[jlisenbe]

Can you be moral not belonging to your religion? (Or any for that matter)

I'm not talking about BEING moral. I'm talking about being able to tell the difference between right and wrong, or between moral and immoral. If there is no God, then there is no final judge to appeal to, and we are all left in the terrible void of each one having to decide for him/her self what is right. And even worse, we are left with the knowledge that, in the end, it really doesn't matter. Who is there to care? I think this generation, and even the one preceding it, recognize that all too well.

[Vacuum7]

jlisenbe: In the end ALL people need something to answer to: The atheist and agnostics live wretched lives because their very existences are rudderless.....this is one of the many problems on the left.....as they edge closer and closer to Marxism, they wander further and further away from having to answer to anything, thus they are capable of lies and deceit WITHOUT any repercussions of consciousness.

The left, like it or not, should come to terms with the fact that the U.S. WAS founded by people of the Christian faith....not any other religion.....it is part of U.S. history.....why in the hell they keep trying to change history is beyond me.....why they fight it is beyond me: Accept it, its fact, and move on. We are a secular society but we are definitely Christian in our founding. The left sounds really crazy with their offensives at the slightest hint of Christianity anywhere in the public square. At the same time they beg the courts to support Separation of Church and State, they have NO PROBLEM wanting to teach Islamic history in our Public School Systems.....why is there a dichotomy on this?

[jlisenbe]

jlisenbe: In the end ALL people need something to answer to:

That's true, but it does not establish the existence of God. It does, however, illustrate the pointless nature of life if we believe that what we see here is all there is. If that is so, then we are of no more importance than a cockroach or a grain of sand. We can pretend otherwise, but honest people know better.

[Vacuum7]

jlisenbe: We ain't nothing but animals.....but most people don't want to confess that, either. Those of the Jewish faith believe what we have here is all there is. The commies think there is no God. I happen to believe in the MYSTERY OF FAITH....and I only have to see a bird lay an egg to know that God exists....I need no scientific proof.....but that's just me.

[talaniman]

I'm not talking about BEING moral. I'm talking about being able to tell the difference between right and wrong, or between moral and immoral. If there is no God, then there is no final judge to appeal to, and we are all left in the terrible void of each one having to decide for him/her self what is right. And even worse, we are left with the knowledge that, in the end, it really doesn't matter. Who is there to care? I think this generation, and even the one preceding it, recognize that all too well.

I didn't ask if their was a God or not. I simply asked if a person can be moral if he is not of your religion, or any other.

[talaniman]

jlisenbe: In the end ALL people need something to answer to: The atheist and agnostics live wretched lives because their very existences are rudderless.....this is one of the many problems on the left.....as they edge closer and closer to Marxism, they wander further and further away from having to answer to anything, thus they are capable of lies and deceit WITHOUT any repercussions of consciousness.

The left, like it or not, should come to terms with the fact that the U.S. WAS founded by people of the Christian faith....not any other religion.....it is part of U.S. history.....why in the hell they keep trying to change history is beyond me.....why they fight it is beyond me: Accept it, its fact, and move on. We are a secular society but we are definitely Christian in our founding. The left sounds really crazy with their offensives at the slightest hint of Christianity anywhere in the public square. At the same time they beg the courts to support Separation of Church and State, they have NO PROBLEM wanting to teach Islamic history in our Public School Systems.....why is there a dichotomy on this?

No one is changing history, they were Christians but fact is not all Americans are Christians now. I know many atheists and even a few agnostics that have their own beliefs and are good moral people who live very happy content fulfilling lives, and what's wrong with teaching the ways and history of other parts of the world besides your own?

The founders were also slave owners and had no problem denying them their language or cultural identities to force them to be as they said they should be. At least you aren't beating fellow humans in this country to convert them, even though you still practice oppressing their descendants. If all men are created equal, where does it say you must be a Christian to be equal?

[Vacuum7]

Talaniman: I'm not speaking for jlisenbe but I think it is impossible for a person to be moral if they are not of any religion.....because there is no compass or rudder to steer them to be moral. Atheistic societies (old U.S.S.R., PRC, and N. Korea) have no evidence of moral code....and I think it is not coincidence that they have no religion, either.

[talaniman]

So being a good human is not enough for you?

