On Remorse

[Christian]

So you chose your god. Were you aware of any other gods when you chose?

No, I don't think so.

If you weren't then there was no choice.

At the time there wasn't, I suppose. But, remember, this not a permanent result choice. Like name a daughter of son. Once done, it's done.

It just so happens that upon revision and I have stuck to the original non-choice, now that I have the chance to switch.

Was there a decision making process?

There has been a revision process of the choice. I can always at any given moment changed my choice. I have not.

Were you atheist before you chose a god?

Technically speaking no, ever since I can remember I always thought there was a God.

I don't buy the we were all born atheists, rhetoric.

I don't want to paint you into a corner it your own words. You may have meant something else. I don't know. Would you clarify some of these points?

Why corner? No problem to clarify.

I don't want to attack you. That usually just makes me feel bad.

Don't feel bad, it is unnecessary.

 

[ShottleBop]

If someone puts a gun to the child, and the parent is order to shoot himself another person and he does. He would not feel a bit or remorse for having shot and killed another person.

Excuse me? Why would the person not feel remorse? He has just taken another human life! As others have noted (and you have discounted, for little reason, it seems, other than inconvenience for your purposes), it is an emotion that, after millions of years of evolution, continues to be felt by many humans, indicating that the capacity to feel remorse (at least, to the extent that it doesn't interfere with physical survival) serves some salutary purpose. The fact that not all people feel it proves nothing; there are some people incapable of feeling empathy, and others incapable of feeling love, as well. Would you argue that the capacity for love confers no evolutionary advantage?

The person in your example could have shot himself instead of taking someone else's life. Personally, if someone held a gun to my child's head and threatened to kill my child unless I killed a third person, I'm not sure that I would think it rational to believe that the person threatening my child would spare my child's life--or mine--if I killed the other person. Perhaps the rational response would be to try to turn the gun on the person making the threat.

Why be moral, even if one does not believe in a deity? Because, as a general rule, one's chances of survival, and one's quality of life, are greatest if one's day-to-day life involves a healthy dose of cooperation with others, rather than non-stop competition--the need always to be watching one's back. There is an old Talmudic tale about a rabbi who accompanies God to visit heaven and hell. In hell, there is plenty of food, but all the residents have to eat it with are forks with handles that are too long to permit them to feed themselves. The people are miserable. In heaven, the situation is exactly the same, except that the people are well-fed, and happy. Each is using his or her fork to help a neighbor eat.

If you can think of no reason why a person who has no belief in an afterlife might rationally adhere to a moral code, you suffer from a serious lack of imagination.


_____________________

"If only you could sense how important you are to the lives of those you meet; how important you can be to people you may never even dream of. There is something of yourself that you leave at every meeting with another person." -Mister Rogers

 

[Loki]

Christian,

I'm still having a *lot* of trouble following your overall logic.

In an ideal atheist world, there should be no moral norms, only legal ones.

In an ideal theist world, there are moral norms and separate legal norms? So, as a theist, you believe that ideally some immoral behaviour should be legal? That some illegal behaviour is moral?

Let's get our definitions straight. Morality is a *norm system*. Morality is a set of rules or principles of conduct.

legal norms are also a *norm system*. They are a set of rules or principles of conduct.

So they sound the same - why would they differ (in an ideal world) ?

Who has created your moral rules? You have (this is called autonomy).

I have been taught these rules, and I review and modify them in as part of the society I live within.

For whom are these rules? For you alone (this is called unilateral).

The rules bind those of us that agree with them. Those of us that disagree seek to convince the others that change is required.

Who can make you comply? No one can. (This is called uncoercible.

Society enforces compliance.

Why do I suspect this is not precisely what you are referring to?

Give me one example of a moral rule you think you follow. And I will tell you if it is moral or not.

Hmmm...not discriminating against homosexuals in the workforce?

 

[jimlintott]

Now I'm confused. Either you chose a god or you didn't. If you weren't aware of any before you chose, then what would you choose from? If you always remember believing in god then what was the choosing all about? If you revised your choice later then you should be able to answer the question as to why you rejected the others? To say that by then you had to reject all others is to again say you had no choice. However you claim that you did choose. It's getting complicated.

This notion you have that atheists either don't or shouldn't (I'm not sure which) feel remorse is completely irrational. Here's a life tip. Keep your irrational thoughts to yourself. Especially when they could be insulting to other people. As a life long atheist I find these ideas offensive. No matter how sweetly you present them they are still biggotted. What sort of irrational ideas do you have about pagans, hindus or buddists?

How rational is it to come to forum that is well known to be populated by atheists and suggest that they are immoral? A rational act would be to ask 'if as atheists do we ever feel remorse'. We would answer 'yes' and you could confidently add that to your list of facts you know about the world.

You act as if we must be somehow so bewildered that we cannot even understand how we feel. Simply because we are atheist. That isn't much different than suggesting that the colour of my skin will make me good at picking cotton.

Is any of this getting through?

Remorse is a human emotion that has been succesfully used by the human invention, religion, to keep collection plates full for centuries.

 

[ArmchairPhysicist]

The correct syllogism is:

God is an irrational unnecessary concept.
Remorse is an irrational unnecessary emotion
Therefore, I have no use for either God or remorse.

First, your syllogism doesn't seem to follow logically. That is, your first premise and second premise have no connection to each other.

Ok, let's make it better.

If I discard God because it is an irrational unnecessary thing, then, I must discard remorse because it is an irrational unnecessary thing.

Look at the syllogism above and show me where the flaw is.

Snippity snip snip.

Flaws:
1. You are stating that the choice is to either accept all things with a particular trait (irrationality, in this case) or discard all things with a particular trait. In fact, you can also accept some and discard some. I can find a car ugly because Blue doesn't work on it, but that doesn't mean the blue sofa in my living room suddenly becomes equally ugly. In fact, the sofa is quite nice in blue, but the car is still ugly.

1a. Similarly, I can discard deities because they are childish and silly, but I can enjoy South Park because it is childish and silly

2. One doesn't exist, and does not impact daily life. The other does exist and does impact daily life. If I offend a cultist, no deity will come down and strike me dead. However, I may have to face other consequenses such as legal action, a violent response, or personal guilt for causing someone else discomfort. (simple empathy, a human trait).

3. While I have no use for a deity, I do have use for remorse. It alerts me to an action that I've taken that I generally wouldn't approve of. I can then address the action properly.

Anyway, your point...

If you are an atheist, morals are unnecessary

That's my point.

I don't get it. You've made a statement that applies to every human, but specified a single group to apply that statement to. I could just as easily say

If you are an atheist, purple fedoras are unnecessary

Why, then, have you singled atheists out? Morals are unnecessary for Christians, since their religion comes stock with a set of guidelines for them to follow: this is not morality, this is obedience. What makes remorse necessary for them?

 

[c4ts]

If emotions were truly caused by God, then we would be able to sense it, and that would deny religion of its purpose.

 

[BillyTK]

If emotions were truly caused by God, then we would be able to sense it, and that would deny religion of its purpose.

Ah, but god says that truth denies faith and without faith he is nothing. So he causes us to have emotions, but must also cause us to sense that these are our own. But if our emotions are caused by god, we're back to evildave's point that this pretty much means god is controlling us and, for instance, if i reject god it is because god has decided it should be so. Which is sexy in a catholic kind of way, but somehow... contradictory?

 

[Christian]

ShottleBop wrote:
Excuse me? Why would the person not feel remorse? He has just taken another human life! As others have noted (and you have discounted, for little reason, it seems, other than inconvenience for your purposes), it is an emotion that, after millions of years of evolution, continues to be felt by many humans, indicating that the capacity to feel remorse (at least, to the extent that it doesn't interfere with physical survival) serves some salutary purpose.

I was hoping someone would take your position. It will help drive home the point that remorse is not a reflex, that it is a voluntary emotion felt after complex analysis.

Let me add a piece of information to the story. You later find out that the person you killed was a serial killer of 20 babies. With this new piece of information, would you still feel remorse? And consider that one’s instant change of emotion has come after a paradigm shift caused by a new *interpretation* of the evidence.

Why be moral, even if one does not believe in a deity? Because, as a general rule, one's chances of survival, and one's quality of life, are greatest if one's day-to-day life involves a healthy dose of cooperation with others, rather than non-stop competition--the need always to be watching one's back. There is an old Talmudic tale about a rabbi who accompanies God to visit heaven and hell. In hell, there is plenty of food, but all the residents have to eat it with are forks with handles that are too long to permit them to feed themselves. The people are miserable. In heaven, the situation is exactly the same, except that the people are well-fed, and happy. Each is using his or her fork to help a neighbor eat.

Good story. You don’t need morality for your life to work, only social and legal norms. You only need social and legal contracts (agreements) to have a happy life.

If you can think of no reason why a person who has no belief in an afterlife might rationally adhere to a moral code, you suffer from a serious lack of imagination.

