#101 Posted by Flawed_System (388 posts) -

@HKZ said:

@Flawed_System: I'm sorry, exactly how? 1). Religion says you have to do certain things to get into the afterlife. Like not kill people, or steal things. I don't disagree these are things you shouldn't do. 2). Yet the question is posed as someone who never believed the bullshit of a man nailed to a cross, and returned to life three days later as being anything remotely close to true, can't be a good person. 3). Religion is total bullshit. Always has been, always will be. Now, there are good things about religion, like morals to follow. Some things are bad, 4). like actually thinking the Earth is only a few thousand years old, and some old dude built a boat to put two of every animal on, or that you are incapable of being a fit parent if you're a homosexual, or that having children out of wedlock will send you straight to "hell" unless you beg some made up dude for forgiveness. Or someone actually believe a deity split a body of water, and let some Jews avoid getting their feet wet. 5). Religion is bullshit, and posing the question in it's given form questions whether or not you'd be a good person if you knew there was no afterlife. There never was, so what is the point asking? 6). Do you have to believe in some made up garbage to be a good person, or can you actually be intelligent enough to recognize bullshit when you see it and be a decent person without the threat of pain and suffering. 7). Religion has caused more deaths, more murders, and more child molestation than not believing in religion. (I don't have factual information to back that up with hard numbers, but I'd be willing to bet I'm right)

I'd love to hear your opinion rather than your "logical fallacy" bullshit. It'd be nice to hear something intelligent than the typical crap about how "wrong" someone is without a valid reason.

The argument you posed is parologistic. I believe that's more than a valid reason to ignore it.

I underlined the portions of this post that also contain logical fallacies.

Would you like me to list what they are?

#102 Posted by Zaccheus (1788 posts) -

No. I don't believe in life after death and certainty of it would definitely not change anything.

If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed.
-Albert Einstein
#103 Edited by HKZ (70 posts) -

@Flawed_System: Sure. I'll give you the one you labeled 7 as potentially wrong, but I still stand by the statement that religion has been a murderous story throughout it's entire lifetime on earth.

#104 Posted by Raven10 (1724 posts) -

I wouldn't change. I live my life to be the best I can be and leave behind something for others, be that a child or a piece of art or some sort of scientific achievement. Maybe there is an afterlife, and maybe there isn't, but I'm just going to assume there isn't until I see proof otherwise. I don't get the whole faith argument. I'll believe something when I see evidence proving it. Right now there is no evidence proving the existence of an afterlife or a God or anything like that. If there ever was sufficient evidence to prove there was then I'd believe it. I'm not going to base my life on that chance though.

#105 Posted by WickedFather (1730 posts) -

@Questionable said:

If there is no afterlife than all that morals are are just rules imposed onto you by your fellow man.

Wrong. We're genetically programmed to be sociable. It's beneficial as a species.

If there is an afterlife then that terrifies me. When I die I want my life to have been meaningless and my conciousness to be obliterated. No model of the afterlife I've been presented with makes any free willed sense any my questions to religious types just end up with "Well I don't know how it works." An example: You've been with the love of your life for 10 years, they die and 'go to heaven' and are waiting for you to be reunited. You meet love of your life #2 and the same thing happens. When you die who gets you - who goes unhappy?

#106 Posted by FiestaUnicorn (1577 posts) -

@WickedFather said:

@Questionable said:

If there is no afterlife than all that morals are are just rules imposed onto you by your fellow man.

Wrong. We're genetically programmed to be sociable. It's beneficial as a species.

If there is an afterlife then that terrifies me. When I die I want my life to have been meaningless and my conciousness to be obliterated. No model of the afterlife I've been presented with makes any free willed sense any my questions to religious types just end up with "Well I don't know how it works." An example: You've been with the love of your life for 10 years, they die and 'go to heaven' and are waiting for you to be reunited. You meet love of your life #2 and the same thing happens. When you die who gets you - who goes unhappy?

Have you seen sister wives? Maybe heaven is sister wives.

