can people be good without god?

[clad0210]

if that is what you think, then so be it.
but god who flood the earth and wiped out mankind and just let a few people lived is good?
or first born child should be sacrificed to god is good?
or can I change the question, is god good?

Yung batas po kasi ng Diyos ay applicable sa lahat, ang bawal ay bawal talaga, kahit Sya afflicted Sya sa batas Nya. Nagsacrifice nga po Sya ng anak Nya para sa atin diba? (kung may tiwala kayo sa Bible)

That is pretty much saying god is not needed to be good, or for anything, in my point of view. So why throw money at him?

Most of the aforementioned people kill under their respective god's banner. Seldom do you encounter someone killing under atheism's/agnosticism's name (which incidentally, does not have a name to go by). Heck, even the almighty unicorn/elf/invisible thingie in the sky kills out of whim, even though he/she/it forbids it from being done. A good way of setting a good example to his children, no?

So, can people be good without god? Yeah

- - - Updated - - -

How i view good and bad

If you gain from something, and is also beneficial/not harmful to others, then it is good, right?

If you gain, at the expense of others, then i see it as bad.

But in the real world, things rarely happen like that. Life just isn't that simple. Most of the time, there are gains, and losses. Hence we bring out the scale.

If you do good/bad things, for the benefit of others, then we look at the bigger picture. Did the deed make the bigger impact on the bigger populace? If more benefited than the ones with losses, then it is good to a certain extent (it can't be totally good since there were losses too). If less benefited and the loss is more than the gain, then it is bad to a certain extent.

Iba po kasi ang good at bad para sa tao at Panginoon. Kung sa definition ninyo ng good at bad ang paguusapan, hindi po dapat naisali si God sa question kasi pamantayan nyo po ang kailangan namin isaalang alang which is iba sa pamantayan ng Diyos.

 

[misterluvaluva]

Depraved...? So what happened to the initial Christian assumption that man is the perfect image of god...?

Sin corrupted the perfect image of God in man. Now, man has a depraved heart Jeremiah 17:9 Humanity tends to evil. You quote the Renaissance (others quote The Enlightenment) but when humanity is the standard, the results are the same: death, warfare, conquest, domination. Even the church isn't immune to this the Renaissance Papacy is the most extreme example of how the depraved human heart leads to evil.

God places the STANDARD outside of us. If we were the standard, we'll use our reason, logic, and powers of persuasion to justify EVIL.

 

[Stormer0628]

Sin corrupted the perfect image of God in man. Now, man has a depraved heart Jeremiah 17:9 Humanity tends to evil. You quote the Renaissance (others quote The Enlightenment) but when humanity is the standard, the results are the same: death, warfare, conquest, domination. Even the church isn't immune to this the Renaissance Papacy is the most extreme example of how the depraved human heart leads to evil.

God places the STANDARD outside of us. If we were the standard, we'll use our reason, logic, and powers of persuasion to justify EVIL.

What is it we call humanity's sin? We ate the fruit, so the bible says, assuming it is to be believed, and voila we acquired the capacity to knowledge. But what is man without this capacity? A robot. So we glorify the state of being a robot rather than that which makes us uniquely man—that is, a capacity to think rather than just the purely instinctive animals of the lower kingdom in the hierarchy of species.

Nah, saying religion is right putting the standard outside of man (or more correctly, outside of man's sphere) can only be half-truth and must only apply to those people who need a disciplining element in their lives and working off fear of hellfire etc. to get them straight as behaving members of society. Religion saw the beast in man and offered to temper it with fear to straighten them up. No problem with that. But to assume it is all there is about humanity is all borne of a one-sided, and a negative view of humanity in general. It is to ignore that civilization does not ride on the back of shamans and their kinds, but of creative forces, of people who put their good minds to good use to usher the science and technologies to bring out men from their caves of fear. The productive mind is always outside the purview of religion, one that it cannot comprehend, because it does not fall in line with its reading of humanity. The best of man does not seek the life of animal, does not seek to harm other human beings, but only seeks to realize the higher potential of men in the act of creation, of invention, so that now we are way off better than any point in the history of all creation in this planet.

 

[fpgonzales]

Yes for those people who not believe in God!

For who believe in God...
No people will become righteous before God, if they not accept Jesus Christ as their Savior.
Even better people never be justified if they cannot accept Jesus Christ as a Savior and God only knows the real character of our neighbor...
Many people really, really hypocrisy...

