God Expects U To Show Concern For Other People, Not Just Heaven

[TrueFreedom]

...For one, its a known fact that Heaven and Hell exist so its hard to imagine life without them....And the real situation is that Heaven, Hell, and Karma do exist

 

Are you serious?

[florduh]

Now there may be some who follow God and act good only for the purpose of Heaven, but I assure u those people won't make it to Heaven. God knows the intwntions of our souls.

Yes, and he sees you when you're sleeping; he knows when you're awake, he knows, uh, sorry. Wrong fictional character.

 

Anyway, I'm glad you have all the true answers and decided to enlighten us. Lots of people come here and try to sell us on a bunch of unsubstantiated crazy shit. Can you believe it?

[Ouroboros]

... its a known fact that Heaven and Hell exist ...

No. It's not a "known fact". I don't know if Heaven and Hell exist. So it's not a "known fact" to me. Maybe it's a "known fact" to you, but that's not what you allude to by using the anonymous "it's". (And by the way, it's "it's" not "its.")

 

It would also be a miserable scenario, let me give u an example why.

Why can you spell "miserable" and "scenario" but not "you"?

 

If u and another guy that u didn't know were locked in a room and u were hooked up to a machine that would kill u very painfully and slowly and then the guy who locked u two in the room comes on a TV screen and explains that the other guy you're locked up with has been drugged and has had the key to your machine surgically implanted into his stomach and the only way to unhook yourself from the killing machine was to grab a knife in the room and cut open the other man until u find the key to save yourself. Would u kill the man by cutting him open and getting the key or would u die a slow painful death? And if it makes it any easier for u, the other guy is still drugged and in a coma.

What's that horror movie called again?

[Thought2Much]

It would also be a miserable scenario, let me give u an example why. If u and another guy that u didn't know were locked in a room and u were hooked up to a machine that would kill u very painfully and slowly and then the guy who locked u two in the room comes on a TV screen and explains that the other guy you're locked up with has been drugged and has had the key to your machine surgically implanted into his stomach and the only way to unhook yourself from the killing machine was to grab a knife in the room and cut open the other man until u find the key to save yourself. Would u kill the man by cutting him open and getting the key or would u die a slow painful death? And if it makes it any easier for u, the other guy is still drugged and in a coma.

 

What is this I don't even?

[Antlerman]

Yea I'm sure a lot of people will hate me on this site because I still respect God and believe in Heaven and Hell. It doesn't matter, good karma will come to me regardless. I'm just tryin to clear up whe wrong views of why spiritual people follow God and are good people

I hear someone who has one realization they've come to on their own, which is a good thing. You still couch it in mythological terms such as heaven and hell, or a system of reward/punishment, but I take that as a still immature understanding on your part. What's it the Apostle Paul says, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me"?

 

I've asked this question of Christians before and I'll ask it of you. If you found out there was no afterlife, no heaven or hell, no resurrection where you get to live forever in paradise, and that when you die, you cease to exist... would you still embrace God in your faith? Would you still follow love for love's sake, even if all there was in this life for you was to simply give that to others, then die into forgetfulness, forever? Where does your heart truly lay?

 

To me, how you answer this will underscore that you truly sense that this rewards/punishment system designed for children is besides the real point, and that love for love's sake is in fact its own true reward. How do you answer?

 

This is one of those hypothetical questions thats difficult to answer. For one, its a known fact that Heaven and Hell exist so its hard to imagine life without them.

I'm not exactly sure how you define "known facts", but heaven and hell are definitely not known facts at all. That's like saying UFO's are 'known fact". The only known fact is that people believe heaven and hell exist. Outside that, its strictly a matter of personal belief.

 

That you say you can't imagine life without them, just simply means you haven't learned to see outside the lines of reality that you've been taught as a child. Don't worry about it, we all at some point learn to see life a different way. I live without the belief in heaven or hell, and I can tell you this, I can't imagine living life believing in such a thing. Heaven is here, right now, in how you choose to live and experience your life.

 

It would also be a miserable scenario, let me give u an example why. If u and another guy that u didn't know were locked in a room and u were hooked up to a machine that would kill u very painfully and slowly and then the guy who locked u two in the room comes on a TV screen and explains that the other guy you're locked up with has been drugged and has had the key to your machine surgically implanted into his stomach and the only way to unhook yourself from the killing machine was to grab a knife in the room and cut open the other man until u find the key to save yourself. Would u kill the man by cutting him open and getting the key or would u die a slow painful death? And if it makes it any easier for u, the other guy is still drugged and in a coma.

