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

[Loudmouth]

Yes, but you aren't looking for the happiness of your relatives independently of your happiness.

Why would I need to?

Happiness is the complete satisfaction of our will.

If that includes the happiness of others, then sacrificing your life for loved ones does not require an afterlife in order to be moral. All it requires is living people that would be made happier by the results of your sacrifice.

 

[Henri]

That most want happiness DOES NOT in any way imply that happiness is possible. You are talking illogic to new levels.

Indeed, if you want to buy a car, it doesn't imply that it is possible. But happiness is completely different : happiness is our natural purpose. We want it, but we don't freely choose it. We are obliged to want it.
As I said, we must fulfill our moral duty in order to achieve happiness. In other words, the achievement of happiness IS our moral duty. But we are not supposed to do something impossible. Indeed, it would be contradictory : the duty to do something that doesn't exist is not a duty. Therefore, happiness is possible.

 

[Henri]

If that includes the happiness of others, then sacrificing your life for loved ones does not require an afterlife in order to be moral. All it requires is living people that would be made happier by the results of your sacrifice.

The satisfaction of your will includes the happiness of others, but not only : it includes obviously your own existence. Your sacrifice is precisely a sacrifice, something that costs you.

 

[Loudmouth]

The satisfaction of your will includes the happiness of others, but not only : it includes obviously your own existence. Your sacrifice is precisely a sacrifice, something that costs you.

I still see nothing that requires an afterlife for one to be moral.

 

[Strathos]

Thank you.

For my own, the hate is nothing new. We've seen it for centuries and, for those of us who are open about our disbelief, we experience it daily. It's no biggie.

What gets me is the uninformed basis of the hate. I know from the numbers, but I also know from my own experience that non-believers are no less generous, compassionate and caring than their religious counterparts. But the idea persists that we must be somehow worse, because of our belief structure. I know atheists who are selfish jerks, I know theists who are selfish jerks. I know examples of both who are kind and giving.

I know that anecdotes are useless as evidence, but I provide this for some color:

In my town you don't let on that you don't believe, unless you're ready to deal with the reaction. So, in the faculty I work in, there's a guy who's been with us for 4 or 5 years. He is generally regarded as a regular, hard-working, amiable kind of person. Attends faculty functions, his kids play with ours, picnics, you get the idea. About 9 months ago at one of those work-inspired 'personal and professional development' days, he let it be known during one of the workshops that he had no religious beliefs and that he had always been an atheist.

In the following days, there was a very noticeable, but predictable, cooling off by most of the others in their interaction with him. But the thing that sticks most in my memory (and my craw) is the comment "You know, he seemed such a nice guy."

I wanted to say "He IS a nice guy!" The only thing that had changed was that these people now know he doesn't share their belief in unevidenced things. That's all. He's still the same person he was the day before, the person they all liked and got on with.

Unfortunately, I'm not as brave (foolish?) as he is.

From a Christian perspective, we are not better than you because of our beliefs, we are all flawed and imperfect beings.

People often quote Psalm 14:1 against atheists, but if they bothered to read the rest of that Psalm they would see that it directly says that we are no better than you.

 

[Section10]

I don't get what you're saying Strathos. So you think there's no virtue in being Christian? ????? Speak for yourself. We are not the same people as non-Christian.

 

[Skaloop]

I don't get what you're saying Strathos. So you think there's no virtue in being Christian? ????? Speak for yourself. We are not the same people as non-Christian.

No, you're not the same, but you're not any better, either.

 

[Euler]

I don't get what you're saying Strathos. So you think there's no virtue in being Christian? ????? Speak for yourself. We are not the same people as non-Christian.

Different =/= Superior

ETA: Sorry Skaloop, just saw your comment

 

[quatona]

We are not the same people as non-Christian.

No two persons are the same.

 

[Euler]

I don't get what you're saying Strathos. So you think there's no virtue in being Christian? ????? Speak for yourself. We are not the same people as non-Christian.

In terms of how you develop your moral code, I would assert that you are no different to us non-believers.

You may claim that your morality is dictated by the writings in an ancient text, but the evidence is that you form, and modify, your morals in a secular fashion.

Just as we do.

It wasn't gods who got together and decided that slavery was no longer an acceptable thing, that there were no such things as witches and sorcerers, that women should be afforded the same rights and freedom as men, that modern medicine should supersede superstitions, that it was not acceptable to slaughter those who didn't follow your religion - those things were all decided upon by HUMANS.

And you and your fellow believers were part of that.

 

[humbleServant77]

In terms of how you develop your moral code, I would assert that you are no different to us non-believers.

I agree, but to posit that Christianity is about "the development of a moral code" is quite a foreign concept.

It is about life coming from death. Morality is completely "other"

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that people are teleological in that they view things in terms of goals.

If death is total annihilation, then that aspect of psychology is disabled; in that people's future driveness is seemingly inappropriate.

So, either you abandon the normal instincts of the psyche, or you believe in a future state?

Also if collective cultuure, as in prehistioric times, was to be cohesive and motivate the masses, maybe "future state" psychology fitted just right.

Even some of the best modern minds have struggled with meaning of life issues.