 

[clad0210]

What is it we call humanity's sin? We ate the fruit, so the bible says, assuming it is to be believed, and voila we acquired the capacity to knowledge. But what is man without this capacity? A robot. So we glorify the state of being a robot rather than that which makes us uniquely man—that is, a capacity to think rather than just the purely instinctive animals of the lower kingdom in the hierarchy of species.

Nah, saying religion is right putting the standard outside of man (or more correctly, outside of man's sphere) can only be half-truth and must only apply to those people who need a disciplining element in their lives and working off fear of hellfire etc. to get them straight as behaving members of society. Religion saw the beast in man and offered to temper it with fear to straighten them up. No problem with that. But to assume it is all there is about humanity is all borne of a one-sided, and a negative view of humanity in general. It is to ignore that civilization does not ride on the back of shamans and their kinds, but of creative forces, of people who put their good minds to good use to usher the science and technologies to bring out men from their caves of fear. The productive mind is always outside the purview of religion, one that it cannot comprehend, because it does not fall in line with its reading of humanity. The best of man does not seek the life of animal, does not seek to harm other human beings, but only seeks to realize the higher potential of men in the act of creation, of invention, so that now we are way off better than any point in the history of all creation in this planet.

Adam and eve were instructed not to eat the fruit and yet they did. How? They acted using their free will. Can we call them robots then?

Again, if someone or something says something is good or bad, the opinion is his. It would be wrong to include God in the exchange of arguments because no one could explain the whole thought of God though some or parts of those thoughts are written in the bible.

 

[Stormer0628]

Adam and eve were instructed not to eat the fruit and yet they did. How? They acted using their free will. Can we call them robots then?

Again, if someone or something says something is good or bad, the opinion is his. It would be wrong to include God in the exchange of arguments because no one could explain the whole thought of God though some or parts of those thoughts are written in the bible.

Therein lies the trap and the weak argument of the bible.

First the trap: the commandment not to eat the fruit. We all know the whole myth portrays adam and eve fighting with all the odds stacked up against them. They were meant to do this from the start, otherwise where would the narrative of redemption enter in the biblical folklore? It was a nice invention by the writers at the time, but they did not consider how a careful analysis blows their scenario apart.

Second, the robot adam and eve: If such creations adam and eve only acquired knowledge thru the fruit, what kind of creatures would they be if they were not capable of it and are only supposed to obey, obey, obey...? We have a word for it in the current lexicon, and the terminology is ROBOT (merriam webster: 1 a : a machine that looks like a human being and performs various complex acts (as walking or talking) of a human being; also : a similar but fictional machine whose lack of capacity for human emotions is often emphasized b : an efficient insensitive person who functions automatically—sounds familiar, right?)

It is ever so nice to put a concept of god beyond any human's capacity of understanding: it puts their powerbrokers—that is, the priests, the god-kings, bishops, what have you—beyond the scrutiny of any common man, and the latter could only hope to obey orders from whatever whim that comes to mind of the powers that be. So it proves in history: how many have died against church and religious institutions fighting over the truth, but suffering and dying for it? The names Galileo and those poor folks beaten to submission by the whole Inquisition project easily comes to mind. To say that morality and issues of ethics are best served by the pretenders in man of holy clothing are the absurdest invention and the cruelest, blood-littered practice that ever happened in the history of man. On the other hand, how many lives do the likes of da vinci or galileo have taken for their efforts, while ushering men to an enlightened age?

 

[clad0210]

If you have read and analyzed the scriptures, I might have believed you because you try to explain everything in details, which are flawed by the way. You pressume you know the thoughts of God by explaining the work of His creation(s). Your logic is like this, the father is a killer therefore the son is also a killer.

Let us look at a different point of view, the father is good yet the son may err. That is the common logic of the names you've supplied above. And that is why we need to remove God from the arguement of people being good or bad because of their religious beliefs.

 

[Stormer0628]

If you have read and analyzed the scriptures, I might have believed you because you try to explain everything in details, which are flawed by the way. You pressume you know the thoughts of God by explaining the work of His creation(s). Your logic is like this, the father is a killer therefore the son is also a killer.

Let us look at a different point of view, the father is good yet the son may err. That is the common logic of the names you've supplied above. And that is why we need to remove God from the arguement of people being good or bad because of their religious beliefs.