 

U see, hypothetical questions aren't always a good way to win an argument. Hypothetical questions are simply what if scenarios. And we can't be held accountable for what if, only for what is. And the real situation is that Heaven, Hell, and Karma do exist

So all of this above is essentially to say you're not going to answer my question? Let me ask you again, if heaven and hell were not real, if you learned when you die that's it, would you still embrace God? If NOT, then you are not embracing love for loves sake. You are doing it for personal reward, in other words doing it because you don't want to go to hell and you want to be rewarded with a shiny gold house in the sky. That's selfish, isn't it?

 

As far as your moral dilemma above - which has nothing to do with my question you avoided answering - it raises some interesting thoughts. Do you realize that there are moral stages of development, just as there a cogntive stages of developement? The whole notion of a God sending someone to hell on moral grounds is absurd. I'd like you to put on your school hat and read through this here: http://faculty.plts....ml/kohlberg.htm

 

The stage of moral development I hear expressed in speaking of heaven and hell as a system of rewards and punishment, speaks to the earliest, least advanced, most immature moral stage in the list of six stages under the Preconventional Morality stage:

 

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation.

 

Kohlberg's stage 1 is similar to Piaget's first stage of moral thought. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey. To the Heinz dilemma, the child typically says that Heinz was wrong to steal the drug because "It's against the law," or "It's bad to steal," as if this were all there were to it. When asked to elaborate, the child usually responds in terms of the consequences involved, explaining that stealing is bad "because you'll get punished" (Kohlberg, 1958b).

 

Although the vast majority of children at stage 1 oppose Heinz’s theft, it is still possible for a child to support the action and still employ stage 1 reasoning. For example, a child might say, "Heinz can steal it because he asked first and it's not like he stole something big; he won't get punished" (see Rest, 1973). Even though the child agrees with Heinz’s action, the reasoning is still stage 1; the concern is with what authorities permit and punish.

 

Kohlberg calls stage 1 thinking "preconventional" because children do not yet speak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.

 

 

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." This holds true for moral development as well. There is no need for heaven and hell at higher moral stages. For you, in your words, you can't imagine life without it. What does this say? Morality is external to you, something which the Big Person says you must do. Right?

 

 

Edit: When I hear the majority of Christians speak of morality as something God dictates that we all must live up to, they are operating at this very earliest stage of moral development, far away from the highest stages, that of Universal Principles. I honestly don't think there are many Christians that actually understand higher morality. Questions of heaven and hell are totally irrelevant to moral decisions in mature stages of development.

[Noraa]

Yea I'm sure a lot of people will hate me on this site because I still respect God and believe in Heaven and Hell. It doesn't matter, good karma will come to me regardless. I'm just tryin to clear up whe wrong views of why spiritual people follow God and are good people

I hear someone who has one realization they've come to on their own, which is a good thing. You still couch it in mythological terms such as heaven and hell, or a system of reward/punishment, but I take that as a still immature understanding on your part. What's it the Apostle Paul says, "When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me"?

 

I've asked this question of Christians before and I'll ask it of you. If you found out there was no afterlife, no heaven or hell, no resurrection where you get to live forever in paradise, and that when you die, you cease to exist... would you still embrace God in your faith? Would you still follow love for love's sake, even if all there was in this life for you was to simply give that to others, then die into forgetfulness, forever? Where does your heart truly lay?

 

To me, how you answer this will underscore that you truly sense that this rewards/punishment system designed for children is besides the real point, and that love for love's sake is in fact its own true reward. How do you answer?

 

This is one of those hypothetical questions thats difficult to answer. For one, its a known fact that Heaven and Hell exist so its hard to imagine life without them.

I'm not exactly sure how you define "known facts", but heaven and hell are definitely not known facts at all. That's like saying UFO's are 'known fact". The only known fact is that people believe heaven and hell exist. Outside that, its strictly a matter of personal belief.

 

That you say you can't imagine life without them, just simply means you haven't learned to see outside the lines of reality that you've been taught as a child. Don't worry about it, we all at some point learn to see life a different way. I live without the belief in heaven or hell, and I can tell you this, I can't imagine living life believing in such a thing. Heaven is here, right now, in how you choose to live and experience your life.

 

It would also be a miserable scenario, let me give u an example why. If u and another guy that u didn't know were locked in a room and u were hooked up to a machine that would kill u very painfully and slowly and then the guy who locked u two in the room comes on a TV screen and explains that the other guy you're locked up with has been drugged and has had the key to your machine surgically implanted into his stomach and the only way to unhook yourself from the killing machine was to grab a knife in the room and cut open the other man until u find the key to save yourself. Would u kill the man by cutting him open and getting the key or would u die a slow painful death? And if it makes it any easier for u, the other guy is still drugged and in a coma.

 

U see, hypothetical questions aren't always a good way to win an argument. Hypothetical questions are simply what if scenarios. And we can't be held accountable for what if, only for what is. And the real situation is that Heaven, Hell, and Karma do exist

So all of this above is essentially to say you're not going to answer my question? Let me ask you again, if heaven and hell were not real, if you learned when you die that's it, would you still embrace God? If NOT, then you are not embracing love for loves sake. You are doing it for personal reward, in other words doing it because you don't want to go to hell and you want to be rewarded with a shiny gold house in the sky. That's selfish, isn't it?

 

As far as your moral dilemma above - which has nothing to do with my question you avoided answering - it raises some interesting thoughts. Do you realize that there are moral stages of development, just as there a cogntive stages of developement? The whole notion of a God sending someone to hell on moral grounds is absurd. I'd like you to put on your school hat and read through this here: http://faculty.plts....ml/kohlberg.htm

 

The stage of moral development I hear expressed in speaking of heaven and hell as a system of rewards and punishment, speaks to the earliest, least advanced, most immature moral stage in the list of six stages under the Preconventional Morality stage:

 

Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation.

 

Kohlberg's stage 1 is similar to Piaget's first stage of moral thought. The child assumes that powerful authorities hand down a fixed set of rules which he or she must unquestioningly obey. To the Heinz dilemma, the child typically says that Heinz was wrong to steal the drug because "It's against the law," or "It's bad to steal," as if this were all there were to it. When asked to elaborate, the child usually responds in terms of the consequences involved, explaining that stealing is bad "because you'll get punished" (Kohlberg, 1958b).

 

Although the vast majority of children at stage 1 oppose Heinz’s theft, it is still possible for a child to support the action and still employ stage 1 reasoning. For example, a child might say, "Heinz can steal it because he asked first and it's not like he stole something big; he won't get punished" (see Rest, 1973). Even though the child agrees with Heinz’s action, the reasoning is still stage 1; the concern is with what authorities permit and punish.

 

Kohlberg calls stage 1 thinking "preconventional" because children do not yet speak as members of society. Instead, they see morality as something external to themselves, as that which the big people say they must do.

 

 

"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me." This holds true for moral development as well. There is no need for heaven and hell at higher moral stages. For you, in your words, you can't imagine life without it. What does this say? Morality is external to you, something which the Big Person says you must do. Right?

 

 

Edit: When I hear the majority of Christians speak of morality as something God dictates that we all must live up to, they are operating at this very earliest stage of moral development, far away from the highest stages, that of Universal Principles. I honestly don't think there are many Christians that actually understand higher morality. Questions of heaven and hell are totally irrelevant to moral decisions in mature stages of development.

 

Not to sound sarcastic but u said that I'm avoiding your question however u didn't answer mine. So could u tell me would u slice open that person's guts to get that key and avoid a slow and painful death?

 

And as far as your research about true morality goes, I found it interesting that they didn't mention anything about logic. U say that morality starts off when we're children as a determination of choosing behaviour that gives us a better reward. But u are still sayin that Heaven and Hell don't exist. I'm assuming that this research eventually is gonna lead to the child maturing to where he understands the impact of his moral choice rather than choosing a moral choice for a reward. The problem is that if the child's tricks his brain into not believing in Heaven and Hell then logic and convenience becomes the factors that determines his decisions in life. Lets say the child becomes a man and has a hard time gettin a woman. Logic would tell him that he could snatch up a woman walkin in a neighborhood not heavily patrolled by the police and then rape her. Or to be even more sickly clever, he could just drug a woman who he convinced to go out with him and rape her and possibly keep her locked up in his basement to be a sex slave. He's gonna think why should he have to be concerned about her being abused when eventually he's just gonna die, be forever unconscience and fade away. Logic will tell him that women can be in situations where it will be easy to take advantage of a woman. And he will believe its convenient because he will no longer have to socially struggle to impress a woman and risk rejection. Without true morality determined by God, a persons decision is only determined by logic and convenience because morality has been thrown out the window

[Deva]

Why don't I see a believer tag on Noraa? Did he lie when he created his account? Shouldn't he be locked down?

A Christian who speaks of karma?