#107 Edited by imsh_pl (3295 posts) -

I think lives of those who believe in an afterlife are really sad. After all, all of your dreams, desires, hopes, relationship and feelings are meaningless compared to what will happen after you die. If there is an afterlife I see literally no incentive to care for this life. You can judst do whatever you want and repent just before you die to live in an eternal paradise.

If, however, this life is all we have, then we should cherish every minute of it.

@Questionable said:

  • Absolutely zero repercussion or consequence

Are you kidding? It's the complete opposite. If there is an afterlife which you go to if you believe in a certain deity and repent before you die all of your wrongdoings in your life go unpunished. So if Hitler, for example, were to sincerely be sorry for his crimes he would live in an eternal paradise, and an atheist who's been good all his life would be tortured forever (according to the main concepts of paradise in various religions at least).

In the end morals are just that, rules imposed by our surroundings. ever changing and never the same for 2 people

BS, morality can be reasoned. It's not subjective.

#108 Posted by Fattony12000 (7038 posts) -

LIVE LIKE YOU'RE DYING

FLY LIKE YOU'RE TRYING

TEAM BRAD AIN'T HIDING

#109 Posted by Strife777 (1501 posts) -

As somebody pointed out with the Einstein quote, I don't act the way I do out of fear of punishement or anticipation for reward (In the grand scale of things), which I don't believe is real moral. I do things because I think they're right. I'm an atheist and I don't believe there's anything after our present lives, so no, I wouldn't act differentely.

#110 Edited by matti00 (668 posts) -

@Questionable said:

@DJJoeJoe said:

Jail and morals exist during life, so unless you include those as also being none existent then I don't see why anyone should change how they act.

I can consider (hypotheticly) that killing my wife and running off with the insurance money is worth the risk of 15 years jail, Now if the risk is 15 years prison and "eternal damnation" that really tips the scale even when you take the jail time entirely out of the equation.

If the prospect of eternal damnation is the only thing stopping you from murdering your wife then you've got some serious fucking problems. I don't need a religious framework to tell me to not be a dick, it just comes kinda naturally to the rest of us.

...

...

...

God dammit I'm posting in a troll thread.

#111 Posted by Flawed_System (388 posts) -

@HKZ said:

@Flawed_System: Sure. I'll give you the one you labeled 7 as potentially wrong, but I still stand by the statement that religion has been a murderous story throughout it's entire lifetime on earth.

So you're just going to put all religions in the same category?

#112 Posted by Questionable (619 posts) -

@imsh_pl said:

@Questionable said:

In the end morals are just that, rules imposed by our surroundings. ever changing and never the same for 2 people

BS, morality can be reasoned. It's not subjective.

I would question that it is the exact opossite.

A very easy example would be the extreme reactions some muslims are currently having for that anti mohammed video. apparently a portion of this worlds inhabitants feel that they are morally obligated to murder those who offended "him who they love more than themselves"

This is just a single example how simply based on where, by who and in what age you are raised in can lead to vastly different ideas of morals. To believe morals come naturally i would call utterly naive, If anything it is a sign of civilization it is the very being that separates us from the other mammals.

#113 Posted by Questionable (619 posts) -

@HKZ said:

@Flawed_System: Sure. I'll give you the one you labeled 7 as potentially wrong, but I still stand by the statement that religion has been a murderous story throughout it's entire lifetime on earth.

Regardless of whether you are a believer or not, i can not think of any religion (omitting Scientology if that can even be called one) that does not contain a grain of wisdom that people could learn from to improve upon themselves as a human being. be it tolerance, patience or acceptance. The problems start when humans try to abuse their groups of like minded individuals for money and power. Instead of learning from each other they may see other religions as a direct competitor or threat.

Not intending to overly generalize but i hope the message i tried to convey is still understood.

#114 Posted by Lobster_Ear (284 posts) -

@Questionable said:

@imsh_pl said:

@Questionable said:

In the end morals are just that, rules imposed by our surroundings. ever changing and never the same for 2 people

BS, morality can be reasoned. It's not subjective.

