Is morality an illusion?

[olavisjo]

To me, morality is an obligation to do the right thing and abstain from the wrong. But this definition can't apply to an atheist because there is nothing to give rise to the obligation to behave in any particular way.
To get around this the atheist will redefine morality as favorable and unfavorable behaviour, and just by coincidence, cooperation and other moral behaviour just happen to be favorable to us.
So it is generally in ones best long term interest to be moral but the idea that we are somehow obligated to be moral is an illusion.
So, should an atheist believe that morality exists or just bite the bullet and say that morality is just an illusion?

[McCulloch]

Again, let me say that I was not looking for what drives behaviour, but rather what compels behavior. In atheism there is nothing.

That's right, for we atheists, there is nothing which compels our behaviour. We are incapable of truly moral behavour, we all try to get away with whatever we can, the only conscience we have is to avoid getting caught. Or are you just projecting. If it weren't for God would you just be as evil as you could get away with?

Human law enforcement has a limited ability to make us behave, as we can escape it by stealth, but an omniscient and omnipotent God has the ability to make sure that we will eventually "pay" for all our transgressions against his morality.

It is odd that those who claim that we must pay the god for our bad behaviour also claim that the same god has perpetuated the gross injustice of being able to be forgiven as the result of having our guilt and sin transferred to an innocent victim.

If there were no God, then there would be no debt to be paid for immoral behaviour as long as we get away with it undetected, if there is no debt then there is no compulsive morality.

Isn't compulsive morality an oxymoron? If you are under compulsion, then it is not moral.

[zepper899]

To me, morality is an obligation to do the right thing and abstain from the wrong...
To get around this the atheist will redefine morality as favorable and unfavorable behaviour,

I have a hard time believing that favourable behaviour is different than right behaviour. So how is it different? It seems that the only change is a shift in perspective. In the theist case, the right actions are chosen by others. In the atheist case, the right actions are chosen by the self. The actions are for the same end, and so are the same actions.

So it is generally in ones best long term interest to be moral but the idea that we are somehow obligated to be moral is an illusion.

Because moral actions are in relation to right actions, we are obligated to be moral to survive and be happy.

So, should an atheist believe that morality exists or just bite the bullet and say that morality is just an illusion?

no

[olavisjo]

Given I have already mentioned Iterated PD before I would expect you to know that tit-for-tat is one mechanism.

So do you think you can see God in the code of a tit-for-tat program ?

No, I don't see God, but neither do I see morality.
To you morality is about optimizing, like in prisoners dilemma, getting the lowest sentence. But to me morality is about right and wrong, it is about the prisoner admitting that he did wrong even if that means he will get the longest sentence. Often the moral thing to do is not the most optimum strategy.

To me, morality is an obligation to do the right thing and abstain from the wrong. But this definition can't apply to an atheist because there is nothing to give rise to the obligation to behave in any particular way.
To get around this the atheist will redefine morality as favorable and unfavorable behaviour, and just by coincidence, cooperation and other moral behaviour just happen to be favorable to us.
So it is generally in ones best long term interest to be moral but the idea that we are somehow obligated to be moral is an illusion.
So, should an atheist believe that morality exists or just bite the bullet and say that morality is just an illusion?

To me, morality is an obligation to do the right thing and abstain from the wrong. But this definition can't apply to a theist because there is nothing to give rise to the obligation to behave in any particular way.
To get around this the theist will redefine morality as righteous and sinful behaviour, and just by coincidence, cooperation and other moral behaviour just happen to be righteous to us.
So it is generally in ones best long term interest to be moral but the idea that we are somehow obligated to be moral is an illusion.
So, should a theist believe that morality exists or just bite the bullet and say that morality is just an illusion?

(ps: Note to theists: please use just ONE bullet on yourself i.e. please avoid using aircraft, plastic explosives strapped to your body, fertiliser bombs in trucks and any other way that causes giblets of other people to go flying.)

I do not see any difference in morally right behavior and morally righteous behavior, nor do I see any difference between morally wrong behaviour and sinful behavior.
But favorable behavior is not the same as right or righteous behaviour. Do you see the difference? Do you agree or disagree?

Also the idiom "bite the bullet" does not mean what you think, you can read this...
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/65400.html

[olavisjo]

Again, let me say that I was not looking for what drives behaviour, but rather what compels behavior. In atheism there is nothing.

That's right, for we atheists, there is nothing which compels our behaviour.

True.

We are incapable of truly moral behavour, we all try to get away with whatever we can, the only conscience we have is to avoid getting caught. Or are you just projecting. If it weren't for God would you just be as evil as you could get away with?

False, the atheist is just as capable of truly moral behavior as anyone else, but if atheism is true, when you commit a crime and you don't get caught, that is the end of it, there will be no judgement day in the future to fear, but not so if there is a God, he will dispense justice, if not in this life then the next. In theism you don't get away with anything.

Human law enforcement has a limited ability to make us behave, as we can escape it by stealth, but an omniscient and omnipotent God has the ability to make sure that we will eventually "pay" for all our transgressions against his morality.

It is odd that those who claim that we must pay the god for our bad behaviour also claim that the same god has perpetuated the gross injustice of being able to be forgiven as the result of having our guilt and sin transferred to an innocent victim.

Innocent yes, unwilling no.

If there were no God, then there would be no debt to be paid for immoral behaviour as long as we get away with it undetected, if there is no debt then there is no compulsive morality.

Isn't compulsive morality an oxymoron? If you are under compulsion, then it is not moral.

You can think of it like a credit card. You can buy things without paying for them, but that does not mean that you are not under compulsion to ever pay for your items, just that the bill will come in the future. If your limit is high enough, you can keep the game going for a long time by paying your monthly bill with cash advances.
It is the same with morality, you can be moral or not, it is a free choice, but you will be judged later by what you did choose.

