I went to McDonalds with my girlfriend for lunch today. As we sat there eating, there was a homeless guy wandering around outside. He looked hungry so I asked him if i could get him something to eat. I ended up getting him a burger and some fries.

Doing this got me to thinking about doing good things without god being involved. I had recently heard about an organization that does charity work and events from a purely humanitarian perspective. I went to look up the organization and I came across this article:

Can we be good without God?

Apparently, it was just stupid of me to buy lunch for that homeless guy...

Quote:Life is too short to jeopardize it by acting out of anything but pure self-interest. Sacrifice for another person is just stupid. Thus the absence of moral accountability from the philosophy of naturalism makes an ethic of compassion and self-sacrifice a hollow abstraction.

I am so tired of being disappointed by humanity.

BTW, the organization is called Humanists Doing Good

Can someone explain to me what "the philosophy of naturalism" is?

I had philosophy clases and never came across that term during those lessons on ethics and moral.

The only atheist I know of which would approve of that philosophy is Ayn Rand. And she's just an asshole.

See, that is kinda what this thread is about. Theist take us to task for pigeonholing them but have no trouble at all saying generalized, oversimplified things about us.

If he simply had a discussion with an atheist he might actually have some idea what he is talking about. But I suppose it is easier to just make assumptions and run with them.

Churches are real big on collecting money from others for "charity." They are not so fast to reach into their own pockets......

Some think they are full of shit.

(February 11, 2013 at 5:02 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: I went to McDonalds with my girlfriend for lunch today. As we sat there eating, there was a homeless guy wandering around outside. He looked hungry so I asked him if i could get him something to eat. I ended up getting him a burger and some fries.

I suspect that you're not looking for kudos for this selfless act - but I'm going to give them anyway. Kudos to you.

(February 11, 2013 at 5:02 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: Doing this got me to thinking about doing good things without god being involved. I had recently heard about an organization that does charity work and events from a purely humanitarian perspective. I went to look up the organization and I came across this article:

Can we be good without God?

Apparently, it was just stupid of me to buy lunch for that homeless guy...

Quote:Life is too short to jeopardize it by acting out of anything but pure self-interest. Sacrifice for another person is just stupid. Thus the absence of moral accountability from the philosophy of naturalism makes an ethic of compassion and self-sacrifice a hollow abstraction.

I reject what you quoted above. Sacrifice for another is stupid? Must be lonely to live one's life as an island. Is it stupid to make sacrifices for one's children? Family? Community, etc? No. It's possible to sacrifice too much of one's self for one's own good, sure, but that's beside the point.

I'm a fan of the concept of paying it forward. If someone needs help and I'm able to provide it, should they ask how they can repay me, I'll tell them that they can repay the deed by helping someone else in need when they are able to.

I think the main point theists are trying to make is that, yes, you don't seem to need a belief in God in order to be good, but why? Saying that our biology makes it so tends to rob the phenomenon of what, for lack of a better term, might be called its "moral dimension." If moral decisions are simply an expression of a particular biological expression, what specifically is "moral" about those choices? It seems to suggest that human morals are little more than happy accidents of evolution, which is a view which is less than satisfying to many, regardless of their religious beliefs. (And it quickly succumbs to arguments about moral relativism, "Why is a lion's desire to eat us less morally justified than our desire to prevent it from doing so?")

The question is not can we be good without God, but how are we truly "good" without God in a truly moral sense. I often hear the POV of the OP, but it's only half an argument. I've yet to see someone complete the other half.


(And there are plenty of books out there which have attempted to do so. Alas, I haven't read most of them.)

(February 12, 2013 at 3:33 am)apophenia Wrote: The question is not can we be good without God, but how are we truly "good" without God in a truly moral sense. I often hear the POV of the OP, but it's only half an argument. I've yet to see someone complete the other half. (And there are plenty of books out there which have attempted to do so. Alas, I haven't read most of them.)

Because morals are not derived from a book. How does one determine the Bible is a moral book, while they might determine the Qu'ran is not a moral book?
Because they already have morals.
How are we good without God? My understanding of good (promoting the commonweal) over "bad" (self-promotion at the expense of others) works just fine without a god.
I do not kill my neighbours, because I do not wish to be killed in turn.
I do not wish to rob someone because I do not wish to be robbed.
I do not cheat on my taxes, because I consider it unpatriotic.
I do not cheat on my wife, because I do not wish to be cheated on in turn, and I made an agreement with her about that which did not include any god.
The vast majority of what we consider "moral" is more properly defined as "pragmatism."
On the other hand, the Bible considers genocide, incest, rape, slavery, a whole host of marriage arrangements, plunder, rapine, and butchery of children for taunting a bald man to be morally good acts blessed by God.
The truth of the matter here is the only proof for the Christian version of a god is found in the Bible, a book written entirely within the capabilities of Bronze Age culture. And the only way the Bible can be justified for a source of (good) morality is to ignore large passages which are evil.
While humankind has come to a better understanding of what it means to live amongst each other, the Bible remains unchanged. The only way it can be justified as a "moral source for good" it to ignore the parts where it is a moral force for evil.
And God himself creates evil; it says so in Isaiah. (I will leave it to the student to find the passage.)
It is noteworthy that those who seem to me most often read the Bible (not just favourite passages, but all the Bible) are those who do not believe in it. Despite the commission of 1 Peter 3:15 to be able to give good reason for one's faith.
Perhaps it just comes from my former Wiccan perspective, or perhaps my lack of college, but it seems to me to be able to give good reason for a claim (such as the Bible is a source for moral good), one must at least read and understand what is being claimed.
I would caution the reader of this message who would actually carry out that commission and read and understand the Bible from cover to cover (that is, without interpreting or cherry-picking) - it is the single best tract for deconverting people and making atheists.