I would question that it is the exact opossite.

A very easy example would be the extreme reactions some muslims are currently having for that anti mohammed video. apparently a portion of this worlds inhabitants feel that they are morally obligated to murder those who offended "him who they love more than themselves"

This is just a single example how simply based on where, by who and in what age you are raised in can lead to vastly different ideas of morals. To believe morals come naturally i would call utterly naive, If anything it is a sign of civilization it is the very being that separates us from the other mammals.

I'll destroy your whole argument with one word. Empathy. Most people have it. It guides us more than any morals. Morality is subjective to a certain extent and it is used to control people and set boundaries in society, but EMPATHY is part of the human condition. That's what truly guides people.

I don't refrain from killing people because of God or a collective societal agreement on the immorality of it. I don't kill people because I am able to put myself in their shoes. I am human just as they are and my life is not more valuable than theirs. If I did kill someone it would eat away at my conscious due to overwhelming guilt and regret. That feeling is not instilled in me through religious or societal morality. It is instilled in me through empathy which is ingrained in almost all of us from the start.

So if the only thing stopping you from killing innocent people is God or the government telling you there will be repercussions, then you are a horrible despicable person.

So in conclusion, fuck morality.

#115 Posted by Kraznor (1578 posts) -

Atheist. Already living with that premise in mind.

#116 Posted by Kraznor (1578 posts) -

@Lobster_Ear said:

@Questionable said:

@imsh_pl said:

@Questionable said:

In the end morals are just that, rules imposed by our surroundings. ever changing and never the same for 2 people

BS, morality can be reasoned. It's not subjective.

I would question that it is the exact opossite.

A very easy example would be the extreme reactions some muslims are currently having for that anti mohammed video. apparently a portion of this worlds inhabitants feel that they are morally obligated to murder those who offended "him who they love more than themselves"

This is just a single example how simply based on where, by who and in what age you are raised in can lead to vastly different ideas of morals. To believe morals come naturally i would call utterly naive, If anything it is a sign of civilization it is the very being that separates us from the other mammals.

I'll destroy your whole argument with one word. Empathy. Most people have it. It guides us more than any morals. Morality is subjective to a certain extent and it is used to control people and set boundaries in society, but EMPATHY is part of the human condition. That's what truly guides people.

I don't refrain from killing people because of God or a collective societal agreement on the immorality of it. I don't kill people because I am able to put myself in their shoes. I am human just as they are and my life is not more valuable than theirs. If I did kill someone it would eat away at my conscious due to overwhelming guilt and regret. That feeling is not instilled in me through religious or societal morality. It is instilled in me through empathy which is ingrained in almost all of us from the start.

So if the only thing stopping you from killing innocent people is God or the government telling you there will be repercussions, then you are a horrible despicable person.

So in conclusion, fuck morality.

Brief comment on this, guilt and any kind of "conscience" is socially conditioned as well. I believe what we are getting at is some manner of narcissism I feel all humans have. You can envision yourself being murdered, so you don't murder because it increases your odds of being murdered or locked up. It isn't for any higher reason than that, which is fine, it works and always has. Anyway, just a thought.

#117 Posted by Akyho (1585 posts) -

@Gamer_152 said:

Well, I already don't believe in an afterlife as I've seen no evidence or logical reason to do so, so I wouldn't behave any differently, apart from the fact that I'd urgently want to present my proof of no afterlife to scientists.

@OtakuGamer said:

If there wasn't an afterlife, wouldn't you be more inclined to not take risks? Wouldn’t you make sure that your life was fulfilling and not wasted by imprisonment or death? I never really understood the phrase “you only live once” because if you only live once, why waste it?

Both Gamers have been quoted for truth.

I am Athiest I do not believe in anything of gods or afterlife.

And and OtakuGamer said exactly how all Atheists live.

Make the most of your life and dont be a burden to others. We are all Human.

#118 Posted by Phasen (4 posts) -

@Questionable: How do you feel that humans wrote the bible and have you read the bible yourself?

