ChatterBank3 mins ago
religion and being a good person...
79 Answers
why so many religious people believe that you cannot be a good person if you are not religious...?
someone on here once said ' but how can you possibly know how to be good without god in your life?'
cant remember who - it was ages ago, but i remmembered it because i was gobsmacked at what an idiotic comment it was
as though you would behave like a maniac and do terrible things unless 'someone' told you not to...
to me, being a good person is a part of humanity, of instinctively knowing right from wrong, and learning by example...it had nothing to do with gods word or religion.
why on earth do they believe this? it defies logic.
and given the atrocities committed in the name of religion its also laughable
what do you think?
someone on here once said ' but how can you possibly know how to be good without god in your life?'
cant remember who - it was ages ago, but i remmembered it because i was gobsmacked at what an idiotic comment it was
as though you would behave like a maniac and do terrible things unless 'someone' told you not to...
to me, being a good person is a part of humanity, of instinctively knowing right from wrong, and learning by example...it had nothing to do with gods word or religion.
why on earth do they believe this? it defies logic.
and given the atrocities committed in the name of religion its also laughable
what do you think?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by joko. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Surely this shouldn't so much be a question of 'good' or 'bad' but one of 'right' or 'wrong'. Different cultures have differing ideas and concepts of right and wrong, as do different individuals. An individual will decide whether an issue is right or wrong is based upon upbringing and background. Obviously individuals with different upbringings will arrive at different conclusions and both will consider themselves correct. Problems occur when someone with one viewpoint attempts to convince others with diferent views that they are right and the other is wrong.
There's no straight answer to Joko's question. All that can be stated is that the concept of right and wrong are decided within individuals and the two will probably never agree (how many wars have started because of that?!)
There's no straight answer to Joko's question. All that can be stated is that the concept of right and wrong are decided within individuals and the two will probably never agree (how many wars have started because of that?!)
-- answer removed --
Keyplus - “... do not tell lie, be courteous to others, give charity, look after the poor and so on. Where have these come from if not from religion?”
This is a question of morality. It depends on whether you think that the world is only a few thousand years old or several billion. If you believe (as many religious people do) that the world is only a few thousand years old then I understand why you would think that morality was borne from religion. If this describes you then I have nothing more that you will be interested in so I'd stop reading if I were you.
To others who are more open minded; assuming you accept the postulate put forward by just about every scientific field of study we know that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, then the matter of morality becomes far more interesting than just saying, 'God made it so.”.
The world is billions of years old and if you accept the fossil record that Homoerectus (ie. modern human) has been around for about around 1.5 million years then that's more than enough time for our species to learn simple social etiquette in order to survive as a group. No species that was around 1.5 millions years ago would be here today if they didn't cooperate as a group. Speaking just of the higher primates, none of them would be here if they hadn't independently developed a societal structure and a set of moral parameters within which to operate. They, like us, learned that disruptive behaviours within a group are not desirable and hence punish (sometimes violently) those members who break unspoken taboos such as unwarranted aggressiveness and stealing (be it food or sexual partners).
Prehistoric morality was the basis of religious law. It pre-dates it by over a million years. Religion did not conjure moralistic behaviour in being - it is a consequence of moralistic behaviour. Religions merely encoded moral codes of conduct that were already known and accepted by society into scripture and then proceeded to tell the lie that religion had invented morality. The lie continues to this day whereby those of a religious persuasion accuse people who have the opportunity and ability to think for themselves as not being able to tell right from wrong.
It's a blatant, self evident lie.
This is a question of morality. It depends on whether you think that the world is only a few thousand years old or several billion. If you believe (as many religious people do) that the world is only a few thousand years old then I understand why you would think that morality was borne from religion. If this describes you then I have nothing more that you will be interested in so I'd stop reading if I were you.
To others who are more open minded; assuming you accept the postulate put forward by just about every scientific field of study we know that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, then the matter of morality becomes far more interesting than just saying, 'God made it so.”.
The world is billions of years old and if you accept the fossil record that Homoerectus (ie. modern human) has been around for about around 1.5 million years then that's more than enough time for our species to learn simple social etiquette in order to survive as a group. No species that was around 1.5 millions years ago would be here today if they didn't cooperate as a group. Speaking just of the higher primates, none of them would be here if they hadn't independently developed a societal structure and a set of moral parameters within which to operate. They, like us, learned that disruptive behaviours within a group are not desirable and hence punish (sometimes violently) those members who break unspoken taboos such as unwarranted aggressiveness and stealing (be it food or sexual partners).
