Why do you need an eternal reward as a bribe to be good?

TheImmortalJellyfish

Unnaturally elected...
Oct 20, 2014
345
12
✟8,151.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Pardon me - couldn't help butting in...

Ok, I'll write slowly this time.

In terms of your own, personal quality of existence (AND meeting your underlying need to preserve your genetic footprint), it is important to YOU that your children, your siblings, your grandchildren, your cousins survive and lead fruitful lives. The wider the circle, with you as the centre, the less this importance is felt. So, you feel a very close bond with your children, less so with your cousins, much less so with a stranger. BUT, all of those people play a part in making up the world in which you exist and survive; it's just that some play a more important role than others. We are 'wired', therefore, to express some degree of empathy ('goodness' if you will) towards all others.

Got it now?

If we are all wired that way (to have at least a modicum of empathy towards all mankind), how does one explain hate groups and racism?
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,796
✟247,431.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Pardon me - couldn't help butting in...



If we are all wired that way (to have at least a modicum of empathy towards all mankind), how does one explain hate groups and racism?

Personal psychology that has developed in some over time.
 
Upvote 0

Henri

Newbie
Oct 8, 2014
164
2
✟8,610.00
Faith
Catholic
Out of interest, and accepting your point for the sake of the argument: How would an afterlife make it wrong?
The after life is only a logical consequence of the existence of moral duty. What makes moral duty is God. I explain :

The moral duty is the only duty for which we have never an excuse for not doing it. If a man doesn't fulfill his moral duty, it is, by definition, immoral, wrong. That implies that there are some things inherently wrong (i.e. with never an excuse to do them) or inherently good (i.e. good under any circumstances). For example : to kill innocents children just for fun, is inherently wrong. That implies that there are eternal truths about morality. For example, it is eternally true that if a man kills innocent children just for fun, this man is doing something wrong. And this set of eternal truths is what we call God. God is the criteria of morality.
If the truth that we express in the sentence "if a man kills innocent children just for fun, this man is doing something wrong" is not eternally true, it means that we can find a circumstance in which it would not be wrong, for a man, to kill innocent children just for fun. And in general, if there are not eternal truths about morality, it means that there are not things inherently wrong or good. And if there are not things inherently wrong or good, it means that when we say that something is good, the goodness is only in our head (i.e. it is our invention). In this case, the moral duty doesn't exist : it is a fiction of men.

Possible objection : Is not morality a matter of circumstances, after all? (This would mean that there are not inherently good or wrong things, and therefore no real moral duty, as I showed it.)

Answer : It is indeed possible that a thing A is morally wrong in the circumstance 1, and morally good in the circumstance 2. But in this case, what is inherently wrong is not A, but "A in the circumstance 1". And what is inherently good is not A, but "A in the circumstance 2".

Ok, I'll write slowly this time.

In terms of your own, personal quality of existence (AND meeting your underlying need to preserve your genetic footprint), it is important to YOU that your children, your siblings, your grandchildren, your cousins survive and lead fruitful lives. The wider the circle, with you as the centre, the less this importance is felt. So, you feel a very close bond with your children, less so with your cousins, much less so with a stranger. BUT, all of those people play a part in making up the world in which you exist and survive; it's just that some play a more important role than others. We are 'wired', therefore, to express some degree of empathy ('goodness' if you will) towards all others.

Got it now?

You didn't understand the main problem. Even if I am happy only if I am really good with everyone, it doesn't implies that I have the duty to be happy, and good with everyone. I can choose to ignore my empathy to be an evil man. I will perhaps not be happy. And then? Who says it is not my duty?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

AionPhanes

Well-Known Member
Jan 1, 2015
841
430
Michigan
✟18,174.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Green
Why do you need an eternal reward as a bribe to be good?

If by "we" you mean all of humanity I think that would be a much too large number of people to generalize an answer for. Some people DO act in a positive / helpful manner based on desire for reward. In fact it's very, very , hard to transcend that basic self serving "instinct" so to speak. I have faith that it's possible and I strongly believe that even a spiritual newbie like myself experiences this "better" motivation (or motiveless motivation ?) for good on occasion. I believe in Mahayana Buddhism they call that the "perfection of charity" (dana paramita) as practiced by the Bodhisattva or being who lives for the well being of all. In Christianity it's called agape and best illustrated by the actions of Christ.
 