#119 Posted by Entus (253 posts) -

@Questionable said:

@HKZ said:

@Flawed_System: Sure. I'll give you the one you labeled 7 as potentially wrong, but I still stand by the statement that religion has been a murderous story throughout it's entire lifetime on earth.

Regardless of whether you are a believer or not, i can not think of any religion (omitting Scientology if that can even be called one) that does not contain a grain of wisdom that people could learn from to improve upon themselves as a human being. be it tolerance, patience or acceptance. The problems start when humans try to abuse their groups of like minded individuals for money and power. Instead of learning from each other they may see other religions as a direct competitor or threat.

Not intending to overly generalize but i hope the message i tried to convey is still understood.

And there isn't a single grain of wisdom from religion that doesn't boil down to common sense.

#120 Posted by Arbie (1449 posts) -

@Strife777 said:

As somebody pointed out with the Einstein quote, I don't act the way I do out of fear of punishement or anticipation for reward (In the grand scale of things), which I don't believe is real moral. I do things because I think they're right. I'm an atheist and I don't believe there's anything after our present lives, so no, I wouldn't act differentely.

Hey, thanks for that post. It means I don't have to write out exactly the same thing, I can just point at you and say, what they said!

I'm not sure whether or not I believe in an afterlife. Sometimes I hope there is one, but not the heaven and hell God kind, but the something of the soul goes on kind. But I mostly hope this because I probably spend more time talking to the deceased than the living!

#121 Posted by Everyones_A_Critic (6287 posts) -

@Gamer_152 said:

Well, I already don't believe in an afterlife as I've seen no evidence or logical reason to do so, so I wouldn't behave any differently, apart from the fact that I'd urgently want to present my proof of no afterlife to scientists.

Pretty much.

#122 Posted by Tharrington (139 posts) -

@Questionable said:

If there is no afterlife than all that morals are are just rules imposed onto you by your fellow man.

This is completely wrong and is exactly why I fear that the world needs religion. Too many people don't understand the fact that morals and being a good person are about exactly that, being moral and a good person. You shouldn't be trying to be the best person you can be just to secure a spot somewhere after you die, you should be doing it just because its the right thing to do.

#123 Edited by Questionable (619 posts) -

@Lobster_Ear said:

I don't refrain from killing people because of God or a collective societal agreement on the immorality of it. I don't kill people because I am able to put myself in their shoes. I am human just as they are and my life is not more valuable than theirs. If I did kill someone it would eat away at my conscious due to overwhelming guilt and regret. That feeling is not instilled in me through religious or societal morality. It is instilled in me through empathy which is ingrained in almost all of us from the start.

Empathy and moral are two entirely seperate entities. Empathy is part of our nature and what we are born with. Morals are something you are taught during life. Why do you think people have so much trouble with abortion and euthenasia laws. These are grounds where morals and empathy often collide.

If i see a person suffering i naturally feel empathy and would a feel a urge to try to alleviate that pain. if anything i would compare it to instinct. Morally i can dispute it is not my own responsibility to act or that the person somehow deserves what is being inflicted.

Even if one morally decides they should not act that wont eliminate your sympathy towards the person. and vica versa. they are two seperate things that co-exist. Many animals show empathy yet morality is something i consider exclusive to humans.

#124 Posted by timlump (152 posts) -

I am an atheist so the opening statement is nothing new to me. I would continue exactly as I do now.

I find it rather puzzling how some people seem to suggest that religion is the only thing keeping us from murdering people left, right and centre. I personally determine if something is right or wrong by imagining if everyone in the world did it and if that scenario makes the world a worse place to live then it is wrong, if it makes it better then it is right.

It is just common sense. I am not rude to people because I don't want them to be rude to me. I don't steal because I don't want them to steal from me. I don't assault people because I don't want to be assaulted. I don't kill people because I don't want to be killed.

God does not enter this system at any point and I wouldn't be surprised if this is the basis of human morality instead of some divine manipulation. In fact, if someone insists that God is the only reason they don't do horrible acts, they should be in a mental institution, not a church.

