@ Nuclearboy = i fear you have misapprehended MyJoe's post.

I believe what he wrote exactly was "Yes, you can be good to your fellow man for the sake of being good rather than to please God". The choice inherent in this statement gives me to believe you can be good to others "to please God". Seems a bit funny.

However, and in light of your statement, I re-read it and there's no reason to say he spoke of himself. Take it then that he was generalizing and pointing out something that is anathema to him. I apologize sincerely.

Truth be said though, its pretty disturbing to think that a personal experience can make you believe those claimed by others are an "empty shell". When someone says he is a piece of radioactive material or a cadillac, we easily disprove him. MYJOE calls himself by that name and so do I. Why? Trust. Another person could say he's lying but for such to call me a fool/idiot/bingo/ignorant etc because I TRUST MYJOE calls my own name and integrity to stake. That I see when told my belief is Blind. Prove that it is and I will keep shut. However, since based on faith, you can't so why the insult?

I hope my apology is accepted. I'm learning honestly and with an open mind

^^^ Indeed, thanks alot: you are on point, sir.

I think what he meant to say is simply that as humans, the quality of goodness and conscience rests naturally within us and we can accordingly live in such goodness to our fellow man without reference to the existence of a "God."

Or the Abrahamic ideal of "God."

Deep Sight:

^^^ Indeed, thanks alot: you are on point, sir.

I think what he meant to say is simply that as humans, the quality of goodness and conscience rests naturally within us and we can accordingly live in such goodness to our fellow man without reference to the existence of a "God."

Or the Abrahamic ideal of "God."

Thanks Deep Sight. I couldn’t have put it better.

@nuclearboy
I was listening to a forum discussion between an atheist and a Christian on British radio. The Christian said something like: “If you tell me there is no God I will kill people and commit all sorts of atrocities.” And what did the atheist say? “Please go on believing in God.” Recently, there has been an idea about that the reason there is so much wickedness about is Darwinism. According this theory, when you tell people we evolved and there is no God, they conclude that if life has no purpose there is nothing to live for. So many religious people cannot comprehend someone doing good when heaven is not the motive!

Most atheists I have interacted with tell you that they will do what they can to improve the world. (My Christian friend's response is, "You can't improve the world without Christ!" They believe you can be good for the sake of being good. And, yes, you can. No, I am not speaking primarily of myself since I am not an atheist. But I have no shred of doubt that should I find atheism plausible today, my views of human love and morality will not change, just as they did not change when I stopped being a Christian.

Is doing good for the sake of God right or wrong? Is upholding the first part of the Christian commandment “Love God” and discarding the second “Love your neighbour” right or wrong? The danger in it is that you can’t see God. The day that person stops being religious, he can’t be managed. Even while religious, many religious folk can afford to engage in evil because they don’t see God standing over them. If I recall correctly, Islam even teaches that on judgment day, the good things you do and the bad will be placed side by side on a scale and whichever outweighs the other determines where you end up. So I can steal public money, so long as I give some of it to the poor and observe the others pillars, I am fine for heaven. While Christianity teaches that whatever I may have done, once I accept Christ, his blood launders it, just like that. As if I did not have a conscience, an inborn capacity to distinguish right and wrong before seeing a Bible.

And just in addition, if you read posts in this thread, you will find that once you say you subscribe to belief in the existence of God but aren’t religious many dismiss you as another wimp who can’t face up to the challenges of being religious, that is, someone one want to be FREE to skank along the wilderness of sin like an errant child of darkness. This view is misguided. Something tells me I don’t need to elaborate on that with YOU, but let me just say that in the recent TI ranking of corrupt nations, the least corrupt nations are among the most secular – New Zealand and the Scandinavians. Now we are talking of people who are purely secular, not merely non-Christian Orientals who believe in reincarnation or such.

My personal experience of religion is that it is an empty shell – that does not imply a dismissal of religious people since I made it clear I respect those who can adduce reasons for their beliefs. I am a total deist. I believe God does not require us to pray or engage in religious sloganeering. I believe he put us here to improve the world by serving humanity and for every single or action, there is a reward. When you hold this belief, shouting seems a needless endeavour to you and religion becomes one big shell that is eye-catching but empty to YOU. So religion is an empty shell to ME. It does not stop you from showing the utmost respect to your fellow men and the beliefs they hold. I know many highly intelligent people who belong to the popular religions. They consider my views misguided, not so? Since what appears to me to be an empty shell is what accords with their experiences at this time, I have to respect their beliefs or I fall into the pit of dogma – “I am right, they are wrong”.

Myjoe: Your earlier write-up now makes perfect sense to me. I think where I missed it was the word "religion". As a word, its probably been the most misused ever and yes, you're right. If most people lose their "religion", they will become unmanageable and absolutely amoral. Indeed, even with the cloak of "religiosity", most of us are little better than animals when left alone. Most people would say "if there's no-one there, a tree falling in a forest makes no noise" and thus what they do in the absence of audience is ok since no one knew.