Can You Be Good Without God?

[Storm]

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.

It can't be both?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It can't be both?

How would that work?

 

[Storm]

How would that work?

Everything you said, and still wanting recognition. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but I'm not so sure there's not a little bit of selfishness in there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Everything you said, and still wanting recognition. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but I'm not so sure there's not a little bit of selfishness in there.

I can't read their minds to see their true motivations, but it seems to me that the message "even I, Warren Buffett/Bill Gates, multi-billionaire and champion of industry, recognizes that we have a responsibility to our fellow human beings, and that those of us who receive much from society have a duty to give much back." I think it's very positive.

It reflects well on them, sure, so I don't know whether they were going for the glory of being seen as nice people or they were actually giving out of the goodness of their hearts. However, it seems to me that if they were just going for an image-building exercise, they could've got almost the same effect for much cheaper.

 

[Storm]

I can't read their minds to see their true motivations, but it seems to me that the message "even I, Warren Buffett/Bill Gates, multi-billionaire and champion of industry, recognizes that I have a responsibility to my fellow human beings, and that as I have receive much from society, it is my duty to give much back." I think it's very positive.

It reflects well on them, sure, so I don't know whether they were going for the glory of being seen as nice people or they were actually giving out of the goodness of their hearts. However, it seems to me that if they were just going for an image-building exercise, they could've got almost the same effect for much cheaper.

I'm just saying they're not mutually exclusive. People are messy.

 

[Penumbra]

Unless I see someone present some really good ways on how to do it, I really don't see any legitimate way Buffett or Gates could have kept that much charity secret. One can't transition tens of billions of dollars from public stock to charity organizations without it being public knowledge. Public filings would have followed it.

And since Gates actually runs his own charity organization rather than haven given his money to other organizations, it's even more difficult to hide it. Sure, he could have named his foundation something else, but he's not Willy Wonka and he's not going to be able to operate some super-secretive organization such that nobody can know he's running it and that he put billions of dollars into it.

 

[EverChanging]

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.

A text itself is neither ethical nor unethical, and its interpretation is not separate from the tradition of which it is only a part.

Still, I agree that many religions are used for unethical purposes. But for those religious people who are good, kind people, they aren't necessarily just "cherry picking" when it comes to religion; It's much more complex than that when a tradition has in-built self-correcting mechanisms and various layers of interpretation.

 

[Penumbra]

A text itself is neither ethical nor unethical, and its interpretation is not separate from the tradition of which it is only a part.

Still, I agree that many religions are used for unethical purposes. But for those religious people who are good, kind people, they aren't necessarily just "cherry picking" when it comes to religion; It's much more complex than that when a tradition has in-built self-correcting mechanisms and various layers of interpretation.

It's neither ethical nor unethical?

Depending on which text we're talking about, it could include things like genocide, torture, severing of limbs, baby-killing, unnecessary killing of creatures, death threats, and barbarians as main characters.

 

[Quiddity]

Can they be good? Of course.

Here is the thing that struck me. If theist dare call a good guy like Mao an atheist, it's met with wrath by the spaghetti monster.

So my question is: What is it about their non-theism that caused them to be good?

There is certainly no concensus or group of pointy hat atheist that form the center of morality somewhere.

 

[Magic Man]

Can they be good? Of course.

Here is the thing that struck me. If theist dare call a good guy like Mao an atheist, it's met with wrath by the spaghetti monster.

Huh?

So my question is: What is it about their non-theism that caused them to be good?

There is certainly no concensus or group of pointy hat atheist that form the center of morality somewhere.

What is it about whose nontheism that caused them to be good? There are famous people who have done horrible things while being atheists. There are famous people who did horrible things while being Christians. The difference is sometimes horrible things are done in the name of Christianity, while people don't do horrible things in the name of atheism. Mao did horrible things as an atheist, but he also did them as someone who doesn't believe in leprechauns. Neither of those lacks of belief are why he did what he did.

 

[BIG D]

very simple--YES--the parents just need to teach their kids not to steal/kill/rob/etc and be nice to others...it [[or the parent]]doesn't have to be religious ...they should teach that in ALL schools from K grade...that would cut down on a lot[[not all]] of crime/etc....

 

[waitasec]

this brings up an interesting idea
does religion support a selfish ulterior motive for being good?
a reward.
i would rather be good for goodness sake not for the sake of gaining favor.

 

[Quiddity]

Huh?

Nevermind.

What is it about whose nontheism that caused them to be good? There are famous people who have done horrible things while being atheists. There are famous people who did horrible things while being Christians. The difference is sometimes horrible things are done in the name of Christianity, while people don't do horrible things in the name of atheism. Mao did horrible things as an atheist, but he also did them as someone who doesn't believe in leprechauns. Neither of those lacks of belief are why he did what he did.

I don't understand why "In the name of......" has so much meaning. Unless it's part of our religious tenets to pillage, rape, and so on, why not call them Christians acting unChristian? Does saying "in the name....." give it any more merit? Christians can say that until they turn blue in the face but what they are doing is not something we teach.

 

[Faithfreedom]

this brings up an interesting idea
does religion support a selfish ulterior motive for being good?
a reward.
i would rather be good for goodness sake not for the sake of gaining favor.

Yes, it does.
But i don't think i can carry-on for long on that motive.

I'm good because I've been 'born-again', have the holy spirit, etc (yes, the standard christian jargon, but which i fully subscribe to).

i'm good because i'm so happy i want to make others happy.
(i may not be happy all the time but mostly am)

 

[waitasec]

Yes, it does.
But i don't think i can carry-on for long on that motive.

I'm good because I've been 'born-again', have the holy spirit, etc (yes, the standard christian jargon, but which i fully subscribe to).

i'm good because i'm so happy i want to make others happy.
(i may not be happy all the time but mostly am)

so are you saying you don't need god to be good?

 

[Storm]

this brings up an interesting idea
does religion support a selfish ulterior motive for being good?
a reward.

Well, this is in danger of veering off-topic, but I'm of the opinion that even the loftiest, noblest ethics are ultimately selfish. Maybe it's about building the world WE want to live in; maybe it's just wanting to be appreciated; maybe we hope for Paradise. I don't think that's a bad thing, though.

i would rather be good for goodness sake not for the sake of gaining favor.

ITA.

 

[Faithfreedom]

so are you saying you don't need god to be good?

i'm saying, i need god to be gooder.

 

[waitasec]

i'm saying, i need god to be gooder.

do you mean better?

 

[waitasec]

Well, this is in danger of veering off-topic, but I'm of the opinion that even the loftiest, noblest ethics are ultimately selfish. Maybe it's about building the world WE want to live in; maybe it's just wanting to be appreciated; maybe we hope for Paradise. I don't think that's a bad thing, though.

i agree. i just had to throw the selfish motive out there because it is often ignored. we are wired to survive, so yes we need to be selfish in order to make this a world WE want to live in.

 

[Faithfreedom]

do you mean better?

Yes.

I was an atheist (until 12 y.o) as a kid and i was happy then. Could be because i had a happy childhood and my parents didn't force anything on us.

But with God, i feel even happier and wanted to do more good.