What belief about God would make you want to be nice to other people?

[skjpm]

Rather than pursue absolute truth about the incomprehensible, I wonder what belief about God would make me want to be a nice person who pursues nonviolent solutions and wants everyone to have adequate health care. It's fun to argue about evolution and apocalypse, but really--is any of this making me nicer? And if these beliefs don't make me nicer, what beliefs would? Simply ignoring God didn't work for Stalin or the Khmer Rouge. I'd like to think that there are beliefs about God which make me and everyone else nicer to each other. What would you have to believe about God in order to start genuinely treating each other better?

[CindyDale]

1. Golden Rule?

Golden Rule might be good to start:

http://www.teachingvalues.com/goldenrule.html

[PassingFair]

68. Golden Rule predates Christianity by a long shot

Can be found in sayings of Confucius.

[LWolf]

2. That God, whatever name you choose

to call him/her/it by, is love. Unconditional love. That the way to divinity is to be that love, and to reflect it out to others. That if you can do just this one thing, you can leave all the dogma, ritual, and politics behind.

[merh]

74. Very well said!

I couldn't have said it better and I agree wholeheartedly.

Could the triology be so simple?
The devine truth, the endless circle of love.
God is love = Love God (love love); love yourself, love your neighbor

[Lindacooks]

91. Beautifully stated, and so true.

Thank you!

[eShirl]

3. what the Quakers taught me

that there's a light shining in the heart of every human being, regardless of their race, religion, etc, which is "that of God."

[bowens43]

4. Nothing.

I certainly don't need a god to know the difference between right or wrong or to treat others with respect and dignity.

However, evidnce that there is a god would be welcome.

[BiggJawn]

6. What bowens said.

If something is the right thing to do, I don't need a fear of "Eternal Damnation" or other such unpleasentries to keep me in line, either. I've always wondered that about the religious, this need to have a mythic bogeyman to keep them in line.

Guess that's why so many of them lie, cheat, steal, and fuck over people all week, then get remorseful when they wake up on Sunday. Hey's it's OK, they can always get forgiven!

I don't need that.

[skjpm]

8. Believing in God but believing nothing about God?

I'm not sure dogma is a bad thing--it depends on the dogma. I think we have to think about something--some words, some icon--when we think about God, and we have to believe that what we think about at least comes close to what God really is. But what icon, what dogma, what words, would actually make us nicer? The Golden Rule is great, but apparently nobody actually thinks God really meant it. If people really thought that the Golden Rule came from the Creator of the Universe, you'd think they would obey it. Since they don't, they must think it's not that important. So, if people ignore the Golden Rule, what else might make them want to be nicer?

[Az]

15. The golden rule is reflected in most philosophies

As it is actually a reflection of our own social nature. You don't need a god to get it. You just need to think about it.

We are a species that relies on learning from our fellow members to survive. We learn by copying what others do. As Socrates suggested if we teach our fellow citizens to be evil then they will in turn be evil to us.

Our basic nature is good. We struggle together to survive. If we want people in this world to be better then we can make it so by being kinder ourselves. And in this way we demonstrate how to behave to one another. In time this message will become copied by others as more and more adopt it.

[Meme]

25. I second that

I think you should want to be nice to other people, because YOU believe that that is the best thing to do. Not because you believe in God, and God believes you should be nice to other people, and because God believes so, you believe so.. no.. why do you need that extra step? If I decide I´m gonna be nice to every single human being, it´s because I believe it´s right, not because I believe in God.

And I´m still waiting for that evidence too ;)

[whistle]

5. Unity...

Unity stands for peace in the presence of conflict;
for love in the presence of hatred;
for forgiveness in the presence of injury.

Unity honors the many names for God,
the many paths to God,
the many ways to worship God.

For there is only one power
and presence of God
and that God loves each one of us equally.

[bonito]

7. Belief

We are that what is, is all. the golden rule.

[skjpm]

10. A lot of people have rejected dogma, and not been particularly nice

The non-dogmatic approach to God doesn't appear to make people any nicer than the dogmatic approach. The Chinese, who certainly have the richest heritage of non-dogmatic religion, are currently the most oppressive country in the world.

[GiovanniC]

9. While I Do Not Believe That a Belief in Any Form of God Is Prerequisite

To being motivated to be kind to others, I think that if one truly does believe in God as I know him through most of the major religions, then they must know that God has created us equally in His image, and that we should strive to love others as we love God and ourselves.

To practice hate and bigotry is not God-like and it is not Christ-like (for those that believe in that aspect of the religious mythology as well). In fact, the greatest Commandment of all was "Love one another".

[skjpm]

12. Since belief in Jesus doesn't seem to be working

what would make them treat people better? It's fun to point out how un-Christlike they're being, but having done that, what do they need to know in order to be nice? If Jesus just facilitates their bigotry, what other belief system would facilitate their kindness?

[GiovanniC]

27. I Believe Religion Is Simply a Tool For Some

To justify intolerance and hatred that would be present even in the absense of religion. The Bible is a particularly effective tool to that end, because quite frankly I could find justification for just about anything in there.

For example, some might use Leviticus as a justification for tying a gay man behind their pickup truck and the driving 50 mph down a gravel road. Well, using that logic, I am religiously justified for going into a Red Lobster and laying waste the place.

Leviticus 11:10-11
And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.

I think that many of these people would be intolerant even if religion did not exist, although I think that well-meaning people do get indoctrinated into this culture of hate simply by wanting to innocently practice their faith.

If I knew what would make people treat one another better... I'd be out there telling people about it. I really wish they would though.

[Igel]

80. In that case, check out

http://godhatesshrimp.com/

On the other hand, I got an e-mail from an old friend yesterday pointing that link out, and saying "Finally! Somebody gets it!"

Her church rejects gay marriage. And eating shrimp.

[ultraist]

96. bingo! Conservative fundamental vs. Liberal abstract

Any religious dogma can be interpreted in a conservative authoritarian way and vice versa.

Rigid, narrow minded, and literal interpretations lead to oppressive actions.

Preconventional thinking vs. Post conventional thinking

[sam sarrha]

11. i just got fired by my Fundie boss because i am a Buddhist. here in the

south there is little religious tolerance, and less political tolerance.

these Bible bangers stare critically into your eyes when they meet you because they think they can see the spirit of the lord in them if you are born again.. similar to a secret hand shake of something.

they think they can see if you guide your every thought and action by the will of the lord.

That is what that F'n wet brain Moron of a president meant when he said he looked into Putin eyes and saw he was a good man...NO SHIT !! that s what he meant!! Putin MASS MURDER, Head of the 'K' FUCK'n 'GB' !!!

the asshole Christians at work saw my bumper sticker "Free Tibet" and they started ridiculing me, calling me "Dali Lama" like taunting first graders... and making threatening faces like playground bullies. i was fired the next day. this from an employer that didn't let let you take 'any' breaks.. they are federal unfunded mandates.. so we stood up all night on bare concrete.

i am not impressed yet by the southern Christians.. but better than the Western ones, in the west i didn't get the feeling they wanted to lynch you if you didn't go to church.

[skjpm]

14. So, if Jesus doesn't work, what does?

And Buddha doesn't seem to work for the Chinese, either. They're not noted for how nicely they treat each other. What would work for them?

[Az]

17. For those of us that don't embrace such things, try reason

Appeals to gods and deities do not sway those such as us. If instead you merely appeal to the sense of good ideas then you can sway us.

[skjpm]

22. A lot of people reject reason out-of-hand

You can offer it to them, but they will run away. It might be amusing to scare them off, but that doesn't solve the problem. What can you offer them that would make them actually want to be nicer?

[Az]

31. That is a misunderstanding of how reason is used

Reason is only used by the mind when there is doubt. When we have no doubts about a thing there is no impetus for us to use the tools of reason or rational thought.

[PassingFair]

69. Ahem. I presume you know some Chinese people?

Friends of mine who visit China frequently say that the Chinese are a happy and friendly people.
We have our authoritarian wack jobs here, too.
But I really don't think the majority of 'murikans are "happy".

[ultraist]

95. The problem is not which religion or belief it's ORGANIZED religion

and conservative interpretations of the religious doctrines & dogma that creates the problems.

All major religions have the same precepts often called "universal truths." Every major ORGANIZED religion has been created by man and used by man to control the masses, wage war, outcast "certain" groups, and make money off of their followers.

Conservative interpretations of religious doctrines, such as the Evangelical fundie interpretation of the Bible, promote more hate and intolerance than do the more liberal and open minded interpretations religious doctrines.

Conservative religions attract rigid type thinkers and encourage a conservative Authoritarian worldview.

Boshier and Wilson's Characteristics of the conservative/authoritarian personality are applicable:

*Religious dogmatism

•Right-wing political orientation (in Western society)

•Insistence on strict rules and punishments

•Ethnocentrism and intolerance of minority groups

•Preference for conventional art, clothing, and institutions

•Anti-hedonistic outlook (the tendency to regard pleasure, particularly sexual, as necessarily bad)

•Superstition and resistance to scientific progress (Boshier, 1983, p. 51)

•Religion of a dogmatic and fundamental nature

•Commitment to political organizations which favor maintenance of the status quo (even by force)

•Strict regulation of individual behavior

•Militarism

•Preference for people of one’s own kind

•Resistance to change

•Conventional in art and clothing

•Refusal to accept new ideas

•Superstitious and fatalistic

[Az]

13. Not about god, but rather about human nature

That we are a social creature. Evolution figured out that a species has a better chance of survival if it works together and struggles to keep even the weakest member aloft. If we all work together we all can progress further than any one of us could possibly do on our own.

We are all born blind and screaming into this world and it is only by struggling together that we are able to survive.

[skjpm]

16. I bet you hate the song Ebony and Ivory

Most intellectuals do, but that's what you're saying--"We learn to live when we learn to give each other what we need to survive, together alive." I agree--but most people hate the song. If they like the idea, why do they hate the song? And why don't we just get along like my piano keyboard? What stops us?

[Az]

18. Who said I hate that song?

I quite like it.

As to what stops us? We have forgotten how to talk to one another. Our society condemns conversations about belief. Thus the dialog stopped. Each group and belief drifted into its own valley and lost sight of each other. There we make up stories and inuendo about the other groups without any real knowledge of them other than the occaisional raider that comes from them.

We are ignorant of one another. We need to reopen the dialog. Unfortunately the first to respond to the dialog are going to be the fighters. But we must persist. We must continue to press on until we realise that we have more in common than we differ about.

[skjpm]

20. I've taken a lot of crap for liking Ebony and Ivory and I'm sensitive

So I apologize if I've found the one other person in the world who will admit to liking it! :) But it does state for me the basic principle of existance, and yet no one seems to want to do what the song suggests. Nothing seems to actually get people to be nicer to each other--Jesus doesn't, Muhammed doesn't, Buddha doesn't, and a mega-superstar duet doesn't. What would make people nicer? We all have stories about religious hypocrites and what doesn't work--what does?

[Az]

23. Perhaps its because something in society is teaching us otherwise

Take a look at advertising. It teaches us greed, selfishness, fear, competition. In short it is making us over in the image of the Corporations it serves. We are a learning species. Our nature is good but we can learn to be evil.

[skjpm]

26. What would make me want to avoid advertising and seek peace?

I agree--the world and the media don't seem to help. And yet I participate even though I know it's wrong.

[Az]

29. Because they have become part of our society

The trouble is that we gave control of our lives over to a set of rules known as Corporations. Such simple instructions can become social constructs or entities of their own. But as they do not have our biologically derived needs they do not function with our interest in mind. As long as they remain under our social control they are useful tools like fire and other destructive forces. But as they grew in power and some removed the controls they have come to dominate our society.

Now we believe we cannot live without them. They have become so important in our lives that we no longer can see beyond them to where we can possibly be seperate from them. This may be true but we may be able to bring the controls back and stuff the genie back in the bottle.

[karynnj]

73. I loved the song too - so there are at least 3

and was offended that it often is listed among the worst songs - randomly turning on the radio seemed likely to find something worse.
I think it's just that some people who critisize McCartney for anything, though McCartney/Wonder Black/white piano key board to be too obvious - I like it and I liked the music.

[Disturbed]

21. God is an invention of people.

I usually refer to the ancient Egyptians about this sort of topic. They were intelligent,creative people that believed in gods and rising from the dead in the underworld. They spent a lot of time and treasure on those beliefs. Anyone still believe what they believed? We still have people that believe things that people believed 2K or more years ago.

People seek answers to their existence and comfort from their suffering. Gods and godesses provide that for many.

That's all fine with me until they try to convert me or force me to believe what they believe.

[skjpm]

24. OK, God doesn't make people nicer. What does?

I'm not trying to find out the many beliefs that don't work--is there one that does, consistently? There are rotten Christians, rotten athiests, rotten Muslims, rotten Buddhists--there are many, many religious and non-religious hypocrites. But is there something beyond all that which would bring people together?

[Az]

30. Talking makes us nicer

Getting to know one another makes us nicer. Making each other part of our community makes us nicer. Its the only thing that has ever worked.

[ultraist]

97. Universal truths encourage people to be moral and ethical

Universal truths are found in all major religions, philosophy, and science.

Just having a belief in a mystical being does not make a person do good or bad things. Living according to values and morals that promote peace,love, & equality encourage "good" behavior.

http://www.panentheism.com/Pages/huss06.html

excerpt:
Stephen Hawking helped us to understand what we are to look for when he said:

‘If we do discover a complete (unified) theory (of the universe) it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientist, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason for then we should know the mind of God.’

Philosophy: we are a part of the greater whole – Total abstraction

Religion: we are a part of the greater whole – Original causation

Science: we are a part of the greater whole – Climax ecosystem

[Az]

28. God is a natural result of our mind

As we develop we come to realise our self. The sentient mind first percieves itself as everything. As we grow we first learn to distinguish the limits of ourself from the rest of the universe. Next we begin to notice that other things in the universe seem to exhibit behaviour similar to ours. We begin to grasp the idea that they may have identity as we do. We learn to project our sense of self onto these other things and attribute them with identity.

But it doesn't stop there. At first anything with behaviour or properties that we don't readily grasp we project identity onto. As we are educated by our parents and teachers we learn to dismiss certain such projections and instead learn that they are simple mindless properties.

But some projected identities are not so easily dismissed. And as the field of such identities becomes increasingly rarified the source of such identities becomes logically further removed. That is until we arrive at a god that is beyond our experience and controls everything around us in some manner. This is how gods arise.

[skjpm]

32. How does niceness arise?

We tend to associate niceness with God, however the concept of God may arise.

Anyhoo--I'm not sure about thread etiquette. I'm enjoying this, but I'll have to come back to this thread later.

[Az]

35. I would say

Belief systems form a manditory structure of goodness in order to ensure its own survival. Think of belief systems as evolutionary social entities. Those that are not effective at surviving (ie spreading) die out. Those that are effective at surviving continue to do so.

Thus whatever enables a belief system to spread becomes favored over time. So consider what happens when two societies meet. The stronger society often overwhelms the weaker society and their culture tends to overcome them. Thus a belief system will favor strong societies with which to spread it's teachings further.

[EFerrari]

19. What belief about a god enables hostility to other people? nt

[AngryOldDem]

33. Why do you necessarily have to believe in God to be nice?

Being nice beats the alternative, IMHO.

Also, a simple belief in justice helps, too.

[ICantBelieve]

41. Who said you do?

[Dob Bole]

34. GRACE

the central "doctrine" of Christianity that the fundamentalists know nothing about. God loves each and every human being, and every person has worth, yet this worth is NOT based on your actions. Jesus hung out with prostitutes, alcoholics, beauracrats who took a little off the top, and people of other races...social outcasts.

If you believe that there is nothing you can do to get out of God's reach, and that every person is extremely valuable...well, there's your belief in God that makes you nicer. :)

[CindyDale]

36. Most of the serious problems people have arise from fear

Not from belief.

I like the Enneagram. It can promote self-awareness, you see from where the fear arises:

http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/

[Trailrider1951]

37. In a word: Karma

What goes around, comes around.
Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
As you sow, so shall you reap.
Jesus: "As you do unto the least among you, you do unto me".

I treat people as the equals they are. And there is enough hurt and pain and hatred and horror in this world without me adding to it.

[ICantBelieve]

38. ROLE MODELS and GOD IS GREATER

ROLE MODEL:
I thought God and/or Jesus was supposed to be a role model. Jesus loved everyone. Jesus forgave everyone. Jesus helped everyone. I think Christians are supposed to be Christ-like.

GOD IS GREATER:
The Muslims say "God is greater." That's why they stop whatever they're doing 5 times a day to pray. Whatever's happening in your life, God is greater. That is, there's a bigger picture. If you just got elected President of the USA or if you just got fired from your custodians job, it doesn't matter. God is greater. There's a bigger picture. Boy, George W. Bush would be a lot nicer person if he stopped 5 times a day to remember that God is greater.

By the way, I'm an athiest. But I like these ideas. I find them useful for being nice to people and for being nice to myself. I think that just like the individual cells in our body form something greater than just the sum of their parts, humans together as a group form something greater than the sum of individual people. So, I take these ideas and substitute "together we're greater" for "God."

Anything that takes us away from thinking about ourselves to seeing a bigger picture makes us "nicer." The problem with the religious right is that they are thinking about themselves. You can't just slap a "God" label on that and be nicer.

[ultraist]

101. You do not have to believe in God to be ethical

We form ‘truths’ based upon what we ‘believe’. (religion)
We form ‘truths’ based upon what we ‘observe’. (science)
We form ‘truths’ based upon what we ‘reason’. (philosophy)

http://www.panentheism.com/Pages/huss01.html

[Bridget Burke]

39. God's an old grouch, but Jesus had quite a bit to say....

Check out the Gospels.

[Igel]

84. A lot of people like to say we don't need to sweat

Leviticus. But if God was an old grouch, Jesus certainly liked to quote him:

Lev. 19:18. 'Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.'

[LynzM]

40. Hrm...

I think that believing that every person is worthy of initial respect, until you learn otherwise, would make people nicer. i'm not sure you can tie that to a belief in a god or gods, as almost all religions teach love for others as a basic part of their dogma. But people seem very adept at picking and choosing the parts they want to pay attention to. If you had a religion whose sole tenet was "respect and be kind to other people" and you could get people to follow that... but then we're back to what you're asking, how do you get people to do it? I think it comes down to that you can't make anyone be nicer. Your actions and reactions to people around you are your own choice, and whether your belief in a god (punitive or not) helps you to react in a kinder, more respectful way toward others, that's cool, but I don't believe it's a cause. If it is a cause, it's a weak one. Psychology and criminal studies have shown that fear of a punishment is not the best way to motivate people. Positive reinforcement in the form of a society where people are kind, respectful, and understanding is the best reward, but it's a long-term goal, and people are hard-pressed to believe in it, in the face of all the bad things we see happening daily.

[reallygone]

170. We're not "fundies"

The threat of a "hell" is not what motivates me. I know other believers, and hell is not what motivates them. What motivates us is that we find that religion gives us an inner peace because we believe that our behaviors are "right" (when we follow the guidance) which relieves us from a snes of guilt or worry over "did I do the right thing". Religion gives us an objective tool that we can use to measure ourselves and conduct self-evaluation. It provides a standard that we can strive for.

Imagine a time trial race. You are lined up at the starting blocks and someone says "go". If you don't have any idea how long the race is, what your pace is, and what the qualifying speed or how many heats there will be, then you probably can't do your best. However, if you know it is a 100 meters, you know the record is 9.2 seconds, and you run alongisde other competitiors, you strive to do excel and can be satisfied if you beat your best time even if you didn't win.

Religious guides give us that tool to help us set a goal. Tell us when we are slipping, and encourage us to do our best. Without such a tool, you just look around you and measure your behavior by those around you.

Imagine someone living in a ghetto. There is prostitution, rape, gang slayings, drugs, and robberies every day. The person looks around and says, "I don't shoot people, I don't sell drugs, and I don't rape. All I do is smoke crack (which I pay for), use prostitutes (which I pay for), and hang out (but I don't rat anyone out to the cops). Boy, ain't I moral?!"

Without religion or some other moral standard, it is tough to discern what may be "right" and "wrong". I think morality is not relative, it is an objective standard and I get that from religion.

[reallygone]

42. Peace

Two things:
1. By believing and praying I find an inner peace and am less stressed (like in meditation) and thus I can be more tolerant and patient with others. This contributes a general peaceful interpersonal relationship with others.
2. My God encourages me to be kind and treat other people well. It also encourages me to assume that others are worthy, trustworthy and good people. This kindness contributes to a general feeling of goodwill in relations with people I come in contact with. It also helps resolve problems.