 

[Euler]

I must not be one of the "best modern minds" then. Because I have no problem determining meaning for my life - and none of it includes the belief that I will somehow live on after I experience physical death.

 

[Strathos]

I don't get what you're saying Strathos. So you think there's no virtue in being Christian? ????? Speak for yourself. We are not the same people as non-Christian.

That's not what I'm saying at all. Like it has been pointed out many times in this thread, Heaven is not a reward for good behavior, because nothing we could do on earth can measure up to God's standards. Jesus Christ offers us the gift of eternal life, even though we don't deserve it.

That doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to live a moral life, of course, but from God's perspective, all humans are equally flawed and sinful. He offers us the opportunity to live forever with Him even though we don't deserve it.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't get what you're saying Strathos. So you think there's no virtue in being Christian? ????? Speak for yourself. We are not the same people as non-Christian.

Being a Christian does not make one a more moral person than a non-Christian. The Christian is not more virtuous, more noble, or more moral. The Christian is just as flawed and just as sinful as anyone else. The Christian therefore has no high ground to gloat or boast in their own righteousness, since the Christian has no righteousness to gloat or boast about.

The Christian who thinks they are righteous is like the Pharisee in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. The Christian, instead, is to imitate the Publican, with eyes to the ground, praying "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Strathos]

Being a Christian does not make one a more moral person than a non-Christian. The Christian is not more virtuous, more noble, or more moral. The Christian is just as flawed and just as sinful as anyone else. The Christian therefore has no high ground to gloat or boast in their own righteousness, since the Christian has no righteousness to gloat or boast about.

The Christian who thinks they are righteous is like the Pharisee in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. The Christian, instead, is to imitate the Publican, with eyes to the ground, praying "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[selfinflikted]

Being a Christian does not make one a more moral person than a non-Christian. The Christian is not more virtuous, more noble, or more moral. The Christian is just as flawed and just as sinful as anyone else. The Christian therefore has no high ground to gloat or boast in their own righteousness, since the Christian has no righteousness to gloat or boast about.

The Christian who thinks they are righteous is like the Pharisee in the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican. The Christian, instead, is to imitate the Publican, with eyes to the ground, praying "Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner."

-CryptoLutheran

You guys are a breath of fresh air. It's rare to hear a Christian (at least here) admit that they are better than no one else - Christian or not. Reps!

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I must not be one of the "best modern minds" then. Because I have no problem determining meaning for my life - and none of it includes the belief that I will somehow live on after I experience physical death.

I am thinking of Tolstoy, Schopenhauer, Neitzsche even...

Tolstoy acceted faith was ridiculous, but gave him a sense of the "infinite".

Scholenhauer thought life itself was an evil.

And Neitzsche, well, he was trying to overcome the culture of nihilism by saying "yes!" to life, yet there was not much of a choerent sense of preferability (excepting maybe a "will to power" which is ok taken so far).

These are some of the brightest minds after the invention of the printing press and the scientific method. Lets not forget human society and religion - and correlative human instinc development - date back for tens of or hundreds of thousands of years before that. Or more?

 

[Euler]

I am thinking of Tolstoy, Schopenhauer, Neitzsche even...

Tolstoy acceted faith was ridiculous, but gave him a sense of the "infinite".

Scholenhauer thought life itself was an evil.

And Neitzsche, well, he was trying to overcome the culture of nihilism by saying "yes!" to life, yet there was not much of a choerent sense of preferability (excepting maybe a "will to power" which is ok taken so far).

These are some of the brightest minds after the invention of the printing press and the scientific method. Lets not forget human society and religion - and correlative human instinc development - date back for tens of or hundreds of thousands of years before that. Or more?

What does it tell you when people say that imaginary belief is ridiculous, but that they do it any way, because it makes them feel better?

 

[stevevw]

As far as religious charities being reliable and using donation money so that the majority gets to the needy I would rather trust the big guns for data on that. It seems that its the religious ones that have fared the best and as I was was saying the Salvation Army is right up there.

Christian charitable organizations rank highest in terms of using donor money toward charitable projects and services, according to a recent Forbes study.

The Forbes study ranked the 200 largest U.S. charities based on three criteria: fundraising efficiency (the difference between income and expenditures), charitable commitment (amount of funds directly diverted to charity) and donor dependency.

Four out of the five charities that received a perfect rating in both fundraising efficiency and charitable commitment are Christian organizations.

"We have to be less than 2 percent on overhead. We thrive on being so efficient, and so we work with other organizations and let them do what they do well.” Mettey said.

Faith-based charities are not held by any stricter legal standards than other charities, but many Christian charities are toward the top of Forbes’ efficiency ratings.

Faith-based organizations have the added benefit of turning to the Bible to remind themselves of motivation and direction.
Christian Charities More Reliable Than Others, According to Forbes

Our rankings are based on the amount of private gifts (as opposed to government grants, fee for service or investment revenue) received in the latest fiscal period. No. 1 again by far: United Way, whose network of community-based workplace contribution charities took in $3.9 billion. No. 2: Salvation Army, at $1.8 billion, followed by food bank supplier Feeding America at $1.1 billion. The cut-off for our list–No. 200–was $46 million.
The 200 Largest U.S. Charities For 2011 - Forbes