Can A Code of Morality/Ethics Exist without God?

[keysersoze]

Immorality is based on the perception of the powers that be.

For example. 2000 years ago, a 33 year old man could marry a girl simply because she got on her period.

For example. According to Jewish Law, Eating Pork is a grave sin!!!

Are you saying that morality is constantly changing?


If it is constantly changing, what does that mean about morality itself?

2000 years from now, can a 45 year old man marry his daughter if she is of legal age (i.e 25) and consents to it?

If what what moral yesterday is not longer seen as moral (i.e. teenage marriage) and what was immoral yesterday (i.e. Gay marriage) and now seen as acceptable, does that have anything to do with morality or more with law?


In certain countries, you can marry a very young girl legally - I'd read accounts of Afghanistan where Men above the age of 40 married girls that were in their pre-teens (12-15). It is common there in some instances.

At the same time, if your gay in that society and open about it, you'll end up being stoned to death.

Isn't that more of legal enforcement than law? At the same time, there is underage marriage in American too (see the Fundamentalist Mormons; and persecution of Gays) just that in American there is no force of the Government that enforces such laws but rather the people take things into their own hands.

 

[Genocide]

On your point about the Golden Rule - you'd like to be treated the way that you'd treat people, which I assume as being fair and un-prejudiced right?

I'd like to pose an hypothetical situation to you:

2 people of consenting age decide to have sex...


The only catch is that they are related. A mother aged 45 and her son aged 25.

Is there anything morally wrong with that hypo for you? According to the Golden Rule, such a situation is not concerned with since both people have not done any wrong/harm to you - you should allow them to engage in their sexual relations.

Do concerns of incest figure into your moral outlook? I don't think the Golden Rule can address those concerns, hence you need a more complex code of ethics/morality to address that. Where is the source for the more complex issues of ethics?

If you had no morals, no ethics, and the law wasn't a factor then that situation of incest you described would still fall under the "Fucking Disgusting" category. Meaning that it wouldn't take a moral, ethical, law-abiding person to see that that shit is fucked up therefore it would never happen nor would I condone it.

But lets just say for the sake of argument it wasn't disgusting, and was perfectly legal. Morally you would have to think about how fucking your child could scar them for life mentally.

As a son you would have to think about how fucking your moms would effect her emotionally if you ever decided to start dating chicks your own age.

So it's NOT just the Golden Rule. I have my own set of morals and standards not necessarily affiliated with law or religion.

 

[berry984]

Re: Can An Egg Exist Without A Chicken?

Nothing can exist without God.

..........Truth

 

[J Storm]

Jesus said: what you put in your body doesnt defile it, but what comes out of you body defiles it.

This is what I mean.. The Powers that Be Make or Change the Rules that define what is MORAL or IMMORAL.

 

[MegaDell]

Re: Can An Egg Exist Without A Chicken?

Morals are pretty damn subjective. Will Smith was right. Hitler didn't wake up with the intention of being an evil sunuvah bitch. He just did what, in his mind, was logical, and morally justified. That of course being the murdering of millions of Jews and going to war with the west.

I mean, half the shit in the old testament? Not even the most dedicated of Christians or Jews would even think about doing.

 

[J Storm]

UNIVERSAL LAW is the ONLY LAW that COUNTS and CAN EVER BE CHANGED.

MORALITY is based on LAW...
If you follow the LAW then your being MORAL, if you disobey the LAW, you are considered IMMORAL. Laws of Morality are based on Man's Perceptions.


Check this out. In the BIBLE's Book of PROVERBS, it says to WHUP YOUR KIDS ASS if they are BAD.... But in AMERICA, a Country that claims to be based on Christian Values will throw you in Jail for whuppin your kids ass? So does that mean AMERICA is IMMORAL for now letting you discipline your child? How about having 3 Wives ? Abraham had more then 1 Wife in the Bible. But Now in AMERICA, thats considered IMMORAL because the CHRISTIANS said so.