Upvote 0

TheImmortalJellyfish

Unnaturally elected...
Oct 20, 2014
345
12
✟8,151.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Personal psychology that has developed in some over time.

That doesn't seem very informative. "Personal" would imply one's own psyche as s/he views it - not a whole group or movement. In your "ripple effect" demonstration, you allowed for "outsiders" to at least be given some amount of empathy or understanding...how does one explain an entire group of people exhibiting intolerance, malice, and hatred towards another entire group of "outsiders"? That would seem to imply that one's personal faulty wiring still has the capability to attract many followers, which of course it does. If this is the case, we're not "wired" to be anything but followers.
 
Upvote 0

Euler

Junior Member
Sep 6, 2014
1,163
20
40
✟9,028.00
Faith
Atheist
Pardon me - couldn't help butting in...

By all means, please do. :wave:


If we are all wired that way (to have at least a modicum of empathy towards all mankind), how does one explain hate groups and racism?

Because we aren't perfect. And we are also hard-wired to fear the 'different'.

But isn't it interesting - as our moral codes have evolved, we have come to regard behavior such as racism as a bad thing! So, even though we have permitted ourselves to 'fall' into unhealthy practices throughout our history, those overriding principles of empathy and compassion for others have steered us back on course.

Oh, and I'm glad you referenced racism. Especially since this thread has people claiming that a religious outlook produces our moral code..............which group do you think is most likely to be racist in their behavior?
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
The after life is only a logical consequence of the existence of moral duty.
Oh, up to this point you argued that an afterlife is logically necessary for moral duty to exist.
Now you argure that the after life is a logical consequence of the existence of moral duty.
This circularity of the argument makes me all dizzy.
What makes moral duty is God.
So it´s got nothing to do with the existence of an afterlife, but with the existence of a God? That´s a new tune, isn´t it?
I explain :

The moral duty is the only duty for which we have never an excuse for not doing it. If a man doesn't fulfill his moral duty, it is, by definition, immoral, wrong. That implies that there are some things inherently wrong (i.e. with never an excuse to do them) or inherently good (i.e. good under any circumstances). For example : to kill innocents children just for fun, is inherently wrong. That implies that there are eternal truths about morality. For example, it is eternally true that if a man kills innocent children just for fun, this man is doing something wrong. And this set of eternal truths is what we call God. God is the criteria of morality.
If the truth that we express in the sentence "if a man kills innocent children just for fun, this man is doing something wrong" is not eternally true, it means that we can find a circumstance in which it would not be wrong, for a man, to kill innocent children just for fun. And in general, if there are not eternal truths about morality, it means that there are not things inherently wrong or good. And if there are not things inherently wrong or good, it means that when we say that something is good, the goodness is only in our head (i.e. it is our invention). In this case, the moral duty doesn't exist : it is a fiction of men.
Sorry, but I don´t see an afterlife mentioned anywhere in this argument, even less as a necessity for anything or a logical consequence of anything.
 
Upvote 0

TheyCallMeDavid

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
3,301
99
70
Florida
✟4,108.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
A lot of christians ask me how I can have morals without God, but quite honestly, it's just instinctual to be good. We wouldn't survive very long as a species if we were all killing each other off. Why do you, as christians, need a reward of heaven to do good? Isn't doing good in itself enough?

