Good without God

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not really, it is theists that have the burden of proof; which in turn implies the burden of definition

Which I have given elsewhere. God is what we call the Necessary entity.

[torridon]

Which I have given elsewhere. God is what we call the Necessary entity.

That's not very useful. How could we test for necessity ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

That's not very useful. How could we test for necessity ?

Since observation affects objects and the necessary entity cannot be changed quite difficult.
As for use it’s a bit like saying the channel tunnel is useless because I can’t use my bucket and spade.

[Outrider]

And Christianity is probably the example par excellence

It's been several centuries since Christianity was the counter-culture anywhere round here.

I think the new testament is rich on individual moral responsibility and low on commandment.

Unfortunately for us all Christianity is about the activity of Christians, which is not always particularly well-grounded in the nicer parts of the scriptures.

It was after all the individual who repents, The individual who recieves the holy spirit. The individual who recieves faith.

But it's the institutions and the traditions which set expectations on indoctrinating children, on denying equality to people based on sex, sexuality and, until very recently, race.

Do we see Humanist as the new kid on the block, is it in it's teenage?

Humanism emerged in late 13th Century Italy, so I'm not sure it's the 'New Kid'.

How will it fair when it's on top.

To hear you tell it elsewhere it already is on top, surely? Regardless, it rather depends on how well its proponents abide by the underlying ideas, and how much they try to reify the concepts or drag other cultural ideas into the acceptable norms; I'd like to think that the absence of any claims of divine or absolute right behind any of it would result in it being at least more open to question, but we'll have to wait and see.

Will it rediscover the need to coerce and indoctrinate society into righteous humanist values?

If it does it will be a disappointment, but still an improvement on what's come before, so... mixed bag?

Or christians thrown to the lions.

Ah, other people were terrible, so therefore the perfect deity's chosen system gets a pass...

My goodness I'm actually physically startled at how religious that sounds

When you can suggest that Professor Dawkins told people 'I am the way' or 'Do this as often as you eat/drink it, in remembrance of me' then you can suggest that he tried to start something equivalent. Whatever the real Jesus might have said, the mythical magical Jesus is portrayed as very definitely trying to start a religious movement.

And he set up a foundation to nurture them.

A foundation which promotes scientific literacy, secularism and critical thinking... if that's what he's nurturing, it's pretty much the opposite of a religion, you know that right?

O.

[Sebastian Toe]

If you can be ''good'' without God as the Humanists say. Why isn't everyone ''good''?

Can you be "bad" with God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you be "bad" with God?

There are a range of responses here one of the most extreme views was held by a guy called Tertullian who said post baptismal sin was possible and unforgiveable

Then there is the camp that says yes but God forgives Christians automatically

Then there is the position where  you have to go to God or the priesthood to ask for forgiveness for mortal sins, the alternative I think are called venal sins.

Then there are those who say you can lose your salvation
and those that say you can't.

In the NT three phases of Salvation are said to be the state of a believer in Christ,
Saved, being saved, will be saved.

 

[Sebastian Toe]

There are a range of responses here one of the most extreme views was held by a guy called Tertullian who said post baptismal sin was possible and unforgiveable

Then there is the camp that says yes but God forgives Christians automatically

Then there is the position where  you have to go to God or the priesthood to ask for forgiveness for mortal sins, the alternative I think are called venal sins.

Then there are those who say you can lose your salvation
and those that say you can't.

In the NT three phases of Salvation are said to be the state of a believer in Christ,
Saved, being saved, will be saved.

.....and what do you personally say in response to the question?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

.....and what do you personally say in response to the question?

You can still sin.

[Sebastian Toe]

You can still sin.

Is that the same as being bad?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is that the same as being bad?

Depends what you mean by bad.
Is it sin, is it  "making mistakes," is it "just being human",Is it "all relative?"

[Sebastian Toe]

Depends what you mean by bad.
Is it sin, is it  "making mistakes," is it "just being human",Is it "all relative?"

I mean the opposite of what you meant by "good" in the OP.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If you can be ''good'' without God as the Humanists say. Why isn't everyone ''good''?