Prehistoric morality was the basis of religious law. It pre-dates it by over a million years. Religion did not conjure moralistic behaviour in being - it is a consequence of moralistic behaviour. Religions merely encoded moral codes of conduct that were already known and accepted by society into scripture and then proceeded to tell the lie that religion had invented morality. The lie continues to this day whereby those of a religious persuasion accuse people who have the opportunity and ability to think for themselves as not being able to tell right from wrong.
It's a blatant, self evident lie.
Dolt // Why not just let everyone have their own faith or religion an not try to force it on others. //
Exactly. Religion has a long history of imposing its doctrine on whole societies. Those who opposed them were (and still are in many places) murdered for their "heresy".
The central premise of the Abrahamic faiths is that peace and order will come when all agree to the same set of principles. They insist that they have the only acceptable form of those rules. Hitler's Nazism was based on the same principles.
Indeed all the Abrahamic faiths cherish the Armageddon Prophecy where all those who do not subscribe to their rules will be killed. Hitler's version of Armageddon was the Holocaust.
Those who don't want their views criticised should avoid online forums.
Exactly. Religion has a long history of imposing its doctrine on whole societies. Those who opposed them were (and still are in many places) murdered for their "heresy".
The central premise of the Abrahamic faiths is that peace and order will come when all agree to the same set of principles. They insist that they have the only acceptable form of those rules. Hitler's Nazism was based on the same principles.
Indeed all the Abrahamic faiths cherish the Armageddon Prophecy where all those who do not subscribe to their rules will be killed. Hitler's version of Armageddon was the Holocaust.
Those who don't want their views criticised should avoid online forums.
-- answer removed --
Dolt //we have seen what religion/religious people did to the children who were looked after in the name of god. .........SOME GOD!!!! //
Indeed. And this aberrant behaviour often stems directly from the nature of tehir philosophy which teaches they should seek guidance through faith rather than actually understanding the bases of their thoughts.
They are people designated as having special place in the church, as those who are more closely connected to God than the layman. Consequently they are more likely to believe in their thoughts as being guided by God Himself.
Add the fact that they have often adopted vows of celibacy it is little wonder that their thoughts have been expressed by very twisted behaviours.
Indeed. And this aberrant behaviour often stems directly from the nature of tehir philosophy which teaches they should seek guidance through faith rather than actually understanding the bases of their thoughts.
They are people designated as having special place in the church, as those who are more closely connected to God than the layman. Consequently they are more likely to believe in their thoughts as being guided by God Himself.
Add the fact that they have often adopted vows of celibacy it is little wonder that their thoughts have been expressed by very twisted behaviours.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Keyplus, //Naomi – If you can think of many bad things that had and still has their roots in religion then please enlighten me on few.//
The ongoing conflict in the Middle East - together with all of its associated horrors - is unquestionably a direct result of religion.
No God of Abraham = no Jews, no Muslims.
No God of Abraham = no 'Promised Land'.
No God of Abraham = no problem!
You complain about homosexuality, of children born out of wedlock, of people living together outside of marriage (there's a whole lot of sex going on there, but that's just an observation of course), and then you talk about burglary, but whereas the first three may, in your opinion, be considered 'sin', in this country, unlike burglary, none are crimes. A 'sin' (oh how I detest that word!) is not necessarily a crime.
If you're looking for the roots of morality within civilisation, I suggest you read - and digest - Birdie's 02.10 post.
As for lying, Mohammed had something to say about that, so I won't take your word as 'gospel'.
The ongoing conflict in the Middle East - together with all of its associated horrors - is unquestionably a direct result of religion.
No God of Abraham = no Jews, no Muslims.
No God of Abraham = no 'Promised Land'.
No God of Abraham = no problem!
You complain about homosexuality, of children born out of wedlock, of people living together outside of marriage (there's a whole lot of sex going on there, but that's just an observation of course), and then you talk about burglary, but whereas the first three may, in your opinion, be considered 'sin', in this country, unlike burglary, none are crimes. A 'sin' (oh how I detest that word!) is not necessarily a crime.
If you're looking for the roots of morality within civilisation, I suggest you read - and digest - Birdie's 02.10 post.
