Questions asked by Athiests that I can't really come up with a good answer for.

[Nathan6329]

Well all know that we can't prove God, but we also can't prove a lot of scientific theories because they weren't witnessed by humans.

A main question I can't really answer is "Are you making your choices because you believe that they are the right ones or are you more or less trying to suck up to God for your own personal benefit?"

If you think about it, if there was no God, would you still have the same morales and lifestyle. I know a lot of people that don't believe in God because they are involved in sinful actions that they don't want to accept responsibility for, but other than telling them they should do things that the lord asks, why should we tell them that certain things are wrong, and why do they have to believe in God to know what is right and wrong?

[Guest Godless]

why do they have to believe in God to know what is right and wrong?

Short answer: we don't. :)

It always bothers me to hear people say that they would be horrible, immoral people if they were ever to lose their faith in God. While a person's concept of morality may change somewhat during or after the process of deconversion, it doesn't mean they can't still be good people.

Basically, whether you believe in God or not, you should do good for the sake of doing good. Period.

I know the question probably wasn't meant for me, but I couldn't resist chiming in. And for that, I apologize.

[Nathan6329]

It's fine. Well what I usually say is that sometimes following the lords commandments we don't have to learn things the hard way which I would have learned in the long run possibly if I decided to drink alcohol, coffee, tea, etc.

I don't believe that someone can't be a good person just because they aren't religious, but a lot of people also choose not to believe in God because they don't want there to be a God so they don't have to feel guilty for doing things that they know are wrong.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

If you think about it, if there was no God, would you still have the same morales and lifestyle. I know a lot of people that don't believe in God because they are involved in sinful actions that they don't want to accept responsibility for, but other than telling them they should do things that the lord asks, why should we tell them that certain things are wrong, and why do they have to believe in God to know what is right and wrong?

If there was no God then I wouldn't have his guidance in my life and I would probably not life the exact same lifestyle I do now as a devout Mormon. But I would still be a morally good person just like I was before I converted but I would probably of still have been smoking, drinking alcohol, speeding ect

So I don't believe that finding God and Jesus Christ changed my nature as a good moral person, what it did do is make me a better and increased my desire to live a life dedicated to love and peace, through the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Dravin]

Short answer: we don't. :)

It always bothers me to hear people say that they would be horrible, immoral people if they were ever to lose their faith in God. While a person's concept of morality may change somewhat during or after the process of deconversion, it doesn't mean they can't still be good people.

Basically, whether you believe in God or not, you should do good for the sake of doing good. Period.

I know the question probably wasn't meant for me, but I couldn't resist chiming in. And for that, I apologize.

I think generally you hear those comments in the context of what they currently believe. For instance if I was to lose faith I might become a booze, coffee and tea drinking, porn and premarital sex participating, non-tithing paying, blasphemous Lord's name taking, cursing, immodest clothes wearing (okay, that one probably isn't very likely for me personally), covenant breaking punk. Of course I wouldn't think of myself like that, and those who didn't share the same ideas about what is an isn't immoral wouldn't (for instance few would consider drinking coffee immoral) but from this side of such a divide that's how it looks.

I'm sure some are trying to say they'd become the next Stalin or Mao (given the chance) if they lacked religion, but I think it's a matter of hyperbole (for the Stalin and Mao crowd, I hope) and perspective.

Edited January 31, 2011 by Dravin

[hordak]

Do you not believe in Allah of the Koran because you want to eat pork, not pray 5 times a day, not make a pilgrimage to Mecca and be clean shaven.

or

Do you eat pork, not pray 5 times a day, not make a pilgrimage to Mecca and are clean shaven because you do not believe in Allah in the Koran.

Why would it be different for atheist?

[Nathan6329]

I think everyone is kind of missing my point. If you weren't religious would that change your lifestyles? If you answered yes are you saying that you are doing the things you do to please God or because you believe it is right personally?

Just because someone becomes Atheist doesn't necessarily mean they have to start sinning. Shouldn't we know what is right and what is wrong either way?

I apologize to everyone for playing Devil's Advocate. Just trying to pretend to be someone else so I can get a full perspective.

[Guest DeborahC]

I have friends of all different faiths and spiritual paths, including atheists, pagans and wiccans, who live good, moral, responsible lifestyles.

[rameumptom]

All people are born with a conscience (or at least most people are). Even if they do not believe in God, they have an instinct towards right and wrong. If we can encourage them to listen to their conscience, chances are they will know that murder, theft, lying, licentiousness and other Christian sins are bad for them, too.

[Nathan6329]

So wouldn't organized religion be what we choose to tell us what is right and wrong and not what we believe?

