How do children rasied "Godless" stack up?

feedback.pdxradio.com forums feedback.pdxradio.com forums Politics and other things How do children rasied "Godless" stack up?

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 95 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #6390
    skeptical
    Participant

    If God was proven to not exist, the Godless people will just continue to be law abiding and productive citizens.

    God-believing people, on the other hand will break into 3 groups.

    One small group will grab their guns and go on crime sprees since the “fear of God” thing that kept them in line will be proven the a fallacy. This absolutely will happen because God’s people say it every Sunday.

    Another small group will be simply lost, unable to cope in a society where independent and rational thinking is now required.

    The largest group will be people who say they were Godless all along.

    #6391
    skeptical
    Participant

    #6444
    Chris_Taylor
    Participant

    Skep…

    With over 40,000 denominations globally, you’re limiting your grouping of God-Believers.

    Oh, and I like this quote:

    “You don’t need religion to have morals. If you can’t determine right from wrong, you lack empathy, not religion”

    #6451
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    “You don’t need religion to have morals. If you can’t determine right from wrong, you lack empathy, not religion”

    Yes and no. Yes, everyone has a god given conscience, but it needs to be informed and developed.

    For example, some can look at a chopped up fetus and have empathy and say that it’s wrong, and others can look at it and be unmoved and see it as right and good. Both can’t be right. Someone needs an empathy adjustment here. The same is true with many other moral issues.

    The right religion can help us inform our consciences and avoid errors of making choices based on desires instead of objective and sometimes inconvenient truths.

    #6452
    duxrule
    Participant

    Why is religion required?

    #6454
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    With the empathy model we’ll have agreement that murder and stealing is wrong, but what about other moral issues?

    What about those moral issues where temptation is involved and where self denial is necessary?

    Or is there no moral standard or moral objectivity? If not, then empathy is vague and meaningless.

    #6455
    duxrule
    Participant

    There’s still no requirement that religion or any kind of supreme being to be involved with that.

    #6456
    edselehr
    Participant

    Broadway, if God didn’t exist, would you be less good and kind then you are now?

    It’s almost impossible for a believer to go down this hypothetical road.”

    Why? You make this judgement about others who don’t believe God exists. Why not about yourself?

    “Are you convinced that believers would rape and pillage if they didn’t believe in their invisible man in the sky?”

    Good question. Do you? Don’t ask a question you aren’t willing to answer yourself.

    #6458
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    instead of objective and sometimes inconvenient truths.

    What objective truths do we really have?

    #6463
    duxrule
    Participant

    “Morality Without God”

    “…But wherever and whenever we take it, the substance of morality is that of an adaption of feelings and ideas to the human group, and to the animal group so far as they can be said to enter into some form of relationship with us. There is no alteration in the fundamental character of morality. Its keynote is always, as I have said, efficiency, but it is an efficiency, the nature of which is determined by the relations existing between groups of human beings.

    If what has been said is rightly apprehended, it will be understood what is meant by saying that moral laws are to the social group exactly what laws of physiology are to the individual organism. There is nothing to cause wonder or mystification about moral laws; they express the physiology of social life. It is these laws that are manifested in practice long before they are expressed in set terms. Human conduct, whether expressed in life or formulated in “laws”, represents the conditions that make social life possible and profitable. It is this recognition that forms the science of morality and the creation of conditions that favour the performance of desirable actions and the development of desirable feelings constitutes the art of morality.

    Finally, in the development of morality as elsewhere, nature creates very little that is absolutely new. It works up again what already exists. That is the path of all evolution. Feelings of right and wrong are gradually expanded from the group to the tribe, from the tribe to the nation, and from the nation to the whole of human society. The human environment to which man has to adapt himself becomes even wider. “My neighbour” ceases to express itself in relation to those immediately surrounding me, begins to extend to all with whom I have any relations whatsoever. It is that stage we are now entering, and much of the struggle going on in the world is due to the attempts to adapt the feeling already there to its wider environment. The world is in the pangs of childbirth. Whether civilization will survive those pangs remains to be seen, but the nature of the process is unmistakable to those who understand the past, and are able to apply its lessons to the present and the future.

    There is, then, nothing mysterious about the fact of morality. There is no more need for supernaturalism here than there is room for it in any of the arts and sciences. Morality is a natural fact; it is not created by the formulation of “laws”; these only express its existence and our sense of value. The moral feeling creates the moral law; not the other way about. Morality has nothing to do with God; it has nothing to do with a future life. Its sphere of application and operation is in this world; its authority is derived from the common sense of mankind and is born of the necessities of corporate life. In this matter, as in others, man is thrown back upon himself and if the process of development is a slow one there is the comforting reflection that the growth of knowledge and of understanding has placed within our reach the power to make human life a far greater and better thing. If we will!!”
    http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/cohen02.htm

    #6469
    Broadway
    Participant

    ??What objective truths do we really have?
    A Personal God as revealed by His Son on earth 2000 years ago and His Word/The Bible. John 14:6 God alone is absolute truth.
    >>Why is religion required?
    Religion—doing
    Christianity—Done
    Think about it.

    #6470
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    No actually.

    Those are highly subjective things, faith, not facts. You are confusing personal conviction with truth.

    An absolute thing would present the same to all observers. Religion does not do that.

    #6475
    jerry1949
    Spectator

    If the Truth a per Broadway’s post exists, then it is absolute, regardless of whether others see it or understand it.

    #6477
    Vitalogy
    Participant
    #6478
    missing_kskd
    Participant

    F&B, you used a word, “if” and that means “not absolute”, sorry.

    That word also means “subjective” too.

    It’s faith for a reason, and the reason is we differentiate it from facts.

Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (of 95 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.