Yes the point was to discuss what the Humanists define as good.And so I suppose bad must be what the Humanists define as bad.
I can suppose good does not depend on God and good is what is right on, being nice to kittens and beastly toward religion and bonoboising religious people.

[Sebastian Toe]

Yes the point was to discuss what the Humanists define as good

Do you know what they define as good?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you know what they define as good?

Sebastian, I’d love to know.

[Sebastian Toe]

Sebastian, I’d love to know.

Then without a common point of reference I'm unsure as to how you could conceivably posit the question in the OP and expect a reply which you could rationally understand!

[Alan Burns]

Then without a common point of reference I'm unsure as to how you could conceivably posit the question in the OP and expect a reply which you could rationally understand!

For a humanist there is no common point of reference, whereas Christians have the Bible containing divine revelations of what is good or bad.

[Nearly Sane]

For a humanist there is no common point of reference, whereas Christians have the Bible containing divine revelations of what is good or bad.

And that's why you all agree...oh wait...

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

For a humanist there is no common point of reference,…

Sort of. There are broad moral positions that instinctively almost all of us think to be good – not murdering for example. Above that though we have various schools of ethics and moral philosophy that develop over time.
 

…whereas Christians have the Bible…

Ah, but now you’ve fallen apart. What sort of “Christians” are you thinking of here? Evangelicals? Baptists? Mormons” Jehovah’s witnesses? Catholics? Lutherans? Seventh day adventists? Each of them (and many more besides) seem to take their own moral teachings form their religious texts, as for that matter have the bewildering array of sub-divisions and sub- sub-divisions within them. 

…containing divine revelations of what is good or bad.

And now you’ve just collapsed into an unqualified faith position. How would you propose to justify the claims that there is a divine, that it’s revealed anything in some books, that the books are accurately transcribed, that any of the mutiply contradictory moral statements contained therein should be taken more seriously than any of the others etc?

[Sebastian Toe]

For a humanist there is no common point of reference,

Thanks for letting Vlad know that in your opinion his OP was completely nonsensical!

[Sebastian Toe]

Christians have the Bible containing divine revelations of what is good or bad.

Deuteronomy 25:11–12
..like that?

[torridon]

For a humanist there is no common point of reference, whereas Christians have the Bible containing divine revelations of what is good or bad.

Like, collecting firewood on a Sabbath is real bad.

Keeping slaves is OK, though

[Dicky Underpants]

Deuteronomy 25:11–12
..like that?

Or Numbers 31, always a good read .
I sometimes wonder just how much of the Bible Alan has read.

[Outrider]

For a humanist there is no common point of reference,

Which is only problematic if you presume that there's only one way to be good.

whereas Christians have the Bible containing divine revelations of what is good or bad.

Which is why we have on united wold-wide Christian denomination with a clear interpret... oh, wait...

O.

[Alan Burns]

Or Numbers 31, always a good read .
I sometimes wonder just how much of the Bible Alan has read.

We have the ten commandments from God.
Then we have a set of man made rules and regulations from the OT - much of which have been consigned to history.
Then we get the teachings of Jesus which builds upon the ten commandments and gives us true guidance for our earthly lives.
So we need to consider what is truly divine and what is man made and as such may be subject to change.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

We have the ten commandments from God.

Not sure you want to ascribe them to “God” given the weirdly prioritising and deeply insecure deity their author would be but ok…

Then we have a set of man made rules and regulations from the OT - much of which have been confined to history.

Erm – ok. Several of them haven’t been “confined to history” in some countries though – the homophobic and misogynistic ones for example.

Then we get the teachings of Jesus which builds upon the ten commandments and gives us true guidance for our earthly lives.

Some of the ideas ascribed to Jesus seem to be useful still I agree, though others are showing their age somewhat. What’s disappointing though perhaps is his total silence on the important areas than can vex people now – abortion, stem cell research, cloning, that kind of thing.   

So we need to consider what is truly divine and what is man made and as such may be subject to change.

Do you not think you should concern yourself first with establishing that there’s a divine at all before jumping straight to questions of what “truly” does and doesn’t qualify?