You could elaborate how you find my last post "flawed" rather than just stating without substantiating it. And I do not presume anything about god because he does not exist at all; your literature covering all corners of the earth, on the other hand, is replete with all things any thinking man needs to make of this god. That god's thinking is beyond any human's understanding is an old trick that has worked in the past, but humanity has progressed a million light years after that dark age when men in sheep's clothing think they can get the better of all men by such hocus pocus derived from antiquated mythologies.

And you could be more specific what you are talking about with regards to the father-son-killer gymnastics. How do you derive such conclusion from my previous exposition? I wait with bated breath.

 

[Lullmage]

In my opinion, it boils down to two views:

One. The person believes in God. In this case, he'd think that people base their lives (as much as possible) to doing good deeds according to the Scriptures. So now if the question is asked, no God, no goodness.

Two. The person does not believe in a God. Agnostic atheist? Maybe. That person would be likely to answer that people can be good without a god, as he is (presumably) good himself, and believes that there is no God, so then people can be good without God, at least, for him.

But these two views open up to more perspectives in life. Asceticism and Fatalism for example. Asceticism Self-denial; forgoing pleasure, daily convenience, and financial security to satisfy religious pursuits or spiritual achievements. Asceticism means denying the body through self-discipline to strengthen the
spirit. Ascetics lead a simple lifestyle, restricting sensual pleasures and the enjoyment of life. Would that be goodness? Depends. On a lot of variables.

Fatalism is basically, leaving it to fate. That person may believe his life is not his own to control, but would also not directly invoke a god. Would he be good? Again, depends. On a lot of variables.

But that still opens up more views. If we include asceticism and fatalism, why not include other religions, other then Christianity? Buddhism, for example. The goal of Buddha's teachings is Nirvana, the highest level of happiness. Through his insights, people may transcend this world by accepting sufferings as a means to overcome ignorance. Buddhists believe in this, and not necessarily in an overseeing deity. But still, they are good people.

But then, we now might ask ourselves, what is goodness in the first place? You can define it through your own experience,or look it up on the web. But as far as I'm concerned: Can people be good without God? Let me ask you back. Can people be evil with God?

My opinion only

 

[clad0210]

I enjoy talking with you, you use words very dramatically. (Sorry for the OT)

Back to topic. You were explaining that the scriptures are myth from the past, who told you so? Is he reputable? was it explained by science or a known philosopher? You're just bashing at things or beliefs because you read what, 100, 1000 articles/books? I came to know our God by reading the Bible, and it is less than 2000 yrs old, including the new testament part. the first half of which, the old testament, is still being used by a nation for more than 2000 years. I won't be too quick to say it's mythology if I were you.

The father and son examples were meant to explain your logic. It was given that even a 5yr old will understand what I was talking about. I'm sorry to hear someone as knowledgeable like you was not able to understand. For your benifit, this is the explanation: you were implying that believing in God while seeing His so called followers do the "bad" things would be something foolish to do. I did not agree to that, hence I gave the simple logical examples of the father and son which implies that you can't judge someone because of what others did. God created us, but we choose our path, leaving God blameless.

 

[Stormer0628]

In my opinion, it boils down to two views:

One. The person believes in God. In this case, he'd think that people base their lives (as much as possible) to doing good deeds according to the Scriptures. So now if the question is asked, no God, no goodness.

Two. The person does not believe in a God. Agnostic atheist? Maybe. That person would be likely to answer that people can be good without a god, as he is (presumably) good himself, and believes that there is no God, so then people can be good without God, at least, for him.

But these two views open up to more perspectives in life. Asceticism and Fatalism for example. Asceticism Self-denial; forgoing pleasure, daily convenience, and financial security to satisfy religious pursuits or spiritual achievements. Asceticism means denying the body through self-discipline to strengthen the
spirit. Ascetics lead a simple lifestyle, restricting sensual pleasures and the enjoyment of life. Would that be goodness? Depends. On a lot of variables.

Fatalism is basically, leaving it to fate. That person may believe his life is not his own to control, but would also not directly invoke a god. Would he be good? Again, depends. On a lot of variables.

But that still opens up more views. If we include asceticism and fatalism, why not include other religions, other then Christianity? Buddhism, for example. The goal of Buddha's teachings is Nirvana, the highest level of happiness. Through his insights, people may transcend this world by accepting sufferings as a means to overcome ignorance. Buddhists believe in this, and not necessarily in an overseeing deity. But still, they are good people.

