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

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

quatona

All they share is a lack of belief in Gods. This is - from the atheistic pov - not (necessarily) fundamental or a core of their worldview. Actually, to me the things that I don´t believe in are completely insignificant for the formation of my world view.

The article was expanding on what an atheists believes in their world view. They must share more than a lack of belief in God. When we talk about a world view a Christian will believe there is a God, who created everything. Right and wrong come from God so it is objective. God gives meaning and purpose to the universe and life. So what would be the atheists beliefs for these same questions. If an atheists doesn't believe in God then they would more likely believe that humans determine our own purpose, that we evolved, that we develop our own morals, etc.Though this will not be the case for all and its not a logical conclusion. Atheists have answers to the same questions that Christians do concerning the world, purpose, morals, etc., that are based on there not being a God and/or the denial of God's influence in the world, morals, existence, etc. Therefore,this would have to be their world view.

Doesn´t follow from "I don´t believe that a God exists.".

I understand that this is a response some atheists say. But to then say that an atheists can possibly believe in some other supernatural force of any sort is illogical from saying you dont believe in god/gods. So the writer is trying to establish a general view of what an atheists believes in their world view. It may not automatically follow but if you ask most atheists will tell you that if they dont believe in God then it is hard to say you believe in any supernatural forces period. Thats part of their believe not just they dont believe that there is any gods but why they believe that. It is very rare for a atheists to believe in the supernatural.

Doesn´t follow, either.

I dont think the writer is trying to say it naturally follows. He is saying that it is more than likely this is the case. If you dont believe in God then what do you believe made the universe. If you believe the universe has purpose then you are more or less saying that something must have given it purpose. How can purpose exist without something that gave it purpose. The matter it is made out of doesn't automatically give it purpose. That is just rocks, chemicals and elements.

Nor does this

Well it does really because they all give the universe human qualities. The universe is just matter and matter cant have those qualities. So this is saying that there is some sort of life and conscience thought in involved in the universe itself. Then that points to an intelligent agent whether God or another something. And I think the idea of an atheists not believing in a God was also because of what that God represented. So any agent that represented intelligence with the universe has to be discounted. These ideas dont automatically follow but they are fairly strong associations that would be pretty close to what an atheists believes about the universe and life.

I could believe that the world is not purely material, I could believe that the universe is not knowable, and I could believe that the universe has consciousness - and still not believe that a God exists.
So, no. Doesn´t follow, either.

Yes I guess you could. But how do you explain that without bringing in some sort of intelligence to the equation. I think you are overlooking what the writer was trying to say. When you say you can believe that the universe is not material you are not in any way indicating that it has any intelligence or supernatural aspect are you. You are merely saying that it could be a sort of other dimension of some other scientific state. Its still part of a natural self making existence. I think that is what he was saying God as in a conscious mind making existence to have meaning v naturalistic self creating matter that doesn't have any conscience that gives materials a life purpose. Otherwise you begin to conjure up the supernatural and not the purely natural.

Last time I checked I could give them meaning and value. Just not a God-given meaning and value.

What is it with those theists who are so eager to tell me what I believe?

This is a quote from one of the greatest atheists that is held up high and followed. I think he represents what a lot of atheists think. It may not automatically follow that atheists will think this but there is a strong chance because it goes with not believing there is a God.
“The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. … DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.

 

[Strathos]

It's no wonder atheists can sometimes be so antagonistic with the kind of hate they get

 

[terryjohn]

Is it correct to say being relatively good will save you given that with out faith it is impossible to please God. It is not about good works for in the end rejection of Gods lordship is the death sentence.

 

[Henri]

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.

If the after life is a logical consequence of the existence of moral duty, it means that moral duty can't exist without after life. So it is perfectly coherent with what I said before : no after life = no moral duty

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.

I wanted to speak about what makes moral duty. And I wanted to wait for your answer about the relation God/moral duty that I showed, before to speak about the relation after life/moral duty. And I am still waiting.

 

[Henri]

P.S. to quatona : And you still didn't answer to my last post in " Diligently seeking the Ultimate Reality"

 

[Skaloop]

If the after life is a logical consequence of the existence of moral duty, it means that moral duty can't exist without after life. So it is perfectly coherent with what I said before : no after life = no moral duty

That's a mighty big if.

Although, let's say I grant you that if. What is the logic that leads to the afterlife being a consequence of the existence of moral duty? How, logically, does the lack of afterlife mean that there is a lack of moral duty? Conversely, how, logically, does an afterlife mean that there is a moral duty?

 

[Euler]

It's no wonder atheists can sometimes be so antagonistic with the kind of hate they get

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.

 

[Euler]

And for those who are still convinced that parishioners donating to their own church somehow should 'count' as charitable giving, please read this report from the Evangelical Credit Union.

The Shocking Truth of Church Budgets | Holy Soup

From that article:

Comparatively, what do churches spend on personnel, buildings and administration expenses? Those items consume 82 percent of the average church’s budget, according a study from the Evangelical Christian Credit Union.

