Bingo.

I felt my fellows pain, and responded empathetically, and pain relief came back to me.

I wondered why my neighbor did not fear karma, but his lack of imagination came back to hurt him, and I didn't feel that.

You reap what you sow, unless the weather doesn't cooperate. The universe doesn't cooperate. It might love you if you love it.

Was that karmically vague enough? Do unto others and all that!

Dude, that is SO Old Testament. :lol:

Anyway, seeing as no evangelical types are chiming in at this point, I'm out for now. Thanks for the trip down doctrinal lane, though. :)

The "Ten commandments"
Could be boiled with some success
Into "you don't steal"

Hell, y'earn, right?

Before I even read the rest of the responses in this thread I must express just how appalled by this I am. Where does this come from. Is this just your opinion?

Personally I would classify myself as "areligious" I guess it would be relatively similar to agnosticism, but I am very open minded and reserve the right to change my opinion on religion and the belief in a higher power as I continue to explore and learn about the world around me.

But getting back to this statement that religious people are more likely to care for the poor than their atheistic counterparts; I think that is pure crap. From my experience, and that is all I have to base it on, I have found the opposite. I have lived in several parts of the United States and have worked in a number of different fields and have come in to contact with a variety of people from different backgrounds and based on those experiences I find that the more openly religious a person is the more hypocritical they are and in general they lack integrity and are more apt to discriminate against people that do not have the share the same background as them. Granted I have know a large number of people that are very religious and are just "good people" but those have been fewer in number than those that "talk the talk but DO NOT walk the walk" so to speak.

And what really irks me about the above statement is that I would expect to hear the above statement. Infinite Loser, I do not know you personally so I don't want to make any type of judgement on your character so I won't, but that statement is exactly the type of thing I would expect to hear from a very vocal Christian.

It really is not a question of being religious or not religious it comes down to people finding justifications for thier actions. I truly believe that everyone, except for those suffering from some sort of mental illness, know right from wrong. However, many will justify an act that they consider wrong so as not to feel bad about it. They could say, "everyone does it" or "so and so did it so why can't I" or "the Bible does not say it is wrong" or whatever they want to justify thier actions but deep down inside people know right from wrong.

Right is wrong
All knowing aside;
Doublespeak.

Our appetites outweigh our abilities in most cases.

As many others have said, you either know right from wrong or you don't. In the latter case, no amount of training can help you.

I don't think you need religion to have good moral values. I think this subject is great, and an important one at that.

I'm a religious person, proud of a Christian upbringing....BUT.

When I read the original post, a person came to midn immediately. I have a cousin, very close to the guy, who is agnostic. He is not opposed to the idea of a higher power, won't argue against it, simply chooses no religion. His main thought is that organized religion has caused more pain and suffering than the world wars combined....

At any rate, he's a great guy. Good morals, strong values, etc...Holds strong to conservative beliefs, and he does all this with no religious background and no religious basis...

So though I support my religion and the beliefs of it, I do not think its "required" for a person to be religious, if they want to be *good*

-Will

Check out "We are all god"
Because we are.

Plato's Republic
 

the I-Pod scenario made me recall the last time I read Plato's Republic. I have taken a few ethics courses and even nearly come to blows with an ethics professor. I received an "A" for that course. :thumbsup:

Plato proposed to a group of young men a question. If you found a ring of invisibilty, what would you do with it?

I have thought about it myself many times. I consider the banks I could simply walk into and walk out with a pocket full of money anytime I needed it. I could get into any club, concert or event for free. Then I thought of all the things I would be robbing myself of. The ability to share these occasions with a companion or the other people present. The knowledge I would carry that the money I had stolen had to belong to someone and that someone would get blamed for the things I had done.

My ethics have never been defined by my religion, it has happened with me basically in reverse. I grew up being told to define my own life and my own reasons for what I did.

