Darat wrote:
I'll post a reply shortly to Christian's response but a quick word of congratulations to Christian for perhaps the most comprehensive answering of multiple questions and points I've seen on this forum!
Thank you Darat, I really appreciate that.
So let’s try a thought experiment, and in this case I ask you to only answer for yourself not for what anyone else might or might not do:
In your country tomorrow there is a revelation that killing is no longer wrong and all the laws that make murder illegal are repealed.
You are caught in a terrible argument with another person, the most vilest of insults are exchanged, your family are threatened with harm.
Do you kill that person? Yes or No?
No.
Remember as an atheist I do not believe that I am anything but an organism that responds to stimuli, it would therefore be “irrational” to deny that I am an organism that responds in a certain manner to certain stimuli.
This is the argument that is taking us time isn’t it. Your contention is that you can’t help it. My contention is that you can and that your best strategy as an atheist is that you should.
What you are trying to say is that I can behave in a manner that is different to the what “I” am - this would only be possible if I believed in something like a soul or held a dualist position, e.g. that “I” am more then a bag of chemicals.
I don’t think you can have it both ways. Either morality is taught or it is inborn in you. You don’t feel bad for doing something because you this internal moral compass, you feel bad because you have been conditioned to feel bad about it.
No purpose but it is the way human beings are, which is a result of evolution, which (presumably) is a result of how reality is!
You are going to argue that you were never taught stealing was wrong, it was a concept you had genetically?
The problem is that you are not talking about remorse.
Unless the code is changed. Then your immoral action is now moral or vice-a-versa.
This is what I’m saying. When you have a bilateral code, the code is less prone to change. And when it comes from God, it is immutable.
In the case of your moral code, it is prone to constant change or disregard.
No quite often people get away with acting immoral. Punishment does NOT automatically follow the breaking of a “moral code”.
This is what an atheist would say. I believe no one gets away with acting immorally. You or I might not see how God punishes or how He dispenses justice, but it is my belief He does and that his justice is perfect.
But, if I’m an atheist, this should be total nonsense to me.
But why have remorse then? Remorse in these circumstances makes no sense, it is irrational since you know you’ve done wrong, you know the punishment, you’ve accepted the punishment, your moral code is telling you all that. You don’t need to feel anything.
Let me be more clear. Remorse is part of the punishment. I owe $10 for the offense, with remorse I pay $1. Although I still have $9 to go, with remorse I’m making a down payment on what I owe. And if God sees that my remorse is genuine, He can even double my down payment.
If I’m an atheist, remorse adds or pays absolutely nothing (well, some could argue that the pain one feels makes us feel better, but that is just self serving and the offended get absolutely nothing for it). And the offender can never judge if you penitence is genuine or not.
The only way you can pay for the offense is to give him back the $10. And consider that that is sometimes impossible for us to do.
In the case of God, He can do any restitution He wants and our remorse is integral to that process.
For an atheist, this should all be nonsense.
Hmm.. yet you remain convinced your religion is the Truth….
Yes, because my trust is not on human justice but God’s.
Stimpson wrote:
Because it provides an incentive to behave yourself even when nobody is looking.
This is what I’m saying Stimpson. You are contradicting yourself. Remorse is good because it is natural punishment (your probable explanation is evolution). In other words, if there is no punishment, there is no incentive to behave. Yet, this is exactly what you are criticizing. That you make the distinction between external and internal punishment is irrelevant because you can’t help the punishment, might as well it be external.
And why do I have to accept that self-punishment is more effective than external source punishment. It goes against all I know of human behavior.
Who said I hated it? I already told you that I recognize that reward and punishment are effective ways of conditioning behavior. In fact, ultimately any motivating force fits into one of those categories.
And now that we got that cleared up, the new objection to overcome is your internal/external distinction.
Both. Why would that be inconsistent?
You are been inconsistent because you are saying human act morally based on a punishment that is automatic (out of your control). This is exactly like saying that the punishment is external to humans. That the by product of this evolutionary mechanism is beneficial purely coincidental.
