Is there a reason to be honest if you don't believe in life after death?

[Prometheus]

This is so common and well-understood, and the alternatives are so awkward, that it doesn't seem reasonable to call it "wrong".

That is fine. I don't mind. You seemed like such a stickler for precision that I didn't think that you would approve of such sloppy grammar, but I guess that I was wrong. Feel free to keep your grammar at the level it is now.

 

[jammieg]

Is doing the moral thing also doing the reasonable thing?
I also wonder what would happen if people stopped following religious beliefs...could be a lot worse off...but then choosing to do the right thing by reasoning it out for oneself instead of feeling compelled or indoctinated could be better.

 

[pmb_phy]

That is fine. I don't mind. You seemed like such a stickler for precision that I didn't think that you would approve of such sloppy grammar, but I guess that I was wrong. Feel free to keep your grammar at the level it is now.

You're confusing logic and the precision in the meaning of terminology and words with the precision in grammar. Not to mention that fact that I didn't make any grammatical errors as you claim. This is a forum on philosophy and not a forum on grammar hence I don't want to get into debate about your bogus corrections to what is considered perfectly normal English. Since you're in a completlely sarcastic mode there is little reason for me to expect you to come out of it at this point. You've been quite insulting for little reason except that you don't seem to like to be disagreed with.

Feel free to remain illogical.

As an atheist, I wish I could agree with that. The thing is, though, that atheists don't necessarily have anything at all in common, much less a similar moral outlook.

That is no inconsistent with what I said. I said that "atheists are not considered to be dishonest as a group." That literally means that just because you're an aetheist it doesn't mean that your dishonest.

I do think that you gave fair enough reasons for why someone would be honest without religion.

I never implied that was the case. REligion motivates a person to be honest. It does not gaurentee it nor does it imply that the lack of it means a person is dishonest. E.g. take a group of 1 million dishonest people who have had no exposure to religion. Not expose them. The number of people who accept religion would likely be more than zero. For the sake of argument say its 100,000, i.e. 10%. Then within that 10% who accept it there might be 10% who are now motivated to be more honest. Therefore religion increases the likelyhood of being honest.

Social contract and individual respect seem capable of keeping someone honest most of the time.

That was what I was hinting at in my first post.

Is doing the moral thing also doing the reasonable thing?

Please clarify, i..e please give an illustrative example of where the moral thing is not reasonable?

I also wonder what would happen if people stopped following religious beliefs...

Prisoners will sometimes "get religion." What do you think would be different if none of them became religious?

...but then choosing to do the right thing by reasoning it out for oneself instead of feeling compelled or indoctinated could be better.

Not all people are capable of that kind of reasoning to a large extent. But things like the Bible can provide that kind of guidance.

There are things that nature does not require but that some religions do. E.g. monogamy. How do you think one can reason their way to monogamy?

Pete

 

[Prometheus]

You're confusing logic and the precision in the meaning of terminology and words with the precision in grammar. Not to mention that fact that I didn't make any grammatical errors as you claim.

Not to mention it, but you are confusing logic. You did in fact mention it, didn't you?

This is a forum on philosophy and not a forum on grammar hence I don't want to get into debate about your bogus corrections to what is considered perfectly normal English.

The fact that you yourself consider something normal English is very meaningful, at least to you. Hey, I don't care about the quality of your grammar. I was just offering my help. If you want to stick with this "perfectly normal English" bull, feel free.

Feel free to remain illogical.

I try to help you with your English grammar, since you care so much about precision. You prefer to stick to what your peer group considers perfectly normal grammar. Hey, I don't care, go right ahead. However, it is extremely illogical for you to call me illogical because you consider your grammar to be "perfectly normal". I challenge you to identify one case where any native English speaker ever claimed that his grammar was less than perfectly normal. What does logic have to do with this? You are just throwing big words out, ignoring their meaning. Good for you.

 

[Matter]

don't statistics rely on people being registered officially? if so what about those people born in 'third world' countries that don't even realize there is such a thing as population poll!

 

[pmb_phy]

don't statistics rely on people being registered officially?

No. A census does. Not all stats are based on a census