[Cyberyeti]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-10, 16:06, said:

I trust the water company doesn't throw garbage to your garden every few days since.

I always presumed that was the local drunks, but might have been the water company

[Trinidad]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-10, 14:56, said:

I can count my enemies with the fingers of half a hand, but then...

He already applied his chain saw to your hand!?!

I agree that would tick me off... but since he is crazy, it wouldn't make him my enemy. But it would make me look for another place to live.

Rik

[Fluffy]

Yes, that's what I did, sadly my father couldn't do it yet.

But what I was referring to is, I don't understand your source for ethics/moral, I do good acts not only because they make me feel good, but also because god wants me to, or because he might punnish me on aferlife if I don't.

But I don't really see why non believers need to follow any ethics. I might feel that doing something evil will have a reward (revenge pleasure or money for example) over the bad feeling for doing something bad, but then I have other reason why not to do it. As far as I know non-believers don't (and some might not even feel good doing good so go guess)

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-11, 03:31, said:

But what I was referring to is, I don't understand your source for ethics/moral, I do good acts not only because they make me feel good, but also because god wants me to, or because he might punnish me on aferlife if I don't.

Isn't the latter kind of a babyish reason?

Quote

But I don't really see why non believers need to follow any ethics.

And yet, they do, don't they. Kindness, compassion and personal integrity are more relevant to many people than a reward and punishment scheme.

Quote

I might feel that doing something evil will have a reward (revenge pleasure or money for example) over the bad feeling for doing something bad, but then I have other reason why not to do it. As far as I know non-believers don't (and some might not even feel good doing good so go guess)

So do you have some evidence that non-believers do more "bad" things than believers? I suspect that the opposite is true. You keep trying to demonise non-believers because they don't have Daddy to keep them in check, rather than recognising that maybe they have outgrown this idea and have internalised the values that are important to them.

Even your god, I think, probably does not give much weight to good acts that are done (or bad acts that are avoided) largely to receive a reward/escape punishment.

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-11, 03:31, said:

Yes, that's what I did, sadly my father couldn't do it yet.

But what I was referring to is, I don't understand your source for ethics/moral, I do good acts not only because they make me feel good, but also because god wants me to, or because he might punnish me on aferlife if I don't.

But I don't really see why non believers need to follow any ethics.

Because our parents raised us right?

Not believing in god is not the same as not having morals.

[squealydan]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-11, 03:31, said:

But I don't really see why non believers need to follow any ethics. I might feel that doing something evil will have a reward (revenge pleasure or money for example) over the bad feeling for doing something bad, but then I have other reason why not to do it. As far as I know non-believers don't (and some might not even feel good doing good so go guess)

You seriously can't see how someone might want to treat other with respect and fairness simply because it is the right thing to do?

Surely the reason you behave well towards other people isn't solely because you think you'll one day have to answer to your god for it? What about answering to your friends and family for your actions? What about the simple recognition that the world will be a much better place if everyone treats each other nicely?

[Trinidad]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-11, 03:31, said:

But I don't really see why non believers need to follow any ethics. I might feel that doing something evil will have a reward (revenge pleasure or money for example) over the bad feeling for doing something bad, but then I have other reason why not to do it. As far as I know non-believers don't (and some might not even feel good doing good so go guess)

I think this is a question for social anthropologists or similar types of people, but here is the answer from a beta-scientist:

The vast majority of people on this planet are good people. They mean well, and though they make a lot of mistakes, they try their best to be social and kind human beings.

The reason for that is that they have learned, from experience, that if you are not a social and kind human being, you will be thrown out of "society". This may come in many forms: It may mean that you go to jail, that you lose your friends, or that people aren't interested in your posts on BBF. Being thrown out of society is a very, I mean very strong unpleasant feeling. And if you go too far, it may endanger your life. It isn't easy to function in this society all by yourself.

Through evolution we have the instinct to survive. Being evil (as you call it) endangers your chance to survive. Therefore people try to behave.

So why is there still evil in the world?

In some individual cases, this survival balance doesn't work. This is obvious for sociopaths: They don't feel that they are endangering their survival probabilities. In other cases, "evil" pops up to increase short term survival chances (e.g. looting after a disaster. When faced with the choice to loot or let you and your family die, few people would chose to die.). And in some cases, the societal correction mechanisms fail, just because someone is so revered that he can't be touched.
Group behavior can be another mechanism: In the short term, it can be very advantageous to do evil to a member of a different group. Think of soccer hooligans. "Look at how he taught them a lesson!".

All in all, the short answer why people follow ethics is: because evolution tells them to.

And, BTW, this is a very powerful reason why people are religious (or non-religious): If everyone is, you 'ld better be that too, or you will be hurting your chances.

Rik

[Fluffy]

oh for gods shake, I am not claiming anything, I am simply asking. And I clearly stated that god is an aditional supply for doing the right thing, not the only one, and in my case not the main one.

I sometimes think some guys feel attacked and inmediatelly missinterpret text to defend.

[Fluffy]

hrothgar, on 2013-January-11, 04:08, said:

Because our parents raised us right?