#125 Posted by Saethir (353 posts) -

I already believe that consciousness ends at death. So, as others have previously said, I would act basically the same. Though perhaps without a tiny twinge of wanting to be pleasantly surprised.

#126 Posted by SirPsychoSexy (1327 posts) -

@Questionable: You could make the argument that morals are also something you are born with. I believe it may be instinctual. For millions years people have worked together in groups and society's to achieve better, happier, more successful lives. I find it hard to believe that it hasn't become some sort of instinct to not just kill random people for perhaps a small gain. Over the course of an enormous amount of time with people realizing they have a better chance of surviving by helping each other, you would think it is an instinct engraved in most of our brains from birth. That is not to say your morals can't be influenced by things after birth. You can see animals instinct's fade away or change during the course of a lifetime, why not humans?

#127 Posted by Questionable (619 posts) -

@timlump said:

It is just common sense. I am not rude to people because I don't want them to be rude to me. I don't steal because I don't want them to steal from me. I don't assault people because I don't want to be assaulted. I don't kill people because I don't want to be killed.

As a purely hypothetical question, would you still act this way if life had no repercussions for you? I completely believe in the statement of "Absolute power corrupts absolutely"

People are willing to lie, steal and cheat each other as long as they believe they can get away with it. Regardless of what type of perfect household dad one wishes to see themselves as.

#128 Posted by SlapHappyJesus (120 posts) -

I don't believe in the afterlife, personally.

So my answer is yes. Nothing would change.

#129 Edited by Korwin (2825 posts) -

@Questionable said:

@DJJoeJoe said:

Jail and morals exist during life, so unless you include those as also being none existent then I don't see why anyone should change how they act.

I can consider (hypotheticly) that killing my wife and running off with the insurance money is worth the risk of 15 years jail, Now if the risk is 15 years prison and "eternal damnation" that really tips the scale even when you take the jail time entirely out of the equation.

Personally i would feel allot more inclined to take risks that would cross morals. perhaps invest some money in a sound isolated basement in a remote location and see where it goes from there. afteraal, if the only thing that matters is your life now. why not fulfill every curiosity and fantasy you might have or whatever you consider living life to its fullest.

If there is no afterlife than all that morals are are just rules imposed onto you by your fellow man.

Rules are a social evolution of the natural social empathy inherent to most primates (it's fully observable in chimp's). Rules may be man made, however they are built on a social consensus of right and wrong that most well balanced individuals already arrive at naturally (e.g. I wont stab this dude in the junk, because I'm pretty sure I wouldn't like it if he stabbed me in the junk).

However I do believe that the knowledge of a lack of an afterlife would undoubtedly drive people to live their lives more boldly (obviously on a sliding scale of boldness). The realization that you have been granted the great gift that is a brief period of sentient existence has to drive you to make the most of it within your own limitations, it's not like you're going to get another shot at it.

#130 Edited by Lobster_Ear (284 posts) -

@Questionable said:

@Lobster_Ear said:

I don't refrain from killing people because of God or a collective societal agreement on the immorality of it. I don't kill people because I am able to put myself in their shoes. I am human just as they are and my life is not more valuable than theirs. If I did kill someone it would eat away at my conscious due to overwhelming guilt and regret. That feeling is not instilled in me through religious or societal morality. It is instilled in me through empathy which is ingrained in almost all of us from the start.

Empathy and moral are two entirely seperate entities. Empathy is part of our nature and what we are born with. Morals are something you are taught during life. Why do you think people have so much trouble with abortion and euthenasia laws. These are grounds where morals and empathy often collide.

If i see a person suffering i naturally feel empathy and would a feel a urge to try to alleviate that pain. if anything i would compare it to instinct. Morally i can dispute it is not my own responsibility to act or that the person somehow deserves what is being inflicted.

Even if one morally decides they should not act that wont eliminate your sympathy towards the person. and vica versa. they are two seperate things that co-exist. Many animals show empathy yet morality is something i consider exclusive to humans.