GOD is not some dude in HEAVEN or OUTER SPACE... He aint YAHWEH on BGOL...

GOD is a concept created and defined in many different ways by many different to explain The Creative Force of the Universe.

 

[RBGrider]

Morality is the result of our spiritual evolution wherein intrinsic emotional order (moral behavior) and intuitive cosmologically ordered thinking are natural. Cosmo-logical thinking, which is beyond and superior to syllogistic logic, is based on the ability to intuitively perceive the abstract general class (whole) to which the specific issues of life belong. Let's illustrate this principle. As the majority of people in the world have not yet evolved this faculty they are unable to intuit (learn from within)all of the specific manifestations of the general class "morality". All of their notions are extuited (learned from outside - ie from others) Such a person, for example, may believe himself to be moral because he would not steal, beat up others, or even pour a non-lethal dose of arsenic into someone's drink. Yet he fails to see the immorility of poisoning the body of those he smokes around, making others pay for his medical bills (medicaid, and medicare) for illnesses induced by such purposeless and irresponsible acts as smoking, or self poisoning by eating artificially colored, perserved and flavored foods, etc. Able to think only on a conrete level such people can only identify specific instances of immorality that have been pointed out to them by their instructors and society.

It is easy to see how the majority of the problems in the world arise. A government claims that the citizens don't have the right over their bodies, when it comes to taking unproven medicines for deadly illnesses (laetrile for cancer for example) yet it gives the citizens the right to poison themselves with tobacco, devestate themselves and each other through alocohol and so forth. There is a very far reaching and subtle principle at work here. The ability to percieve abstractions enables the person to connect and unify events and things that may differ widely in form and external appearance. It enables the person to see that the introduction of non-fatal amounts of tobacco into anothers body is no different from lacing someones food with non-fatal doses of arsenic. In both cases the deadly cumulative effect is the same. As this faculty enables us to see through the differences between people, it is the intuitive intellectual basis of love.

This faculty in Man's spirit is symbolized in the Kamitic tradition by the Goddess of Law and Order, Ma'at.

 

[keysersoze]

If you had no morals, no ethics, and the law wasn't a factor then that situation of incest you described would still fall under the "Fucking Disgusting" category. Meaning that it wouldn't take a moral, ethical, law-abiding person to see that that shit is fucked up therefore it would never happen nor would I condone it.

But lets just say for the sake of argument it wasn't disgusting, and was perfectly legal. Morally you would have to think about how fucking your child could scar them for life mentally.

[1] As a son you would have to think about how fucking your moms would effect her emotionally if you ever decided to start dating chicks your own age.

So it's NOT just the Golden Rule. [2] I have my own set of morals and standards not necessarily affiliated with law or religion.

On your 1st point, suppose the two were to be married - that would eliminate the emotional problem? Probably not since 50% of this country ends in divorce. That problem of emotional baggage will always exist and is seperate from morality. Hence, your basis for the "Fucking Disgusting" category falls apart since its a separate issue.

I find 2 grown men pretty fucking disgusting but many in our society don't (depending upon where you live - NYC, many openly gay people) see anything wrong with it and they are law-abiding citizens.

2nd point - in essence they are your own rules like you said. In that sense, you are your own God; you worship yourself by creating your own code of morality/ethics to suit your own desires/views. There is nothing wrong with, your still a law-abiding person but with things that deal with moral right or wrong, you have your own code of understanding.

To which I ask, will your code of ethics/morality change as you age? Or do you believe its fixed?

 

[Dannyblueyes]

A better question would be can a code of morality exist WITH god? How many atheist slave masters were there? How many Indians were slaughtered in the name of science and rationalism? Jim Crow, the oppression of women, Salem witch burnings. and so forth could only be committed if the society at large believed that white males had the God given superiority to carry them out.

