You do not need to be religious to possess a moral framework

First topic message reminder :

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?
 

depth, depths

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, God will deal with all those prior to the birth of Jesus under the laws of God of the time. Humans had sunk to the lowest deapths possible prior to the birth of Jesus and Jesus came as a means for those who believed in him to be saved from their own deprevation.

Evidence? Ho hum.....see what I mean...

Polyglide wrote: It is pointless attempting to point out your lack of understanding of omnipotence

Dishonest would more accurately describe your guff, but I'll humour your rank dishonesty once more:
omnipotence
noun
the quality of having unlimited or very great power.

So limiting to a deal with Satan doesn't help theodicy, because God has the choice and chooses to allow ubiquitous suffering, which is of course deeply malevolent and not at all benevolent. Making strident claims that you have no evidence for doesn't change these facts. A far simpler explanation that contains no innate contradictions would be there is no omnipotent omni-benevolent deity, and so ubiquitous suffering is simply a result of evolutionary mechanism which not being sentient are unmoved and indifferent to suffering. This will now prompt yet another god of the gaps argument from you by insisting that this doesn't explain how life started, sigh, and around and around he goes....

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, God will deal with all those prior to the birth of Jesus under the laws of God of the time.  Humans had sunk to the lowest deapths possible prior to the birth of Jesus and Jesus came as a means for those who believed in him to be saved from their own deprevation.

polyglide wrote:by polyglide Today at 12:27 pm LINK
Dr, Sheldon, You make too many assumptions.

Physician heal thyself etc etc..

polyglide wrote:depth, depths

Relevance, relevance?

Dr, Sheldon,
The answer is NO.

One can have a set of moral values without being religious, however, most moral values are in fact derived from one religion or another.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                God will deal with all those prior to the birth of Jesus under the laws of God of the time.

                 Humans had sunk to the lowest deapths possible prior to the birth of Jesus and Jesus came as a means for those who believed in him to be saved from their own deprevation.

                 It is pointless attempting to point out your lack of understanding of omnipotence regarding God and the manner in which he has had to use his powers in accordance with his understanding and agreement, you are taking on the mantle of judge when totally unaware of the circustances.

That sounds quite threatening. Why are you threatening people? You weren't there so how do you know how low people have sunk? This is a belief statement, not a statement of fact. You really need to learn the difference between the two.

It is not Sheldon's lack of understanding that is the problem here. The problem lies in your inability to distinguish fact from fiction, belief from knowledge. You also make a lot of unfounded statements about god as if you know what he thinks, how he behaves or how he will behave in the future. You don't KNOW this, you make these assumptions based on what you read in a book. Do you believe everything you read?

It's also very interesting to an outsider reading these exchanges that god tends to act like the person posting these messages as if the poster is 'god'. You are not god. You are a mere mortal, with very limited knowledge of the world and the universe who is going to die one day and not know the difference either way whether you are going to heaven or just rot in the ground. You don't know.

Your 'beliefs' are not truths. You should realise that.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                The answer is NO.

                 One can have a set of moral values without being religious, however, most moral values are in fact derived from one religion or another.

They might be derived from religion but many of them predate christianity so christianity is not the moral authority for humans. There is an innate morality in humans that predates religions. We are social creatures so it was to our evolutionary advantage to cooperate, be good to each other, protect our kin. Morality derives from necessity and protection of our families. It evolved into religion with our self-awareness and our ability to remember and relay our dreams to each other. Dreams were the 'spirit world' to ancient people and it is from this, that we dreamed of our dead loved ones that religion evolved from. We did not understand that dreams were neurological and psychological. We invented a spirit world and hero-worship. It's how and where all religion stems from.

When you understand that, it makes worshipping anything really silly.

snowyflake,
Give me few examples of the morality etc; that you refer to, ie; prior to the BIble.

The present state of the world indicates how good we as humans are at co operation and being good to one another, the means of mass destruction and the present daily murders and child abuse along with every other possible anti social behaviour is a clear indication that what you say in total nonsense at no time has man ever evolved a method of self management that even approaches credibility.

polyglide wrote:snowyflake,
               Give me  few examples of the morality etc; that you refer to, ie; prior to the BIble.

               The present state of the world indicates how good we as humans are at co operation and being good to one another, the means of mass destruction and the present daily murders and child abuse along with every other possible anti social behaviour is a clear indication that what you say in total nonsense at no time has man ever evolved a method of self management that even approaches credibility.

               

               

The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have done unto predates christianity by a long way. Thou shalt not kill also predates the bible.

There are 7 billion of us on the planet. We are not ALL on the evening news. Most of us are decent, kind, compassionate. Your religious beliefs see the world as evil because that's what you want to see. You don't look at all the good in the world, all the good people. I do not know any 'bad' people. I don't encounter them in my daily life. Almost everyone, without fail, if treated respectfully, kindly and in a friendly way will respond in kind.

What we hear about on the news are the few. Not the many.

Your apocalyptic mind set blinds you to the beauty of most people. You don't appreciate the world you live in and that's the saddest thing about your beliefs. They make you suspicious and hateful of your fellow humans.

snowyflake,
I asked for where the rules can be found prior to the Bible, I ask again where?.

I have met many people from many lands and the vast majority are good people wether religious or not.

However, my involvement is very limited and no basis for desiding on humanity as a whole and I feel my experience would be as good as yours.

I know base my opinions on the facts overall.

Nearly every country is involved in one way or another in either direct warfare or cold warfare and there has been more people killed during the past 1,000 years than in all previous conflicts.

Anyone who thinks the world at the present time is in good shape needs some attention from an appropriate pratitioner.

