Yes, of course people can be "good without God".

Morality is reason based, and atheists are as capable of being just as reasonable/rational as anyone.

(February 11, 2013 at 10:08 pm)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: 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 reject it as well. And no, I am not looking for kudos but thank you.

If you read the article, the author believes that this is how we atheists actually think and live our lives. And I have to believe that he cannot be that ignorant but is putting forth these ideas simply to advance his own ideas that god exists and is a requirement for moral "good".

The problem is that he is spreading these ideas to those who don't know any better and is perpetuating this ridiculous myth that atheist are somehow morally bankrupt wild animals that can think of nothing but our own needs and pleasures. That we are somehow less than human, operating purely from instinct.

(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.

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

What I find disappointing is that while a lot of atheists have abandoned religion, apparently, they still accept its moral teachings without questioning. Like here, you automatically assume that as long as as self-sacrifice and benefit of others is involved, then the actions is "good" - otherwise, its not.

By the way, you were looking for examples of good things without god and you went to a site called ReasonableFaith and read an article by William Lane Craig and now are disappointed? Really, what were you expecting?

(February 12, 2013 at 8:40 pm)genkaus Wrote: What I find disappointing is that while a lot of atheists have abandoned religion, apparently, they still accept its moral teachings without questioning. Like here, you automatically assume that as long as as self-sacrifice and benefit of others is involved, then the actions is "good" - otherwise, its not.

By the way, you were looking for examples of good things without god and you went to a site called ReasonableFaith and read an article by William Lane Craig and now are disappointed? Really, what were you expecting?

It was one of those situation where I went to look for something specific but the search brought up an interesting sounding article.

The assumption of "good" is simply a moniker. I called it "good" for lack of a better term.

Basically, I call it good because it is an example of a non-self serving act that benefitted humanity on a small scale. Not Christian morality based at all, it is simply a way to differentiate the act from something "bad", or, something that does not benefit humanity.

(February 12, 2013 at 3:33 am)apophenia Wrote:


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.)

It is also a misrepresentation of morality and a false dichotomy.

Both positions are based on presenting a generic platitude which, on face of it, people would find satisfying and acceptable, but upon a little more thought, become unacceptable.

Consider the belief - "man is inherently or instinctively moral". A lot of people would subscribe to this view as long as they don't think it through. But doing so they realize that it means that their moral actions are simply written onto their genes. That their morality is - as you said - happy accident of evolution. And that, as you say, is less than satisfying.

On the other hand, we've the view that having belief in god makes you moral. However, if you think about it more deeply, you'd realize that this means you are little more than god's handpuppets. You still don't have a moral sense of your own but are simply being controlled and directed by another being. Is this what you mean by being "truly moral"?

One choice reduces you to an animal being blindly guided by instinct and the other to an automaton following the dictates of whatever thoughts come into you head - both reduce you to something less than a human being.

The reason one would find both options unsatisfying is because of the realization that morality requires though and reflection over your actions. In order to be "truly" moral, your choices need to be of your own will - not simple dictates of your biology nor unquestionable commandments of another being.

---

(February 12, 2013 at 9:03 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote: It was one of those situation where I went to look for something specific but the search brought up an interesting sounding article.

The assumption of "good" is simply a moniker. I called it "good" for lack of a better term.

Basically, I call it good because it is an example of a non-self serving act that benefitted humanity on a small scale. Not Christian morality based at all, it is simply a way to differentiate the act from something "bad", or, something that does not benefit humanity.

The reason I see the influence of Christian morality is by the inclusion of the qualifier "non self-serving". If your act had been self-serving - if you had done it to impress your girlfriend for example - would it not have been "good"?

I am the definition of good without god. I don't drink and never have, I've never taken any controlled substances, I never swear (aside from on this forum), I don't claim to know the will of god, I'm a virgin and will most likely be one until I find someone stupid enough to marry me. . .

I follow most modern Christian values, and I'm not even Christian.

Actually, it feels like I'm kind of wasting my atheism, and those things I listed aren't even really good at all.

I'm sick of wasting my life. Time to get hammered and have irresponsible sex with the first hooker I see. Be back in a few, and I mean a few minutes, because I probably won't last very long.

(February 12, 2013 at 7:07 am)Anymouse Wrote: 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.

It's Mandarin Chinese.

[Merciful God] Let me close my ears and my heart and become a stone.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1I4DR3kFCw

(February 11, 2013 at 5:02 pm)Baalzebutt Wrote:

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.

This is idiotic. Humans are pack animals and I think it's been proven by now that taking care of the pack is what makes us so successful. Acts of kindness (especially towards those who need it the most) are never stupid.

I agree with Kayenneh: life is objectively meaningless, and objective morality doesn't exist, but kindness and altruism have helped us survive, so they seem like good ideas.

Everything is meaningless, that means any action is no better or worse (objectively speaking) than any other action. All moral codes are socially constructed. On this scenario, you can choose anything you want, as no action is no more meaningful than another. I choose kindness .

(February 14, 2013 at 2:50 am)Finn Wrote: I agree with Kayenneh: life is objectively meaningless, and objective morality doesn't exist, but kindness and altruism have helped us survive, so they seem like good ideas.

Everything is meaningless, that means any action is no better or worse (objectively speaking) than any other action. All moral codes are socially constructed. On this scenario, you can choose anything you want, as no action is no more meaningful than another. I choose kindness .

Trying so hard not to take the bait....