Not beliving in God = You would then do (X) bad thing..

[playhavock]

So, I have seen things like this writen and heard them spoken the beliver in God says something like:

"If I did not belive in God... I'd do all sorts of horrable things!"

To me, this is not real morality, it is akin to saying that I do not steel because I'm afraid of being caught and sent to jail. Rather, I do not steel becuase I do not want to, I do not wish to do this act, I know that stealing harms someone else, causes incress in prices, and other results that are all negtive, and more over, I simply have no desire to steel, for no other reasion that it is negtive it action and nature.

There are meny ethics and morals I hold that I hold only becuase I personaly value them, and some of them I can make a logical augment for, others I perhaps can not, I've not looked at all of them, but I do not say "If (Y) is proven wrong, I'll start doing (X) bad thing!" for I never know when or if (Y) might be proven wrong, even if it is something I am very sure about say, gravity - "Why if gravity stops working, I'll start killing!" (actualy we will all be flung off the planet due to centerfical force and killed but on the way I could try to kill someone I guess)

No, I do not make my ethics about a "if (Y) then I'll do (X)"

To me those who utter that there morals hinge upon there belifes really deep down want to do those bad things, and its only begrudgingly that they do not do them, at least thats what it seems like when they utter such things.

What do you say, would you do (X) the moment you stop thinking there is a God? What bad thing do you really want to do, but are not doing just because you think there is a God?

[AdHoc]

We should introduce your ideas to the prison system, we may all benefit.

Actually if people sought out psychologists on their own when they are having problems we probably wouldn't even have an prison system at all.

In fact religion probably gets in the way of this. Instead of having people go to church ever Sunday we should have them visit a psychologist. We'd be much further ahead.

I'm guessing you mean psychiatrist?
I'm not sure why I'm helping you insult my belief... Maybe I'm helping prove your point

[PhiloKGB]

For two reasons 1) It's a fairly well-demonstrated fact that humans avoid doing things that are wrong for fear of consequences I submit yours and my childhood and the New Orleans Superdome as exhibit 1a, 1b and 2.

Humans can be made to avoid doing just about anything via fear of consequences. It's a very poor way of determining which actions are actually wrong.

2)While it might be true that some people don't do some things because they believe in God I don't think that is the generally accepted belief in Christianity of why a person changes their behaviours. This would be sanctification.

You'll forgive me if I don't unquestioningly accept the Christian assessment of their own moral psychology.

[AdHoc]

For two reasons 1) It's a fairly well-demonstrated fact that humans avoid doing things that are wrong for fear of consequences I submit yours and my childhood and the New Orleans Superdome as exhibit 1a, 1b and 2.

Humans can be made to avoid doing just about anything via fear of consequences. It's a very poor way of determining which actions are actually wrong.

True

2)While it might be true that some people don't do some things because they believe in God I don't think that is the generally accepted belief in Christianity of why a person changes their behaviours. This would be sanctification.

You'll forgive me if I don't unquestioningly accept the Christian assessment of their own moral psychology.

I forgive you... Did you have a question then?

[PhiloKGB]

2)While it might be true that some people don't do some things because they believe in God I don't think that is the generally accepted belief in Christianity of why a person changes their behaviours. This would be sanctification.

You'll forgive me if I don't unquestioningly accept the Christian assessment of their own moral psychology.

I forgive you... Did you have a question then?

Not really. Just pointing out that, since sanctification is a magical process, the Christian claim that that's how behavioral change obtains is not likely to persuade a non-Christian.

[AdHoc]

2)While it might be true that some people don't do some things because they believe in God I don't think that is the generally accepted belief in Christianity of why a person changes their behaviours. This would be sanctification.

You'll forgive me if I don't unquestioningly accept the Christian assessment of their own moral psychology.

I forgive you... Did you have a question then?

Not really. Just pointing out that, since sanctification is a magical process, the Christian claim that that's how behavioral change obtains is not likely to persuade a non-Christian.

Ok fair enough, but if you consult the OP you will see it is based on the believer in God stating "if I didn't believe in God I'd do all sorts of horrible things". And so I think I am not off track by speaking to what a lot of believers actually believe.

