Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is God necessary to live a moral life?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by OpanaPointer View Post
    Such defensiveness. Sure sign of deep seated doubt.
    You're so hung up on stock insults that now you're just flinging them without even considering your target. Phil's an agnostic! What next, are you going to accuse water of being wet?

    (Sound: Church bells, lots of them, ringing.)

    Man: I wish those bloody bells would stop. Wife: Oh, it's quite nice dear, it's Sunday, it's the church. M: What about us atheists? Why should we 'ave to listen to that sectarian turmoil? W: You're a lapsed atheist, dear. M: The principle's the same. The Mohmedans don't come 'round here wavin' bells at us! We don't get Buddhists playing bagpipes in our bathroom! Or Hindus harmonizing in the hall! The Shintus don't come here shattering sheet glass in the shithouse, shouting slogans-W: All right, don't practice your alliteration on me. M: Anyway, when I membership card and blazer badge back from the League of Agnostics, I shall urge the executive to lodge a protest against that religious racket! Pass the butter knife! W: WHAT?? M: PASS THE BUTTER KNIFE!! (pause) THANK YOU! IF ONLY WE HAD SOME KIND OF MISSILE! W: 'OLD ON, I'LL CLOSE THE WINDOW. M: WHAT?! W: I SAID, I'LL CLOSE THE WINDOW!

    (Sound: Window closing, bells get faint, but are still there)

    M: If only we had some kind of missile, we could take the steam out of those bells. W: Well, you could always use the number 14-St. Joseph-the-somewhat-divine-on-the-hill ballistic missile. It's in the attic. M: What ballistic missile would this be, then?

    (Sound: Bells begin to get increasingly louder)

    W: I made it for you, it's your birthday present! M: Just what I wanted, 'ow nice of you to remember, my pet. 'ERE! W: WHAT? M: THOSE BELLS ARE GETTING LOUDER! W: WHAT? M: THOSE BELLS ARE GETTING LOUDER!! W: THE BELLS ARE GETTING LOUDER! OOOH, LOOK! M: WHAT? W: THE CHURCH, IT.. ITS COMING CLOSER! ITS COMING DOWN THE 'ILL! M: WHAT A LIBERTY! W: ITS TURNING INTO OUR LANE! WELL, YOU BETTER GO PUT IT OUT OF IT'S MISERY. M: WHERE'S THIS MISSILE, THEN? W: IT'S IN THE ATTIC. PRESS THE BUTTON MARKED CHURCH! M: 'OW DO I AIM IT? W: IT AUTOMATICALLY HOMES IN ON THE NEAREST PLACE OF WORSHIP! M: BUT THAT'S ST. MARKS! W: IT ISN'T NOW, LOOK!! OH, ITS OP'NING THE GATE. M: WHAT? USE THE MEGAPHONE! W: IT'S OP'NING THE GATE!! 'HURRY UP, ITS TRAMPLING OVER THE AZALIAS!

    (Sound: Missle launch, explosion, bells diminish)

    M: Did I 'it it? W: Yes, right up the aisle. M: Well I've always said, There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not.
    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
      You're so hung up on stock insults that now you're just flinging them without even considering your target. Phil's an agnostic! What next, are you going to accuse water of being wet?

      (Sound: Church bells, lots of them, ringing.)

      Man: I wish those bloody bells would stop. Wife: Oh, it's quite nice dear, it's Sunday, it's the church. M: What about us atheists? Why should we 'ave to listen to that sectarian turmoil? W: You're a lapsed atheist, dear. M: The principle's the same. The Mohmedans don't come 'round here wavin' bells at us! We don't get Buddhists playing bagpipes in our bathroom! Or Hindus harmonizing in the hall! The Shintus don't come here shattering sheet glass in the shithouse, shouting slogans-W: All right, don't practice your alliteration on me. M: Anyway, when I membership card and blazer badge back from the League of Agnostics, I shall urge the executive to lodge a protest against that religious racket! Pass the butter knife! W: WHAT?? M: PASS THE BUTTER KNIFE!! (pause) THANK YOU! IF ONLY WE HAD SOME KIND OF MISSILE! W: 'OLD ON, I'LL CLOSE THE WINDOW. M: WHAT?! W: I SAID, I'LL CLOSE THE WINDOW!

      (Sound: Window closing, bells get faint, but are still there)

      M: If only we had some kind of missile, we could take the steam out of those bells. W: Well, you could always use the number 14-St. Joseph-the-somewhat-divine-on-the-hill ballistic missile. It's in the attic. M: What ballistic missile would this be, then?