[Backroads]

Short answer: we don't. :)

It always bothers me to hear people say that they would be horrible, immoral people if they were ever to lose their faith in God. While a person's concept of morality may change somewhat during or after the process of deconversion, it doesn't mean they can't still be good people.

Basically, whether you believe in God or not, you should do good for the sake of doing good. Period.

I know the question probably wasn't meant for me, but I couldn't resist chiming in. And for that, I apologize.

I have some atheist friends (in fact, one is happily married to an active Mormon) and I've chatted with them online.

I would daresay that they are just as moral as anyone who believes in God. In fact, I rather sometimes take issue with some of them claiming that they are more moral because they are good and fair without the fear of eternal punishment/reward. Which I will actually give them a nod for because I believe no one should be good just because God said so.

[Guest Godless]

I think generally you hear those comments in the context of what they currently believe. For instance if I was to lose faith I might become a booze, coffee and tea drinking, porn and premarital sex participating, non-tithing paying, blasphemous Lord's name taking, cursing, immodest clothes wearing (okay, that one probably isn't very likely for me personally), covenant breaking punk. Of course I wouldn't think of myself like that, and those who didn't share the same ideas about what is an isn't immoral wouldn't (for instance few would consider drinking coffee immoral) but from this side of such a divide that's how it looks.

That's what I was getting at when I said that someone's perception of morality may change. Aside from the immodest clothing thing, I am or have been guilty of all of the things you mentioned. While that may make me an immoral person in the eyes of many, I would hope that I can still be considered a good person because I don't do things that could harm others like steal or murder. Immorality is a very common result of deconversion. Radical, negative changes in the way people treat others is far less common, and yet I've heard many theists suggest that the latter change is what they fear should they lose their faith.

[FunkyTown]

I apologize to everyone for playing Devil's Advocate. Just trying to pretend to be someone else so I can get a full perspective.

As the Internet is a place where we can learn who you are solely by the characters you place in front of us, playing Devil's Advocate is unwise. You can state something and then say 'This is what some people believe. How do we answer that?''

So, to answer your question, Ethics are a strange fig when you pull religion out of it. When you believe solely in a physical environment, there are several arguments you must consider:

1) Many ethical concerns are inborn in to the human experience. There has never been a society which encouraged betraying those who were always kind to you, or robbing your neighbor blind. While some have drawn lines between who they should and shouldn't be kind to, they all have agreed that kindness is a virtue. Courage, kindness, honor - These have never been a byword for evil at any point in human history. The specifics of who we should be courageous for, or kind to, or honorable towards have changed. Nobody has denied, however, that we should be those things.

2) Once we acknowledge a universal truth for morality, we begin to acknowledge that there must be something above that which defines it. The notes which make up a song and tell us what to play cannot themselves be the notes. They could be on a piece of paper, or the human mind, or written on sand that will eventually be blown away. There is something bigger than the note itself where these rules are set. Since morality seems, as a whole, to be universal we must acknowledge that this cannot be societal. At this point, you can claim instinct and God is not yet in it, but you cannot say that morality is invented whole cloth by society.

Note that when I say 'Universal', I am not saying 'Everyone understands morality'. If I accept that this is something in the human condition, I can no more say there are no sociopaths or true psychotics than I can say there there is no such thing as the flu - Sometimes, people suffer a sickness of morality in the same way they can suffer a sickness of the body. That is not the natural state. Taken as a whole, the key points of morality are the same throughout history.

That is a basis for the discussion to come: Would you say you agree with those as a rule, or would you disagree with any particular points. If so, why?

[Nathan6329]

As the Internet is a place where we can learn who you are solely by the characters you place in front of us, playing Devil's Advocate is unwise. You can state something and then say 'This is what some people believe. How do we answer that?''

So, to answer your question, Ethics are a strange fig when you pull religion out of it. When you believe solely in a physical environment, there are several arguments you must consider:

1) Many ethical concerns are inborn in to the human experience. There has never been a society which encouraged betraying those who were always kind to you, or robbing your neighbor blind. While some have drawn lines between who they should and shouldn't be kind to, they all have agreed that kindness is a virtue. Courage, kindness, honor - These have never been a byword for evil at any point in human history. The specifics of who we should be courageous for, or kind to, or honorable towards have changed. Nobody has denied, however, that we should be those things.

2) Once we acknowledge a universal truth for morality, we begin to acknowledge that there must be something above that which defines it. The notes which make up a song and tell us what to play cannot themselves be the notes. They could be on a piece of paper, or the human mind, or written on sand that will eventually be blown away. There is something bigger than the note itself where these rules are set. Since morality seems, as a whole, to be universal we must acknowledge that this cannot be societal. At this point, you can claim instinct and God is not yet in it, but you cannot say that morality is invented whole cloth by society.

