Would it change anything?

[Illyricum]

If someone where able to prove to the exact opposite of what you believe is true (i.e you're an atheist and someone proves to you there is a God, you're a christian and someone proves to you there is no God) would that change you're life any? Or would you just go on living your life like you were without changing anything?

[rebecca]

Scariest things? Why is it one of the scariest things you've ever read?

If I told you that the only thing that stops me from killing someone I dislike was the watchful eye of an invisible banana, I think you would be scared, too.

I'm shocked that anyone would say such a thing, as that person is then admitting to being not just immoral, but less moral than an atheist. I think the average Christian sees himself as more moral than people of other religions, and particularly more moral than atheists.

However, in that statement, you are saying that all things being equal (that is, you and I both believe that there is no god), I would continue to act in a moral manner (as I do currently) and you would not.

I find that scary, and also very, very sad.

[Didymus]

It's an old question. Are actions good because God likes them, or does God like them because they are good?

[rebecca]

It's an old question. Are actions good because God likes them, or does God like them because they are good?

I think that's a different point entirely. But if you're asking, I'll have to choose (C) None of the above.

[rebecca]

Just to be clear, otseng, I would like to hear more about how you feel about what you've said. Have you changed your mind about how you would act were you to believe there was no god, or do you stand by your inherent immorality?

[otseng]

Just to be clear, otseng, I would like to hear more about how you feel about what you've said. Have you changed your mind about how you would act were you to believe there was no god, or do you stand by your inherent immorality?

I've discovered that one of the reasons people have been coming over to this forum was because of what I've said here in this thread. I was just going to let this discussion slide, but considering the circumstances and also your request, I'll talk about this more.

Let me reiterate that my response was only speaking for myself. I wasn't making any implications that non-Christians cannot act in an ethical manner.

That said, do we not see evidence around us that people act more out of fear of being caught, rather than if it was immoral/illegal/unethical in and of itself?

The classic example, Bill Clinton. What he did in office with a certain intern would be classified as immoral by some people. Did it stop him? Did he even think he did something wrong? I would say that what concerned him most was the fact that he was caught doing it. Until the dress was revealed, he claimed innocence. After he was caught, then he had a different opinion on the whole matter.

Or on a more practical level. On most highways, the speed limit is 55 mph. Do people typically drive this? No. Here in Atlanta, people driving 80 mph is not unusual. It is illegal? Yes. But, it doesn't stop people from doing it. What will make them feel bad is when a cop pulls them over.

Also take all the scandals in corporations. Misleading employees, auditors, and customers is unethical. But did that stop them from doing unethical things? No. What they only feared was being caught doing unethical things.

I think the average Christian sees himself as more moral than people of other religions, and particularly more moral than atheists.

I don't see Christians as being more or less moral than people of other religions (or even other non-religious people).

I hope that clarifies. I'm open to discussing this more if anyone would care to.

[rebecca]

otseng,

Thanks for the response. However, no, it didn't really clear things up for me. You said:

Let me reiterate that my response was only speaking for myself.

This is what I want to know about: not how your statement paints people who do not share your belief in a god.

I want to know if you, yourself, are comfortable with being so immoral (as you admitted). According to the last line of your previous message, you don't feel that Christians are necessarily more moral than atheists (despite the contradictory sentences written above that line -- we can discuss that later if you'd like). If you do believe that, great. However, it still must be disconcerting to know that I (and many, many other average atheists) are not only more moral than you, but so much more so that you would be unable to function in our society.

I admire your willingness to admit that you hold such dark and frightening urges, but surely you can't be so dismissive of them as you appear here . . . can you?

[otseng]

However, it still must be disconcerting to know that I (and many, many other average atheists) are not only more moral than you, but so much more so that you would be unable to function in our society.

I think you (and possibly others) are reading more than what I've written.

What I'm saying is that the fear of being caught would be more of a factor in my decisions rather than if it was immoral in and of itself. I see this as consistent behavior with many people in the world.

Futhermore, if I did not believe in God, how would I not be able to function in society? I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.

I admire your willingness to admit that you hold such dark and frightening urges, but surely you can't be so dismissive of them as you appear here . . . can you?

Dark and frightening urges? I'm not talking about becoming an ax murderer. I'm talking about everyday things that I've given several examples of so far.

And I'm curious why people are reacting so much to my answer in this thread. I'm simply answering a hypothetical question that would only apply to myself. My answer is of such limited scope that I'm surprised by the reaction by others to my statements.

[rebecca]

What I'm saying is that the fear of being caught would be more of a factor in my decisions rather than if it was immoral in and of itself. I see this as consistent behavior with many people in the world.