[ChairOne]

43. What kind of amoral person requires a belief about god.....

... in order to want to be nice to people?

sheesh

Do we also need a belief about god to tell us when to take a shit?

[reallygone]

45. Tolerance

No, we don't need a belief to know how to take care of ourselves. But in a world where survival of the fittest is a rule of nature, we do need a MORAL COMPASS to encourage us to be willing to take care of the weakest and least fit among us. Is it any wonder why most charities in the world are sponsored by religious organizations?

Belief is a God helps me be tolerant and kind, even to people who ridicule what I believe.

[Az]

46. There are other rules in nature

Nature came up with social creatures such as us that rely on each other to survive as well.

[reallygone]

50. Social creatures and morality are not synonymous

Ants, bees, and zebras are all social creatures. Would we contend to their social interactions as governed by a moral code?

I am a believer. I am sorry that some others are not. The non-believers are missing out on a good thing. I am so much more tolerant, calm, and happy because I believe. I feel better about others and I feel better about myself. I am more willing to be concerned about my neighbor, and about others who are not my neighbor. I do not stop with being concerned, I am more willing to take action to change the world in small and large ways because of the moral standards I hold myself to. I fail sometimes, and I feel ashamed when I do. This helps me to improve in the future because I do not like how I feel when I am ashamed. Belief gives me something that nothing else can replace. I still have that when I have nothing else.

[ChairOne]

51. Nobody said they were.

Absolutely nobody.

[ChairOne]

52. Survival of the fittest and immorality are not synonymous

Sucks when you people retort based on something you never said, eh?

[reallygone]

54. Yep!

I would humbly suggest that survival of the fittest IS synonymous with immorality. If you broke your leg, and a tiger came upon you, you'd be lunch. Bullies and thiefs somehow justify what they do is somehow "justified" (i.e. moral). They prey on those weaker than they. I believe those people, and the tiger as well, are immoral (or at least ammoral). Doesn't mean I want to kill them or make them extinct, just that they do not have a moral code that justifies their behavior.

[Az]

58. If you broke a leg and a tiger came along

I would help you to drive away the tiger. Because you are a fellow human being. I feel connected to you and will strive to help you. I hope that in doing this you will see me as an allie and come to my aid should it be necissary in the future. In the mean time we will have formed a bound of trust. Or at the very least the beginnings of one.

[Az]

56. Hold on there

How do you know what motivates and drives nonbelievers? How do you know you are more willing to be concerned with your neighbor than I or any other person, believer or not? And how do you know you are not missing out on something great by not believing?

I won't presume to tell you that your beliefs mean nothing. By the same token allow me to have my dignity and value for my way of life.

As to your notion of tolerance. I am a bit troubled by your phrasing. It seems to suggest that we who do not believe are some how less tolerant. And yet this very notion itself seems somewhat intolerant. I think we can all agree that we strive to be tolerant but we can't exactly be the judges of our own ability to be tolerant. I think there is something about checking one's own eyes for debry before pointing out the specks in other's eyes.

I will not take offense to these statements. But be aware that the way you are phrasing yourself may be offensive to others. Perhaps you can find a different wording to express your toughts.

[reallygone]

162. Read more closely

I do not think I am superior to non-believers. I personally know non-believers who are more tolerant than I, more moral than I, more honest than I, kinder/nicer than I, and have more talents in other areas than I. Non-believers can be better than believers.

I have consistently said that being a believer HAS HELPED ME! You can see that in every one of my posts. I have tried to express that religious beliefs have helped me.

I have also posited the theory that societies definitions of "right"/"wrong"/"morality" have a considerable basis in religious thought. That doesn't mean that that religion or religious people are better than the non-believers, just that the foundations of our western culture and our societal rules have a significant heritage in religious thought.

Finally, I have pointed to data. Modern societies that profess to be "athiestic" have been obvious failures. Some "religious" societies fail as well, but I do not know of a successful nation that was based on enforcing a public personal of atheism or even agnostic. The Soveit Union, N. Korea, China, Cambodia, Vietnam, and others have been notable for their failures and human rights abuses. Finally, 5,000 of history tend to support the idea that the primary concepts of religious thought regarding interpersonal and government relations contributes to a peaceful and more human society (although there have been abuses and wrongdoing at points, the general trend of religion and religious leaders has been to improve societies over this historical period). Religion provides guidance and affords a level of internal peace that, in my opinion, can't be duplicated on an individual basis through "reasoning out" a moral code.

None of the above is an attack or should be construed to be an insult to others, expecially non-believers. Some will take offense, but my remarks are not intended to do that. I don't claim superiority. The thread merely asked for opinions about how "belief in God could being nicer". I tried to make my case. I said it helped ME! Maybe non-belief helps others. I don't know. All I know is how it helps me and I explained why I believe that it does help me.

If we Democrats and Progressives attack believers, make them feel unwelcome or stupid becasue they believe in some myth/fairytale, then believers will soon leave our ranks. With 75% of the US being believers, this is a prescription for disaster. Believers have often been on our side. Look at the Reverand Martin Luther King, Reverand Jesse Jackson, Reverand Al Sharpton. Look at the opposition to the Vietnam War who were often called "Jesus Freaks". Look at the Civil Rights Movement of the 60's. Look at the opposition to the Iraq War (the Pope has condemned it). Yet when I express why I believe my beliefs help me be a better Democrat and Progressive, I am attacked as being offensive, insulting, exclusionary, and intolerant. I'm not. I don't even take offense at those who have different beliefs or who attack my beliefs. My beliefs give the the confidence and the security to continue to believe despite what others might say.

[Az]

163. Intent versus perception

Read what you said here: I am a believer. I am sorry that some others are not. The non-believers are missing out on a good thing. I am so much more tolerant, calm, and happy because I believe. I feel better about others and I feel better about myself. I am more willing to be concerned about my neighbor, and about others who are not my neighbor.

Lets look at the first three statements here.

I am a believer. : Ok this is good. Nothing inflamatory here.

I am sorry that some others are not. : Ok, we can be sorry you aren't a nonbeliever so fair statement.

The non-believers are missing out on a good thing. : Getting a little edgy but still within the bounds of fair as long as it is opinion.

But here is where your intent may have seperated from how you are being percieved. Here is your next statement.

I am so much more tolerant, calm, and happy because I believe. : Do you see the problem here? The statement before this one was a comparitive between how you felt that believing was better than not believing. Now you lead into a statement seeming to proclaim that you are more tolerant than a nonbeliever as well as calmer and happier. Your next couple of statements unfortunately follow in the same track and continue to create the perception that you are comparing yourself in a superior fashion to nonbelievers.

This may well have not been your intent. But this is how many are percieving your statements. Now you can decide that we are maliciously misinterpretting your words and help to continue the increasing miscommunications. Or you can take a more congenial approach and try to right the situation. You seem to be on the right path but it helps to recognise where the problems stem from.

Peace.

[reallygone]

169. OK................

I see where I was not sufficiently clear.

Mine: "I am so much more tolerant, calm, and happy because I believe." :

Yours: "Do you see the problem here? The statement before this one was a comparitive between how you felt that believing was better than not believing. Now you lead into a statement seeming to proclaim that you are more tolerant than a nonbeliever as well as calmer and happier.

My intent would have been stated better if I had said "When I was young, I was often intolerant and lost my temper. Now, since my faith has deepened, I have a much more mature view and I am so much more tolerant, calm, and happy because I believe."

Hope this clears it up and you understand I did not mean to disparage anyone.

[Mandate My Ass]

57. I am a non-believer. I don't care that others are not

The believers are missing out on a great thing. I am so much more tolerant, calm and happy because I don't believe. I feel better about others and myself. I am more willing to be concerned about my neighbor and others who are not my neighbor. I do not stop with being concerned, I am more than willing to take action to change the world in small and large ways because of the moral standards I hold myself to. I fail sometimes and feel ashamed when I do. This helps me to improve the future because I do not like how I feel when I am ashamed. Non-belief gives me something nothing else can replace, the knowledge that I do the right thing without hope of reward or the fear of punishment. I still have that when I have nothing else.

[ChairOne]

61. In fairness, it should be noted that....

... it is POSSIBLE to be motivated-to-do-the-right-thing-because-it's-the-right-thing even if one is a believer...

But while it's possible, it's surely HARDER... lol

[Mandate My Ass]

63. No, Actually it's easier

I've been on both sides of this issue and it's much easier now.

[ChairOne]

65. Not convinced you read my post correctly.... /eom

[PassingFair]

70. I am NOT a believer

But I AM as concerned a human, as dedicated a human, as moral a person as you.
How would you like it if I started this post with: I feel sorry that you need delusions to make your way through life, when obviously they are unnecessary.

[ultraist]

103. I am a believer too, a believer in GOODNESS not "God"

One does not have to believe in God to be a moral and ethical person. To understand that the greater good is to promote the well being of all people, allows one to reason out values such as respect for oneself, others, and the earth.

Faith based beliefs vs. Reason based ethos

"I think, therefore I am."

[ChairOne]

49. I didn't ridicule your belief (in god I assume?)...

If anything, I ridiculed the idea, implicit in the OPs question, that some sort of godly belief is required in order to want to be nice to people.

That is clearly a ridiculous inference (IMO, of course).

OTOH, it may well be that belief in god is required in order for a person to want to *always* be nice to *all* people under *all* circumstances. Certainly nothing rational would lead a person to such a thought...

[reallygone]

53. Don't be restrictive

I do not imply that you HAVE TO BE a believer to be kind or moral. I have certainly met kind people and people I would call highly moral that were professed/acknowledged atheists. That's fine with me. We get along well. We have mutual respect for each other and we share a similar moral code, that we apparently acquired thru different experiences.

To conclude, I would say two things: first, the original question was what does religion offer to "you", and I tried to relate what it gives to me; second, I would offer the view that our judgement of what is good, kind, tolerant, etc. is a reflection of religious morality that has been adopted by the society at large (I point to the continued existance of slavery and cannalbalism in the world as evidence that without religion diferent moral codes can be established).

Finally, many of the posts that reject the premise of a need for God, demonstrate a lack of tolerance for my own beliefs. I am thankful that my beliefs help me to be tolerant of those who do not agree with me.

[ChairOne]

60. Wow - Am I the only one who reads these things?

The original question WAS NOT "what does religion offer to "you" "

The original question WAS:

"What belief about God would make you want to be nice to other people?"

Sheesh. Maybe I should start believing in god - just to become more tolerant of people making shit up.... Waitaminute - that's not something a person *should* be tolerant of..... ok, nevermind...