Note that when I say 'Universal', I am not saying 'Everyone understands morality'. If I accept that this is something in the human condition, I can no more say there are no sociopaths or true psychotics than I can say there there is no such thing as the flu - Sometimes, people suffer a sickness of morality in the same way they can suffer a sickness of the body. That is not the natural state. Taken as a whole, the key points of morality are the same throughout history.

That is a basis for the discussion to come: Would you say you agree with those as a rule, or would you disagree with any particular points. If so, why?

Quite honestly I don't know what to say because I am going to have to read this a few more times before I understand a word of it. No offense.

[FunkyTown]

Quite honestly I don't know what to say because I am going to have to read this a few more times before I understand a word of it. No offense.

None taken.

[Backroads]

I think everyone is kind of missing my point. If you weren't religious would that change your lifestyles? If you answered yes are you saying that you are doing the things you do to please God or because you believe it is right personally?

Just because someone becomes Atheist doesn't necessarily mean they have to start sinning. Shouldn't we know what is right and what is wrong either way?

I apologize to everyone for playing Devil's Advocate. Just trying to pretend to be someone else so I can get a full perspective.

Oh, go for it. Playing the Devils' Advocate is quite fun.

In answer to the question posed here... I guess I would have to look at the difference between moral principles and how I would act upon those if I were atheist. Now I've actually long ago come to the conclusion that I could never be entirely atheist, I could have a vague sense of spirituality, but I believe I would always believe in something. Anywho, in that case, I do think I would necessarily hold the same values I do as a happily active LDS girl. I know for certain I would drink alchohol and coffee (hopefully I wouldn't be an addict, but I do love the idea of social/stress drinking). Chastity is kind of iffy as I'm old-fashioned enough that I think I might wait for marriage no matter what my spiritual inclination, but would I be holding out for marriage because I was simply old-fashioned or because I was trying to be chaste?

So, yes, I think my lifestyle would be different if I weren't religious. But I also think my definition of sinning would be different.

I think there are some things that no matter how you look at it are sins: cold-blood murder, cheating sexually, stuff like that. I think that every religion/non-religion would say do not cheat on your spouse/significant other and do not kill for no reason.

However, I think some things are just policies. For instance, the LDS church believes that sex is definitely a good thing--it just has to be handled right. We've also seen cases where killing someone was simply the only way to go and God was okay with it. I also subscribe to the notion that things in the WoW would not be banned/advised against if they didn't carry such a risk for addition and over-consumption.

I think these policies can differ across morality and not necessarily be "sinning".

Ooh, now I'm playing Devil's Advocate.

But yes, I do no think one necessarily becomes an atheist as a way to escape God's punishment. In fact, I think that case is quite far from being an atheist.

[Nathan6329]

As the Internet is a place where we can learn who you are solely by the characters you place in front of us, playing Devil's Advocate is unwise. You can state something and then say 'This is what some people believe. How do we answer that?''

So, to answer your question, Ethics are a strange fig when you pull religion out of it. When you believe solely in a physical environment, there are several arguments you must consider:

1) Many ethical concerns are inborn in to the human experience. There has never been a society which encouraged betraying those who were always kind to you, or robbing your neighbor blind. While some have drawn lines between who they should and shouldn't be kind to, they all have agreed that kindness is a virtue. Courage, kindness, honor - These have never been a byword for evil at any point in human history. The specifics of who we should be courageous for, or kind to, or honorable towards have changed. Nobody has denied, however, that we should be those things.

2) Once we acknowledge a universal truth for morality, we begin to acknowledge that there must be something above that which defines it. The notes which make up a song and tell us what to play cannot themselves be the notes. They could be on a piece of paper, or the human mind, or written on sand that will eventually be blown away. There is something bigger than the note itself where these rules are set. Since morality seems, as a whole, to be universal we must acknowledge that this cannot be societal. At this point, you can claim instinct and God is not yet in it, but you cannot say that morality is invented whole cloth by society.

Note that when I say 'Universal', I am not saying 'Everyone understands morality'. If I accept that this is something in the human condition, I can no more say there are no sociopaths or true psychotics than I can say there there is no such thing as the flu - Sometimes, people suffer a sickness of morality in the same way they can suffer a sickness of the body. That is not the natural state. Taken as a whole, the key points of morality are the same throughout history.

That is a basis for the discussion to come: Would you say you agree with those as a rule, or would you disagree with any particular points. If so, why?

Okay let me try to understand this...

