Secular families are ethical families

[TNHarley]

There could be a huge debate about Taoism being a religion or not....
The first known writings about "golden rule" or similar intent was established by the Egyptians for the god maat.
Taosim possibly did believe in that prior to 2500BC but there isn't proof of it. At least that I have seen.

True, however, because there is also no evidence of any commerce between ancient China, and ancient Egypt, it is more likely that the two societies - one theistic, and one not - happened upon the same principle independently. More evidence that theism is not necessary to develop ethical behaviour.

Actually, Ancient Chinese peoples talked about a river that flowed north.. Im sure they weren't talking about Siberia or west Virginia lol
Ill see if I can find the work.

I dunno. Here are the foreign contacts with the Kingdoms of Egypt. Unless you see something I don't...

Does Chinese Civilization Come From Ancient Egypt?
lecture to an audience of laymen, students, and professors at the University of Science and Technology in Hefei, the capital city of the landlocked province of Anhui in eastern China. But the professor didn’t just talk about geochemistry. He also cited several ancient Chinese classics, at one point quoting historian Sima Qian’s description of the topography of the Xia empire — traditionally regarded as China’s founding dynasty, dating from 2070 to 1600 B.C. “Northwards the stream is divided and becomes the nine rivers,” wrote Sima Qian in his first century historiography, the Records of the Grand Historian. “Reunited, it forms the opposing river and flows into the sea.”
In other words, “the stream” in question wasn’t China’s famed Yellow River, which flows from west to east. “There is only one major river in the world which flows northwards. Which one is it?” the professor asked. “The Nile,” someone replied. Sun then showed a map of the famed Egyptian river and its delta — with nine of its distributaries flowing into the Mediterranean. This author, a researcher at the same institute, watched as audience members broke into smiles and murmurs, intrigued that these ancient Chinese texts seemed to better agree with the geography of Egypt than that of China.

Sooo...one obscure reference of a single text of Xia Dynasty, whose very existence as a Chinese Dynasty is even contested, is the evidence of a connection between China and Egypt? Yeah... I'm gonna go with independent formation. It's the more likely explanation.

You mean like you saying you think the Taoists started the golden rule just because? Aint no info on that..Lol
I see your mind is completely closed on this. Good day.

 

[TNHarley]

"Taoists started the golden rule. They didn't even have a written language that predates the Egyptians, but they started it because that's what I want to believe.
You want me to believe you because you have a 3000 year old reference of ancient Chinese describing a river in Egypt? That's not enough for me"

 

[Czernobog]

True, however, because there is also no evidence of any commerce between ancient China, and ancient Egypt, it is more likely that the two societies - one theistic, and one not - happened upon the same principle independently. More evidence that theism is not necessary to develop ethical behaviour.

Actually, Ancient Chinese peoples talked about a river that flowed north.. Im sure they weren't talking about Siberia or west Virginia lol
Ill see if I can find the work.

I dunno. Here are the foreign contacts with the Kingdoms of Egypt. Unless you see something I don't...

Does Chinese Civilization Come From Ancient Egypt?
lecture to an audience of laymen, students, and professors at the University of Science and Technology in Hefei, the capital city of the landlocked province of Anhui in eastern China. But the professor didn’t just talk about geochemistry. He also cited several ancient Chinese classics, at one point quoting historian Sima Qian’s description of the topography of the Xia empire — traditionally regarded as China’s founding dynasty, dating from 2070 to 1600 B.C. “Northwards the stream is divided and becomes the nine rivers,” wrote Sima Qian in his first century historiography, the Records of the Grand Historian. “Reunited, it forms the opposing river and flows into the sea.”
In other words, “the stream” in question wasn’t China’s famed Yellow River, which flows from west to east. “There is only one major river in the world which flows northwards. Which one is it?” the professor asked. “The Nile,” someone replied. Sun then showed a map of the famed Egyptian river and its delta — with nine of its distributaries flowing into the Mediterranean. This author, a researcher at the same institute, watched as audience members broke into smiles and murmurs, intrigued that these ancient Chinese texts seemed to better agree with the geography of Egypt than that of China.

