God makes good stuff... Even
good moral people who don't know he was made by him.
But apparently it's a country where
good moral people can be manipulated by self - serving politicians into being distracted from the larger issues by high - school debate questions like «when does life begin» or «should gays marry,» or even «is being gay a choice.»
Lots of rock throwing here from all of
these good moral people with all of the answers to the worlds problems.
Is there ancient wisdom in the bible that can help direct us to being
better moral people in the face of environmental threats?
Not exact matches
These are indeed admirable qualities for a
person to have and, in some situations, displaying them will serve you
well, but both research and history suggest that great leaders aren't always paragons of unbending
moral correctness.
You only need to read the headlines to see the ethical and
moral breaches in all walks of life (and that goes for scientists who who fudge figures as
well as business
people who fudge balance sheets).
Well - meaning conservatives, while trying to encourage young
people to behave as they should, have lost the
moral high ground in the AIDS debate, and regaining that ground will be exceedingly difficult.
People didn't become
moral or
good in 33 BC.
They would be on much
better intellectual and
moral ground if they just allowed for the fact that yes, the religious Jews had Jesus killed so that they could protect their authority, but that as much to do with modern Jewish
people as the Romans killing the Maccabees has to do with modern Italians — it's utterly irrelevant.
Since most
people rely on some kind of substance to help them escape pain, to relax, or to socialize, the
moral question is whether the immediate
good outweighs the possible harm» something very specific to each situation.
A
better strategy would be to point out how one doesn't need religion to be a
moral person, and then demonstrate how some of the
people that claim to be a beacon for religious zealots (the GOP) practice an existence devoid of morality.
«Drug testing,» as Elliott notes, «has always involved a kind of
moral trade - off in which subjects are asked to take risks for the
good of other
people.»
Some
people who say it, really do believe in some equivalent of The Great Spirit, but those who don't usually mean» I'm reflective and
moral, so please think
well of me.»
Well, I guess atheists lose, then, as they all lazily sit back, drink alcohol, smoke weed, and bully
people of religion, calling them hypocrites while not showing their own
moral standards so that their own hypocrisy can be judged.
If the righteous «religious» folks spend half as much time worry about their own lives and
morals instead of butting into other
people's, we'd all be
better off.
People can knock God and the bible but it shows the type of
person you are if your knocking something that helps make you a
better person and have
morals..
Case in point, it is not logical to suggest there is «
good» vs «bad» if there is no ultimate
moral authority, no higher power that created everything, including free will and the ability to choose whether to heed that drive to do what is «
good» vs doing what you want to do at the expense of «
good» and of other
people.
But, as John Paul, Havel, and others said at the beginning of the revolution and say now, it was above all a matter of
people discerning the possibility and
moral imperative of «living in truth» and «calling
good and evil by name.»
And to live in society and even just have friends one must prove he or she is a «
moral»
person, this morality is just a morality that lacks gods, such as a belief that what is
good is what brings about the most happiness or freedom or whatever your ethical system supports.
I find inner strength with meeting socially accepted
morals and belief that I am a
good person.
I am a
good person and my
morals are centered on the idea that I do unto others what I wish them to do unto me.
What
good are
morals if the one giving them supports
morals that most
people consider to be awful like slavery and discrimination against women, gays and the handicapped, as
well as beating children and slaves without punishment in some cases?
Finally, add the
well - developed
moral and legal prohibitions on directly killing innocent
persons and you quickly arrive at the conclusion that killing human embryos is wrong.
Having been a Baptist for nearly twenty years and a Latter - day Saint for 35 years now, I can tell you his religion, if it is lived fully, will only make him a much
better person, and not one you would have any problem trusting from a character and
moral point of view.
On stupidity,
people actually think that atheism requires having no
good morals.