Futhermore, if I did not believe in God, how would I not be able to function in society? I don't see how you can come to that conclusion.

You would not be able to function in society due to this:

Thinking about it more, I'd live a life of pure hedonism. If my life would not be accountable to God, then anything goes. Since I wouldn't have to be accountable for my actions, then pleasure would be the ultimate goal. Ethics would also not hold me back so I would further enjoy my hedonism without worrying about ethical concerns.

The rest of us (who do not believe in a god) would continue to act in a moral way -- that is, in a way concordant with our laws and personal sense of what is right. You would be arrested and possibly sent to a mental institution.

Dark and frightening urges? I'm not talking about becoming an ax murderer. I'm talking about everyday things that I've given several examples of so far.

You're talking about doing whatever makes you happy. Stealing, lying, etc. . . . this is dark and frightening. Clearly you have no problem with these things, but I do, and I'm sure many other people do as well.

And I'm curious why people are reacting so much to my answer in this thread. I'm simply answering a hypothetical question that would only apply to myself. My answer is of such limited scope that I'm surprised by the reaction by others to my statements.

Reaction to your post has been mild and civil. I only wish to find out more about why you have the mindset that you do, so that I might better understand who you are and therefore avoid you on the street.

[Bobby]

If someone can "prove" to me with such overwhelming evidence that God does not exist and the Bible is false, then I would seriously give it consideration. Of course though, I highly doubt anyone can prove that God does not exist and that the Bible is false.

Let me add one further thought. Often times, it is not the facts that changes the mind, but the heart that changes the mind. Especially in regards to religion.'

These comments are very interesting. I would like to suggest that more thought be given to what exactly it is you are saying here. First of all, you are suggesting that someone would need to prove something 'is not' in order for you to believe 'it is not.' There is no need to prove something that isn't there. There is nothing productive about acknowledging nothing. Shouldn't you have the burden of proof since you believe there is something?
Using the bible is not acceptable either. Keep in mind that the Bible is a book. It proves absolutely nothing. Atheists write books too. Keep in mind, you were born an atheist. Every human being is born a non believer rather they like it or not. The only reason that ever changes is because another human being tells them a God exists. And usually due to emotional influence, they come to believe. More times than not it is due to fear.
You added one further thought about the heart changing the mind. That is impossible. Literally speaking, the heart has one function only. It's a pump that pumps blood. It has absolutely no influence on the brain. Mediphorically speaking, maybe you are referring to the spirit, or soul. I am not certain if you are, but assuming such, I would like to point out that either one of those exist. People think they listen to their heart, but they do not. It's a metaphore. What people do is have thoughts that they allow to be influenced by their emotions. Emotions reside in the brain. That is where every individual is. In their brain. If you had a spirit or a soul, where would it be located. In your pump? Everthing we think, feel and do is a result of activity that takes place in our brains.
I suggest you spend some time getting to know how the mind functions, both physically and mentally. If you can dioscover how your emotions have influenced your thinking you may be able to understand why you have come to certain conclusions. Too many people feel first and come to a conclusion based on their feelings. It is much better to come to a conclusion first and then have a sincere feeling about the conclusion afterwards. Thanks for considering my perspective.

[Bobby]

If my life would not be accountable to God, then anything goes. Since I wouldn't have to be accountable for my actions, then pleasure would be the ultimate goal. Ethics would also not hold me back so I would further enjoy my hedonism without worrying about ethical concerns.

This thought process has so much to do with what is wrong with religious thinking. There seems to be this common belief that morality is decided through God and its judgment. Judgment alone is immoral. Can't people see the ridiculousness? Moral value is not reached by acting the way someone or something else thinks you should act. It can only truly be reached when an individual makes honest determinations of what is right and then lives up to it. I once heard a Christian tell me they loved me because that is what God expected of her. It was my Aunt. I looked her in the eye and told her, "I love you too Aunt Marsha. Because that's what I feel and want to do."
Why do you say you wouldn't have to be accountable for your actions if there were no God to answer to? You would be more accountable than ever. You would answer to yourself. Every bad thing I do, I accept the responsibility for. Every good thing I do, I accept the credit for. It is actually very simple. Without judgment of a God or other religious people, there is no conflict in my decision process. I do or I don't, and then I take full responsibility and always accept the consequences rather I like them or not.
Another thing, if ethics couldn't hold you back, then that would mean you have none. Does that make sense to you?
Finally, pleasure should be the ultimate goal. I want nothing more than to be pleased. Pleased with everything I am and what I do. That can only be achieved through my value system, through moral conduct. Nothing is more pleasing than peace of mind.
Thank you for considering my perspective.