Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Historically, religions often competed against other beliefs - usually alternate religions, but also non-belief. This typically wasn't competition in today's 'marketplace of ideas' sense, but a violent conflict of eradication, the attempted elimination of what were seen as mortal threats to a religion's existence. To that end, those not holding the proper beliefs were 'othered', imbued with all manner of malevolent attributes. Hatred then came naturally. Happily, we've gotten beyond that in much of the world. But the notion of the atheist as a vile creature still lingers, though in the Western world this is an idea held mostly by fundamentalists, and certainly not all of them.
A believer expects that his bad deeds, if not punished in the material world, will be punished in the afterlife, hence his bad behavior is restrained.
A non-believer* has no intrinsic restraint on his bad behavior, knowing that he need only escape punishment for his depredations.
Of the two, which one would you like to have as your neighbor?
(*Non-believers may include those who make a pretense of belief, to blend in with their victims.)
As a neighbor, I'd prefer to have someone who doesn't steal (just to use one convenient example of bad behavior) because s/he considers stealing to be ethically wrong, not out of a fear of punishment. Egalitarian decency is vastly preferable to restraint borne only of a sense that 'I'll behave just because I'm not sure I can get away with misbehavior'.
Also, there's no actual evidence that believers are more well-behaved than non-believers (or vice versa). The former idea is a trope often trotted out, but lacking evidentiary backing. Then there's the problem that many believers in some sort of deity don't believe in the idea of reward/punishment in an afterlife. Where's their restraint?
Finally, most believers generally adhere to moral notions of modern society and not some religious code. Take the Abrahimic faiths, for example. Concepts of liberal democracy (in the classic sense), freedom of speech, individual liberty, due process: these are not found in commandments, or other biblical pronouncements. They are social constructs. As such, there is no reason for anyone to adhere to them out of a fear of some unpleasantness after they die. And yet most people in the western world to adhere to them, more or less. Why? Because we have codes of moral behavior that go well beyond only being tempered by the fear of getting caught and punished.
It is clear that most people are good or bad regardless of their religious faith, even those believers who sell themselves short but tacitly implying that but for their belief in a deity and its expectations they'd be committing all manner of heinous acts.
I like the part where she says "I got the music in my head telling me it's going to be alright."
Also where she points out if one worries about the liars and the cheats it will stop them from getting down with a sick beat.
yeah,
It took me a while, maybe far longer than it should have, to realize that. In my youth I though we need to stop this. Now I know, its the price of doing business. Keep your head down and control yourself first. That doesn't mean I am not up for touching the roof of my mouth with the sole of my foot every know and again tho.
It took me a while, maybe far longer than it should have, to realize that. In my youth I though we need to stop this. Now I know, its the price of doing business. Keep your head down and control yourself first. That doesn't mean I am not up for touching the roof of my mouth with the sole of my foot every know and again tho.
There's nothing wrong with a little foot in the mouth. That's how things get figured out.
As a neighbor, I'd prefer to have someone who doesn't steal (just to use one convenient example of bad behavior) because s/he considers stealing to be ethically wrong, not out of a fear of punishment. Egalitarian decency is vastly preferable to restraint borne only of a sense that 'I'll behave just because I'm not sure I can get away with misbehavior'.
Also, there's no actual evidence that believers are more well-behaved than non-believers (or vice versa). The former idea is a trope often trotted out, but lacking evidentiary backing. Then there's the problem that many believers in some sort of deity don't believe in the idea of reward/punishment in an afterlife. Where's their restraint?
.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Milo Wolf again.
I have met , sadly, many theists who are so full of self hatred that the only thing restraining them from violence and crime is a fear of hell and punishment. Which to me, represents a problem, because if their religion and upbringing did not convince them that they were so sinful, flawed, unlovable and needed a God to save them, then they might instead have some self-esteem and self-respect and not WANT to harm others.
I like the Penn Jillette Quote Behaving morally because of a hope of reward or a fear of punishment is not morality. Morality is not bribery or threats. Religion is bribery and threats. Humans have morality. We don't need religion.
AND OF COURSE (from an Interview in 2012) The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping ram[pages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don’t want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don’t want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you. You know what I mean?
I do not need (or have) a deity to dictate my Morals. I am a humanist, and I do not believe in engaging in actions and behavior (Or Behaviour, if I am visiting England) which would bring harm directly or indirectly, immediately or later to a person. I am not going to abuse some child and have him or her grow up with memories of it. I am not going to harm or injure some innocent person just because I do not agree with how they worship or do not worship. But that is what humanism is about, humanitarianism, philanthropy, the desire to make this world the best one possible, because for one, Jesus is NOT coming back and two, it is the only world (so far) that we have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, that I am sure you will not. 