Tell you what, you give me some moral rules you believe are necessary for you life, and I will show why they are not.

Loki wrote:
I'm still having a *lot* of trouble following your overall logic.

The problem is an understanding of *norm theory*. Once you get it, there will be no trouble in understanding what I mean. Maybe the examples will help.

In an ideal theist world, there are moral norms and separate legal norms?

Yes, because to theist (those you believe in an afterlife and a god that intervenes) believe there are two legal systems, one imposed by God and one imposed by man.

So, as a theist, you believe that ideally some immoral behaviour should be legal?

Nope, to theist, ideally some immoral behavior should be illegal. The obvious conclusion is that God’s legal system is stricter than man’s.

It is good if you ask why I call my morality a legal system. Once you get that down, you will see where I’m coming from.

That some illegal behaviour is moral?

This can’t be, because, one of the laws in God’s legal system is to follow man’s law.

So they sound the same - why would they differ (in an ideal world) ?

First, (in the real world) they are not the same. Because of the qualities of moral norms, they are unnecessary for atheists. Maybe the only way to show you is that you give me as many examples of moral norms you like and I will show you in every single case why they are unnecessary.

I have been taught these rules, and I review and modify them in as part of the society I live within.

Maybe due to the context of the discussion, the obvious is passing you by. But, Loki, your morality is a personal thing, it is by your exclusive choice. What you choose as moral norms is of your absolute control.

Don’t confuse morality with social norms. They are different. And they are not different in content necessarily but in form.

Maybe an example will demonstrate this. (I posted this in the Law and Morality Thread):

Let's do neat trick. Let's convert a moral norm into a judicial norm.

The norm is: I will give 10% of my income to charity.

Excellent. I placed the norm on myself and decide if I'm following it (hey, if I only give 8% one month, I can always justify to myself), It is a norm of me for me. If one month I don't do it, I can set it up in a way that no one else will know I broke it. And finally, there is no one to force me to do it.

Ok, so one day a legislator come along an says. It would be in the best interest of this country that we enact a law that says every single working person must donate 10% of their income to a charity of their choice.

And the law is passed.

The exact same norm, now stops being a moral one and becomes a legal one. How can that be? Simple, the four characteristics have changed.

Now the exact same norm is heteronymous (someone else has imposed it), it is bilateral (there is an active subject who is obligating and a passive subject who is obligated). It is external, this behavior is known be all sides, and it is coercible, even if I don't want to, they can make me do it (for example, the employer can be ordered to deduct directly from the paycheck.)

So, you see, norms are not moral, social, religious or legal based on content by on what type of characteristics they have.

The rules bind those of us that agree with them. Those of us that disagree seek to convince the others that change is required.

Using my example, no one can convince you of donating anything to charity and you can’t force anyone to donate to charity. And donating to charity is not a group thing, it is personal thing. Unless of course you belong to a group that has imposed that norm for you to belong to that group, this would convert that norm into a social norm.

Society enforces compliance.

Nope, no one but the State can force compliance. In the case of the donating group, all they can do is kick you out of the club, but they can’t force you to donate. They can punish you, but they can’t force you to comply.

They only entity who has the power to make you comply is the State. This is the uniqueness of legal norms. They are the only coercible laws of all norm systems (man, I wish there were some lawyers around)

Why do I suspect this is not precisely what you are referring to?

You are confusing compliance with punishment I suppose.

Oh, one difference between a moral norm and a social norm is that in the former only you can punish yourself.

Hmmm...not discriminating against homosexuals in the workforce?

You don’t need it, strike it out. This moral norm has been converted into a legal norm. And suppose it where not. You should strive for it to be one, because until it is, the breaking of that norm will be rampant making irrelevant you following it. (Like, how can you practice integration if there are no blacks around to integrate)

If you revised your choice later then you should be able to answer the question as to why you rejected the others?

Primarily I have rejected the others based on relevance. To me the Christian God is the most relevant force in the world and in my life. If my parents had chosen a Mayan god, I would have switched to the Christian God.


Jimlintott wrote:
Here's a life tip. Keep your irrational thoughts to yourself. Especially when they could be insulting to other people. As a life long atheist I find these ideas offensive. No matter how sweetly you present them they are still biggotted. What sort of irrational ideas do you have about pagans, hindus or buddists?

First, I placed a warning at the beginning of the thread.

Second, I can’t help it if you find my ideas offensive. Christianity is offensive to atheists. The message of salvation is quite offensive to atheists. I can’t help that. People are offended by many things.