And remember that my contention is that is not beneficial, it is detrimental if there is no God.
No, it is necessary to have a motivation to do so. That motivation could be to avoid the pain I feel when other people suffer. It could be to enjoy the pleasure I feel when other people are happy. It could be for more tangible rewards and punishments from external sources. They all work.
As you can clearly see, you can’t avoid think in terms of reward/punishment scenarios.
There are lots of scenarios that would not let you see anybody suffer, and still be immoral to you? What then. What about paying less taxes, or getting extra money from a government employee? No one person you can pinpoint that they have suffered because of your actions. What then?
I disagree, for the reasons I already explained. Anything which serves as a motivation to behave in a way that is beneficial to society, is useful to society. If you value society, then morals are a good thing.
This is the other point of contention. From an atheist perspective, there is no way to link morality as beneficial to society. You might intuitively think that it is so. But, what is your evidence that morality is beneficial to society.
This is exactly like an atheist asking a Christian what is his evidence Christianity is beneficial to society, is it not?
You can only speak for yourself in this regard. I know many Christians who have flat-out told me that they would keep their code of morality even if they found out that Christianity was bunk. I also know many ex-Christians who did just that. I am one of them.
This is not the point I’m making, I’m saying that the only reason it works if because of the reward/punishment/compliance system. That you choose to hold on to your morality is an entirely different matter. I can choose to hold on to many useless things, that does not make them useful
Once again, you are over-simplifying a complex and long-term conditioning process. You didn't just decide one day to not get angry anymore, and suddenly not get angry any more. Over time, you simply got used to the irritation that angered you, until it no longer caused that emotional response anymore.
So, what’s the difference if it took me 2 days or two years. We do it all the time. We constantly condition our brain to suit our needs. When I was younger, I could never study for more than 15 minutes at a time, now I can go for hours. That conditioning was good.
Fine, if you want to argue that remorse is an automatic mechanism. But, you can get rid of it because it is useless. It only drains your brain of negative things and it contributes nothing.
Once again, that is long term psychological conditioning. Do you understand the difference between such conditioning, and direct cognitive decisions?
Let’s go the other way then, most human brain functions are the result of conditioning. The way you want to play it, direct cognitive decision are seldom compared to conditioned behavior.
This is completely irrelevant. I have already acknowledged that I could potentially condition myself over time to be a sociopath. The question is, why would I want to?
You keep using this term.
sociopath:
One who is affected with a personality disorder marked by antisocial behavior.
Please explain how a lack of remorse translate to antisocial *behavior*. Are you suggesting you need external pain in order to avoid behaving immorally?
I did not disregard it. I told you that it is irrelevant. Being angry is not a defense for the crime, but it is not a requirement for it either. If you commit the crime without being angry, you have still committed a crime. And if anything, you will be punished more severely for that, then if it was a crime of passion.
I’m just going to drop this for the sake focusing on the principal parts of the discussion. You are still wrong, though.
Actually, they do it for both. That is how psychological conditioning works. Your mental state tends to follow your behavior. If you actively strive to control your behavior, by not acting out when you get angry under certain conditions, one of the effects of this is that you tend to stop being angered by those conditions.
This one too.
Once again, this is not what I am arguing against. What I am arguing against is the idea that if something happens right now that makes me angry, that I actually have to make a conscious decision to be angry or not. That is nonsense.
What you forget (or omit) is that somewhere in this long complex process you say happens you conditioned yourself to feel angry in an instant about whatever is making you feel angry right now. We don’t come with a pre angry manual, you know.
Why the sarcasm? I have never consciously decided to fall in love, but I have been in love before.
We are hopelessly deadlock in this line of discussion. If you are going to argue that you fall in love unconsciously, then it is impossible to come to an agreement on this issue.
Are you talking about remorse, or guilt? I am not talking about guilt here. I thought I made it clear in my example that I no longer feel any guilt about knocking the banana out of my brother's hand. What I feel is remorse, that being the bad feeling that I involuntarily get when I remember the event.
If you are talking about guilt, then I agree. Guilt is pointless. Take responsibility for what you have done, Try to make up for it if you can, and move on.