You could argue about comparing a church’s expenses to a public charity’s expenses. But the enormous disparity is striking, especially to the public. It’s made worse by looking at how churches allocate funds to direct ministries. According to the ECCU study, churches use 3 percent of their budget for children’s and youth programs, and 2 percent for adult programs. Local and national benevolence receives 1 percent of the typical church budget.

When you look at it this way, is it any wonder the public questions the church’s return on investment?

Now, those aren't the words of a nasty ole baby-eating, lying, no-morality atheist! Those words are coming from reports generated by church groups themselves!

So let's put an end to the nonsense.

 

[quatona]

The article was expanding on what an atheists believes in their world view. They must share more than a lack of belief in God.

No, they don´t have to.

So what would be the atheists beliefs for these same questions.

They can be anything except "given by God".

Atheists have answers to the same questions that Christians do concerning the world, purpose, morals, etc., that are based on there not being a God and/or the denial of God's influence in the world, morals, existence, etc. Therefore,this would have to be their world view.

And these worldviews can differ widely. They can be anything that doesn´t involve a God. So this is the only common denominator implied by atheism.

I understand that this is a response some atheists say.

No, this is the accurate response to that which is presented as a logical conclusion:
It simply doesn´t follow, logically.

But to then say that an atheists can possibly believe in some other supernatural force of any sort is illogical from saying you dont believe in god/gods.

No, it isn´t. You believe in a God but don´t believe in a lot of other supernatural entities. So there´s no logical problem with believing in one and not the other.

I dont think the writer is trying to say it naturally follows. He is saying that it is more than likely this is the case.

No, that´s clearly not what he is saying. His article is full of words like "they can´t", "it´s inconsistent" etc., and clearly he makes an attempt at at logical deductions - which are non-sequiturs throughout.

Well it does really because they all give the universe human qualities.

...well, "human qualities" aren´t "divine qualities".

The universe is just matter and matter cant have those qualities.

Says who?

So this is saying that there is some sort of life and conscience thought in involved in the universe itself.

Obviously, as is demonstrated by the fact that we are conscious.

Then that points to an intelligent agent whether God or another something.

No, it doesn´t point to an intelligent agent behind the scenes, and even less it points to a God.

This is a quote from one of the greatest atheists that is held up high and followed.

The "the greatest atheist"?? Are you kidding me? What makes an atheist greater than another?

I think he represents what a lot of atheists think.

For purposes of discussing the article it doens´t matter what a lot of atheists think. The only thing that matters is the question whether they have to think what the writer claimed they have to think, and can´t think what the writer claims they can´t think. The writer goes out on a very long and thin limb, and, well, I hold him by his standards.

It may not automatically follow that atheists will think this

Yes, that which Henderson presents as a logical deduction simply doesn´t follow.

but there is a strong chance because it goes with not believing there is a God.

This may well be, but needn´t read more than the headline of the article to learn that this is not all Henderson would us believe. He is telling us what we "can´t" and "must".

I notice you haven´t addressed my main point concerning the article yet (post #156).

 

[quatona]

If the after life is a logical consequence of the existence of moral duty, it means that moral duty can't exist without after life. So it is perfectly coherent with what I said before : no after life = no moral duty

The problem is: The way you presented it, it was completely circular.
You haven´t show that the after life is a logical consequnece of the existence of moral duty, and neither have you shown that moral duty can´t exist without an afterlife.

I wanted to speak about what makes moral duty. And I wanted to wait for your answer about the relation God/moral duty that I showed, before to speak about the relation after life/moral duty. And I am still waiting.

I am not going to follow you on that tangent.
Your initial claim was clear, and it didn´t invove a God.

There can be a God, but no afterlife.
There can be an afterlife, but no God.
None follows from the other.

Thus, if you misspoke, and actually intended to link moral duty to the existence of a God, just say so. If you didn´t, leave God out of the equation and substantiate the link between afterlife and moral duty that you claimed.

 

[quatona]

P.S. to quatona : And you still didn't answer to my last post in " Diligently seeking the Ultimate Reality"

You have a misunderstandable way of saying "please".
Done.

 

[Henri]

There can be a God, but no afterlife.

Only if there are no rational beings like men.

There can be an afterlife, but no God.

I don't agree. God is obliged to exist and there is nothing without God. But that is an other question. It is not our topic here.

Thus, if you (...) actually intended to link moral duty to the existence of a God

I actually did that.

substantiate the link between afterlife and moral duty that you claimed

Here :

1) Our ultimate purpose is the greatest possible happiness (we do all we do in order to achieve the greatest possible happiness).

2) By definition, what is morally wrong is what we are supposed not to do, i.e. what is contrary to what we are supposed to do, i.e. what is against our purpose.
Therefore, we must fulfill our moral duty in order to achieve our purpose : happiness.

