Would you still be a moral person if ____________?

[Stan]

so, has ANYONE READ that this is the original thoughts forum, and there is to be no quoting?

This is not directed at anyone, but everyone, The Moderator has to spend most of his time on here deleting.

[Woody]

Wishing you well doug and card. Stan has indicated that the next person who quotes on this forum will be banned from further participation.

Nice seeing you here. Good bye ...

[Tom Wetmore]

Yes, it would be really nice to be able to come here and just join in the conversation without cleaning the litter off the highway first...

It reminds me of certain drivers on the road that I refer to as the terminally oblivious... You know the ones that seem to drive slowly in the left lane with their blinker on, mile after mile, seemingly unaware that there are other vehicles on the road or traffic lights or any rules of the road...

OK

[doug yowell]

Sorry Stan, I keep forgetting to NOT click on the quick quote like I do on every other forum. Habit. Old dog learning new tricks.Not intentional.

[abelisle]

Sorry. Was driving in the left lane just wonderin'

[SivartM]

I know it's generally not a great idea to bump up ancient topics, but I just have to say...

I can't believe that it hasn't even been a year, and I completely disagree with everything I said in this thread.

[phkrause]

I second that SivartM. LOL Just kidding.

[Sonny]

If there was no God nothing would exist.

[abelisle]

I don't think an atheist or even an agnostic would agree with you?

[teresaq]

Answering the op, I used to think that, given what I have learned over the years, that yes, I would seek to be "moral", even if there were no heaven, no God...

But if there were no God, would we know what morality is? If we all popped into existence somehow...

[cardw]

Morality can be based on empathy and the reduction of suffering for all.

Jesus defines morality on that basis. Love your neighbor as yourself. Or do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It is an empathic basis of common experience.

Basing morality on a law seems to be the most immature basis of morality. Empathy is dynamic and far more insightful because it is based on actual reality and experience.

[Sonny]

You say that Jesus told us to love our neighbor as yourself. Okay, but He also stated that this can only be kept through agape. Fallen humans can't produce agape, the ingredient that it takes to love our neighbors as we love ourselves.

[teresaq]

Don't I know that!! Thank God He will implant it in us!

[Igakusei]

I must confess that I'm a fairly newly-minted atheist myself. I'm certainly not opposed to the idea that some supernatural entity created the universe, but I haven't been able to find any evidence that said entity interacts with it in supernatural ways.

I feel that the cosmological argument you seem to be referring to with your "nothing would exist" statement is tenuous at best.

In regards to the question proposed by the OP: I strongly feel that my conversion to rationality has made me significantly more moral than I was as an SDA.

[cardw]

In the words of Daffyd of Llanddewi Brefi, "But I'm the only "Atheist" in the Village!"

Welcome to the light! (Formerly known as the Dark Side)

That's where I'm at. Though in the general milieu of dialog we would be known as agnostic.

I have noticed the same thing. There is a freshness of life when I began to take personal responsibility for my choices. There are far better rational reasons to be ethical than the "ethic" of obey or else.

[Parade Orange]

if there is no GOD then we wouldnt be created in HIS IMAGE!

we wouldnt have a sense of ourselves or a purpose

we wouldnt look into the stars and the world around us with a sense of wonder cause i believe us reaching out beyond ourselves to something greater than ourselves is put in us by GOD

so we could search for HIM in this mess

a GOD VOID!

sooooo we would be like animals surviving ..not using our frontal lobes in choosing right and wrong

just existing in self preservation with claiming land and gathering and hunting and making babies!

and to answer the question about murder or bad morals i would be sadly humping everyones leg

[Parade Orange]

this forum wasnt here before

why is it scarier here?

why is there a cop here making sure we dont quote anyone here?

and there as no such thing as an original thought

its all been said and done before

we just dont learn from it or forget

and since we share ideas and opinions here in this FORMAT we jump off each others thoughts and ideas we have!

are all based on things we heard or experienced and filterd thru our heads that are cluttered by other thoughts from books teachers parents and ministers and TV and such

SO this is really impractical in of it self

but i assure u copper that i will be very original in my posts!

o BTW im new to this so what exactly is considered a grievas offence here?

the CLUB chatroom that was here years ago was constantly be being UNDER SURVALENCE openly on by a harrasser who gave me a bad time repeatedly!

Once when i asked how old someone is that i met in chat-

i was interruppted and told its not polite as a lady her age

whaaaa?

A. didnt know it a female

B. asked for some sort of point of refrence not knowing anything but a neutral name

C. im trying to make conversation ( is the stranger 12 or 65 -would help my topic choices more effectively ) with a complete stranger

D. is that why the chat host was here? seriously to moniter every word? and to be miss manners?

E. and if i goof up to be verbally harrassed and put in place?

dont tell me the hall monitor is petty and have no life here also.

I didnt speak of it to anyone

thats one of the reasons i stopped posting and dissapeared

[Gail]

PO, the grievous boo-boo that you could make here is to click on that "Quote" button while making a post. There is a reason this particular forum was set up in this way.

As for the chat room, it is now defunct. Members have been chatting it up on the Clubadventist page on Facebook, but otherwise it has been let go. I think it's a shame, too.

[Woody]

Yes Gail Boo-Boos happen. But on this forum we have a boo-boo ban.

[Flyboy]

As one poster noted early in the thread, if there is no God then there is no good. By implication, if no good, then no bad. Of course the assumption of the question being that if no God then we are still here.

But, let's entertain the notion of good existing outside of God. Why are we good? Or, why are we taught to be good as children? Why are we taught to be good? Sing yourself the song "Santa Claus is coming to town". What are told to do so that Santa doesn't cross our name off his list? Be good. This is human nature, to induce improved behavior through reward, or threatening to withhold that reward.

What sub-culture, other than a religious one, focuses so heavily on doing what is right? I'd argue none, or at least very few. This is particularly true in the SDA church because we distinguish ourselves from other Christians by being different, following a different lifestyle, one that requires sacrifice now, in exchange for reward later.

Thus we have unintentionally created a culture where we choose to become good because of the reward will follow. Therefore, I would argue that if Christians found out today that there was no God, the initial reaction would be one of disappointment followed by immoral behavior by many simply because the incentive to be good has been removed, thus there are no consequences to one's actions.

But of course you still must live on Earth among your fellow men. This is where atheists or agnostics have a foot up on those who live in a devoutly Christian environment, because they are good for the sake of good, or bad for the sake of bad. They have an intrinsic desire to be or do good, despite the nature of man which pushes us to be bad and which they must resist or accept.

Of course carrots and sticks is not what God has in mind for us, but this is how the culture of Christianity has developed based on existing human traits which we have then embraced and driven forward with doctrine.

So, to answer the OP, I think it is different for different people. Their reaction to finding out there is no God would depend on their environment and their upbringing. Of course personality, genetics, would be a determinant as well.

As for me, I'd like to think I'd be good, but I also know that the culture of reward, through my religious upbringing, is very strong. I don't know what I'd do.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

I don't know....what you've described is simple behavioral psychology...avoidant behavior. Everyone does that...

[Flyboy]

Yes, all people do it, and we learn it as children. But many churches embrace this facet of human behavior and use it to threaten eternal damnation vs. eternal bliss.

Ask someone why they don't speed down the highway and you are likely to get a number of different answers. Some will say they don't want to get caught, others will say they just want to follow the law, and others, the higher level of thinking, will say they follow the speed limit because they know it was designed for their own good and they don't want to risk killing someone, or killing themselves, regardless of the consequences.

This gets into Maslow, human motivation theory, and the human needs pyramid. So clearly it's very complex. If all of a person's needs are being met elsewhere then they are more likely to act in a moral, good, way.

Yet cultures certainly can embrace certain aspects of human behavior and use those to demand obedience, through guilt of breaking God's law, through threats of not going to Heaven, etc.

No need to agree with me, all just food for thought. But even if you are right, then how do we explain non-believers who are truly good people? What is their motive? Again, complex answer, but if we could isolate one independent factor, God vs. no God, and then watch the behavior, I think we'd find the non-believer to be generally more stable in his/her behavior than a believer. A believer would have to go through the process of working out the implications (upon realizing there is no God) for future behavior. Without the motive of Heaven, a reward they'd been expecting their entire lives, the sirens may well be too loud for them to resist.

I heard somewhere once, in a college class, that the average porn bills at hotel rooms are higher during Christian conferences than during any other conference. I don't know if that is true, but if so, it is quite disturbing. They won't be caught, so why not do it?

[Tom Wetmore]

I have also read somewhere that porn use is highest through the so-called Bible Belt region. More broadly on the sexual morality measure, Christians fair no better than the general population. Even though family values/sanctity of marriage is very high on the Christian values measuring stick, the divorce rate, adultery, pre-marital sex, Christians rank at about the same level, or worse, as the rest of the population. Studies have also demonstrated that across the board Christians are not much different morality-wise than non-Christians. And I suspect that looking generally at business/professional ethics or general compliance with the laws of the land, you will see little difference.

From the psychological standpoint of rewards vs punishments, immediacy is a very significant factor. If the carrot or stick is not applied in very close proximity to the behavior it is meant to control showing direct cause and effect, it is largely ineffective. Only those quite high on the maturity scale work well for deferred gratification. And deferred punishment is even less effective. And most indications are that Christians rank on the immature side of morality development, which could explain a lot.

[Flyboy]

In the first paragraph I would say that there is immediacy with the reward/punishment of breaking a moral value in a Christian home, just as there is in most other homes. I punish my boys if they don't obey. The difference is that in many homes the subsequent scolding from the parents often includes words about being good so they can go to Heaven.... couched in more appropriate, less judgmental words possibly, but the message is the same. I think this is probably less true today than a generation ago. But, morning and evening worships drive that home. The last few mornings our worships have been about obedience to God. I'd say that all people respond to rewards, if administered properly, but Christians have the added bonus of growing up in a sub-culture that revolves.... *revolves* around ultimate, and eternal, punishment or reward.

As for Christian's moral development being on the immature side, that's an interesting statement. I'd hate to admit this is a possibility, but I'd not be surprised if it were true. Any studies that substantiate that?

Or, is there another factor at play here? Is it that the type of person, the mind, that is drawn to religion in the fist place is one who would be naturally less able to have good moral judgment? What other lifestyle differences between regular churchgoers and non-believers are there? I'd be interested to know.

[cardw]

Re: Christian's moral development being on the immature side...

You don't need any studies because a reward/punishment moral motivation is at the bottom of the scale.