I never said they were the same. They overlap, but they aren't the same. I'm simply saying that we don't need morality to guide us. It is instilled in most people to not kill or do bad things for no reason due to empathy. Sure, people kill due to momentary lapses of reason, crimes of passion and such, but those instances are part of the basic human condition as well, whether you're a religious moral crusader or an atheist. The basic rules like don't kill, steal, etc. are ingrained in us from the get go. There would be utter chaos if they weren't. People usually have to be pushed to do really bad things. Morality is not needed. It was created to control people.

Also, what's wrong with abortion and euthanasia?. I have no qualms with either. People make those issues a moral argument because, like I said, it's all about control, but if you look at it logically without throwing religion into the argument there is no issue. People should be free to commit suicide, if not you don't truly own yourself, which is a scary concept and fetuses aren't people and in early stages they are just cells. They don't have the brain function to know they exist, so again not an issue if you use logic and it in no way collides with empathy.

And for the person saying guilt is a social construct. Bullshit. It is a human construct. Of course there are cases where people feel guilty for merely breaking the law, but that doesn't mean that guilt is only a social construct. It is first and foremost part of our humanity and it ties right into empathy in most cases dealing with wronging someone else.

#131 Posted by timlump (152 posts) -

@Questionable: I have no idea because it is impossible for there to be no consequences for your actions. You don't have to be caught to suffer for your actions. People might not trust you, you could be stressed out trying to maintain the lie you are living. I do agree with the statement that "Absolute power corrupts absolutely" but that still does not support your argument. Plenty of people corrupted by absolute power have been religious people and they by no means lived in a consequence free zone. At any moment they could be killed by someone they harmed or by an underling because they have surrounded themselves by similar monsters. Just look at Gaddifi, dragged through the streets by his own people and shot. Sure some people get away but I doubt they had many good nights sleep (unless they were mentally unwell which is a whole different story).

#132 Posted by benspyda (2030 posts) -

I think a better question would you change your way of living if there was definitive proof that there is an afterlife and your actions here had consequences. The other way round doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

#133 Posted by Brendan (7686 posts) -

I only read the first page, but if you believe that morals are something "imposed" upon you, then you are 1. immature 2. narrow-minded 3. selfish 4. a terrible person. Being decent to others is something you want to do as an equal exchange of respect. I don't go home saying "Maan, people get so mad at me when I kill their families. Guess I better toe the line!".

#134 Posted by pubbles (140 posts) -

@Questionable: You sound like you're a sociopath...

#135 Posted by Iron_Tool (215 posts) -

@Questionable said:

Personally i would feel allot more inclined to take risks that would cross morals. perhaps invest some money in a sound isolated basement in a remote location and see where it goes from there. afteraal, if the only thing that matters is your life now. why not fulfill every curiosity and fantasy you might have

WTF? What kind of sick ideas are spooking in your head dude? So all that holds you back is the unproven hypothetical idea of an afterlife that is keeping you from following your sick thoughts? And if you would know that there isn't an afterlife (there isn't one) then you wouldn't have any morals? WTF is the matter with you?

#136 Posted by Questionable (619 posts) -

@Kraznor said:

Brief comment on this, guilt and any kind of "conscience" is socially conditioned as well. I believe what we are getting at is some manner of narcissism I feel all humans have. You can envision yourself being murdered, so you don't murder because it increases your odds of being murdered or locked up. It isn't for any higher reason than that, which is fine, it works and always has. Anyway, just a thought.

Besides agreeing with the statement i also quoted this for being a very easy to read argument on a very heavy topic which is a accomplishment in itself.

#137 Posted by timlump (152 posts) -

@Questionable: What is your exact belief?

#138 Posted by jakob187 (21642 posts) -

I already believe there is no afterlife. Therefore, I would change nothing.

#139 Posted by Puzzler20 (78 posts) -
#140 Posted by VoshiNova (1638 posts) -

This is really depressing.

#141 Posted by Questionable (619 posts) -

@timlump said:

@Questionable: What is your exact belief?