Then you have been arguing out of complete ignorance.
All the definition of remorse include guilt. Without guilt, no remorse Stimpson.
Webster’s:
A deep torturing sense of guilt felt over a wrong that one has done
dictionary.com
The anguish, like gnawing pain, excited by a sense of guilt; compunction of conscience for a crime committed, or for the sins of one's past life.
I think maybe you should have been more clear in your original post, then. What I am talking about certainly seems to be what I think of as "remorse". What you are describing sounds more like guilt.
I suggested that you read the whole thread. I posted the definition of remorse at the beginning.
You corroborated at some point that you had read the thread. And besides, I’m using the standard definition of remorse. That you thought it was something else is understandable, nevertheless.
In any event, all of my points with respect to morality are still valid, because morality does not depend on things like guilt. All it requires is the feelings that are associated with our values.
Aha, and now you begin to see the connection. Morality depends on guilt to work. Now that we are this far, we can tackle why.
Now, you cannot argue that morality does not required higher cognitive analysis. That would be absurd.
And that is exactly what I need to show you that morality is useless, unnecessary.
Not at all. Society is one of the primary sources of my values. We learn our values from the people we associate with. Family, friends, classmates, neighbors, our community, and so on.
So if you had been born under the Taliban rule, you would have learned your values from that society?
How is this relevant? The point is that a person who does not share the values of society is not only going to break the rules whenever he thinks he can get away with it, but he is also going to abuse those rules. This happens all the time, but it would happen a lot more in a society in which the rules did not reflect the values of most of the people. That is because of morality.
A person who does not share the values of the society he lives in will try to break the rules and bend them, yes. And I agree that the rules of society must reflect the values of most people. And this is the atheist scenario. I’m saying that you should take the shortcut and dispense with the rules that can be enforced and directly enforce values with social and legal norms.
Values do not have to translate to moral norms. They can translate directly to social an legal norms.
I tell you the difference with how I see it. Regardless of what society values and what rules it enacts (legal or social) God’s moral norms are supreme. Maybe to you, it is not immoral to have multiple partners, but to God it is, so if you break that rule, you might think that you will get away with it. But, from my perspective you wont escape the consequences. There will be no way for you to avoid them.
But to you that is nonsense, so you can disregard the monogamy rule.
Hardly. Just look at the people arguing on each side of this issue. They are trying to either change the law to be consistent with their individual morality, or they are fighting to keep it the same, because it already is. Without personal morality, it wouldn't even be an issue, since it is not significantly good or bad for society. In terms of the actual effects, it is a pretty minor issue. It is only because of its relevance to personal morality that it is such a big issue at all.
Again, from my irrational perspective, there are consequences that a woman who has an abortion cannot avoid.
To an atheist, this is nonsense. There are no consequences for this action in the future. The boogie man is not going to come to get you.
To atheists, this is all coincidence and nonsense. To me it is the inescapable justice of God.
In the world I live in, I associate with people all the time without the laws coming into it. I make agreements with people that, were they to go back on them, I would lose a lot of money. Yet I have no legal recourse if they decide to screw me, and we both know it. I help people I don't even know, with no expectation of reward, and no law compelling me to. And others have done the same for me.
I would suggest that in any money matter you secure a contract or enforceable agreement of some type. You will never regret having to do it. It is people like you who make excellent targets for swindlers. (specially scientists who are very smart at some things and not so on others).
You do have multiple rewards from giving, even better rewards that money or material things.
Sure, we need laws. But the world would be a much uglier place if those laws were the only things keeping people from acting like selfish sociopaths.
Do you know who are the biggest philanthropists of the world? Do you know why they do it?
Is that supposed to somehow refute my point? It is a complete non-sequitur.
All Christians are so because of the reward/punishment system.
Good, because that isn't what I said. What I said is the external motivations are not always necessary. My values are my motivation.
Ok, now on to the external/internal motivation thing. Explain to me why internal motivators are qualitatively better than external ones?