3) But we see, at the same time, that to fulfill our moral duty goes sometimes against our happiness in this life. Indeed, it is well known that to make the right choice is sometimes very difficult. Obvious examples :
- A plane is crashing. The only way for me to survive is to steal the parachute of someone else (assume it is even someone I hate). If my happiness can be found only in this life, I should steal the parachute. But my moral duty tells me to not do that.
- A german officer who is forced to kill Jews if he don't want to see his family being killed. His moral duty tells him to not kill the Jews. But if his happiness and the happiness of his family is only possible in this life, he should kill them.

4) The points 1 and 2 shows that to fulfill our moral duty leads us necessarily to happiness. But the point 3 shows that it doesn't do that in this life. Therefore there is an after life.

Possible objection :
Is it not possible to have two (sometimes contradictory) purposes : to fulfill our moral duty and to achieve happiness?

Answer :
No. Simply because a same thing can't be supposed to do and to not do the same thing at the same time : it contradictory.

 

[humbleServant77]

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?

Not sure where this thread went or what it got into, but this idea is not consistent with the Gospel. To think that we "enter heaven as a reward for doing good" completely violates Christ's work on the Cross, and would be the best way to get Him mad at me I could think of.

 

[Loudmouth]

1) Our ultimate purpose is the greatest possible happiness (we do all we do in order to achieve the greatest possible happiness).

By "Our", do you mean yourself, or society as a whole?

2) By definition, what is morally wrong is what we are supposed not to do, i.e. what is contrary to what we are supposed to do, i.e. what is against our purpose.
Therefore, we must fulfill our moral duty in order to achieve our purpose : happiness.

3) But we see, at the same time, that to fulfill our moral duty goes sometimes against our happiness in this life. Indeed, it is well known that to make the right choice is sometimes very difficult. Obvious examples :
- A plane is crashing. The only way for me to survive is to steal the parachute of someone else (assume it is even someone I hate). If my happiness can be found only in this life, I should steal the parachute. But my moral duty tells me to not do that.
- A german officer who is forced to kill Jews if he don't want to see his family being killed. His moral duty tells him to not kill the Jews. But if his happiness and the happiness of his family is only possible in this life, he should kill them.

4) The points 1 and 2 shows that to fulfill our moral duty leads us necessarily to happiness. But the point 3 shows that it doesn't do that in this life. Therefore there is an after life.

If our moral obligation is to contribute to a society that is as happy as possible, then sacrificing yourself for the greater happiness of the society in general is what we are obliged to do, and it does not require an afterlife.

 

[Henri]

By "Our", do you mean yourself, or society as a whole?

If our moral obligation is to contribute to a society that is as happy as possible, then sacrificing yourself for the greater happiness of the society in general is what we are obliged to do, and it does not require an afterlife.

Happiness is, of course, the purpose of each man, not only from society. You can see by yourself : you want to be happy. That is what you are looking for.

 

[Loudmouth]

Happiness is, of course, the purpose of each man, not only from society. You can see by yourself : you want to be happy. That is what you are looking for.

I am also looking for the happiness of my friends, family, and society as a whole. In fact, selfishness is usually considered immoral.

 

[keith99]

Happiness is, of course, the purpose of each man, not only from society. You can see by yourself : you want to be happy. That is what you are looking for.

Only if one defines happiness in a circular way.

You seem very prone to circular reasoning.

 

[keith99]

Only if there are no rational beings like men.



I don't agree. God is obliged to exist and there is nothing without God. But that is an other question. It is not our topic here.



I actually did that.


Here :

1) Our ultimate purpose is the greatest possible happiness (we do all we do in order to achieve the greatest possible happiness).

2) By definition, what is morally wrong is what we are supposed not to do, i.e. what is contrary to what we are supposed to do, i.e. what is against our purpose.
Therefore, we must fulfill our moral duty in order to achieve our purpose : happiness.

3) But we see, at the same time, that to fulfill our moral duty goes sometimes against our happiness in this life. Indeed, it is well known that to make the right choice is sometimes very difficult. Obvious examples :
- A plane is crashing. The only way for me to survive is to steal the parachute of someone else (assume it is even someone I hate). If my happiness can be found only in this life, I should steal the parachute. But my moral duty tells me to not do that.
- A german officer who is forced to kill Jews if he don't want to see his family being killed. His moral duty tells him to not kill the Jews. But if his happiness and the happiness of his family is only possible in this life, he should kill them.

4) The points 1 and 2 shows that to fulfill our moral duty leads us necessarily to happiness. But the point 3 shows that it doesn't do that in this life. Therefore there is an after life.

Possible objection :
Is it not possible to have two (sometimes contradictory) purposes : to fulfill our moral duty and to achieve happiness?

Answer :
No. Simply because a same thing can't be supposed to do and to not do the same thing at the same time : it contradictory.

Why should one think any goal has is possible?

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

 

[Henri]

I am also looking for the happiness of my friends, family, and society as a whole. In fact, selfishness is usually considered immoral.

Yes, but you aren't looking for the happiness of your relatives independently of your happiness. Happiness is the complete satisfaction of our will. Therefore, if you want the happiness of your relatives, you want to be happy yourself at the same time.