The law is no true hindrance to crime or to criminals, or there would be no such thing as a jail or a police officer. It is belief in deeper consequence, in spiritual accountability to some ruling God, that keeps most people in line.

Neither of those things are what "keep me in line". You are missing some of the puppetteer strings that hold humans to altruistic behavior. Perhaps it is a higher power that serves the role for most people, but the role does not disappear if you no longer believe in god. In fact, as long as you have an axiom by which to anchor yourself, it can be nearly anything. But very few things would be sustainable, because an ultimate concern will certainly have a few unintended consequences in extreme situations. As a practical example, love your neighbor unless he is an atheist or witch, then murder him. I hope most religious people have excised that belief from the ancillary retinue of their ultimate concern. Makes me wonder if WBC ever goes out hunting witches.

It seems that many of us in this room are hopeful regarding humanity, but I confess: I haven't seen much benevolence--generally--in most humans. There are a few exceptions, but if faith was removed from the entire world at once, a number of us would be slaughtered, and violently, in the process of those faithless individuals acquiring happiness in their own ways.

The large amount of goodness you find in everyday life happens in small amounts, and we can take it for granted. A smile is just a smile, but it's also an exchange of moral quanta, a bit of do-good. The problem is that a single punch in the face is more memorable, and more impactful, than a thousand smiles. There is good, and benevolence, but the problem is that in most cases it's the default, so only the immoral exceptions are noticed. There is bias at play here.

tjamesmoss.author wrote: If you remove that level of accountability and say that everything ends when we stop breathing, you are giving your fellow humans license to "live up their days" lavishly without regard for any real judgement after their deeds. You give a man who is willing to live well for a few minutes, days or months before dying the right to steal his luxury, to kill for his luxury, to rape and pillage for his luxury.

Do you mean without the dangling carrot that promises an afterlife, we would stop caring what happens to others? That would truly mean we are only being good in order to get the prize, the ultimate in selfishness. Do you really think you would go around killing and raping if you found that God doesn't really exist? I don't believe that for a second.

The desire to cooperate with others and to take care of our children is something innate and it's all explained by evolutionary theory. Those who don't cooperate and don't care for their own children are simply not going to pass along their genes to future generations.

There are a few exceptions, but if faith was removed from the entire world at once, a number of us would be slaughtered, and violently, in the process of those faithless individuals acquiring happiness in their own ways.

I think you are mistaking faith in God with something else all together. I agree very much with Geo, if your reasons for 'loving your neighbour as yourself' are only about finding good grace with God and being assured of a place in heaven, that speaks only of selfishiness.

Perhaps you a right in one sense, if a large group of selfishly driven religious people whose only reason for altrustic behavior stems from their belief in God were to suddenly lose their faith that there was in fact a god, perhaps they would become these crazed criminal types you envision.

I somehow doubt it, as I believe that most good people are good because of who they are deep down. I do not share your pessiminstic view of mankind. Though I do realize that selfishness and self-preservation are an important aspect of personality. We, as a species, would not exist in the world today if this were not true.

This may seem a tangent, but while watching the HBO John Adams bio, I was caught by the France-bound Adams' simple farewell to his young daughter: "Good-bye. Be good. Do good." And that's what it takes, really, the example of a parent and a simple command that appeals both to innate and taught sensibility. I'm not saying, though, that maintaining the standards on which such morality is based is a simple thing or even the natural thing. I think we might take for granted how knowing the good is an achievement of culture that can slip away under some conditions. Religion has traditionally been the institutionalizing force for moral imperatives. It's impossible to say whether it has worked or not, since we have no other record to use for comparison. We do know that religion has often been used to deny moral regard to groups it considers inferior or bad in some way. That's a main reason to think that we might be somewhat more successful going without it. But I think we can't forget the maintenance part of morality, and we need to go about it intentionally if religion is not to be the vehicle.

Dexter wrote:If this life is just a trial before being admitted to heaven, doesn't that make this life completely trivial in comparison?

God really wants you to spend 80 years or so first going to school, working at some job, possibly raising a family who can do the same thing over again, as a prelude to spending eternity in some other realm? (And most of human history has been just trying to get enough to eat, then reproduce before you die.) Think about it, that would be a completely bizarre way to set up a universe. Saying you can't understand God's mysterious ways doesn't really change things.

tjamesmoss.author wrote:It seems that many of us in this room are hopeful regarding humanity, but I confess: I haven't seen much benevolence--generally--in most humans. There are a few exceptions, but if faith was removed from the entire world at once, a number of us would be slaughtered, and violently, in the process of those faithless individuals acquiring happiness in their own ways.

I think you're responding to what you see on the news, but unless you live under a war-torn dictatorship, I doubt if you really mean what you say. You'd be terrified to leave your house and interact with other people.

Ah-ha Dexter! Now I've got you. You musn't doubt what I've said, for I do believe it. In this, you are too skeptical. *A bantering smile*

realiz wrote:

There are a few exceptions, but if faith was removed from the entire world at once, a number of us would be slaughtered, and violently, in the process of those faithless individuals acquiring happiness in their own ways.