Sure, and the first time you meet an elderly person alone somewhere, you will beat him to death for the money in his wallet. After all, if you are certain you can get away with it, reward/punishment doesn't enter into it, right?
An atheist can do this and get away with it free and clear. The only thing stopping him is his internal motivation. (wow, that is scary)
I have a God that watches over everything and everybody and dispenses justice for all our actions.
If there is no god, forgive if I don’t trust that everyone’s internal value system is as yours. I much rather have my elder father live in a very secure neighborhood.
But I do believe in God, and I trust He will protect my elderly father from people who can get away with these types of crimes.
Who are you kidding? I know you wouldn't do that. You wouldn't do it, because like the vast majority of people, you would feel bad if you did. That is motivation enough.
Sorry, if I were an atheist I would not trust that that is motivation enough. I would try to live in a neighborhood that is as secure as can be. Or would campaign for very stiff penalties for that type of crime.
I have explained what the gap is, and why it exists. All you have done is claim that for an atheist it does not. You have not explained why, or even how belief in God has anything at all to do with it.
That is what I’m trying to do.
Are you seriously suggesting that most of these people don't actually hold these values, and only behave as if they did, because of the law?
Oh, I’m sure most people hold these values, but would find it difficult to follow the rules if they were not social or legal?
Have you ever read Hobbes or Rousseau? This is not stuff I just took out thin air.
Values within the US have changed considerably over the last 200 years.
Not the most fundamental ones. What has changed are the laws that reflect those values.
The act of trying to change society for the better is an act of living by your code of morality.
No, it is not. Once you want to enact your morality on others, it is not morality anymore.
That doesn't make any sense. Why would somebody who doesn't value improving the system go to the effort of doing so?
I don’t know how your question follows but, it’s in an atheist best interest to improve the system.
And if he does value improving the system, then by doing so, he is acting according to his values. That is morality!
If you are improving the system, as I said, it is not morality anymore. And acting according to your values is virtually impossible if the system doe not hold the same ones.
Then by the very definitions you gave, that is not morality. You are declaring yourself to be amoral.
From your point of you, I’m am being moral, because, even though deluded, I’m self-imposing a code of conduct. From my point of view, I’m willingly accepted that norm system. That is morality to me.
Why? If it serves as a motivation, then it is useful.
That is why it is useless, self-motivation does not exist (it is a figment of your imagination). You think you motivate yourself, I challenge you give an example of any accomplishment you have ever had, and I will show that the motivation was external.
We are not talking about legal norms. We are talking about morality. Just because legal norms require enforcement to work, does not mean that morality does.
Yes, that is exactly what it means. Look at any norm system, any, and you will see the only reason it works is because there is a reward/punishment/compliance system at work. Again, give me any example you like.
That is some of the most backwards reasoning I have ever seen. Anarchy is lawlessness. Without laws, you have anarchy. Morality alone is not enough to prevent anarchy. I have never suggested that morals could replace laws.
Morality is not only not enough, without laws, the uselessness would be evident. I’m saying that laws can replace morality.
No, you clearly stated that you have no interest in changing laws for the better, not that you are unable to do so. If you had the ability to contribute to the efforts to find a cure for cancer, would you bother?
No, I did not clearly state that, and if there was a misinterpretation or with my comment, this was inferred, let’s correct that now, I believe in predestination therefore my interest in changing laws is irrelevant to my ability to do that. If I had the ability to contribute to finding a cure for cancer, I would inevitably contribute. As of today, I have no such ability, regardless of my interest, I simply cannot contribute. I hope this point is clear.
You already asserted that you have no interest in doing so.
This is not what I meant.
I agree. But the alternative is to actively strive to change the laws to be consistent with your individual code of morality. Something which you have declared useless.
To me it is not useless, morality is useless for you.
How so? I do many of the things I do because of my morals, and not because of external rewards or punishment.
You do all because of your own reward/punishment/compliance system. Just because you claim your system to be superior because it is internal does not make it so. What it does is making 100% subjective which translates to highly unreliable.
chance wrote:
It’s not difficult Christian, provide a hypothetical example or two, and we will see if they withstand your logic or mine.