 

Ha! peculiar, isn't it? Isn't that something those Eastern religions teach that are of the devil?

[Antlerman]

Not to sound sarcastic but u said that I'm avoiding your question however u didn't answer mine. So could u tell me would u slice open that person's guts to get that key and avoid a slow and painful death?

Why should I answer a question that you pose when you won't answer mine? Does it have anything to do with the question you won't answer? Is it changing the subject? If so, why?

 

And as far as your research about true morality goes, I found it interesting that they didn't mention anything about logic. U say that morality starts off when we're children as a determination of choosing behaviour that gives us a better reward. But u are still sayin that Heaven and Hell don't exist.

I never grew up with the threat of hell ever being held over my head, I developed good, healthy morals without it. How do you suppose? Morality by the way goes deeper than just logic reasoning. As a child I was told, "That's not a good thing to do", even though at that stage of development I didn't understand why. Never, ever, ever, did my parents threaten me with fear of bodily harm for my 'not getting it'. Consequences were things like denied privileges, being sent to my room, etc. I never had issues with developing good socialization skills.

 

Do you believe it's necessary to frighten children with stories of Satan taking them to hell to roast them alive over open flames, their skin burning off as they scream forever unheard into never-ending blackness in order to develop into good, moral children? No? Then why would God need to?

 

I'm assuming that this research eventually is gonna lead to the child maturing to where he understands the impact of his moral choice rather than choosing a moral choice for a reward.

The research already shows the stages in which this happen. This is not research into what you should or shouldn't teach children. It's based on observation of these marked stages that occur in a child's development. It's observation and modeling, not a philosophy of right and wrong. Based upon these observations, we can however draw certain conclusions about what is appropriate teaching at the various stages, for instance you shouldn't expect a five year old to have the moral understanding of a Gandhi. And that's the problem I have with the whole belief that God sends people to hell. For what? Being immature? That's insanely stupid reasoning.

 

The problem is that if the child's tricks his brain into not believing in Heaven and Hell then logic and convenience becomes the factors that determines his decisions in life.

"Tricks his brain into not believing heaven and hell"??? A child is taught these things. It not something they come to because it is a fact, as you falsely stated. I didn't grow up being taught, or believing in these afterlife destinations for good and bad boys and girls. Yet, my morality is not about my own logic and convenience at all! This is why I asked you very specifically, which you twice now have avoided answering, do you love for love's sake, without the hope of reward or fear of punishment? I do.

 

I don't believe there is any afterlife to go to where I'll dance around on happy gold streets, 'Hoo Hahh! Happy me!!". When I die, I go into the vast emptiness of this beautiful Universe, to return to my origins from which I arose in this moment in time to know the world as 'me'. I will be gone, yet I am eternal, as that love from which all arises. Not as me, but as that which we all are. I care not one tick for preserving me - not in this life, and not after I die. And yet love and compassion are the highest of all truths to embrace in this life. Why? What motivates this, if I don't fear death or an afterlife?

 

Do you understand that?

 

Lets say the child becomes a man and has a hard time gettin a woman. Logic would tell him that he could snatch up a woman walkin in a neighborhood not heavily patrolled by the police and then rape her.

This is horse crap. Rape is not about getting a woman to love you, finding a date, a girlfriend or any such unfounded, ignorant beliefs. It's about one thing, violence towards women to make them feel power over another human to inflict harm and injury upon them. This is not a normal behavior. It's a pathological dysfunction, and NO moral training of good and bad towards others teach them this. They are deeply broken individuals within their psyches, normally victims of abuse themselves who are severely stunted emotionally and socially.

 

How do I know this? I have a good friend who has a Ph.D in psychology who works at a prison for sex offenders. What you are trying to compare rape to is so utterly outside the norm, your argument if completely erroneous. I reject your example without further consideration.

 

Or to be even more sickly clever, he could just drug a woman who he convinced to go out with him and rape her and possibly keep her locked up in his basement to be a sex slave. He's gonna think why should he have to be concerned about her being abused when eventually he's just gonna die, be forever unconscience and fade away. Logic will tell him that women can be in situations where it will be easy to take advantage of a woman. And he will believe its convenient because he will no longer have to socially struggle to impress a woman and risk rejection. Without true morality determined by God, a persons decision is only determined by logic and convenience because morality has been thrown out the window

Let me now ask the pointed question. Why do you feel for yourself, why threats of hell are needed? Do you not believe you are a good person in your heart?

[Antlerman]

Why don't I see a believer tag on Noraa? Did he lie when he created his account? Shouldn't he be locked down?

A Christian who speaks of karma?

 

Ha! peculiar, isn't it? Isn't that something those Eastern religions teach that are of the devil?

Indeed. Next we'll be talking about becoming a better Christian when he is reincarnated in his next life. Oh wait, that is karmic, isn't it?

[Guest Valk0010]

Not to sound sarcastic but u said that I'm avoiding your question however u didn't answer mine. So could u tell me would u slice open that person's guts to get that key and avoid a slow and painful death?

 

And as far as your research about true morality goes, I found it interesting that they didn't mention anything about logic. U say that morality starts off when we're children as a determination of choosing behaviour that gives us a better reward. But u are still sayin that Heaven and Hell don't exist. I'm assuming that this research eventually is gonna lead to the child maturing to where he understands the impact of his moral choice rather than choosing a moral choice for a reward. The problem is that if the child's tricks his brain into not believing in Heaven and Hell then logic and convenience becomes the factors that determines his decisions in life. Lets say the child becomes a man and has a hard time gettin a woman. Logic would tell him that he could snatch up a woman walkin in a neighborhood not heavily patrolled by the police and then rape her. Or to be even more sickly clever, he could just drug a woman who he convinced to go out with him and rape her and possibly keep her locked up in his basement to be a sex slave. He's gonna think why should he have to be concerned about her being abused when eventually he's just gonna die, be forever unconscience and fade away. Logic will tell him that women can be in situations where it will be easy to take advantage of a woman. And he will believe its convenient because he will no longer have to socially struggle to impress a woman and risk rejection. Without true morality determined by God, a persons decision is only determined by logic and convenience because morality has been thrown out the window

Empathy and compassion are traits needed for human survival(and the key component of any morality as well). That combo is why we haven't become a race of sociopaths. Survival of the fittest then alone would help to see that those traits survive to further species. Respond to your enviroment correctly, you survive, you don't you die. And since those are key components for any moral system, they don't need a god, unless you wish to debate creationism. This doesn't mean there is such thing as moral relativism either. It just means that the one goal, survival and thriving, is the basis of moral judgement. Its why for example you never see a society, were everybody lies, cheats, murders and steals, all the time. The society would die off. Now as to the specific question of what is right and wrong without a god. I dunno take a look at the variety of moral systems on this planet. Screams to me, that we are just trying to figure out, how to best have empathy, compassion and survival. Do we have to agree with other societies moral decisions? No, but do we have to recognize they come from the same place yes. In a way, the only real objective standard for any sort of ethics, is "do no harm." Everything else is just commentary on those three words.

[Noraa]

I'm not really tryin to avoid the question of would I do good if I believed there was no God? I tryin 2 see where your perspective is on morality. U started this game so I think u should make the first move of answering rather or not u would cut open the other person to get the key so u can avoid a slow painful death? A question that u have also avoided twice

[Noraa]

Not to sound sarcastic but u said that I'm avoiding your question however u didn't answer mine. So could u tell me would u slice open that person's guts to get that key and avoid a slow and painful death?

 

And as far as your research about true morality goes, I found it interesting that they didn't mention anything about logic. U say that morality starts off when we're children as a determination of choosing behaviour that gives us a better reward. But u are still sayin that Heaven and Hell don't exist. I'm assuming that this research eventually is gonna lead to the child maturing to where he understands the impact of his moral choice rather than choosing a moral choice for a reward. The problem is that if the child's tricks his brain into not believing in Heaven and Hell then logic and convenience becomes the factors that determines his decisions in life. Lets say the child becomes a man and has a hard time gettin a woman. Logic would tell him that he could snatch up a woman walkin in a neighborhood not heavily patrolled by the police and then rape her. Or to be even more sickly clever, he could just drug a woman who he convinced to go out with him and rape her and possibly keep her locked up in his basement to be a sex slave. He's gonna think why should he have to be concerned about her being abused when eventually he's just gonna die, be forever unconscience and fade away. Logic will tell him that women can be in situations where it will be easy to take advantage of a woman. And he will believe its convenient because he will no longer have to socially struggle to impress a woman and risk rejection. Without true morality determined by God, a persons decision is only determined by logic and convenience because morality has been thrown out the window

Empathy and compassion are traits needed for human survival(and the key component of any morality as well). That combo is why we haven't become a race of sociopaths. Survival of the fittest then alone would help to see that those traits survive to further species. Respond to your enviroment correctly, you survive, you don't you die. And since those are key components for any moral system, they don't need a god, unless you wish to debate creationism. This doesn't mean there is such thing as moral relativism either. It just means that the one goal, survival and thriving, is the basis of moral judgement. Its why for example you never see a society, were everybody lies, cheats, murders and steals, all the time. The society would die off. Now as to the specific question of what is right and wrong without a god. I dunno take a look at the variety of moral systems on this planet. Screams to me, that we are just trying to figure out, how to best have empathy, compassion and survival. Do we have to agree with other societies moral decisions? No, but do we have to recognize they come from the same place yes. In a way, the only real objective standard for any sort of ethics, is "do no harm." Everything else is just commentary on those three words.