A better word to use would be inherent to be good, versus instinctual . How do u suppose every person on earth has within them this Moral oughtness that to be good is honorable , satisfying to our Souls, and that we have a foundational sense of right from wrong written on the fibre of our Being ? Every Group, tribe, people around the world knows that its always and absolutely wrong to rape, murder, commit incest, and dash babies against walls . How did The Moral Law which is this Moral oughtness is, come to exist in all of us ? Since its non material, how did it derive from atoms if you are an atheistic Materialist ? What is the source if not from another personal Being with like morality, purity, and righteousness in an infinite degree ? (for further consideration, please read this CF formal debate http://www.christianforums.com/t7825098/)

Atheists can certainly do/be good if they desire...but independent unbiased Scientific Studies show this people group to be at the bottom of the social ladder when it comes to the actual portrayal of morals and ethics in American Society., indicating that they don't want to apply higher morality and ethics in their lives.
I would ask you : WHY be good if we are just compilations of atoms upon compilations of atoms which accidentally formed from a non purposed Creation account from no intelligent personal Source which would mean no ultimate moral culpability ?

Lastly, Christians don't NEED 'a reward' for doing good ; rather, our Creator gives us rewards for HOW we willfully chose to live our lives once we got Born Again in Christ and what we did with the time, talents, and gifts that God gave us. Included in that is the question : Was there any inward change from knowing and walking with Christ which resulted in greater purity, righteousness, and morality which not only reflected the goodness and greatness of God but was also beneficial to help Others positively ?

Lastly, Should God let an Atheist off the hook because he did some good things during his/her life , even though their accumulated sin debt remained ? Should God take into account the Atheists good works, deeds, etc... during his earthly life when all their life they chose to reject God , never desired to have a real personal relationship with their very own Creator , not allowing God to be the authority of their life so they could experience great fulfillment and purpose , and for saying 'no thanks' to God for a carefully, exciting, never dull , crafted Eternity in his very presence with awesome experiences that never end and a perfectly fashioned Body that never wears out -- all as an expression of his love for us ? Would God be just in saying 'Depart from Me for I never knew you and you never knew me' toward Atheists at that forthcoming Meeting ?

I trust you will answer these questions please. THanks.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

TheImmortalJellyfish

Unnaturally elected...
Oct 20, 2014
345
12
✟8,151.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
By all means, please do. :wave:

Thanks :) And this doesn't have to branch out too far from the topic of the OP...perhaps a new thread may be necessary.


Because we aren't perfect.

You claim there's such thing as a "perfect"? What does it look like?

And we are also hard-wired to fear the 'different'.

But isn't it interesting - as our moral codes have evolved, we have come to regard behavior such as racism as a bad thing! So, even though we have permitted ourselves to 'fall' into unhealthy practices throughout our history, those overriding principles of empathy and compassion for others have steered us back on course.

Yet, we're hard-wired to fear the different? So, IOW, our brains along with how they are hard-wired have evolved over time to include an "override" feature to the "fear"? And racist people certainly don't regard racism as a bad thing. Who is this "we" in the "we have come to regard..."? I'm only trying to understand.

Oh, and I'm glad you referenced racism. Especially since this thread has people claiming that a religious outlook produces our moral code..............which group do you think is most likely to be racist in their behavior?

Any group which seeks to control people - religion-based and otherwise. :wave:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Euler

Junior Member
Sep 6, 2014
1,163
20
40
✟9,028.00
Faith
Atheist
You claim there's such thing as a "perfect"? What does it look like?

No I didn't do that. Please don't fall into the bad habit of putting words into my mouth.

Yet, we're hard-wired to fear the different? So, IOW, our brains along with how they are hard-wired have evolved over time to include an "override" feature to the "fear"? And racist people certainly don't regard racism as a bad thing. Who is this "we" in the "we have come to regard..."? I'm only trying to understand.

Happy to help. And, yes, racist people do tend to know that it's bad. Why do you think so many of them start a sentence with "I'm not racist, but...."? They clearly want to deceive people about their racist attitudes.



Any group which seeks to control people - religion-based and otherwise. :wave:

Afraid youre wrong there. The group most likely to express racist viewpoints are the religious fundamentalists. Next come the religious moderates, then religious liberals and finally the non-religious. There is a linear relationship between the degree of religiosity and the degree of prejudice towards the 'Other'.
 