But then, we now might ask ourselves, what is goodness in the first place? You can define it through your own experience,or look it up on the web. But as far as I'm concerned: Can people be good without God? Let me ask you back. Can people be evil with God?

My opinion only

Point taken.

However, as I have pointed out earlier, the question in this post is better stated this way: is the concept of good, whatever it is, dependent on the existence of a god? Tell me if it is not a better restatement of the question posed that started this thread.

Let us assume that we all agree that "good" is something that we all agree, so that we may concentrate on the more important part of the question: that such "good" is only dependent on the existence of a god—any god at all, for that matter.

As I have mentioned earlier, in case you missed it or did not bother to look at the earlier posts (which I do not blame you—it is not obligatory, and besides, we are here for constructive exchange of ideas, while humoring the other/s at least ), there is such a tribe in Amazon where the people fall precisely to what we would regard as good: they neither seek to harm their neighbors, nor do they force each other to do what they don't want to do. In essence, they live under the precept of what we call the Eastern version of the golden mean: do not do unto others what you don't want others do unto you, without them having to formulate the words for the world to see. What is more is that these people are strange in that they do not subscribe to any belief in any supernatural being: when a scientist told them about Jesus, they hasten to ask the scientist to show them this Jesus, otherwise the scientist is just a nut case.

Now we go back to the initial interest of this thread: foregoing any speculative discussion, what we have in the case of this Amazon tribe is a hard fact, a strong evidence to say that people need no god to be good—it is easily within their powers. Now, of course those deists would love to state the opposite, but this easily to go against hard reality of something against their views. That I am godless/atheist is secondary to the fact that I have a hard evidence to affirm that people can be good without god. Now compare that to the deists who would rather turn a blind eye to a concrete fact of existence just so they would earn heaven points for their subscribed religion.

- - - Updated - - -

I enjoy talking with you, you use words very dramatically. (Sorry for the OT)

Back to topic. You were explaining that the scriptures are myth from the past, who told you so? Is he reputable? was it explained by science or a known philosopher? You're just bashing at things or beliefs because you read what, 100, 1000 articles/books? I came to know our God by reading the Bible, and it is less than 2000 yrs old, including the new testament part. the first half of which, the old testament, is still being used by a nation for more than 2000 years. I won't be too quick to say it's mythology if I were you.

The father and son examples were meant to explain your logic. It was given that even a 5yr old will understand what I was talking about. I'm sorry to hear someone as knowledgeable like you was not able to understand. For your benifit, this is the explanation: you were implying that believing in God while seeing His so called followers do the "bad" things would be something foolish to do. I did not agree to that, hence I gave the simple logical examples of the father and son which implies that you can't judge someone because of what others did. God created us, but we choose our path, leaving God blameless.

Just a while ago I could picture you gloating righteously with a smug smile in your face believing that nobody could ever stand up to your previous statements; funny that after I squared up to you you now say you "enjoy talking to me." Again the smug face But never mind, let us assume that you do enjoy our constructive and smart conversation....

Now, as you were eager to say...back to the topic, even if we are straying from the topic. Let's just indulge ourselves, shall we...?

About the scriptures being a myth from the past: I am sorry to disappoint you, but there are countless archeological studies to debunk the story that the scriptures are original materials; on the contrary the scriptures are found to be nothing but just a compendium of all the religious systems that existed long before the Jews could even learn their version of ABCs. The stories of creation, the myth of the Flood, all the stories of Moses, Jesus, of its rituals, sacred numerologies are lifted from previous religious systems: Greek, Hindu, Egyptian, Mesopotamian, etc., etc. In fact, there is nothing original in the bible. I repeat that: there is nothing original in the bible. Proof: you might want to start here: http://www.see_the_truth.webs.com/

No, I do not see the relevance of your logic in the topic. You missed my point by a mile.

Nevertheless, I do not want to mislead you to think that I have something against people who are faithful to their creed or religion. Far from it. I for one know that religion when done correctly helps in taming the beast in man. On the other hand, I would not encourage the negative side of this system: thinking that the world is largely peopled by criminals languishing in all the state prisons of the world. Far from it. Look all around you: do you think this modern world with all its wonders is created by such people? No? Then what is missing? What is missing is we have not factored another class of people in this planet: the creators, the builders who only seek to be left alone to do their lifetime's works. Why do we all miss them? Because we have grown up in the religious world view which interpreted the world in the way it had seen men at the beginning of history: violent beasts to be tamed. We missed this class of men because they came at a much later period of history, and when they came, we hardly noticed them, blinded by the smokescreens that thousand-year-old creeds had not defined and opened our eyes for us. More: this class of people bring a new set of principles of morality, of living, that the old founders of religions could hardly imagine possible.