(February 12, 2013 at 4:13 am)Anymouse Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 3:33 am)apophenia Wrote: The question is not can we be good without God, but how are we truly "good" without God in a truly moral sense. I often hear the POV of the OP, but it's only half an argument. I've yet to see someone complete the other half. (And there are plenty of books out there which have attempted to do so. Alas, I haven't read most of them.)

Because morals are not derived from a book.

Theists don't claim that morals are derived from a book, they claim that morals are derived from god.

The rest of your post seems like little more than a histrionic rant which neither addressed my points nor advanced the original discussion in any meaningful way.
Moreover, it had all the characteristics of a fundamentalist who types things in all caps in the (apparent) conviction that doing so makes his message more persuasive.

And this makes the second time that you've essentially bragged to me about your lack of education. Why you think being ignorant is something you need to advertise is a mystery to me.

If you feel your lack of education might render you incompetent to respond to a poster's point properly, then please don't respond at all.

(February 12, 2013 at 4:35 am)apophenia Wrote:

(February 12, 2013 at 4:13 am)Anymouse Wrote: Because morals are not derived from a book.

Theists don't claim that morals are derived from a book, they claim that morals are derived from god.

The rest of your post seems like little more than a histrionic rant which neither addressed my points nor advanced the original discussion in any meaningful way.
Moreover, it had all the characteristics of a fundamentalist who types things in all caps in the (apparent) conviction that doing so makes his message more persuasive.

And this makes the second time that you've essentially bragged to me about your lack of education. Why you think being ignorant is something you need to advertise is a mystery to me.

If I understood your post correctly, it was essentially "why bother" if morals are derived naturally. As for not advancing the discussion, I went back over the thread and it appears to me the discussion is all over the map. But the subject line is "Being Good Without God." My post is in keeping with that subject, my examples showing why I might wish to act in a moral manner when I have no god to tell me to do this or else.

You are right, theists claim morals are derived from God.

When asked to demonstrate this god, they point to (read from, quote from) a book.

Thus, God is derived from a book, as that is all they have demonstrated.

If you can demonstrate (any) god satisfactorily, then I would readily agree that god existed (but that would still not show that morals are derived from that god). Moreover, that god would cease to be an article of faith (belief without proof), because you will have provided proof. That god will have become science.

I merely pointed to my lack of education because I can figure this out. If I am missing something because I lack that, then please enlighten me, which the other reason I pointed that out. (My education may have caused me to miss some subtle faulty nuance in the argument "God is derived from a book," just as much as my lack of education prohibits me from studying Higgs-Bosons or law or engineering.)

How can one say that morals are derived from a god when one cannot demonstrate the god without the book?

I did not feel that my lack of education rendered me incompetent to ask a question. Thus, I have responded, despite the "tone" (if text can have a tone) of the sentence

Quote:If you feel your lack of education might render you incompetent to respond to a poster's point properly, then please don't respond at all.

It is precisely because I am not educated in a matter that I ask questions about it if it interests me. If I were "competent," I would have no need to ask a question.

If I was unduly rough or brusque in my own posts, I apologise, that was not my intent.

I meant my post as a demonstration that my morals are not derived from (any) god, not to pick a fight with you. While many theists assert that "morals are derived from (a/many) god/s, that is all the statement is: an assertion, at least without proof of both the god and that morals are derived from it.

As for bragging, believe me, I am not proud of being unable to attend college.

As for the rest of my post, it was not a histrionic rant. It was a demonstration that I too have morals, and I derive them nothing from more than pragmatism, a desire to live in the community and treat others well because I wish to be treated that way. The examples I gave which you took issue with are "why I bother." (Many religions have some variant of the Golden Rule. My alleged rant is nothing more than that.)

Humans are social creatures by and large. To function in society, individual humans must be imbued with a sense of morals, regardless of religious belief or no. It seems likely that morals are thus derived from evolution.

Moreover, other creatures show morals; we are not alone in this. See the (UK) Telegraph article for more on this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlif...wrong.html

It thus seems likely that the development of morals is a natural outgrowth of evolution (happy Darwin day, by the way). Unless there are mice and dogs preaching to their fellows from the street corners.

On a totally unrelated note to end, what does your personal note under your name mean? I am lost as to what language that is.