Sooo...one obscure reference of a single text of Xia Dynasty, whose very existence as a Chinese Dynasty is even contested, is the evidence of a connection between China and Egypt? Yeah... I'm gonna go with independent formation. It's the more likely explanation.

You mean like you saying you think the Taoists started the golden rule just because? Aint no info on that..Lol
I see your mind is completely closed on this. Good day.

Actually there is:

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." — Laozi (c. 500 BC)

Now, did the concept also originate, independently in Egypt? Yes. I am not denying that. But, tell me, other than an obscure line in a single writing from a dynasty that is disputed to even be Chinese, and a similar philosophy , in the form of the Golden Rule, what evidence is there that there was ever any contact between Egypt, and China? I mean you seem really invested in the idea that the Golden Rule came from a theistic religion, and only a theistic religion. I am acknowledging that a theistic religion formed the idea. Why are you so opposed to the possibility that a secular one did, as well, independently?

You're right. One of us does have a closed mind.

 

[Czernobog]

"Taoists started the golden rule. They didn't even have a written language that predates the Egyptians, but they started it because that's what I want to believe.
You want me to believe you because you have a 3000 year old reference of ancient Chinese describing a river in Egypt? That's not enough for me"

The Egyptians brought the Golden Rule to the Chinese, even thought they didn't bring anything else to the Chinese, because that makes sense.

 

[bodecea]

The "golden rule" was first adapted by extremely religious folk reflecting a god.. little irony for ya

Not true....the "golden rule" was around long before the organized religions you see today.

No shit. That doesn't refute my post at all.

Thank goodness!

 

[Weatherman2020]

I posted this awhile ago.
80% of the inmates in Angola prison are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole. Angola prison had been averaging 40 murders a year when the new warden stepped in. His first actions were to have everyone treated as if they were created in the image of God. All people should be treated with that dignity. No swearing by prisoners or guards was allowed. People who died in prison would get wooden coffins, not the cardboard that had been used.

The next step was to create Christian seminaries in the prison to teach people how God has reached out to them so that He may always be with them. Through private funding a Christian college and several chapels were built. Inmates are free to attend as they wish.

Today there are a number of prisoners who are now ordained Pastors. Most inmates now attend the college or services. Even Muslims attend. And Angola has gone from 40 murders a year to not one since 1996.

The Power of Christ Jesus

 

[Czernobog]

I posted this awhile ago.
80% of the inmates in Angola prison are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole. Angola prison had been averaging 40 murders a year when the new warden stepped in. His first actions were to have everyone treated as if they were created in the image of God. All people should be treated with that dignity. No swearing by prisoners or guards was allowed. People who died in prison would get wooden coffins, not the cardboard that had been used.

The next step was to create Christian seminaries in the prison to teach people how God has reached out to them so that He may always be with them. Through private funding a Christian college and several chapels were built. Inmates are free to attend as they wish.

Today there are a number of prisoners who are now ordained Pastors. Most inmates now attend the college or services. Even Muslims attend. And Angola has gone from 40 murders a year to not one since 1996.

The Power of Christ Jesus

 

[Weatherman2020]

I posted this awhile ago.
80% of the inmates in Angola prison are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole. Angola prison had been averaging 40 murders a year when the new warden stepped in. His first actions were to have everyone treated as if they were created in the image of God. All people should be treated with that dignity. No swearing by prisoners or guards was allowed. People who died in prison would get wooden coffins, not the cardboard that had been used.

The next step was to create Christian seminaries in the prison to teach people how God has reached out to them so that He may always be with them. Through private funding a Christian college and several chapels were built. Inmates are free to attend as they wish.

Today there are a number of prisoners who are now ordained Pastors. Most inmates now attend the college or services. Even Muslims attend. And Angola has gone from 40 murders a year to not one since 1996.

The Power of Christ Jesus

Of course it troubles you to see how Christ turns bad people into good people.

 

[TNHarley]

Actually, Ancient Chinese peoples talked about a river that flowed north.. Im sure they weren't talking about Siberia or west Virginia lol
Ill see if I can find the work.