 

[clad0210]

Im sorry that I'm not as good in english as you are to better explain my self, which led to you thinking that my statements were made while I was enjoying any of this, though your writting style was really refreshing. I was not offering anything in the first place, so there is no glory to be had. I was not trying to convince you or anybody to believe in God. What I was doing was to point out that God is not the reason in doing good or bad. Which makes Him blameless. Your statements were implying that that there is no need to believe in God because of what His followers did, and that the scriptures is a myth to control people in doing good. To answer, I gave an example from the society, the father and son. It should have made anyone think that it's unfit to that blame someone because of what the other did. The site you've given to justify that the scriptures is a myth is unreliable. they for a fact do believe in God, how did I know? They belive in satan that's how. The scriptures as I've said is more or less 2000yrs old. Additionaly, there are thousands of scholars around the world who says it's true, that should have been enough to stop questioning it's authenticity.

 

[Stormer0628]

Im sorry that I'm not as good in english as you are to better explain my self, which led to you thinking that my statements were made while I was enjoying any of this, though your writting style was really refreshing. I was not offering anything in the first place, so there is no glory to be had. I was not trying to convince you or anybody to believe in God. What I was doing was to point out that God is not the reason in doing good or bad. Which makes Him blameless. Your statements were implying that that there is no need to believe in God because of what His followers did, and that the scriptures is a myth to control people in doing good. To answer, I gave an example from the society, the father and son. It should have made anyone think that it's unfit to that blame someone because of what the other did. The site you've given to justify that the scriptures is a myth is unreliable. they for a fact do believe in God, how did I know? They belive in satan that's how. The scriptures as I've said is more or less 2000yrs old. Additionaly, there are thousands of scholars around the world who says it's true, that should have been enough to stop questioning it's authenticity.

Nothing to be sorry, man. I was just enjoying myself hoping you'd be a good sport while taking some needling in the process. But all's well that ends well.

About the christian mythology, I pointed that site because it has everything that I wanted to say. Don't believe it for what it says on the surface: you can cross-reference all its claims against the latest scientific findings—believe me I've been doing that for ages, and found that its claims could hardly be refuted, unless one is of a certain state of mind at the outset. Anyway, it doesn't really matter. We know we are after the same thing: for people to be good, and if some people need religion for that to happen, you can count on me being a happy camper from my side of the world.

Good night!

 

[misterluvaluva]

What is it we call humanity's sin? We ate the fruit, so the bible says, assuming it is to be believed, and voila we acquired the capacity to knowledge. But what is man without this capacity? A robot. So we glorify the state of being a robot rather than that which makes us uniquely man—that is, a capacity to think rather than just the purely instinctive animals of the lower kingdom in the hierarchy of species.

Nah, saying religion is right putting the standard outside of man (or more correctly, outside of man's sphere) can only be half-truth and must only apply to those people who need a disciplining element in their lives and working off fear of hellfire etc. to get them straight as behaving members of society. Religion saw the beast in man and offered to temper it with fear to straighten them up. No problem with that. But to assume it is all there is about humanity is all borne of a one-sided, and a negative view of humanity in general. It is to ignore that civilization does not ride on the back of shamans and their kinds, but of creative forces, of people who put their good minds to good use to usher the science and technologies to bring out men from their caves of fear. The productive mind is always outside the purview of religion, one that it cannot comprehend, because it does not fall in line with its reading of humanity. The best of man does not seek the life of animal, does not seek to harm other human beings, but only seeks to realize the higher potential of men in the act of creation, of invention, so that now we are way off better than any point in the history of all creation in this planet.

Man, I wish what you say is true. I wish friedrich nietzsche, karl marx, et al were right. The problem is history always gets in the way. When we make MAN the standard and his capacity for reason, logic, and SCIENCE, the results are oh so predictable-the weak being preyed on by the strong... with no conscience. Why not? After all, Evolution teaches that the strong destroys the weak. That's how evolution occurs. It creates through destruction. It then follows that it's okay to destroy your fellow man because he isn't strong enough to stand up to you. Just look at all the people killed by official atheist governments from Stalin to Pol Pot.

