Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,925,051 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Hepburn
I wasn't sure what you were refering to, probably the fish in the window part.
I was told by a self made multi millionaire, depression era guy, 25 yrs ago...never go to a place with
a fish ...meaning they are advertising they are Christian....I did once before he said that
and once again...they both were cheaters, liars, and dishonest.
I listen to men of experience...they learned the lesson for me.
Sorry good Christians out there reading this, I know it will be
offensive. I'm sure some businesses are great...I will not be
getting burned again, tho, trying them out.
I am in a Bible Belt, btw.
Yes I was referring to the fish. I certainly know about the Bible Belt. I have to live in the buckle of one with a creation science museum 2 blocks away from my house.
I haven't seen those fishes, so hence the question if it was a new trend.
In my view, the concept of morals is purely a man made concept.
It derives from an attitude that if an individual acts against the good of the tribe that individual is immoral and has to be punished to be brought back into good standing with the tribe.
Religions have claimed that their god is the cause of moral behavior. The problem is that their god also (since according to them it created everything) immoral behavior. This, of course is conveniently forgotten or at best never mentioned,
Oh, I get it...it's that they are using a sign that they are Christian for their business.
I don't get how they can then be dishonest...I mean out right.
Still, I don't like to make a generalization...but, burned twice, plus the advice
from a smart guy...doesn't take a brick....
Well, it isn't a generalization about Christians. That's what kills me. There are pleny of Christians who are honest, who do good work, and have integrity. Generally speaking, they have no need to try to explain how honest they are. Their work, their behavior speaks for itself.
It is the people who need to loudly advertize their faith, in order to cash in of the deservedly good reputation of the first bunch who irritate me so much. I thought Jesus said "by their fruits ye shall know them" and "Let your 'yes' be yes and your 'no', no". I just wish more believers would look past the pious facade and understand that the flock is being fleeced, and their reputation tarnished.
In fairness a portion of my moral system is based on fear. I certainly do not want to wind up in prison and that partially governs my decisions. I do not want any traffic fines, that partially governs my driving behavior.
I think most normal morality is based on the fear of how you will be perceived by others if you behave in a selfish, harmful manner.
If all fear was removed, religious, social, cultural, familial, I suspect the result would be a far less moral world.
I think this is all fair.
Some of how we behave is governed by the potential consequences yes.
I think I was trying to say that Christians have no monopoly on living your life in a good way. Seems to me that fundmentalists at least live their lives almost entirely believing what they do will have potential consequences from god.
But if I look at my kids for example. They have no notion that how they behave will lead to any consequences 'from above' (there may be consequences from me of course). My kids I have to say here are my proudest achievement in life - I know all mothers say that of course. But they genuinely are very good kids.
There is no universal handbook that tells us how to bring up kids so it is an extremely daunting task at first. I think the single most useful advice I was ever given at the beginning was this: "children are a reflection of their parents". I have always kept that in mind. Lead by example.
Very little of how I have tried to bring them up has been based on the 'if you don't do x, the consequences will be y" approach. I don't shout at them unless there is a safety issue. I have never heard my husband shout at them, ever. It's not in his nature. So my kids don't shout either.
Consequences don't have to be bad. They can be good. 'if you do this, the consequences will be this". It's a more positive approach. If you work hard at school, you are more likely to get a good job later and have a more comfortable life for example. Be proud of what you do - it brings a sense of personal satisfaction. Have respect for your kids - they will have respect for you, that kind of thing.
Also, I personally believe that knowing the difference between good and bad is instinctive for most people. I remember being very young, when we lived in a more politically incorrect society back then, that racism was bad. And yet I don't remember anyone talking about it. I just knew.
My youngest daughter is only just turned 8. Yet she is already concerned about the environment. She is always telling me to turn off the taps because it wastes water. She always comments when she sees homeless and said if she were president she would give them all homes.
None of this has anything to do with punishment or reward. She's just a good kid.
I know we have talked about morality on here many times before and we have discussed the various themes of 'what is morality', 'what does morality mean in today's society' etc etc.
The important thing is that we are moral people. I'd hate to live my life because whatever I do is governed by punishment or reward in the next life. Who needs that kind of pressure constantly hanging over them? As an atheist, there is no wall chart totting up how good or bad I have been, that I'll have to take with me to the pearly gates. I don't need it. I live my life because of the reward I get now.