I dunno. Here are the foreign contacts with the Kingdoms of Egypt. Unless you see something I don't...

Does Chinese Civilization Come From Ancient Egypt?
lecture to an audience of laymen, students, and professors at the University of Science and Technology in Hefei, the capital city of the landlocked province of Anhui in eastern China. But the professor didn’t just talk about geochemistry. He also cited several ancient Chinese classics, at one point quoting historian Sima Qian’s description of the topography of the Xia empire — traditionally regarded as China’s founding dynasty, dating from 2070 to 1600 B.C. “Northwards the stream is divided and becomes the nine rivers,” wrote Sima Qian in his first century historiography, the Records of the Grand Historian. “Reunited, it forms the opposing river and flows into the sea.”
In other words, “the stream” in question wasn’t China’s famed Yellow River, which flows from west to east. “There is only one major river in the world which flows northwards. Which one is it?” the professor asked. “The Nile,” someone replied. Sun then showed a map of the famed Egyptian river and its delta — with nine of its distributaries flowing into the Mediterranean. This author, a researcher at the same institute, watched as audience members broke into smiles and murmurs, intrigued that these ancient Chinese texts seemed to better agree with the geography of Egypt than that of China.

Sooo...one obscure reference of a single text of Xia Dynasty, whose very existence as a Chinese Dynasty is even contested, is the evidence of a connection between China and Egypt? Yeah... I'm gonna go with independent formation. It's the more likely explanation.

You mean like you saying you think the Taoists started the golden rule just because? Aint no info on that..Lol
I see your mind is completely closed on this. Good day.

Actually there is:

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." — Laozi (c. 500 BC)

Now, did the concept also originate, independently in Egypt? Yes. I am not denying that. But, tell me, other than an obscure line in a single writing from a dynasty that is disputed to even be Chinese, and a similar philosophy , in the form of the Golden Rule, what evidence is there that there was ever any contact between Egypt, and China? I mean you seem really invested in the idea that the Golden Rule came from a theistic religion, and only a theistic religion. I am acknowledging that a theistic religion formed the idea. Why are you so opposed to the possibility that a secular one did, as well, independently?

You're right. One of us does have a closed mind.

ahh 2000 years later lol..
I said taosim not being a religion is debatable.
If im not mistaken there are basically two "branches". One philosophical and one religious. Laozi was considered a diety in religious taosim..

 

[TNHarley]

Another bit of irony for you OP : that book you shot down earlier as not being truth enough, actually has the first recorded references to him

 

[Czernobog]

I posted this awhile ago.
80% of the inmates in Angola prison are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole. Angola prison had been averaging 40 murders a year when the new warden stepped in. His first actions were to have everyone treated as if they were created in the image of God. All people should be treated with that dignity. No swearing by prisoners or guards was allowed. People who died in prison would get wooden coffins, not the cardboard that had been used.

The next step was to create Christian seminaries in the prison to teach people how God has reached out to them so that He may always be with them. Through private funding a Christian college and several chapels were built. Inmates are free to attend as they wish.

Today there are a number of prisoners who are now ordained Pastors. Most inmates now attend the college or services. Even Muslims attend. And Angola has gone from 40 murders a year to not one since 1996.

The Power of Christ Jesus

Of course it troubles you to see how Christ turns bad people into good people.

It doesn't trouble me at all. No where I'm my OP, nor in the link, nor in the study did I, nor did the Professor, suggest that religion does not promote morality, or ethics; only that theistic religion is not necessary to develop ethics, nor morality.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, well. It looks like religion really isn't necessary to raise ethical children. According to an article for the LA Times, Vern L Bengtson, a professor at USC who has been doing a generational longitudinal study of families, has added secular families to his studies in recent years, when he discovered that non-religious demographics were growing. His findings are quite enlightening:

Many non-religious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the ‘religious’ parents in our study. The vast majority appeared to live goal-filled lives characterised by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose.

...non-religious family life is replete with its own sustaining moral values and enriching ethical precepts. Chief among those: rational problem solving, personal autonomy, independence of thought, avoidance of corporal punishment, a spirit of ‘questioning everything’ and, far above all, empathy.

For secular people, morality is predicated on one simple principle: empathetic reciprocity, widely known as the Golden Rule. Treating other people as you would like to be treated. It is an ancient, universal ethical imperative. And it requires no supernatural beliefs.

The results of such secular child-rearing are encouraging. Studies have found that secular teenagers are far less likely to care what the ‘cool kids’ think, or express a need to fit in with them, than their religious peers. When these teens mature into ‘godless’ adults, they exhibit less racism than their religious counterparts, according to a 2010 Duke University study. Many psychological studies show that secular grownups tend to be less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian and more tolerant, on average, than religious adults.​

So, it seems that we finally have actual data to dispel the myth that religion is necessary in order to instill ethical moral decision-making skills.

A Moral compass and ethics are two different things.
What's their moral compass and what is their set of ethics regarding the various issues in their lives?

Actually the "moral compass' was explained - empathy. That is the moral compass of non-religious morality. "Would I want this done to me?" Nothing more complicated than that. And no supernatural entity necessary.

And while we're at it, what is the moral compass of the theist? I mean, really? If it is not fear of punishment, or promise of reward, answer this: let us say that you have done all that you were expected, and you are on your way to Heaven. Now, just before you pass through the "Pearly Gates", you have the opportunity to give your "Gate Pass" to someone who just didn't quite make the cut. Do you do so, since, after all, getting to heaven wasn't really the reason for living a moral life, anyway? Who, among the theists, could honestly say "yes"?

 

[Indeependent]

Well, well. It looks like religion really isn't necessary to raise ethical children. According to an article for the LA Times, Vern L Bengtson, a professor at USC who has been doing a generational longitudinal study of families, has added secular families to his studies in recent years, when he discovered that non-religious demographics were growing. His findings are quite enlightening:

Many non-religious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the ‘religious’ parents in our study. The vast majority appeared to live goal-filled lives characterised by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose.

...non-religious family life is replete with its own sustaining moral values and enriching ethical precepts. Chief among those: rational problem solving, personal autonomy, independence of thought, avoidance of corporal punishment, a spirit of ‘questioning everything’ and, far above all, empathy.

For secular people, morality is predicated on one simple principle: empathetic reciprocity, widely known as the Golden Rule. Treating other people as you would like to be treated. It is an ancient, universal ethical imperative. And it requires no supernatural beliefs.

The results of such secular child-rearing are encouraging. Studies have found that secular teenagers are far less likely to care what the ‘cool kids’ think, or express a need to fit in with them, than their religious peers. When these teens mature into ‘godless’ adults, they exhibit less racism than their religious counterparts, according to a 2010 Duke University study. Many psychological studies show that secular grownups tend to be less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian and more tolerant, on average, than religious adults.​

So, it seems that we finally have actual data to dispel the myth that religion is necessary in order to instill ethical moral decision-making skills.

A Moral compass and ethics are two different things.
What's their moral compass and what is their set of ethics regarding the various issues in their lives?

Actually the "moral compass' was explained - empathy. That is the moral compass of non-religious morality. "Would I want this done to me?" Nothing more complicated than that. And no supernatural entity necessary.

And while we're at it, what is the moral compass of the theist? I mean, really? If it is not fear of punishment, or promise of reward, answer this: let us say that you have done all that you were expected, and you are on your way to Heaven. Now, just before you pass through the "Pearly Gates", you have the opportunity to give your "Gate Pass" to someone who just didn't quite make the cut. Do you do so, since, after all, getting to heaven wasn't really the reason for living a moral life, anyway? Who, among the theists, could honestly say "yes"?

Empathy...Abraham had that and God had to set him straight.
Abraham empathy was for the Sodomites who were selfish beyond the pale.

My moral compass is the Torah, not empathy.

 

[TNHarley]

Scientists say monkeys have the precursor of morals. JS...

 

[Czernobog]

Well, well. It looks like religion really isn't necessary to raise ethical children. According to an article for the LA Times, Vern L Bengtson, a professor at USC who has been doing a generational longitudinal study of families, has added secular families to his studies in recent years, when he discovered that non-religious demographics were growing. His findings are quite enlightening:

Many non-religious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the ‘religious’ parents in our study. The vast majority appeared to live goal-filled lives characterised by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose.

...non-religious family life is replete with its own sustaining moral values and enriching ethical precepts. Chief among those: rational problem solving, personal autonomy, independence of thought, avoidance of corporal punishment, a spirit of ‘questioning everything’ and, far above all, empathy.

For secular people, morality is predicated on one simple principle: empathetic reciprocity, widely known as the Golden Rule. Treating other people as you would like to be treated. It is an ancient, universal ethical imperative. And it requires no supernatural beliefs.

The results of such secular child-rearing are encouraging. Studies have found that secular teenagers are far less likely to care what the ‘cool kids’ think, or express a need to fit in with them, than their religious peers. When these teens mature into ‘godless’ adults, they exhibit less racism than their religious counterparts, according to a 2010 Duke University study. Many psychological studies show that secular grownups tend to be less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian and more tolerant, on average, than religious adults.​

So, it seems that we finally have actual data to dispel the myth that religion is necessary in order to instill ethical moral decision-making skills.

A Moral compass and ethics are two different things.
What's their moral compass and what is their set of ethics regarding the various issues in their lives?

Actually the "moral compass' was explained - empathy. That is the moral compass of non-religious morality. "Would I want this done to me?" Nothing more complicated than that. And no supernatural entity necessary.

And while we're at it, what is the moral compass of the theist? I mean, really? If it is not fear of punishment, or promise of reward, answer this: let us say that you have done all that you were expected, and you are on your way to Heaven. Now, just before you pass through the "Pearly Gates", you have the opportunity to give your "Gate Pass" to someone who just didn't quite make the cut. Do you do so, since, after all, getting to heaven wasn't really the reason for living a moral life, anyway? Who, among the theists, could honestly say "yes"?

Empathy...Abraham had that and God had to set him straight.
Abraham empathy was for the Sodomites who were selfish beyond the pale.


My moral compass is the Torah, not empathy.

Well, considering the God of the Torah also ordered Saul to commit genocide, you'll forgive me if I trust my moral compass more than yours. Now, I'm sure you are going to respond with some brilli9ant justification for what God demanded of Saul, but it still doesn't alter the fact that it was genocide.

 

[Czernobog]

Scientists say monkeys have the precursor of morals. JS...

Ummm...I think that would be a point in my favour...JS...

 

[Indeependent]

Well, well. It looks like religion really isn't necessary to raise ethical children. According to an article for the LA Times, Vern L Bengtson, a professor at USC who has been doing a generational longitudinal study of families, has added secular families to his studies in recent years, when he discovered that non-religious demographics were growing. His findings are quite enlightening:

Many non-religious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the ‘religious’ parents in our study. The vast majority appeared to live goal-filled lives characterised by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose.

...non-religious family life is replete with its own sustaining moral values and enriching ethical precepts. Chief among those: rational problem solving, personal autonomy, independence of thought, avoidance of corporal punishment, a spirit of ‘questioning everything’ and, far above all, empathy.

For secular people, morality is predicated on one simple principle: empathetic reciprocity, widely known as the Golden Rule. Treating other people as you would like to be treated. It is an ancient, universal ethical imperative. And it requires no supernatural beliefs.

The results of such secular child-rearing are encouraging. Studies have found that secular teenagers are far less likely to care what the ‘cool kids’ think, or express a need to fit in with them, than their religious peers. When these teens mature into ‘godless’ adults, they exhibit less racism than their religious counterparts, according to a 2010 Duke University study. Many psychological studies show that secular grownups tend to be less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian and more tolerant, on average, than religious adults.​

So, it seems that we finally have actual data to dispel the myth that religion is necessary in order to instill ethical moral decision-making skills.

A Moral compass and ethics are two different things.
What's their moral compass and what is their set of ethics regarding the various issues in their lives?

