It's a simple choice:

[Minimalist]

I don't need your fucking god.

[scoobysnack]

Oh, of course. Everyone knows that atheists only serve themselves. Duh!

Silly theists. We don't need someone to push us to be good.

Sure I guess, but I wonder what it is you think is good, or moral. Many think morals are relative, and good as long as you think they are. Not saying I know you personally, or speaking about all atheists, or even all religious people. Hey, I'm not the perfect person, so I can't place blame on anyone, or judge anyone. Are there universal principles that all humans live by, such as love others as you love yourself, or the golden rule? Like I said, I could pretend to say I live by universal principles, but I'm so far from perfect, but I do strive to be a more loving person.

[Jesster]

Oh, of course. Everyone knows that atheists only serve themselves. Duh!

Silly theists. We don't need someone to push us to be good.

Sure I guess, but I wonder what it is you think is good, or moral. Many think morals are relative, and good as long as you think they are. Not saying I know you personally, or speaking about all atheists, or even all religious people. Hey, I'm not the perfect person, so I can't place blame on anyone, or judge anyone. Are there universal principles that all humans live by, such as love others as you love yourself, or the golden rule? Like I said, I could pretend to say I live by universal principles, but I'm so far from perfect, but I do strive to be a more loving person.

Well I certainly don't need someone to dictate to me what is or is not moral. Things like the golden rule (or code of Hammurabi) are good guidelines that human societies have built up over the years. It is generally relative in the end, but we all work together to make it flow as a whole. That's how we are both helping ourselves by helping each other. I don't see how a god is required in there.

[scoobysnack]

Sure I guess, but I wonder what it is you think is good, or moral. Many think morals are relative, and good as long as you think they are. Not saying I know you personally, or speaking about all atheists, or even all religious people. Hey, I'm not the perfect person, so I can't place blame on anyone, or judge anyone. Are there universal principles that all humans live by, such as love others as you love yourself, or the golden rule? Like I said, I could pretend to say I live by universal principles, but I'm so far from perfect, but I do strive to be a more loving person.

Well I certainly don't need someone to dictate to me what is or is not moral. Things like the golden rule (or code of Hammurabi) are good guidelines that human societies have built up over the years. It is generally relative in the end, but we all work together to make it flow as a whole. That's how we are both helping ourselves by helping each other. I don't see how a god is required in there.

It is actually a truly interesting thing to think about, and something I could go on about, but I'll try to keep it short for the forum discussion. For example do you see value in harming others to expose them to pain to put pain into perspective, in order to make them stronger and better at coping with the pain they will feel in the future? Could that even be considered tough love? Or do you feel it's better to love unconditionally to treat people or animals for that matter with compassion even if they may not deserve it based on how they have treated you? For me I try to treat others with kindness even though I get hurt by others, but feel like I can rise above the hate by treating others with love even if they have wronged me. Doesn't always happen, and often feel the desire to hate people based on what they do or say, but try to live a life of love. For me God is a good reminder of love, where materialism is what makes me want to act more like an animal and fight to survive.

[Astreja]

IMO, if you feel that you need a god to make you behave, you are stuck in a pre-moral developmental state. The god functions as a surrogate parent, punishing or rewarding; hence, behaviour is being driven by extrinsic factors (the approval or disapproval of the "parent"). Only when the motivation becomes internalized, driven by one's own desire to do good with no other reward or disincentive, can one be said to be a moral agent.

[scoobysnack]

IMO, if you feel that you need a god to make you behave, you are stuck in a pre-moral developmental state.  The god functions as a surrogate parent, punishing or rewarding; hence, behaviour is being driven by extrinsic factors (the approval or disapproval of the "parent").  Only when the motivation becomes internalized, driven by one's own desire to do good with no other reward or disincentive, can one be said to be a moral agent.

Interesting, and wondering if you could expand on that so I can understand it better.

[The Grand Nudger]

If the reason that you did the "right thing" was that I told you that I would beat you mercilessly if you did not, can you really claim to be moral in doing the right thing, or were you merely avoiding pain? If the reason that you did the "right thing" was that I told you I would reward you, can you really claim to be moral in doing the right thing, or were you merely seeking compensation?

In contrast, if you did the "right thing" without any threat of pain or offer of reward, could these suspicions even be raised about your motivations?

As to what materialism "makes" you want to act like, have you ever considered that might just be you? That it's not "materialism" doing that to you at all, more an issue of you scapegoating materialism rather than accepting ownership of your own desires and motivations? Materialism, after all, is simply the notion that things are made of matter...how, exactly, does that compel you to behave "more like an animal"? I'm curious, because it doesn't have that effect on me, and I'm a fairly casual materialist. When I think, to myself, "stuff seems to be made of matter"......I'm not suddenly overwhelmed by a desire to beat my neighbor over the head with a club and steal his shit....but you are, apparently. What gives?

[Astreja]

IMO, if you feel that you need a god to make you behave, you are stuck in a pre-moral developmental state.  The god functions as a surrogate parent, punishing or rewarding; hence, behaviour is being driven by extrinsic factors (the approval or disapproval of the "parent").  Only when the motivation becomes internalized, driven by one's own desire to do good with no other reward or disincentive, can one be said to be a moral agent.

Interesting, and wondering if you could expand on that so I can understand it better.

Certainly.  For starters, if one looks at childhood development in general, there's a gradual movement from dependence to independence.  A very young child, when disciplined, reacts reflexively to a sharp "No!" or a physical intervention such as a spanking.  The ability to understand right and wrong isn't there yet.  A little bit later, the child starts to make a connection between his actions and any praise or punishment.  Being praised by Mom or Dad makes him happy, so this is where you might see a proud "Look what I did!" kind of good behaviour or an attempt to hide or deny bad behaviour.

A bit later on, when the child has developed empathy and can see things from the point of view of someone else, imagining how they feel when something good or bad happens to them, the child is beginning to understand why something is good or bad, and why it matters.  This is when morality shifts inward and becomes an intrinsic motivator (although perhaps still influenced by the opinions and actions of other people).  Rather than something imposed from outside, it becomes a character trait rather than a reaction to outside pressures,  and tends to shape how someone behaves when no one is looking.

[downbeatplumb]

IMO, if you feel that you need a god to make you behave, you are stuck in a pre-moral developmental state.  The god functions as a surrogate parent, punishing or rewarding; hence, behaviour is being driven by extrinsic factors (the approval or disapproval of the "parent").  Only when the motivation becomes internalized, driven by one's own desire to do good with no other reward or disincentive, can one be said to be a moral agent.

Interesting, and wondering if you could expand on that so I can understand it better.

There is a related experiment that is carried out on children. They put the kids alone in a room with sweets. In half that cases they tell the kids the room is haunted by a watching ghost. The scientists discovered that the kids who were told the room was haunted were less likely to take the sweets.

[Cyberman]

They were too busy crying and pissing their pants.