So you think people who (for example)... steal money from public funds weren't raised right?

People don't need to be in mortal peril to do something "wrong", I know that believing in god helps me (personally) not to even evaluate "bad things" in advantages/disadvantages way, so if I don't even think seriously on them I won't commit them. But obviously some believers do horrible things (and probably lie to themselves finding a way to justify it in god's eyes), so nothing can be said for believers or not believers.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-11, 05:12, said:

oh for gods shake, I am not claiming anything, I am simply asking.

Quote

I know that believing in god helps me (personally) not to even evaluate "bad things" in advantages/disadvantages way, so if I don't even think seriously on them I won't commit them.

Do you not see that asking in itself can be offensive? And do you really think that non-believers evaluate "bad things" in terms of potential advantage, and then (sometimes at least) reject them?

Quote

And I clearly stated that god is an aditional supply for doing the right thing, not the only one, and in my case not the main one.

If god is not the main motivator for you, then why are you asking? Your main reasons are probably the same as those who don't share your beliefs. (But if you cannot understand moral/ethical behaviour without god, then he/she is not only the main motivator but in fact the only one).

I think that people who are raised as believers fall into two broad categories: Those who believe what they have been taught without doubting or questioning all their lives, and those who (usually in their teens or young adulthood) evaluate their beliefs, think, struggle, pray, and eventually emerge with beliefs (or lack thereof) that really mean something to them; that they recognise as true, and know why.

People in the second group have usually got past immature arguments such as "Athiests have no moral basis for good behaviour and therefore are free to commit all sorts of evil acts".

[Fluffy]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-11, 05:35, said:

Do you not see that asking in itself can be offensive?

Yeah, askng questions wich you haven't though about and that temprorarilly makes you rethink of your 'beliefs' is not comfortable, I understand someone like you can take it as offensive, obviously you can't realice I've been kind enough to answer similar questions for weeks without taking offence.

It is oh so terrible from me to try to understand you better and increase my knowledge, I apologice.

[Fluffy]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-11, 05:35, said:

If god is not the main motivator for you, then why are you asking anyway? (But if you cannot understand moral/ethical behaviour without god, then he/she is not only the main motivator but in fact the only one).

You are probably too infuriated to think what you are saying. I don't think of god all the time, but he helps to avoid temptations, is it so hard to understand? I just want to know if non-believers have something similar that helps them on situations where they would like to do something but they know it is wrong.

[Vampyr]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-11, 05:50, said:

You are probably too infuriated to think what you are saying. I don't think of god all the time, but he helps to avoid temptations, is it so hard to understand? I just want to know if non-believers have something similar that helps them on situations where they would like to do something but they know it is wrong.

LOL infuriated? I guess that non-believers don't need an outside agent to help avoid temptations; their moral values are internalised.

[Codo]

Vampyr, on 2013-January-10, 08:16, said:

In any case, not giving advice on other ways besides abstinence to lower the incidence of contracting AIDS is not murder; I would be comfortable with manslaughter or even some sort of death by negligence.

Now this is great. If someone provides food, water, medicine and advice to stay monogam he is a manslaughter.
If someone builds schools and fountains and gives good advice to have sex just with your spouse he is guilty of death by neglience.

Bizarro world your world.
May I ask what you contribute to help the poor and starving so that you can set so high standards for someone else?

I must admit that my participation in the rescue of the world is much smaller then the one of the catholic workers down in Africa. So, I would surely not insult them in the way you do in your superiority way of your personal Atheism.
And after your misunderstanding of Gonzalos questions and your rude tone here, I am very happy that you are no role model for an atheist, I very much prefer the Riks et al on this planet.

[Fluffy]

Codo, on 2013-January-11, 06:16, said:

I must admit that my participation in the rescue of the world is much smaller then the one of the catholic workers down in Africa.

Same here, I think of it more latelly and feel a bit ashamed, but I haven't changed yet. Don't know if I will.

[Cyberyeti]

Codo, on 2013-January-11, 06:16, said:

Now this is great. If someone provides food, water, medicine and advice to stay monogam he is a manslaughter.
If someone builds schools and fountains and gives good advice to have sex just with your spouse he is guilty of death by neglience.

Bizarro world your world.
May I ask what you contribute to help the poor and starving so that you can set so high standards for someone else?

I must admit that my participation in the rescue of the world is much smaller then the one of the catholic workers down in Africa. So, I would surely not insult them in the way you do in your superiority way of your personal Atheism.
And after your misunderstanding of Gonzalos questions and your rude tone here, I am very happy that you are no role model for an atheist, I very much prefer the Riks et al on this planet.

I give my money to non Catholic aid organizations who do all the same good work, but don't then mitigate this by telling people they'll go to hell if they use a condom.

[blackshoe]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-11, 03:31, said:

But I don't really see why non believers need to follow any ethics.

Read The Moral Sense, by James Q. Wilson.

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on 2013-January-11, 03:31, said:

Yes, that's what I did, sadly my father couldn't do it yet.

