HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Religion & Spirituality » Religion (Group) » No God? ...No Problem!

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 01:17 PM

No God? ...No Problem!

37 replies, 4359 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 37 replies Author Time Post
Reply No God? ...No Problem! (Original post)
cleanhippie Dec 2012 OP
patrice Dec 2012 #1
Voice for Peace Dec 2012 #2
MsPithy Dec 2012 #3
rug Dec 2012 #4
Gore1FL Dec 2012 #5
rug Dec 2012 #6
Gore1FL Dec 2012 #7
rug Dec 2012 #8
Gore1FL Dec 2012 #9
lbrtbell Dec 2012 #31
Shivering Jemmy Dec 2012 #32
LARED Dec 2012 #10
Chef Eric Dec 2012 #11
edhopper Dec 2012 #12
Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2012 #18
edhopper Dec 2012 #19
Fortinbras Armstrong Dec 2012 #20
cleanhippie Dec 2012 #21
edhopper Dec 2012 #22
Goblinmonger Dec 2012 #13
LARED Dec 2012 #16
trotsky Dec 2012 #14
LARED Dec 2012 #17
trotsky Dec 2012 #23
LARED Dec 2012 #24
trotsky Dec 2012 #25
LARED Dec 2012 #27
trotsky Dec 2012 #28
LARED Dec 2012 #30
trotsky Dec 2012 #34
Phillip McCleod Dec 2012 #26
LARED Dec 2012 #29
Kalidurga Dec 2012 #33
Phillip McCleod Dec 2012 #35
LeftishBrit Dec 2012 #36
Marrah_G Dec 2012 #15
NickP Dec 2012 #37

Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:04 PM

1. I love how concrete this is. Snagging for my FB albums. Thanks! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Tue Dec 4, 2012, 02:26 PM

2. yes! for the sake of goodness itself.

that's a good enough reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 12:35 PM

3. Absolutely!

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 05:33 PM

4. What's "good"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #4)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:03 PM

5. What's "God"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #5)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 06:12 PM

6. Are you saying you can't define good until you define God?

Or do you simply feel like being extraneous tonight?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #6)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:22 PM

7. How would you reach either conclusion?

"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?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gore1FL (Reply #7)

Wed Dec 5, 2012, 11:31 PM

8. The billboard presupposes no god.

Therefore god is irrelevant to its message of "Be good for goodness' sake."

So, I ask again, what is good?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #8)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:10 AM

9. The presupposition of no God is an example of good.

But is it a good example?

God... I don't know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #8)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:58 PM

31. I'll define good

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).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rug (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 06:16 PM

32. Any act that does not subvert the intent

of coersion free intersubjective communication.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 05:33 AM

10. How about this

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:10 AM

11. No thank you.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 09:22 AM

12. Well it's a good thing

no one has ever acted badly in the name of God or religion.
Or used God or religion to justify bad deeds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #12)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 08:25 AM

18. And an equally good thing

That no one has ever acted badly to advance atheism (ignore Enver Hoxha over there)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #18)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 09:54 AM

19. You'll need to follow

the posts and replies better to avoid making a point not at issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to edhopper (Reply #19)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:23 AM

20. But I was simply agreeing with you.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 11:35 AM

21. HB, I don't think you are logged in to the right account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fortinbras Armstrong (Reply #20)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 12:03 PM

22. Please re-read post #10

which I was responding to.
He obviously is misinformed about Humanism.
And you make the mistake of confusing humanism with atheism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:12 AM

13. That's not humanism.

Hedonism, maybe.

I can't believe you have a problem with a philosophy that puts human worth as a prime importance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Goblinmonger (Reply #13)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 07:09 AM

16. Well the International Humanist and Ethical Union defines humanism as

 

this;

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. 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. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.


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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 10:42 AM

14. Did you get your definition of humanism from Pat Robertson?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #14)

Sat Dec 8, 2012, 07:10 AM

17. I got it from the same place you linked.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #17)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 04:43 PM

23. Bullshit. Show me where the exact words you used are.

If you can't, then you're simply recycling ancient Christian bigotry toward non-believers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:09 PM

24. You are a funny guy sometimes

 

simply recycling ancient Christian bigotry toward non-believers.

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

Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. 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. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality.


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.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:23 PM

25. Thank you for admitting you made it up.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:28 PM

27. "blatant prejudice against non-Christians"? Don't you get tired of spouting nonsense?

 

It is incredibly ironic that you think I have a blatant prejudice against non-christian.

Look in the mirror.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #27)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:32 PM

28. I'm sorry the truth hurts you so much that you have to lash out.

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to trotsky (Reply #28)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:43 PM

30. Possibly the winner of ironic post of the week.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #30)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 09:08 AM

34. It's OK.

I understand why you act the way you do. It's the same Christian behavior that drives Robertson and Phelps.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #24)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:27 PM

26. 'being bad for badness sake'

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Phillip McCleod (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 05:35 PM

29. That is my point

 

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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #29)

Sun Dec 9, 2012, 08:01 PM

33. So..

Goodness and badness, ie godliness and evil also have changed quite a bit in the Christian realm over the past millennia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #29)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 10:01 AM

35. you said good/bad was subjective

 

now you're agreeing with me that it's not.

guess that means i win this round.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #24)

Mon Dec 10, 2012, 01:37 PM

36. Did you also read the other sentence

'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.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #10)

Thu Dec 6, 2012, 12:32 PM

15. wtf

~facepalm~

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cleanhippie (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 01:48 AM

37. True indeed!

People can be good without God.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread