Not only is religion not required for morality, morality does not come from religion. Ask a christian if god is the only thing which stops him from killing his neighbour. Of course it isn't (At least I hope not for the neighbours sake). Morality is a product of evolution.
I hadn't thought of it like that, every day's a school day!Originally Posted by autopilot
It's even worse than that actually:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the...s/dt29_19.html
s'funny, Richard Dawkins (PBUH) guested on some US talk radio show (maybe it was Alan Colmes) where he did a good job of pwning all the evangelists who called up. One tried to make that exact point, that without religion one can have no morals and Dawkins replied with that question. A bit flustered now, the caller indeed admitted that he would 'totally kill' his neighbour if there was no jesus, at which point they moved on to the next caller
um..........that's the whole point about Christianity - being good does NOT qualify you. you get a free ticket. being good during your life is a natural desire after becoming a Christian, but absolutely not a condition / requirement. That is why (as much of a copout as it sounds), someone could become a Christian on their deathbed and still get it.
just remember, God sees the heart before anything else. No-one is truly 'good'
What about St Guinefort? He was truly good. He was a good boy! Ruff!
on what grounds? A Christian is not simply a person who believes that Christ is who he claims to be, but ACCEPTS him. At that point, the relationship can develop.
I assume also that you didn't assume yourself to be a Christian based on church attendance.
After all, from a Biblical standpoint, who recognises Christ's position / claim more than satan? He just doesn't accept it.
a dog, eh? hmmm......not sure I would use that as a standard.
for the record:
Romans 5:20
God’s law was given so that all people could see how sinful they were. But as people sinned more and more, God’s wonderful grace became more abundant.
what he SHOULD have said, on the prog, is the number of wars that have started over BELIEF systems, at which point is becomes pretty obvious that religion is not the issue - people are
i.e. people are flawed.
no matter what belief system they embrace (inclu atheism, agnostiscism, Christianity etc), people will sin.
the point about societies led by stalin / marx / mao et al is that although they did not kill in the name of atheism, they are illustrative of societies where religion has been actively suppressed, and have not yielded results any more laudable than societies that allow same. Far worse, in fact, indicative of their subsequent collapse.
SO many times, on these forums and on TV etc, you find that ripe old chestnut of people claiming the world would be a more peaceful / better place without religion, and that it should be banned. First of all, way to go on the tolerance level (!) and 2nd, it has been tried and found wanting.
agreed. yes, agreed.
however, that is exactly why Christianity demands community. Seeing as no person is perfect, it is very dangerous to lapse into subjectivism - could be used to justify any behaviour, by anyone.
community is necessary for Christians to keep tabs on their beliefs and practices - debate, discussion, study, analysis, prayer.
2nd, the Christian accepts the Bible as the word of God. Any Christian who claims otherwise would have a hard time trying to explain / justify their belief in Christ. All their knowledge of him and what he claims comes from that book - how could they pick n mix?
3rd, when reading the Bible / using it as a guide for behaviour, one has to look at the whole book, not select parts that suit. Consistency, integrity, prophecy all form part of it. Is the Bible consistent? Absolutely.
agreed, again. But a flawed morality. How can I say that? Simple. Anything human is flawed.It's a tough concept to grasp, but you don't need religion to have good morals.
you have no idea what you are talking about. Watch this space. not this thread, but this forum.Also, i would never take guidance from a book that is so blatantly a complete pack of lies
IIRC it was a response to the accusation that religion is the source of such conflict etc etc etc.
hypocrisy reversed. IIRC.
science may be the basis, but his point is that the science very quickly becomes neglected over philosphy. Dawkins et al make this mistake ad nauseam.
how so? you have applied YOUR logic and assumed so. Who died and made you king? lol. again there is this assumption that Christians are not thinkers. You MUST be superior.He keeps equivocating atheism with evangelism and religion and its plain wrong, people who come to this conclusion are not just told "this is so" they really really think about it. Once you apply some actual reason you cannot come up with any other conclusion than god does not exist. If you come up with another conclusion based on evidence from a 2000 year old book, your logic is flawed.
um....they apply their faith for a reason? hmmm......2. Atheism has blood on its hands, Soviet Russia for example.
Ok so it was a secular, but it was also communist and controlled by a very ruthless dictator. Nobody is saying that all atheists are good and moral (as we see morality), simply that if everybody applied reason instead of faith things might get better.
lying? as usual, dissing the integrity of Christians3. Eminent scientists that believe in god.
Quite honestly these people are engaging in whats known as
doublethink.
Either that or they are lying.
doublethink? you can't dismiss their evidence since you are not party to it. You can't dismiss how credible the evidence is, since you refuse to examine it. You can't accuse them of doublethink wihout standing in their shoes.
that's the reason for my cutesy post earlier of that story about the blind girl.
and your logical, empirically supported-rationale for assuming it happened many times is..........? Just as they mentioned on the prog, concerning multiverses, what empirical justification can one provide? Nice idea, just as my being able to fly like superman is a nice idea.4. Fine tuning of the universe.
Ok this is an argument that at least has a scientific basis, however the fundamental flaw in his assumption is that the event that created our universe only happened once.
not true. more and more holes. thus the need for a paradigm shift. Am not denying adaptive selection within species but it's an assumption to claim it between species.5. The importance of Darwin.
To me, he blurs the line between Darwin as a man and his ideas, Atheists do not revere the man as a prophet at all they admire his genius yes. What they are really being enlightened by are his ideas and his theory's that have been consistently supported by more and more evidence for 150 years.
in other words, morality is essentially grounded in selfish motivation. Or, some will argue, in motivation for preservation of the species in the face of other species.We have morality as a result of natural selection so we have to balance our morality with science in this case. Most people would conclude that it is wrong to kill disabled people or on the basis of race. Why? simply because we all can empathise with others and therefore would not like to inflict things on others that we would not want to be inflicted on ourselves.
well, doesn't quite measure up to a morality that drives one to sacrifice for others, purely for others. nor does natural selection explain it.
btw, have been up all night, and no, was not motivated by this thread - LOL. Am not desperate.
video editing........nuff said.
*runs around screaming "the wapture is commin', the wapture is commin'"*
lmao, gotta like religious idiocy
/me takes off auto-add to subscriptions.
I've had enough of God-talk tbh
fuddam you really talk a load of cr@p. Blind devotion indeed.
Poor Fuddam.
*I* believe you Fuddy, I believe in God. We don't need the others. They'll be sorry.
I once new a guy who lived in a hostel who heard The Voice of God, and claimed to be a Christian, where I worked. He hadn't lived there very long, and subsequently slit his wrists in the small room he had been allocated. For the few short days i'd known him it was clear he was an absolute nut. Lucky me was the one to discover him there. There was blood absolutely everywhere. I wonder if he went to heaven or hell?
To err is human. To really foul things up ... you need a computer.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote