If you are a non- believer, why be moral when no one is looking?

If you are a non- believer in, all that you do is being recorded in the heavens, why be moral when no one is looking?

If there are no records and no witness, why not do anything you want?


If no one sees you do it, then is it a deed not done?


If all of this is true, then why do we have a conscience, where did it come.


We are told in scriptures that our conscience is our natural way of doing God's will in the absence of his Law.

Views: 4147

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Exactly. But this poses no advantage in a survival of the fittest scheme.

Not the "genetically fittest" scheme, but in the "culturally fittest" scheme, which is what's mostly mattered in the past 10k years.

In social animals there is a hierarchic relationsip to survival.

The social groups survival is what creates moral behavior.


Once the survival of the individual becomes a threat greater then the social group then individual survival becomes the higher moral priority.



Learn what the phrase actually means. You have no clue about it. It didn't even appear in the original version of "On the Origin of Species" btw.


In any case, the concept applies only to species or groups, not to individuals

In this culture, nasty people either don't find or don't keep a mate.  Result:  fewer progeny.  QED.

"And as for the general postulate of hominid evolution there are no transitional forms found between well established punctuated species superbly adapted for their environment."


Wrong again Micheal.  As soon as an intermediate fossil specimen is found your ilk are pointing out that there's no transitional specimen between x and y...yet again.  Every fossil is an intermediate form because every living thing is a snapshot of change occuring under the influence of natural selection, genetic drift or mutation. In other words, Evolving!


Fossilization of any samples of living organisms is extremely  unusual.  It's just not very often that the conditions are right for the mineralization of bone,horn,teeth etc to occur. That we have as much fossil evidence of early hominids is extremely unusual.  Our ancestors didn't live where conditions were  perfect for fossil production (die, fall to the bottom of the sea and get covered by mud,mud eventually turns to stone with you in it), they lived on/in dry savannah areas.  


Please, re-read what "survival of the fittest" really means to and use it in the proper context.


"We are told in scriptures that our conscience is our natural way of doing God's will in the absence of his Law."


I think not.  "What we infer from scriptures " is what you should have said.  If we truly did your imaginary god's will we'd be killing our children, spouses and neighbours willy nilly for wearing cotton/poly blended clothing while they cut their lawn on sunday.



Replies to This Discussion

I am moral because it is how I am designed. Emotions evolved in my mind, one of those is empathy, and, as such, I maintain my morality because I can imagine how others would feel if I did not, and I don't particularly like the idea of causing anyone else to feel that way. 

I am wondering, if you are no longer an Atheist, why are you still here? If it is to save souls, your time would be better spent herding cats. Or, perhaps, selling lakefront property in Arizona. Ok, enough with the cliche's, but seriously; the only thing the human race needs saving from is religion, and the people here have already been saved.

I appreciate a spirited argument as much as anyone, but most of the things that you, as a Christian, can bring to the table to argue about have already been hashed about in the minds of us Atheists for years, and you really aren't bringing up anything new. We are much more sure of ourselves than you seem to be. At least we are not repeating ourselves over and over. Do you really need that much affirmation that  you are right in your beliefs? If you really beleived, then why are you here arguing with us heathens? (LOL) don't you have a god to wirship or something, because this topic is old.

We can be good, happy, kind, giving, helpful, loving, productive, MORAL people with out a god. I am sorry that you need an entitiy outside of yourself to feel compelled to be a good person. I feel sorry for you. We don't need someone looking over our shoulder 24/7 to keep us in check.

Clearly, you need to do some more homework before you bring your arguments about morality and conscience to a forum of free thinkers. Digest that for a moment, will you? FREE THINKERS. How does it feel to have someone else dictate what you should think and feel? Sad.

   Conscience does not exist. If you walk along the street, and see an apple tree, from which you pick an apple, and the owner of that tree comes out to scream at you, you will most likely be very confused. You only saw an apple tree, with apple hanging, deliciously, ready for you to take. The land owner, however, saw property, which you are taking. It doesn't make the act of taking the appole immoral, simply because the owner is indignant, the act is amoral, it is simply an act.

   The morals that we depend on so thoroughly throughout our daily lives, have been created by mutual agreement. The only thing that keeps someone from being able to steal, is the fact that a society has gathered and agreed that stealing is wrong. Now in some societies, stealing does not exist, it is impossible, because there is no private property. Thus, you cannot steal something that is everyone's, which would include you.

   The act of stealing, or taking the apple, is only wrong because the law says, "it was his apple" and you agreed. Now, to say you agreed doesn't mean that you sat down and penned your name on some contract, but because you live in that society, you agree to abide by its rules. If the rules of the society no longer suit you, then you should find a way to go somewhere else where the moral code is more to your liking.

   For an example, in our current society, in most modern societies at least, it is considered somewhat uncouth to break into a woman's house, drag her out by her hair, and proclaim her to be your wife. Most of us would be at least a little upset if this were to happen to us, or someone we cared about. We have agreed that doing such a thing is immoral. However, if we were spartans, we would expect nothing less, and anyone who said it is immoral to do so, would have been left on a hill to be eaten by wolves; an act which we also consider immoral these days methinks.