Look at the preachers. I've had Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar beg me to open up my wallet for the Lord, but Richard Dawkins has never asked me for a cent. No atheist has ever used guilt or fear to try and encourage me to take up their cause against my own self interest. No scientist has ever asked me to shun my family because they didn't come to the same conclusions on how to live their lives.

 

[Cristar Mymine]

Morals and ethics come from our evolution. We have evolved to the point where we can have a conversation and reason on what is the best way to live our lives. We don't need to appeal to some celestial being who, obviously, doesn't even live up to his own morals and ethics.

I think a more interesting question would be: How can you derive morals from a book that devalues and advocates the control and access to women? Women must be silent in the church and learn from the men. Why are women having such a struggle to gain priesthood?

Also, how is the advocation of being a slave for a divine being be moral? Apostle Paul called himself a slave of Christ and taught that all human thought must be in captivity of the lord. That is very much a dictatorship. Didn't we figure out that slavery was immoral and dehumanizing?

And notice this... even if it were true that humans needed God to derive morality from, God doesn't bother to tell us. He appoints human beings on earth to preach the morals to us. So, basically, we told each other what was moral anyway. And I think this hurts the argument of a creator because, objectively, all we see in history is people telling people what is moral.

 

[ak_rep]

our ppl need to revert back to observing nature to find themself.

Excellent point.

I don't like to be classified but I believe I fall under the agnostic way of thinking, according to your definition.

I subscribe to the universal laws of theory. I believe that man is born with the basic blueprint and ability to run an ethical, moral and productive society without quote unquote religion.

But he would still be denying his spiritual essence which leads to lack of growth and productivity.

And citing with the poster above, nature proves this, i.e. we could survive.

However, how cats such as myself (agnostic), differ from atheists, is that we believe that every creature and energy force in this universe is the spiritual manifestation of a higher power. Or creator.

So to answer your question, can a code of morality exist with out God/ or gods? No. Because I believe that God or gods are the creator of all of this. Regardless if we ever acknowledged him/her or them.

Now, in rewording your question:

Can A Code of Morality/Ethics Exist without religion?

It's possible but highly unlikely IMO. I believe man would self destruct eventually. Those tribes and societies from ancient times were trying to survive like animals. They had basic needs.

The evolution of the human mind includes the enlightenment and acknowledgment of his natural spiritual essence.

And to deny this would be catastrophic.

Now we get to the point of how individuals have interpreted this throughout history. Some have conformed (believers in whatever). While some have rebelled (nonbelievers).

 

[ak_rep]

UNIVERSAL LAW is the ONLY LAW that COUNTS and CAN EVER BE CHANGED.

MORALITY is based on LAW...
If you follow the LAW then your being MORAL, if you disobey the LAW, you are considered IMMORAL. Laws of Morality are based on Man's Perceptions.

And man is an extension of a higher power.

Why do atheists keep looking beyond that? I don't know.

Man is a spiritual being. Though the actions of a few would have you believe otherwise.

You atheists keep using the bible and Christianity as a buffer to your arguement. It's like a ceiling to your thought process.

You have no arguement without using religion. Religion in itself is not proof of a god or gods. It's people's interpretation of it. Their practice. And you have a problem with that. Cool.

But think logically and you couldn't possibly deny a higher power IMO. IMO. IMO. Unless you're arrogant, angry or just an antagonist.

 

[J Storm]

And man is an extension of a higher power.

Why do you atheists keep looking beyond that? I don't know.

Man is a spiritual being. Though the actions of a few would have you believe otherwise.

You atheists keep using the bible and Christianity as a buffer to your arguement. It's like a ceiling to your thought process.

You have no arguement without using religion. Religion in itself is not proof of a god or gods. It's people's interpretation of it. Their practice. And you have a problem with that. Cool.

But think logically and you couldn't possibly deny a higher power IMO. IMO. IMO. Unless you're arrogant, angry or just an antagonist.

