Quakers are Christians. That’s a fundemental concept of Christianity.
What on earth has that to do with anything?
Atheïsts *don’t * get up in the morning and do good things for their fellow man?
Thanks. 
This is an issue I’d be interested to hear some atheist views on. Why do you get up in the morning and do good things? What motivation do you have?
I appreciate that there are good, solid, atheist answers to general questions of morality - to the question “How should a good person behave?”. My question is, rather - “Why should I, personally, behave like that? Why should I be good?”
Compassion for my fellow human beings?
Understanding pain?
I’m not a ‘good’ person - far from it - , but I know when to help.
That’s all.
It also gives some people a reason to get up in the morning and do bad things. Not that the vast majority of religious people do of course, but generally people do what they want anyway (for better or for worse) and use whatever they can to justify it after the fact.
So if I don’t feel compassion for my fellow human beings, I’m morally justified in treating them badly, or, at least, failing to do good for them?
Just to clarify a little - my question was not “Why do you behave in a moral manner?”, but “Why should I behave in a moral manner?” Or would you say that I’m entitled to behave immorally if I want to?
I think that atheists are no more or less likely than anyone else to want to do the right thing, for intrinsic reasons. For me personally, it is part of my self-respect to behave morally, which translates for me to behaving logically. The golden rule, for example, works very well as a moral compass for one of a logical bent, because it makes sense. This may not always translate to actions that are generally regarded as “good works” in a religious sense, such as giving to charity, but it should at least translate to treating other people with the same respect and consideration that you expect yourself.
It’s been kind of a long day and I don’t think I’m expressing myself very well, but that encapsulates much of my personal, atheist, view of morality, and why I try to behave that way.
I have known your kindness and your compassion first-hand. Goodness is born in the hearts of people like you.
Yes, I see what you mean, and I would be the last to deny that there are very large numbers of extremely moral atheists. 
I think it’s just a case of me finding the right way to express my question. Is there an atheist argument why people in general should behave in a moral fashion? If someone does not feel inclined to moral behaviour, what arguments are there available to atheists to persuade him to change his ways? How can we get from “Your behaviour is immoral” to “You should stop doing it?” And, if we can’t make that step, are we still justified in condemning and punishing immoral behaviour?
Incidentally, I hope this isn’t giving the impression that I think there’s a unique “atheist answer” to this, or any similar, question, which all atheists are bound by faith to give. I’d just like to hear one specific answer, while accepting that other atheists may disagree with it.
I also feel that I might need to replace “atheist” with something like “non-theist” so as not to limit the enquiry too much.
But the theist is in the same boat, really. If God says to do something, one can tell him no if one so chooses.
“Because it makes the world better for everybody” is good enough for me.
Prison come to mind. After all, what’s his counter arguement ? “Might makes right” ? Fine; the government has the might. “There is no objective morality, so I can do what I want” ? Fine, the rest of us want you in prison.
That’s practically a tautology. If something is immoral, you shouldn’t do it because it’s immoral.
Yes. If morality is valid, then it’s justice ( or at least necessary ); if morality is not valid, there’s no reason not to punish people if we feel like it. Either way, condemnation and punishment/ restraint is OK.
Interesting questions.
I assume the faith-based answer to condemning and punishing immoral behavior usually has to do with the unpleasant consequences in the afterlife. And that non-theists, mostly lacking the belief in those consequences, don’t have anything else to fall back on. Is that about where you’re coming from?
The step from “your behavior is immoral” to “you should stop doing it” is to persuade the other person that the first assertion is correct; the second will follow, once they agree to the first*. If I can’t persuade them of the correctness of my moral code, then all I can do is to absent myself from their company (or at least from cordial relations with them, if it’s a co-worker for example).
Putting the shoe on the other foot: I’m sure there are lots of people who consider my life to be very immoral. They would have a hard time persuading me of that view, outside of a religious context that I don’t buy into. So they can condemn me all they want, and they can believe that I will suffer eternal hellfire, but that has no effect on me. And that’s the way it should be.