 

So basically you're saying that society is ok as long as some people are evil and some are good. So are u also saying that as long as a lot of people are evil and a few people are good and society survives, that the society is well off? Are u sayin that the only reason to do good is to keep society from falling?

[Guest Valk0010]

Not to sound sarcastic but u said that I'm avoiding your question however u didn't answer mine. So could u tell me would u slice open that person's guts to get that key and avoid a slow and painful death?

 

And as far as your research about true morality goes, I found it interesting that they didn't mention anything about logic. U say that morality starts off when we're children as a determination of choosing behaviour that gives us a better reward. But u are still sayin that Heaven and Hell don't exist. I'm assuming that this research eventually is gonna lead to the child maturing to where he understands the impact of his moral choice rather than choosing a moral choice for a reward. The problem is that if the child's tricks his brain into not believing in Heaven and Hell then logic and convenience becomes the factors that determines his decisions in life. Lets say the child becomes a man and has a hard time gettin a woman. Logic would tell him that he could snatch up a woman walkin in a neighborhood not heavily patrolled by the police and then rape her. Or to be even more sickly clever, he could just drug a woman who he convinced to go out with him and rape her and possibly keep her locked up in his basement to be a sex slave. He's gonna think why should he have to be concerned about her being abused when eventually he's just gonna die, be forever unconscience and fade away. Logic will tell him that women can be in situations where it will be easy to take advantage of a woman. And he will believe its convenient because he will no longer have to socially struggle to impress a woman and risk rejection. Without true morality determined by God, a persons decision is only determined by logic and convenience because morality has been thrown out the window

Empathy and compassion are traits needed for human survival(and the key component of any morality as well). That combo is why we haven't become a race of sociopaths. Survival of the fittest then alone would help to see that those traits survive to further species. Respond to your enviroment correctly, you survive, you don't you die. And since those are key components for any moral system, they don't need a god, unless you wish to debate creationism. This doesn't mean there is such thing as moral relativism either. It just means that the one goal, survival and thriving, is the basis of moral judgement. Its why for example you never see a society, were everybody lies, cheats, murders and steals, all the time. The society would die off. Now as to the specific question of what is right and wrong without a god. I dunno take a look at the variety of moral systems on this planet. Screams to me, that we are just trying to figure out, how to best have empathy, compassion and survival. Do we have to agree with other societies moral decisions? No, but do we have to recognize they come from the same place yes. In a way, the only real objective standard for any sort of ethics, is "do no harm." Everything else is just commentary on those three words.

 

So basically you're saying that society is ok as long as some people are evil and some are good. So are u also saying that as long as a lot of people are evil and a few people are good and society survives, that the society is well off? Are u sayin that the only reason to do good is to keep society from falling?

No actually on the first two questions. I am only saying a god is not required in the design and if anything dropping god from the explanation fits the facts better. The two key things of any ethical system also have a evolutionary basis. It was advantageous to develop those traits for our survival. They serve a dual person within the context of this discussion. And since we have a evolutionary explanation for the development of those key ethical components, then a god isn't required. If we developed without those key concepts, we would have not survive as a species. I am saying society is okay as long as it survives. Is that a excuse for evil, no not really. I am saying simply, goodness is what makes the world go round and that is why its good. What doesn't help us survive and thrive as a race can be considered evil. Murder and Rape are prime examples of that. And as far as, differences in views on what is the idea of not doing harm. Indeed using logic and evidence is the way to settle the disputes left after accepting that premise that ethics is a system of which how to live life the most harm free and suffering free way possible.

 

The god hypothesis allows no room for debate, and in fact can't account adequately for why there is a debate.

 

The only reason to do good, is because to not do good is to destroy ourselves.

[Noraa]

Not to sound sarcastic but u said that I'm avoiding your question however u didn't answer mine. So could u tell me would u slice open that person's guts to get that key and avoid a slow and painful death?