Im not an Atheist. I'm a Deist. I call God The Creative Force of the Universe and Yes, I do believe we are an extension of that Creative Force. MAN is not GOD but MAN is CONNECTED to the SOURCE.

 

[ak_rep]

Im not an Atheist. I'm a Deist. I call God The Creative Force of the Universe and Yes, I do believe we are an extension of that Creative Force. MAN is not GOD but MAN is CONNECTED to the SOURCE.

Cosign. I misinterpreted your post initially. I subscribe to the similar theory. My bad.

 

[RBGrider]

Morals and ethics come from our evolution. We have evolved to the point where we can have a conversation and reason on what is the best way to live our lives. We don't need to appeal to some celestial being who, obviously, doesn't even live up to his own morals and ethics.

I think a more interesting question would be: How can you derive morals from a book that devalues and advocates the control and access to women? Women must be silent in the church and learn from the men. Why are women having such a struggle to gain priesthood?

Also, how is the advocation of being a slave for a divine being be moral? Apostle Paul called himself a slave of Christ and taught that all human thought must be in captivity of the lord. That is very much a dictatorship. Didn't we figure out that slavery was immoral and dehumanizing?

And notice this... even if it were true that humans needed God to derive morality from, God doesn't bother to tell us. He appoints human beings on earth to preach the morals to us. So, basically, we told each other what was moral anyway. And I think this hurts the argument of a creator because, objectively, all we see in history is people telling people what is moral.

You point out some interesting contradictions Ahk. But realize that God a morphic super being existing outside of the world, controlling and willing any and all events is applicable only to a certain set of beliefs. Many of us don't subscribe to this view of God. Some of us understand God to be a force and intelligence existing in and AS all things in the uni-verse.

 

[Dert Bagg]

Im not an Atheist. I'm a Deist. I call God The Creative Force of the Universe and Yes, I do believe we are an extension of that Creative Force. MAN is not GOD but MAN is CONNECTED to the SOURCE.

Aww shit! Y'all still out!?
I can respect that... just haven't heard a contemporary apply the label to self.

 

[keysersoze]

A better question would be can a code of morality exist WITH god? How many atheist slave masters were there? How many Indians were slaughtered in the name of science and rationalism? Jim Crow, the oppression of women, Salem witch burnings. and so forth could only be committed if the society at large believed that white males had the God given superiority to carry them out.

Look at the preachers. I've had Benny Hinn and Creflo Dollar beg me to open up my wallet for the Lord, but Richard Dawkins has never asked me for a cent. No atheist has ever used guilt or fear to try and encourage me to take up their cause against my own self interest. No scientist has ever asked me to shun my family because they didn't come to the same conclusions on how to live their lives.

Did he ever ask you for money?

Morals and ethics come from our evolution. We have evolved to the point where we can have a conversation and reason on what is the best way to live our lives. We don't need to appeal to some celestial being who, obviously, doesn't even live up to his own morals and ethics.

I think a more interesting question would be: How can you derive morals from a book that devalues and advocates the control and access to women? Women must be silent in the church and learn from the men. Why are women having such a struggle to gain priesthood?

Also, how is the advocation of being a slave for a divine being be moral? Apostle Paul called himself a slave of Christ and taught that all human thought must be in captivity of the lord. That is very much a dictatorship. Didn't we figure out that slavery was immoral and dehumanizing?

And notice this... even if it were true that humans needed God to derive morality from, God doesn't bother to tell us. He appoints human beings on earth to preach the morals to us. So, basically, we told each other what was moral anyway. And I think this hurts the argument of a creator because, objectively, all we see in history is people telling people what is moral.

I disagree with you on being a slave. That's the wrong word and understanding - the purpose is worship.

Lets face it - everyone worships something: be it money or something else that we strive for.

Even the Pharaohs were atheists in the sense that they worshiped themselves.

 

[RBGrider]

Even the Pharaohs were atheists in the sense that they worshiped themselves.

slow down Ahk.