      (Sound: Bells begin to get increasingly louder)

      W: I made it for you, it's your birthday present! M: Just what I wanted, 'ow nice of you to remember, my pet. 'ERE! W: WHAT? M: THOSE BELLS ARE GETTING LOUDER! W: WHAT? M: THOSE BELLS ARE GETTING LOUDER!! W: THE BELLS ARE GETTING LOUDER! OOOH, LOOK! M: WHAT? W: THE CHURCH, IT.. ITS COMING CLOSER! ITS COMING DOWN THE 'ILL! M: WHAT A LIBERTY! W: ITS TURNING INTO OUR LANE! WELL, YOU BETTER GO PUT IT OUT OF IT'S MISERY. M: WHERE'S THIS MISSILE, THEN? W: IT'S IN THE ATTIC. PRESS THE BUTTON MARKED CHURCH! M: 'OW DO I AIM IT? W: IT AUTOMATICALLY HOMES IN ON THE NEAREST PLACE OF WORSHIP! M: BUT THAT'S ST. MARKS! W: IT ISN'T NOW, LOOK!! OH, ITS OP'NING THE GATE. M: WHAT? USE THE MEGAPHONE! W: IT'S OP'NING THE GATE!! 'HURRY UP, ITS TRAMPLING OVER THE AZALIAS!

      (Sound: Missle launch, explosion, bells diminish)

      M: Did I 'it it? W: Yes, right up the aisle. M: Well I've always said, There's nothing an agnostic can't do if he really doesn't know whether he believes in anything or not.
      I believe the legal representatives from Monty Python Inc. will be along shortly.
      BoRG
      "... and that was the last time they called me Freakboy Moses"

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Skoblin View Post

        My path from my Catholic upbringing to the position of agnosticism has followed a moral-logical course – the nature of the argument is that in this life, the belief in God and Jesus is inconsequential, the moral argument is supreme. Thus, one should adopt an agnostic position and try to pursue a simply moral course. Furthermore, not only is this morally possible, it is also a morally necessary, since to be moral and to act moral implies to do the good for good’s sake, and not for extraneous reasons which disclose self-interest. For instance, a person who does not commit murder out of fear of punishment, has decided against murder not on moral grounds, but out of self-interest. By the same token, one who returns a wallet in expectation of a reward, has also not acted morally, since it is clear they have also acted in self-interest. Similarly, one who pursues a moral life in expectation of living in heaven, is not acting morally anymore than one who lives a moral life in fear of hell. In both cases, the person is acting out of self-interest. Thus, questions of the afterlife, of heaven and hell, do not facilitate morality, but the exact opposite – they promote amorality, or simple legality. And there is a profound difference between these two.
        Well, I was going in opposite direction.
        From atheism, to agnosticism.
        But let's look on the problem from the different point of view.
        For moral life one needs moral norms to distinguish what is good, what
        is bad.
        Outside of the set of moral norms, words "moral", or "immoral"
        have no meaning.
        Basically no society could exist without moral norms.

        Even Soviet Union in 1961 developed its own moral code :

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_C...r_of_Communism

        1. Devotion to the cause of Communism, love of the socialist Motherland and of the socialist countries.
        2. Conscientious labor for the good of society: he who does not work, neither shall he eat.
        3. Concern on the part of everyone for the preservation and growth of public property.
        4. High sense of public duty; intolerance of actions harmful to the public interest.
        5. Collectivism and comradely mutual assistance: one for all and all for one.
        6. Humane relations and mutual respect between individuals: man is to man a friend, a comrade, and a brother.
        7. Honesty and truthfulness, moral purity, unpretentiousness and modesty in social and private life.
        8. Mutual respect in the family, concern for the upbringing of children.
        9. Irreconcilability towards injustice, parasitism, dishonesty, careerism, and profiteering.
        10. Friendship and brotherhood among all peoples of the USSR, intolerance of national and racial hatred.
        11. Intolerance towards the enemies of communism, peace, and freedom of nations.
        12. Fraternal solidarity with the working people of all countries, and with all peoples.

        But, there is always a problem of authority behind each moral code.
        Who is going to impose these moral norms on people ?
        Bunch of self proclaimed free thinkers ?
        Government appointed bureaucrats ?
        Communist Party Congress ?
        Hollywood celebrities, during the short breaks between divorces
        and drugs ?


        Why should one even care about it ?
        Compare with all above, authority of God looks much
        more convincing.
        As correctly mentioned, Dostoevsky :
        "If God doesn't exist everything is allowed."

        Yes, it is not a big deal to present here endless list of
        cases when church violated it's own norms.
        But we live in the World , which follow the laws,
        in spite lawmakers and law inforsment officers
        often violate the law.

        Another words, there a difference between the notion,
        that moral norms in society are necessary
        and expectations,
        that everybody is going to follow these norms.

        And let's consider another issue : how to implant
        moral norms into society.

        Church, in spite of its multiple excesses constantly is trying to teach people, what is good, what is bad.
        However, contemporary pop culture failed to do it miserably.

        Dixi.

        Beware of Occam's razor !!!!

        Comment


        • #64
          No. Atheists, agnostics and those who worship other god(s) have no problems living morally, while a great many of the "faithful" including a surprising number of priests do.

          How can the faithful ever explain pedophilic priests while questioning the morality of those who do not believe as they do?
          Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            No. Atheists, agnostics and those who worship other god(s) have no problems living morally, while a great many of the "faithful" including a surprising number of priests do.

