Can You Be Good Without God?

[Dezzie]

Even if you don't have God in your life, it doesn't mean you will grow up to be a hateful, mean person. Believing in God or not, doesn't define you as a person. If you did a survey between everyone in the World, it would be 50/50. Half the people that don't believe in God are bad/Half the people that don't believe in God are good. Same thing with people who DO believe in God.

 

[MW0082]

I would say I am good without god. I go to wrok, I pay my bills, I am good to those who are in my life and I mind my own business.

I think religion does keep you from being the best you could be. It creates stigmas and segragation of what is normal and right. this presents the issue that good people who are seen as abominations will not receive the help, or as much help.

And why would Pat Robertson never give back what he has received? What a monster....

oh p.s. How many wars or murders or overall henious crimes committed in the name of religion...? I would say no god would create less reason to kill...:yes:

 

[Man of Faith]

It is impossible to be good without God because if there was no God, there would be no you.

 

[MW0082]

It is impossible to be good without God because if there was no God, there would be no you.

LOL, God is a creation of man, not the other way around..

I was not made from a god, and I am good, and do not believe in god...... :drool:

 

[Man of Faith]

LOL, God is a creation of man, not the other way around..

I was not made from a god, and I am good, and do not believe in god...... :drool:

Whether you believe in God or not, doesn't matter, if you were made in the image of God, meaning you were made with a conscious which tells you right from wrong.

 

[MW0082]

Whether you believe in God or not, doesn't matter, if you were made in the image of God, meaning you were made with a conscious which tells you right from wrong.

But if there is no god (and there isn't) then my consciousness is my own evolvement, and I am still good without god.....

 

[England my lionheart]

People obviously did good or positive things before the concept of God came about

 

[Man of Faith]

But if there is no god (and there isn't) then my consciousness is my own evolvement, and I am still good without god.....

The concept of how a conscious evolved isn't understood, however it can be understood if it was created by God. Which means that having a conscious validates God. So we are back to humans unable to be good without God. See how that works?

 

[bobhikes]

"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God.”


The Boy Scouts of America (BSA), one of the largest private youth organizations in the United States, has policies which prohibit atheists and agnostics from membership in its Scouting program, and prohibit "avowed" homosexual people from leadership roles in its Scouting program as directly violating its fundamental principles and tenets. BSA has denied or revoked membership status or leadership positions of youths and adults for violation of these foundational principles.
The BSA contends that these policies are essential in its mission to instill in young people the values of the Scout Oath and Law.


The organization's legal right to have these policies has been upheld repeatedly by both state and federal courts. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed that as a private organization, the BSA can set its own membership standards.


From Wikipedia.

 

[MW0082]

The concept of how a conscious evolved isn't understood, however it can be understood if it was created by God. Which means that having a conscious validates God. So we are back to humans unable to be good without God. See how that works?

No we are not, there is absolutely no proof our conciousness was created, so no we are at the same point..... Circles belong with shapes, not for reasoning....

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is impossible to be good without God because if there was no God, there would be no you.

IMO, when people talk about being "good without God", they're talking about being good without belief in God.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God.”

That statement is neither trustworthy, helpful, friendly, courteous, or kind. Ironic, considering the BSA's version of the Scout Law:

A Scout is

trustworthy,
loyal,
helpful,
friendly,
courteous,
kind,
obedient,
cheerful,
thrifty,
brave,
clean, and
reverent.

 

[Faithfreedom]

Ask them.

hehehehe......

 

[Penumbra]

While I agree that many people do this, this is really quite a caricature of the religious. In Christianity and Judaism, accepting every word of the scriptures as literal fact straight from heaven is a modern, innovative concept born of fundamentalism, also a modern movement. A religious text cannot be separated from the tradition it is intertwined with, and tradition has mechanisms to allow scriptural understandings and religious cultures to evolve in order to stay relevant while maintaining and passing down a rich cultural legacy. This also allows for a culture to self-correct, as any culture in any age will inevitably pick up prejudice. I don't see anything wrong with these in-built mechanisms for evolution; they were created for a purpose. Fundamentalism is a dysfunctional mutation, although of course they aren't allowed to acknowledge that they're thoroughly modern.

Still, this is not to deny that religion, even in its more nuanced forms, is often used in unethical ways.

I don't view it as a caricature of religion. One doesn't need to accept every word as literal from heaven to find some of these religious texts terribly unethical.

Whether you believe in God or not, doesn't matter, if you were made in the image of God, meaning you were made with a conscious which tells you right from wrong.

If that were the case, then people should all have virtually identical perceptions of what is right and wrong. They don't, though.

 

[.lava]

Do Warren Buffett and Bill Gates give the lie to the notion that you cannot be good without god? Why or why not?

Does god keep you from being as good as you might be? Why or why not?

H/T Astasia

being better in more than one ways is always with God and better than being good in one way. IMO people could not be better without path that leads to God because it requires purification of ego to get closer to God. you might try once or twice but you'd eventually fail then try again and again... riding in circles. btw, the charity that trully earns applauds is the one that is not used for publicity and applauds. the charity of a poor man, the charity of someone who shares little money or food he has with another means a lot more and requires more than giving away money you don't need even if you lived for 1000 years

.