I have seen friends destroy each other using religion as a bludgeon. I saw a friend take custody of his children away from his wife using religion as a weapon. I have also seen people use religion as a basis for taking in people who could not care for themselves. Religion is only a PART of morality. To mouth something on one day and then to live another way can still be considered religious depending upon where you worship.

we throw around terms like "devout" and "religious" a great deal now. I wonder sometimes how much people understand these terms. I am no theology professer and I hate it when people preach to me about how what I believe is wrong. Most of the time I just look at these people and say "judge not lest ye be judged" and walk away. I had a prayer circle formed around me once because some twit believed me having tattoos was a sign that I was slipping into the devils clutches.

I believe Ben Franklin said it best when he said "All things in Moderation." I dont know if thats a direct quote and I am sure someone will probably blast me for it, but I believe that applies to religion as well. Believe what you believe, live how you wish to live, just dont force it down the throats of others.

Well said, and extremely moral. I'd like to hear more from you.

In the meantime, consider the damage that was done to those we consider evil.

I'll bet those who did it considered themselves moral.

the negative post:

the idea that religion is required to ground ethics follows from the notion of original sin--if you assume that human beings are degenerate, fallen, etc. a priori, then you can't rely on them to fashion adquate ethical systems

(this conclusion is contained in the premise--it is nothing more than an elaboration of the notion of original sin, a consequence of it)

so it follows that some sort of transcendent rule-set is required. and since the notion of transcendence is defined in the same terms, by the same religious frame that defines original sin, it follows that a transcendent rule-set can only come from god.

it's circular.
outside a christian framework, this argument says nothing.
you find versions of the same assumptions in each of the main monotheistic religions.
so it follows that the assumption that there should be a transcendent rule-set means nothing outside these traditions.

the assumption that these rules must exist in this way to be stable is a self-evident argument for submission to social control. social control exercised by particular institutions, arranged in a particular manner. a clear, pyramidal social hierarchy. us little people do not need to be concerned too much about how to live because the Important Big Folk at the top of the Great Chain of Social Being do that for us. our role is to submit.

and these arguments are routine in texts--religious and philosophical---that fret about the need to ground ethics.

it's funny how this works---you find groups of people panicking because they understand groups of people to be incapable of defining adequate limits to their own actions. so these groups set about comparative "analyses" of ethical systems in order to develop sets of meta-rules that appear in all systems. these then get set up as transcendent. you can watch this tiresome ritual unfold in areas like bidness ethics, which is only worth mentioning because it is a product of the 1970s and so is one of the areas that you can look at to find a repeat of this procedure, a rehearsal of these assumptions.


this is already too long.
this is a negative post.

Never submit & fail to forgive

Just my 2 cents, but people who say that you need faith in order to behave, just sound to me like they really want to do bad things but are too scared because of God. That's an awfully silly and self-centered reason to be a good person.

There's a different claim that's sometimes made that sounds like what people have been talking about in this thread, but is a bit less crazy. I mean, anyone who has spent time with 'unbelievers' knows that they can be good people, even better people than some Christians. But some want to make the claim that, if there are such things as ethical truths, then they require something like God to make them true.

"Oh, baby!
I didn't mean it.
I love you!"

And the abuse continues simply because many of us don't know right from wrong. We take the pain that's been thrust upon us and reproject it, often with no idea of where it's going or what it's even aimed at. Or even that we're doing it. (See?)

Consider internalizing injustice and only projecting what you know to be good and ethics happens. Unless, of course, your idea of good is bad.

That's a whole 'nother story.

It seems to me at least, that true ethical behavior comes down to a deep understanding of what it means to be a good person....regardless of one faith or another. While it is certainly true that cultural differences make defining a single ethic impossible, there are in mt opinion certain standards that are universal to the human species...part of the "normal mind" in a way.
I would hope that all minds work along the same principles as my own, but understand this is not the case. I may see purposeful damage done to another as something to be avoided due to my belief in some kind of Karma, but there is more to it than that...almost a spiritual guardrail that is meant to keep me on the road.