And on the original question (the real one, not the make-believe one), it contains an implicit claim, that the antecedent is *relevant*, ie, that some belief or other in god is needed in order to want to be nice to people. And that, as I have said, and you have not responded to, choosing instead to make up questions and call them "original", is a ridiculous inference.

Yoo "would offer the view that our judgement of what is good, kind, tolerant, etc. is a reflection of religous morality"? OMG - are you serious? lol

Um, both "the continued existance of slavery" (sic) and "cannalbalism" (sic) are routinely justified by reference to religous dogma. Not a big history buff are you (despite your inclination to grand historico-philsophical claims)? Well, except for the good book, of course...

[Az]

64. To my fellow atheists and others taking note in this discussion

This is a very tricky subject. We can either decide to take offense at mistatements and punish individuals who make them with our own invective. Or we can slow the pace down, try to see what they are saying, and then try to reach them and communicate to them how things may be other than the presume.

Disagreement is an opportunity to clear up misunderstandings. Don't lose it to anger or emotions.


Chairone, I used this point in the thread not because of anything you were saying. Merely because it is a prominent place in the discussion.

[ChairOne]

67. All good - to each his own.....

For my part, I'm sick of religous people getting away with making shit up. Deliberately making shit up, in fact. And then playing the don't-hate-me-cuz-I'm-religous-but-even-if-you-do-it's-ok-cuz-jesus-loves-me card

I totally respect your approach tho. :)

[reallygone]

122. For the record!

The original post was "what belief about God would make me want to be a nice person who pursues nonviolent solutions..."?

I assumed (maybe I was wrong) that the thread wanted to solicit from others ideas about 'what belief about God do you have that you think contributes to you wanting to be nicer and pursue non-violent solutions'. I though the poster wanted to hear from believers and have them explain, in a clear open way, why religion might improve society by improving interpersonal relations.

I have tried to be open and honest (in several posts) about how believing has made me a "nicer and less violent" person. I have stated and also believe that my "nicer and less violent" behavior may affect others and encourage them to be "nicer and less violent" even if they are no also believers.

What could be clearer? I am not trying to distort or make anything up. I may have misunderstood what was being sought in the way of responses, but I tried to contribute and am trying to explain my reasoning. I think I understand your reasoning about why you don't agree that belief in a god contributes to an improved society.

To conclude; I think Capitalism is a rapacious economic and social construct designed to extract the most possible from the weakest or most available through the most efficient process. IMHO, the only thing that make the US tolerable, is the brake that religious conviction places on the actions of government and business. If 75%+ of Americans were not believers, I think business would enslave us all and we would end up like the Soviet Union under Communism. Our culture and religious heritage hovers over the weakest and most exploited citizens and groups in our population and provides sanctuary and protection.

If you doubt my statements, look at Niger, look at the Ivory Coast, look at Liberia, look at China, Russia, N. Korea, Nepal, Sudan, Ethiopia, Rawanda, etc. Do you think that it is coincidence that all 19 countries that make up the developed world have a religious heritage (not all of them are Christian)? Those countries have stable governments, stable economies, and a peaceful citizenry. They also have long histories of religious conviction.

[ChairOne]

134. Oh boy.

Think you hung a right where you shoulda hung a left....

Good luck to you though.

[Mandate My Ass]

66. You're right. My bad.

I must ssssssssssssllllllllllooooooooooooooowwwwwwwwwww down now. :o

[youthere]

156. Not ridicule-

but one could certainly get the impression that you negate and dismiss different faith systems.
"I am a believer. I am sorry that some others are not." Why? They certainly aren't.
"The non-believers are missing out on a good thing"- They have found what sustains them just as you have found what sustains you. Thats a GOOD thing!

I am more...."
"I am more...."
"I am more...."

[youthere]

94. And He said unto them..

"Thou shalt not pinch loaves on the Sabbath"

[ChairOne]

99. ROFL /eom

[liberalmuse]

44. No belief necessary.

Just doing good for no reason, just because it is right in itself and not expecting to be rewarded. By the 'right thing', I mean the golden rule--treating others as you would like to be treated, having compassion, letting your heart soften and open up towards your fellow man because you know we're all in this together, and you understand how hard life can be.

This concept of doing good to please some anthropomorphic god in order to avoid punishment or to get rewarded in the afterlife sounds a bit self-serving. (I've talked to many Christians who expect a mansion or some form of great material wealth in the afterlife.) I don't want someone earning brownie points through me.

Just to bring something up totally out of the blue--has anyone seen, 'Dogville'? Interesting movie about this kind of thing. It kind of twisted and shattered my deep-seated beliefs stated in the first paragraph for awhile, because I was horrified to be very happy with the heroine's choice at the end. Damn, manipulative director!

[reallygone]

48. What is good?

I would suggest that what you believe is "good" or "kind" is rooted in a set of moral values that were established by an organized religion. Morality sets the tone for the rules of society. Animals (we are after-all just animals) do not spontaneously spring forth with a set of moral values that governs their relationships.

Freeing of slaves in this country. The civil rights movement in the 60's. Opposition to the Vietnam War. All of these movements were sponsored, lead, and carried to victory by believers who spoke about a higher set of values. The foundation of our nation and the rights we should have as individuals are based upon what people believed were inalienable rights bestowed on us as humans by a higher power. Whether you are Christian, Raelian, or Muslim, you believe that humans are fallible and need guidance from a higher power to differentiate between "right" and "wrong".

When we believe that we, as individuals, can determine what should or should not be, what is right or wrong, we are bestowing upon ourselves a wisdom and righteousnees that I do not believe we have earned. Who gets to say what is "right"? You? Me? Or GW? If you do not "believe" then you are conceding that GW gets to decide what is right or wrong because he is in power. If Something Else has the power in deciding what is right, then even GW is to be judged. Are you willing to concede that someone like GW is justified in saying what is right and wrong? He was chosen to set the rules for our society, so in a secular world, he has the "right". Thankfully, as a believer, I know he is often wrong and has no authority to decide right and wrong, he just has secular authority to aminister the law.

[Az]

62. Good is that which builds our society

Good is that which we as individuals come to realise is beneficial for us as individuals and as a group. Good is ever changing and growing as our awareness increases. Good is defined by us and applied by us. Each of our perceptions of good may be different but our voices joing together to create a chorus that describes the social concept of good.

[PassingFair]

72. Trying to practice control here...

deep breathing....

"Freeing of slaves in this country. The civil rights movement in the 60's. Opposition to the Vietnam War. All of these movements were sponsored, lead, and carried to victory by believers who spoke about a higher set of values. The foundation of our nation and the rights we should have as individuals are based upon what people believed were inalienable rights bestowed on us as humans by a higher power. Whether you are Christian, Raelian, or Muslim, you believe that humans are fallible and need guidance from a higher power to differentiate between "right" and "wrong".

Sorry, gotta spout. Need I mention that all of these "victories" were hard-fought AGAINST folks who believed with all their heart that their GAWD WANTED THINGS THAT WAY! That slavery is PRESCRIBED in the bible. That the bible tells slaves to OBEY their masters. You make me crazy!
The foundation of our nation was laid to PREVENT religion from creeping into government, because of it's controlling, destructive nature, by Enlightenment scholars.
And no, not all of us need an imaginary "higher power" whether Christian, Raelian, or Muslim, to differentiate between right and wrong.

Sorry AZ, but this poster is too patronizing to be endured.

[lukasahero]

76. Whoopsie - you are yelling at the wrong poster...

The post you are quoting from was not written by Az, it was written by reallygone. Just didn't want a huge flamefest to break out over a simple mistake.

BTW, even as a "christian", I agree with you 100%. "Religion" has done more harm than good. True and conscientious spirituality, however, is not "religion". The differences should be noted.

[ScreamingMeemie]

102. She is responding to reallygone if you follow the responses.

:hi:

[lukasahero]

105. Sorry - I get it now - my big bad.

[Igel]

86. You are accurate; and the poster you're replying to is *also*

accurate.

Many of the folks that lead the anti-slavery drive also pushed for temperance (= not drinking alcohol).

We prefer to call ML King "Dr." these days. "Reverend" used to be just as popular. And he couched many of his arguments in easily recognisable religious language.

Each pushed for righteousness as he/she/they saw it.

[ultraist]

104. Correct. It is not necessary to believe in a mystical being to be ethical

Promoting sustainability does not require a belief in a supernatural being, but a basic understanding of Science (nature) and Philosophy (human rights).

All things in nature are connected.
All humans are equal.

We gain an understanding of the basic principles of Science and philosophy through observing and reasoning. We do not need a blind faith in something to draw rational conclusions.

[livinginphotographs]

75. Good is what is beneficial to society as a whole.

It's the collectivist idea of living one's life to benefit society, as opposed to "be good so I can go to Heaven."

Murder = bad for societal order = wrong
Rape = bad for societal order = wrong
Discrimination = no logical reason to assume that one group of people is any better than another = wrong

I prefer to define my personal moral code on what I've reasoned out is beneficial and what is destructive to society as a whole, not by what some book or some church says.

And before you start linking all those social movements with religion, just keep in mind how many atrocities have been committed, and still are committed, in the name of religion.

[reallygone]

88. Interesting thesis!

However, I would point out that "murder" of Jews was thought to be OK. Rape of a conquered city was OK. Discrimination was a law even in this country. Groups of people organized and lead by religious leaders is what changed those conditions. Not upright thinking and moral people like yourself.

Has wrong been done and justified by religion? You betcha! And it troubles my heart. That is why I seek guidance from a higher authority and try to examine my own soul. I have faith that there is a plan and that we can improve. The only saving grace is that progress to a better society has been relatively steady over the last 5,000 years.

Do you have to be religious to be moral? No. But it helps! I think that the history of man makes that undeniable.

Some people "reason out" their own moral code which they have a perfect right to do in this country, as long as it does not conflict with law. Of course, the laws were built on a religious moral code, but that is beside the point. As a "personal code" you establish that as "right." Those with a different code are "wrong". What is really right or is it all relative? My difference is that I do not recognize that I have the authority to determine "right" and "wrong". That guidance was given to me by a higher power. I just have to seek help in applying what was given to me.

Its called humility.

[livinginphotographs]

98. By my standards, the murder of Jews would not be okay,

Because, like I said, it's illogical to suggest that one group of humans is superior to another group of humans, simply based on religion, race, etc., when all of us are humans.

