Will God accept you if you renounce religion?

[RDM]

The ability or desire to stay and enjoy in a society is in no way anywhere close to being a moral obligation.

You were asking about why would you need to do it and how considerate to others and personal interest could be compatible.

There are many theists who believe God has left a blueprint for moral values and duties.

And yet don't seem to be able to describe what it is without interpretation and conjecture. You couldn't even state why homosexuality was objectively wrong, just your subjective reasoning why. There are so many interpretations of his so called objective morality that it hardly seems objective at all (and in some cases seems to lack morality).

I still haven't heard any plausible suggestions for what really can be a solid foundation for moral duties.

I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for a diety so it seems we are even.

Do you really believe that you have to guess what is right and wrong?

I do hope you aren't making the same retarded suggestion Jason2 made that all us atheists are secretly theists at heart?

I would also question where exactly you have picked up the thought that you think I "guess" about morality. I do not believe in God in any way shape or form, I believe that morality is something that can be described in terms of harm. I do not care if such a thing as objective morality exists or not. In operation your so called objective god given reality is exactly the same as a subjective man made morality as it is interpreted by people.

Why do you think your God is right and all the other Gods past and present wrong? What gives you surety that the objective morality you say you follow (despite not being able to actually codify it) is correct and those proposed by other religions are wrong?

 

[mrk]

And also lets face it, the reason most people don't commit many crimes is because fear of going to prison. If there was no law and no threat of prison, then I'm pretty sure the likes of hurf would be singing from a different hymn sheet.

All this waffling.

And no, the reason most people don't commit crimes is because they aren't criminals or rapists or whatever else.

I could go down the road right now and commit a crime and I'd never be caught, so why don't I go commit a crime? It's not because I fear the law, it's not because I follow or don't follow a faith either, it's because I'm a human being with morals and values based upon the way I've been raised up to a certain point then made my own choices after that.

Using your argument I could ask why do priests abuse young boys and then ask why the Pope covers it up.

Unless you're saying something totally different to how your post reads.

Either way your waffle is getting tired now.

 

[RDM]

And also lets face it, the reason most people don't commit many crimes is because fear of going to prison. If there was no law and no threat of prison, then I'm pretty sure the likes of hurf would be singing from a different hymn sheet.

Really? You are only law abiding because you are scared of going to prison? Don't commit the psychologists fallacy by thinking everyone holds the same views as you.

 

[Castiel]

So, atheists, in their very act to defy objective moral values, live as if objective moral values exist? God left the moral conscience, and that is what all strive to follow, yet no one has ever been able to do it, but one.

You talk of atheists as if they live there live's differently from most other people....the vast majority of atheist don't think about morality at all, most people don't...they abide by the law, they do what they think is right and avoid what they think is wrong....and we all judge those things individually and according to the specific circumstance. Most of the time it is automatic, it doesn't require any great inquiry as the right action is obvious.

You believe God gives you your morality, I believe my morality is a result of my experience and cultural upbringing, and some think, well whatever they think. I bet a pound to a penny that most of us all have a similar outlook on how we deal with situations and what is socially and morally acceptable and what is not...that in itself is evidence that we do not need God to inform our morality....that you believe in God gives you a particular worldview, that is all.

 

[Angilion]

I agree as I've said already that minimising harm done is a good thing.

Your definition seems to only be geared towards a 'rich developed society'. Would you expect something different in a 'poor undeveloped society'? In other words, do you think acting in self-interest to limit harm done is always good regardless of societal differences?

Not necessarily in more extreme situations. I referred to a 'rich, developed society' because it's something people like to live in and it depends on enough people acting to limit harm done to others - that's the "self-interest" part. In really bad situations, where society has effectively broken down and survival is in question, it may be in your best interest to limit your consideration to yourself, your family or a close group (e.g. your village, your gang...whatever the grouping has to be). The way of living I was refering to is better for long-term stability, but that's not self-interest if it's going to get you killed in the short term.