[Vacuum7]

Talaniman: No, if you thought I was saying that, you misunderstood me, or I probably didn't explain myself too well, more likely: I don't think there is anything wrong with teaching the history of any religion or even the culture of any religion....but what I am hearing is that, in some school districts, they want to teach about Islamic history and culture BUT NOT CHRISTIAN ONES! Now, that is plainly wrong and it is most likely an overreaction of some pinhead educator who is trying to look like they are fighting-off Christian overtures....I don't know but that is what it sure seems like....like they are petrified of anything with a Cross!

I had an agnostic relative: Just didn't get a warm and fuzzy feeling out of him, at all....and his selfishness was obvious.

Look, I LIKE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BEING SECULAR but, at the same time, I don't think its a Federal case if someone says a prayer or displays religious symbol in a public building, either......My God, we are an uptight, thin skinned bunch these days!

Not wanting anyone to receive a beating to convert to any religion.....its a choice that is very personal and should remain so: There have been enough beatings and killings throughout history in the names of religion to do us for eternity....enough is enough of suffering for that reason.

Talaniman: Being a good human being IS ENOUGH FOR ME.....but that wasn't the question: The question was "Could you be moral without having any religion?" And I don't think that is possible without religion of some sort.....Good doesn't necessarily equate to moral.

[Athos]

I am hearing is that, in some school districts, they want to teach about Islamic history and culture BUT NOT CHRISTIAN ONES!

Please list the school districts that want to teach Islamic history and culture BUT NOT CHRISTIAN ONES (Your emphasis). This sounds very much like a right-wing trope that has making the rounds for many years. However, if you are referring to pure history - not proslytizing - I would not be against teaching the history of other religions. Comparative Religion is a common college-level subject.

I had an agnostic relative: Just didn't get a warm and fuzzy feeling out of him, at all....and his selfishness was obvious.

No comment.

Look, I LIKE THE U.S. GOVERNMENT BEING SECULAR but, at the same time, I don't think its a Federal case if someone says a prayer or displays religious symbol in a public building, either......

Does that include displays of religious symbols from Judaism, Islam, Voodoo, Wicca, Christianity, Buddhism, Druidism?

Good doesn't necessarily equate to moral.

Agreed. Good is above morality which often changes according to the temper of the times.

[jlisenbe]

I didn't ask if their was a God or not. I simply asked if a person can be moral if he is not of your religion, or any other.

No one can be moral. At best we are a mix of moral and immoral. But I will say again that you cannot use the term "moral" without the existence of God, or at least you cannot use it with any real meaning. If morality cannot rise above opinion, then it really has no meaning. It's like a ship without an anchor. You never know where to find it.

Agreed. Good is above morality which often changes according to the temper of the times.

How do you determine what "good" is?

[Vacuum7]

Athos: When I say SECULAR about the Government, I mean ALL religions. And, the school district was one up around Minnesota...I don't remember the detail but its not a Right Wing story, its real: Some idiot Administrator decided to make such a move to placate: You would think most of them are Vampires the way they react to Crosses! Or like the dolt Macron, who wants rebuild the Notre Dame without a Cross atop it: He is true dingbat. And that is what I said: Teach all religions or none from a historic perspective.

[Athos]

Athos: When I say SECULAR about the Government, I mean ALL religions.

That's NOT what secular means. It means non-religion.

And, the school district was one up around Minnesota...I don't remember the detail

Not very specific. Maybe you confused it with something else. Rightists are prone to do that.

but its not a Right Wing story, its real

Something isn't so, because you say it's so. We deal in facts here.

[Athos]

How do you determine what "good" is?

By the collective wisdom of a society based on informed individual consciences and learned over the history of human evolution. Good is always revealing itself.

You will say by a book. Problem with that is that it's static.

[talaniman]

No one can be moral. At best we are a mix of moral and immoral. But I will say again that you cannot use the term "moral" without the existence of God, or at least you cannot use it with any real meaning. If morality cannot rise above opinion, then it really has no meaning. It's like a ship without an anchor. You never know where to find it.



How do you determine what "good" is?