I don't see how that would be different than fearing gods retribution. Karma is as much a superstition as thinking the old guy with the beard is going to judge you unworthy. Good things will happen to me, if I did a good thing for someone else prior, I may errantly link them. Bad things happen to me as well, if I did a bad thing prior, I may too errantly link them.

But a lot of really good things happen to really bad people and a lot of really bad things happen to really good people. Karma seems a bit indiscriminate, and perhaps less efficient than good old god as he can wait until you die to 'get you'.

You obviously have no Idea what Karma is....at least to me. Why is it that from a simple statement of my own opinion, you find reason to express your own as a tantamount truth? Each individual that follows some sort of Karmic law, has an interpretation as unique as they are, just as each Christian follows those parts of the scripture that fit what they wish to believe.

This sounds right on track with what I stand for also.

"As you sow so shall you reap" This is the Law of Karma.

This is what I assumed you would mean, but if its some cosmic thing unique to you well thats fine.

Its still pretty much no different than any other unprovable, untestable, unmeasurable belief.

You speak your Dharma, I'll speak mine.

Most people misinterpret karma. Pop culture is to blame.

It generally means the net effect of your words and actions.

Dharma involves the words and actions that work to undo the negative outcomes of karmic actions. It is not a cosmic thing out to get anyone. It is not a substitute for the Will of God. It is basically a reference to the negative outcomes that effect ourselves and others. There is nothing magical or mystical about it. Psychology can describe it.

I think you are oversimplifying, and it also ties into reincarnation which gets right back to mumojumbo territory.

I personally LIKE the concept better, but I also like Christianity over Islam, that doesn't mean its real.

Oh my god!
Four bingos agree,
and knowing:

Personal morals
Come a lot more from within
Than from the outside.

Oversimplification is often a side effect of Internet forums, but you are correct. Reincarnation does come into play. You consider it [Karma and reincarnation?] mumbo jumbo. Do you mean to say that it is meaningless?

Yes, both are mumbojumbo.

Reincarnation is just another afterlife, and equally unprovable and untestable.

Karma is trying to find some sort of other explanation for why we act as we do, it sounds nice and generally fuzzy, far less dogmatic than Western religions, but its still just another why doing good is better than doing evil.

bingo!

...sorry, I couldn't help myself :)

in an ethical context, it doesnt matter if reincarnation (or eternal return, which is nietzsche's transposition of the idea) happens in fact or not--it can be seen just as easily as a regulative idea. like most regulative ideas. reincarnation/karma (which seem linked to me) is about retribution, but it requires no dad-like god person to carry it out. you do it to yourselves.

if an ethical system is built around regulative notions, it seems to me irrelevant whether they are testable or not.

i'm agnostic and i definately have my own moral code. however, i am fully aware that, as with many other things about myself, that has been shaped by how i was brought up and seeing as how i was raised catholic, it's had it impact on it even if i reject the main premises of that religion.

Hmm. My take on reincarnation was this,

- will you remember your past life (apprently not)
- will you have a similar body (apparently not)
- will you have a similar personality (hmm maybe?)

So it seems to me, that if I am reincarnated.... well heck. I don't care. I may as well come back as a bug. It'd be a different creature the way I see it.

OK, y'all win. Are you happy?

More importantly, was that your goal?

huh. well, if that's a serious question then what seems at issue here is whether you understand human beings as capable of self-regulation/self-limitation.
positing the requirement for some Eternal Set of Norms implies that you dont think we can regulate or limit ourselves.
this is a political problem.
this is a conceptual problem.

This is a human problem.

Why do we wonder
About what's right and what's wrong?
Because we are go(o)d.