 

And as far as your research about true morality goes, I found it interesting that they didn't mention anything about logic. U say that morality starts off when we're children as a determination of choosing behaviour that gives us a better reward. But u are still sayin that Heaven and Hell don't exist. I'm assuming that this research eventually is gonna lead to the child maturing to where he understands the impact of his moral choice rather than choosing a moral choice for a reward. The problem is that if the child's tricks his brain into not believing in Heaven and Hell then logic and convenience becomes the factors that determines his decisions in life. Lets say the child becomes a man and has a hard time gettin a woman. Logic would tell him that he could snatch up a woman walkin in a neighborhood not heavily patrolled by the police and then rape her. Or to be even more sickly clever, he could just drug a woman who he convinced to go out with him and rape her and possibly keep her locked up in his basement to be a sex slave. He's gonna think why should he have to be concerned about her being abused when eventually he's just gonna die, be forever unconscience and fade away. Logic will tell him that women can be in situations where it will be easy to take advantage of a woman. And he will believe its convenient because he will no longer have to socially struggle to impress a woman and risk rejection. Without true morality determined by God, a persons decision is only determined by logic and convenience because morality has been thrown out the window

Empathy and compassion are traits needed for human survival(and the key component of any morality as well). That combo is why we haven't become a race of sociopaths. Survival of the fittest then alone would help to see that those traits survive to further species. Respond to your enviroment correctly, you survive, you don't you die. And since those are key components for any moral system, they don't need a god, unless you wish to debate creationism. This doesn't mean there is such thing as moral relativism either. It just means that the one goal, survival and thriving, is the basis of moral judgement. Its why for example you never see a society, were everybody lies, cheats, murders and steals, all the time. The society would die off. Now as to the specific question of what is right and wrong without a god. I dunno take a look at the variety of moral systems on this planet. Screams to me, that we are just trying to figure out, how to best have empathy, compassion and survival. Do we have to agree with other societies moral decisions? No, but do we have to recognize they come from the same place yes. In a way, the only real objective standard for any sort of ethics, is "do no harm." Everything else is just commentary on those three words.

 

So basically you're saying that society is ok as long as some people are evil and some are good. So are u also saying that as long as a lot of people are evil and a few people are good and society survives, that the society is well off? Are u sayin that the only reason to do good is to keep society from falling?

No actually on the first two questions. I am only saying a god is not required in the design and if anything dropping god from the explanation fits the facts better. The two key things of any ethical system also have a evolutionary basis. It was advantageous to develop those traits for our survival. They serve a dual person within the context of this discussion. And since we have a evolutionary explanation for the development of those key ethical components, then a god isn't required. If we developed without those key concepts, we would have not survive as a species. I am saying society is okay as long as it survives. Is that a excuse for evil, no not really. I am saying simply, goodness is what makes the world go round and that is why its good. What doesn't help us survive and thrive as a race can be considered evil. Murder and Rape are prime examples of that. And as far as, differences in views on what is the idea of not doing harm. Indeed using logic and evidence is the way to settle the disputes left after accepting that premise that ethics is a system of which how to live life the most harm free and suffering free way possible.

 

The god hypothesis allows no room for debate, and in fact can't account adequately for why there is a debate.

 

The only reason to do good, is because to not do good is to destroy ourselves.

 

Ok so u are saying that u agree with other atheists that no punishments happen to the sickly clever rapists and murderers since u said that God is not required for morality? If they have no punishments to face, why should they be concerned if their society survives 200 years from now? According to u, they will have been faded away and not in Hell

[Antlerman]

I'm not really tryin to avoid the question of would I do good if I believed there was no God? I tryin 2 see where your perspective is on morality. U started this game so I think u should make the first move of answering rather or not u would cut open the other person to get the key so u can avoid a slow painful death? A question that u have also avoided twice

I'm not avoiding the question. I do not believe I should answer you until you answer the question I asked first. It's proper conduct in a dialog, you know.

 

But to answer anyway, I believe you should "Love your neighbor as yourself". How someone in that situation inhabits that principle in themselves and acts on it is not something that you or anyone else is in authority to judge. I do not view morality as static laws, but "laws written on the heart", which means that they are guided by a true heart. What is moral, is to be true.

 

Now, answer the question I first asked of you. However, I think I can tell your answer already.

