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 look forward to retirement also, just spend all day trying to beat some sense into some perceived knucklehead. LOL
That is Catholic nonsense. Surely if you never believed until your death bed, but to take advantage of God's unending forgiveness is easily seen through and will be punished accordingly. "Their portion shall be appointed with the hypocrites, there shall be weeping and nashing of teeth"
It's not Catholic by any stretch. Many American Protestants believe the same.
I act in a moral fashion for two reasons.
First, it's in my long-term best interest to do so. If not a reward I reap before I die, a reward my children will reap. This can be anything from a stable and sane society to live in, to friends who respect and care about me.
Secondly, because it's in my long-term best interest to act morally, I have a moral sense that I was born with. If I didn't, I would be less likely to survive, or my children would be less likely to survive.
Because you have a good conscience, you have a god all to yourself. As such, I would never classify you as an animal evolved from godless/conscienceless species.
That can't be called "god" by any definition of the word
Our fellow apes and many other social species have morals and behavioral codes too. They display altruistic and selfless behavior to further the interests of the group and its survival. It's really not any different from humans, minus the social and cultural complexity
This makes no sense, Michael.
You are becoming more and more incoherent. Have you stopped taking your medication?
Doc, stow it for for a post or two. Take a breather.
Your not so hidden agenda of insults on every post is now well known.
I know you love me Rosemary but my butt is getting sore from your belt. LOL
Why is it so difficult for religious folks to not see that people, by and large, are inherently "good"?
Humans are essentially a "herd animal" - and all herd animals tend to perform actions that are for the good of the herd. For instance, it would be against the innate drive to preserve the species to kill other members of the herd, so this is not an innate drive (except in breeding season, for most species). The main difference is that humans are more driven by greed and personal gain, so some of them will go against their nature and will perform actions that are not beneficial to the herd; but keep in mind, this are the exception, even today (comparing the number of humans who perform bad actions against the total number of humans, it is a really small percentage).
So, humans are innately good, no matter what any religious tome may tell you.
Let me flip the question and ask you - are you telling us that your fear of your deity is the ONLY reason why you DON'T perform illegal or immoral acts against your fellow humans?
If that IS the case, then that is pretty pathetic.
I believe similarly, but would rather say we're more like pack animals than herd animals. We behave more with a hierarchical command structure. I also believe we have inherently selfish, animal motives, but we learn via culture to temper it with empathy and altruistic judgment (e.g. with charity and other good works) or under stressful circumstances we can revert back to tribalistic behavior (e.g. with nazi-ism or religious wars).
So the more pertinent question (to me) isn't about where morals come from without God, but how can we continuously improve our living conditions at large, as a species, by causing the least distress possible. The Golden Rule, taken as far as possible for current times, and for eternity.
Yeah, I can agree with your subtle differences (re: pack vs herd). You are definitely right - we, as a species, definitely have a hierarchical command structure to any large group, so pack vs herd does tend to make more sense. I would say that my other point, about actions being for the good of the herd pack (by and large), still holds true. Even packs work together for the greater good and a higher chance of survival, except during mating season (which tends to hold true for even the most docile of herd or pack animals).
I also agree with another poster's subtle observation that, for the last 10K years, we have been more influence by CULTURAL evolution, than GENETIC evolution. It has definitely changed the landscape - and the genetic predisposition, I would imagine - of the human species, especially when you consider that humans that would otherwise die off because they aren't the strongest, or because they have some genetic hindrance (think poor eyesight), are allowed to live because of human's social structure and built-in altruism and sympathy. I also think that this has raised the intelligence level of the species, because quite often the most physically gifted may not necessarily be the most intelligently gifted - especially since it really isn't needed if you're the biggest baddest ass in the land.
But back to my original point - we're definitely in violent agreement ;)