 

[Penumbra]

being better in more than one ways is always with God and better than being good in one way. IMO people could not be better without path that leads to God because it requires purification of ego to get closer to God. you might try once or twice but you'd eventually fail then try again and again... riding in circles. btw, the charity that trully earns applauds is the one that is not used for publicity and applauds. the charity of a poor man, the charity of someone who shares little money or food he has with another means a lot more and requires more than giving away money you don't need even if you lived for 1000 years
.

It's impossible for multi-billionaires to give away billions of dollars without it being public.

Gates made his fortune on Microsoft, and Buffett made his fortune on Berkshire Hathaway. Their wealth was built by owning large chunks of public stock in their companies. When you own that much of a public company, ownership stakes must be legally disclosed (as in, everyone has to know how much stock they own.) Therefore, the public can observe the net worth of these types of individuals change over time.

Gates has taken a significant percentage of his wealth out of Microsoft to form the Gates Foundation, which he oversees. It's his active way of performing charity. Buffett pledged much of his wealth to the Gates foundation as well. They've also spent considerable time convincing other billionaires to be more generous about charity.

A billionaire can surely give millions of dollars here and there to charity while keeping it a secret, but when they move around their billions of dollars in public stock, it's public knowledge and it's not for them to keep secret.

 

[.lava]

It's impossible for multi-billionaires to give away billions of dollars without it being public.

Gates made his fortune on Microsoft, and Buffett made his fortune on Berkshire Hathaway. Their wealth was built by owning large chunks of public stock in their companies. When you own that much of a public company, ownership stakes must be legally disclosed (as in, everyone has to know how much stock they own.) Therefore, the public can observe the net worth of these types of individuals change over time.

Gates has taken a significant percentage of his wealth out of Microsoft to form the Gates Foundation, which he oversees. It's his active way of performing charity. Buffett pledged much of his wealth to the Gates foundation as well. They've also spent considerable time convincing other billionaires to be more generous about charity.

A billionaire can surely give millions of dollars here and there to charity while keeping it a secret, but when they move around their billions of dollars in public stock, it's public knowledge and it's not for them to keep secret.

i don't think it is impossible to keep it away from soceity. for someone that rich it is possible to keep it as a secret. besides, as you see in the OP their names and how much they gave away is used for a purpose and that could never happen without permission. what do you think?

.

 

[Penumbra]

i don't think it is impossible to keep it away from society. for someone that rich it is possible to keep it as a secret. besides, as you see in the OP their names and how much they gave away is used for a purpose and that could never happen without permission. what do you think?
.

For one, to answer your last question, I don't know the legal ramifications of using their names and images in an advertisement. I'm doubtful that either Gates or Buffett agreed to be in these ads. The information of how much they gave is public information.

For two, let's consider the options these guys have.

Gates:
Gates built his fortune on Microsoft stock, by founding the company and then holding onto a large percentage of it as it skyrocketed in value. When an insider owns that much of a company, it must be disclosed in their SEC filings. In addition, when an insider buys or sells stock, I believe that also must be disclosed.

At one point, he formed the Gates Foundation, and he significantly decreased his activity at Microsoft in order to focus on his foundation. He runs the foundation, so there's no way he can hide what's going on. Much of his wealth has gone to it. If he sold Microsoft stock, it must be publicly disclosed.

Buffett:
Buffett has always been an investor, and over the past several decades (since the 60s), he's been Chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway. He owns a massive percentage of the public company, and again, this legally must be disclosed. He long ago vowed not to sell Berkshire stock. And, if he were to sell it, he would encounter capital gains taxes (thereby decreasing the total amount he can give to charity), and it would be disclosed to the public and his shareholders, who would demand to know why the primary insider is selling billions of his company stock (like, well, Enron executives did). So, he can't just hide where $60 billion in company stock goes. Years ago, he pledged something like $30 billion to the Gates Foundation through a series of Berkshire stock gifts. Based on the amount that these stock gifts are worth, they almost certainly have to be included in SEC filings.

In order to abide by laws and to distribute the wealth most efficiently, there's basically no way these guys can hide what's going on. We're talking about many billions of dollars here. Their combined net worth is greater than most small countrys' GDP values.

 

[EmmaRhiannon_x]

Some people say they're good because they're doing the will of God, however, some people aren't so good because they believe they're doing the will of God...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

being better in more than one ways is always with God and better than being good in one way. IMO people could not be better without path that leads to God because it requires purification of ego to get closer to God. you might try once or twice but you'd eventually fail then try again and again... riding in circles. btw, the charity that trully earns applauds is the one that is not used for publicity and applauds. the charity of a poor man, the charity of someone who shares little money or food he has with another means a lot more and requires more than giving away money you don't need even if you lived for 1000 years

.

I don't think Gates and Buffett publicized their donations to get praise for it. I think they did it to inspire others to do the same. I think it was a good idea: as large as those donations were, when they can be used to encourage other donations, they can create many times more benefit for people in need.

If they donated their money anonymously, they would never have been able to send the message that I think they did send: that charity and humanitarianism is part of good citizenship.