Spelling mistakes I apologise for I dare not go over to correct because the post just vanishes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

According to wikipedia (you can check the references if you are so inclined) ancient egypt has the earliest proverb with this moral.

There are always problems in the world. What will religion do to solve them? Nothing. Never has, never will and it isn't doing anything about anything now. In fact, quite a few of the problems such as war, starvation, disease, bigotry, hate are directly the result of religion and religious belief.

The world would be better without superstition. You don't need to believe in god to be a good person, or to do good things.

If you want to change your perspective on the violence in the world see this video by Steven Pinker.

He looks like Harpo Marx there but he is a really good speaker.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                The answer is NO.

                 One can have a set of moral values without being religious, however, most moral values are in fact derived from one religion or another.

Since the thread premise was that you do 'NOT' need religion to possess a moral framework, it is mind numbingly  idiotic to claim the premise is correct in your second sentence, after saying it is not in your first, by saying that you 'CAN' possess a set of moral values without religion after saying no you can't in your first sentence. These exchanges would trip along a lot better if you could understand what has been said, and what you are saying in response. Or if your literacy level grasped after being told multiple times that a capital letter is not required after a comma. Good f*****g grief....

snowyflake wrote: This is a belief statement, not a statement of fact. You really need to learn the difference between the two.

Hi Mrs S, good to hear from you again, it really is. I suspect Polyglide as you rightly say can't or won't differentiate between the two, but after all this time I suspect he is either incapable of learning how, or not interested.

Snowyflake wrote: You are not god. You are a mere mortal, with very limited knowledge of the world and the universe

Never a truer word.

by polyglide Today at 3:47 pm
The present state of the world indicates how good we as humans are at co operation and being good to one another, the means of mass destruction and the present daily murders and child abuse along with every other possible anti social behaviour is a clear indication that what you say in total nonsense at no time has man ever evolved a method of self management that even approaches credibility.

polyglide wrote:  I have met many people from many lands and the vast majority are good people wether religious or not.

The ludicrously irrational nature of theistic dogma and doctrine make it impossible to avoid such cognitive dissonance. The less intellectually capable the believer the more obvious the contradictions become of course, as they clearly can't hold too many thoughts in their head at once, thus they go around and around in circles making mutually exclusive claims endlessly, one after the other as your posts show, but just like a dog chasing its tail they never fully realise they're going in a circle.

Dr, Sheldon,
If the truth is within that circle why go beyond?

The question is, do you need to be religious to possess a moral framework?.

Of course you do not.

When you are attempting to make a person without the ability to understand what is actually written as apposed to a silly interpretation you have to go round and round until the penny drops.

I haveno idea what you're trying to say, beyond affirming atheists can be at least as moral as theists, and that you think an omniscient being with omnipotence can't communicate clearly.  

The first is obvious, the second absurd.

Dr, Sheldon,
I am glad when you think anything is absurd it is usually an indication of the opposite.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon,
                I am glad when you think anything is absurd it is usually an indication of the opposite.

So you think it rational to assert that a being with limitless knowledge and power that also has limitless benevolence would communicate things that are at best ambiguous and at worst demonstrably absurd. 

Well you're entitled to an opinion of course. However the thread topic is pretty much done since you already accepted the premise in the title.

Dr, Sheldon,
The subject is not a question it is a statement and therefore needs no answer.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD on Mon Nov 16, 2015 3:46 pm
So you think it rational to assert that a being with limitless knowledge and power that also has limitless benevolence would communicate things that are at best ambiguous and at worst demonstrably absurd.

Well you're entitled to an opinion of course. However the thread topic is pretty much done since you already accepted the premise in the title.

polyglide wrote:Dr, Sheldon, The subject is not a question it is a statement and therefore needs no answer.

Where have I claimed it was a question? Or claimed it needed an answer? I called it a premise, is this another word we can add to the list of words you have your own personal dictionary for?

What is your view of the Treasure Hunter, imprisoned because he won't reveal the location of shipwrecked gold?



https://dailygazette.com/article/2016/12/14/treasure-hunter-won-t-reveal-location-of-gold-sent-back-to-jail

As he seems to be guilty of defrauding his investors, I'd have imagined there would be some sort of sentencing tariff for this - surely he should be tried, and if the evidence supports a conviction, sentenced according to the relevant tariff?

I don't think the alleged offence justifies indefinite incarceration

if ordinary people were capable of such great evil, then, given the right circumstances, so are the rest of us.

Here's a link firstly

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/28/adolf-eichmann-final-message-architects-holocaust-evil

A quote from an article about Adolf Eichmann, and his 'banal' exterior, his ordinary unremarkable demeanour, who nonetheless was responsible for unimaginable evil.

I imagine most people would equate evil with immorality, and the conclusion the author draws in that quote would suggest that there is another way of looking at the thread question. That most if not all of humans are capable of great evil given the right circumstances, and (my inference) that clearly religion has been demonstrated to be no barrier to this.

In a census survey conducted in Germany in 1937 97% of the population identified themselves as Christians, an unremarkable enough fact given that Germany has been an overwhelmingly Christian population for centuries. Though of course the timing of the census takes on a different tone when viewed in hindsight with the knowledge of the Holocaust. As German and Austrian Christianity was virulently anti-Semitic for centuries as well. The right circumstances then had been sown long before Nazism came to power.

The true barrier to evil appears to be the ability to empathise with others as equals regardless of religious beliefs nationality colour or ethnicity, and to think critically and independently. I shall leave it to others as to whether religion's primary purpose is to create 'independent & critical thinkers'. I trust it's unnecessary to labour the point that Nazism didn't reward independent critical thinkers.