[McCulloch]

Again, let me say that I was not looking for what drives behaviour, but rather what compels behavior. In atheism there is nothing.

That's right, for we atheists, there is nothing which compels our behaviour.

True.

I am sorry, I forgot the [sarcasm] tags again. The truth is that atheists are as compelled to behave morally as theists are.

We are incapable of truly moral behavour, we all try to get away with whatever we can, the only conscience we have is to avoid getting caught. Or are you just projecting. If it weren't for God would you just be as evil as you could get away with?

False, the atheist is just as capable of truly moral behavior as anyone else, but if atheism is true, when you commit a crime and you don't get caught, that is the end of it, there will be no judgement day in the future to fear, but not so if there is a God, he will dispense justice, if not in this life then the next. In theism you don't get away with anything.

Then why do we want to do what is right? Why should we want to do what is right? Your argument seems to be that without God, there is no basis for morality, therefore we should believe. But if we have a sense of what is good, even without God, then God is unnecessary. And if we don't have a sense of what is good without God, then trying to convince us to believe because it is good is rather pointless.

Human law enforcement has a limited ability to make us behave, as we can escape it by stealth, but an omniscient and omnipotent God has the ability to make sure that we will eventually "pay" for all our transgressions against his morality.

It is odd that those who claim that we must pay the god for our bad behaviour also claim that the same god has perpetuated the gross injustice of being able to be forgiven as the result of having our guilt and sin transferred to an innocent victim.

Innocent yes, unwilling no.

I don't see how the willingness of the victim makes it any more just.

If there were no God, then there would be no debt to be paid for immoral behaviour as long as we get away with it undetected, if there is no debt then there is no compulsive morality.

Isn't compulsive morality an oxymoron? If you are under compulsion, then it is not moral.

You can think of it like a credit card. You can buy things without paying for them, but that does not mean that you are not under compulsion to ever pay for your items, just that the bill will come in the future. If your limit is high enough, you can keep the game going for a long time by paying your monthly bill with cash advances.
It is the same with morality, you can be moral or not, it is a free choice, but you will be judged later by what you did choose.

But the analogy goes further. You say that the price of our immorality is our lives. That in itself is unjust. But you also claim that there is one who has willingly paid the price on our behalf. Forget the imbalance of one life for many, or the fact that the price of this free gift is to die to self and live for Christ, it is still unjust for the penalty of one to be transferred onto another, no matter how willing, in a capital case.

[Bio-logical]

So with the discussion circling around whether or not atheists are compelled to to be moral I have a question that stems from that:

Wouldn't the person who acts morally without fear of a higher power punishing them and without needing to be told that the opposite act is bad in fact be the more righteous of the two?

I personally tend to think that if the only thing keeping you from acting immorally (basically using the golden rule to determine such) is that you were told it is bad and that if you do it you will be punished, you are not a good person. I don't cause pain or suffering, either physical, psychological or emotional to my fellow man because I do not wish that upon him and I am capable of empathy enough to know how I would feel if he did those things to me. I am not constantly being tempted but holding myself back with the reminder that "God says, 'NO!'"

[TXatheist]

So with the discussion circling around whether or not atheists are compelled to to be moral I have a question that stems from that:

Wouldn't the person who acts morally without fear of a higher power punishing them and without needing to be told that the opposite act is bad in fact be the more righteous of the two?

I personally tend to think that if the only thing keeping you from acting immorally (basically using the golden rule to determine such) is that you were told it is bad and that if you do it you will be punished, you are not a good person. I don't cause pain or suffering, either physical, psychological or emotional to my fellow man because I do not wish that upon him and I am capable of empathy enough to know how I would feel if he did those things to me. I am not constantly being tempted but holding myself back with the reminder that "God says, 'NO!'"

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
— Albert Einstein

[olavisjo]

Wouldn't the person who acts morally without fear of a higher power punishing them and without needing to be told that the opposite act is bad in fact be the more righteous of the two?

I agree with you, but you are missing the point.
The terms righteous and moral are religious terms, they have no meaning in Atheism, other than a false mental construct.
For example, when a lion kills an antelope, she has done nothing immoral, she has only enhanced her chances of surviving a little longer. And since humans are only animals that have evolved a little more (in our own eyes) than lions, then there should be nothing immoral about killing each other, for any reason that we desire.
An Atheist may desire to be moral and it may be very beneficial to be moral, but there is no reason why they must be moral, it is an option for each person to decide how they want to behave. And if you want to impose your morality on others you are free to do so. There is no right and wrong to appeal to, all that matters is that you have the power and desire to make others conform. The law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, might makes right etc.

[Goat]

Wouldn't the person who acts morally without fear of a higher power punishing them and without needing to be told that the opposite act is bad in fact be the more righteous of the two?

I agree with you, but you are missing the point.
The terms righteous and moral are religious terms, they have no meaning in Atheism, other than a false mental construct.
For example, when a lion kills an antelope, she has done nothing immoral, she has only enhanced her chances of surviving a little longer. And since humans are only animals that have evolved a little more (in our own eyes) than lions, then there should be nothing immoral about killing each other, for any reason that we desire.
An Atheist may desire to be moral and it may be very beneficial to be moral, but there is no reason why they must be moral, it is an option for each person to decide how they want to behave. And if you want to impose your morality on others you are free to do so. There is no right and wrong to appeal to, all that matters is that you have the power and desire to make others conform. The law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, might makes right etc.

Well, that is half incorrect. "righteous" is a religious term, but moral isn't. You can have morality and ethics without religion.

[olavisjo]

You can have morality and ethics without religion.

It would seem like you could, but I doubt that you can support your claim with any evidence or reasoning.