be assured that others will do the same... indeed, it is pretty inevitable that they won't. The solution is the State; in Hobbes' case the Sovereign you describe, but any modern nation state provides the necessary judicial and executive functions (2). The one thing we do have to agree to is that there should be one, once there IS, matters take care of themselves. But it is not God that creates the state, it is people on the basis of reason, which is the whole point of my argument.

(1) In fairness Hobbes, rather grudgingly, assigns this 'nature' to God, although he has no need to do so - his conclusions can be justified purely on reasoning from the 'state of nature' as a premise. Rousseau, who ends up somewhere similar (although with rather more faith in human nature) had rather less of a need to defend himself against 'atheism' charges!

(2) Hobbes' particularly severe version of the type of government necessary - he was certainly no democrat - is generally regarded as being far more the result of his own experience of the consequences of the English Civil War than a necessary consequence of his philosophy.

 

[Muhaba]

^ Hobbes didn't derive his laws purely by reason. he got much from the bible. even the name Leviathan comes from the bible, the Book of Job.

 

[Woodrow]

Without some type of moral code I doubt that humans could survive as social creatures. So on that assumption I believe that the theists of today would still behave morally, but the moral conduct would be that which is accepted and directed by society and change from group to group. Morality would be that which helps the group, not that which serves a higher calling.

I believe I would still be a "moral" person, but my concepts of morality would most likely change and I would probably accept some things I now avoid.

 

[Trumble]

^ Hobbes didn't derive his laws purely by reason. he got much from the bible. even the name Leviathan comes from the bible, the Book of Job.

A law of nature is a precept or general rule, found out by reason, by which a man is forbidden to that which is destructive of his life or taketh away the means of preserving the same, and to omit that by which he thinketh it may be best preserved. (XIV, 3)

He actually presents them as the reasoned smart thing to do, as independent moral obligations (vaguely Kantian, in a way), and as divine commandments, although all three end up pretty much in the same place. I'd certainly dispute his argument (ultimately, why people will agree to the State) depends on invoking God at any point, but I would be interested to consider any references you provide that might suggest otherwise. Remember, he frequently argues for the same thing in several ways.

 

[Rabi'ya]

I held this conversation with my mum who's anti-religion. IT was interesting and actually what she says in a lot of ways tie with my ideas too.

Morals are not neceassrily taught from religion however, how we interact with each other and behave as social creatures come from our own morals. However, I personally feel that this is derived from religion from time ago.

This was an excellent topic in order to get my mum discussion religion so thanks for raising the thread

 

[Pygoscelis]

Indeed, and keep in mind that religion, being obedience based, can trigger immoral behaviour just as easily as it can trigger moral behaviour. If the religious follow or obey the holy book or prophet of relgion X or what they think the God wants, that opens the door for pretty much anything they want.

This can include hatred or intolerance or even attacks on innocent people (ie, witch hunts), genital mutilation, abuse of women (or men if a religion were to say it), etc.

And when you get down to it most religious people do not follow their books or dogma in its entirety. They pick and choose the parts that agree with their already existing moral compass and "interpret" the dogma or scripture accordingly.

 

[alcurad]

^ditto, good point on people following malformed version of religion, though, the reason why God is so central and necessary is that once you take his words to be absolute, then you'll stick to them no matter what, or more accurately strive to, which is the best way there is to implement effective controls/morals, the problem then would simply be what religion to follow/allow, not 'obedience' per se.

obedience is necessary, I don't believe that needs backing, but the idea that you could do away with god and keep morals for long stands on shaky grounds at best.

also it's not that atheists don't have morals etc, rather that the atheist deities are different-this isn't an oxymoron, there is no human who does not believe in absolutes-, thus inspire different preferred behavior and so on.

so the question should first be, what is God/Deity so that we can imagine him not being there? I don't mean the dictionary definition although it is useful.

 

[Gubbleknucker]

Many thanks to all here for proving my point for me

 

[- IqRa -]

Erm what is the point of this thread? This is like saying "If alcohol wasnt forbidden, would you drink it"? It s a silly question, people would drink it because it is "satisfying" and causes you to go into a stupor so you dont have to think about anything.