I believe my personal view of the world too fickle and easily swayed. In the end everything is just a matter of perspective. I believe the me that exists now wont exist anymore when i open my eyes tomorrow and that the perceptions of ourselves and our world is constantly evolving by the impressions of our social interactions.

I guess it boils down to being unable to give you a straight answer because depending on the time of day or the mood you may receive entirely different truths.

#142 Posted by WilliamHenry (1200 posts) -

@pubbles said:

@Questionable: You sound like you're a sociopath...

#143 Posted by guiseppe (2837 posts) -

I wouldn't change a thing.

#144 Posted by Strife777 (1501 posts) -

@Erzs said:

@Strife777 said:

As somebody pointed out with the Einstein quote, I don't act the way I do out of fear of punishement or anticipation for reward (In the grand scale of things), which I don't believe is real moral. I do things because I think they're right. I'm an atheist and I don't believe there's anything after our present lives, so no, I wouldn't act differentely.

Hey, thanks for that post. It means I don't have to write out exactly the same thing, I can just point at you and say, what they said!

I'm not sure whether or not I believe in an afterlife. Sometimes I hope there is one, but not the heaven and hell God kind, but the something of the soul goes on kind. But I mostly hope this because I probably spend more time talking to the deceased than the living!

Wouldn't talking to the dead make you necessarily believe in an afterlife? Unless I guess you're just hoping they are there and listening without getting the answers (at least I hope, for your mental well-being.)

#145 Posted by imsh_pl (3295 posts) -

@Questionable said:

@imsh_pl said:

@Questionable said:

In the end morals are just that, rules imposed by our surroundings. ever changing and never the same for 2 people

BS, morality can be reasoned. It's not subjective.

I would question that it is the exact opossite.

A very easy example would be the extreme reactions some muslims are currently having for that anti mohammed video. apparently a portion of this worlds inhabitants feel that they are morally obligated to murder those who offended "him who they love more than themselves"

This is just a single example how simply based on where, by who and in what age you are raised in can lead to vastly different ideas of morals. To believe morals come naturally i would call utterly naive, If anything it is a sign of civilization it is the very being that separates us from the other mammals.

Well the muslims who think it's sometimes ok to kill are in error.

http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_2_PDF_UPB.pdf

#146 Posted by Phasen (4 posts) -

Oh objectivist bs yawn

#147 Edited by Robo (773 posts) -

It would make no difference to me. I was raised as a Catholic for most of my life. Baptized, confirmed, and Catholic schooled from 2nd grade through high school. But my beliefs tend to be basically agnostic.

As such, I am constantly conflicted between ideas of spirituality and what I've learned of Christianity vs. what is considered logical/rational (in the technical sense, meaning based on things like scientific observation and reasoning).

One of those sources of dissonance is the notion of an afterlife. I don't necessarily believe in one in the biblical sense.

To explain a little, I believe the memory of you - your "soul" - can live on, perhaps eternally, in the legacy you leave behind. That the entire concept of an eternal afterlife in heaven or hell, like so many other stories in the bible, is merely a metaphor for this. Our "soul" is still what makes us human and what separates us from animals (most of the time), but it's not some mystical wisp that inhabits our physical bodies. It's better explained as our connection to one another - whether peaceful or contentious. I'll leave it at that, as delving further into what makes us human from psychological/sociological standpoints is a whole 'nother thread.

I don't believe in ghosts (though I still love those ghost hunting shows and movies about hauntings and whatnot, perhaps as part of me wants to believe...of course part of me wants to be a superhero, too), a literal heaven or hell, or reincarnation. I believe when you die your body ceases all functions of perception and cognizance. As your brain dies and those neurons stop firing this existence, with all of your thoughts and all of your senses, goes bye-bye. Like a permanent dreamless sleep.

Does that suck? Absolutely. So you know what? That depressing void of death is even more motivation not to lose your only life because of something fucking stupid you could have avoided. To make the best out of the time you have here because when it's over, it's over. So carpe diem, YOLO, or whatever the fuck else you've gotta do to make it count and make it worth something.