And no, I don't think it helps to be religious to be moral. Religious morality is based on a punishment vs. reward system, whereas my moral structure is based upon what I think is beneficial for society as a whole, regardless of whether I'm rewarded or punished for it.

Basically, the easiest way to figure out right and wrong: can it be reasonably justified (reasonably meaning with concrete evidence, not with phantom WMDs, for instance). This is also an issue that comes up when discussing animal rights: (not to take this OT) I'm for animal rights, simply because I cannot explain what makes humans superior. The most consistent argument I've heard against that is that god made humans to rule over animals, which of course, I think is a load of crap.

The easiest way to justify your point of view is to think it through and be ready to explain and defend it. Too few people do that, it seems, and so you end up with the dogma of religion.

edit: mah spelling sumtimes es teh bad

[reallygone]

109. But if all you are left with.....

is your "own moral code", what occurs when some else's moral code is different? They gas Jews. They think its OK. They DO see one human as more worthy than another. Same with slavery. Same with any genocide (like is happening in Darfur right now).

We have a basic philosophical difference of opinion. Morality cannot be devined through logic, IMHO. Last guy to try that was Marx (Karl, no Groucho), followed by Lenin, followed by Stalin, followed by Mao. Logic does not drive a person to run into a burning building to save an invalid that they do not know. Love of something (a "code") higher than themselves causes that. Would a non-believer do such a thing? Certainly some would, but it would be because they have been inspired by something other than a logical thought process. Would a believer stand by and let the building and people inside burn? Prbobably many would, but (depending on circumstances) I would question the sincerity of their belief.

I know I am at peace; with myself and with others. My beliefs (my trust in a higher power, actually) lets me be more accepting, open, and trusting which generates (most often) a similar response from others (the religious and non-religious alike). I am happier. I enjoy life more. I help others thru my own sacrifice more than I would otherwise. I can be tolerant of all people in most situations. The times I can't be tolerant, it is because I have erred, or because they are doing something that is clearly "wrong" (genocide for instance).

My morality/belief is not based on reward vs punishment. My morality is based upon acceptance. Acceptance of God's law. Acceptance of others. Understanding of myself.

Survival of the fittest is based on reward vs punishment. Governments base their interactions with citizens on reward/punishment.

[livinginphotographs]

118. We agree on one thing:

I think the majority of people cannot define morality through logic. I've not run into a problem with my system so far, but it may not work for everyone.

Which is where I believe religion comes in: it's a form of control. While I don't like the basic idea of organized religion (as in the church, not in worshipping a god), I have to realize that some people would see the lack of a fear of god as a ticket to rape and pillage. Unfortunately, I also believe that people have an inherent drive to do evil, so that's where that comes in.

[Az]

90. Caveate

Its not just society determining good. It is a synthesis of your own personal concepts of right and wrong combined with society. Your personal concepts of right and wrong are in part formed from the greater part of society, your immediate social contacts, and your own internal synthysis of these factors along side your own drives.

It is a complex dynamic arraingement. Constantly discovering new aspects of itself. Society as a whole is constantly revising its notions of right and wrong.

The trick to avoid situations such and the jews be exterminated because a majority take hold of the society is to keep the dialog open. By constantly facing each other and exposing ourselves to each other we come to know one another. In this way it becomes difficult to dehumanist those that do not agree with us and we become familiar with their positions. Thus we we form our synthesis of morality in our mind we take into consideration their positions even if we do not agree with them.

[livinginphotographs]

100. I don't mean "good for society" in the sense of "majority rule."

I mean good for society in the way that certain actions will benefit society and certain actions will harm society.

Murdering millions of your own citizens (such as the Jews) to satisfy a very bizzarre and ill-explained feeling of superiority is not beneficial to society by any means.

[reallygone]

111. Mandatory abortions

How about mandatory abortions as in China where families are limited to one child "for the good of society?". How about outlawing abortions, as in India, where females are aborted because the preference is for male children and the ratio of males/females is becoming disproportionally skewed?

Where does the societal or personal moral code go on these issues? Is it moral to line them up and force such actions? I think not! People should have choice.

[Az]

113. That is certainly the bulk of our societies position

Their society simply has not embraced this notion at a level that can overcome their situation. We look at such behaviour with shock and horror. But we don't have the ability to force them to change. We can try to pressure them and educate them. But in the end we have to respect the right of their society to procede as it will.

[livinginphotographs]

117. And a free society is most definitely preferable over an authoritarian one

"Good for society" also means not just a society that functions efficiently, but one where all its members enjoy a degree of happiness. Forcing them to have abortions, or criminalizing abortions, does not encourage happiness.

I appreciate our discussion, and I understand you may be playing devil's advocate, but you're kind of putting words in my mouth.

[NashVegas]

92. Where You Are Wrong Regarding Animals

Chimpanzees have a sense of fair play but how much they will tolerate depends on who they are dealing with, scientists said on Wednesday.

They will put up with being short-changed if they are close to the animal getting the better deal, but won't allow any monkey business if it's a stranger.
...
Brosnan and her colleague Frans de Waal first demonstrated a sense of fairness in non-humans when they showed that capuchin monkeys don't settle for any injustice at all. The capuchins did not show the same variable response as did the chimpanzees.
...
Chimpanzees who were in a close relationship tended to ignore the injustice. But those who knew each other less well refused to cooperate after they had been short-changed, a reaction also found in humans.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6867602/

Animals appear to have a system of morality, even on the most Darwinistic level, there are somethings they will and somethings they will not do.

Where the chimps in this study differ from the capuchins is they (the chimps) are more willing to give someone a break if they're 'a good guy.'

Very human-like behavior, that. Think back to your high school days for a moment, and the popular kids. Some of them seemed like genuinely nice people and others tend not to mind the breaks those popular kids got. Then you had the Heathers, who had their fair share of enemies.

Society - no matter what animal comprises it - will form mores to keep itself viable. It's social Darwinism on a massive scale. The purpose is to continue the race.

Where religion comes in is, it's just easier to keep a group in line when you don't have to actually reason with them. Just promise a great reward for adhering to the laws of society, and great punishment for rebelling. Especially when you're dealing with 5-year olds.

I think a large part of the reason why Western society feels like it's on the verge of breaking down is because we are in an age of reason, where information is freely and openly shared, and religion has lost its grip more than ever. More people in the US say they believe in God than at any previous time, but few seem to act as those they truly fear any heavenly retribution for being pricks. For having no integrity. I fear those who feel, or seem to feel, as you do, that without God there's no reason or reward for treating people better.

I don't worry about whether or not a "big G" god exists. If there's a creator who thinks it's more important for me to puff up his ego and make his cosmic day, more than it is to make the day for someone down here, where I live, that's not particularly a god I'd want to hang out with.

[ultraist]

106. Established by organized religion? LMAO!!! Go back further...

Seek and ye shall find! Humans pondered these questions LONG before any organized religion was established. Christianity adopted the beliefs of other religions and cultures and repackaged them to gain control over the masses.

Any human that is capable of reasoning is able to devise a set of morals. One not need to rely on a blind faith in religious dogma.

[Az]

108. I would argue

the concept of gods came up shortly after the first human began pondering the reality of their own existance. The experience of their mind and the leap to realizing that those other humans wandering around probably have minds as well quickly lead to projecting identity all over the place.

[ultraist]

112. Early mythology was a way to answer questions pre Science

Organized religion (also a type of mythology) came much later. We no longer need to rely on a belief in supernatural beings to understand that everything is connected in nature and that social order promotes sustainability only when social justice is promoted.

We can observe and reason to draw these conclusions. We can observe that when we pollute, it damages the planet and jeapordizes sustainability of the planet. We can observe that when one group oppresses another, the oppressed group is deprived of basic rights. Thus, the oppression disrupts the balance of sustainability.

Humans pondered these questions in attempt to understand their environment (storms, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc) and create social order.

The concept of supernatural beings has been replaced now with Science and knowledge. We do not need to use a primitive mythology to explain natural phenomens and create social order.

The earth shook because the gods were angry or the earth shook because of two tetonic plates converged?

[Az]

115. But the God of the Gaps

Continues to elude science. And thus for many there is still room left in the universe for all manner of identities to exist guiding the planets and controling our fates.

[ultraist]

119. Just because Science has yet to explain everything...

doesn't mean we have to attribute unexplained natural phenonmen (including energy) to a supernatural being.

I agree with Einstein that no supernatural being controls our destiny.

Certainly, there are things about the cycle of nature (including energy fields) that have not been fully discovered or explained, but why resort to mysticism because of that?

No thanks.

If religion is helpful for people, fine. I realize that many religious precepts promote peace and tolerance but I have not found that subscribing to a set of religious doctrines to be helpful to me.

[Az]

120. Same page

Just explaining why gods are so difficult to dismantle entirely.

[ultraist]

133. gothca!

It's difficult to make reasonable assumptions on when humans began to develop spiritual beliefs or beliefs in gods.

The primary behavior that could be considered a sign of spritual beliefs were ritualistic burials. Some anthropologists posit that ritualistic burials indicate a belief in an afterlife but others propose that the ritualistic burials were ceremonies that expressed honor to the dead one and a time to say goodbye, therefore did not involve any spiritual beliefs. Early humans did have emotions and grow attached to one another, thus love one another. This is also seen in animals.

It seems that the symbollic behaviors of early humans were more indicative of maintaining social order--"group identity and status" (necessary for survival) than promoting spiritual beliefs.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/02/0220_030220_humanorigins2.html

By 100,000 years ago, several species of hominids populated the Earth. H. sapiens—us—lived in Africa, H. erectus in Southeast Asia and China, and Neandertals in Europe. Around 50,000 years ago, there was a sudden explosion of human migration out of Africa, and by about 30,000 years ago, we were the last ones standing.

What propelled modern humans out of Africa, and what gave us the edge over other species?

The debate is complicated by differing definitions of what constitutes "modern" behavior, and differing interpretations of the archaeological record.

Common elements used to define modern behavior include the ability to plan ahead; technological innovation, establishing social and trade networks; adapting to changing conditions and environments; and exhibiting symbolic behavior like cave painting, bead making (used to show status or group identity), or burying the dead.

[TalkingDog]

47. I don't call it God ...

as I think that any attempt to "understand" it or label it is merely hubris and vanity.

But my belief about That Which Cannot Be Named is that everything and everyone is a part and parcel of It.

So, if you and I are essentially the same, why would I choose to be cruel to you? The faults I see in you are faults I also possess. How can I judge you or act against you for that?