I think I'm too simple in my thinking that; if you don't like it, DO N'T WATCH... if you don't agree with it, DO N'T CHOOSE TO LIVE YOUR LIFE THAT WAY... Seems like a very simplistic way of thinking, but I have personal opinions on EVERYTHING, but I don't force others to live their lives according to my
moral fiber... i don't judge
people for living their lives the way that makes them happy... And i believe that IGNORANCE is the basis for INTOLERANCE...
people are famous for HATING things that they don't understand... again, if it MORALLY offends you, don't read stories on things that you don't agree with, don't watch shows that portray choices that you don't agree with... The Brown family seems close knit, almost like extended family living under one roof... the kids work together and get along much
better than a lot of «mainstream» households i see...
You do not need religion to be a
good person or to have
good morals.
A God who could make
good children as easily as bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave his angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell - mouths mercy, and invented hell - mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths
morals to other
people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!
It can seem to a
person that he or she is really quite a bit
better than other sinners and has a special
moral alliance with God.
The
moral virtue of devotion to the
well - being of others supposedly obliterates the rule of etiquette against minding other
people's business.
The notion that constitutional -
moral ideals, like equality and liberty, are ones that reason can analyze and apply comports with the notion of a natural law that is accessible to all
people of
good will («written on the heart,» in Paul's words).
Most things are, but it is worse when the
people doing it are so fervent in their «knowledge» of what is right and
moral and
good and the stakes they claim are involved.
(6) God can not make a
person (P) significantly free with respect to an action (A) and yet causally determine or bring it about that P go right with respect to A — i.e., to create creatures capable of
moral good, God must create creatures capable of
moral evil.
As an atheist I make no claims of
moral superiority or that God is helping me to be a
better person.
I'm a man of science, but science will never be able to answer philosophical dilemnas or drive
people to
moral behavior or compassion which are the driving forces of a
better society.
The economic crisis presently being endured in much of the West and beyond also reflects this truth: the whole meltdown in many ways had its source in that unbridled capitalism that decreed the autonomy of the individual and the
moral good of each
person being allowed to pursue wealth without any relationship to the rest of human society.
A
person may prolong his life by eating right,
good exercise,
good habits,
moral attributes that strengthen the mind, abstaining from harmful habits, resisting desires to go to clubs, parties, socials, etc, that includes mischief making mankind, etal.
People of integrity can disagree on precisely what policies are
best, or are attainable, with respect to clearly
moral questions in medicine and genetics.
That lack of a
moral compass sure makes them
better people.
Such
persons must be of
good moral character, pious, honest, of sound discretion, and blessed with a
good memory; and the series of such transmitters must be continuous from generation to generation.
Just because
good and bad have no
moral basis doesn't mean that it's in your
best interest to kill
people.
The idols of
moral people are not usually what we would consider evils; but a
good for which we have an inordinate love, something intrinsically
good that we love more that God.
The
moral framework of Islam states the principles of etiquette for polite society for the common
people as
well as for the most advanced.
In today's divided
moral landscape, with thoughtful,
well - meaning
people on both sides of every issue, there's no
better way to show that you're a serious thinker than by acknowledging that every controversial issue is «complex.»
It is futile for a
person to conclude that a behavior is
moral,
good and healthy simply because he's had the desire for as long as can be remembered — even seeminly since birth.
I'm not saying the unnecessary suffering of animals is
good, or
moral, but rather pointing out that your perspective on the subject is no more rational, no more based on fact, than that of the
people you are arguing against.
Instead of simply stating the law and reacting in panic when it is widely broken, those concerned for traditional
moral wisdom would do much
better to affirm the high possibility of the life of faithful love, and to understand with love what is happening to
people in ghettoes, in college campuses, in the life of the family today.
Second - a point noted earlier - how are we to explain those
people who do not seem to give a damn for the
Good or for
moral action in any form?
Aristotle wrote that the criterion of
good moral action is not a principle or a law so much as «the man of practical wisdom» ¯ that is, the
person in your environment who habitually makes the wisest and bravest decisions of anyone else you know.
Furthermore, the alternative that you state should have proof of its effectiveness in producing highly
moral people, for example,
better than Mother Teresa.