Actually the "moral compass' was explained - empathy. That is the moral compass of non-religious morality. "Would I want this done to me?" Nothing more complicated than that. And no supernatural entity necessary.

And while we're at it, what is the moral compass of the theist? I mean, really? If it is not fear of punishment, or promise of reward, answer this: let us say that you have done all that you were expected, and you are on your way to Heaven. Now, just before you pass through the "Pearly Gates", you have the opportunity to give your "Gate Pass" to someone who just didn't quite make the cut. Do you do so, since, after all, getting to heaven wasn't really the reason for living a moral life, anyway? Who, among the theists, could honestly say "yes"?

Empathy...Abraham had that and God had to set him straight.
Abraham empathy was for the Sodomites who were selfish beyond the pale.


My moral compass is the Torah, not empathy.

Well, considering the God of the Torah also ordered Saul to commit genocide, you'll forgive me if I trust my moral compass more than yours. Now, I'm sure you are going to respond with some brilli9ant justification for what God demanded of Saul, but it still doesn't alter the fact that it was genocide.

Oh! I get it...God commanded the Jews to eliminate the nation of Amalek.
I guess you didn't look up what Amalek did.
I didn't think so.

 

[Weatherman2020]

I posted this awhile ago.
80% of the inmates in Angola prison are serving life sentences without the possibility of parole. Angola prison had been averaging 40 murders a year when the new warden stepped in. His first actions were to have everyone treated as if they were created in the image of God. All people should be treated with that dignity. No swearing by prisoners or guards was allowed. People who died in prison would get wooden coffins, not the cardboard that had been used.

The next step was to create Christian seminaries in the prison to teach people how God has reached out to them so that He may always be with them. Through private funding a Christian college and several chapels were built. Inmates are free to attend as they wish.

Today there are a number of prisoners who are now ordained Pastors. Most inmates now attend the college or services. Even Muslims attend. And Angola has gone from 40 murders a year to not one since 1996.

The Power of Christ Jesus

Of course it troubles you to see how Christ turns bad people into good people.

It doesn't trouble me at all. No where I'm my OP, nor in the link, nor in the study did I, nor did the Professor, suggest that religion does not promote morality, or ethics; only that theistic religion is not necessary to develop ethics, nor morality.

Strawman.
No one ever claimed there are no athiests who have above average morality.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Well, well. It looks like religion really isn't necessary to raise ethical children. According to an article for the LA Times, Vern L Bengtson, a professor at USC who has been doing a generational longitudinal study of families, has added secular families to his studies in recent years, when he discovered that non-religious demographics were growing. His findings are quite enlightening:

Many non-religious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the ‘religious’ parents in our study. The vast majority appeared to live goal-filled lives characterised by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose.

...non-religious family life is replete with its own sustaining moral values and enriching ethical precepts. Chief among those: rational problem solving, personal autonomy, independence of thought, avoidance of corporal punishment, a spirit of ‘questioning everything’ and, far above all, empathy.

For secular people, morality is predicated on one simple principle: empathetic reciprocity, widely known as the Golden Rule. Treating other people as you would like to be treated. It is an ancient, universal ethical imperative. And it requires no supernatural beliefs.

The results of such secular child-rearing are encouraging. Studies have found that secular teenagers are far less likely to care what the ‘cool kids’ think, or express a need to fit in with them, than their religious peers. When these teens mature into ‘godless’ adults, they exhibit less racism than their religious counterparts, according to a 2010 Duke University study. Many psychological studies show that secular grownups tend to be less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian and more tolerant, on average, than religious adults.​

So, it seems that we finally have actual data to dispel the myth that religion is necessary in order to instill ethical moral decision-making skills.

A Moral compass and ethics are two different things.
What's their moral compass and what is their set of ethics regarding the various issues in their lives?

Actually the "moral compass' was explained - empathy. That is the moral compass of non-religious morality. "Would I want this done to me?" Nothing more complicated than that. And no supernatural entity necessary.

