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: 3554

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

@Michael

That sounds like Jehovah's Witness twaddle to me.  Lots of half truths bundled up in a patchwork of imaginative interpretations of the book that only just made it into the accepted Christian cannon. It's so rabidly anti-Catholic I wonder how you managed to stay at Gannon long enough to graduate.  It must have been "hell". 

 

There you go again - making statements about me that you cannot back up because you lack the evidence or the knowledge. 

1.   I graduated in a country that was not permitted to award the PhD to someone who combined professional coursework and practicum with research.  The PhD was defined by legislation as a research only degree which led to an academic research position.   Most primary professional degrees were issued as Bachelor degrees and the graduates were permitted to use the honory title of "Doctor".  Specialist professional degrees were issued as Professional Master degrees and, in some cases (specialist medicine), the graduate resumed the title of "Mr".  In courts of law the Professional Masters outranked the PhD in the professional realm.  The PhD was also considered an inferior degree by the professional licensing boards. You will find similar differences in naming practices between research and professional stream qualifications in Scandinavian countries.  None of these named qualifications are equivalent in level, orientation or scope to American degrees that are confusingly given the same names.

 

So, I am proud to say that I was awarded a professional specialist degree, not a professionally inferior PhD.  If this does not make sense to you, then you are operating from within a parochial American perspective that is academically ignorant of the outside world. 

 

2.  I am aware of the extraneous Greek and Roman influences that were assimilated into early Christianity. I am aware of later influences that were assimilated into Christianity, including many quite recent inclusions.  I am also familiar with external influences on the developing Judaic religion: Sumerian, Babylonian and Zoastrian.  How about you? 

 

Like every religion known to man, the Jewish-Christian-Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant-Mormon-JW religion has changed dramatically through the course of time.  The version you espouse has not much in common with the pre-New Testament followers of the Rabbi Jesus:  they were practicing Jews.

 

I am not impressed with any "interpretations" of the near-apocryphal book of Revelation.  It has been used to come up with all kinds of wild and woolly "prophecies" and damnations since it managed to worm its way into every currently used Canonical Collection of Church-approved books.  Yours has no more claim to authenticity than any of the other faction-serving versions.

It does not matter how many times you state your faction's dubious interpretations of this ambiguous allegorical book in a manner that assumes that it is obvious and indisputable Truth.  There is no reason why any non-indoctrinated reader on this site would  accept it as Truth without valid clear, unambiguous, externally corroborating evidence that could not be "reinterpreted" to fit the world as it changes and knowledge expands.    Meanwhile, there is no good reason why we should not decide that your group's version is about as valid as the versions that describe your faction as "evil" and "devil-inspired".  No good reason at all.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the clarification in regard to your education.

The rendering of history above is not via interpretative renderings through  Jehovah's witnesses nor am I affiliated with any group. I just gave you a glimpse of my 35 years of research, sorting out the truth to existence. 

Here are the flaws in Jehovah Witnesses and their rendering:

  • Jesus Christ pre-existed as an angel, a created being.
  • Spiritual regeneration or new birth is lacking in their Christology.
  • The scope of their  rendering of the Revelation is limited to a few Centuries with the two horn Beast being rendered as England and the United States. And life is blown into the United Nations as opposed to the Imperial Roman Empire to come.
  • They fail to see that the Jewish Temple must be reconstructed when  Israel is once again a Vassal of Imperial Roman so that the Latter day Fuhrer, Caesar, Kaiser,  Tzar can stand in the Holy place and proclaim himself God, as foretold by II Thessalonians.

 

 

"35 years of research"

Could you elaborate on the methodology employed in your research? How many original sources have you interviewed? Which statistical method have you used in your analysis? How have you corrected for bias? Time-line or cross-sectional? Which citation style are you using?

Anyone who seriously asks this question cannot possibly understand the many blindingly clear answers.

While it is an exercise in futility to answer , I'll mention a few.

1. It is in the interest of individuals and communities, re having a joyful and abundant life, to be ethical.

2. The underlying assumption of this question that religion is a source of morality is absolutely wrong.

2a. The majority of people in prison are religious. Less than 1 percent of jail populations are atheists. Atheists and kindred spirits are about 15% of the general population. Therefore atheists are 15 times more likely to be law abiding citizens than religious folk.

2b. As Stephen Gould has said, good people will do good with or without religion, evil people will do evil with or without religion, but to have good people do evil takes religion.

3. The greatest document in the history of the world, the U.S. constitution, is completely secular.

4. I could go on, and on, and on, but I will finish with a reference to Jer. 5-21. For the biblically challenged, "There are none so blind as those who will not see". So you see even scripture shows that the basic underpinning of the question is false.

Anyone who seriously asks this question cannot possibly understand the many blindingly clear answers.

While it is an exercise in futility to answer , I'll mention a few.

