<p>
I think most people figure out early on that if they’re not nice to others then others won’t be nice to them. People with no religious training or even kids too young to understand anything about religion have figured this one out.
I don’t think religion is a requirement for something as basic as this. OTOH, religion can be used as a basis to ‘not’ be nice to other people since some religions have taught intolerance for others.</p>
<p>I’m with edad. One look at history tells us that humans are not predisposed to be “nice to each other.” Selfishness has, and always will, rule the day in the battle between good and evil. Organized religion gives people a framework within which to strive to be “good.” In this regard, imo, it tips the balance toward helping, rather than hindering, civilization. And it’s disingenuous to suggest that the majority of human misfortune has been caused by organized religion.</p>
<p>Without a God what or who defines what it means to be “nice” or “good” or “righteous”</p>
<p>whisterler, you are making the exact argument that bolsters the prejudice against atheists, that somehow atheists can’t be good, and some how God believers are</p>
<p>Religion is often VERY selfish…the attitude ot forgiveness from God is a selfish concept at its core</p>
<p>So is the after life idea</p>
<p>and much of human misfortune is from organized religion- and there in lies the problem- doing something in the name of God that hurts others…hmmmm</p>
<p>And if you are ONLY nice to people because of God- is it fear or because you want something- either way, being nice to please God is a way of helping yourself in some cases- if that is why you are nice, then again pretty selfish</p>
<p>many atheists are nice and good because they are</p>
<p>and many religious people are cruel and hateful because they are</p>
<p>no one has a lock on either</p>
<p>"Without a God what or who defines what it means to be “nice” or “good” or “righteous”</p>
<p>Merriam-Webster.com</p>
<p>So the question stil stands without a God what or who defines what it means to be “nice” or “good” or “righteous”?</p>
<p>Isit Merriam-webster.com? What if dictionary.com has a different definition and that one suits me better?</p>
<p>Those who do evil in the name of religion, in my estimation, are actually moving away from religion.</p>
<p>In Judaism there is no hell. There is only Gan Eden. (Garden of Eden/“Heaven”). Gan Eden is not a reason to do good, it is a reward for doing good. My days in yeshiva have long past, but in Judaism the soul has a mission to complete. The soul transcends people’s lives and continues until the mission is fulfilled. Then the soul goes back to God. How does Gan Eden fits in? I don’ t remember. But posting this has sparked my interest. I will find out and if its interesting or relevent enough I will tell you.</p>
<p>but do you think anyone any be good if they don’t believe in a God or Gods?</p>
<p>Absolutely I do.</p>
<p>Niceness - I hit you and in turn you hit me. It hurts. I learn that if I don’t hit you then you don’t hit me. Now no hurt. I don’t see why the basics of ‘being nice’ to each other is incomprehensible sans religion.</p>
<p>I don’t think the argument that without religion everybody would treat each other horribly holds any water.</p>
<p>“I don’t think the argument that without religion everybody would treat each other horribly holds any water.”</p>
<p>I agree with you ucsd<em>ucla</em>dad.</p>
<p>That does not change nor answer my original question of without a God what or who defines what it means to be “nice” or “good” or “righteous”?</p>
<p>As promised I looked up the whole soul-Gan Eden thing. This is a view from Judaism. It does not have terribly to much relevnce to this conversation. I felt that this was interesting though so I decied to share it with you.</p>
<p>"Kabbalah explains that the soul is comprised of 613 channels, which parallel the 248 limbs and 365 blood Vessels of the body. These 613 channels attain eternal elevation when all 613 Mitzvot are fulfilled by a soul in its earthly descent.</p>
<p>Usually a soul does not manage to fulfill all the commandments in one descent, and the Arizal writes that every soul must be repeatedly reincarnated until it has fulfilled all 613 Mitzvot in thought, speech, and action. In the previous chapter, the notion of purification through Gehinom was introduced.</p>
<p>Here the soul is cleansed in order to be elevated to the Garden of Eden. How is this concept reconciled with the possibility of reincarnation and a return to our world? The Kabbalists explain that when a soul returns to this world, the part of the soul that was elevated by its Torah learning and Mitzvah performance is not reincarnated, rather it is only the other parts of the soul that were not affected by the first incarnation that return. The possibility of a soul being divided and part of a soul being reincarnated is discussed at length in Kabbalah. The original idea stems from the fact that the soul of Adam was composed of all future souls, and the soul of Jacob was comprised of 70 parts which were then further subdivided into the 600,000 souls of Israel. These 600,000 were then subdivided further into another 600,000. Through various reincarnations all parts of the soul are elevated and once the entire soul has been elevated the soul is no longer reincarnated. This explains the strange phenomena of why certain people engage in a specific Mitzvah in which they excel. It could be that the person’s soul descended again for sake of that specific Mitzvah.</p>