I think you are mistaking faith in God with something else all together. I agree very much with Geo, if your reasons for 'loving your neighbour as yourself' are only about finding good grace with God and being assured of a place in heaven, that speaks only of selfishiness.

Perhaps you a right in one sense, if a large group of selfishly driven religious people whose only reason for altrustic behavior stems from their belief in God were to suddenly lose their faith that there was in fact a god, perhaps they would become these crazed criminal types you envision.

I somehow doubt it, as I believe that most good people are good because of who they are deep down. I do not share your pessiminstic view of mankind. Though I do realize that selfishness and self-preservation are an important aspect of personality. We, as a species, would not exist in the world today if this were not true.

Realiz, I am willing to go a step further in my argument regarding the state of humanity and say that all of us, regardless of our upbringing, are susceptible to becoming these "crazed criminal types" due to our innate abilities to be horribly selfish. I do not say this in a way to say that other positive concepts are not a part of humanity. I am only suggesting that those positive concepts only exist as an outpouring of individuals' respect for ultimate judgment.

Go back into the annals of history and observe how even in the times of what we consider pagan, people were restrained by their beliefs in all-powerful, all-knowing, all-seeing deities who would judge them for their wicked actions. Without this belief in judgment, our world--however brilliant--would become a post-apocalyptic cesspool of warlordship and enslavement.

I believe the example of war torn countries is a perfect one. In most war torn countries, militias have made themselves the ultimate judges. They yield themselves to no gods but their commanders; or in some cases, their commanders convince them that there are gods of war or destruction to worship. In these cases, martial law is used to enslave whole peoples and pillage all of their resources. We must ask ourselves: "If these people believed that they would have to give an account of their actions in life to a judging God, would they rape and sodomize women, slaughter young children and/or burn down the fields in hungry villages?" The answer to that is no.

When a man yields his heart to a just cause, he lives a life of justice to uphold it. The same is true of religion. I'm not sure I am a religionist--unless that title applies to all individuals who believe in God; but I am sure that I am a pessimist (if that means that such a term applies to all individuals who believe in the deep wickedness that can be concealed in and made manifest from a man's heart).

Forget about the news folks. I think if we were all honest about our once-in-a-while dalliances into selfishness or vengeful thinking or hatred, we could all see how easily those same missteps--left unchecked--would make a mess of our lives and the lives of others.

geo wrote:

tjamesmoss.author wrote: If you remove that level of accountability and say that everything ends when we stop breathing, you are giving your fellow humans license to "live up their days" lavishly without regard for any real judgement after their deeds. You give a man who is willing to live well for a few minutes, days or months before dying the right to steal his luxury, to kill for his luxury, to rape and pillage for his luxury.

Do you mean without the dangling carrot that promises an afterlife, we would stop caring what happens to others? That would truly mean we are only being good in order to get the prize, the ultimate in selfishness. Do you really think you would go around killing and raping if you found that God doesn't really exist? I don't believe that for a second.

The desire to cooperate with others and to take care of our children is something innate and it's all explained by evolutionary theory. Those who don't cooperate and don't care for their own children are simply not going to pass along their genes to future generations.

I submit to you Geo, that yes; there are a number of people... probably millions of them... only doing good to get the prize. If they believed there was no prize for doing good, no tangible reward for work, no real acknowledgement for honesty, no true pat on the back for commitment, no end-game thanks for living valuable, sacrificial, community-serving lives, they would become a horde of robbers, prostitutes, gamblers and such. I do submit that wholeheartedly.

I don't think I would go around raping and killing people, because as far as I know I don't have those inclinations. However, I do believe that every man has his own inclinations if left unchecked. It's a good thing that a lot of us don't know our inclinations, and we don't know them because we have been taught--through generations--that there are dire consequences (spiritual ones) for uncovering and satisfying them.

I'll go even further to say that if a man teaches himself to be inclined to some vices, he will manifest them as easily as he manifests good. In this way, I believe that a vice or virtue can be nurtured. I'm sure you can agree with that, yes?

tjamesmoss.author wrote:I am only suggesting that those positive concepts only exist as an outpouring of individuals' respect for ultimate judgment.

You really think that atheists only refrain from murder because they might go to jail? And how do you explain altruistic behavior?

We must ask ourselves: "If these people believed that they would have to give an account of their actions in life to a judging God, would they rape and sodomize women, slaughter young children and/or burn down the fields in hungry villages?" The answer to that is no.

So have all murderers and rapists been atheists? Or do you become an atheist automatically when you murder someone -- you must not have really believed?

Since most religious beliefs must be false -- as they are contradictory -- how do you distinguish some false beliefs as being conducive to morality while others aren't? If morality was based on a belief in Santa Claus, would that be enough?

Interbane wrote:

The law is no true hindrance to crime or to criminals, or there would be no such thing as a jail or a police officer. It is belief in deeper consequence, in spiritual accountability to some ruling God, that keeps most people in line.