1. It is in the interest of individuals and communities, re having a joyful and abundant life, to be ethical.
-----That is untrue. There are many people who find their joy in doing things that are contrary to their communities or individuals. Ex: stealing in a corrupt government, defaming another person's reputation without due cause, belittling others, abusing of one's power. Obviously, not everyone is the same, but each person has their own temptations they fall into and enjoy in their own frame of an ok and "good" life. Heck, I know living examples.

2. The underlying assumption of this question that religion is a source of morality is absolutely wrong.
-----No. I'll refute this while arguing your defenses.

2a. The majority of people in prison are religious. Less than 1 percent of jail populations are atheists. Atheists and kindred spirits are about 15% of the general population. Therefore atheists are 15 times more likely to be law abiding citizens than religious folk.
-----Anyone who has opened a sociology book and studied criminology would understand that convicts have a tendency to make interior "laws" or excuses to make their evil actions seem "just".
One research studying the psychology of convicts reported one in particular that said "He had it coming", the rest of the study showing his altered psychology that allowed him to consider it "just" to assassinate the person.
In my experience, most criminals may be Christians, but they are badly educated Christians. People like to think God as an "all merciful God" who won't do them justice, even when they abuse of God's mercy.
That would be fitting correlation between why many people in prison are Christian - they need some sort of affirmation that they will always be forgiven - no matter what they do - and that they will be protected by someone, regardless of their actions.
In fact, even if this wasn't the case, because while what I've said may be true, it is not necessarily true - a person's actions can't be said to be caused by one's religious convictions unless their religious convictions inherently ask him to do the act in question.
If he was a Christian who stole; well, Christianity asked him not to. He merely failed to follow his faith's creed - whether out of pure weakness or hypocrisy.
In the end, even a good scientist would not be so fast as to oversimplify statistics. One must go further into inquiry and not jump to premature conclusions.

2b. As Stephen Gould has said, good people will do good with or without religion, evil people will do evil with or without religion, but to have good people do evil takes religion.
-----That statement can be refuted by history itself. She would prove to you, through the example of many people like Dorothy Day, who upon her conversion strove so much to aid the poor and feed the hungry with such heroic virtue, that she herself was confused for a poor person... that people can, in fact, do good or more good with religious convictions.
It's also common sense - even through sociology and their often used exchange theory - a person who is given an incentive for certain actions will be more disposed to do them.

3. The greatest document in the history of the world, the U.S. constitution, is completely secular.
-----I can't argue much on that note because I'm not particularly knowledgeable on all the specifics of the U.S. Constitution. I'll just suspend judgement until I am adequately more knowledgeable of it.

4. I could go on, and on, and on, but I will finish with a reference to Jer. 5-21. For the biblically challenged, "There are none so blind as those who will not see". So you see even scripture shows that the basic underpinning of the question is false.

I don't know everything about evolution, But I been watching anubis2814 videos on youtube "Why do intelligent people still believe in Religion?". And on one of the videos he mentions how evolution played a part in developing our inborn morals. I seen it awhile ago so go to his channel. his videos are very compelling.

Sounds sketchy...

Do you have a link to the particular videos?

I believe....this thread has won the Dubya Trophy for Trolls...well done y'all!

@Zack

I presume you are referring to Michael.

 

If so, then I wouldn't say that he has gone "unchecked".  We have certainly been refusing to let him get away with any of his ill-thought-out bullshit without challenge.

Leaving it all here has a much more devastating effect on his credibility (and that of his brand of Christianity) than censoring him would do.  While he might be so indoctrinated that he actually believes that Yahweh made the sun stand still one day and no-one fell off the earth, others reading this site do not suffer from this extreme form of mind-blindness.   Every time this man vomits words from his keyboard he gives rational people the chance to present a saner view of the world.  He is a good example of the popular saying:  "Give a man enough rope and he will hang himself."  Except that in this case, the dead man simply won't lie down. :-)

Evolution has given us a conscience, when we care for our family, friends and others we help insure our ability to survive as a species. 

A "morality" that applies only when someone is looking isn't really morality. Behavior that is based on fear of punishment or hope of reward should be considered amoral. Prudent perhaps, but still amoral.

I agree.  The aim of most socialization programs is to teach children and adults to behave in a socially acceptable manner as a matter of habit.   Well socialized car drivers will stop at red lights even when there are no police cars or cameras to control it. Poorly socialized car drivers will flaunt the rules, often in spite of, or even because of, an audience. 

 

Among those with "normal" brains, people's ability to be socialized varies with their innate personality.  Some become "over-socialized" to the point that they will harm themselves unnecessarily in order to do what they consider their reference group thinks is "moral".  These are the people who break easily and are easy to convert. 

At the opposite extreme are those who are "under socialized" and do not conform to many of the norms and expectations of their reference group.  These people are hard to "convert", but when they are, they are extremely resistant to change.

RSS

Forum

How do you cure Insanity???

Started by Belle Rose in Advice. Last reply by Pope Beanie 1 hour ago. 60 Replies

A relapse.....

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk 3 hours ago. 0 Replies

The Elephant in the Room...

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Belle Rose 4 hours ago. 16 Replies

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service