And while we're at it, what is the moral compass of the theist? I mean, really? If it is not fear of punishment, or promise of reward, answer this: let us say that you have done all that you were expected, and you are on your way to Heaven. Now, just before you pass through the "Pearly Gates", you have the opportunity to give your "Gate Pass" to someone who just didn't quite make the cut. Do you do so, since, after all, getting to heaven wasn't really the reason for living a moral life, anyway? Who, among the theists, could honestly say "yes"?

Empathy...Abraham had that and God had to set him straight.
Abraham empathy was for the Sodomites who were selfish beyond the pale.


My moral compass is the Torah, not empathy.

Well, considering the God of the Torah also ordered Saul to commit genocide, you'll forgive me if I trust my moral compass more than yours. Now, I'm sure you are going to respond with some brilli9ant justification for what God demanded of Saul, but it still doesn't alter the fact that it was genocide.

Oh! I get it...God commanded the Jews to eliminate the nation of Amalek.
I guess you didn't look up what Amalek did.
I didn't think so.

They see no problem sacrificing babies by putting them on red hot iron.

 

[Czernobog]

Well, well. It looks like religion really isn't necessary to raise ethical children. According to an article for the LA Times, Vern L Bengtson, a professor at USC who has been doing a generational longitudinal study of families, has added secular families to his studies in recent years, when he discovered that non-religious demographics were growing. His findings are quite enlightening:

Many non-religious parents were more coherent and passionate about their ethical principles than some of the ‘religious’ parents in our study. The vast majority appeared to live goal-filled lives characterised by moral direction and sense of life having a purpose.

...non-religious family life is replete with its own sustaining moral values and enriching ethical precepts. Chief among those: rational problem solving, personal autonomy, independence of thought, avoidance of corporal punishment, a spirit of ‘questioning everything’ and, far above all, empathy.

For secular people, morality is predicated on one simple principle: empathetic reciprocity, widely known as the Golden Rule. Treating other people as you would like to be treated. It is an ancient, universal ethical imperative. And it requires no supernatural beliefs.

The results of such secular child-rearing are encouraging. Studies have found that secular teenagers are far less likely to care what the ‘cool kids’ think, or express a need to fit in with them, than their religious peers. When these teens mature into ‘godless’ adults, they exhibit less racism than their religious counterparts, according to a 2010 Duke University study. Many psychological studies show that secular grownups tend to be less vengeful, less nationalistic, less militaristic, less authoritarian and more tolerant, on average, than religious adults.​

So, it seems that we finally have actual data to dispel the myth that religion is necessary in order to instill ethical moral decision-making skills.

A Moral compass and ethics are two different things.
What's their moral compass and what is their set of ethics regarding the various issues in their lives?

Actually the "moral compass' was explained - empathy. That is the moral compass of non-religious morality. "Would I want this done to me?" Nothing more complicated than that. And no supernatural entity necessary.

And while we're at it, what is the moral compass of the theist? I mean, really? If it is not fear of punishment, or promise of reward, answer this: let us say that you have done all that you were expected, and you are on your way to Heaven. Now, just before you pass through the "Pearly Gates", you have the opportunity to give your "Gate Pass" to someone who just didn't quite make the cut. Do you do so, since, after all, getting to heaven wasn't really the reason for living a moral life, anyway? Who, among the theists, could honestly say "yes"?

Empathy...Abraham had that and God had to set him straight.
Abraham empathy was for the Sodomites who were selfish beyond the pale.


My moral compass is the Torah, not empathy.

Well, considering the God of the Torah also ordered Saul to commit genocide, you'll forgive me if I trust my moral compass more than yours. Now, I'm sure you are going to respond with some brilli9ant justification for what God demanded of Saul, but it still doesn't alter the fact that it was genocide.

Oh! I get it...God commanded the Jews to eliminate the nation of Amalek.
I guess you didn't look up what Amalek did.
I didn't think so.

Actually, no one, including the Jews, know what Amalek did. The first time they're mentioned is in Deut 25:17, and even then, all it says is, "Forget not what the Amalekites did to the Israelites". So, all we have is the God of the Torah insisting that Israelites despise Amalekites with their very being, and then commanding genocide, but you think the Torah is a brilliant moral compass. Like I said, I think I'll follow my epathy.