In fact, I'm not sure that minimising harm done based on self-interest makes sense. If self-interest is purely the main goal then that could well be at the expense of others. "Consideration of others" and "self interest" sound to me to be rather conflicting.

I'll summarise my line of argument:

Premise: A considerable degree of consideration of others by a sizable majority of people is necessary for the continued existence of a stable, developed, rich society.

Premise: For any person living in such a society, its continued existence is in their best interests.

Conclusion: A considerable degree of consideration of others is self-interest.

In the short term, lack of consideration for others might be the best way for self-interest. In the longer term, I think that it usually isn't.

Self-interest may be good for society as you mention but I don't see anything that obligates me to conform?

There isn't anything that obligates you to do so, unless that obligation is imposed by a person or organisation with enough power to do so. I'm talking about morality, not following orders that you are in some way obliged to obey. Even a bona fide sociopath can obey orders they're obliged to obey - is that morality or just compelled obedience?

Theists believe that the basis for objective morality is in a transcendent being. I think morality is understood by people but not created by them. We are talking here about a basis for morality, not how we come to understand them.

What theists believe and what is true are not the same thing. There were and are many different theist beliefs, many mutually exclusive in a wide variety of ways, so either all or almost all of them must be wrong.

If a transcendent being manifests in an undeniable way and displays their rules of behaviour in a clear way, directly from them, then those rules of behaviour come from a transcendent being.

If a person or people state rules of behaviour and say that a transcendent being wants people to follow them, then those rules of behaviour come from a person or people.

So I think that morality is created by people, especially if you define morality in terms of rules to be followed.

 

[Angilion]

[..]
Edit: As for "can you believe in God without religion" Sure you can but all we know about supposed "God" is through religion. You can believe in "God" but what is it? Who is he, what is it, how is it, why is it, is is it? Without religion God does not seem to have any context, unless of course you make up the context for yourself based on your views and opinions. So yes you can believe in God without religions and many do.

It could reasonably be argued that doing so isn't believing in a god without religions but is instead creating your own religion. If religion is the context and you make up the context for yourself, aren't you making up your own religion?

 

[Angilion]

[..]
And yet don't seem to be able to describe what it is without interpretation and conjecture. You couldn't even state why homosexuality was objectively wrong, just your subjective reasoning why. There are so many interpretations of his so called objective morality that it hardly seems objective at all (and in some cases seems to lack morality).

I think that sums things up so neatly that I wish I'd written it

 

[Angilion]

And also lets face it, the reason most people don't commit many crimes is because fear of going to prison. If there was no law and no threat of prison, then I'm pretty sure the likes of hurf would be singing from a different hymn sheet.

I've seen variations on this argument many times. Many theists seem very eager to portray themselves very badly. I'm not convinced that theists in general are bona fide sociopaths, yet so many are so eager to convince me that they are indeed bona fide sociopaths, totally devoid of any consideration for others and kept in check only by fear of the consequences of indulging themselves in whatever harm they want to do to other people. Sometimes they claim the only thing stopping them is their religion, sometimes (less often) they claim the only thing stopping them is the law. Then they assume that everyone else is like them.

It's a very strange and somewhat disturbing argument. Are they really all sociopaths, as they would have us believe? It seems unlikely.

 

[Nerusy]

It could reasonably be argued that doing so isn't believing in a god without religions but is instead creating your own religion. If religion is the context and you make up the context for yourself, aren't you making up your own religion?

oh-ho well spotted, I suppose going by strict definitions perhaps it's not possible to be theist without being religious, however what I was thinking when typing it was people who call it "spirituality", it is my experience that people who prefer to stir away from somewhat tainted label of religion classify themselves as spiritual who believe in God or sometimes don't. Would it be fair to say that it's their own individual religion? Spirituality or set of believes based on personally created context are not "organised" per se, hence may not fall under religion.

