quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

Yeah, I've heard that one, Tazzy, but I don't see how it answers the question. Why can't some people do good without hoping for eternal reward? And telling me that "good" is not a Universal truth, as you have been saying in the other thread, makes the answer to the question more elusive, I think. For example, the jihadist suicide bomber who blows away a bus filled with Jews in the name of Allah. Certainly not a good deed by everyone's definition but performed at least partially in expectation of eternal reward. Is this confusing only to me?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Another poster on here is discussing her personal struggle with her religious beliefs.  I am an atheist, and I really don't have anything to add to her thread, so I thought I would start my own.  I believe I am a moral and ethical person for my own reasons, not because of some mythical directives.  I think some other posters have also said the same thing about themselves.  So, why do people strive to do the right thing, if it isn't because of the hope of some "pie up in the sky, waiting for [them] when they die."  (To paraphrase Jimmy Cliff).

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Another poster on here is discussing her personal struggle with her religious beliefs.  I am an atheist, and I really don't have anything to add to her thread, so I thought I would start my own.  I believe I am a moral and ethical person for my own reasons, not because of some mythical directives.  I think some other posters have also said the same thing about themselves.  So, why do people strive to do the right thing, if it isn't because of the hope of some "pie up in the sky, waiting for [them] when they die." (To paraphrase Jimmy Cliff).

Allow me to ask the question in its opposite form: Why do some people need the promise of salvation or the threat of damnation to motivate and guide their behavior?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I've always found the notion that it's impossible to have any capacity for "goodness" or moral behaviour without a religious underpinning deeply offensive. All it requires is a little sympathy for the rest of the human race.

This.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I've always found the notion that it's impossible to have any capacity for "goodness" or moral behaviour without a religious underpinning deeply offensive. All it requires is a little sympathy for the rest of the human race.

This.

These

quote:

ORIGINAL: xssve

You mean any human society? Most societies are organized around economics and mutual protection, not religion, religion is just an institution demanding a cut for services rendered, usually protection from unseen spirits, etc.

In economic terms, it's often little more than a protection racket really, and it's the model for every other protection racket: "pay us and do what we tell you, or something bad will happen to you - we'll make sure of it".

i.e., what the value of those services may or may not be, is entirely open to empirical analysis, it's utility is neither self evident nor axiomatic.

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

quote:

ORIGINAL: LaTigresse

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

I've always found the notion that it's impossible to have any capacity for "goodness" or moral behaviour without a religious underpinning deeply offensive. All it requires is a little sympathy for the rest of the human race.

This.

These

These being mostly a fallacious point, given the underpinning that exists and has existed long before any of us were born. I'm not sure if I've ever read of a society crafted upon the absence of religion, and if there were some, they probably have little to do with life today given that at least half the world believes in one God, and the rest are scattered about a dozen other deities.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

I'm not following your point, stranger. Moon head mentioned the Soviet Union as an example of an irreligious society, and you come back with a remark about your Russian neighbors, who apparently left because of religious prosecution. Did they leave 20 years ago? Because the Soviet Union dissolved in 1991, in large part because their economy fell apart as a result of their ill advised invasion of Afghanistan. But I digress. What point were you trying to make with your reference to your Russian neighbors?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Serious attempts were made to drive religion out of the society. Or were the Russians you were living next to a few years ago still practising their religion in that society?

quote:

You can only ask it based upon the underpinnings of religion, some religion

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

You can only ask it based upon the underpinnings of religion, some religion

It seems to me that asserting religion has influenced the way we approach many questions in today's world is a perfectly reasonable position to take. But to imply it's a dominant influence or the sole influence is quite a different matter.

The ideas that circulate in today's world reflect a myriad of influences - going back to and even preceding the Greeks. There's an age old tradition of Western philosophy, which has grown increasingly secular.

I venture a guess that many more people are influenced by Science than religion in the West nowadays. One (of many) ways of measuring this is to ask: Who do people turn to in a crisis? (People tend to act on what they really believe in during a crisis.) Most people, including most believers, prefer to consult medical doctors than faith healers or pray for a return to health when ill. Most of us view with disdain the refusal of certain sects to allow blood transfusions for their adherents.

Religion is certainly in there in the mix, but it's influence is declining and has been declining since the Enlightenment. It seems far easier to overstate its influence than understate it, an error believers are particularly prone to IMHO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: StrangerThan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moonhead

Serious attempts were made to drive religion out of the society. Or were the Russians you were living next to a few years ago still practising their religion in that society?

They moved in next to me, as in built a house in 1999. They comprised father somewhere in his 60's,  mother about the same age, son who was mid-40's, son's wife, and three children ranging from about 8 to 14. There were a couple of other 20 somethings who bounced in and out. Cousins I think. The son and the children were the only one's who spoke more than a couple of words of English. Note, almost this exact configuration of family existed behind me as well, also from Russia.

My uncle knew the son prior to the family relocating in my neighborhood - though neighborhood is a stretch. It was farmland backed by a national forest.  I don't know when the family originally came over. I do know the reason was be able to practice religion in a free and open manner.  It wasn't like we talked about it a lot, but times we did, he was pretty adamant about that fact. My uncle talked him a lot more than I did, and from him came a lot of stories from the son. Then again, I didn't hear them so how embellished or straight up they were, I can't attest.