            How can the faithful ever explain pedophilic priests while questioning the morality of those who do not believe as they do?
            The same way the followers of any moral system,
            religious, or nonreligious,
            violate their own moral norms.

            There is the difference between
            having moral norms
            and
            always following moral norms.
            Last edited by RS116; 10 Jul 13, 11:21.
            Dixi.

            Beware of Occam's razor !!!!

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by RS116 View Post
              The same way the followers of any moral system,
              religious, or nonreligious,
              violate their own moral norms.

              There is the difference between
              having moral norms
              and
              always following moral norms.
              In other words, faith does not equal morality, which was my statement to begin with.

              Thank you.
              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                In other words, faith does not equal morality, which was my statement to begin with.

                Thank you.
                In other words moral exist in 2 instances :
                - social norm
                - moral of individual

                And one can't expect them to be exact match.

                Individual moral in many ( not all ) cases defined
                by the social norms, but it isn't exact stamp
                of the social norms in the brain of individual.

                It is true for all types of believes, religious, or not.
                Dixi.

                Beware of Occam's razor !!!!

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  No. Atheists, agnostics and those who worship other god(s) have no problems living morally, while a great many of the "faithful" including a surprising number of priests do.

                  How can the faithful ever explain pedophilic priests while questioning the morality of those who do not believe as they do?
                  I wouldn't consider pedophillic priests "faithful". More than a few verses condemn such behavior. And pedophiles are not clergy exclusive either. They seem to pop up everywhere. But this is a mere peeing contest. Playing "who has the most degenerates" is pointless since every group has many bad apples.

                  "In other words, faith does not equal morality, which was my statement to begin with."

                  Faith in WHAT would be my counter question. Faith in Jesus? Faith in Mohammed? Faith in communism?

                  If I follow the teachings of Jesus, who will I offend? Who will I harm? Teachings of Buddha? Same question.

                  Now suppose I am a Hindu practicing caste. Or a Muslim practicing jihad. Now who do I offend?

                  One cannot juxtapose "faith" against "morality" because both terms are simply too broad. Which faith against which morality?
                  A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    I have found the Puritan doctrines about the Grace of the Elect, Predestination, etc., to be rather strange and hard to understand. But New England and parts of Virginia colonies were founded with these principles in practice.

                    They believed that we are all evil by nature and God picks those to come to heaven with him even before birth (Predestination). Evil is in each of us to varying degrees. One cannot get to Heaven by Works alone but must be elected and then accept Jesus as a Saviour. (Doctrine of Grace). A man might live a perfect life, but will be condemned for humanity’s original sin alone.

                    The question is who is the elect? No one can know. One can only hope.

                    http://www.apuritansmind.com/tulip/t...istopher-blum/

                    You are asking a question that might be answered by a Calvinistic church such as the Presbyterian Church or the Congregationalist Church.

                    One of the Arminian theories about universal predestination is that God is the author of all sin.

                    So one can live in sin all of one’s life, and then at the last minute declare that Jesus is your Saviour and if you are one of the elect, be admitted to Heaven.

                    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predestination_(Calvinism)

                    Catholics and Lutherans believe that God wants all to be saved, and that you can be saved by works and prayer of others, etc.

                    Remember all of the stories of the Puritans being forcibly compelled to attend church all day in New England and how there had to a man on hand with a tickler on a long pole to wake people up. If they were expounding on this stuff for 6 or 8 hours a day, I do understand. I think that I would be sitting there and thinking what is the point? I can sin to the very end and then accept Christ and IF I am in the elect I will get to Heaven. Or I can live a perfect life, join the church early, and still not get into Heaven.
                    Was this what they meant by FEAR THE LORD?

                    That did not keep some in that society from committing great and small sins. One has only to go through the Essex County Quarterly Court Records from Colonial Massachusetts to find all sorts of crimes, both temporal and spiritual. See for instance
                    http://salem.lib.virginia.edu/Essex/.../essex052.html
                    Homo homini lupus

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Being a follower of God and being a person who has consistently behaved well are not necessarily related. Acts without faith are insufficient. Faith without acts...is between a person and God. (Actually, it's all between a person and God.) If you believe the Gospels then a person can only approach God and his kingdom by faith. However, in the same Gospels, we are told to do good works.

                      Can one behave "morally" without believing in God? That requires definition of what is moral. There is no objective way of determining this. Immanuel Kant tried, but his observations and thoughts remain subjective and normative. Kant could only say how Kant thought things ought to be.

                      With morality being subjective, there are various definitions of moral behavior. In Christianity, (which today is not a single, monolithic religion, but one with enormous variation), morality comes from scripture.

                      I don't believe in God in order to be moral. I believe in God because I just do. In many instances, I have acted immorally. I still believe in God. My belief leads me to try to live in a moral way, but I fail in that effort quite often. This in no way reduces my faith, nor does it surprise me. It is what I expect, because I consider my imperfection to be a symptom of my weakness as a human being. God is perfect, I'm not.

                      Comment

                      Latest Topics

                      Collapse

                      Working...
                      X