Third, I would like to know why they are bigoted and irrational. Those are objective thing to discuss. Because I believe they are not bigoted or irrational. Please show me why they are.

And I don’t believe in personal attacks, I believe in attacks on ideas, concepts and beliefs. This is what I’m doing. Yes, attacking them is attacking those who hold them, but there is no other way to engage in debate. And I believe debate is good. No not only good, indispensable.

How rational is it to come to forum that is well known to be populated by atheists and suggest that they are immoral?

The problem here is that you are insulted because you want to feel insulted. I have not suggested atheists are immoral or anything similar to that.

I could even say that atheist might be more moral than theists.

What I have said and this is central to my discussion is that, to an atheist, morality is unnecessary. It serves no purpose.

And I’m trying to show intellectually why.

A rational act would be to ask 'if as atheists do we ever feel remorse'. We would answer 'yes' and you could confidently add that to your list of facts you know about the world.

Again, you are building strawmen all over the place. I’m certain atheist feel remorse. I’ve clarified this. What I’m saying is that they should not. It is an irrational unnecessary feeling.

You act as if we must be somehow so bewildered that we cannot even understand how we feel. Simply because we are atheist. That isn't much different than suggesting that the colour of my skin will make me good at picking cotton.

Ad homs comming. Please show where I have demonstrated that atheist don’t understand how they feel.

ArmchairPhysicist wrote:
Flaws:
1. You are stating that the choice is to either accept all things with a particular trait (irrationality, in this case) or discard all things with a particular trait. In fact, you can also accept some and discard some. I can find a car ugly because Blue doesn't work on it, but that doesn't mean the blue sofa in my living room suddenly becomes equally ugly. In fact, the sofa is quite nice in blue, but the car is still ugly.


You are mixing apples and oranges. The quality blue is not the same category as the quality irrational. Color is useful, irrationality is never useful. The minute irrationality is useful it changes in substance, it becomes rational.

You cannot separate irrationality with it’s un-usefulness.

1a. Similarly, I can discard deities because they are childish and silly, but I can enjoy South Park because it is childish and silly

Again, childish and silly can be useful. And another mistake here is that you have changed the verb. First you are using *discard*, then you are using *enjoy*. That changes the whole meaning from the first to the second.

2. One doesn't exist, and does not impact daily life. The other does exist and does impact daily life. If I offend a cultist, no deity will come down and strike me dead. However, I may have to face other consequenses such as legal action, a violent response, or personal guilt for causing someone else discomfort. (simple empathy, a human trait).

You are showing why morality is unnecessary. Legal and social norms suffice. And where has anybody gotten that empathy is an innate human trait. Does anybody have children. Empathy is a learned behavior and let me tell you, it is hard to teach.

3. While I have no use for a deity, I do have use for remorse. It alerts me to an action that I've taken that I generally wouldn't approve of. I can then address the action properly.

No, your critical thinking alerts you that the action that you have take is right or wrong. After evaluating all the evidence available to you. Without any evidence, you would not be able to make any determinations on what to feel.

I don't get it. You've made a statement that applies to every human, but specified a single group to apply that statement to. I could just as easily say

Norms are only useful if they are heteronymous and bilateral and if there is some sort of consequence for not complying. The only two that fall under that category for atheists are social and legal norms.

A big evidence for my point may be that as many atheist exist the same amount of moral norms systems exist and we can never know if they are followed or not.

Why, then, have you singled atheists out? Morals are unnecessary for Christians, since their religion comes stock with a set of guidelines for them to follow: this is not morality, this is obedience. What makes remorse necessary for them?

Good that you mention that. To Christian morality is not unilateral, it is bilateral. Remorse is necessary as a consequence or penalty for our action.

 

[tamiO]

Christian,

I would like you to imagine that God has died. I know this is an impossibility to you, but please try to imagine that this has somehow happened.

Does this mean that because there is no longer anyone to enforce morality upon you and punish you for transgressions, that you do not have the self control to be a morally upstanding citizen? Are you afraid that you would run about stealing or worse?

 

[Mercutio]

So, Xian, you should not feel remorse after accidentally killing an innocent. It was, after all, an accident. There's no reason to feel remorse. I would, but as an atheist, it would be illogical of me.

What I don't understand is that you imply that proper remorse only comes from knowing that you have disobeyed god (or something to that effect--I still cannot see why one class of human gets to feel remorse and another doesn't). In your example, you are choosing not to feel remorse because you just killed a multiple murderer of children. But the "don't kill" commandment doesn't have a clause exempting that situation. You have violated god's command, and you are still "choosing" not to feel remorse. So what good is god if you still choose not to remorse, or if you can pick and choose when god's laws are in effect?

 

[jimlintott]

Ad homs comming. Please show where I have demonstrated that atheist don?t understand how they feel.

Here :

Christianity is offensive to atheists. The message of salvation is quite offensive to atheists.

You're putting thoughts in our heads. None of those statements are true. Telling us how we feel is the same as saying we don't understand how we feel.
Also here:

The problem here is that you are insulted because you want to feel insulted.

I am insulted because someone is singling out a group of people, in this case atheists, and telling them how they should or shouldn't behave. How they feel and how they think. Clinging to this stupidity in the face of contrary evidence is the behaviour of a bigot.

I am still very unclear on this choosing a god thing. Relevance? Why were the others irrelevant? Why did you not answer this question when first asked? You were originally asked as to why you rejected other gods in favour of what you have chosen. So what things made the others irrelevant. Why specifically did you reject Brahma for example? You were familiar with Brahma? If you weren't how can you be comfortable with a choice without having all the facts?

You admit freely that atheists do feel remorse. Yet you contnue to tell us we shouldn't. We keep saying that we are still human. You persist. It is quite clear that this is not about debate. It is not about your personal edification. It is about preaching at us.

Something I've always told my children:
The way to tell the difference between a racist and a bigot is that the bigot will be the one waving the bible around.

 

[tamiO]

In your example, you are choosing not to feel remorse because you just killed a multiple murderer of children.

I saw that, too. That puzzled me. If I kill anyone I will feel bad regardless of what they had done. The fact that his serial killing would now be over, it would only be a silver lining on a cloud.

 

[Yahzi]

Christian

You only need social and legal contracts (agreements) to have a happy life.

Morality is a social contract. Try this thought expierement: suppose you are the only human being that is alive, or will ever alive. Suppose you are completely alone: even God is dead. There is no other conscious entity that you can be held accountable to, no one for you to wrong or harm. Is it possible for you to commit an immoral act in this situation?

Morality governs interactions between people, and thus must be social.

Second, I can’t help it if you find my ideas offensive.

It's not your ideas, it's your attitude. The way you should be framing the argument is not, "Atheists are wrong because they shouldn't feel remorse," but rather, "How is it that athiests feel remorse when logic says they needn't bother?" That is, if you wanted to avoid offending people. Personally, I prefer the approach you have taken, because I think it's more honest and to the point. I don't mind your offensive and belittling attitude, mostly because I share it - just directed in a slightly different direction. I don't think most of the people here are actually very offended either: they are just pointing out that if you were trying not to be offensive, you failed. It's all about attitude, which is why I generally try to avoid the attitude and stick to the facts. You don't need to apologize to us for challenging our views in a negative way; we do it all the time. It's ok to be offensive - as long as you are right.

Norms are only useful if they are heteronymous and bilateral and if there is some sort of consequence for not complying. The only two that fall under that category for atheists are social and legal norms.

Ah, but the first part of this - "heteronymous and bilateral" - is just wrong. Everyone understands that not all behaviour can be legislated. Law is a pretty heavy hammer, with all its courts and police and stuff: many problems are best resolved at a smaller level. For instance, if your neighbor's dog barks too much, your city almost certainly has a long chain of interventions - from letters from Animal Control, to voluntary mediation - before it gets around to invoking the court system.

So there are a huge number of ordinary daily interactions that are significant in your life, but too small to invoke the machinery of state. In these cases norms (meaing self-imposed morals) are quite useful. Because of course their are consequences to not complying - if you are rude and unfair, you won't have a lot of friends, and your day to day life will be much harder.

So now we are down to social norms - but again, I would argue there is a principal of scale. I behave when no one else is looking because the act of changing my behaviour based on whether or not someone else is looking is too difficult and fraught with error. What if I am wrong and someone is looking? What if I, in the process of making the decision, accidently make the wrong one? It's the old canard about why you shouldn't lie, because then you can't remember what you told who. Easier to just always do the same thing, and not have to think about it. So I make the decision to be moral, and stick with it, because I know that violating my routine will ultimately mess me up.

The cost of decision making is not free. Having to constantly adjust what I consider acceptable behaviour based on how much oversight others have on me is just too much work. Plus, we are inexact creatures, and need constant reinforcement. Behaving morally when no one is around is like rehearsing moral behaviour for when people are around.

So you see, it's perfectly rational.