   So, morals do not come from god, they do not come from evolution, they do not come from genetics, and they are not instinctual. They are agreements between two members of a society, whether those members be human, or they be monkeys, or cows, it is an agreement that creates a moral code. The fact that we as humans have used religion as a basis for a moral code throughout the last centuries, and as a conduit through which we can teach our children what a proper and moral way to act is, is beside the point; not to mention a little frightening if you look at some of the religions we choose to follow.

   If you want proof of this, look at the donner party. The most vile act you can think of, eating another human, was commited by the members of that party. Why, to save their own lives. One must imagine that while they sat shivering, inside they were saying, "I can't eat him, its wrong. But I'm hungry, but its wrong, but I'm hungry, but its wrong." History tells us which is more powerful, the hunger, or the morals.


As usual, the ignorant think that "survival of the fittest" means the strongest, the fastest etc etc. 


Blindfold off Micheal? 


Survival of the fittest refers to the passing on of genes.  The "fittest" individuals are the ones who pass on more of their genetic material to another generation ie. those who reproduce the most.  If I'm very physically fit, reasonably strong and healthy, but only have one child...my weaker health challenged sister who has 4 children is therefore "fitter" than I am.


It's a simple concept often misunderstood.



Let me reiterate, if it is in the DNA, how did it get there from lower species. There is not  much time in the paleontological record relative to our common ancestor with primates to induce such complex wiring in the frontal lobes for a survival  advantage. monkeys and apes survive being blissfully unaware of a "God Vacuum" that needs to be filled by civil law or by innate conscience.

Their social order is completely maintain via instinct and has been superbly successful.

There is no driver to induce the "God Vacuum" branching off from over common ancestor in such a brief interval in the paleontological record. All hominids can survive with just instinctive social order. And as for the general postulate of hominid evolution there are no transitional forms found between well established punctuated species superbly adapted for their environment. Survival of the fittest coupled with mutation is simply the most plausible explanation at this time. But the existence of transitional forms is purely speculative.

The survival of the most adequate.

It also means the species that's best adapted to its biological niche. And that can be a weak one.


Producing as much offspring as possible isn't necessarily the best survival strategy. Especially when the maturation perdiod is very long, as it is with humans

very simply, not believing in god does not mean not believing in being good to other people and being nice in general. no one has to tell me to hold the door open for someone who has an arm-load of packages, pushing a stroller or walking with crutches, i don't do it for "bonus points", i do it because it is nice and i would like to think others (although often proven wrong) would do the same for me. being nice isn't a score card wherein i am hoping to collect more points then the next guy and get a better spot in the after-life. my children share, not out of fear of burning in hell but because it feels nice to share and be shared with.


Follow – Email me when people reply

How the frak did you turn our post into a blog entry with a "like" button and essentially a sub thread. That kind of messed up the page

13 pages of comments. Wow. I think the troll is no longer hungry. Please stop feeding it.

I was at work and I am not a troll, I have over 800 posts on this site.

800 posts that are largely trolling. Maybe mild by some standards, but trolling nonetheless

The number of posts you post has no bearing on whether you are, or are not, a Troll. Neither does your location at home or at work.

The reason we describe you as a Troll is because you very clearly meet the criteria. 


From Wikipedia:  A troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous,  or off-topic messages in an online community with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response , or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.


From the Urban Dictionary:


Is the process of trying to annoy someone,but the joke is only for you. It involves being annoying and pestering someone for large periods of time. Usually repeating the same words or phrase multiple times, lying in a pattern in hopes the person will think your telling the truth.


You have nothing new to add to a discussion by the group you are addressing because the group members are not only intimately familiar with the ideas that you post but have investigated and moved beyond them.  Your only possible positive method of participation in this group is as a learner, not a teacher.  Since you choose to teach (or worse, preach) rather than learn you are clearly here for virulent reasons.  That makes you a Troll.


It is time we stopped feeding you.  You have grown far too ugly.

1. It is most practical to be moral. Morality itsself dictates right from wrong as perceived by the society in question. No one needs to believe Sky-Daddy is watching with a score card in order to be moral. Society dictates what is moral and then enforces the morality thru civil and criminal law.

2. Atheism is not some kind of free pass to run willy-nilly thru the streets. Everyone is expected thru social contract to obey the proscribed rules of society. When that happens it is in everyones best interest and everyone benefits. Again, there is no need for a god to get people to behave.

3. This is one of those idiotic "if a tree falls in the woods" philosophy questions... next.

4. We don't have a "conscious" as you are trying to sneak in to the conversation un-noticed. We are taught the behaviors that our culture and our local society hold as appropriate, moral, good, right, whatever you want to say, from birth. If you stop thinking micro (only of yourself or your small group) and start thinking macro (comparing different societies, populations, etc) you will very quickly see that there is no one moral code that even comes close to permeating all people. All morality stems from what the larger group has deemed "acceptible" whether that is marijuna use (rural mentality), cocaine use (wealthy caucasian mentality), the attacking or killing of people for wearing the wrong color, (inner city youth mentality), incest (very very rural mentality (LOL-kinda)). The point is, your "absolutes" are not very absolute if you drive about 50 miles in any direction, even if your destination is another church.

5. This statement appears absolutely NO WHERE in scripture. I challenge you to site any verse that says that. Some preacher probably said that one Sunday morning and you are repeating it as true.


© 2019   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service