But what I was referring to is, I don't understand your source for ethics/moral, I do good acts not only because they make me feel good, but also because god wants me to, or because he might punnish me on aferlife if I don't.

But I don't really see why non believers need to follow any ethics. I might feel that doing something evil will have a reward (revenge pleasure or money for example) over the bad feeling for doing something bad, but then I have other reason why not to do it. As far as I know non-believers don't (and some might not even feel good doing good so go guess)

You may wish to google nicholas epley: I can't give you a direct link, but he did a study that demonstrated that when people try to think 'what would jesus do?' the answer is always based on their own personal preferences. They think on the topic and then conclude that jesus would so what they have already decided is the right thing.

This is all part of what I, and many others, mean when we say that believers create god in their own image. When you access your faith-based morality, you are merely doing what you feel is the right thing to do, regardless of your faith, and then persuading yourself that it is because of your faith.

You may feel that this is impossible, but you can only hold onto that thinking if you remain, as I suspect you are, ignorant of current information about how the mind works. If this is important to you, there are some very readable boks out there on how the mind works. Don't worry: I am not talking about books by such as Dawkins or Hitchens: I am talking about people like Steven Pinker. I suspect at least some of these books are available in Spanish.

The mind is truly fascinating, and it and the brain (in the sense that the mind is a product of the brain) can do things that seem to the conscious part of us to be incredible. In many ways the 'I' we all think we are appears to be a passenger that only thinks it is in charge.

Btw, calling somebody ignorant on a certain topic is not a slur on that person's intelligence. We are all ignorant of wide areas of human knowledge. The problem comes when someone, unaware of their ignorance, starts making arguments that, to those with less ignorance/more knowledge are laughable. Even then, there is no problem if the ignorant one comes to see how his or her ignorance is making their comments seem silly. After all, ignorance is very easy to cure. Stupidity is not, unfortunately, but you are not stupid.


You might also stop to think on the rather obvious problem with your own professed ignorance about how can non-believers act morally without faith. I hope you recognize that the great majority of us do act in a generally moral way. So there MUST be an explanation. The fact that you don't understand should drive you to seek to understand, rather than to merely state, as you have, that you think that religious faith is necessary. It demonstrably isn't: maybe you should change your thinking to accord with the evidence. That's what intelligent people do. Someone who clings to their opinionsin the face of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong...hmmm...I'll let you figure out an adjective for that person. It shouldn't be flattering

[helene_t]

Dunno what to make of this piece: http://www.theatlant...g-happy/266805/

Quote

Listening to the organ music, he repeatedly asked himself, "Should I leave my parents behind?... Should I say goodbye and leave them to their fate?" Where did his responsibility lie? He was looking for a "hint from heaven."

When he returned home, he found it. A piece of marble was lying on the table. His father explained that it was from the rubble of one of the nearby synagogues that the Nazis had destroyed. The marble contained the fragment of one of the Ten Commandments -- the one about honoring your father and your mother. With that, Frankl decided to stay in Vienna and forgo whatever opportunities for safety and career advancement awaited him in the United States. He decided to put aside his individual pursuits to serve his family and, later, other inmates in the camps.

[Fluffy]

mikeh, on 2013-January-11, 09:28, said:

as I suspect you are, ignorant of current information about how the mind works.

Sorry for quoting the part you made efforsts for not discussing further, but it was shocking, not for the ignorant part, but because of what you consider me to be ignorant about. I consider how human mind works one of my strenghts. I am totally concious of how people lie to themselves to avoid facing real truth, I sometimes realice when I do it to me.

But as many other topics your knowledge comes mainly from reading other's thoughts, when mine comes from thinking about it myself for long. Yes this means I don't probably have the same conclusions as what you have read, and I don't know them, I never said you were wrong just that it was shocking.

mikeh, on 2013-January-11, 09:28, said:

You might also stop to think on the rather obvious problem with your own professed ignorance about how can non-believers act morally without faith. I hope you recognize that the great majority of us do act in a generally moral way. So there MUST be an explanation. The fact that you don't understand should drive you to seek to understand, rather than to merely state, as you have, that you think that religious faith is necessary. It demonstrably isn't: maybe you should change your thinking to accord with the evidence. That's what intelligent people do. Someone who clings to their opinionsin the face of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong...hmmm...I'll let you figure out an adjective for that person. It shouldn't be flattering

I am not worried about how non-believers act without faith, I am worried about why. There must be an explanation and that's why I am asking.
I don't recall having stated that faith is neccesary nor anything similar, I don't think anything close to that, I do however think that it can be more helpful than not having it, but I would always try to make it clear that it is just my opinion. And I do state that for my particular case it the latter is true.

You got to the point, I am fascinated that all non-believers are acting morally, and I want to understand why, because when I searched for the existence of god, I had to think as a non-believer, and I didn't see any reason to be moral, probably didn't dig enough onto the subject, and I didn't value my own life even remotelly as much at that time than now, also this is arguably one of the reasons why I picked to believe.

More to the point, if without going very deep I could think that morality was useless, I don't think I am so special, so I am worried others would think the same.