I don't know that I fear getting a ticket and this keeps me within the speed limit. I think we perform a cost / benefits analysis of any action based on the expected consequences. Penalties for breaking laws are simply layering societal consequences on top of natural consequences. If I am a skillful driver under good road and traffic conditions, it may well be unlikely for me to have an accident if I go 25 miles per hour over the speed limit, and there may even be a benefit, such as compensating for being late leaving for work. But that calculus may well change if I think getting a ticket is likely. It may change even further if I understand that the ticket could result in higher car insurance premiums or if I think I'll be humiliated by the experience.
In general, I find that laws are simply codifications of societal mores, designed to either improve awareness of, or make clearer, the costs of transgressing those mores. But imagine if all laws had death sentences on them -- right on down to traffic and parking violations or failing to cut your grass. Worse, imagine that they all had life sentences in a torture chamber. Now you would have something to live in terror of. And that is a more accurate parallel to the theist hellthreat and the fear we're talking about.
The portions of your first paragraph above which I placed in bold seem to contradict one another. Is not your desire to avoid the humiliation a fear of being humiliated? And when you are considering the risk of speeding on the day in which you are running late, is that not a choice between the fear of the consequences of being late and the fear of getting caught speeding?
The OP wanted to know what it is that keeps atheists from behaving in anarchistic ways since the threat of hell is removed. My point was that removing that particular threat/fear has removed just one of the numerous constraints to ungoverned behavior, and that feeling of guilt which serve to control our behavior stem from multiple sources, not simply religious concerns. Consequently, even with religion removed, fear would still be an important element in sustaining civilization, and in how we define ourselves as good/bad people. It doesn't have to be that ultimate fear of eternal damnation.
The portions of your first paragraph above which I placed in bold seem to contradict one another. Is not your desire to avoid the humiliation a fear of being humiliated? And when you are considering the risk of speeding on the day in which you are running late, is that not a choice between the fear of the consequences of being late and the fear of getting caught speeding?
The OP wanted to know what it is that keeps atheists from behaving in anarchistic ways since the threat of hell is removed. My point was that removing that particular threat/fear has removed just one of the numerous constraints to ungoverned behavior, and that feeling of guilt which serve to control our behavior stem from multiple sources, not simply religious concerns. Consequently, even with religion removed, fear would still be an important element in sustaining civilization, and in how we define ourselves as good/bad people. It doesn't have to be that ultimate fear of eternal damnation.
I agree with you. My point was simply that actions have consequences, both desired and undesired, and that these consequences do not have to be imposed from on high, whether it be god or the legal system. What the legal system does is founded on a principle known as "compelling state interest" which is basically just society asserting its collective interests and imposing them atop your personal interests.
When assessing natural consequences (I lose control of the car and have an accident), legal consequences (I get a ticket), or real or even imagined existential consequences (god sends a lightning bolt from a clear blue sky to chastise me) I can react to the prospect of any of those things with fear, distaste, indifference or simply a rational assessment that the potential cost is / is not too great to risk. (We can also just do something out of habit without giving it any thought at all, but presumably that habit was formed at some time in the past based on some consideration of costs vs benefits).
I resist pasting the label "fear" on all of those because it has a negative connotation that suggests that you and I can't be motivated to do anything moral or anything that requires delayed gratification unless we are afraid of the threat of punishment. You can most certainly do the right thing in a given situation because of a rational assessment of the benefits or simply by deciding that it's morally correct even if it's not beneficial to you personally. I don't know about you, but I don't make very many decisions based on fear.
Some of how we behave is governed by the potential consequences yes.
I think I was trying to say that Christians have no monopoly on living your life in a good way. Seems to me that fundmentalists at least live their lives almost entirely believing what they do will have potential consequences from god.
But if I look at my kids for example. They have no notion that how they behave will lead to any consequences 'from above' (there may be consequences from me of course). My kids I have to say here are my proudest achievement in life - I know all mothers say that of course. But they genuinely are very good kids.
There is no universal handbook that tells us how to bring up kids so it is an extremely daunting task at first. I think the single most useful advice I was ever given at the beginning was this: "children are a reflection of their parents". I have always kept that in mind. Lead by example.
