Sentences with phrase «not be a moral person»

You're implying that an atheist can not be a moral person, which is absolutely not true.

He fought against atheism, and thought it to be mental illness, that you could not be a moral person if you did not have faith.

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.

We need, to understand that they are fictional people, who are able to do things that real people can not, but I'm talking more about identifying with their moral code, their values in helping others and doing right from wrong.

They provide all of us with a sense of purpose and hope; moral validation that we are needed and part of something bigger than ourselves; comfort that we are not alone and a community is looking out for us; mentorship, guidance and personal development; a safety net; values, cultural norms and accountability; social gatherings, rituals and a way to meet new people; and a way to pass time.

Not everyone agrees on what is noble, for example, and there have been atrocious acts of history committed by people who sincerely believed they were acting on a moral ideal.

It's an impossible dilemma, and proof that we can't ever delegate big moral questions to the people who sell us things.

And in my book on morality and getting these people to grow up I again bring up the example of 19th century industrialists who were incredibly rich and often rather cruel in their business lives who reinvented themselves, so a Carnegie whose business career certainly wasn't exemplary in any moral sense.

«He's an egomaniac devoid of all moral sense» ---- said the society woman dressing for a charity bazaar, who dared not contemplate what means of self - expression would be left to her and how she would impose her ostentation on her friends, if charity were not the all - excusing virtue ---- said the social worker who had found no aim in life and could generate no aim from within the sterility of his soul, but basked in virtue and held an unearned respect from all, by grace of his fingers on the wounds of others ---- said the novelist who had nothing to say if the subject of service and sacrifice were to be taken away from him, who sobbed in the hearing of attentive thousands that he loved them and loved them and would they please love him a little in return ---- said the lady columnist who had just bought a country mansion because she wrote so tenderly about the little people ---- said all the little people who wanted to hear of love, the great love, the unfastidious love, the love that embraced everything, forgave everything, and permitted everything ---- said every second - hander who could not exist except as a leech on the souls of others.»

They managed to deliver tax breaks for the rich and oil companies, that's indisputable, but not on any of the «moral» issues they've used since the early 70s to get votes from religious people.

They somehow see us as having no morals, instead of people that do not need religion to be moral.

Most people's moral compass tells them something is wrong with that; not in Islam.

You accuse Christians of being brainless and nasty, but most of the posts I've seen are from people who can't say enough to degrade and discredit others who take a moral stand on life, politics or whatever.

The stories of players in these accounts challenge our moral imagination by forcing us to recognize that the uniformed men on the field are not just Football Players, but Persons - brothers, fathers, husbands, and sons like me.

@Ralph N, For the record, though no one forces belief in god (except parents), religious folk are endlessly trying to impose their moral beliefs on people who don't share them.

Robin Thicke has A) not been nearly as famous as Miley Cyrus has been, nor been famous for as long, and B) has never presented nor acted anything like a healthy, moral role model for young people.

Academic moral theory, like preaching, «stiffens the backbone» of one's coreligionists (or co «ideologues) by «convincing people who think like you that they are not alone in their beliefs [and] have the backing of someone who is confident, competent, articulate, and thoughtful.»

But alas, people still prejudicially ascribe certain moral qualities to others based on their belief system, so this is not going away any time soon.

I don't see how I'm less moral of a person because I'm not one of you.

I believe it all depends on if the person has a moral compass or not, regardless of their s e x u a l orientation / preference!

You don't need religion to be a «moral» person.

«Not many people,» Elliott notes, «feel a moral duty to take part in these studies»» though, of course, we are more than happy to reap the benefits brought by new drugs.

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.

Finally you said, «But alas, people still prejudicially ascribe certain moral qualities to others based on their belief system, so this is not going away any time soon.»

God makes good stuff... Even good moral people who don't know he was made by him.

Some people say that it is pointless, as it can not actually do anything, but in my opinion it does do something; it shows moral and emotional support for those supporting the fight against child abuse.

But within the context of people saying they are SBNR, I don't really see such people reacting against a loosely defined definition of religion as merely moral teachings administered with certain rituals and structures.

Ridicule and moral opprobrium, and manifestations of sheer hatred for one's very being, are not easy to bear, especially for conscientious and upright and morally sensitive 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.»

Self - important simpletons commonly hate anyone that isn't bound to the «moral» standards of verses such as Leviticus 20:13 which commands putting people to death that are not within the primitive social norms of living in caves and sacrificing goats and children and owning slaves.

= > treating races differently CAN be fine / moral for the same reason that while it is immoral to favor a white person over an african american for job selection, it is NOT immoral to favor an african american over a white in job selection (within certain industries and to achieve specific goals).

People can be moral and not believe in God.

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 you would ask any atheist what their moral system is, the answer always comes back as «I don't do to other people, what I would not want done to me».

S.Lewis» «I am here trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: «I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept his claim to be God.»

I guess that goes to show you that being a Christian didn't automatically make one a moral person.

With Christianity, although the reincarnation aspect seems to have purposefully removed so that people do not become «lazy» in search of God in this life time, the practical and strict rules governing functions in this life (hard work to lead a prosperous life, improving moral values, etc) are appealing.

If owning a person is not moral, then whether it's voluntary or not is irrelevant.

not faith in his existence) IM not going to base my whole life on science like some people do... science will fait... science does not say what Is moral and what is... so science can not be everythiIs moral and what is... so science can not be everythiis... so science can not be everything

History provides the moral judgment, and we do not have to be theologians engaged in scriptural debates to point people to the judgment rendered by history... Elaine

If owning another person is immoral, then making provisions and instructions on owning another person is not moral.

People don't have to «claim» they're moral; they can actually BE moral without believing in the jolly green giant or some sky fairy.

If they were so «moral» on their own, wouldn't they take the high road and accept that this person has made a different choice than they have.

I'm a Christian and I KNOW Christ exists, but not in this man - conttived and contorted punishing unforgiving version conceived and dictated by those with morals much more questionable than the average decent person on the street or even myself.

This is not god's moral, it's just commands he gave to Israel people in certain situations.

Someone who is a tyrants and terrorists who does not agree with them and wants them to be silent is a person who limits rights, choices, says what's moral and who and how to prey is what were against.

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.

The gospel isn't a moral code or a formula for getting people into heaven, says New Testament scholar Tom Wright More

It is NOT possible to be a politician of the sort we have today AND actually be a moral or religious person.

I have also seen people who turned away from the Church and / or broke a moral or ethical standard of the Church and they feel so guilty they think people in the Church are judging them when they are not.