As for lying, Mohammed had something to say about that, so I won't take your word as 'gospel'.
Naomi – All of your post can be summed up in one word.
////The ongoing conflict in the Middle East - together with all of its associated horrors - is unquestionably a direct result of religion.////
Nothing to do with religion but misrepresentation of religion. If you talk about promised land then I must ask you to read the history of promised land and you would find that it is nothing more than “might is right” at this point.
As for Scholar Birdie’s post. I would have ignored that as I have done with him most of the time had you not asked me to refer to that. Birdie is talking about two different things there. First is World (as planet) and second human race. I do not believe that world (planet Earth) is few thousand years old. It could be billions years old and I have no problem with that however humanity (human) is not as old planet as planet itself and even science agrees with that. Even human history is not few thousands year old. Again that is Bible theory and I do not believe in that.
////The ongoing conflict in the Middle East - together with all of its associated horrors - is unquestionably a direct result of religion.////
Nothing to do with religion but misrepresentation of religion. If you talk about promised land then I must ask you to read the history of promised land and you would find that it is nothing more than “might is right” at this point.
As for Scholar Birdie’s post. I would have ignored that as I have done with him most of the time had you not asked me to refer to that. Birdie is talking about two different things there. First is World (as planet) and second human race. I do not believe that world (planet Earth) is few thousand years old. It could be billions years old and I have no problem with that however humanity (human) is not as old planet as planet itself and even science agrees with that. Even human history is not few thousands year old. Again that is Bible theory and I do not believe in that.
Keyplus, I really don't think you are so naive that you really believe it is a misrepresentation of religion. It is quite straightforward. The Jews believe they were promised the land of Israel by their God - who also happens to be your God. That promise is one the Jews have never forgotten, it is one they have never allowed anyone else to forget, and it is the sole reason they are there now. No alternative would have been acceptable to them - and fundamentally, that is why this world is experiencing the sheer lunacy it is currently experiencing. I am by no means unsympathetic to the Palestinian plight - in fact I think they have been treated abominably - but that is irrelevant to this discussion. I would venture to suggest that you read your history, but somehow I suspect you are now in a rather difficult position. You desperately want to defend religion at all costs - but in this instance there is no defence because, historically, religion alone is culpable.
You ignore Birdie's post because the truth frightens you. Self-sufficient people do not need religion in order to function as responsible members of society.
You ignore Birdie's post because the truth frightens you. Self-sufficient people do not need religion in order to function as responsible members of society.
Keyplus – “... As for Scholar Birdie’s post. I would have ignored that as I have done with him most of the time had you not asked me to refer to that...”
So you're ignoring me. Fair enough. That's obviously up to you. I am not ignoring you.
You say, “... I do not believe that world (planet Earth) is few thousand years old. It could be billions years old and I have no problem with that however humanity (human) is not as old planet as planet itself and even science agrees with that...”
No one ever suggested that the species, Homoerectus, is 4.5 billion years old. I certainly didn't. And science doesn't either. I don't know why or how you've got that bizarre idea.
What science does say however, is that Homoerectus is millions of years old. And the fact that we exist today proves that our predecessors worked out that the best way to survive as a group and a species was to work together. This means not murdering other members of your group. Not stealing from other members of your group (as this leads to conflict and violence). Cooperation and working together are the key.
These simple ideas are the roots of what we now call 'morality'. And your religion and every other religion had absolutely nothing to do with them.
So you're ignoring me. Fair enough. That's obviously up to you. I am not ignoring you.
You say, “... I do not believe that world (planet Earth) is few thousand years old. It could be billions years old and I have no problem with that however humanity (human) is not as old planet as planet itself and even science agrees with that...”
No one ever suggested that the species, Homoerectus, is 4.5 billion years old. I certainly didn't. And science doesn't either. I don't know why or how you've got that bizarre idea.
What science does say however, is that Homoerectus is millions of years old. And the fact that we exist today proves that our predecessors worked out that the best way to survive as a group and a species was to work together. This means not murdering other members of your group. Not stealing from other members of your group (as this leads to conflict and violence). Cooperation and working together are the key.
These simple ideas are the roots of what we now call 'morality'. And your religion and every other religion had absolutely nothing to do with them.
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
Crosswords22 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
News34 mins ago
Food & Drink55 mins ago