Tell you what, you give me an instance were you felt remorse ( or a hypothetical one if that is more comfortable) and I will show you the cognitive process.
Nope no problem with a definition, my dictionary defines remorse as “regret and repentance”. If the degree of remorse felt changes with circumstance what would it become, I fail to understand you interpretation on this point. Would you say that accidentally driving over your friend’s cat would produce the same amount of remorse as accidentally shooting your mother? You need to better define your point of view.
I’m working with the standard definition of remorse. Even though you are defining remorse as succinct as can be, there is no way to avoid the obvious implication: higher cognitive process.
from dictionary.com
regret: A feeling of disappointment or distress about something that one wishes could be different.
How do you describe the process of wishing something in the past were different? What are the necessary components to this mental exercise?
from dictionary.com
repentance: Repentance is the relinquishment of any practice from the conviction that it has offended God. Sorrow, fear, and anxiety are properly not parts, but adjuncts, of repentance; yet they are too closely connected with it to be easily separated.
Aside from the obvious religious connotation of the meaning in repentance (in other words, repentance is a word associated with religion, it is ad hoc to sin [and by the way, so is remorse]) suppose we expunged the religious connotation, you this change of mind requires higher cognitive processes.
Add both and I’m sure that if you want to be objective, you will see this is something that requires lots of thought.
Shottlebop wrote:
How does my scenario prove that morality is unnecessary? Does it not establish that there are circumstances in which adhering to the law would be immoral?
Yes, exactly and by establishing that in your worldwide scenario it makes morality irrelevant, useless. So, the question then is, if it is irrelevant and useless, what is it necessary for?
Loki wrote:
Okay. I *really* think I'm with you now! So you are saying :
1. Your law course has defined "moral norms" to be "autonomous/internal/unilateral/incoercible".
2. Your law course claims this definition of "moral norms" is the secular definition.
3. Atheists are secular.
4. Therefore, atheists must believe that "moral norms" are "autonomous/internal/unilateral/incoercible".
5. You believe that "moral norms" are "heteronymous/external/bilateral/coercible".
Clear enough?
You are a freaking genius.
I guess the problem is that I don't agree with #1. In fact, I think I agree with #5! I guess that means either I don't have a secular "moral system", or that you've been mislead as to what secular morals are.
There is no way you cannot agree with #1. The characteristics are self-evident. If you agreed with #5, then you would have a major contradiction in your hands.
Can you explain what the four characteristics mean, and why you believe secular thinking would assign those characteristcis to "moral norms"?
Yes, of course.
Autonomous: a norm that is has been adopted by me out of my own volition and that was not imposed by anyone else.
Internal: I’m the only one that with certainty knows if I’m complying with the norm. I’m the only official judge of whether I’m being moral or not.
Unilateral: There are no obligations to someone other than me, there isn’t the active and passive subject is the same person.
Incoercible: No one can force me to comply.
If you’d like we can take these characteristics for a spin and start classifying norms according to them.
For example, social norms are heteronymous/external/bilateral/incoercible.
Heteronymous: A norm that has been imposed by someone else on me. The source is someone external.
External: My behavior is proof to that external source that I’m complying.
Bilateral: There are two parties, one that is obligating and the other that is obligated.
Incoercible: No can force you to comply (they can punish you if you don’t comply, but they can’t force you to comply)
Using your four characteristics, how would you define the above statement?
As not inconsistent with the characteristics of moral norms.
(And just a clarification - I think I would agree that "moral norms" are autonomous in practise, yet heteronymous in theory).
I tried to explain the difference before and I know have refined the definition of autonomous as to avoid the semantic problem. But, once one understands the meaning, it is easy to see that one can say that autonomous means *a rule created by me for me* .
Let me show you what I mean. The clear difference between heteronomy and autonomy can be seen it the content of the norm. If I can change the content to my convenience, it is clearly an autonomous norm.
For example, you can’t change the % of sales tax you have to pay. You can certainly change the % of the charity contribution you pay.