My whole idea on life is to just live it well. I have one shot at it, then I'm buried & done for. For me, this means being successful by choice. I have no fear of a hell, and Earth is my "Heaven". If this means working my ass off untill I am 50, and then living great till I die, then so be it. I kind of have an idea of revenge. I am nice to everyone except the man whom isn't nice to me. I judge myself, and often have what many people would consider "low moral standards" I work hard so that I can make it to the top. I won't push anyone off the ladder, but I will pass them in a heartbeat; its all about my one shot at life, and I am not about to screw it up.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a complete arsehole, I am a pretty nice fellow, and I do help people, Its just that in the big picture, myself comes first, and if I have something left over to help someone else, they can have that.

I do not think that one must have a religion to create morality. Philosophers and thinkers like Immanuel Kant and John Rawls logically deduced how one can logically develop a moral system. Kant's categorical imperative and universalization of maxims leads one to find the same morals we value. Universalization is roughly: If two people are A and B, it must be possible that both A and B are allowed to do the same things, regardless of who or what A and B are to be a universal maxim.

This is like Rawls' "Veil of Ignorance" where the only way to create a just society is to let everyone be selfish, so long as they are incapable of distinguishing who they are. Simplified idea of this: you are to slice up a cake without knowing when you are to get your piece. If you make a larger slice for yourself there is every possible chance that someone else can take it before you. Therefore, you must not make the pieces uneven but make each piece the same size in order for you to get the biggest piece possible.

My personal ideal: one's will ought not interfere with another person's will, this is a positive (good) will. This is terribly simplistic and I can poke holes at it all ready but that is the basic way to say it. It is based on the idea of positive and negative connections one can make with people and things. Positive connections need not be good things, and negative connections need not be bad things. The goal is to make positive connections as one is enriched by the positive connections in one's life, to my understanding. Even bad things suffered can in a way be positive for one if one learns from it or takes the right messages.

This is not true. That is to say that it is not NECESSARY.

Social laws (combined with sound, social policies) are sufficient enough to inspire the vast majority of any country's citizenry.

I know that I often drop the anvil on America but the truth is that the U.S. has the social laws WITHOUT any social-political example with which to inspire its' people. Therefore, your question is a pertinent and just one.

Dawkin's has interesting things to say on this topic. I must say I havnt come up with or encountered an adequate rebuttal to what he says, at least not to my satisfaction.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uwz6B8BFkb4
His position is we have a shifting "moral zeitgeist". The religious end up cherry picking morals out of their chosen scripture, and discarding the rest in accordance with the current moral standards of humanity. As it shifts, so will the morality of the religious. They will discard previous chapters or verses in their scriptures which no longer mesh well with the current state of the "moral zeitgeist". To the religious person, this just seems like they are evolving in their understanding of the meaning of the text, but it is really the "moral zeitgeist" shifting. The religious then moves along with, albeit sometimes more slowly.

I think most Christians of days gone by, would probably look at the christian youth of today and proclaim that they are going straight to hell.. based on nothing but the types of clothes they wear and music that they listen too: even if it would be considered conservative by todays standards.

So, no... You dont need religion to be moral. Morality is determined more by social pressures. Religion gets ITS morals from the same social pressures, and from the people who comprise it.

Yes. But that applies in the context of social example from the top down. This is what I was trying to say about the social-political example.

There exist a whole lot of very poor people in the U.S. for example, with no way out of their delemna. Not an honest, law-abiding way, that is. These people see the filthy rich and want to know ... "WHY"? The majority of these people come to the conclusion that there is no moral obligation to follow, hence anything goes. It's no wonder that when the police catch thieves (and tell them "crime doesn't pay") the bad guy goes off to jail wondering that if crime doesn't pay, what does? What does morality mean to people who are destitute, living within the gaze of millionaires?

Capitalism? You can have it.

"I will not hurt you
if you'll only not hurt me"
is still culpable.

Maybe we're evil;
I like to believe we are not.
I try to be good.

I feel vibrations
from my universe and phone
and have no answers.

Nagdeo...That was beautiful OCM...

I will put that on my refrigerator if thats ok with you.

/ end of side note... no disrespect intended to the thread.