Are you saying that even though Atheists know what the right and wrong decisions are that they are denying the source to which it came from which is God, and our morals are based a lot on our society and influences as a whole which God may be the seed of?

[Backroads]

Note that when I say 'Universal', I am not saying 'Everyone understands morality'. If I accept that this is something in the human condition, I can no more say there are no sociopaths or true psychotics than I can say there there is no such thing as the flu - Sometimes, people suffer a sickness of morality in the same way they can suffer a sickness of the body. That is not the natural state. Taken as a whole, the key points of morality are the same throughout history.

That is a basis for the discussion to come: Would you say you agree with those as a rule, or would you disagree with any particular points. If so, why?

Ooh, I had been posting what I feel is a similar thing while you were doing this! My apologies!

I like the idea that it is not a natural state to have a moral sickness. I was watching a documentary yesterday on Albert Fish who was definitely a psychopath and I think he definitely did suffer a problem with morality no matter how you defined it.

Yes, there are some moral principles that will vary across the population in their action, but I think in principle they are the same.

[Guest LDS_Guy_1986]

Well all know that we can't prove God, but we also can't prove a lot of scientific theories because they weren't witnessed by humans.

A main question I can't really answer is "Are you making your choices because you believe that they are the right ones or are you more or less trying to suck up to God for your own personal benefit?"

If you think about it, if there was no God, would you still have the same morales and lifestyle. I know a lot of people that don't believe in God because they are involved in sinful actions that they don't want to accept responsibility for, but other than telling them they should do things that the lord asks, why should we tell them that certain things are wrong, and why do they have to believe in God to know what is right and wrong?

LDS have an interesting concept regarding right and wrong. In Moroni chapter 8 it says that all things goo are of God and all things evil of Satan. It goes on to say all Good things are inspired of God and all wicked things inspired of Satan.

So we believe that even if you are an Atheist that your good works are still inspired of God. On course an Atheist would reject this belief but Mormon all good works done in the world are works of God.

[Backroads]

Okay let me try to understand this...

Are you saying that even though Atheists know what the right and wrong decisions are that they are denying the source to which it came from which is God, and our morals are based a lot on our society and influences as a whole which God may be the seed of?

Taking the answer opportunity for myself, sorry...

By definition, Atheists do not believe in God. Now I believe that all that is good comes directly or indirectly from God (I like the society influences of which God might be the seed idea, nice). However, since atheists do not believe in God, they will not say God is the source of morality. Atheists are definitely capable of morality, no more or less than anyone else, but we will always disagree on the source. Which is fine. In practice, as long as you are a good person, does it really matter why?

[pam]

It's fine. Well what I usually say is that sometimes following the lords commandments we don't have to learn things the hard way which I would have learned in the long run possibly if I decided to drink alcohol, coffee, tea, etc.

I don't believe that someone can't be a good person just because they aren't religious, but a lot of people also choose not to believe in God because they don't want there to be a God so they don't have to feel guilty for doing things that they know are wrong.

That doesn't stop a lot of people who do believe in God. So really makes no difference.

[Nathan6329]

What happened to FunkyTown? He never finished his explanation.

[FunkyTown]

Okay let me try to understand this...

Are you saying that even though Atheists know what the right and wrong decisions are that they are denying the source to which it came from which is God, and our morals are based a lot on our society and influences as a whole which God may be the seed of?

I'm saying most Atheists deny the question altogether. Nature versus Nurture is a pretty hot topic among some, however.

What I believe, however, is not yet of any consequence. In order to have a real conversation on the Internet, both people have to have the same basic assumptions or it just goes in circles. In this case, the two assumptions are:

1) Morality, as a whole, is universal and;

2) Because it is universal, it can not be entirely societally driven.

[Nathan6329]

I'm actually going to get the book called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist" which is recommended by many religious people. If anyone else wants to get a copy of it so we can talk about it that would be hot.

[Dravin]

That's what I was getting at when I said that someone's perception of morality may change. Aside from the immodest clothing thing, I am or have been guilty of all of the things you mentioned. While that may make me an immoral person in the eyes of many, I would hope that I can still be considered a good person because I don't do things that could harm others like steal or murder. Immorality is a very common result of deconversion. Radical, negative changes in the way people treat others is far less common, and yet I've heard many theists suggest that the latter change is what they fear should they lose their faith.

In case there was any doubt I was agreeing with you. :)

Immorality is an interesting beast. All of us are immoral to some degree (in that nobody is ever perfectly moral 100% of the time) but we tend to draw some sort of line in the sand (tis different depending on who you ask) before we would consider a person in general to be immoral. And then we draw those lines differently for different people based on what we expect out of them.