As far as atheism is concerned, atheists are attacking a distortion of God. This distortion doesn't exist. They are attacking a caricature. Thanks to the Roman Catholic Church, it's easy to do that. But if you're serious about attacking or debunking Jesus Christ, you need to KNOW HIM FIRST. How can you attack something you don't fully understand?

For example, here's a question that Catholics and many other Christians can't answer and fuels atheism: Attributed to Epicurus...

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

The way Catholicism sets God up, it's very easy to be an atheist... in fact, if you truly try to believe Catholicism, you can't help but be FORCED into being an atheist because of how God is defined by the Church.

Thankfully, there's a way, a Biblical way, out of Epicurus' question: see this video - Begin at 10:23

 

[knowledge seeker]

The goodness of people depends on society and culture. Nandun yan sa pagtanggap. Meron masama ngayon sa lumaon yun na ang mabuti.

 

[newbietweaker]

nice question..
psalm 14:1

For the director of music. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good.

romans 3:10

10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; 11 THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS, THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;…


di porket tumutulong ka sa kapwa mo is mabuti ka na..di porket di ka nagnanakaw or pumapatay ng tao e mabuti ka na..

1 Corinthians 10: 31
"31Whether, then, you eat or drink or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God."
God should definitely be the first and foremost reason why you are helping others...kung magbibigay ka ng kung anu man na tulong, your motive should be to glorify God and not just help others kasi gusto mo makatulong (pangsariling glorification man yan o as in gusto mo lang makatulong sa iba e mali parin)..at syempre faith to the right God is definitely a must.. may pananampalataya ka nga pero mali naman ang god mo then wala din..

 

[Stormer0628]

Man, I wish what you say is true. I wish friedrich nietzsche, karl marx, et al were right. The problem is history always gets in the way. When we make MAN the standard and his capacity for reason, logic, and SCIENCE, the results are oh so predictable-the weak being preyed on by the strong... with no conscience. Why not? After all, Evolution teaches that the strong destroys the weak. That's how evolution occurs. It creates through destruction. It then follows that it's okay to destroy your fellow man because he isn't strong enough to stand up to you. Just look at all the people killed by official atheist governments from Stalin to Pol Pot.

As far as atheism is concerned, atheists are attacking a distortion of God. This distortion doesn't exist. They are attacking a caricature. Thanks to the Roman Catholic Church, it's easy to do that. But if you're serious about attacking or debunking Jesus Christ, you need to KNOW HIM FIRST. How can you attack something you don't fully understand?

For example, here's a question that Catholics and many other Christians can't answer and fuels atheism: Attributed to Epicurus...

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

The way Catholicism sets God up, it's very easy to be an atheist... in fact, if you truly try to believe Catholicism, you can't help but be FORCED into being an atheist because of how God is defined by the Church.

Thankfully, there's a way, a Biblical way, out of Epicurus' question: see this video - Begin at 10:23
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eUlAW_sHaAI

The trouble with your argument is that you only equate atheism with the likes of Pol Pot, Stalin, etc. and all those ignoble atheist characters in the darkest chapters of human history. It is all too easy to fall for that. Didn't it ever occur to you that atheists do not have monopoly in the tyranny department? Just because some atheist elements go the Attila way does not mean that all atheists are the same, in the same way that not all deists would go the Hitler or Inquisitors way. It should be clearly easy to see that, unless we love our isms over reality and common sense so much and go beating our chests to proclaim to the world how nice our claims and beliefs are.

Corollarily, why should we arrive at a conclusion that atheism necessarily requires a Darwinistic social structure, i.e., that might trumps all? Where did it come from? Just because we came from prokaryotes does not exigently make us mindless one-celled organism, incapable at rationally articulating what works best for decent men in the larger setting of a society. In the same way, let us not forget that man is more than a beast, he is inherently capable of noble deeds and aspirations. Do you think that compassion, nobility of the soul, kindness, and generosity is cardinally beyond thinking men's capability? Do you think that just because we believe in evolution we would then behave as if the best approach then is to trudge on the "weak" among us? To say so is blindness at best, and dogmatism at its worst. Why? Because we have, as of this writing, current social models that falsify all these views: the largely atheistic/secular but generously benevolent models of Scandinavian countries like Sweden, Norway, etc., not to mention the atheistic but functionally working secular society of Czechoslovakia. We have more than enough great models in the current global setting to banish all our misplaced understanding of the best principles to conduct the business of living together.

