What Good? This one?
For me God does not exists in that form. He is energy, he is neutral.
Originally posted by sirnex
Who said there is no rational reason to be moral? You don't need God or a reward system in place in order to be moral. The point I was making is that those who do need a God and a reward system for moral behavior are simply not as moral as they like to think they are, especially when they make statements such as the one I had replied to.
I'm pretty sure I pointed out the selfishness aspect of religious "morality". When they make statements such as the one I had replied to in which they question the necessity to conduct moral behavior in the absence of reward for that moral behavior, then they are simply being moral only for the prospect of receiving a reward for doing so by their deity of choice/indoctrination/personal invention.
In all honesty, the propagation of genes does not require morality.
Didn't I mention that as well? What exactly is your reply to me supposed to entail? Is there a point or is this mindless bitching without any intelligent substance?
So, in your opinion it's perfectly acceptable on a psychological level to ONLY be moral IF you receive reward for doing so and without prospect of any reward we can simply drop all morality?
Originally posted by Dr Slim
reply to post by Seventytwo
if we are made in the image of god, is god a "bad" man.. sometimes? you know, like on weekends.
If I've followed your posts your beef is religious people are too irrational.
It's irrational to be "moral" a majority of times. If you can get away with reaping the advantages of being amoral what rational reason do you have to act moral?
There is no such thing as being moral for the sake of being moral.
Either it makes you feel good or satisfies some other thing to benefit you in some way.
Ergo, it's hypocritical to blame religious people for reasons they are moral, when all humans are moral for some reason other than being moral.
If there was no incentive to be moral, then people wouldn't be moral.
Even non-religious folk who claim a higher morality for not seeking paradise do so for selfish reasons like feeling good about oneself.
Just covering my bases. Atheists usually say morality and altruism exists for evolutionary reasons.
Ho ho ho, no.
Why, then, are you moral?
Everyone is moral because there is a benefit or reward in some way, whether it's just about feeling good with oneself, or seeking closure with God. There's no brownie points for being moral for non-religious reasons.
Originally posted by sirnex
I don't recall arguing that specific point in this thread or in others. But OK... You read what you read and not what is said, that's cool.
Interesting and I'm not sure how to respond to someone who considers morality to be irrational. How is it irrational to conduct oneself in a beneficial manner when living alongside society? Now, if we lived individually rather than communally, then I might agree with you.
So, an emotional response to doing good is a tangible reward in your opinion? What about petting a dog or cat and getting a pleasurable response out of that? Is that also a tangible reward for such an act? Is an emotional response equatable to receiving reward of heaven rather than hell?
All? Are you the sole representative for all seven billion persons on this planet?
I personally disagree based upon personal experience. I've done moral deeds without expectation of reward and in turn have had the person I helped screw me over in the end.
Maybe *you* can't be moral without incentive, in such case, tells me everything I need to know about you and how trustworthy you are.
Is it selfish to have an emotional response for doing good more so than receiving a tangible reward?
That's honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone mention anything about morality being an aspect of Evolutionary Theory or the propagation of genetic material during reproduction.
No to what? No point or mindless bitching?
Because it's better than being immoral. I see no point to steal from others,
murder or any other immoral act.
No brownie points for non-religious? Are you trying to say that people conducting moral behavior need God in order to be viewed as being moral? Other people and society as a whole just simply doesn't matter? What exactly are you trying to say here?
Yeah, it's pretty cool.
It's irrational most of the time I said. What rational reason do you have to not tell a lie if you won't get caught? What makes a moral act the most rational act?
Yes. It's pleasurable in some way, which is why you do it in spite of less work needed to be immoral.
Sure, let's go with that for the sake of it. I don't think I am but it's easier to just say I am.
Or you believed that being moral was good, and you wanted to consider yourself a good person to feel good.
Nah man, I'm just honest. All morality is selfishness if you consider it without hypocrisy. If you didn't derive some value from it you wouldn't do it in a majority of cases.
You're the one who implied that seeking reward for performing a moral deed makes you selfish. I'm just the one pointing out that in that case all moral actions can be considered selfish from an objective point of view.
They often say that altruism is because in some cases cooperation is better than competition, and we are such a species. I'm surprised you've never heard that before.
No to starting a bash war.
That was a rhetorical question.
I'm saying all moral actions can be considered selfish, objectively. Your quip about the religious being selfish is hypocritical. Everyone does moral actions because they derive some sort of value from it.
Originally posted by sirnex
Sure, I suppose if you lack the ability to comprehend what you're reading.
What 'rational' reason would one have to lie?
There is less energy expenditure in the act of petting a cat compared to kicking a cat. You don't like simple physics much do you?
Now that is simply the most retarded statement I've read yet on ATS.
Or more true to reality considering it's my own experience of the act, I simply didn't even think of any reward. I saw someone who needed help, the course of action was plainly obvious considering the situation the person was in. Never did it ever cross my mind that I would receive any reward or good feelings for helping.Perhaps not *all* people are selfish?
The statement only rings true if one throws out simple logic and behavioral science.
Care to answer the question or is it too hard?
How does beneficial behaviors in a communal society contribute to reproductive success? Altruism is not necessary for reproduction or for finding a mate in which to reproduce, ask any rapist.
Nor was I when I asked. I was simply trying to figure out if your first response actually had a point or was mindless bitching.
If I were to do something for reward, I would value a tangible reward, not a good feeling. Is a good feeling a tangible reward of significant value that can be used for any useful purpose? Is a good feeling enough of an incentive?
Originally posted by Myollinir
reply to post by monkeySEEmonkeyDO
If you read - God gave each human being born into the world FREE WILL. That means you have the conscious choice to make whatever you want out of your life. God wants each of us to be intelligent thinkers, and doesn't want us to just be mindless slaves. We were created in his image, and created in his world. You get to choose your own place in life and in post life.
Could it be that some of our suffering helps the growth of others?
Originally posted by 547000
And yet you complain religious people are irrational. Take your pick, are they irrational or are you? Can't have it both ways. If there's really no rational reason to be moral in a given situation, is it really irrational to not be moral?
One could argue people are simply selfish, only being moral to survive longer and spread their genes. They are not moral for the sake of being moral. How dare they! Selfish bastards!