Very little of how I have tried to bring them up has been based on the 'if you don't do x, the consequences will be y" approach. I don't shout at them unless there is a safety issue. I have never heard my husband shout at them, ever. It's not in his nature. So my kids don't shout either.
Consequences don't have to be bad. They can be good. 'if you do this, the consequences will be this". It's a more positive approach. If you work hard at school, you are more likely to get a good job later and have a more comfortable life for example. Be proud of what you do - it brings a sense of personal satisfaction. Have respect for your kids - they will have respect for you, that kind of thing.
Also, I personally believe that knowing the difference between good and bad is instinctive for most people. I remember being very young, when we lived in a more politically incorrect society back then, that racism was bad. And yet I don't remember anyone talking about it. I just knew.
My youngest daughter is only just turned 8. Yet she is already concerned about the environment. She is always telling me to turn off the taps because it wastes water. She always comments when she sees homeless and said if she were president she would give them all homes.
None of this has anything to do with punishment or reward. She's just a good kid.
I know we have talked about morality on here many times before and we have discussed the various themes of 'what is morality', 'what does morality mean in today's society' etc etc.
The important thing is that we are moral people. I'd hate to live my life because whatever I do is governed by punishment or reward in the next life. Who needs that kind of pressure constantly hanging over them? As an atheist, there is no wall chart totting up how good or bad I have been, that I'll have to take with me to the pearly gates. I don't need it. I live my life because of the reward I get now.
This is the thing. I help my neighbors, I volunteer in my community, I give to charity groups, I try to be a good person in general. I do these things NOT because there is some afterlife reward, but because it is the right thing to do. I don't need the threat of hell to make me behave like a good person, I do it because I AM a good person.
This is the thing. I help my neighbors, I volunteer in my community, I give to charity groups, I try to be a good person in general. I do these things NOT because there is some afterlife reward, but because it is the right thing to do. I don't need the threat of hell to make me behave like a good person, I do it because I AM a good person.
Okay, but still unexplained is why in the absence of a threat of negative consequences, you see some things as right and some things as wrong. You are a good person because being a bad person.....???? What? If not negative consequences, then what?
Okay, but still unexplained is why in the absence of a threat of negative consequences, you see some things as right and some things as wrong. You are a good person because being a bad person.....???? What? If not negative consequences, then what?
Because I want to treat others as I would like to be treated. You know, the golden rule.
I don't want other people treating me like crap, so I don't treat others like crap. It has worked pretty well for me so far, and those that still decide to treat me like crap I no longer associate with. I don't get some golden palace in the afterlife, I get the knowledge that I helped someones life to be just a little bit better.
I don't get eternal punishment in the afterlife, but I have to live with the consequences of my actions while I'm alive. No one is standing over my head threatening me with damnation if I do something bad, but I would possibly have legal ramifications, or social ramifications. So, I guess there are negative consequences, but not like some christians want to push. And I also don't have a get out of jail free card like some christians have. I have no repentance option. I can't do something, and say "oops sorry" and my bad actions are miraculously erased. I have to deal with my mistakes myself, in the here and now.
Because I want to treat others as I would like to be treated. You know, the golden rule.
I don't want other people treating me like crap, so I don't treat others like crap. It has worked pretty well for me so far, and those that still decide to treat me like crap I no longer associate with. I don't get some golden palace in the afterlife, I get the knowledge that I helped someones life to be just a little bit better.
I don't get eternal punishment in the afterlife, but I have to live with the consequences of my actions while I'm alive. No one is standing over my head threatening me with damnation if I do something bad, but I would possibly have legal ramifications, or social ramifications. So, I guess there are negative consequences, but not like some christians want to push. And I also don't have a get out of jail free card like some christians have. I have no repentance option. I can't do something, and say "oops sorry" and my bad actions are miraculously erased. I have to deal with my mistakes myself, in the here and now.
Very well, so we see that there is an element of fear, even in the Golden Rule. We treat others well because we fear that by not doing so, we forfeit the right to be treated well by others.
All this reminds me that H.L Mencken defined "conscience" as:
"That inner voice which warns us that someone may be watching."
I see all morality as contractual because it requires a minimum of two people for any moral questions to arise. Because all morality is contractual, and because all contracts are based on expectations of negative consequences for the person who breaks the contract or fails to live up to its terms, I see all morality as having some sort of fear element.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
