Religion
Related: About this forum
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
patrice
(47,992 posts)Voice for Peace
(13,141 posts)that's a good enough reason.
MsPithy
(809 posts)In fact, it is the evolutionary success of humans being cooperative within kinship groups, i.e. goodness, that made up God in the first place.
rug
(82,333 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Or do you simply feel like being extraneous tonight?
Gore1FL
(21,127 posts)"God" is a relevant component to the discussion. There is nothing extraneous about it.
Your post questions one side of the equation, mine questions the other.
So, what is God? Is God an entity, physics/nature, the spoons in my dishwasher, a cow, life, the universe, nothing?
If your definition of "God" is simply the ability to know the difference between right and wrong, then one might argue this leads to "good"
If your definition of "God" is feeling you get spinning yourself dizzy, one might argue this has no effect on being "good."
I think that "Good" is a lot more universally understood than "God."
So... what's God?
rug
(82,333 posts)Therefore god is irrelevant to its message of "Be good for goodness' sake."
So, I ask again, what is good?
Gore1FL
(21,127 posts)But is it a good example?
God... I don't know.
lbrtbell
(2,389 posts)It's not harming people, loving others, and making them happy when you can.
You know, the antithesis of RW'ers brand of "Christianity" (which is basically hate brandishing a Bible and a cross nowadays).
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)of coersion free intersubjective communication.
LARED
(11,735 posts)No God
No Problem
Be Bad for badness sake
Humanism is the idea that you can be bad if it gives meaning to your life.
Chef Eric
(1,024 posts)I don't know where you got your definition, but it's wrong.
This is what my dictionary says:
humanism
noun
An outlook or system of thought attaching prime importance to human rather than divine or supernatural matters. Humanist beliefs stress the potential value and goodness of human beings, emphasize common human needs, and seek solely rational ways of solving human problems.
edhopper
(33,570 posts)no one has ever acted badly in the name of God or religion.
Or used God or religion to justify bad deeds.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)That no one has ever acted badly to advance atheism (ignore Enver Hoxha over there)
edhopper
(33,570 posts)the posts and replies better to avoid making a point not at issue.
Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)You were saying that no one has ever committed violence in the name of religion, I was simply extending it by saying that no one has ever committed violence in the name of atheism.
Obviously, you can dish it out, but you don't want to take it.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)edhopper
(33,570 posts)which I was responding to.
He obviously is misinformed about Humanism.
And you make the mistake of confusing humanism with atheism.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Hedonism, maybe.
I can't believe you have a problem with a philosophy that puts human worth as a prime importance.
LARED
(11,735 posts)this;
As you are aware badness and goodness are highly subjective terms when unfettered from orienting principles. There is nothing in the above definition that helps to define good or bad.
Ethical and humane can mean very different things to many different people.
Also there is nothing in the definition that puts human worth as a prime importance.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)LARED
(11,735 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)If you can't, then you're simply recycling ancient Christian bigotry toward non-believers.
LARED
(11,735 posts)That a hoot if ever there was one.
To your point I did take some liberty with the definition of Humanism (from your link) from the International Humanist and Ethical Union
Using this definition being bad for badness sake is seemingly up to the individual if it gives "meaning and shape to their own lives". I don't have to tell you ethical and or humane based arguments to define good and bad are not easily nailed down into an accepted norm.
The larger point is that goodness or badness are completely subjective matters without some orienting principles. Christians use tradition and the Bible. Atheist use I guess a consensus opinion about good and bad. If Humanism means you can be good without God, (frankly a childish definition) then humanism also means you can be bad if it floats your boat.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Of course your weak attempt at trying to claim you were correct also fails, because you're ignoring a key sentence in the block you quoted. Read it again and I bet you'll find it. That is, if you can put aside your blatant prejudice against non-Christians.
LARED
(11,735 posts)It is incredibly ironic that you think I have a blatant prejudice against non-christian.
Look in the mirror.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)I'm simply trying to defend non-believers from your bigotry, and you're attacking me. But then, I'm not surprised. This is trademark "Christian" behavior - no different than what we see from Pat Robertson, Fred Phelps, and the lot. When their privilege is threatened, they attack - just like you.
LARED
(11,735 posts)I understand why you act the way you do. It's the same Christian behavior that drives Robertson and Phelps.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)goodness and badness are not completely subjective matters. in fact these norms are defined by feedback between individual moral decision making and the collective ethical systems in which those decisions are made. that is norms of good and bad are emergent properties of complex systems. to be precise they are both subjectively and objectively defined at once and neither the subject (individual) or object (collective) define them alone.
LARED
(11,735 posts)goodness and badness can be whatever the emergent properties of the system say they are. These change over time, and over space. What is good or bad today in part of the world may be quite different in another part of the world at different times.
Goodness and badness, ie godliness and evil also have changed quite a bit in the Christian realm over the past millennia.
Phillip McCleod
(1,837 posts)now you're agreeing with me that it's not.
guess that means i win this round.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)'It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities'.
Doing bad things does NOT build a more humane society; so cruelty and dishonesty should be rejected according to human values.
'I don't have to tell you ethical and or humane based arguments to define good and bad are not easily nailed down into an accepted norm.'
Neither are religious arguments, even within a single religion, let alone between the world's various religions. Look at all the debates (at times boiling into wars) between people who have different religious views about what values and policies should be approved.
'The larger point is that goodness or badness are completely subjective matters without some orienting principles. Christians use tradition and the Bible. '
But which traditions, and which interpretations of the Bible? Presumably Pat Robertson and Desmond Tutu use the same Bible; it does not prevent them from having radically different 'orienting principles' about what is right and wrong.
'If Humanism means you can be good without God... then humanism also means you can be bad if it floats your boat.'
Why? Is the only reason for not beating someone up, for example, because God would disapprove? One should not beat other people up because it hurts them, and is therefore cruel. And because a society in which everyone went around beating each other up would be a very unpleasant society to live in.
~facepalm~
NickP
(50 posts)People can be good without God.