Usually morality is defined by the group/culture or society, you know the "moral majority". At least they define the parameters sometimes strictly, and sometimes in some things not so strict. Things can sometime blend together as in a good human with morals, with or without god in the equation. Even with god in the equation there is a range of opinions, mores, tradition and values that can have a wider spectrum within that society.

You know humans though, they can be saying the same thing, maybe in different ways, and still disagree. I guess others agreeing with you determines what's good, or not, so it depends on whose doing the determining. I've seen Christians and Muslims and practically every other group or culture disagree on many things, and about the same things, so it's safe to say some things have meaning to some and not to others.

A ship with an anchor cannot sail unless you pull it aboard so you either want to sail, or just sit their. Consider me one who wants to sail. I'll let you know when I'm ready to drop anchor.

[jlisenbe]

By the collective wisdom of a society based on informed individual consciences and learned over the history of human evolution. Good is always revealing itself.

You will say by a book. Problem with that is that it's static.

How can good always be revealing itself when you say it is determined by something called "collective wisdom"? It's not being revealed, but rather made up as we go along.

As to it being static, that should be the most reassuring thing we know of, that it is not left up to the whims and ideas of people. For it to be constantly revealing itself, wouldn't it have to be static?

Your faith is in man, and my faith is in God. I like my chances a lot better than yours.

Usually morality is defined by the group/culture or society, you know the "moral majority".

Really? So when slavery was legal in the south, it was moral? Or when homosexuals are executed in the Middle East, then it is moral? Or when women were denied the vote, it was moral then, but then it's not moral now? I don't think you really believe that. What is legal and what is moral are not the same thing, or at least not in my worldview.

[talaniman]

The character of man is to justify his actions cruel and immoral as they may be, as we never know what triggers change, or evolution. As Athos pointed out morality can change and what was moral is no longer. It's usually after a big fight or long struggle to change things.

Plus it was moral to them at the time wasn't it?

[jlisenbe]

The character of man is to justify his actions cruel and immoral as they may be, as we never know what triggers change, or evolution. As Athos pointed out morality can change and what was moral is no longer. It's usually after a big fight or long struggle to change things.

Plus it was moral to them at the time wasn't it?

I completely understand what you are saying, which is that morality changes over time. Slavery was considered moral at the time, but is now considered immoral, or at least it is in our part of the world, but who knows? It might be considered moral in another decade or two.

So if a culture decides slavery is OK, then should we say, "OK. If you consider it to be moral, then for you it is." Should that be our response? If not, then on what do we take our stand? Our opinion? Man, that sure does seem lame.

I'm so glad my soul does not live in that world. It reduces morality to nothing more that a public opinion poll. The history of humanity is by and large an ugly affair, so I wish us all luck. We will need it. But then again, with no god, it really doesn't matter. A hundred years from now, do you think anyone will really care?

[Athos]

How can good always be revealing itself when you say it is determined by something called "collective wisdom"? It's not being revealed, but rather made up as we go along.

Revealed in the sense of discovered. Your Bible is a good example of the good being learned over time.

As to it being static, that should be the most reassuring thing we know of, that it is not left up to the whims and ideas of people.

Your "whims and ideas" is one way of looking at it. Others may think of the process as a lived life marked by thoughtful examination over eons. Trial and error plays a role.

For it to be constantly revealing itself, wouldn't it have to be static?

No. Revelation is a process.

Your faith is in man, and my faith is in God. I like my chances a lot better than yours.

There you go again. You have no idea what my faith is, yet you manage to denigrate it by saying yours is a "lot better". When you find condemnation in beliefs other than your own, that tells us something very important - that your faith is a little shaky to find it necessary to condemn other ways of believing.

Really? So when slavery was legal in the south, it was moral? Or when homosexuals are executed in the Middle East, then it is moral? Or when women were denied the vote, it was moral then, but then it's not moral now? I don't think you really believe that. What is legal and what is moral are not the same thing, or at least not in my worldview.

These are good examples of how morality changes over time. They are all found in your Bible.

[Athos]

The history of humanity is by and large an ugly affair,

Fascinating, revealing comment. Unlike you, I find the movement of mankind over the millennia always tending to the good. To see it as an ugly affair explains your religious beliefs tending to condemn the great majority of humans who have ever lived to "eternal punishment in hell".

Believing that, I don't know how you can find any joy in life.