Now as others have mentioned, generally speaking, our societal concepts of morality take over and define "worth something" as good rather than evil. But at times different peoples' ideas of good and evil are a bit opposing. Furthermore, some just don't give a shit or want to be evil. You know what though? Religion doesn't exactly solve that little hole in this concept either. That's the cost of free will.

As far as consequence or repercussions in some eternal afterlife though, I sincerely hope that carrot on the stick is not the only motivation keeping you from being a complete piece of shit or a waste of flesh. How about: the immediate impacts on your life for poor choices like health/legal/financial/relationship issues, how your fellow human sees or remember you and how you impact their lives - good or bad (also that whole Matthew 7:12 thing that was seared into my mind as a kid), what -- if anything -- you leave for your family and how you raise or your actions effect your children, so on and so forth? Do those matters not carry weight? Personally, some avoidable and very real "hells" like addiction, welfare and public housing, jail time, STDs, baby momma/child support drama, getting oneself killed over some dumb shit, and being a shitty/abusive/absentee boyfriend/husband/father that befall so many others in my demographic are more than enough of a threat to keep me on the straight and narrow.

I believe there's more to our existence than worrying about getting into some kingdom of eternal life, fear of being damned to an eternity of suffering, purgatory for the eternally indecisive/uninitiated, or the threat of being brought back as a shoe or something. I'll go even further to the heart of the matter and say if religion is your own way of giving life meaning, hey, to each their own. But to act as if it's the only possible meaning while taking this "If not for God, then what?" stance is pretty damned absurd to me.

#148 Posted by HKZ (70 posts) -

@Flawed_System: Maybe not every single one, Buddhism being the first one that pops into my head, but the very popular ones yes. They are historically terrible to those that didn't have money, used for more political gain than righteous deeds, and are rife with ridiculous stories based on fairytales. There are good things they teach, but their basis of existence is in complete denial of scientific fact.

#149 Edited by HKZ (70 posts) -

@Questionable: Teaching morals is one good thing that does come out of religion, I completely agree. But humans tend to make up morals that align with religious teachings not because they want to live in some sort of paradise after they die, but because humans by and large are pretty decent people when it comes to theft and murder. I even said that I agree with some of the morals they teach in a previous post, maybe you missed it. The Ten Commandments are a pretty solid rule set to live by I think. Saying that if you don't share in someone else's belief system, and being able to control dissenters lives politically is a huge bullshit aspect of religion and it has been that way throughout known history. The control, complete hatred, and hostile acts towards homosexuals and the unwed with children are but one small aspect where political power comes into play when trying to control peoples lives. Fuck them, fuck the religion they use to forward their own agendas. People were burnt alive for saying the church was wrong about the Earth being the center of the solar system. Christianity even believes that a man was resurrected after death, and we all can see the entertainment in zombies but anyone with a shred of intelligence knows that's pure fiction. I find it absolutely mind boggling that Christians believe the every single thing they see, hear, touch, and smell was created from nothing yet it took a rib from Adam to create Eve. If God was so powerful and amazing, why take a rib from Adam and not create her from nothing as well? Religions like that are full of ridiculousness such as that, and they have no place in the world that I want to live in, yet they are in control of people's lives from the dawn of man to today. If someone created a religion that said all sedimentary rock was the work of their God and that we should worship it, should we not think they are certifiably nuts? Should they be allowed to throw those rocks at dissenters until they die for disagreeing with them? Of course not. Yet religions that are full of people that insane still exist today, and still try to assert their power of people who don't believe their fiction. Teaching morals is one thing, living by them is another. Humans have ruined religions, but those religions were so full of ridiculous fiction anyway it really doesn't make a difference.

#150 Posted by lazyturtle (1227 posts) -

If you rephrase "from tomorrow onward" to "since you were 4 years old"..then yes, I would continue to behave as I do now. I don't behave because I'm scared some sky faeries are going to come bop me on the head or something.