This is a bit off topic but why do you say "magical" process? I've seen others use the word as well is it uncomfortable to say "spiritual" process because for me its uncomfortable to use the term "magical" process because I equate that to sorcery and Macbeth. Not that I don't like Macbeth... I do but sanctification doesn't come from a cauldron and chants of "bubble, bubble, toil and trouble".

[PhiloKGB]

Just pointing out that, since sanctification is a magical process, the Christian claim that that's how behavioral change obtains is not likely to persuade a non-Christian.

Ok fair enough, but if you consult the OP you will see it is based on the believer in God stating "if I didn't believe in God I'd do all sorts of horrible things". And so I think I am not off track by speaking to what a lot of believers actually believe.

I'll just leave this as is, since I can't figure out the point I was trying to make.

This is a bit off topic but why do you say "magical" process? I've seen others use the word as well is it uncomfortable to say "spiritual" process because for me its uncomfortable to use the term "magical" process because I equate that to sorcery and Macbeth. Not that I don't like Macbeth... I do but sanctification doesn't come from a cauldron and chants of "bubble, bubble, toil and trouble".

For me "magic" is a catchall term for all the phenomena that people claim exist but can't explain how they work. I certainly don't mean to suggest that all such things are sleight-of-hand tricks or something.

[AdHoc]

Just pointing out that, since sanctification is a magical process, the Christian claim that that's how behavioral change obtains is not likely to persuade a non-Christian.

Ok fair enough, but if you consult the OP you will see it is based on the believer in God stating "if I didn't believe in God I'd do all sorts of horrible things". And so I think I am not off track by speaking to what a lot of believers actually believe.

I'll just leave this as is, since I can't figure out the point I was trying to make.

Hahaha very funny. You're obviously a secure person... I like that.

This is a bit off topic but why do you say "magical" process? I've seen others use the word as well is it uncomfortable to say "spiritual" process because for me its uncomfortable to use the term "magical" process because I equate that to sorcery and Macbeth. Not that I don't like Macbeth... I do but sanctification doesn't come from a cauldron and chants of "bubble, bubble, toil and trouble".

For me "magic" is a catchall term for all the phenomena that people claim exist but can't explain how they work. I certainly don't mean to suggest that all such things are sleight-of-hand tricks or something.

Understood

[playhavock]

Not all people who belive in God agree with this, for sure. But those who utter this I find to have flawed morality, I think that they see God as the sorce of there morality so without God they have no morals, rather then the sorce of morality being themselfs so with/without God does not effect there morality.

I'd rather people have seperate morality from belive because our belifes can and do change, and to connect morality to (X) belife seems to be a bad idea.

[Goat]

So, I have seen things like this writen and heard them spoken the beliver in God says something like:

"If I did not belive in God... I'd do all sorts of horrable things!"

To me, this is not real morality, it is akin to saying that I do not steel because I'm afraid of being caught and sent to jail. Rather, I do not steel becuase I do not want to, I do not wish to do this act, I know that stealing harms someone else, causes incress in prices, and other results that are all negtive, and more over, I simply have no desire to steel, for no other reasion that it is negtive it action and nature.

There are meny ethics and morals I hold that I hold only becuase I personaly value them, and some of them I can make a logical augment for, others I perhaps can not, I've not looked at all of them, but I do not say "If (Y) is proven wrong, I'll start doing (X) bad thing!" for I never know when or if (Y) might be proven wrong, even if it is something I am very sure about say, gravity - "Why if gravity stops working, I'll start killing!" (actualy we will all be flung off the planet due to centerfical force and killed but on the way I could try to kill someone I guess)

No, I do not make my ethics about a "if (Y) then I'll do (X)"

To me those who utter that there morals hinge upon there belifes really deep down want to do those bad things, and its only begrudgingly that they do not do them, at least thats what it seems like when they utter such things.

What do you say, would you do (X) the moment you stop thinking there is a God? What bad thing do you really want to do, but are not doing just because you think there is a God?

I'm going to have to go ahead and disagree with your whole premise.

For two reasons 1) It's a fairly well-demonstrated fact that humans avoid doing things that are wrong for fear of consequences I submit yours and my childhood and the New Orleans Superdome as exhibit 1a, 1b and 2.

2)While it might be true that some people don't do some things because they believe in God I don't think that is the generally accepted belief in Christianity of why a person changes their behaviours. This would be sanctification.