Aldous Huxley said: "There's only one corner of the universe you can be certain of improving, and that's your own self."

So the closest thing in the Christian bible to what I believe would not be the Golden Rule, but the admonition from Matthew 7:1-5:

"Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured unto you. And why behold you the mote that is in your brother's eye, but consider not the beam that is in your own eye? Or how will you say to your brother, Let me cast out the mote out of your eye; and lo, the beam is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the mote out of your brother's eye."

[GOPBasher]

55. God is Love. Whatever you call Him or Her, It's

"shining in everyone." (I took that phrase from the other poster who talked about the Quakers.)

[Modem Butterfly]

59. It's because I don't believe in any god or gods that I am nice to others

I don't depend on some external power to make it all right in the end, so I try to be as nice as possible here in the now. Some days are easier than others though.

[lukasahero]

71. God is in all

I'm not going to argue that anyone has to believe in god to be nice to each other - that idea repulses me - but I have always been taught that god is in everything/everyone and everything/everyone is part of God. That's what "about god" makes me want to be nice to people - we are all related (mitakuye oyasin is the Lakota translation).

To bring it into Christianity, there is "that which you do to the least of these, you do also to me". These are the "religious" principals on which I was raised and whether or not there is a god, I still believe these are valid principals by which to live.

[skjpm]

78. Dialogue seems to be the best answer

OK, I'm back. I began this thread with the premise that a person had to believe in something in order to be nice--people weren't nice just of their own accord. But there are some good arguments on this thread that non-belief can work just as well. I still tend to think that we become nice when we believe that Whatever/Whoever Created the Universe is nice, that it is easier to be nice on behalf of Something. People need some sort of conversion experience in order to quit drinking, say--many don't just stop because it's bad for them, they stop when they feel God has stopped them.

Talking to each other tends to breed niceness--but sometimes, it simply breeds more boundaries.

Incidentally, this is not a question about whether or not God exists--it's whether believing in God makes you want to be nice to other people or not. And if so, which beliefs about God tend to make the most people want to be nice?

[Az]

81. You want to see human nature?

Take a look at the videos from 9/11. After the initial danger passed there were countless examples of people rushing back into the danger to help others. Some at the expense of their own life.

We are there for each other. When it really counts all the trappings of greed and avarice drop away. We strive to support and help each other. When one falls another bends to help them up. This is the nature of society.

[Igel]

87. I agree: look at 9/11 to see human nature.

People rushed in at the risk of their own lives to help others. Many helped those that were in shock.

Others rushed in knowing they would die in order to kill others. Others looted the stores under the WTC.

I'm just happy that the former outnumbered the latter.

[Az]

89. And that is exactly the point

The good ones usually do out number the bad ones. We tend to be good, but we can learn to be bad.

[ultraist]

110. What you "have been taught?" Why not reason it out for yourself

What do you think are important morals and values to live by and why? Why accept what someone told you without reasoning it out for yourself?

Just because the Bible tells you so, doesn't mean it's valid.

[lukasahero]

116. I was taught by my parents, by community, by a variety of places

Do you have something against seeing value in everyone/everything or are you just looking to berate me for believing in the very Democratic values my parents raised me to believe in?

I don't need your condescending recommendation to question authority - I have done so hence my ability to quote both the Bible and a Lakota prayer. If you read my post, you might actually ralize that I lean more towards Native American spirituality. I did not end my post with "the bible tells me so" so don't insult my ability to reason just because I also believe.

I "think" (since it's a word you more esteem more than believe) that the values and morals to live by are treating everyone with dignity, respect, kindness and value because we are more alike than not. I'm sure I made that point clear in my post, but you apparently saw the word christian and decided that those values need not apply to me as a result.

[ultraist]

145. You stated that you adhere to precepts you were taught and...

made this statement: "To bring it into Christianity, there is "that which you do to the least of these, you do also to me". These are the "religious" principals on which I was raised and whether or not there is a god, I still believe these are valid principals by which to live."

*bold added

I didn't make that assumption, you stated, "these are the religious principles on which I was raised." Christian principles are from the Bible. In other words, you said, I believe in Biblical principles because this is what I was taught. You said it, not me.

I simply asked why you are relying on the Bible, the "religious principles" you were "raised" on or taught.

Your statement here is really ironic: "I "think" (since it's a word you more esteem more than believe) that ..."

I'm unclear on why you felt so insulted and insisted on insulting me. Asking someone what principles they value or WHY they value these principles is a legit question in this thread.

So again, why do you believe in these principles, is it because they are in the Bible or do you have other reasons, because thus far, the only reason you have stated for believing in them, is because, they were what you were taught?

[reallygone]

125. 5,000 years

Just because you have "reasoned it out" doesn't make it valid either. All of the great despots in history have "reasoned it out" including Vlad the Impaler.

At least I have 5,000 of written history to suggest that this moral code has validity in contributing to individual and societal peace. That is what I place confidence in, actual data, not the fallible reasoning of one individual.

[Az]

127. Um

Have you read that history? Sure there are some highlights. But um... trying to be delicate about this. There have been some pretty lowpoint as well.

By no means do I wish to take your beliefs away from you. But at least recognise the history you are citing if you are going to use it in an argument.

[ultraist]

137. Bible quotes are reliable data?

I prefer to rely on Science and research to forumulate the most effective means in which to promote sustainablity (environmentally and socially responsible behaviors).

[reallygone]

164. Guess what.....

I can support that. What may motivate me may have no significance for you. I can accept that.

This thread asks "what belief in god nicer and less violent." I have tried to explain what works for me. You have explained what works for you. That's what discussion is, an echange of views, hopefully in a cooperative and understanding way. So when you see me or another believer, you will have a better understanding of "why" they think the way they do, and I (or other believers that read this thread) can meet non-believers and appreciate why they believe differently. But isn't it good that we can arrive at a common approach to the shared goals of making our society "nicer and less violent".

[amazona]

77. should belief in God be about social control?

I don't believe any true spirituality puts others before the small still voice deep inside one's spirit. Jesus told us that the true Christian leaves his home, his mother, his father, his wife, his children to "follow Me," and other religions if you dig say much the same if you look beyond the surface. The search for spirit is not satisfied by catering to other's needs and wants.

The purpose of religion is not "feel good." The purpose of God is not to be a big Mommy of the playground forcing people to make nice with each other.

Yes, religion for the masses is indeed aimed at social control and at explaining away mystery.

However, the genuine impulse toward God cannot be about anything other than the acceptance and awe of mystery.

Being nice, or not being nice, is quite the irrelevance in terms of the All.

6,000 years of documented religious impulse -- and probably at least 35,000 years more of religious impulse based on what we've retrieved from human graves -- and people are about as nice to each other as they make up their minds to be. It is not God's job to force people to make nice. And if it is religion's job to do so, it has failed miserably. I'd look to some new technology, drugs or genetic tinkering or something, because religion never has and never will change basic human nature. I'm not even sure it should try. I think when religion gets into social control, it becomes politics by other means, and hence we should not be surprised that war is the natural outcome.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[youthere]

79. I don't know about people in general...

but for me it is my personal belief that God loves me unconditionally-not the "stalker like" God the fundies try to sell-I don't buy that Jesus. He loves me when I'm bitchy,selfish,crampy, greedy, PMS'y, hypocritical,needy, me me me-y. I believe that. And if despite all that, I'm still worthy of love and being blessed then everyone else is too. It compels me to strive to be the best person I can be (although I fail continually) and that means recognizing that every single person is worthy of dignity, kindness, and respect-to give what I have been given (though not in proportion but hey its progress not perfection) with no strings attached. I don't buy into the theories of "God commands it" or the hell and damnation crapola(well maybe just a little-a very bad place for very bad republicans maybe LOL). Does it open me up to get shit on alot? Oh yeah. Will it make a quantifiable difference in the world as a whole? Probably not. But for me personally (I can't speak for the world at large) I hold on to that. Now I'm sure some of the smarter DU'ers can drive a truck through some of my logic-and rightly so.I don't stake claim to flawless logic. I am able to love because I am loved. I am able to be kind and accepting because I am shown kindness and acceptance etcetera etcetera etcetera....

[skjpm]

82. Really knowing God loves you seems to help

This, of course, presupposes God. But, given that premise, I agree with you--the knowledge that you are loved and accepted by the Creator of the Universe could easily make you want to be nice to other people. In fact, it just hit me--for as much as they talk about their relationship with God, many people don't really think God loves them, so they can't really be nice to other people. Their way of imaging God leads them to the suspicion that God doesn't really like them, so they act out on other people with nastiness and judgementalness. We need to believe God loves us in order to act kindly towards other people.

[Az]

The concept of god can lead to a thought process

Where people realise that if God can love this person then there must be something there to love. Unfortunately there are some that take the notion of love and twist it. Instead of loving the person they love an abstract construct they create of them. Love the sinner hate the sin becomes code for love the imagined soul of a person but care nothing about who they are.

This is the thing that so bothers those believers claim to love. If you don't know me or even want to know me how can you claim to love me.

Yes the notion that God loves everyone can create a positive effect in society. But it can very easily become disrailed. And to tragic effect. Keep in mind that the horrors committed during the inquisition were supposedly out of concern for the well being of those they were torturing.

[youthere]

93. You bring up a good point..

And it does seem that the "love of God" is easily perverted and I think that perversion takes place when the love that is offered is conditional. I like how you phrased that, AZ, "loving the imagined soul" (in fact I will probably steal that and pass it off as my own brilliance). I approach it in a different way..(and again I speak only for myself) that when I say that everyperson is worthy and entitled to unconditional "love" it means (at least to me)value. Of course I can't truly "love" you if I don't know you-at least not in the way I love my kids or my husband but I believe that you have value simply because I believe you are a creation of the God I worship. You are to be treated with dignity and respect and kindness and compassion.Love the sinner hate the sin (at least to me) is code for "Nanner nanner I'm better that you are so I can treat you like crap so I can feel superior and justify my own wretched behavior". My faith belief is real easy when I am dealing with people who treat me decently and value me (and I think most people do).It's a lot more challenging when you're dealing with individuals that believe in "collateral damage" or "acceptable losses" or that it's okay to treat people like crap or look down on them because they are poor/homosexual/jewish/black/broke the law/(insert qualifier here)-that's where I refer to the progress/perfection mantra. I guess what my point is that my faith leads me to believe that indifference or cruelty/domination is never acceptable. I didn't say it very clearly, but I guess that's my point.