<p>Souls may also be reincarnated to complete a certain task, repay a debt, or rectify a sin. In fact the concept of reincarnation as rectification for sin is well documented by the Kabbalists."</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.chabad.org%5B/url%5D”>www.chabad.org</a></p>
<p>If Christians are “nice to people” because it saves them from hell, they’re not very nice people–they’re doing it for their own selfish reasons.</p>
<p>My H and I are both atheists and we love being nice to people. It’s for the joy it gives us, not the promise of brownie points. Being nice to people gives me a feeling of connectedness to life. Maybe it’s my “belief system” to try to spread kindness. People are plants, and it feels good to “water” them with kindness. </p>
<p>Oh, and sometimes I’m a real jerk and selfish and judgmental. But overall, I notice I feel happier when I’m kind.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone said that.</p>
<p>Ever wonder why, for example, preschool and kindergarten teachers spend so much time teaching children to share? Sharing is a value that must be taught to human beings–as are all of the values we associate with being “good.”</p>
<p>Everyday, I commute an hour each way in heavy traffic. It is interesting to watch other drivers. I would classify about 20% of drivers as aggressive. They cutoff other drivers, change lanes ten times in a mile, and fight for every inch of progress. None of this makes much sense, because the aggressive driver is not able to gain much in heavy traffic. It seems that the aggressive driver is just out to win. By the way, I have also noticed that this does not seem to be some testosterone-induced, male characteristic. I see a large number of aggressive women drivers. There is also another 10 or 20% of drivers who are timid and drive slower than everyone else. These are the ones to watch out for. Some may be timid by nature but others may just have poor eyesight or poor reflexes. For many of them, 10 mph under the speed limit is still too fast and they belong on the side roads or better not driving at all.</p>
<p>Whether on the road or in life, people clearly differ a lot in being nice to others. It would be interesting to do a survey and see if the aggressive drivers are less religious. I doubt there would be much of a connection. So why do most people feel happier when they are kind? Is is genetic or part of our environment and culture? Can we teach our children to be kind and to understand “right” and “wrong” or are these largely innate?</p>
<p>There are many philosophical treatises on morality, goodness and happiness which are devoid of a religious foundation. Aristotle’s Eqikh Nikomacoi (Nicomachean Ethics) which I studied in college comes immediately to mind.</p>
<p>**From the King James Version: **And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.</p>
<p>**From bible.com: **The Hebrew for man (adam) sounds like and may be related to the Hebrew for ground (adamah) it is also the name “Adam.”</p>
<p>**From aish.com: ***In addition to his material self, however, man possesses a soul which is unique among all of God’s creations. In describing the creation of Adam, the Torah says, “God formed man out of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils a soul-breath of life (Nishmat Chaim). Man [thus] became a living creature (Nefesh Chaya)” (Genesis 2:7).</p>
<p>The Torah is teaching us that the human soul came directly from God’s innermost Essence in the same way that a breath issues forth from a person’s lungs and chest cavity. The rest of creation, on the other hand, was created with speech, which is a lower level, for just as sound waves are generated by a person but do not contain any air from the lungs, so the rest of creation emanates from God’s Power but not from His Essence.</p>
<p>The soul consists of three parts which are called by the Hebrew names, nefesh, ruach and neshama. The word neshama is a cognate of nesheema, which means literally “breath.” Ruach means “wind.” Nefesh comes from the root nafash, meaning “rest,” as in the verse, “On the seventh day, [God] ceased work and rested (nafash).” (Exodus 31:17).</p>
<p>God’s exhaling a soul can be compared to a glassblower forming a vessel. The breath (neshama) first leaves his lips, travels as a wind (ruach) and finally comes to rest (nefesh) in the vessel. Of these three levels of the soul, neshama is therefore the highest and closes to God, while nefesh is that aspect of the soul residing in the body. Ruach stands between the two, binding man to his spiritual Source. It is for this reason that Divine Inspiration is called Ruach HaKodesh in Hebrew.</p>