 

[Cristar Mymine]

You point out some interesting contradictions Ahk. But realize that God a morphic super being existing outside of the world, controlling and willing any and all events is applicable only to a certain set of beliefs. Many of us don't subscribe to this view of God. Some of us understand God to be a force and intelligence existing in and AS all things in the uni-verse.

It is true that there are many different perceptions of God. If God were just a force that doesn't speak to us, then my criticism wouldn't apply to you. It would, however, point out a superfluous attribution of concepts that come from a subjective interpretation.

I honestly believe that morality is just something unique to our species that is possible from our evolution. I don't believe in attributing anything to a higher intelligence that hasn't been proven to exist. I do reserve the attributing to our universe. Afterall, why can't all this morality and art and love just be something that came from the universe? What is it that theists see about the universe that gives them an unconcious disdain for it that they have to attribute it to something that is obviously a retelling of a human being in different form?

Why can't all of this just be something that came from the universe? I'd like a theist to answer me that.

 

[J Storm]

Heres whats funny.

The Church still accepts Tithes and Offerings based on OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY...
BUT the Church also teaches YOU are the TEMPLE OF GOD.

So if YOU are the TEMPLE of GOD, then why do people still give tithes for "The Building Fund?". Sounds like that 10% should go towards your own personal health and maintenance.

 

[Cristar Mymine]

Did he ever ask you for money?



I disagree with you on being a slave. That's the wrong word and understanding - the purpose is worship.

Lets face it - everyone worships something: be it money or something else that we strive for.

Even the Pharaohs were atheists in the sense that they worshiped themselves.

If they worshipped themselves then they weren't atheists. This is the same mistake people make when attributing atheism to Joseph Stalin's regime.

 

[1984]

i make good choices because i truly want to, not because i fear retribution from your white robed, long bearded easter bunny.

when i make poor choices, i may feel guilt about that choice, and try and learn from it, and try not to make it again. once again, it has nothing to do with any higher power, superstition, angels or demons.

if fear of retribution from an almighty god and eternal damnation in the fires of hell is all that keeps you a decent human being, then in actuality, you are quite the piece of crap.

 

[Cristar Mymine]

i make good choices because i truly want to, not because i fear retribution from your white robed, long bearded easter bunny.

when i make poor choices, i may feel guilt about that choice, and try and learn from it, and try not to make it again. once again, it has nothing to do with any higher power, superstition, angels or demons.

if fear of retribution from an almighty god and eternal damnation in the fires of hell is all that keeps you a decent human being, then in actuality, you are quite the piece of crap.

Well said, real horrorshow!

It is more moral for a nonbeliever to do good things because the nonbeliever is not doing it out of fear or reward. The nonbeliever is doing it for the sake of goodness. That, to me, is the ultimate form of morality.

 

[utappedout]

i make good choices because i truly want to, not because i fear retribution from your white robed, long bearded easter bunny.

when i make poor choices, i may feel guilt about that choice, and try and learn from it, and try not to make it again. once again, it has nothing to do with any higher power, superstition, angels or demons.

if fear of retribution from an almighty god and eternal damnation in the fires of hell is all that keeps you a decent human being, then in actuality, you are quite the piece of crap.

Word!!! Basically it amazes me that we are still holding on to the "primative" man's way of thought. Atheist and Agnostics are generally MORE moral than religious folk due to the fact that many of them think this is their only shot. Better get it right the first time, other than, "i can fuck up and pray for forgiveness later."

 

[RBGrider]

It is true that there are many different perceptions of God. If God were just a force that doesn't speak to us, then my criticism wouldn't apply to you. It would, however, point out a superfluous attribution of concepts that come from a subjective interpretation.

