Would you still be a moral person if ____________?

[SivartM]

I'm talking about the logical conclusions of atheism. Most people would rather think happy thoughts than try to figure out WHY they think such-and-such is wrong. "Good" atheists are in the first four stages; they are "good" because society says they should be good and they are rewarded for good and punished for bad. They are not "good" because they believe that there is any universal moral code.

[Bravus]

Can there be a universal moral code without a divine guarantor? Can a universal moral code arise entirely from 'within' humanity?

[Outta Here]

I disagree with this in part. My father and my step-mother are atheists. I can agree that they are not "good" because they believe that there is any universal moral code; however, I do not agree that they are "good" because they are rewarded for good and punished for bad. Rather, they act out of an internal sense of kindness toward others--some might define this kindness as "love" (I know, I certainly do). They fed their children, they gave their children love and encouragement; they helped the needy, gave to the poor; they cared for one another and for their elderly parents; the extended their hand to others in need; and so on and so forth.

[Woody]

All Good comes from God.

[phkrause]

Jesus says that any good done without him is nothing. I always thought that was very interesting.

pk

[Liz]

Has anyone seen the movie "The Invention of Lying"? The premise is along the lines of the OP, that there is no GOD and no satan. The people tell the truth--according to them--to the point where if they think it they say it--even if it is painful to the other person. The movie was really funny! But all the way through it I kept thinking about this thread--because I have no life like that--anyways, these people still had a "moral" code of sorts, they still had police and jail, but they believed everything the other person said, because no one lied. They even showed how a burglary would go in this society.

I won't give any more away in case anyone would like to watch it, but it was very good, especially in light of this thread.

[Outta Here]

In correction of my previous post, #325263:

I apologize for using the quote feature. My original post, which can be seen in this thread on page 7 contained a quote from the person I was responding directly to. Without the quote, I felt that my response makes little sense. Therefore, I am restating, using original words, the point I was trying to make in the first place.

SivartM (forgive me for not quoting you) you implied, but did not say directly that "non-bad" non-believers-in-God are not in Kohlberg's *cough* *cough* last two stages, but rather the former ones; that non-believers-in-God are non-bad due to the fact that their peers on this planet dictate they should be non-bad and they are meted according to their behavior.

SivartM, you also implied, but did not say directly, that these non-believers-in-God are not non-bad due to the fact that these humans adhere to the idea that there is an all-encompassing good-behavior model.

Now, with those thoughts in mind, I sa:

I disagree with this in part. My father and my step-mother are atheists. I can agree that they are not "good" because they believe that there is any universal moral code; however, I do not agree that they are "good" because they are rewarded for good and punished for bad. Rather, they act out of an internal sense of kindness toward others--some might define this kindness as "love" (I know, I certainly do). They fed their children, they gave their children love and encouragement; they helped the needy, gave to the poor; they cared for one another and for their elderly parents; the extended their hand to others in need; and so on and so forth.

[Bravus]

Time for bed now, but I have an idea for a parallel theistic and atheistic consideration of each of Kohlberg's stages in a bit more detail, which I will most likely write as a blog post tomorrow morning and link to this thread in the hope that it will be useful/interesting.

[abelisle]

Since I created this thread I think I shoild add some input here. It seems there are 2 main schools of thought here: 1)I'm only good because there is a God and 2)why be good if there is no God?

When I spoke to my wife about this, her response was, "Wow, I guess they just need to grow to have goodness be a part of who they are?"

Finally another question keeps coming to mind, which is why do some Adventists have so much trouble thinking about ideas if God isn't in the picture? I'm not saying this is a bad thing, just that I'm worried that some of us haven't been educated to think in wider dimensions and to think for ourselves. EGW warned us that we must think not like others but for ourselves.

Alex (sorry for quoting my wife )

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

There is a 3rd school of thought that you didn't mention.....several of us have said WE WOULDN'T CHANGE THE WAY WE ARE.

But gaaimbmodmotfa.

[SivartM]

In my opinion it's not really a matter of whether or not goodness is somehow inherent in us. My point is that having a universal moral standard without a god is impossible... so if we want to be honest with ourselves, why try to be "good" when there is no "good" anyway? If it's somehow inherent in us, it's just religious and social oppression... and it doesn't matter what we do. So if you feel guilty for something, ignore it, because you aren't doing anything "wrong".

Basically, whether or not we seem to have some inherited tendencies toward "goodness" (no doubt brought on by closed-minded religionists), it still doesn't matter what we do, because there is no universal moral standard. If someone follows those inherited tendencies toward "goodness", good for them, but such a thing is unnatural, and they shouldn't expect other people to not kill them and plunder their goods.

[Stan]

in skimming over this I can say

Some of the most Professing Christians are the meanest folks I have encountered.

Some of the confirmed Atheist (not those who are just too lazy to investigate God) are the most moral folks.

