How Do We Behave?

[diffidus]

the only rational course is to pursue those things that serve your own ends and maximise the pleasure and happiness

I think most folks, religious or not, subscribe to this. Even the most altruistic of actions, by the way, has some selfish motives. When you help someone out of a crisis of some sort, for example, it also affords you some happiness and self-worth. Help others help yourself.

But yeah life is fleeting. Might as well find some kind of distraction in the meantime.

I agree with you on this.

But what is strange about religeon, if you adhere to its rules, the selfishness gets directed at a reward that occurs after you die and so this gives an incentive to do good, out of a sense of duty (or possibly God fearing) in this life. (I realise that this imperative can backfire e.g. suicide bombers, but this is not the general case).

By duty I mean something that you really do not want to do but feel abliged to due to some imperative or religious belief.

Of course, if God does not exist, then you may have wasted your entire life!!!

[Napoléon]

So what you're trying to insinuate is that atheists have no need for morals?

Thats bullshit of the stinkiest variety.

You seem to have got very prickly about the logic of my argument!

Not at all. I got prickly about the lack of logic of your argument

From what you are saying religious people have morals because some book tells them how to behave.
But we as atheists are unable to gather morals from a whole host of sources, our fellow humans for one? From where I stand it is not a belief in 'god' which is the basis for morality, morality comes from human experience. For instance I hold the judgement that killing is wrong. Why? Well would I like to die? Would I like to be killed? Not only that but seen as every other human sees unjustified killing as wrong then I can make the right decision.

We don't need to believe that these laws are predetermined by some almighty ruler in order to have morality. In my opinion that's just plain stupid. Humans learn what is right and wrong from the reactions of fellow man, from their preist, or their local police man it doesn't matter. That way we atheists have just as much a concept of right and wrong as what religious people do.

Believers aren't any more likely to behave appropriately than any given atheist, just because they 'believe'.

[diffidus]

So what you're trying to insinuate is that atheists have no need for morals?

Thats bullshit of the stinkiest variety.

You seem to have got very prickly about the logic of my argument!

Not at all. I got prickly about the lack of logic of your argument

From what you are saying religious people have morals because some book tells them how to behave.
But we as atheists are unable to gather morals from a whole host of sources, our fellow humans for one? From where I stand it is not a belief in 'god' which is the basis for morality, morality comes from human experience. For instance I hold the judgement that killing is wrong. Why? Well would I like to die? Would I like to be killed? Not only that but seen as every other human sees unjustified killing as wrong then I can make the right decision.

We don't need to believe that these laws are predetermined by some almighty ruler in order to have morality. In my opinion that's just plain stupid. Humans learn what is right and wrong from the reactions of fellow man, from their preist, or their local police man it doesn't matter. That way we atheists have just as much a concept of right and wrong as what religious people do.

Believers aren't any more likely to behave appropriately than any given atheist, just because they 'believe'.

No - there is no error in the logic. If this life is a transient blip in an otherwise eternal abyss, then why diminish your existence to help anothers existence unless it happens to be something that gives you pleasure. If it is a chore or a duty then you are wasting minutes of your tiny existence.

However, if you believe in a God, you may think that you have to undertake acts out of a sense of duty e.g. missionaries or Nuns etc

[fr0d0]

@ the OP: I don't think the morals of believers are fixed, just differently focused. The aim is still personal gain, achieved by sometimes opposite to what would normally appear to be the best method. ie selflessness benefits you.

[Napoléon]

No - there is no error in the logic. If this life is a transient blip in an otherwise eternal abyss, then why diminish your existence to help anothers existence unless it happens to be something that gives you pleasure. If it is a chore or a duty then you are wasting minutes of your tiny existence.

However, if you believe in a God, you may think that you have to undertake acts out of a sense of duty e.g. missionaries or Nuns etc

Your response was inside the quote

I know where you are coming from. But what you are doing is oversimplifiying an atheists viewpoint.
I agree that people who believe in a religion will say that they have their laws perfectly laid out for them. They have consequences etc.
But to say all people who believe in religion will do as 'you say', and that all atheists will 'think as you think' is wrong. That is one MASSIVE generalisation.
Saying that all atheists who abide by morals do it out of pleasure is wrong.

I do not abide by morals because I enjoy doing so, I abide by morals because I have respect for the value which fellow man places on his/her life.
And this could be the very reason why an atheist decides to do charity work for instance.

[Minimalist]

(Taking the Devil's advocate low probability predicate that God may exist)

EXTREMELY low probability.

I'm firmly in the 'man created god' school of thought.

[Girlysprite]

First of all, religion is not a good source for morals. The reason is that the morals are not clear - they are extremely muddled. You'd think that a thing like ten rules set in stone is clear. However, the killing done by 'the holy people' continues. Just to illustrate the point; Moses came down the mountain with the first set of tablets. The people had started worshipping something else in the meantime. Moses gets angry, smashes the tablets, orders the unholy statues to be grinded, mixed with water, and the water has to be drunk. After that he orders several men to strap on swords and kill people. So mere hours after getting the first tablets (and I'll assume those had the same rules) he already breaks the 'no kill' rule.
'Yeah, but there are exceptions! People cry. Then why isn't there a clear point by point list of what those exceptions are? Some bible statements even contradict each other. You can really see that when two groups condemn each other, both using quotes from the same bible...