 

[Nerusy]

And also lets face it, the reason most people don't commit many crimes is because fear of going to prison. If there was no law and no threat of prison, then I'm pretty sure the likes of hurf would be singing from a different hymn sheet.

Well, humans are social creatures and also one of few mammals who posses empathy (thanks to good ol' brain). I have not looked into the subject but it seems pretty obvious to me that those two are the prime make up of our morals.

Look at any social creatures, they have certain instinctive ways to behave in a certain"good" way that is beneficial to their society. "Good" for many is what is better for society because we are social beings. Empathy gives us this extra incentive to be "good", because we know what feels bad and we know what feels good and we do not want instinctively to harm others in our social group. the law is another extra incentive but by no means is it the only reasons people do good.

To see the power of empathy you simply have to look at sociopaths who have faulty brain wiring. Edit: To expand on this point, socipath lack empathy so there are no instincts that would prevent them from harming other humans however the structure of society teaches such person to act in a socially accepted manner.

So we have 2 pillars: culture (society), empathy(hardwire), then we have extra"incentives": Law and sometimes, for some religion.

 

[ringo747]

You were asking about why would you need to do it and how considerate to others and personal interest could be compatible.

Being considerate to others sounds lovely but that doesn't make it right, far less obligatory.

And yet don't seem to be able to describe what it is without interpretation and conjecture. You couldn't even state why homosexuality was objectively wrong, just your subjective reasoning why. There are so many interpretations of his so called objective morality that it hardly seems objective at all (and in some cases seems to lack morality).

As I posted previously you are confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. The latter is about how we come to understand morality, and this has no bearing whatsoever on whether objective morality exists or not. For example, the objective external universe can exist, even if we have no reliable way to know it exists. Moral ontology on the other hand deals with whether objective moral values exist and what is the basis for something being good or evil.

I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for a diety so it seems we are even.

What isn't plausible about basing morality in a transcendent being that is the essence of goodness but his very nature?

I'm not saying you need to believe in God to be a decent person or anything. All I am saying is that if God doesn't exist then objective moral values and duties don't exist. If you don't believe that objective moral values exist then I'm sure you agree with that statement.

I've yet to hear any suggested basis for obligatory moral duties on atheism, let alone a plausible one.

I do hope you aren't making the same retarded suggestion Jason2 made that all us atheists are secretly theists at heart?

I think I've been involved in this thread long enough to know your stance.

I would also question where exactly you have picked up the thought that you think I "guess" about morality. I do not believe in God in any way shape or form, I believe that morality is something that can be described in terms of harm. I do not care if such a thing as objective morality exists or not. In operation your so called objective god given reality is exactly the same as a subjective man made morality as it is interpreted by people.

My reasons for suggesting you have to guess morality is taken from your quotation below.

God didn't leave a blueprint for objective morality so you have to guess what is and isn't wrong.

Again, I'm failing to see how harm done is objectively wrong? It may be beneficial for society but who says it's actually wrong? After all in the animal kingdom there is harm done to other animals all the time.

Your final paragraph again highlights your confusion between moral ontology and epistemology.

Why do you think your God is right and all the other Gods past and present wrong? What gives you surety that the objective morality you say you follow (despite not being able to actually codify it) is correct and those proposed by other religions are wrong?

Yet again, confusion between ontology and epistemology. Objective morality can exist regardless of how we come to understand morality.

 

[ringo747]

Not necessarily in more extreme situations. I referred to a 'rich, developed society' because it's something people like to live in and it depends on enough people acting to limit harm done to others - that's the "self-interest" part. In really bad situations, where society has effectively broken down and survival is in question, it may be in your best interest to limit your consideration to yourself, your family or a close group (e.g. your village, your gang...whatever the grouping has to be). The way of living I was refering to is better for long-term stability, but that's not self-interest if it's going to get you killed in the short term.

In reading your view I can see and understand that limiting harm done may be beneficial for society, however I fail to see how it can be objectively right? It sounds to me that "anything goes" as long as it is with a view to self interest.