There is no need to articulate about any distortion of any concept of any god. For the atheist, there is just an absence in the pantheon of gods that now exist in the marketplace of bankrupt ideas. Know Jesus Christ? You bet. I am an astute student of all things bejesus hailing from a deeply religious family, and believe you me, I have read and understood more than my fair share of any religious writings, all of which would only lead, as any deep-thinking man, to question the very foundations of these belief systems making the rounds of this planet for as long as mystics have existed in this world. You know what they say? The biggest critic of any established belief system is that group of people who have access to the deepest intricacies of its workings.

 

[Elora]

Many religious people find it hard to imigine how,without religion,one can be good ,or would even want to be good ,.....richard dawkins

No. Because we are born sinners. It is natural for all of us, to be tempted to do things that God says wrong. I’m sure, never na may nagsabi sa sarili nya na, “Ah! Paglaki ko gusto kong maging rapist!” o kaya “Paglaki ko pangarap kong maging adik!” Hindi! Wala sa atin ang gumawa ng ganyang conscious decision na magkaroon ng self-destructive lifestyle. Ang kasalanan ay natural sa tao. Pero hindi naman ibig sabihin nito ay kalooban ng Diyos na manatili tayo sa ganitong kalagayan. Remember, ang dahilan kung bakit bumaba ang Diyos? Nais nyang bigyan tayo ng bagong buhay at kalayaan. Dahil ang taong wala kay Kristo ay alipin ng kasalanan at walang buhay na walang hanggan.

If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, God is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. God bless!

 

[Stormer0628]

No. Because we are born sinners. It is natural for all of us, to be tempted to do things that God says wrong. I’m sure, never na may nagsabi sa sarili nya na, “Ah! Paglaki ko gusto kong maging rapist!” o kaya “Paglaki ko pangarap kong maging adik!” Hindi! Wala sa atin ang gumawa ng ganyang conscious decision na magkaroon ng self-destructive lifestyle. Ang kasalanan ay natural sa tao. Pero hindi naman ibig sabihin nito ay kalooban ng Diyos na manatili tayo sa ganitong kalagayan. Remember, ang dahilan kung bakit bumaba ang Diyos? Nais nyang bigyan tayo ng bagong buhay at kalayaan. Dahil ang taong wala kay Kristo ay alipin ng kasalanan at walang buhay na walang hanggan.

The very idea of being born sinners should be the first one to go among the baseless monstrous ideas propagated by all power-hungry religions of the world. It serves nothing but to trap people in hideous, undeserved, unjust feeling of guilt, to snap up their souls for whatever purpose that could serve their religious masters. It is the root of all evil served up by such mystic systems in the world. You only need to verify with the annals of psychological records to see how this "born sinners" thinking has perverted and twisted people's relationships with their own kind throughout their lives. It effectively blinds us to the innate goodness of man, and makes us deny the existence of good men in society in real time or in history simply because "god tells us so, and he cannot be wrong." Pathetic.

 

[jinn21]

"No. Because we are born sinners."

~I find it hard to reconcile this statement in view of God as a Perfect Being and Sin as evil. God as perfect is good, goodness to be precise, and this makes God incapable of creating that which is evil, how so? Nemo dat quod non habet, no one gives what he does not have. Furthermore, as a perfect being it follows that all His actions are perfect including creation, perfect in the sense not that is without flaw rather perfect in its nature.

"Ang kasalanan ay natural sa tao."

~I disagree. If it is in our nature to be sinners, why suppress it? Why go against it? Rather I think that sin is not natural to man which is why sinning is, using you words is self-destructive, it is against nature. Moreover to say that it is in our nature is to say that God made it so.

"can people be good without god?"

~ Yes & No. Yes because all men desires to be good, no man in his right mind would want himself to be not good and that man by nature is good. The problem is man sometimes fall short to distinguish what is good and what is an apparent good. No, in a manner that without God there is no man & all that is good ( that is God's existence is established) or if you are an atheist then No because we would fall into moral subjectivism, each man would be a judge for himself to what is good hence there would be no true good at all, like the pragmatist would say "in the end its just the same."