I honestly believe that morality is just something unique to our species that is possible from our evolution. I don't believe in attributing anything to a higher intelligence that hasn't been proven to exist. I do reserve the attributing to our universe. Afterall, why can't all this morality and art and love just be something that came from the universe? What is it that theists see about the universe that gives them an unconcious disdain for it that they have to attribute it to something that is obviously a retelling of a human being in different form?

Why can't all of this just be something that came from the universe? I'd like a theist to answer me that.

The universe created the universe?? no. why go through such contortions to avoid considering that a supremely intelligent force created and sustains the world? after all one need only take a cursory look at the phenomenal world to see this intelligence at work. Where people become confused is in understanding that God exists AS all things. Science in its current limitations even bears this fact out...the deeper you look at any THING the more it has in common with ALL THINGS....the more you deal with the superficial the more they appear to be "different", "separate", "apart", "opposing", "contradictory"......evil?

and the one creation that shares most fully or completely in all the attributes of God.....is Man/Woman. But while that which we share with God is innate it must be developed...this is why morality is not equally evolved in us....some more then others...while still others almost not at all. Read my post above on this.

ONE

 

[RBGrider]

i make good choices because i truly want to, not because i fear retribution from your white robed, long bearded easter bunny.

when i make poor choices, i may feel guilt about that choice, and try and learn from it, and try not to make it again. once again, it has nothing to do with any higher power, superstition, angels or demons.

if fear of retribution from an almighty god and eternal damnation in the fires of hell is all that keeps you a decent human being, then in actuality, you are quite the piece of crap.

white robed, long bearded easter bunny.....LOL that is funny Ahk.

No argument really from me at least on the interpretation of Judeo-Christianity.

But on a real....your ability to CHOOSE....and in part to learn from choices is evidence of God within you. God exists in and as ALL things in the universe but is most qualitatively manifested in Wo/Man. Can a dog choose? Can a rat choose to stop being a rat? To stop that confounded gnawing? No only Man and Woman can choose....and GOD.

 

[utappedout]

white robed, long bearded easter bunny.....LOL that is funny Ahk.

No argument really from me at least on the interpretation of Judeo-Christianity.

But on a real....your ability to CHOOSE....and in part to learn from choices is evidence of God within you. God exists in and as ALL things in the universe but is most qualitatively manifested in Wo/Man. Can a dog choose? Can a rat choose to stop being a rat? To stop that confounded gnawing? No only Man and Woman can choose....and GOD.

Man has the ability to choose due to the composition of the brain. It amazes me that to this very day people still continue to use "god" to explain things they do not understand. Primitive man says that rain is god crying. Primitive man says that the sun and moon is an epic fight between the gods. Primitive man says that higher brain activities such as choice are the results of the infamous being in the sky....come on man..use that brain.

 

[Cristar Mymine]

The universe created the universe?? no. why go through such contortions to avoid considering that a supremely intelligent force created and sustains the world? after all one need only take a cursory look at the phenomenal world to see this intelligence at work. Where people become confused is in understanding that God exists AS all things. Science in its current limitations even bears this fact out...the deeper you look at any THING the more it has in common with ALL THINGS....the more you deal with the superficial the more they appear to be "different", "separate", "apart", "opposing", "contradictory"......evil?

and the one creation that shares most fully or completely in all the attributes of God.....is Man/Woman. But while that which we share with God is innate it must be developed...this is why morality is not equally evolved in us....some more then others...while still others almost not at all. Read my post above on this.

ONE

Why go through such contortions to avoid considering that a supremely intelligent force did not create and sustain the world? Why couldn't the wonderful world we live in just be attributed to the laws of our universe of which our existence is dependent on? If the laws that govern everything is intelligent in the way it works in our favor, then that is fine by me. And if people want to think that there is higher intelligence out there, then fine. But for people to have to find themselves thinking to the point that the universe would have been unable to eventually have us and, therefore, it must've been a higher being that did it, doesn't work for me.

 

[utappedout]

And just to get back to the main topic at hand. Yes people can be moral with out mystical, fictional, beliefs. There are multiple examples across the world. Unfortunately we live in one of the most religious places in the world so it hard for us to believe that.

