Can You Be Good Without God?

[blackbird]

The second point called Historical Accuracy mentions an interesting point concerning the walls of Jericho.

Quote

Associates for Biblical Research has extensively excavated Jericho. Just one of the interesting features about this city is that the walls appear to have fallen outward. While an invading army would typically ram the walls inward upon the debris, the Bible declares that God caused the walls to fall flat so that the Israelites could go straight in.   Unquote

 

[Omni]

Between Christianity, Islam, and the various other religions throughout the world, it has always made me wonder how so many people could be so easily duped, however I can conclude it has much to do with fear of the unknown, (i.e. after death) and if that gives people some solace from that fear than I can understand. Now I'm not quite sure what the exact definition of what "good" is here, but all in all I think I have been pretty good throughout my life, and I did it without god. I didn't need a commandment carved in a stone tablet to tell me not to kill anyone for instance. If you need that to guide you, are you actually good? 

[Michael Hardner]

12 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Well sir, somebody earlier asked the question as to how I know the Bible is inspired.  I have given this information to show why I believe it is inspired.  I know it might not be good enough for everyone's taste, but there it is for what it's worth.  You can reject it or consider it as you prefer.

I don't think the question was about your take on it, but on objective evidence.  I am glad you have faith, but evidence is supposed to be universal.

[blackbird]

In the five points why the Bible is inspired by God, the third point is about fulfilled prophecy.   Consider Edom.

Quote

Biblical prophecies with regard to ancient cities is equally remarkable. Skeptics have suggested that a message of impending doom spoken against an ancient city must come true eventually. Yet the dire predictions in the Bible are very specific such that the details of one city’s prophecies do not fit the next one. The detailed prophecies involving ancient cities include Babylon, Chorazin-Bethsaida-Capernaum, Gaza-Ashkelon, Jerusalem, Moab-Ammon, Nineveh, Petra-Edom, Samaria, Sidon, Thebes-Memphis, Tyre, and others (McDowell, 1991). Contemplate just a few of them:

Among the several specific predictions with regard to ancient Edom are those in Ezekiel 25:13-14. It claims that Edom’s destruction would leave the land desolate as far as Teman and that Israel would participate in their destruction. In Ezekiel 35:7 the prophet further notes Edom would no longer be a place of merchants and trade. Isaiah 34:14-15 claims it would be the habitation of wild animals. Lastly Jeremiah 49:18 predicts that it would never be inhabited again. This is a daunting series of prophecies, particularly when one considers that Petra, the capital of Edom, was one of the wonders of the ancient world–literally a city carved into a mountain and the Jews were in bondage when the prophecy was made! Yet under the Maccabean era the resurgent Israelites pillaged Edom. In dramatic fulfillment the Edomite empire was finally destroyed right up to the city of Teman. (Only Teman, or Maan was left and survives still today.) When the capital city of Petra was rediscovered (to the chagrin of critics who maintained that the Edomite civilization was mythical), it was found to be a ghost town, inhabited only by eagles, scorpions and other wild creatures.       Unquote

http://www.genesispark.com/essays/gods-word/

Edited May 1, 2017 by blackbird

[Michael Hardner]

I'm realizing that I got caught in thread drift again, sorry.

Nobody asked for evidence from the bible with regards to the subject, but somebody asked "why should I believe this book" and then we got onto a tangent.

 

The topic again, folks, is can you be good without God ?

 

(Once again, I point out that we are asking everybody to keep threads on track and the mods have not been hiding posts anywhere near as often to facilitate this new approach.)

[betsy]

17 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

My moral code is better than Christian moral code because i take out all the good stuff out of Christianity and use it, and replace the bad stuff like shaming homosexuals and providing rules for slavery and "just war" and improving upon it.

 

 

Which brings us right back to the topic!  Folks, please let's discuss the Bible in the thread created for it.

 

Where did your moral code come from?

Edited May 1, 2017 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

8 minutes ago, betsy said:

 Where did your moral code come from?

I saw an ape mom in the zoo being kind to her apeling.  I said "Gee, I should do what ape-ma does".  

[betsy]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I saw an ape mom in the zoo being kind to her apeling.  I said "Gee, I should do what ape-ma does".  

You're aping an ape.  You're saying the ape is superior to you!  

You're the type who just apes what he sees.  Okay. 

 

Maybe, you should let that ape be the one to post for you? 

 

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by betsy

[Moonlight Graham]

18 minutes ago, betsy said:

Where did your moral code come from?

My family, teachers, peers, media, and general upbringing as a child, which yes included Christianity.  But since having the ability to think on my own since puberty i've been able change and adapt my morality and learn new things, or philosophize different moral questions to reach my own conclusions.

Christianity is a good base for morality I think, but certainly not perfect either.  And we all interpret the Bible differently, as do priests/Popes/scholars. I think just about every Christian picks and chooses what they like and don't like from the Bible and religious "authorities" and develops their own sense of their faith that works for them.  Fundamentalists who don't do this, from any religion, seem to only cause lots of problems.  Dogma is a dangerous thing.

I like Jesus generally.  Great guy.  But I don't think you need to believe he was the son of God, he rose from the dead, or that God exists, or hell is waiting for sinners in order to believe in many of his teachings of what's right vs wrong.  That stuff used to work for me, it doesn't any more.  If it works for you, I have no problems. but I also won't accept fact claims that are actually based on faith not fact.

[betsy]

Just now, Moonlight Graham said:

My family, teachers, peers, media, and general upbringing as a child, which yes included Christianity.  But since having the ability to think on my own since puberty i've been able change and adapt my morality and learn new things, or philosophize different moral questions to reach my own conclusions.

Christianity is a good base for morality I think, but certainly not perfect either.  And we all interpret the Bible differently, as do priests/Popes/scholars. I think just about every Christian picks and chooses what they like and don't like from the Bible and religious "authorities" and develops their own sense of their faith that works for them.  Fundamentalists who don't do this, from any religion, seem to only cause lots of problems.  Dogma is a dangerous thing.

I like Jesus generally.  Great guy.  But I don't think you need to believe he was the son of God, he rose from the dead, or that God exists, or hell is waiting for sinners in order to believe in many of his teachings of what's right vs wrong.  That stuff used to work for me, it doesn't any more.  If it works for you, I have no problems. but I also won't accept fact claims that are actually based on faith not fact.

 

Moonlight, watch the video so you and I will be on the same page.

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, betsy said:

You're aping an ape.  You're saying the ape is superior to you!   You're the type who just apes what he sees.  Okay.

 

 

He can of course speak for himself but I think it's pretty obvious that kindness is not a product that emanates solely from the bible. Even apes have it among their repertoire.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 minute ago, betsy said:

 

Moonlight, watch the video so you and I will be on the same page.

i watched half of it, it's long, maybe i'll finish it some other time.

CORRECTION, that was the other video about truth in the Bible.  I didn't watch this video for your OP. When I get more time I'll try.

Edited May 1, 2017 by Moonlight Graham

[betsy]

6 minutes ago, Omni said:

He can of course speak for himself but I think it's pretty obvious that kindness is not a product that emanates solely from the bible. Even apes have it among their repertoire.

Is kindness good or bad??

Edited May 1, 2017 by betsy

[Omni]

1 minute ago, betsy said:

 

Is kindness good or bad??

Didn't your bible tell you so?

[betsy]

3 minutes ago, Omni said:

Didn't your bible tell you so?

If you're not going to be serious about this thread, I'll have to ignore you.  Philosophical discussion isn't for everyone.

[Omni]

7 minutes ago, betsy said:

If you're not going to be serious about this thread, I'll have to ignore you.  Philosophical discussion isn't for everyone.

Then why would you need to ask whether or not kindness is good?

[betsy]

Just now, Omni said:

Then why would you need to ask whether or not kindness is good?

Either you didn't watch the video in the OP........or this discussion is way over your head.

[Moonlight Graham]

8 minutes ago, betsy said:

Moonlight, watch the video so you and I will be on the same page.

Ok watched it.  I reject the notion that "God's morality" is "objective".  First of all. there's hundreds of different judeo-Christian sects, all with their interpretations of the Bible.  Secondly, there's many different religions, many that no longer exists, that claim believe in God or Gods and claim objective moral rules.  Which is the objective truth in any of this?  This is completely subjective to the believer.

Thirdly, there is no convincing proof that God wrote these rules of morality in these holy books, nor proof the people who wrote them were divinely infused with the power & will of God's words and were direct conduits to what God wanted.  God is God and all-powerful supposedly, he doesn't need humans to write or revise or publish a book for him, he can supernaturally create it himself.