 

[Yahzi]

jim

Yet you contnue to tell us we shouldn't.

Well, he's trying to make an argument that we shouldn't, based on logical reasons. Nothing wrong with that.

Now, if he was telling you that you don't when you said you did, then you would have a reason to be annoyed.

 

[ShottleBop]

Tell you what, you give me some moral rules you believe are necessary for you life, and I will show why they are not.

"Necessary" to basic physical survival? "Necessary" for me to live my life in the way that I think it is proper for a human being to live? "Necessary" for me to be happy? Why is "necessary" the defining factor? "Not necessary" does not mean "useless" or "undesirable." Hillel's rule (that which is hateful to you, do not do unto others), or some variation of the Golden Rule, is common to many traditions, not all of which rely on revelation for their source. I don't know attempting to adhere to such a rule is "necessary" to life, but it's good advice, nevertheless.

Were I a Randian, I would say that the decision to exist--to live--is the basic moral decision a human being must make. (I'm not a Randian, but I use that as an example of what is considered by many to be a moral rule.) Assuming, for these purposes, that a rule mandating that one take action to continue one's own existence is a moral rule, would not such a rule be necessary for life?

I was hoping someone would take your position. It will help drive home the point that remorse is not a reflex, that it is a voluntary emotion felt after complex analysis.

Let me add a piece of information to the story. You later find out that the person you killed was a serial killer of 20 babies. With this new piece of information, would you still feel remorse? And consider that one’s instant change of emotion has come after a paradigm shift caused by a new *interpretation* of the evidence.

I might still feel remorse at having taken another human's life. I might use that fact, rationally, to try to ease my sense of remorse, but it would not change the fact that, absent that data, I chose to kill another human.

And, while remorse is not a reflex, it is not the product of purely rational analysis, either. We do much of our mental processing at a subconscious level.

 

[ShottleBop]

(man, I wish there were some lawyers around)

There are. So far, however, you have said nothing that requires legal training to understand.

That some illegal behaviour is moral?

This can’t be, because, one of the laws in God’s legal system is to follow man’s law.

So, anybody in Nazi Germany or one of its occupied territories who harbored Jews in violation of German law was acting immorally?

 

[jimlintott]

Well, he's trying to make an argument that we shouldn't, based on logical reasons. Nothing wrong with that.

If that's true then why is this thread three pages long?

I think that's a smoke screen. I've learned that the person you should trust the least is the one who keeps saying 'trust me'.

 

[Thanz]

Something I've always told my children:
The way to tell the difference between a racist and a bigot is that the bigot will be the one waving the bible around.

Unbelievable. Un-freaking-believable.

"You see, kids, religious people are bigots. But me saying that doesn't make me a bigot, no sir. Just them darn religious people."

 

[jimlintott]

You know, that isn't really what I mean but I guess it does come across that way.

What I have noticed is that bigots often use the bible as a basis for their bigotry. I don't believe for a second that everyone who reads the bible is a bigot. Personal experience has taught me otherwise. I know many fine people who are religous and even fundamentalist. I apologise if I painted a whole group with the same brush. It wasn't my intention but I guess without some context it feels that way.

I am remorseful for putting it that way.

 

[Christian]

TamiO wrote:
Christian,

I would like you to imagine that God has died. I know this is an impossibility to you, but please try to imagine that this has somehow happened.

Does this mean that because there is no longer anyone to enforce morality upon you and punish you for transgressions, that you do not have the self control to be a morally upstanding citizen? Are you afraid that you would run about stealing or worse?

Ok, if I were an atheist, morality would be irrelevant to me. (this is not that of a far off thing to do you know. Legislator of secular countries all over the world must discard morality as the basis for the making of laws) It would serve no purpose.

And I would not be worried about self-control but about the self control of others. Although I trust myself, I do not trust others. For some reason, everyone seems to fill the same way.

Mercutio wrote:
So, Xian, you should not feel remorse after accidentally killing an innocent. It was, after all, an accident. There's no reason to feel remorse. I would, but as an atheist, it would be illogical of me.

As a Christian, I should feel remorse. An atheist would have absolutely no logical reason to.

What I don't understand is that you imply that proper remorse only comes from knowing that you have disobeyed god (or something to that effect--I still cannot see why one class of human gets to feel remorse and another doesn't).

Ok, I'm sorry. I'm assuming stuff that I shouldn't. There three big reasons why I should feel remorse and you shouldn't.