You can’t change the direction of the line in a theme park, but you can change the direction of your morning health walk (run).
Quoted by Loki:
KEY CONCEPT OF THIS THESIS: - That which facilitates the survival of our species defines 'good'; and conversely, that which deters from the survival of our species defines 'bad'.
Loki wrote:
Agin, using your four characteristics, how would you define such a moral norm?
Ok, ethics is the study of correct conduct. For most atheists, there is no other source to find what is correct conduct. The fundamental premise is the one you have quoted. It is a logical necessity. This is a way to try to make the norms somehow objective, in this case, that we can deduce them from nature. That is fine. The problem is that morality, at the end, is personal, it is not a group thing.
Yes, if all were to deduce the same norms and follow them out of the goodness of their heart, everything would be wonderful. This is just impossible, do to the nature of the four characteristics. For atheists, morality is subjective and relative.
Thus, there WAS no recognized international rule of law in the 1930s that would have made the Nazis' laws "immoral." I would contend that, notwithstanding the absence of such an international rule of law, a person's decision to harbor Jews--an illegal act--would nevertheless have been moral. I suspect that you would have, as well.
I fail to see the point here. I stated that before the proclamation, these laws existed. The proclamation only made it a universal imperative throughout the world. In other words, morality was irrelevant locally. Until legal norms were enacted, Jews were protected. All of the moral outrage did not protect them.
Is it not ironic that three Christian Presidents are the only ones who have legally upheld these moral principles after the proclamation (Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan)
buki wrote:
I'm sorry, I didn't read the entire thread. I was simply stunned by the OP's question.
If you are going to comment (in the manner you have) I suggest you do read the entire thread.
So here we are, in the 21st century, and religious people still can't figure out that atheists have morals.
Who said you did not? Not me.
Yes, we are living, breathing humans. No, we are not possessed by devils. Yes, we care about the same things you do: health, wealth and happiness.
We just don't believe there's a being that looks at us and judges us as we live. We prefer to do that on our own.
There are lots of beings that look over you and judge you.
So could I please ask that you just live your own lives and let us live ours? Is that such a hardship for you?
I was not aware that you were force to participate in this discussion.
I like to live my life by the golden rule. If you're not familiar with it, I suggest you google it, or ask a friend.
I suggest you don’t patronize me.
edit: I must reiterate how insulted I felt by the Original Post. It's like "do you think monkeys feel guilt?" It's that offensive to me.
Many ideas can be insulting to you. Christianity would be insulting to me, if I were an atheist. It is something that can’t be helped.
rikzilla wrote:
You seem to be assuming that atheists either are, or should be incapable of feeling remorse for past transgressions.
No, this is either a strawman or a unintentional misinterpretation of my point of view. I have stated that remorse should be eliminated (for logical reasons) from the atheist lives.
No, the source of morality is your entire implied point! If indeed morality is a gift from the Christian God, then you would be quite right that atheists (and many others) would be wasting their limited time on earth by attempting to appease this entity which none of them actually believe exists.
No, it is not my implied point. Whether morals codes come from Allah, The Sun God, or the Christian God, if they come from any god, they are *bilateral*. To atheists, they don’t come from *any* external god.
OTOH, if morality and ethics were learned during early man's first attempts at organized society as I am supposing, then the atheist's moral emotions/feelings become more logical. This only works if you look at morals and ethics in a purely secular way.
How you arrive at your morality is irrelevant. You are the only one imposing it on you.
In light of this information I'm sure you can see how your assertion: The question to you as an agnostic is if personally believe there is someone other than you who enforces the moral norms on you. If you are the only enforcer, then morality is useless for you. is mistaken.
No, it is not. Once you start doing something because it is convenient socially, you are in the realm of social norms. I hope you can see that the prisoners dilemma is a external reward/punishment/compliance system. It has absolutely nothing to do with conviction to do what is right just because it is right. The best strategy saves you from prison.
Christian, you seem to be quite happy in your faith, and I am glad for you. But it seems to me that you are so content in your belief that you honestly can't see how other humans can function without it. I understand that as well. What I think you need to do is open your mind to other possiblities and perceptions. That is if you really do wish to understand others.
