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?

[Corvus]

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.'

This is going somewhat offtopic now. I would advise not trying to disect someone's belief in a thread where that belief is immaterial to the discussion. If you must, do it in a topic where your response can be used to advance to or reach some sort of conclusion pertinent to the discussion.

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.

And how are those honest determinations made? The only logical way is by deciding based on rewards and consequences. By necessity, this relies on "acting the way someone ... else thinks you should act", since the "someone else" are the people you have to act in harmony with in order to achieve happiness.

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.

Firstly, you are not accountable to yourself, you are accountable to other people, since ethics is what describes the basis of your actions towards them. Secondly, the rest of this quote is in no way in opposition to what otseng said and clarified further in a separate post.

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.

Isn't this what he said? But if you do something unethical that you know, beyond a doubt, you will never be blamed for, what is stopping you from doing it?

‘Do you find it so very amusing,’ he said, ‘to construct all these systems?’
I find nothing,’ I answered, ‘more amusing than a system of ethics, nor more satisfying to my mind. I want every single joy I taste to be attached to one.’
‘Does that increase it?’
‘No,’ I said, ‘but it allows me to think it legitimate.’

True, I have ofen been glad to justify my acts to myself by a doctrine, even by a complete system of ordered thought; but at other times, I could not help suspecting that I was merely providing a shelter for my sensuality.

Gide, who taught me everything I know.

[Corvus]

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.

Why is stealing wrong if no one suffers for it? Some people view taxation as legalised theeft. There is an Italian saying, "A white lie is worth a thousand truths". If that lie results in good things for everyone and harms no one, why is it wrong?

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.

No, actually, he would be able to function in our society due to this:

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.

His fear of the consequences is what will make him act in a way that is ethical and possibly even beneficial and munificient, if he is lookign for his altruism to be reciprocated.

[rebecca]

Why is stealing wrong if no one suffers for it? Some people view taxation as legalised theeft. There is an Italian saying, "A white lie is worth a thousand truths". If that lie results in good things for everyone and harms no one, why is it wrong?

Nice strawman. He said he would act immorally, not that he would lie in ways that would result in good things for everyone. That wouldn't be immoral, would it?

His fear of the consequences is what will make him act in a way that is ethical and possibly even beneficial and munificient, if he is lookign for his altruism to be reciprocated.

But he stated that there was no more fear of consequences. He said that he would act immorally: "Ethics would also not hold me back so I would further enjoy my hedonism without worrying about ethical concerns."

You should really stop speaking for him, because you make no sense.

[Corvus]

Why is stealing wrong if no one suffers for it? Some people view taxation as legalised theeft. There is an Italian saying, "A white lie is worth a thousand truths". If that lie results in good things for everyone and harms no one, why is it wrong?

Nice strawman. He said he would act immorally, not that he would lie in ways that would result in good things for everyone. That wouldn't be immoral, would it?

His fear of the consequences is what will make him act in a way that is ethical and possibly even beneficial and munificient, if he is lookign for his altruism to be reciprocated.

But he stated that there was no more fear of consequences. He said that he would act immorally: "Ethics would also not hold me back so I would further enjoy my hedonism without worrying about ethical concerns."

You should really stop speaking for him, because you make no sense.

In his original post, yes he did say that. But I think what he really meant is that he would not act in concert with some absolute ideal of good, ie, it's always wrong to steal, it's always wrong to lie. His latter posts explained that he would act as the situation demanded. I think he considered that ammoral. One has only to read his later posts in this thread to know that:

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?

He considers that ammoral.

Now, what part of my post does not make sense? I would be happy to point out more of otseng's posts that further clarify his original statement and be happy to further explain my own.

That I should simply stop because you do not understand is awfully condescending, isn't it, and implies the fault is obviously my own?

[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.'

This is going somewhat offtopic now. I would advise not trying to disect someone's belief in a thread where that belief is immaterial to the discussion. If you must, do it in a topic where your response can be used to advance to or reach some sort of conclusion pertinent to the discussion.

Bobby:
Do you realize you had just done what you falsely accused me of? Re-read everything carefully.

Bobby:

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.

And how are those honest determinations made? The only logical way is by deciding based on rewards and consequences. By necessity, this relies on "acting the way someone ... else thinks you should act", since the "someone else" are the people you have to act in harmony with in order to achieve happiness.

Bobby:
you're close but missing the mark a bit. Yes, you do it the logical way, and rewards and consequences are wonderful tools for consideration. But it is not at all necessary for another individual(s) to determine if you are doing so properly. One can certainly observe the reaction of others to see if there is harmony. People do have the capacity to understand what works and what doesn't. I am not going to act the way someone else says I should unless I decide their suggestion is worthy. I always make the final call. If your theory is correct, then who is telling him that what he is telling me is accurate or proper? Feed back is of course incredibly important in terms of the harmony you speak of. But everyone of us who care about how we affect others have had to determine what is or isn't acceptable.

Bobby:

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.