On edit:

I guess what my point is that my faith leads me to believe that indifference or cruelty/domination is never acceptable.-I also believe that others believe this too. I frame it within Christianity, others might frame it in a Buddhism, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu or Karmic context. Man, I wish I would have said this to begin with...I sure do ramble on alot.

[superconnected]

139. well, that certianly wasn't the spanish or french inquisition

which inquisition is that?

[amazona]

130. that is silly on the face of it

If you are already a nice person, knowing or believing God loves you probably does make you a nicer one.

If you are Jim Jones or Osama bin Laden or George Bush, knowing or believing that God loves you unconditionally no matter what you do is a Very Bad Thing indeed.


Quote: We need to believe God loves us in order to act kindly towards other people.

I would say that anyone who "needs" to believe that a God loves them in order to act kindly toward another person is, quite clearly, not a good or moral person in any true sense of the world. If they lose their faith in God, then will they start acting like a hateful SOB? Maybe this explains why some people become so hateful when bad things happen and they realize that God is not taking special care of them. I would argue that people who require love from God to act kindly are not moral beings. It is the people who continue to behave kindly toward others even when God and universe are crapping on them who impress me.

The conservation movement is a breeding ground of communists
and other subversives. We intend to clean them out,
even if it means rounding up every birdwatcher in the country.
--John Mitchell, US Attorney General 1969-72

[realFedUp]

83. God = Good

When you open your heart, mind and soul
to another person you are sharing God.

When you are a mean bastard, you're not.
When you call names, you're not.
When you spread lies about someone, you're not.
When you are just preoccupied with being right, you're not.
When you kill someone else, not in self defense, you're not.
When you cut budgets that directly impact on the young, poor
and disabled, you're not.
When you break laws of humankind, you're not.

Believe me, it's hard to stay with God
when you're fighting evil all the time.
On good days, I get with her a couple of
times a day...trying to do better.

How will God love YOU today?

[Tsiyu]

85. My favorite "religious" quote

"So many gods, so many creeds, so many paths that wind and wind
when just the art of being kind is all the sad world needs" Ella Wilcox ( I think)

The belief that helps me strive to be a better person is the one that says we're all in this together, and it's easier to try to get along than to be combative.

I have to be pardoned for plenty of wrongs and I have no business failing to pardon others. This is the tough part, because I really want to HATE Repukes and fundies right now.

I don't know where god fits in, but funny how many posters challenge the Christian one immediately. There is so much hurt over what Jesus now means to people.

I always enjoyed this prayer when contemplating who I could be versus who I am:

Prayers of St. Francis of Assisi:

St. Francis on Peace and Love

Lord, make me an instrument of your peace,
Where there is hatred, let me sow love;
...where there is injury, pardon;
...where there is doubt, faith;
...where there is despair, hope;
...where there is darkness, light;
...where there is sadness, joy;

O Divine Master, grant that I may not so much seek
...to be consoled as to console;
...to be understood as to understand;
...to be loved as to love.

For it is in giving that we receive;
...it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;
...and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.

[Ladyhawk]

107. Albert Einstein said, "A man's ethical behavior...

...should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

No belief about god would make me be nicer to people. In fact I've noticed that the people I know who do believe in a god (fundies) are not nice at all. I haven't known many liberal Christians, but those I have known are usually much more decent than the average fundy.

[ultraist]

124. Sustainability: Environmentally & Socially Responsible

excerpts:
http://www.ippr.org.uk/publications/files/sdsj_sum.pdf

There are powerful synergies between sustainable development and
social justice at the community level, nationally and in the international arena.

Tackling environment and poverty together is not just in the interest of international development. It is a pre-requisite to a safer, more secure world. Sustainable development is essential to long term peace and security. As the head of the World Bank has said, the idea that a rich world and poor world can coexist without dramatic implications is untenable. So we must with equal vigour address the underlying causes of conflict and instability: poverty and environmental degradation.

#####

A belief in a supernatural being is not a prerequisite for promoting sustainability (environmental and social justice).

[ScreamingMeemie]

114. Nothing. I get my being nice from truly wanting to be nice of my

own self. No one had to "show me the way". :hi:

[superconnected]

121. The new testament is full of quotes about love your neighbor

that's what it's all about. Nothing in there says kill your neighbor. The NT is the turn the other cheek and the greatest commandment is love your neighbor as yourself, which preceded the OT eye for an eye mentality.

I realize by your post you haven't read it. That's fine, but if you're going to generalize it you may want to keep in mind a few things,

1. the apoclapyse is a right wing 20th century thing. The book of revelations - johns I had a dream speech, is actually supposed to be metaphorical for Rome and it's fall. You'd be hard pressed to find any of the apoclapyse stuff you know from movies and the right wing, in the book of revelations.

2. Christians aren't supposed to live for reward after death. The old testament doesn't mention heaven until the book of Daniel - nearly the end, and the New Testaments mention of Heaven by Christ - Ie saying, "The Kingdom of Heaven is upon us", is often interpreted as it's here right now, all around us. Paul who wrote over 1/2 of the new testament was into Love your neighbor now etc., not do everything so you can get to heaven.

3. You may want to check out some of pauls speeches. Especially his great love one. Half of the books in the new testament are simply letters paul wrote to churches he founded. He didn't sit down and write a bible. These letters were collected after his death. Some were lost. We knows this because some letters refer to other letters that are not in the new testament. He started off persecuting Christians, found Christ 5 years after Christs death and then founded more churches than any other of the early Christian movement. He was saying Jesus was right and trying to free the jews from old purity laws and their legalization of religion. He believed anyone could get to heaven. He remained a jew all his life. Most of his letters(epistles) are very short. You may want to check out corinthians - his letter to the church in corinth, galations - his letter to the church in Galatia etc.

I'm at work so I don't have time to write his great love speech here, but if you look into him you would fine a ton of the greatest love your neighbor stuff ever written.

Lastly - the first 4 books in the NT - matthew, mark, luke and john are believed to have been written in the 6th century from a source book called "Q". The only thing scholars had were books of sayings of christ when he was alive. It's well known in Bible study that the virgin mary, etc. are all metaphors written later giving Christ a history. It was common in the early centuries for histories to be made up of famous people. They knew very little about him other than the books of his sayings written down during/after his life, and the letters from the apostles to the churches they founded.

Fundies often insist the christmas story ect. are absolutely truths and this shows their absolute ignorance in the bible.

So anyway, saying something like - "wheres the love your neighbor?", kind of sounds like you've never cracked open a NT before because it's full of love speeches.

btw, it's a short read, and if you start at acts and read the letters, then go back and read the first four NT books, you get a lot more out of it. I prefer pauls writings by far to any of matthew, mark, luke and john because I know those 4 books were made up histories.

Pauls great love speech - 1 corinth 13-14

[ClayZ]

123. on Religion ~ Kahlil Gibran

Ahhh ..... Kahlil Gibran http://www.columbia.edu/~gm84/gibtable.html

On Religion
And an old priest said, "Speak to us of Religion."

And he said:

Have I spoken this day of aught else?

Is not religion all deeds and all reflection,

And that which is neither deed nor reflection, but a wonder and a surprise ever springing in the soul, even while the hands hew the stone or tend the loom?

Who can separate his faith from his actions, or his belief from his occupations?

Who can spread his hours before him, saying, "This for God and this for myself; This for my soul, and this other for my body?"

All your hours are wings that beat through space from self to self.

He who wears his morality but as his best garment were better naked.

The wind and the sun will tear no holes in his skin.

And he who defines his conduct by ethics imprisons his song-bird in a cage.

The freest song comes not through bars and wires.

And he to whom worshipping is a window, to open but also to shut, has not yet visited the house of his soul whose windows are from dawn to dawn.

Your daily life is your temple and your religion.

Whenever you enter into it take with you your all.

Take the plough and the forge and the mallet and the lute,

The things you have fashioned in necessity or for delight.

For in revery you cannot rise above your achievements nor fall lower than your failures.

And take with you all men:

For in adoration you cannot fly higher than their hopes nor humble yourself lower than their despair.

And if you would know God be not therefore a solver of riddles.

Rather look about you and you shall see Him playing with your children.

And look into space; you shall see Him walking in the cloud, outstretching His arms in the lightning and descending in rain.

You shall see Him smiling in flowers, then rising and waving His hands in trees.

[geniph]

126. God has nothing to do with empathy

and for me, trying to be decent to other beings is simple empathy. Do as you would be done by.

[superconnected]

128. oh look another person making statements about God

whose never read the New Testament.

Paul stresses empathy all over, next tell us God is not about love.

I'm leaving. I'm sick of dealing with athiests, agnostics and even Christians, who never bothered to read the 200+ pages of the New Testament, but act like they know all about Christianity.

God isn't about empathy is as wrong as can be.

Excuse me, if you weren't speaking about the Christian God, just ignore my post. My context is the Christian God.

[Az]

131. I think the point was

That god does not seem to be necissary to be empathetic to others. Suggesting that God is necissary amounts to equating nonbelievers as callous uncaring individuals. Is that what you wish to contend?

[superconnected]

132. that's only your contention

my Christian belief says you don't have to believe in God to be empathetic, nice etc.

My Christian belief also says Jesus is "a" way, not "the" way.
You can worship an orange and be fine, and if there is a Heaven, still get there, as far as my Christian belief goes.

[Az]

135. That is all well and good

But do you see or understand the point that some are trying to make here. It is not that your beliefs are wrong or anything so base as that.

The point is that we atheists are as capable of compassion and understanding as any believer. That we can empathise with the best of them. We are a part of the good things in this society just as believers can be.

Look for communication errors in dialog and try to correct them rather than reasons to be angry at others. Look for what is really being said rather than trying to find a reason to be angry at someone. Turn the other cheek and try to reach the person instead of fighting with them.

[superconnected]

136. I understand fully what's being said here

nice yin/yang symbol.

I always liked the balance of that.

[youthere]

158. Well put.

"A" way not "the" way. Love it.

[geniph]

I think you misunderstood my post

and why you assume I've never read the Bible is beyond me. My point was not to say that "God isn't into empathy" but "belief in God is not necessary to have empathy, and it's empathy that makes me treat people decently."

I'm not saying the Bible doesn't preach empathy. I'm saying you don't HAVE to believe in ANY kind of religion to have empathy.

[reallygone]

165. Listen....

I think I may see the difference of views we are having here. I think you are assuming we are "fundies" who think all non-believers are "wrong" and "destined for hell". That kind of person would not be here (on DU).