Neither of those things are what "keep me in line". You are missing some of the puppetteer strings that hold humans to altruistic behavior. Perhaps it is a higher power that serves the role for most people, but the role does not disappear if you no longer believe in god. In fact, as long as you have an axiom by which to anchor yourself, it can be nearly anything. But very few things would be sustainable, because an ultimate concern will certainly have a few unintended consequences in extreme situations. As a practical example, love your neighbor unless he is an atheist or witch, then murder him. I hope most religious people have excised that belief from the ancillary retinue of their ultimate concern. Makes me wonder if WBC ever goes out hunting witches.

It seems that many of us in this room are hopeful regarding humanity, but I confess: I haven't seen much benevolence--generally--in most humans. There are a few exceptions, but if faith was removed from the entire world at once, a number of us would be slaughtered, and violently, in the process of those faithless individuals acquiring happiness in their own ways.

The large amount of goodness you find in everyday life happens in small amounts, and we can take it for granted. A smile is just a smile, but it's also an exchange of moral quanta, a bit of do-good. The problem is that a single punch in the face is more memorable, and more impactful, than a thousand smiles. There is good, and benevolence, but the problem is that in most cases it's the default, so only the immoral exceptions are noticed. There is bias at play here.

Interbane, this axiom of "Love thy neighbor unless he is a witch or atheist" I do not like. Well said. That's certainly a poor application of a very well taught way of living.

However, I submit to you this theory on smiles. We cannot know the premise of every smile a man smiles, but I suggest that a smile comes from one of two hearts. Either: a heart that smiles because he believes that by doing so he is striking a spiritual balance or satisfying a spiritual need; or, a heart that smiles because he is seeking to satisfy one of his own needs--relationship, attraction/romance, recognition, ease of stress, etc.

In both cases, the truth reveals itself. A man will submit himself to some cause in this life. Either he will submit to some idea of supreme rulership, judgment or service (whether he calls it God or not), or he will submit himself to entirely serving himself.

Dexter wrote:

tjamesmoss.author wrote:I am only suggesting that those positive concepts only exist as an outpouring of individuals' respect for ultimate judgment.

You really think that atheists only refrain from murder because they might go to jail? And how do you explain altruistic behavior?

We must ask ourselves: "If these people believed that they would have to give an account of their actions in life to a judging God, would they rape and sodomize women, slaughter young children and/or burn down the fields in hungry villages?" The answer to that is no.

So have all murderers and rapists been atheists? Or do you become an atheist automatically when you murder someone -- you must not have really believed?

Since most religious beliefs must be false -- as they are contradictory -- how do you distinguish some false beliefs as being conducive to morality while others aren't? If morality was based on a belief in Santa Claus, would that be enough?

I truly hope that my posts do not come across as attacks on atheism; I assure you I do not intend to attack anyone; merely to state my views on belief and how belief affects people.

I would not dare say that all crime is committed by atheists. History tells us that some of the most heinous crimes have been committed by individuals who believed that they were doing some service to a god or that god's needs or wants: virgins, children, Jews, Palestinians, sacrifice of "faithful followers," etc. I will say, however, that such acts are an indication of deeply flawed understandings of justice, judgment and deity. When a man says he murdered this group of individuals because they angered his god, he makes the assumption that his god needs him to do some re-creational (RE-CREATION-AL) work that his god could not do by himself. Or, that his god requires violence in order to prove the worth and validity of the faith. Ideas like this one are contrary to the idea of omnipotent rulership.

Surely, if a God desired to wipe out a whole group of individuals, He would just do it. You would wake up one day, and they would all be gone. That's our understanding of godship, if I'm allowed to use that term. I should probably say supreme rulership or "omnipotence" again. (I hate to reuse terms; it seems so infantile... but what other way can you say "totally in charge...")

I believe there was a time when war was required to separate peoples from peoples, but faith has since then been misunderstood as belief = murder rather than coherence of culture VS cultural destruction = war. I tiptoe here, because I don't want to offend anyone, but I dare say that the United States government does not allow certain people to board planes and come to this country simply because our representatives fear the potency of their cultural messages. I go even further to say that our country goes to war with other countries in order to fight against--in an attempt to annihilate--certain aspects of culture that they believe would be counterproductive to maintaining the ideas of democracy. If those aspects counter to democracy did not exist, there would be no wars with those countries.

As far as distinguishing truth from lies goes, I believe that men must find their own convictions through much study and much prayer. Many of us (in the world) seem to be under the impression that there is a boulder hanging over our heads waiting for us to make the wrong decision and then SPLAT!, bye bye goes the unbeliever. It seems to me that if that were true, an omnipotent God would just wipe us all out at the point of our unbelief. The sun would rise tomorrow and we would all be gone.

Instead, God seems to be much more patient and altruistic than people are. He is unlike a rapist in that he is not forceful. He is unlike a murderer in that he does not destroy whole peoples. He is unlike a pillager in that He causes the rain to rain on the just and unjust, at least for a time. He is just something other than what we can understand. We must not deny each other the time required to find our own way.

In addition, we must not hate each other for our chosen beliefs. Any man who believes in omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence would have to submit himself to the idea that a few words are enough. When a man disagrees, let him disagree wholeheartedly (as Emerson once said). And then, if he changes his mind, let him state his new understanding wholeheartedly. This "killing in the name of god" business is ludicrous, as is the idea that people who believe outside of majority faiths must be systematically destroyed.