If you lived in the bad situation that you mention, is murder fine if self interest is the motive?

I'll summarise my line of argument:

Premise: A considerable degree of consideration of others by a sizable majority of people is necessary for the continued existence of a stable, developed, rich society.

Premise: For any person living in such a society, its continued existence is in their best interests.

Conclusion: A considerable degree of consideration of others is self-interest.

In the short term, lack of consideration for others might be the best way for self-interest. In the longer term, I think that it usually isn't.

On what basis do you suggest that consideration of others in good? It may be beneficial for society but that doesn't mean it's good.

What theists believe and what is true are not the same thing. There were and are many different theist beliefs, many mutually exclusive in a wide variety of ways, so either all or almost all of them must be wrong.

Is it really impossible that the theistic view is correct?

 

[crinkleshoes]

Why would any deity force religious affiliation?

It's human nature to question... any intelligent being would easily comprehend that.

"Organised" religion is the essence of evil.

Obvious answer is obvious...

 

[RDM]

Being considerate to others sounds lovely but that doesn't make it right, far less obligatory.

No morality is obligatory so I have no idea why you keep bringing it up? What makes it "right" is that it is the best method for allowing your society and therefore yourself to survive and thrive. It has the best positive outcome.

As I posted previously you are confusing moral ontology with moral epistemology. The latter is about how we come to understand morality, and this has no bearing whatsoever on whether objective morality exists or not. For example, the objective external universe can exist, even if we have no reliable way to know it exists. Moral ontology on the other hand deals with whether objective moral values exist and what is the basis for something being good or evil.

It isn't that it confuses me I just see it as irrelevant. Arguing about if an objective morality that we cannot know exists is somewhat pointless. In practice your so-called objective morality is just as subjective as the one you decry.

What isn't plausible about basing morality in a transcendent being that is the essence of goodness but his very nature?

What is plausible about it? Do you find all other religions to be as plausible as your own? It seems to be a certain hubris that we are special enough that a divine being has decided we have a special set of rules we need to comply with. Especially when he decides to obfuscate what those special rules are. God seems to be little more than a conceit.

I'm not saying you need to believe in God to be a decent person or anything. All I am saying is that if God doesn't exist then objective moral values and duties don't exist. If you don't believe that objective moral values exist then I'm sure you agree with that statement.

I shall say again that I am agnostic on the dea of objective morality and it would depend on the specific definition of objective morality too. Yours seems to be specifically structured to require a God for example.

I've yet to hear any suggested basis for obligatory moral duties on atheism, let alone a plausible one.

So none has mentioned an objective morality based on harm? Because I could swear that it has been mentioned a dozen times or so. That you disagree with it or find it implausible I could believe but that you haven't heard it at all seems to be a significant feat of selective reasoning.

My reasons for suggesting you have to guess morality is taken from your quotation below.

Even with subjective morality you don't have to "guess". You work it out according to whatever rules you have decided.

Again, I'm failing to see how harm done is objectively wrong? It may be beneficial for society but who says it's actually wrong? After all in the animal kingdom there is harm done to other animals all the time.

Because harm means a less successful society and less chance of it flourishing and therefore the individual.

Your final paragraph again highlights your confusion between moral ontology and epistemology.

Yet again, confusion between ontology and epistemology. Objective morality can exist regardless of how we come to understand morality.

It isn't confusion, it is irrelevance. Is there a god given objective morality? No one can know. If we can't know then it is pretty much irrelevant so we then need to look at the practical implications. The practical implications that if god given objective morality exists then it is unknowable and so we have to subjectively implement it, making it no different from any other morality.

 

[RDM]

Is it really impossible that the theistic view is correct?

That isn't what he said. He said it was impossible for all of the theistic views to be correct.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Ringo, you seem to believe that belief in a deity is required for sustainable morality?

Surely that is not true morality as such people are effectively scared into following moral values.

Surely by such a sentiment, all atheists must be psychopathic axe murderers?