Some years ago in USA Today, it has some stats between confirmed Atheists, and Southern Baptist, and only something like 2% of the Confirmed (belonging to an Atheist organization type) the Southern Baptist had around 50% divorced.

I am not saying Divorced are always immoral, nor are both parties etc etc

[Bravus]

As promised, blog post: http://www.bravus.com/blog/?p=1562

It's longish, but hopefully interesting and useful in this discussion.

[SivartM]

I personally never claimed that all morality came from Christianity. I said that without "A god", or some "higher power" or "mystical force" or whatever, there would be no morality above the individual. I can do what I want, and you can do what you want. From there on it's "survival of the fittest".

Atheists who are good people and act kindly and love their children and believe in right and wrong (at least in practice if not in theory) are either doing so because society says to be good or because they are just living out their inherited tendencies to "good" that came from theistic ancestors believing in some sort of moral code.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I didn't see that as a running theme in the thread at all. Some people said it, but there were those of us who didn't think we would change at all.

but here again, momn

[phkrause]

Interesting blog bravus. But on one comment you made about India and China. Don't forget that there where a couple of apostles I believe that did get to India and China and if not apostles than a few missionaries made it that far. There are quite a few Christians in those countries. I believe that Christianity made it to almost all areas of the world. So there are christian influenices throughout many other religions.

pk

[John317]

I used to think all the time without God in the picture. But for the past 4 years or so, God has become everything for me. Sure, I can go back to thinking the way I used to, but why would I want to? Thinking without God led me down a dead-end road without God for several decades.

Neitzsche was an atheist, in fact the father of modern atheism, yet all of his writings show that God, or rather the signifance of God's absence, was always a part of his thinking.

Thinking for ourselves does not mean that we won't think as some other people do. But we shouldn't be merely copying others, or reflecting other men's thoughts. To do us any real good, beliefs have to become part of ourselves.

As long as we're referencing Ellen White, we might as well reference the fact that she never advised people to dismiss God or the Bible from their thinking. There's nothing "wise" or "intelligent" in omitting God from one's viewpoint.

She didn't mean that we shouldn't take into consideration what Christ and the prophets taught. She meant that we should study those things, think them through carefully, know what we believe and why we believe it, and learn to apply the principles of the gospel to our lives personally. But this is not at all the same as thinking without God in the picture. I don't see a bit of advantage to doing that.

[phkrause]

Very good points John, I'm in agreement with them.

pk

[doug yowell]

The hypothetical is always controlled completely by it's creator. TV is a good example but given that...since the thread demands no God,who then determines if there is such a thing as good? Who decides a contrasting bad or does that exist? How would we be able to know with a certainty which was which? If history has shown us anything, concerning this, the most obvious answer would seem to be, the strongest! Didn't Adolf Hitler and others determine the meaning of moral? Nazi guards never flinched when asked to eliminate the vermin.Didn't the streets of Paris run red with blood under the watchful eye of the Goddess of Reason?I'm not sure that EGW intended that thinking for ourselves should include eliminating the truths of Scripture from the equation.Would we just need to grow into being good?Hypothetically speaking,maybe.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Just because there's no God doesn't automatically mean there's no good.

And all laws and morals do NOT come from the Bible.

[phkrause]

Pam how do we know there's not? :):):)

pk

[Bravus]

(teaching my daughter to drive this afternoon, so it will be a few more hours until I can respond to any of the interesting points raised)

[Stan]

is she going to be ok? Some (weaker) dad's can lose it and panic...

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Because I confirmed it with higher authorities, in answer to pk's question.

*******

dgrimm60 Read Hammurabi's Code

[John317]

Of course you are right, but without God and without the Bible, it's all just a matter of opinion. Someone's "good" may be someone else's "bad," and only the most powerful or the majority can enforce their value system through laws which determine what's legal and illegal, i.e., "right" and "wrong." If someone comes up to you and smashes you in the face or steals from you, it will make you mad and you can say it's wrong according to human laws, but none of that will matter to the one who takes those actions if he's convincted there's no God and no moral law. If there's no universal law, and he can get away with it, there's no reason from the criminal's viewpoint why he shouldn't do it.

Morals that come from the state are changeable. If our freedom does not come from God, then the state is the one who gives it to you; and if it gives it to you, it has the right to take it from you whenever it has the will and the power to do so.

God's existence is the only guarantee of justice in the universe. Without Him, the only justice is that which exists in this present life, and I think everyone would agree that there is little justice in the here and now. Untold millions of innocent people, including millions of children, have been slaughtered without their murderers being caught or punished. And even if the murderer is caught, there still is often no justice because they are either found not guilty or else they serve only a few years in prison. If there is no God and no afterlife-- no "judgment"-- then it seems obvious that the universe is completely indifferent to any of humanity's concepts of justice or morality.