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: 3509

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Because I'm not a douche...?

Just for fun, here's a word cloud of Michael's replies. Apparently a lot to say about 'conscience', 'god', 'species', 'one', and 'social'.

(Pro tip, ctrl+mouse wheel zooms in and out.)

I don't see "for the lolz" in there. I am disappoint!

The depraved minds of the religiously indoctrinated are always lolworthy :)

Someone who starts a discussion about morals and end up talking about conscience probably have a guilty one due to their own lack of morals. It's not easy being God fearing and moral at the same time I guess, they tend not to follow eachother.

What's with religious people thinking if you don't believe in God then you can just be evil and do whatever you want? I'm good because I treat people the way I want to be treated, I respect all living things, I hate nobody. I don't need a fairy tale God to keep me from doing bad things. You got it backwards Michael. You don't do bad things cause you are afraid of going to hell, I don't do bad things because I'm not bad. It's that simple.

It is what they are taught to believe before they develop a capacity for critical thinking.

 

They are concurrently taught that the god their particular care-takers believe in will deal horrifically with them if they ever dare to question what they have been told.  So they get their nickers into serious knots if they ever find their brain asking reasonable but awkward questions about their inculcated belief system.  It leads to the agony of religious doubt.  This is why otherwise highly intelligent people can get to their 60s before having the nerve to check the claims of their religion or apply critical analysis to it. 

Wow. I thought people might have stopped giving answers to this thread. Ok... let me see if I can give my 2 cents into this conversation.

Anyone can see that atheists can be moral. You only need two eyes and a moral atheist to look at.

Nevertheless, what Michael might be getting at (I hope) is that atheists don't have an objective reason for morality, but only subjective ones.

Even Christopher Hitchens would agree with me, since he agreed to that proposition in his debate with William Lane Craig (in youtube) - that at most, the greatest morality is a socio-biological one.

One can reasonably say that, if there is no God or hereafter, that gives oneself only more license, empirically speaking, in having as much happiness and fulfillment solely in this life.

If what makes you happy in this life is something immoral, like... stealing money, defaming other people's reputation, or being overly snobbish, among other things, one can naturally do so. One will die and become, ultimately, food for worms... and the world, sooner or later, will disappear as well. Might as well do whatever makes you happy in this life, since you will disappear into nothingness at death...

Obviously, not every atheist is necessarily like that. There are exceptions - really honorable at that.

Nevertheless, that train of thought could find itself more inherently in a person who has no belief in the afterlife. (aka, atheism).

There is no evidence that Christians, or other religionists, have an objective moral system anyway.  Their subjective community value system is simply colored by the subjective system of their current religious group.  They simply ignore the evidence of moral change throughout the history of Christianity and between all the fractured versions of it right now.

Could you elaborate? Perhaps with some examples?

I'm not saying you're wrong. I know some examples of even some Christian denominations; but I am a Catholic - I'd argue the first type of Christianity. To the best of my knowledge, all has remained within it the same as it was two thousand years ago.

Incorrect. For one thing, the Catholic Church isn't okay with slavery anymore. They're not particularly big on torture-inspired conversion either, but that may be due to the fact that secular authorities won't allow it anymore. We can only hope that someday their morals will continue to evolve until the Catholic Church no longer considers covering up crimes in order to protect its reputation as acceptable behavior, but I am not particularly hopeful on that score.

 

Also, the Catholic Church was not the first brand of Christianity, simply the oldest surviving one. Other sects of the time that predated the Council of Nicaea (Gnostic, etc) either died out or were wiped out.

Mostly wiped out, I think. Even so, we have a great many 'brands' of Xianity even today.

Amen !

RSS

Blog Posts

The tale of the twelve officers

Posted by Davis Goodman on August 27, 2014 at 3:04am 4 Comments

Birthday Present

Posted by Caila Rowe on August 26, 2014 at 1:29am 9 Comments

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