Upvote 0

Euler

Junior Member
Sep 6, 2014
1,163
20
40
✟9,028.00
Faith
Atheist
A better word to use would be inherent to be good, versus instinctual . How do u suppose every person on earth has within them this Moral oughtness that to be good is honorable , satisfying to our Souls, and that we have a foundational sense of right from wrong written on the fibre of our Being ? Every Group, tribe, people around the world knows that its always and absolutely wrong to rape, murder, commit incest, and dash babies against walls . How did The Moral Law which is this Moral oughtness is, come to exist in all of us ? Since its non material, how did it derive from atoms if you are an atheistic Materialist ? What is the source if not from another personal Being with like morality, purity, and righteousness in an infinite degree ? (for further consideration, please read this CF formal debate http://www.christianforums.com/t7825098/)

Atheists can certainly do/be good if they desire...but independent unbiased Scientific Studies show this people group to be at the bottom of the social ladder when it comes to the actual portrayal of morals and ethics in American Society., indicating that they don't want to apply higher morality and ethics in their lives.
I would ask you : WHY be good if we are just compilations of atoms upon compilations of atoms which accidentally formed from a non purposed Creation account from no intelligent personal Source which would mean no ultimate moral culpability ?

Lastly, Christians don't NEED 'a reward' for doing good ; rather, our Creator gives us rewards for HOW we willfully chose to live our lives once we got Born Again in Christ and what we did with the time, talents, and gifts that God gave us. Included in that is the question : Was there any inward change from knowing and walking with Christ which resulted in greater purity, righteousness, and morality which not only reflected the goodness and greatness of God but was also beneficial to help Others positively ?

Lastly, Should God let an Atheist off the hook because he did some good things during his/her life , even though their accumulated sin debt remained ? Should God take into account the Atheists good works, deeds, etc... during his earthly life when all their life they chose to reject God , never desired to have a real personal relationship with their very own Creator , not allowing God to be the authority of their life so they could experience great fulfillment and purpose , and for saying 'no thanks' to God for a carefully, exciting, never dull , crafted Eternity in his very presence with awesome experiences that never end and a perfectly fashioned Body that never wears out -- all as an expression of his love for us ? Would God be just in saying 'Depart from Me for I never knew you and you never knew me' toward Atheists at that forthcoming Meeting ?

I trust you will answer these questions please. THanks.

Please show the "independent unbiased Scientific Studies" which you claim exist.
 
Upvote 0

TheImmortalJellyfish

Unnaturally elected...
Oct 20, 2014
345
12
✟8,151.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
No I didn't do that. Please don't fall into the bad habit of putting words into my mouth.

I assure you, that wasn't my intention. You said "we're not 'perfect'"; I just wanted to know what "perfect" is, in your words.



Happy to help. And, yes, racist people do tend to know that it's bad. Why do you think so many of them start a sentence with "I'm not racist, but...."? They clearly want to deceive people about their racist attitudes.

"So many of them" is not "all of them". I'm talking about extremist groups.

So, first we've got a hard-wired proclivity to fear the "different". But then, we evolved an "override" feature for that fear which causes us to recognize having empathy to all mankind - regardless of race, color, or creed - as beneficial to the advancement of our species. We also have people who choose to ignore this override feature? Or have they simply not evolved to that level? Some of them have also evolved deceptive diversion tactics for their inability to override their hatred and fear...the so-called "I'm not racist, but..."

Again, still just trying to understand. Forgive me if these seem like foolish questions.


Afraid youre wrong there. The group most likely to express racist viewpoints are the religious fundamentalists. Next come the religious moderates, then religious liberals and finally the non-religious. There is a linear relationship between the degree of religiosity and the degree of prejudice towards the 'Other'.

Do you have a link to the source of this statistic? Also, what are these figures based upon? Demographics? Historical trend? Population?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Euler

Junior Member
Sep 6, 2014
1,163
20
40
✟9,028.00
Faith
Atheist
I assure you, that wasn't my intention. You said "we're not 'perfect'"; I just wanted to know what "perfect" is, in your words.





"So many of them" is not "all of them". I'm talking about extremist groups.

So, first we've got a hard-wired proclivity to fear the "different". But then, we evolved an "override" feature for that fear which causes us to recognize having empathy to all mankind - regardless of race, color, or creed - as beneficial to the advancement of our species. We also have people who choose to ignore this override feature? Or have they simply not evolved to that level? Some of them have also evolved deceptive diversion tactics for their inability to override their hatred and fear...the so-called "I'm not racist, but..."