Societal values are imprinted on young, this does not require any higher function than a parent imposing values on a child.

 

[ringo747]

No morality is obligatory so I have no idea why you keep bringing it up? What makes it "right" is that it is the best method for allowing your society and therefore yourself to survive and thrive. It has the best positive outcome.

RDM, seriously this gets worse. Does moral experience seriously not tell you that rape is wrong and you ought not to do it?

I would say that limiting harm done is a "good" thing but this is different from saying it is "right". When I talk about moral values I am talking about whether something is good or bad. Moral duty is whether something is right or wrong and whether I ought or ought not to do something. Just because a given act is good doesn't mean I'm morally obligated to it.

Here's an example... it may be a good thing to become a medic as it will help so many people, however, I am in no way morally obligated to become a medic.

It isn't that it confuses me I just see it as irrelevant. Arguing about if an objective morality that we cannot know exists is somewhat pointless. In practice your so-called objective morality is just as subjective as the one you decry.

Let's give you my definition again to help clarify this. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad no matter what anyone thinks about it.

Given this definition, don't you agree that harm done is objectively bad?

What is plausible about it? Do you find all other religions to be as plausible as your own? It seems to be a certain hubris that we are special enough
that a divine being has decided we have a special set of rules we need to comply with. Especially when he decides to obfuscate what those special rules are. God seems to be little more than a conceit.

If there is no moral law giver, then there is no objective moral law that we must obey. If God doesn't exist why think that we have any moral worth at all?

After all, on atheism moral values are just the by-product of evolution and social conditioning. I don't see anything about this evolved morality that makes it objectively true.

Additionally, on atheism we are just animals, and animals have no moral obligations to each other.

Following from that, why think that human flourishing is more valuable that the flourishing of any other animal?

I don't believe morality is obfuscated at all. Does your own moral experience not tell you that some things are objectively good or bad, right or wrong?

I shall say again that I am agnostic on the dea of objective morality and it would depend on the specific definition of objective morality too. Yours seems to be specifically structured to require a God for example.

"To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad no matter what anyone thinks about it."

Given that definition, do you not agree that objective moral values do exist? That statement doesn't mention God at all.

So none has mentioned an objective morality based on harm? Because I could swear that it has been mentioned a dozen times or so. That you disagree with it or find it implausible I could believe but that you haven't heard it at all seems to be a significant feat of selective reasoning.

If atheism were true why would harm done be wrong?

Because harm means a less successful society and less chance of it flourishing and therefore the individual.

Again, on athiesm why would the flourishing of humans even be valuable compared to the flourishing of any other animal?

It isn't confusion, it is irrelevance. Is there a god given objective morality? No one can know. If we can't know then it is pretty much irrelevant so we then need to look at the practical implications. The practical implications that if god given objective morality exists then it is unknowable and so we
have to subjectively implement it, making it no different from any other morality.

Don't you agree that in moral experience we apprehend objective values and duties? I'd like to think that most people recognise that certain actions are really wrong.

Ringo, you seem to believe that belief in a deity is required for sustainable morality?

Surely that is not true morality as such people are effectively scared into following moral values.

Surely by such a sentiment, all atheists must be psychopathic axe murderers?

Societal values are imprinted on young, this does not require any higher function than a parent imposing values on a child.

Crinkleshoes, I am not suggesting that at all. You don't need to believe in a deity to be a decent person who does good/right things. God is only mentioned as the basis for objective moral values and duties.

 

[crinkleshoes]

Without reason, a deity did not "hand down" morality... It was specified by humans and humans alone.

The only basis to "use" a deity with respect to morality is to force people to follow instruction through fear of reprieve.

Others with more twisted minds could easily tell themselves that god told them to go to war... The last American president did just that, certainly a immoral act that a lot ascribed themselves to.

Any human idea can be linked to whatever other human idea for any reason, the link you are trying to make is irrelevant.

 

[ringo747]

Without reason, a deity did not "hand down" morality... It was specified by humans and humans alone.