As a counter to that, I give you North East after Sandy, and Japan after that big earth quake. Neither one had the looting and disruption.

[Truely Free]

So, I have seen things like this writen and heard them spoken the beliver in God says something like:

"If I did not belive in God... I'd do all sorts of horrable things!"

To me, this is not real morality, it is akin to saying that I do not steel because I'm afraid of being caught and sent to jail. Rather, I do not steel becuase I do not want to, I do not wish to do this act, I know that stealing harms someone else, causes incress in prices, and other results that are all negtive, and more over, I simply have no desire to steel, for no other reasion that it is negtive it action and nature.

There are meny ethics and morals I hold that I hold only becuase I personaly value them, and some of them I can make a logical augment for, others I perhaps can not, I've not looked at all of them, but I do not say "If (Y) is proven wrong, I'll start doing (X) bad thing!" for I never know when or if (Y) might be proven wrong, even if it is something I am very sure about say, gravity - "Why if gravity stops working, I'll start killing!" (actualy we will all be flung off the planet due to centerfical force and killed but on the way I could try to kill someone I guess)

No, I do not make my ethics about a "if (Y) then I'll do (X)"

To me those who utter that there morals hinge upon there belifes really deep down want to do those bad things, and its only begrudgingly that they do not do them, at least thats what it seems like when they utter such things.

What do you say, would you do (X) the moment you stop thinking there is a God? What bad thing do you really want to do, but are not doing just because you think there is a God?

Hey, Playhavock. Excellent question. There seems to be a very interesting conversation before I posted, but I will directly answer your OP for myself, if you don't mind, though I have great respect for almost everyone who has posted so far.
I would agree with Adhok, in most in not all cases, fear drives good behavior. There is, I can see, only two good reasons to be follow the laws: fear or love. Even the need to "be a good person" is driven by self-love. Neither of these are a bad or lower form of morality. Fear, however, dissipates once the object of fear (or respect) is not in the area, love, however, continues on despite death or distance.
You assume that every Christian reacts to God out of fear. This is not so. Though the are some people who do fear God's wrath and thus will be moral, their Christianity is no less real, though maybe younger or less developed, as we might deem a person who is good only to avoid the law while others are good only to do good. (Note, in human law at least, fear is very ineffective, as when there are no eyes on you, you can still disobey with no consequences, with God, not so much)
The Bible describes the fear or respect of God as being the beginning of knowledge...Christ as being the end. A mature Christian observes the law not out of fear (knowing that being "good" won't get you into heave) but because of the love of Christ. (it is one of the most effective ways to recognize a Biblical Christian, the way he understands Jesus Christ) Love is a much more effective motive.
Now, on myself personally. John Piper points out that as Christians, our greatest joy should be God. He further points out that we pursue what gives us pleasure, and if, as Christian, Christ is our pleasure, we pursue Him. This is the basis for my "morality". If it is not based out of my joy in Christ, it has no place in my life. I would, as a believer, consider much more immoral than you would. Not out of a more developed sense of morality, but out of a different motive and a different foundation.
In that, if I didn't believe God didn't exist there would be two devastating effects in my life (a) I would have no foundation for an objective morality, and so right and wrong would only be deciphered by my emotions, which have lead me wrong EVERY time I followed them. (2) I would have no basis for purpose in my life, thus no reason to be "good", and I would choose to simply live my life pursuing whatever made me happy. Often making the right choice requires sacrifice (if you disagree you must not be married ) and I would have no reason to sacrifice, and no reason to consider anyone else's needs before or equal to mine. I would be forced to make up my own purpose by following whatever end gave me pleasure. Now, depending on what gave me pleasure, that would work out in different ways. For instance, someone who finds pleasure in other's praise will be more concerned with being "good" or attractive in character or appearance, while someone who finds pleasure in self will be more prone to walk all over other people to achieve their needs.
For me personally, I think I would have killed myself long ago if there was I didn't have a relationship with God. I have simply not been able to find a source of pleasure outside of Christ that was even slightly dependable. Suicide would have been anything but immoral to me in the mind-sets I have been in the past. It was only my love for God and His for me that kept me. That might have been a bit personal, I wanted to answer your question truthfully.
Sorry about the length, I need to learn to be more concise, I think I'm killing of the threads I participate in just because of the length of my posts