Is it possible for you not to be condescending?
Let me tell where I come from. To me, this forum is where I debate ideas. I like debating, it helps develop my skills. Do to the nature of the subjects, they do become personal, but that is not the intention. Ideally, we should just debate the merits of the theories or arguments.
I’m trying to do just that, debate ideas. If you remember, I put on the atheist hat, and the purpose was to show that an atheist can come to theorize this way.
I may be wrong, but that is the point. To understand the merits of the arguments and discard those that are lacking. So far, I feel comfortable about the level of argumentation.
billydkid wrote:
Your question presumes that any sort of morality or ethics or sense of human decency can only have an external source.
This is totally incorrect, no such presumption can be made. The premise or hypothesis is that whatever sort of morality an atheist has (the best or the worst kind) it is useless.
I am certain that, along with all sorts of other less attractive inclinations, human beings have an inate sense, generally speaking, of basic decency. of compassion. of fair play. of empathy. and of regret and remorse.
Are you going to argue that the concept of fair play is innate? So whatever the *game* it was innate in us to know. Sorry, that just does not work. Please read above on remorse and regret?
So, when a poet says, “I have no regrets” he is simply lying?
Those who don't have those aspects of personality represent deviations from the norm. I think it is childish and absurd to presume that a sense of decency (I will use this term as short hand for the various qualities implied by your use of the word "remorse".) can not spring from within human beings and must have as their source some sort of external dictum.
Why deviations. What is decency? Are you going to argue you were not taught to be decent?
And if you conclude you weren’t taught, could you deduction or induction of decency not be a learned process?
I don't know why or where people get the notion that people will turn in vicous maniacs were they not coerced by some sort of moral code to behave decently or humanely.
The news maybe, or societies that have weak legal systems? (looting in Iraq, S&L scandals, Enron, the creation of internal affairs for cops, etc. etc. etc.) Or maybe the direct proportion the amount of legal norms and an advance society (the more advance the society, the more legal norms there are)
It is a little frightening to believe that there are a whole bunch of people who feel that the only thing constraining their antisocial behavior is their religious doctrine.
As an atheist, you should be scared that the only thing constraining antisocial behavior is each person’s code of morality. To Christians, God is in control.
I believe people are fundamentally decent overall. If it were not so I rather doubt the species would have done as well as it has. I can not believe that without your religion to "guide" you, you would lose your moral bearing altogether.
The species has done well do to the concept of the *social contract* (Hobbes and Rosseau). This is an external system. If I became an atheist, it would be detrimental for me to believe people are fundamentally decent overall. It would be illogical for me to conclude this.
Communism made this assumption. Capitalism makes the assumption that we are all looking out for #1 (selfishness) and that my best interest is not necessarily others. And that is the best functioning system (exactly because of the social contract principle)
One thing that always irritated the hell out of me about those old "religious" movies was the way, for example, everybody would turn into psychotic maniacs when Moses disappeared up into the mountains. There is this old notion in Christianity and Judaism (probably other religions too) that there is god and there is nature. God is good, Nature is evil. and, of course, human nature is evil. This is patently assinine.
Human nature is evil in the sense that self-interest is above the other. This is why lawlessness, anarchy is destructive. The only way any system works is to have a third party doing the judging. Can you image a NBA game, without referees? Moses was the referee.
The social contract comes from the understanding that I can trust the others to do the right thing. So, both parties relinquish some of our self-interest in favor or security.
The nature religions - the original religions of the europeans, native american religions, south sea island religions, all those pagan religions - all of these were considered heretical and evil by the crusading christians and hundreds of thousands were tortured and killed in the name of Christian morality. I think anyone who feels compelled to find their sense of "morality" in their religion has a serious problem. If you don't have an inherent sense of decency without needing it proscribed for you by some authority, then there is a serious void in your humanity.
This is a strawman.
The answers to your questions will inevitably lead you outside Christian dogma, and that my friend may be quite dangerous to your faith.
