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.
Replies are closed for this discussion.
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.
It is painfully clear that Michael was never an "atheist", at least not in the way that the term is defined by anyone claiming that description on this forum. His version of "atheism" is a contradiction in terms that assumes that the disbeliever actually believes in his version of god, but just does not want to do what they think it wants them to do. Only the religiously deluded could come up with an awesome mind-bender like that.
If any one of us could ever have qualified for this extraordinary use of the term "atheist" then it s clear that they are not this kind of "atheist" now. Is there any one here who claims to be an athiest and yet believes that Michael's version of god actually exists outside the fertile imaginations of his religious faction? Is there any athiest on this forum who believes in the existence of any version of the Christian god? Don't all speak at once! :-)
Is there anyone here who believes in existence of the god Thor but has deliberately rejected him and denied his right to be showered with praise and adulation? Is there anyone here who does NOT believe in the existence of the god Thor and has also deliberately rejected him and denied his right to be showered with praise and adulation? Don't all raise your hands, now!
And stop spluttering your coffee all over the place. According to some people's refined moral values, it is rude to splutter coffee. I suppose it might be a moral value derived from the creative mind of Thor, or perhaps not.
If the Thor god is proved to actually exist, would that change the truth of what you just said about your relationship with him, or your lack of one? If he exists, but you don't know or you don't believe that he exists, then is it possible to willfully reject, deny and turn your back on him? If you answer "yes" then you have joined in the delusional world of Michael and Reo in an alternative Thor-centered reality.
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.
Let me reiterate
No please don't.
How about trying to understand the answers that have been patiently spelled out for you instead?
The fact that you do not understand the process of evolution is nobodies fault but your own Michael. When you try to talk about it, but get it wrong, it just makes you look stupid.
If you understood evolution and criticised it, we might have a debate. But you don't - and it shows every time you post on this.
Which demonstrates again that your intent is bad.
Why don't you look in a mirror and understand what you are erally like, Michael? Theists are supposed to be good at that stuff, right? It is a scary process perhaps.
Are you deliberately trying to look as foolish as possible? If so, why?
I might understand it if you were a fake Christian posting on an open forum in the attempt to make real Christians look ridiculous. But you seem to be a "real" Christian (however that translates in your community's dialect) with no agenda or reason for ridiculing your own kind or making atheism look intensely sane and informed by comparison.
So if your underlying intent is not to do serious harm to the perception that others have of your brand of Christianity then why on earth are you here doing just about everything you possibly could do to achieve this end? Are you really so deluded that you think that your poorly educated presence here is advancing the credibility of your religious sect?
Can it be that you sincerely believe that sprouting your ignorance-based dogma here will result in the re-conversion of someone who has already investigated and rejected it as baseless? Are you insane as well as poorly educated?
This is becoming tiresome, rather than entertaining.
I know that your PhD is not in Bafoonery. but as you preface everything you say with some outlandish insult I begin to wonder. Also you have a tendency to read a post and not read the post before it and as such take things out of context. I have corrected you about this once and yet you continue to do so. Because you have a not so hidden agenda to try to make anyone who does not accept your atheism to look like a fool.
No do not waste your breath, I know your loving intention, is to knock some sense in me old school. But be forewarn, I have stayed the course for over 35 years now. I can endure primal scat slinging.
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