The Bible is a reference point, a subjective one, for morality.  It's a moral system.  A series of moral rules made up by humans that seemed to work well for them.  That's what all moral philosophy is.  Humans have created their own moral systems without God before, like Utilitarianism.  Humans can create their own moral rules on right vs wrong by using reason and as well as emotions.  God did not create liberal democracies, he didn't write the constitution or the Charter of Rights.  Human logic and human philosophy did.  Some of it may have been inspired in some way by religious moral teaching, but not all of it.

Many dogs are "good", dogs don't believe in God and never read the Bible.  Dogs and humans are social animals and most can figure things out fine on our own by interacting with each other.  Humans can do one better by using reason and philosophy.  Killing isn't wrong because it's on the 10 Commandments, killing is wrong because it makes people sad and pained and it's in the best interests of everyone if everyone doesn't kill.

[Omni]

6 minutes ago, betsy said:

Either you didn't watch the video in the OP........or this discussion is way over your head.

The video is just mindless drivel meant to encourage the converted. As I've already stated, I didn't need the 10 commandments to guide me not to do things it talks about. I grew up in a very kind and loving family who were not religious beyond showing up from time to time at the United church. A bit of a social outing. 

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, betsy said:

Maybe, you should let that ape be the one to post for you? 

Sorry, I like my bananas

[betsy]

16 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Ok watched it.  I reject the notion that "God's morality" is "objective".  First of all. there's hundreds of different judeo-Christian sects, all with their interpretations of the Bible.  Secondly, there's many different religions, many that no longer exists, that claim believe in God or Gods and claim objective moral rules.  Which is the objective truth in any of this?  This is completely subjective to the believer.

Thirdly, there is no convincing proof that God wrote these rules of morality in these holy books, nor proof the people who wrote them were divinely infused with the power & will of God's words and were direct conduits to what God wanted.  God is God and all-powerful supposedly, he doesn't need humans to write or revise or publish a book for him, he can supernaturally create it himself.

The Bible is a reference point, a subjective one, for morality.  It's a moral system.  A series of moral rules made up by humans that seemed to work well for them.  That's what all moral philosophy is.  Humans have created their own moral systems without God before, like Utilitarianism.  Humans can create their own moral rules on right vs wrong by using reason and as well as emotions.  God did not create liberal democracies, he didn't write the constitution or the Charter of Rights.  Human logic and human philosophy did.  Some of it may have been inspired in some way by religious moral teaching, but not all of it.

Many dogs are "good", dogs don't believe in God and never read the Bible.  Dogs and humans are social animals and most can figure things out fine on our own by interacting with each other.  Humans can do one better by using reason and philosophy.  Killing isn't wrong because it's on the 10 Commandments, killing is wrong because it makes people sad and pained and it's in the best interests of everyone if everyone doesn't kill.

 

You're still missing the message, Moonlight.  Watch the video again.

 

Different religion or religion sects doesn't have anything to do with this.  

Even non-believers can still be good WITHOUT BELIEVING in God. 

The question is:  can we be good WITHOUT GOD!  Big difference.

 

The point is:  unless we have a reference point, there wouldn't be any "good" or "bad" as we UNIVERSALLY know it!   What's good or bad is "instinctive" in us....our conscience pricks at us.......because it's coded in us! 

 

Dogs behave in what we say are "good" behaviours - but they can also behave in what we say are "bad" behaviours.  But does the animal know what is good or bad?  Does the dog feel any remorse after mauling a baby to death?  Does a cat feel any remorse after killing a bird for no reason?

 

Without God - if we're all the product of evolution, Dawkins says we're all just going to be pitiless and indifferent.   He gives the sufferings in this world as the proof that there could be no God!

But, with his observation...... Dawkins had demonstrated he is not at all pitiless, and indifferent to sufferings.  In fact, he cited the sufferings in this world as the one, if not the main reason, why he'd lost his faith in God! 

 

Dawkins had unwittingly given himself as an example - and proven, that we are not a product of evolution! 

 

 

Edited May 2, 2017 by betsy

[Moonlight Graham]

9 hours ago, betsy said:

 

You're still missing the message, Moonlight.  Watch the video again.

Different religion or religion sects doesn't have anything to do with this.  

Even non-believers can still be good WITHOUT BELIEVING in God. 

The question is:  can we be good WITHOUT GOD!  Big difference.

The point is:  unless we have a reference point, there wouldn't be any "good" or "bad" as we UNIVERSALLY know it!   What's good or bad is "instinctive" in us....our conscience pricks at us.......because it's coded in us!

Dogs behave in what we say are "good" behaviours - but they can also behave in what we say are "bad" behaviours.  But does the animal know what is good or bad?  Does the dog feel any remorse after mauling a baby to death?  Does a cat feel any remorse after killing a bird for no reason?

Without God - if we're all the product of evolution, Dawkins says we're all just going to be pitiless and indifferent.   He gives the sufferings in this world as the proof that there could be no God!

But, with his observation...... Dawkins had demonstrated he is not at all pitiless, and indifferent to sufferings.  In fact, he cited the sufferings in this world as the one, if not the main reason, why he'd lost his faith in God!

Dawkins had unwittingly given himself as an example - and proven, that we are not a product of evolution!

Why can't these "instincts" be from evolution?  The ability to love is also a product of evolution and natural selection.  Parents/mothers (of virtually all mammals) who loved and cared for their babies stuck around after their babies were born and fed them & protected them, and so those babies survived and lived to procreate as adults. Parents/mothers who were indifferent to their babies and didn't care for them, feed/protect them had their babies not survive at high rates and so not procreate, so the babies with parents who treated them "good" were the ones who survived and passed on their genetic code.

There's obviously some evolutionary survival value for humans to be both selfish to our own survival needs AND also to be social animals that care for other people at times and do altruistic things.  Humans that share and help each other can be better able to survive harsh conditions and pass on survival skills & technology.

Also, it's very hard to separate what is "instinct" vs what is learned behaviour for what's good/bad. It wasn't long ago that homosexuality was almost universally seen as bad, and treating black people like subhumans was seen as ok.

[betsy]

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Why can't these "instincts" be from evolution?

 

Animals will have the same "instinct" for right and wrong, if it is!  They would have a conscience as we do. And we know that they don't! 

You can't know if animals feel love for their young the same way we do.  One thing we know though, many animals cast out their young at a certain age to fend for themselves.  There's hardly any animals who support their offsprings even in adulthood.  There's no such thing as support for those who "failed to launch."

Furthermore, Dawkin's own statement refuted him!  He proved that we didn't come from evolution.

 

Considering that there are evidences that support the possibility of a God-created world .......why can't it be from Creation? 

Edited May 3, 2017 by betsy

[Moonlight Graham]

5 hours ago, betsy said:

You can't know if animals feel love for their young the same way we do. 

Ever see an animal fight to defend it's young?  Or how about this: 

 

Quote

Considering that there are evidences that support the possibility of a God-created world .......why can't it be from Creation? 

The only possibility I see for intelligent life creation or "God" is that this being or force (or whatever) created the initial matter that makes up the universe and it's rules of physics, maybe even initial life itself who knows.  But it's only a possibility because there's no evidence either way to confirm nor deny it.  We just don't know.

You've spent countless threads on MLW trying to rationalize that which defies evidence, which is why it's called faith.  It takes a leap of faith to believe in God and whatnot.  I'm not saying this to insult you in any way, I'm saying faith is faith, and science is science.

[betsy]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Ever see an animal fight to defend it's young?  Or how about this: 

 

The only possibility I see for intelligent life creation or "God" is that this being or force (or whatever) created the initial matter that makes up the universe and it's rules of physics, maybe even initial life itself who knows.  But it's only a possibility because there's no evidence either way to confirm nor deny it.  We just don't know.

You've spent countless threads on MLW trying to rationalize that which defies evidence, which is why it's called faith.  It takes a leap of faith to believe in God and whatnot.  I'm not saying this to insult you in any way, I'm saying faith is faith, and science is science.

 

No one says animals don't have emotions.  But are those emotions as complex as HUMANS?  No.   How many humans got hurt getting "emotional" with a wild animal - thinking the animal shares the same emotion?

Btw, you show Steve Irwin.  How did Steve Irwin die? He was  struck HUNDREDS of times by a stingray! I wonder if that stingray had felt any remorse at all for killing Irwin for no other reason.

Animals don't know what's right and wrong.

 

 

I've created many threads showing evidence that give support for theism, is on every quarter:  be it cosmology, biology, math, philosophy, physics etc.,

 

You offered nothing to back up your claim.  So, the ones who're doing a tremendous leap of faith would be those who'd pinned their faith in, and accepts macroevolution.

Edited May 3, 2017 by betsy