<p>The neshama is affected only by thought, the ruach by speech, and the nefesh by action.*</p>
<p>One interpretation of the creation of man is that until this “breath of life” or “soul-breath,” man was an entity without a soul, indistinguishable from all of the other animals. The “creation” in this case refers to that moment in time when a human got the ability to think not only of just himself, but others as well. Defining a soul in this way takes care of some sticky issues - for example, where did the sons of Adam and Eve find wives?</p>
<p>There is no doubt that a human’s ability to give up some of their own creature comforts and safety to help another human (or, one might say, “kindness”) <em>is</em> something higher than just animal instincts.</p>
<p>But on the other hand, you don’t need religion to explain this evolutionary outcome of humans: <a href=“http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html[/url]”>http://www.atheists.org/Atheism/mind.html</a></p>
<p>So without God who or what defines “nice” “good” “kind” “righteouss”?</p>
<p>The question has yet to be answered.</p>
<p>Perhaps religious people do good because they believe it truly is the right thing to do and because they do good they are rewarded?</p>
<p>I again can unfortunately only use Judaism as an example: Take the act of charity. Charity is a mitzvah. Everyone has heard that word before and associates it with good deed. But to clarify a mitzvah is a commandment so the act of charity is not merely a good deed but a commandmant. So lets take the commadnment of charity. To fullfill it, it is not merely enough to come and throw money at somebody with disgust and pain that you are giving away your money. You have to give the money with happiness that you are helping somebody else. But wait. I used the word charity. The Jewish law however commands tzedakkah, which does not mean charity, but justice or righteousness. You giving money is not merely charity but it is justice, it something you have to do.</p>
<p>Religion is not a simple things, my friends. From my expeience it is a very complex thing. I mentioned charity. Instead of lambasting religion and religious people, read the following:
DISCLAIMER: I am not trying to convince anyone to be Jewish or religious. Religion was under attack in this thread and I would like to post a religions view on doing good, merely for the sake of discussion.</p>
<p>Jews don’t believe in charity.</p>
<p>Don’t be misled by their legendary philanthropy, by their saturation of social and humanitarian movements, by their invention of the pushkah, the meshulach and the UJA. Jews do not practice charity, and the concept is virtually non-existent in Jewish tradition.</p>
<p>Instead of charity, the Jew gives tzedakah, which means “righteousness” and “justice.” When the Jew contributes his money, time and resources to the needy, he is not being benevolent, generous or “charitable.” He is doing what is right and just.</p>
<hr>
<p>The story is told of a wealthy chassid who once received a letter from his rebbe, Rabbi Abraham Yehoshua Heshel of Apt, requesting him to give 200 rubles to save a fellow chassid from financial ruin. The wealthy chassid regularly contributed to his rebbe’s charitable activities, but this particular letter arrived at a financially inconvenient time and contained a request for an exceptionally large sum; after some deliberation, the chassid decided not to respond to the Rebbe’s request.</p>
<p>Shortly thereafter, the chassid’s fortunes began to fall. One business venture failed badly, and then another; before long he had lost everything.</p>
<p>“Rebbe,” he cried, when he had gained admittance to Rabbi Abraham Yehoshua’s room, “I know why this has happened to me. But was my sin so terrible to deserve so severe a punishment? And is it right to punish without warning? If you would have told me how important it was to give those 200 rubles, I would have carried out your instructions to the letter!”</p>
<p>“But you haven’t been punished in any way,” replied the Rebbe.</p>
<p>“What do you mean? All my wealth has been taken from me!”</p>
<p>“Nothing that was yours was taken from you,” said the Rebbe. “You see, when my soul came down to earth, a certain amount of material resources were allotted to me for use in my work. However, my days and nights are taken up with prayer, the study and teaching of Torah, and counseling those who come to me for guidance; leaving no time for the task of managing all that money. So these resources were placed in the trust of a number of “bankers” – people who would recognize their duty to support my work. When you failed to carry out your role, my account with you was transferred to another banker.”</p>
<hr>
<p>In our world, so flagrantly – and oftimes violently – dichotomized by prosperity and poverty, there exist two general perspectives on wealth and property:</p>