1. I believe that God has set up a system where I will pay for all I have done here on earth.

2. I believe that in the afterlife, the amount of rewards I will receive will be in direct proportion to my deeds.

3. I believe God examines my heart and he determines if my remorse is sincere as to constitute part of the payment of my penalty.

You on the other hand, logically should think this is all irrational.

1. There is no system of automatic reward/punishment for past actions. As I pointed out before, most criminals (specially white collar types) go completely undetected and have incredibly abundant lives till death. Have you read about the robber barrons of the beginning of the century? Their heirs are still benefiting from their atrocities.

2.There is no afterlife.

3. There is noone to examine if I'm remorseful and determine if it has any worth.

In your example, you are choosing not to feel remorse because you just killed a multiple murderer of children.

I would choose not to feel remorse because of my three reasons to feel remorse.

But the "don't kill" commandment doesn't have a clause exempting that situation. You have violated god's command, and you are still "choosing" not to feel remorse. So what good is god if you still choose not to remorse, or if you can pick and choose when god's laws are in effect?

As in the penal system, where there are laws against murder, there are exclusion. The most common one is called self-defense. Another less known is called state of necessity.

If you were to encounter Osama Binladen and you killed him, you could invoke the second one as defense.


jimlintott wrote:
You're putting thoughts in our heads. None of those statements are true. Telling us how we feel is the same as saying we don't understand how we feel.

Listen, if you feel offended that I am stating that morality is unnecessary for atheists, it is not illogical for me to asssume that you would feel offended to know that Christians believe that atheists will burn in hell for eternity?

I am insulted because someone is singling out a group of people, in this case atheists, and telling them how they should or shouldn't behave. How they feel and how they think. Clinging to this stupidity in the face of contrary evidence is the behaviour of a bigot.

There is nothing wrong with singling out people for what they believe. Republicans do it do democrats, socialists do it capitalists. And the core of the singling out is telling the other side the logical reason why a particular view they hold (because the group is identified with that view) is wrong.

This is the nature of debate.

I am still very unclear on this choosing a god thing. Relevance? Why were the others irrelevant?

Because to me Christianity is the most relevant religion in the world. When I say relevant I don't mean most popular. I mean that the teachings have stood the test of time. And the events of the world (in my personal view) demonstrate that Christianity is true.

In my personal life I find that there is bilaterality. There is a God that listens and responds.

But this is not the topic. As my experience tell me, this only prompts people to go on a tangent. I would be more than glad to answer any question you want in another thread.

Why did you not answer this question when first asked? You were originally asked as to why you rejected other gods in favour of what you have chosen. So what things made the others irrelevant. Why specifically did you reject Brahma for example? You were familiar with Brahma? If you weren't how can you be comfortable with a choice without having all the facts?

I'm answering to a lot of posters and I don't want to derail the discussion. But, I didn't want it to be perceived that I was dodging the question. As I said, we can do that discussion in another thread.

TamiO wrote:
I saw that, too. That puzzled me. If I kill anyone I will feel bad regardless of what they had done. The fact that his serial killing would now be over, it would only be a silver lining on a cloud.

Can you see why this line of reasoning is so illogical. Listen to your response. You would rather kling to your belief that remorse is good (and you must evaluate the selfishness of this action) than to stop a serial killer from continuing to kill other babies (even if only the possibility that he continue).

You see, instead of feeling joy that you have rid the world of a monster, you rather feel a deep sense of guilt. Guilt about what? Ridding the world of a baby killer.

Let me ask you, would the prospect of remorse prevent you from killing Osama Binladen if the only chance of catching him was yours.


Yahzi wrote:
Morality is a social contract. Try this thought expierement: suppose you are the only human being that is alive, or will ever alive. Suppose you are completely alone: even God is dead. There is no other conscious entity that you can be held accountable to, no one for you to wrong or harm. Is it possible for you to commit an immoral act in this situation?

No, you are mistaken. Morality is not social contract at all. Let's examine your experiment.

But we have to make an adjustment to your scenario. One with God and the other without a God.

And thanks because this example will (I think) came it more clear why morality is totally unnecessary for an atheist.

If God exists it is possible to be immoral. This should be obvious.

Now, if God does not exist, it is also possible to act immorally. Why you would ask. Here is where a Buddist would come in handy. Now to clarify, I did not want to engage with a Buddist early on because, they have found a way around the illogical of morality and being an atheist: this is karma.

But they illustrate very well that morality is self-impossed.

If as an atheist, you set rules for yourself in that island, like I shall exercise daily to keep myself fit, I shall play association games to keep my mind sharp, etc. They become the norms that guide your life.