This is just an example. Most rules are like that. This leads to many religious people picking the rules and deciding what is good and what is not. As such, the bible is extremely shaky as a source of morals.

Now, many theists seem to wonder why people would bother behaving nice if there was no eternal glory as reward at the end. Many of them predict a tidal wave of terrible behavior as atheism gains popularity. But when we look at reality, this doesn't seem to be the case. Atheists are not 'worse' then religious people are. The reason is that humans are simply evolved to be generally nice. Why do you think that helping others feels good? It is an built-in reward system from our brains. We are evolved as a group species, and group species have to stick together and be nice. We have a 'see it from someone else's view' part in our brains. It works automatically. When you see someone suffer, you feel bad about it too. When you help someone and it makes that person happy, you feel rewarded too. You see a friend cry, you become sad. This impulse is hard to overcome and is very strong.
Interestingly, there are people who have a specific brain-defect so that this system does not work. Children like this do not return any love at all, and often hurt people on purpose. They are physically incapable of caring for others. These people are sad cases, because they can't mesh in with society at all. They can't understand how people feel, and they aren't capable of being nice to other people - seeing their cases you start to realize how deep this system goes, and how automatic it is - our day is littered with offering little pleasantries to each other.

The reason I'm nice to people is that I could not stand to see them hurt and suffering. And that is a good thing, I''m glad that I, and people in general, work like that.

[Gawdzilla]

If you believe in God, then how to behave is simple: This life is transient and if you do good things you will spend the rest of eternity in Heaven, whereas, if you behave badly you go to Hell for eternity. If you truly believe in God, then you cannot question the morality of this because God, being perfect, could not be in error.

Again with the "No Good Without God" argument?

If you do not believe in God, then this life is still a fleeting transient moment compared to the age of the universe, but how to behave is not so clear. Since this is the one and only existence, then the only rational course is to pursue those things that serve your own ends and maximise the pleasure and happiness of your short vacation from the dark abyss of eternity.

It pleases me no end to not be in prison. So I don't do things that would get me there. I also have enough native morality that I don't do mean things to people just because it would be "fun". There are many Xtians I know around here who would do so if they thought they could get away with it, and a few who actually do those things.

With regard to the latter, this means that the only grounds for altruism is if you happen to be a person who enjoys putting others before yourself. If you happen to be selfish thats OK too. The only thing you need to avoid is breaking the Law, since this may take away your freedom which would diminish your existence. Apart from that, it is a free for all - a morality of ends?

We all do what pleases us the most or hurts the least. How "free will" works into that has never been clear. It's probably the biggest pointless topic I see on these boards.

[LastPoet]

Some people do good things, some people don't... We can't forget reality when discussing morals and such, the truth is, when we find that there is an enormous amount of people around that grow in needs, needs like food, money, sex and so on, the existence of a deity is irrelevant. People do harm to others, sometimes not even noticing. EG: To the majority of pedophiles, they aren't doing harm, they are 'loving' a child. In the end we are just animals, some of us are aware of others, some of us are deep into our ego. But this is not black-and-white, its more of a grayscale. Morals have always been one of those religious pillars, but every religion's morals are flawed and most remain due to dogmas.

We need things, we need respect from others, we need a house, a car, friends, sex, money, a PS3 etc. I guess, that some of us take the easiest but risky way. Not me tough, I prefer to take my ambitions in a way that doesn't harm others. But even that is hard...

[Eudaimonia]

If you believe in God, then how to behave is simple: This life is transient and if you do good things you will spend the rest of eternity in Heaven, whereas, if you behave badly you go to Hell for eternity. If you truly believe in God, then you cannot question the morality of this because God, being perfect, could not be in error.

If you do not believe in God, then this life is still a fleeting transient moment compared to the age of the universe, but how to behave is not so clear. Since this is the one and only existence, then the only rational course is to pursue those things that serve your own ends and maximise the pleasure and happiness of your short vacation from the dark abyss of eternity.

With regard to the latter, this means that the only grounds for altruism is if you happen to be a person who enjoys putting others before yourself. If you happen to be selfish thats OK too. The only thing you need to avoid is breaking the Law, since this may take away your freedom which would diminish your existence. Apart from that, it is a free for all - a morality of ends?

Determining what God says is "good" is still left up to humans.. The "imperative" is fleeting.. In other words..

A person murders someone because they believe God's law requires them be a sacrifice..

A person murders someone because they believe the person to deserve it..

My point is that the source of morality is irrelevant.. Human "will" determines what will be accepted.. followed.. or acted upon... The sense of justice lies with the individual always.. what tempers this is their own understanding of life be it through the prism of an order from a deity, their state or own understanding..