*I suppose there are the cheerfully amoral, who might agree with you that their behavior is immoral, but who don’t care and will go on their merry way as they please. If you wish to have a morally suasive impact on such people, I wish you the best of luck.
I’d say better late than never but in this case that isn’t true. This is a non answer. Saying Quakers are Christians is a generalization that happens to be wrong. Although many Quakers might refer to themselves as Christians many do not. In fact many Christians would not consider them Christians either. Their beliefs about Jesus are for the most part very different than most Christian tradition.
I ask about them because you consistantly say all religion is just explotation. Although I’m sure there might be some incidents of explotaion even among the Society of friends, humans being how they are, but for the most part Quakers denounced material and financial gain and concentrate on imporving this world rather than looking to the next world. They have rejected traditional religious hierarchy and don’t see any need for pastors, priests or Popes, since all people are equal before God and all people have equal individual access to God through the spirit.
So where’s the explotation you speak of?
Empiricism and science are limited.
Science can only say what happened WHEN it was being observed, it can not say what happened when there was no one there to observe it.
Furthermore how can anyone completely trust there senses or any one else’s senses, my senses have misled me before, I dont take things such as the existance or non existance of God lightly enough to base it on my sense.
The existence of God can not be proven or disproven scientifically and it never will be, for there is no way to observe God, but such things as evolution are not proven or disprove either, such a thing can only be observed as we see it now, not as it was in the past, we can try to extrapolate this data and “evidences” backwards or forwards but we still are some distance short of proof.
I find it humurous that so many people here call themselves skeptics yet are in no way skeptic of science or empricism or the theory of evolution (which not being observable in the past or repeatable is not science).
I am caught between two, evolution is very flimsy ( the most important part of the evolution of species has yet to have any evidence for it which is the recording of added genetic information through mutation) theory and I.D. does little to sway an opinion being a horribley false anology, since things can appear to be ordered even when they are not. In my opinion the Kalam Cosmological arguement does need some observation but let it suffice to say that I am an agnostic leaning towards the belief is some type of creator or force exists.
I think that this conversation needs to change away from the scientific which will get us no where, to the philosophical to the playground of the mind, which is more to be trusted than that of the senses.
Some people contribute their time and money to help because of their faith. Just because I don’t share their faith doesn’t mean I don’t think it is a good thing. The jump to say atheists don’t do good things was yours.
I don’t believe religion or moral viewpoints motivates people to do evil, but it easily used as an excuse for people to do things in their own self interest…
Remember reading a bunch of exit polls in Florida after Bush’s reelection stating the many voters favored Bush because of his moral viewpoints. I think the real truth is these same voters really favored Bush because of the perscription drug plan he passed in term one. Makes people feel better to say they had reasons other than their own pocketbook.
At the risk of sounding like Earl Hickey, I’m a big believer in karma.
Very likely true, but one excellent way of not doing bad things is to stop and consider that you might be wrong. Those who have learned from childhood from preachers that God commands something are unlikely to take this important step.
True, but some are convinced they got it right. Those who appreciate that interpretations are just human views tend not to be convinced of their righteousness, and don’t do evil. If there ever was a relgious massacre perpetrated by Unitarians, it has escaped my notice.
What Keynes was doing was giving a definition of knowledge which did not involve certainty. How do you know the experiment was a success? By the results matching our expectations. The sun comes up, when you turn a corner you don’t end up in Paris (unless you’re there to begin with) etc.
BTW I have a bias against extreme skepticism, which comes from a Theory of Knowledge class ruined by a few people braying “but we don’t know!” throughout the term. The very same class I read the Keynes book for.
You mean two frames where there is no relative motion between them, right? The degnerate case, but it is odd to examine the laws of motion in frames where there is none.
Lots of reasons.
I was brought up to do good things.
Doing good things makes me feel good. Don’t know why, it just does.
Doing good things often results in good things done for me in return. My father taught me to always be positive in the favor column - it will often pay off. He was right. I tend not to say no when asked to do things, and it keeps me over busy but has usually paid off.
That’s just off the top of my head. If a Christian believes that asking forgiveness wipes out sin, why does he bother to do good things?