Non-believers can be just as kind/empathetic/non-violent/etc. as believers. Some non-believers are even better. You don't have to be a believer to be "good".

However, some people find that religion does help them be "nicer and less violent". It gives them peace of mind and quiets the 'demons' that lurk inside our minds (this is figurative, not literal meaning of demons). Those of us who believe do not think that humanity can "reason out" a moral code using science. By way of example, we believers saw Hitler (and many others) "reason out" justifications for horrid atrocities. We believers put our faith in religion (although, from time to time we may disagree even with our own "priests" like U.S. Catholics support birth control even though the Pope condemns this practice). Others put their faith in science.

Please don't chase believers away! We share some of the same objectives for changing society even though we reach those conclusions by a different means. Alienating believers will destroy the Democratic Party.

[Az]

166. Tensions are high because we don't really interact as much as we should

So both sides have to be careful not to step on toes and perhaps more importantly be ready to examine what they said that may have stepped on their toes and be ready to appologise and restate it.

We are all human. But we have drifted apart and formed our own little clubs. In these clubs we develop our own way of communicating. There are certain code words and signals that we learn. We may inadvertantly step on each others special phrases or ideas. If we don't intend that we have to respect the position of the other, back up, and try again.

[lukasahero]

129. Interestingly enough you quote the bible to support your statement

That whole "do unto others" bit... ;-)

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superconnected]

140. yeah but you can't say the Bible or Christianity

have the corner market on being good.

How would we know the bible originated the Golden Rule. That NT quote is only 2000 years old. It may have been around long before the Bible. I don't think anyone knows, but I would guess that quote has been around longer.

[ChairOne]

141. which is why I said "just plain silly".... /eom

[lukasahero]

142. I absolutely agree and have said so in prior posts

I was just kind of joshing you that, while certainly not necessary or exclusive, there have been some good points made in a religion or two.

Peace - scroll some of my other posts - we're on the same side.

[ChairOne]

151. All good - I was only concerned with your claim that....

.... they quoted the bible. They didn't. That's all. Which side you were on was of absolutely no concern to me. Misquoting was.

[Az]

143. Socrates Final words speak to this

and they predate the Golden rule. In truth if you study any functional religion or philosophy you will find this notion at its center.

[lukasahero]

144. Was I talking to you?

Allow me to profusely apologize for not adhering to the exact definition of "quote" well enough to suit you. It was a fucking jest that even without religion one can often come to same conclusions.

Apparently that little wink emoticon was "lost on you" as well.

[Az]

148. Its a senstive subject

Slack needs to be cut on both sides for civil discussion to progress.

[ChairOne]

150. Dammit peacemaker! lol

You'll even allow misquoting? Wow. You're not Neville's greatgreatgreat granchild are you? (joking!)

[ChairOne]

149. ROFL - I was too blinded by...

... the fact that someone who isn't a journalist (cuz nobody's surprised about journalists' lack of knowledge) didn't know what is and is not a quote to notice the winky....

[geniph]

160. Yes, and that was quite deliberate.

but my point stands - one can be a decent, empathic person who agrees with many of the Bible's statements without subscribing to any religious faith.

[lukasahero]

171. Hi geniph! I totally agree

Thanks for not going ballistic on me - my comment really was just meant to be a jest. I don't believe (and you can look at my earlier responses to support this) at all - in fact I loathe - the implication that only those who believe in god can be good people. :hi:

I tend to think that people are who they are, not what they claim to be or believe. If you are a decent, empathic person it's because you are a decent empathic person, not because you believe or don't believe in god or whatever.

[Blue_In_AK]

146. The old "God is love" thing works...... n/t

[ken-in-seattle]

147. another quote...

"The difference between a moral man and a man of honor is that the latter regrets a discreditable act, even when it has worked and he has not been caught."
-- Henry Mencken

[ClayZ]

153. Good ONE!

snatched that and put it in my TREASUR CHEST!

[0rganism]

152. Why would you even want to be *made* to want to be nice?

I'm pro-choice when it comes to niceness. "Forced" niceness probably creates as many difficulties as it resolves, really; it's dishonest. And a forced desire to be nice will only lead to unproductive guilt on the part of the un-nice believer. Be nice when you see the benefits of that niceness in itself, not because you think your behavior pleases some mythic parent figure.

I tend to be Kantian in my ethics, insofar as an action must be taken both free of coercion and outside of one's natural inclination to be counted as an unquestionably moral act. Those who act in a certain manner because of their genuine fear of godly wrath are no more moral in their behavior than if they took those same actions at gunpoint, as far as I'm concerned.

Naturally, that doesn't rule out some degree of utilitarianism; even at gunpoint one should be able to discern whether certain actions are beyond the pale.

[reallygone]

168. Forced???????

Where does force come into religion? Everyone has free choice. I choose to follow guidance laid out for me. You choose to follow Kant.

Philosophy Option #1
In a secular world, the local mafia boss thinks its OK to promote prostitution, sell drugs, and kill his enemies so he can be "nice" to his 'family' (extended relations and those in his gang). He believes he is justified and strongly believes in the teachings of Adam Smith (the noted philosopher and economist) which is why he sells women and drugs. Of course, the police try to "force" him to adopt another code of "niceness".
Philosophy Option #2
For me and mine, we choose another model, a religious world. This world is where we are "nice" because we believe everyone is blessed by God and deserves equality. And God tells us to be "nice" to others, so we trust in him and follow (willingly) his teachings. We reject force, promote peace, and advocate forgiveness.

I am just surprised that some people choose option #1 as opposed to option #2.

[MsTryska]

154. Karma, baby.

what goes around comes around.


you reap what you sow.


do unto others what you would have done unto you.

[aePrime]

155. How about the belief of no God?

That would make me want to be nice to other people.

If there's no afterlife, and this life is the only one we get, then I'm damn well going to enjoy it. And if I'm going to enjoy it, I think other people should get the chance to enjoy their one life, and so it's our duty to help each other out.

Plus I like what little I've read of John Stuart Mill.

[skjpm]

157. Imagine there's no heaven?

In other words, give up our concepts of God and the afterlife and people will naturally come together? I've always disagreed with that particular Lennon song (I find myself more in tune with Help!) and I'm not sure it works. I tend to think in U2's terms--the real battle yet begun, to claim the victory Jesus won, on Sunday Bloody Sunday. I think it is simpler for me to grasp what love is by looking at Jesus' self-giving rather than imagining there is nothing beyond this life.

[aePrime]

161. I'm not saying it's for everybody

I am not saying it is for everybody, but your original question was, "What belief about God would make you want to be nice to other people?" So, I am stating what belief about God would make me want to be nice to other people.

The other belief that would make me be nice to other people is the belief that God is vengeful, and I will be punished severely for mistreating other people, and if that's the case, frankly, I prefer the first scenario. Plus, I convinced myself, insofar as my logic is able, that Hell cannot exist.

If we take God out of the question, then I just feel being nice to other people is the right thing to do. That's kind of a pathetic answer, so I can justify it, as aforementioned, by the philosophy of John Stuart Mill, which some may view as an extension of Epicurus' work, although Epicurus dealt more with the self than with the masses. So if we wish not to discuss philosophy, we can look at is psychologically (simplistically, at least)-- if I am nice to people, it seems that it is because I have been conditioned to do so, perhaps through positive reinforcement in my personal encounters. Of course, negative punishment would also be a persuasion; if I treat others as dirt, I am likely to receive the same.

I hardly think that it is fair to ask for people's opinions solely to brush said opinions off.

[reallygone]

167. My point exactly!....

"If there's no afterlife, and this life is the only one we get, then I'm damn well going to enjoy it. And if I'm going to enjoy it,..."
That's what you are left with without belief in religion. I see a similar attitude voiced in most Frat houses at the college on Friday nights.

".... I think other people should get the chance to enjoy their one life, and so it's our duty to help each other out."
I share this view with you. Unfortunately, some non-believers (even some believers) don't share this view.

The idea that "I am going to enjoy this only life" is used by some in justifying many anti-social behaviors: drugs, drunkeness, rape, pillage, theft, and generally taking advantage of those weaker than themselves. The only consequences for such behaviors are those that are imposed by man/society. That's what you saw with Saddam and his two boys. They stole from their people, lived in palaces, raped women in traffic, shot servants who irritated them, engaged in genocide on the Kurds, etc.

Many believers and non-believers, however, share a wider view that we should help our fellow man and refrain from behaviors that harm others. Believers accept this as a duty to a higher existance. Non-believers adopt this as an individual "moral code" that they have "reasoned out". Maybe its because I'm weaker than you, but I find it easier to follow this code because I owe alligience to a belief in a superior entity and can accept wrongs done to me because I believe that in the end we are all judged fairly by our deeds.

[aePrime]

172. RE: Your Point

First of all, you are deliberately misinterpreting my words. I never so much as implied that enjoying life meant nights full of drunken orgies. Going back to good ol' Epicurus, his definition of pleasure was simply the absence of pain, both physically and mentally. I know that I would not be without pain if I inflicted it upon others, and therefore would not be living life as I would like.

As far as using one life as an excuse to do bad things, I think you know, if you thought about it for just a couple of minutes, that you probably have it backwards. People do not say, "I have but one life! Let me rape!" I think that the more likely scenario is that certain people are predisposed, perhaps mentally or through upbringing, to do these things. That being the case, they may formulate no god to remove any guilt that may be left. I regret your implication, even if you try to soft-palm it, that atheists have no moral code. But, if you continue in this argument, I would appreciate proof that atheists commit more crimes than those who believe in a god.

Let me now state that I'm not really an atheist, although I do entertain the thought. I'm more agnostic than anything. I pray every night, but have a really hard time believing that Jesus is the son of God. Feel free to try and apply Occam's Razor at this point. But, that aside, fully 40% of my immediate blood relatives are Methodist ministers, and they are some of the most intelligent people I know, and I respect them very much. I have just come to the conclusion, and so have my Methodist relatives, that God is not waiting for you to do something bad for which to throw you into damnation. If you want to believe in such a god, I have naught but pity for you. I would rather believe in a god that is all-knowing and all-loving.

Punishing a person after life would seem to have no effect. Why are people punished? To learn not to do such things again (negative punishment). Hell would be punishment, but I certainly have no memory of a previous life, so any deeds for which I was punished do not seem to have done much. Eternal Hell makes no sense whatsoever.

[Lilith Velkor]

159. None.

You either want to be nice or you don't. If you don't, you will hold the belief that God is just as hateful as you.