[Antlerman]

Ok so u are saying that u agree with other atheists that no punishments happen to the sickly clever rapists and murderers since u said that God is not required for morality? If they have no punishments to face, why should they be concerned if their society survives 200 years from now? According to u, they will have been faded away and not in Hell

Threats of punishment do not deter rapists. You only think they do, because you are not a pathological deviant and fear of prison serves to keep you from not deviating off a path you're already prone not to anyway. A sociopath sees nothing wrong with murdering someone, and no threat of punishment will make him inhabit a moral sensibility about it. They only wish to avoid getting caught. They don't give a damn about the victims, and have no moral regards for them no matter what. You know nothing of what you spout on about.

[Antlerman]

BTW, Noraa, if you believe there is some moral code-giver that everyone is capable of mimicking in their behaviors (which such a notion of morality is anyway, since it doesn't come from the heart), which of the other gods you think may exist do you think is the code-giver? You don't claim to be a Christian per se, so I assume you are polytheistic, in a Christian-sort of way since you believe the way most Christians do. What exactly do you call your beliefs anyway?

[mcdaddy]

Noraa. Are you retarded? No seriously- You must be.

 

Oh, I'd really like to see this proof of heaven and hell existing. It is fact, and all. Let me guess...heaven is north, and hell is south?

 

Pics?

[Noraa]

I'm not really tryin to avoid the question of would I do good if I believed there was no God? I tryin 2 see where your perspective is on morality. U started this game so I think u should make the first move of answering rather or not u would cut open the other person to get the key so u can avoid a slow painful death? A question that u have also avoided twice

I'm not avoiding the question. I do not believe I should answer you until you answer the question I asked first. It's proper conduct in a dialog, you know.

 

But to answer anyway, I believe you should "Love your neighbor as yourself". How someone in that situation inhabits that principle in themselves and acts on it is not something that you or anyone else is in authority to judge. I do not view morality as static laws, but "laws written on the heart", which means that they are guided by a true heart. What is moral, is to be true.

 

Now, answer the question I first asked of you. However, I think I can tell your answer already.

 

Wow, what a heck of a way to say that u would cut open the person to get the key. Now to be fair, I'm gonna answer the question would I be good if I believed there was no God? Actually I don't know. Even if I wanted to be "good" in such a world where there was no Heaven and Hell I would still have on the back of my mind that I have no consequence to face if I get away with being "evil". I'm not tryin 2 get the easy way out of this question by saying I don't know. Its just that you're asking me to imagine a scenario thats beyond a normal person's comprehension of life. A world with no God, Heaven, and Hell is just too hard to imagine. Oh and by the way, why was it so hard for u to just say that u would cut open the person and get the key? I guess your explanation was ok, but u could of also said yea, I would cut the person open

[Noraa]

Oh and by the way, I'll give u an explanation of my view of your answer once I hear what u say about mine

[mcdaddy]

You're a pretty fucking horrible person if you don't even know if you would be good without the promise of heaven and threat of hell. We need a lot less people like you of this worlds going to work.

[Noraa]

Noraa. Are you retarded? No seriously- You must be.

 

Oh, I'd really like to see this proof of heaven and hell existing. It is fact, and all. Let me guess...heaven is north, and hell is south?

 

Pics?

 

Mcdaddy are u retarded, seriously? (I'm only treating u the way u treating me) Are u saying that there is no punishment for guys who abduct elementary children after school and molest them? Where is your proof that there is no Heaven and Hell? U would have 2 have a vast knowledge of the universe and other realms to prove this

[mcdaddy]

There is punishment. It's called "prison".

 

You're making the positive claim. The burden of proof is on you to prove your imaginary fairy tale lands exist. If I say Michael Jackson is in my living room right now giving a hand job to Tupac, who are you to say that's not happening? Prove it!

[mcdaddy]

And btw. How is eternal punishment for a finite crime just? That makes whoever the "lawgiver" is in this case horribly unfit for his job. Even Hitler doesn't deserve infinite punishment on the worst scale possible. Only an infinitely evil being would punish crimes like that.

[Noraa]

There is punishment. It's called "prison".

 

You're making the positive claim. The burden of proof is on you to prove your imaginary fairy tale lands exist. If I say Michael Jackson is in my living room right now giving a hand job to Tupac, who are you to say that's not happening? Prove it!

 

Ok I'm tryin 2 have a calm attitude while debating on here but I gotta let this one out. First of all yo bitch ass need to quit mentioning two people who are not only music legends but are also 2 people who are inspirational to the black community and the rest of society. Michael Jackson may have been a lil crazy but he was still a peaceful person. And yo lame ass don't need to mention shit about 2pac.