The only basis to "use" a deity with respect to morality is to force people to follow instruction through fear of reprieve.

Others with more twisted minds could easily tell themselves that god told them to go to war... The last American president did just that, certainly a immoral act that a lot ascribed themselves to.

Any human idea can be linked to whatever other human idea for any reason, the link you are trying to make is irrelevant.

So how did morality come about in your view? Just a social construct?

Whether or not people act morally doesn't undermine the existence of objective moral values and duties. Of course people can do awful things, that doesn't mean that morality didn't exist in the first place.

In your view is rape really wrong, or is it only wrong because humans believe so?

 

[RDM]

RDM, seriously this gets worse. Does moral experience seriously not tell you that rape is wrong and you ought not to do it?

Where are you even getting this rubbish from? Where have I even suggested that rape isn't wrong. In fact the only people that seem to be trying to suggest rape wouldn't be wrong is you and Jason2 to support the existence of God. The most frightening comment coming from Jason2 saying that he only stays within the law because he is scared of the consequences!

Rape = harm, harm = wrong. Please don't suggest again that I do not think rape is wrong.

I would say that limiting harm done is a "good" thing but this is different from saying it is "right". When I talk about moral values I am talking about whether something is good or bad. Moral duty is whether something is right or wrong and whether I ought or ought not to do something. Just because a given act is good doesn't mean I'm morally obligated to it.

Here's an example... it may be a good thing to become a medic as it will help so many people, however, I am in no way morally obligated to become a medic.

You are going to have to be somewhat clearer in the point you are trying to make and how it is arguing against anything I have said because so far I am just not seeing what this has to do with anything I have said.

Let's give you my definition again to help clarify this. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad no matter what anyone thinks about it.

I disagree. Good, bad, moral, immoral are human concepts and see need to be thought about to considered. Because they are human values they are only objective when applied to humanity. There is no point applying morality to a star as stars have no morality. a tsunami as tsunami's have no morality and so on. So if morality only exists as a human concept then the act would need to be considered in a human framework.

Given this definition, don't you agree that harm done is objectively bad?

With the above in mind you can determine that harm done is objectively bad, because harm done reduces the ability of us as a species to thrive and flourish. That is the objective basis you can define harm on.

If there is no moral law giver, then there is no objective moral law that we must obey. If God doesn't exist why think that we have any moral worth at all?

After all, on atheism moral values are just the by-product of evolution and social conditioning. I don't see anything about this evolved morality that makes it objectively true.

I think that may be more your failing than a non god based objective morality. You yourself consider morality restricted to humans, you just feel that it needs to be god delivered. Why would a morality restricted to humans not develop with humans?

Additionally, on atheism we are just animals, and animals have no moral obligations to each other.

Following from that, why think that human flourishing is more valuable that the flourishing of any other animal?

Because we are humans? It is a human concept that applies only to humans because it was created by humans about humans. It helps to ensure that humans flourish, us being humans that makes it somewhat sensible.

If objective morality is God given why does it not apply to everything? Why does it only apply to humans? Why did God make a special set of rules that only applies to us?

I don't believe morality is obfuscated at all.

Yet you don't seem to be able to describe why homosexuality is objectively wrong? Also it seems that your God given objective morality is subjectively interpreted by many different religions in many different ways many of which contradictory.

Does your own moral experience not tell you that some things are objectively good or bad, right or wrong?

Yes, but not always instinctively. I strongly believe that if you are going to enforce a morality then you need to demonstrate why it is good and right.

"To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or bad no matter what anyone thinks about it."

Given that definition, do you not agree that objective moral values do exist? That statement doesn't mention God at all.

If atheism were true why would harm done be wrong?

I have gone over this above. In fact I am pretty sure I have gone over this in several other posts too. We really are just going in circles now.

Again, on athiesm why would the flourishing of humans even be valuable compared to the flourishing of any other animal?

Because I am human? Because morality is human?