<p>a) That these are the rightful possession of those who earned or inherited them. If they choose to share even a small a part of their possessions with others, this is a noble act, worthy of praise and acclaim.</p>
<p>b) That the unequal distribution of the earth’s resources among its inhabitants is a travesty. Owning more than one’s share is an injustice, even a crime. Giving to the needy is not a “good deed” but the rectification of a wrong.</p>
<p>Jewish tradition rejects both these views. According to Torah law, giving to the needy is a mitzvah – a commandment and a good deed. This means that, on the one hand, it is not an arbitrary act, but a duty and an obligation. On the other hand, it is a good deed – a credit to the one who recognizes his duty and carries out his obligation.</p>
<p>The Jew believes that material wealth is not a crime, but a blessing from G-d. One who has so been blessed should regard himself as G-d’s “banker” – one who is privileged to have been entrusted by the Creator with the role of dispensing the resources of His creation to others.</p>
<p>G-d could have allotted equal portions of His world to all its inhabitants. But then the world would have been nothing more than a showpiece of G-d’s creative powers, predictable as a computer game and static as a museum display. G-d wanted a dynamic world – a world in which man, too, is a creator and provider. A world in which the controls have, to a certain extent, been handed over to beings who have the power to choose between fulfilling or reneging on their role.</p>
<p>Thus Jewish law requires every individual to give tzedakah, even one who is himself sustained by the tzedakah of others. If the purpose of tzedakah were merely to rectify the unequal distribution of wealth between rich and poor, this law would make no sense. Tzedakah, however, is much more than that: it is the opportunity granted to every person to become a “partner with G-d in creation.”</p>
<p>Giving tzedakah is, above all, a humbling experience. Before us stands a human being less fortunate than ourselves. We know that G-d could have just as easily provided him with everything he requires, instead of sending him to us for his needs. Here is a person who is suffering poverty in order to provide us with the opportunity to do a G-dly deed!</p>
<p>By the same token, if divine providence places us on the receiving end of a charitable act, we need not be demoralized by the experience. For we know that G-d could have just as easily provided us with all that we need Himself, and that our need for human aid is merely in order to grant another person the ability to do a G-dly deed. Our “benefactor” is giving us money or some other resource; we are giving him something far greater the opportunity to become a partner with G-d in creation.</p>
<p>In the words of our sages: “More than the rich man does for the pauper, the pauper does for the rich man.”</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.chabad.org%5B/url%5D”>www.chabad.org</a></p>
<p>Please note, no reward in an afterlife is being talked of…</p>
<p>Yup, that whole soul/spirit thing is intriguing. Too bad there are so many problems with the soul/spirit myths. No wonder the fundamentalist Christians have such a tough time with evolution. If God breathed a soul into man, when did that happen? Did just homo sapiens get a soul, or did the Neanderthals, or their predeccesors? Did ancestors of the monkeys have souls? Perhaps some of the primitive and Eastern religions had a better understanding and even inanimate objects have souls/spirits. Once the soul idea gets too diluted, the meaning becomes a bit nebulous. Maybe that is also a good thing. We don’t want religious beliefs to get constrained by a scientific view of reality.</p>
<p>By the way, I enjoyed today’s comic strip, Hagar the Horrible. It is about being nice to others. Perhaps someone can post an internet link; I will just describe it. Cell 1 has a monk lecturing Hagar: “My son, only ill-mannered ruffians resort to physical force to get what they want!” Cell 2 has Hagar staring at the monk. In Cell 3, Hagar finally responds: “So what’s your point?”</p>
<p>At least in a comic strip, we can laugh at those with different views of being “nice.”</p>
<p>what is interesting is htat early Christians believed in reincarnation, it was in the bible, and was from the Jewish traditions</p>
<p>Constantine changed Christianity to suit his political needs</p>
<p>SO the whole soul heaven hell rebirth, reincarnation was all switched around by men who had their own ideas</p>
<p>It is fascianting read about early Christians and the changes made to “god’s word” to suit the times</p>
<p>and the Soul is a pretty bit topic to be flip floppig on</p>
<p>I am not sure how Christianity works, but is there not, hereshoping you can help me ou here, room for “changing” god’s word in accordance with god’s word itself. So by changing these tenets they were acting in God’s will. Furthemore, does believing in a god, for instance make it harder to change his word than switching from Altruism to Objectivism for instance.</p>