Again, still just trying to understand. Forgive me if these seem like foolish questions.




Do you have a link to the source of this statistic? Also, what are these figures based upon? Demographics? Historical trend? Population?

Here are a few to get you started -

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...CDkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=altemeyer 2003&f=false

https://books.google.com.au/books?i...=Laythe, Finkel, and Kirkpatrick 2001&f=false

Why Don?t We Practice What We Preach? A Meta-Analytic Review of Religious Racism

But I would also suggest a very informative book by Dr Ryan Cragun 'What you don't know about Religion (and probably should)'. It references a number of works on the subject of religion and prejudice.
 
Upvote 0

TheyCallMeDavid

Well-Known Member
May 13, 2013
3,301
99
70
Florida
✟4,108.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Please show the "independent unbiased Scientific Studies" which you claim exist.



A couple of these independent studies appear on a Christian Website but please note the SOURCE from which they came instead of thinking they were conducted by Christians because they appear on a Christian Site. :

1. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_theists_morality.html (if the link doesn't open then please google for the report)

2. Here is another Study performed by Barna and Associates: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html (if the link doesn't work then please google for the report)


3. Heres another scientifric study from USA Today : Study : (if the link doesn't open then please google for the report) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-12-10/religion-atheism/51777612/1

4. Another scientific study by a University as follows (google for full report if this link doesn't work : http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1 ) :

A 2006 study by researchers at the University of
Minnesota involving a poll of 2,000 households in
the United States found atheists to be the most
distrusted of minorities, more so than Muslims,
recent immigrants, gays and lesbians, and other
groups. Many of the respondents associated
atheism with immorality, including criminal behaviour.

5. The Hoover Institution (part of Stanford University) has studied philanthropic giving and volunteerism among populations.10 Making 30,000 observations over 50 different communities, they found that religious people are much more likely to donate money to charities (91 percent to 66 percent) more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). The amount they give is also quite different with religious people averaging $2,210, compared to only $642 among the secular, even though incomes and education levels are virtually the same. Religious people's giving is not just to religious causes either, since they also out give secular people when donating to secular causes .

6 Recently, Guenter Lewy of the University of Massachusetts set out to
write a book entitled Why America Doesn't Need Religion. He wanted the
book to be "a defense of secular humanism and ethical relativism."
Lewy is not a Christian and does not believe in God. But he was
determined to offer his results as objectively as possible.
As Lewy assembled his extensive research, he received a surprise. He
found himself forced to conclude that Christianity has a record of
strong support for social justice and human dignity. Other research
forced him to conclude that Christians at that time constantly showed
a lower rate than non Christians of the behaviors associated with
social ills and moral failure. These include divorce, domestic
violence, out of wedlock births, adult crime and juvenile
delinquency.
He finally concluded, from other studies, that people who actually
live the Christian life have higher rates of happiness and are
healthier. The final title of his book is Why America Needs
Religion.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Euler

Junior Member
Sep 6, 2014
1,163
20
40
✟9,028.00
Faith
Atheist
2. Your second reference comes also from the godandscience website and refers to a survey done by the Barna organization - an evangelical Christian group! Moreover, while the .....cough, spit.....'researchers' go into some detail about what they consider an "evangelical" to be, they offer no breakdown or analysis of how they determined the other groups within their survey! More of your INDEPENDENT science I presume?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Euler

Junior Member
Sep 6, 2014
1,163
20
40
✟9,028.00
Faith
Atheist
3. and 4. These references relate to the opinions that others have about atheists! And, surprise, surprise, in a nation that is largely theist in its outlook, atheists are not highly regarded as a group. However, this says NOTHING about the moral behavior of atheists - it merely says that those who aren't atheists don't like them. We are already very aware of the prejudices that the religious demonstrate towards groups that are not them - check some of the references above that I provided for Jellyfish

So, these have no bearing on your claim. You're stalling.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0