Firstly, you are not accountable to yourself, you are accountable to other people, since ethics is what describes the basis of your actions towards them. Secondly, the rest of this quote is in no way in opposition to what otseng said and clarified further in a separate post.

Bobby:
Of course you are accountable to yourself. Of course I have to answer to others that I come into contact with, but I live with me every minute of my life. I am the one who is going to ultimately pay for my actions. I will live with the consequences of my decisions more directly than any other person. If I choose badly, I will suffer the guilt or shame as a result. if I choose wisely, it will be my self image, self esteem and self respect that will benefit. I am accountable to others indirectly, as a result of my actions toward them, but I am still going to be directly affected, always.
Furthermore, why does everything I say need to oppose what he said. Is it not okay to agree on something, if that is the case? Are you naturally argumentive?

Bobby:

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.

Isn't this what he said? But if you do something unethical that you know, beyond a doubt, you will never be blamed for, what is stopping you from doing it?

Bobby:
No, that is not what he said. Read what I said. I spoke of pleasure being the ultimate goal, but I also mentioned that peace of mind is what is most pleasing. Meaning that if an individual doesn't have peace of mind, the pleasure will be insignificant. It won't matter. So if someone takes part in some impulsive act of momentary pleasure with extremely poor consequences, they will not sustain that pleasure. it will be fleeting. Peace of mind comes from the act of 'no harm done.'
As far as doing something that a person would never be blamed for and what is stopping them from doing it, well, that depends on the person. But as far as I am concerned, me. Guilt and shame are heavy burdens. If no one knows about an immoral act except me, that is still enough. Do you have a conscience, or does it only work when others are watching? Do you see what I mean?
Thanks for considering my views as well as your comments.
your friend, Bobby

[rebecca]

In his original post, yes he did say that. But I think what he really meant is that he would not act in concert with some absolute ideal of good, ie, it's always wrong to steal, it's always wrong to lie. His latter posts explained that he would act as the situation demanded. I think he considered that ammoral. One has only to read his later posts in this thread to know that:

Please, don't tell me what you think someone else meant.

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?

He considers that ammoral.

He was commenting on why he thinks people behave in a moral way. It has nothing to do with his first assertion that he, personally, would act immorally if left godless.

Now, what part of my post does not make sense?

You are speaking for someone who is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. I couldn't care less what you "think" he meant -- that means nothing, and your statements have only contradicted what he said.

If you'd like to offer your own views as to what you would do were your beliefs disproved, by all means, do.

[Corvus]

In his original post, yes he did say that. But I think what he really meant is that he would not act in concert with some absolute ideal of good, ie, it's always wrong to steal, it's always wrong to lie. His latter posts explained that he would act as the situation demanded. I think he considered that ammoral. One has only to read his later posts in this thread to know that:

Please, don't tell me what you think someone else meant.

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?

He considers that ammoral.

He was commenting on why he thinks people behave in a moral way. It has nothing to do with his first assertion that he, personally, would act immorally if left godless.

Here is a quote that does clarify how he would act:

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.

Now, how is that not consistent with what I have said?

Now, what part of my post does not make sense?

You are speaking for someone who is perfectly capable of speaking for himself. I couldn't care less what you "think" he meant -- that means nothing, and your statements have only contradicted what he said.[

If you'd like to offer your own views as to what you would do were your beliefs disproved, by all means, do.

Since you are debating an interpretation of what he thought, I thought it only proper to correct your interpretation to make it consistent with his. You may not want me to do this, but there is no rule against it, nor is it a breach of etiquette, nor does it make it any less of an opinion that if it arose in me. My own views run parellel to these.

[Illyricum]

Ok, this is just "General Chat" for crying out loud, if you want to debate on it then start another thread elsewhere and debate.

[rebecca]

Since you are debating an interpretation of what he thought, I thought it only proper to correct your interpretation to make it consistent with his. You may not want me to do this, but there is no rule against it, nor is it a breach of etiquette, nor does it make it any less of an opinion that if it arose in me. My own views run parellel to these.

It IS a breach of etiquette to lecture someone on what you think someone else meant. I certainly wouldn't want someone to speak on my behalf in such a manner.

You are correct, though, it is not illegal. If that's how you decide your behavior, by all means, continue to (mis)interpret other people's posts. But I have nothing further to discuss with you, because your opinion is of no interest to me.

[Corvus]

Since you are debating an interpretation of what he thought, I thought it only proper to correct your interpretation to make it consistent with his. You may not want me to do this, but there is no rule against it, nor is it a breach of etiquette, nor does it make it any less of an opinion that if it arose in me. My own views run parellel to these.

It IS a breach of etiquette to lecture someone on what you think someone else meant. I certainly wouldn't want someone to speak on my behalf in such a manner.

I would think it up to otseng to decide if I have misinterpreted his post or not, and whether he takes offense at it will determine if it is a breach of etiquette, not you.

As it stands, otseng's opinion on this subject is not too different from my own. I think that gives me license to clarify.

I have begun a new topic in the Right and Wrong forum on nontheist morality.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =2384#2384