 

[Gubbleknucker]

Erm what is the point of this thread? This is like saying "If alcohol wasnt forbidden, would you drink it"? It s a silly question, people would drink it because it is "satisfying" and causes you to go into a stupor so you dont have to think about anything.

Uh, thanks for refuting my point after all the early posters confirmed it.:bump1:

I actually handle my liquor well, to address your flawed analogy. I've never actually been drunk.

 

[Azy]

I'm not religious and I don't drink at all.

 

[Gubbleknucker]

OK, but I don't see anything wrong with the occasional glass of wine at dinner.

Every human owns their own body. It would be a violation of rights to tell them what to do with that body.

In fact, small amounts of red wine are beneficial to health.

I probably average about 1 bottle per year.

 

[- Qatada -]

OK, but I don't see anything wrong with the occasional glass of wine at dinner.

Every human owns their own body. It would be a violation of rights to tell them what to do with that body.

In fact, small amounts of red wine are beneficial to health.

I probably average about 1 bottle per year.

Did you produce your own body? Did your parents create their own sperm and ova?

Allah gives you guidance on what you should do for your own good. The guidance is for our benefit, it doesn't harm or benefit God in the least.


If you say wine has some benefits to health, then the One who made you already said this;

"They ask you concerning wine and gambling. Say: 'In them is great sin, and some benefit for men; but the sin is greater than the profit.'" (Quran 2:219)


​

Allah knows what harms and benefits there are in His creation, but He knows what's better for us too.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Whatever benefit there is for drinking wine, you could easily get from other sources.

It's like saying "Chocolate has antioxidants, gimme that bar!"

ok... but so do blueberries, pomegranates, and a bunch of other fruits :rollseyes

 

[Pygoscelis]

Whatever benefit there is for drinking wine, you could easily get from other sources.

It's like saying "Chocolate has antioxidants, gimme that bar!"

ok... but so do blueberries, pomegranates, and a bunch of other fruits :rollseyes

Does Islam forbid chocolate? What a horrific thing that'd be lol

 

[Gubbleknucker]

Ok, therein lies the difference in our morality:

I believe we have rights to our own lives and all our possessions, and base all my dealings with people on this principle.

You believe we are all just pawns of a supernatural entity.

BTW, what is wrong with chocolate? I had a handful of M&Ms just this morning.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Does Islam forbid chocolate? What a horrific thing that'd be lol

Chocolate doesn't addle your brain or alter your consciousness. It is far easier with alcohol as seen by the drunk driving deaths, drunk sex/rape, and other things like liver failure and death/passing out from consuming too much. But an excess of chocolate is bad too, of course.

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Ok, therein lies the difference in our morality:

I believe we have rights to our own lives and all our possessions, and base all my dealings with people on this principle.

You believe we are all just pawns of a supernatural entity.

BTW, what is wrong with chocolate? I had a handful of M&Ms just this morning.

I think you should reevaluate your theory.

1. We do have rights to our own lives and possession. That is why you are able to choose to be a non-Muslim. But it doesn't change the consequence of becoming so. A person has the ability to do whatever they want in the classroom, but if you DO choose to break the rules, you will get punished. Your problem is that you are not separating choice from consequence and you see any consequence from Allah as limiting your choice when in reality every action has a consequence, but that doesn't mean it limits your choice.

2. Really? Pawns of a supernatural entity? Stop flattering yourself as if we are mindless automotons. You demonstrate that you have no grasp on religion other than what your atheist bias tells you. You choose to answer to your own desires. I choose to answer to Allah.

By the way it would help if you actually understood the words you were using.

Pawn: A person or an entity used to further the purposes of another

Last time I checked, Allah doesn't need us, we need him so your "pawn" comment is nonsense.

3. Nothing is wrong with chocolate in moderation. But alcohol, is far far easier to abuse and dangerous (it toxic to your liver for pete's sake) and is better avoided than indulged in any way. Your body treats it like a poison for crying out loud.