If you desregard these rules and act against yourself (and when you set them up you did because you thought it was good for you, because your life is precious) then in your eyes you are being immoral.

Now comes the tricky part. You might start arguing with me that that is not immoral at all. And then you have proven my point. Whether or not it is immoral is irrelevant, useless.

The only way I can prove to you that morality is useless is for you to give examples of moral norms and me show you that they are unnecessary.

Morality governs interactions between people, and thus must be social.

No, morality governs personal things. Let me illustrate with three moral rules that have absolutely no interaction with others.

1. I will not covet my neighbor's wife.

2. I will meditate (pray) every day

3. I will not have impure thoughts.

And let me throw some that although there is interaction, has no way of affecting you negatively.

1. I shall not lie about my preferences in ice cream

2. I shall not use bad words in my vocabulary.

3. I shall give money anonymously to charity.

It's not your ideas, it's your attitude. The way you should be framing the argument is not, "Atheists are wrong because they shouldn't feel remorse," but rather, "How is it that athiests feel remorse when logic says they needn't bother?"

I take that. Ok, that sound much better.

Personally, I prefer the approach you have taken, because I think it's more honest and to the point. I don't mind your offensive and belittling attitude, mostly because I share it - just directed in a slightly different direction. I don't think most of the people here are actually very offended either: they are just pointing out that if you were trying not to be offensive, you failed.

I knew I would be, that why I placed the warning.

It's all about attitude, which is why I generally try to avoid the attitude and stick to the facts. You don't need to apologize to us for challenging our views in a negative way; we do it all the time. It's ok to be offensive - as long as you are right.

Thanks for the encouragement.

Ah, but the first part of this - "heteronymous and bilateral" - is just wrong. Everyone understands that not all behaviour can be legislated. Law is a pretty heavy hammer, with all its courts and police and stuff: many problems are best resolved at a smaller level. For instance, if your neighbor's dog barks too much, your city almost certainly has a long chain of interventions - from letters from Animal Control, to voluntary mediation - before it gets around to invoking the court system.

Good example. Let's use it. An ordinance is a rule. It is heteronymous and bilateral. It is legislated (this means, it has been established by the State). A dog barking making too much noise is a violation of a legal norm.

Why is it heteronymous: The rule was placed by someone else. Why is it bilateral, the State imposes the rule, and you and I must adhere to it.

Yes, there are constant violations. And before I move the legal apparatus, I might go to my neighbor and kindly ask him to make the dog stop. And he might comply, but if he doesn't not, it is not a norm system that will allow it. There will be *due process* and a sentence will be passed.

Now suppose it where not a legal or social norm. Only a moral one, (because it is immoral to disturb the peace (even the sleep of your neighbors), what recourse would you have. If your neighbor does not believe it to be immoral or does not care. He or she will take your peace away. Does it serve any purpose for you to have this rule and your neigbor not?

So there are a huge number of ordinary daily interactions that are significant in your life, but too small to invoke the machinery of state. In these cases norms (meaing self-imposed morals) are quite useful. Because of course their are consequences to not complying - if you are rude and unfair, you won't have a lot of friends, and your day to day life will be much harder.

I will not be rude or unfair to others is a social norm. Not a moral norm.

I will prove it. Why is it that you think posters here (I'm not sure you were here before moderation started) before moderation got away with murder (remember Victor and Franko at the beginning). They were not accountable. The only regulation they had was self-imposed. Those were moral norms.

The minute society can punish you, then they by definition become social norms, not moral.

Remember, the atheist's argument why their morality is superior to a Christian's is because it is self-imposed, there is no one to punish you or make you comply. Are you willing to let that argument go?

Once others can punish you for not complying, then by definitions others have imposed the morality on you. It is not called morality then (something done out of personal conviction) it is social norm. You are doing it for others.

Easier to just always do the same thing, and not have to think about it. So I make the decision to be moral, and stick with it, because I know that violating my routine will ultimately mess me up.

You don't lie because of the punishment others could give to you. Did I get this right?

The cost of decision making is not free. Having to constantly adjust what I consider acceptable behaviour based on how much oversight others have on me is just too much work. Plus, we are inexact creatures, and need constant reinforcement. Behaving morally when no one is around is like rehearsing moral behaviour for when people are around.

Again, the same reasoning here. You practice at the gym not for you but so that you can show off your body later on.

So you see, it's perfectly rational.

Yes, it is. Following rules for personal conviction is unnecessary for atheists. Following social and legal norms is necessary.