Norway for example has a HUGE number of atheist and has one of the most peaceful countries on the planet. In addtion, many many studies have been done that show that countries that tend to lean more towards a religious population have a higher instance of crime, stds, homocide, etc.

Lastly, what does one consider moral. I think one's culture dictates morals rather than religion. Some countries think it is immoral to eat certain foods, some think that a man looking at a woman that is not his wife is immoral. Exactly who's morals are we believing in here. I think the basic morals of what we consider "universal code" are inate and instinctual due to millions of years of evolution.

 

[Madfish]

[FLASH]http://youtube.com/watch/v/ARUNqisIH08[/FLASH]

Fast forward to the 5 minute mark, Ian McEwan briefly talks about moral empathy, sorta sums it up for me...

 

[RBGrider]

Man has the ability to choose due to the composition of the brain. It amazes me that to this very day people still continue to use "god" to explain things they do not understand. Primitive man says that rain is god crying. Primitive man says that the sun and moon is an epic fight between the gods. Primitive man says that higher brain activities such as choice are the results of the infamous being in the sky....come on man..use that brain.

what makes you believe that simply saying "the ability to choose is due to the composition of the brain" somehow eliminates God from the equation??

Please read my posts Ahk ....i hardly believe in any "sky God".

 

[ak_rep]

Word!!! Basically it amazes me that we are still holding on to the "primative" man's way of thought. Atheist and Agnostics are generally MORE moral than religious folk due to the fact that many of them think this is their only shot. Better get it right the first time, other than, "i can fuck up and pray for forgiveness later."

Laughing at you cats cherry picking from the "weaker" sector of "religious folk."

And always doing it. That's the bases of your arguement: sheep.

You have an image in your mind that portrays religious people as being weak. And that's all it is, an image. When in fact, religious people are some of the more "stronger," kinder and brave people of our society.

You would be shitting in your pants if these people were not amongst us. They hold the balance. But you don't have any appreciation for that.

It takes a lot for one to truly believe in something higher than himself IMO. And bet his life on it. And bet his life on it. And bet his "sole" existence on it.

Agnostics, play the fence IMO, and that's easier. Myself included.

Proclaimed athiest who are kind, also have an agenda: "see we don't need religion to be civil."

But a person such as yourself simply sees "religious folk" simply believing in a preacher or some picture in the "good book."

Based off a few corrupt practices by "folk" withing the church.

An ode to the idea, "I believe in what I see." You see a man (preacher) being a guide to spirituality and you immediately dismiss it.

Religious people are making a choice. Some, some, some will discriminate against others that do not believe in what they believe in. But will pray for them later.

They are living their lives through faith. And that's braver. That's more courageous IMO.

Not simply faith, in a preacher, as you would think. As your eyes would tell it. Many of those people change churches and pastors. But faith in something higher than themselves. Which is what a lot of nonbelievers couldn't fathom.

 

[utappedout]

[FLASH]http://youtube.com/watch/v/ARUNqisIH08[/FLASH]

Fast forward to the 5 minute mark, Ian McEwan briefly talks about moral empathy, sorta sums it up for me...

Nice..great video..I think that about sums it all up.

 

[SAFOOL]

I always think of morality coming from the knowledge of "just in case". I better treat people a certain way just in case they gain power over me. I better not do this just in case someone else tries to do it to me. We are selfish creatures and while some fear hell most fear the next man even more.

 

[utappedout]

But faith in something higher than themselves. Which is what a lot of nonbelievers couldn't fathom.

Look, I don't fault people for believing in a higher being. They are just lower on the evolutionary ladder. They are wired that way, and there is nothing they can do about it. Just as I am wired not to believe, and believe me...I tried. People such as us have just evolved and lack that genetic disposition to believe in a higher power. It is part of the evolution of man.