Don't need to be religious to know the difference between morally right or wrong?

[genie]

I have heard and read this expression from atheist's who argue you don't need to follow a  religion to know the difference between what is right or wrong thing to do or have morals.

I would strongly disagree because:

1) Without a good religion (such as sikhi) you could be indoctrinated to follow some other ideology which could tell you its ok to commit murder, rape, robbery against the person who isn't from your group.

2) What is right in one religion/ideology can be wrong in another.

E.g.slaughtering an animal in agnosing death then eating meeting its meat such as beef is perfectly fine in judaism/Islam. However in hinduism killing a cow is a sin and wrong and slaughtering animals inhumanely is wrong other non-abrahamic faiths.

E.g Its wrong in islam to worship more than 1 God other than arab pagan moon God Allah however in hinduism it's not wrong and you can worship millions of Gods.

3) Evolution theory which atheists look too for existence of everything see's no right or wrong when it comes to genociding/extincting whole species/races of people. Because its the survival of the fittest if your group is not strong enough to out compete those who are trying to undermine or harm you then you do not deserve to exist as per the evolution theory. It is only a firm adherence to sort of civilized belief systems, a religion that has kept humanity from destroying each other to the point of existence as was the case when modern humans fought with other human species (such as Neanderthals) where eventually those others died off due to genocide.

[Wicked Warrior]

If you look at Moses and the Ten Commandments, as an example, they state some things which you think would be obvious eg thou shalt not steal. 

We know stealing is wrong but only because we have been brought up that way. A child who does not know the concept of ownership (eg this toy belongs to that child) would struggle to understand that taking something that belongs to others is wrong. You would have to educate the child, and for that to happen, the parents would need to be aware  

Secondly, look at bani and how Guru Ji repeatedly tells us to naam jap. Guru Ji could have written it once. But Guru Ji does it repeatedly. Why? To reinforce the importance of the message. 

In both cases, by laying down some ground rules, you can live a morally good life.

Science developed as a way to know God. By being able to explain the world, it would help to know the mind of the Lord. Without religion, science would not have flourished. Would we have reached the point we have now? Even in this "Age of Information", people are still committing crimes. Clearly the laws of the land are insufficient in eradicating crime. 

[Not2Cool2Argue]

On ‎6‎/‎15‎/‎2018 at 11:11 AM, genie said:

I have heard and read this expression from atheist's who argue you don't need to follow a  religion to know the difference between what is right or wrong thing to do or have morals.

I would strongly disagree because:

1) Without a good religion (such as sikhi) you could be indoctrinated to follow some other ideology which could tell you its ok to commit murder, rape, robbery against the person who isn't from your group.

 

That is a good point. Such as incels now or school shooters in the USA. They think its right to take revenge for the harm they suffered, for their sadness. 

Also even with a good religion, ppl can be indoctrinated into a political ideology that allows us to commit murder and robbery from nongroup ppl.

Look at ISIS, 

And even some sikh fighters during 84 got so caught up in ideology that they forgot the religion. Like  the ppl who blew up Air India (even tho some say it was an indian set up. Its responsible to accept blame) or those who threatened  hindus (christiana mehmoud writes about a sikh, who set up bombs in hindu marketplaces just cuz they hindu and they hated Sikhs) or kidnapped children of high ranking officers. 

Ofc compared to other civil and guerilla wars, such as Balkans, isreal, etc Sikhs hardly killed any innocent civilians

 

[intrigued]

http://discoversikhism.com/sikhism/morals.html

Quote

Are Atheists and Theists Morally Equivalent?

Do people need God to be good? Daniel Dennett's 'Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon', Richard Dawkins's 'The God Delusion', Chris Hedges's 'American Fascists', all claim that theism is morally inferior to atheism.

Morality Among Atheists

The rise of the "New Atheism" has led to the claim by its major proponents that atheism is morally superior to theism and that the world would be better off if the entire population were composed only of atheists. A new study raises doubts about that claim.

Reginald W. Bibby, Board of Governors Research Chair in the Department of Sociology at the University of Lethbridge, Canada, shows that atheists rate several moral values less important than theists do.

Religion and morality

Theists are far more likely than atheists to be part of groups that work hard to instill values about being good to other people, and having good relationships. Two of the three main Sikh principles emphasize 1) an honest living, 2) to share with others via charity, etc. Many moral values are not emphasized in social circles dominated by atheists.

Importance of moral values

A survey of 1,600 Canadians asked them what were their beliefs about God and what moral values they considered to be "very important." The results of the survey are shown below:

Moral Values of Theists vs. Atheists

Moral Value	Theists	Atheists
Honesty	94%	89%
Kindness	88%	75%
Family life	88%	65%
Being loved	86%	70%
Friendship	85%	74%
Courtesy	81%	71%
Concern for others	82%	63%
Forgiveness	84%	52%
Politeness	77%	65%
Friendliness	79%	66%
Patience	72%	39%
Generosity	67%	37%

Although the differences between theists and atheists in the importance of values such as honesty, politeness, and friendliness are generally small, moral values emphasized by religious beliefs, such as Sikhism, including patience, forgiveness, and generosity exhibit major differences in attitudes (30%+ differences between theists and atheists).

What's really concernnig is that only half of atheists think that forgiveness is very important. Either these people have not been married or maybe married multiple times, since a lack of forgiveness in a marriage is a sure recipe for disaster. Couple that moral belief with a perception that neither patience nor generosity are very important, and it seems that the divorce rates are likely to go up significantly in the near future.

According to Professor Bibby, Grandma is the "symbolic saintly person in the clan. So valuing Grandma also means valuing many of the things important to her. In successive generations you have a lingering effect of morality. But further down the road generations get further removed from the sources of those values. That's where it gets tricky."

Conclusion

Religious philosopher and writer C.S. Lewis believed that the inner call to be good comes from a higher power that speaks to conscience.

Contrary to the claim of the "New Atheism," it seems that atheism leads to a decline in the perception of the importance of many personal moral values, especially those that have a big impact on interpersonal relationships. Since these new atheists are still being influenced by persons of traditional religious moral values, it seems likely that the importance of these values will diminish even further in the beliefs of the next generation of atheists.

According to Reginald Bibby, the author of the study, "To the extent that Canadians say good-bye to God, we may find that we pay a significant social price." In addition, a recent scientific study shows that a certain atheistic belief (determinism or lack of free will) negatively impacts moral behavior.

ਕੇਤੀਆ ਕਰਮ ਭੂਮੀ ਮੇਰ ਕੇਤੇ ਕੇਤੇ ਧੂ ਉਪਦੇਸ ॥ Keṯī▫ā karam bẖūmī mer keṯe keṯe ḏẖū upḏes.
So many worlds and lands for working out karma. So very many lessons to be learned!
Guru Nanak Sahib Ji (Sri Guru Granth Sahib, Ang 7)

 

[ChardikalaUK]

It depends on the religion. The old testament and quran have some barbaric verses that some people still try to justify today.

[GurjantGnostic]

3 hours ago, intrigued said:

http://discoversikhism.com/sikhism/morals.html

 

My mother was alive to see prayer removed from schools. She said she could see a difference in people almost immediately. When I was really young she told me sometimes you see a religous person, and you think... they're not the best person...she told me religion was probably the only thing keeping them good at all and an atheist is the same quality of person just with nothing to keep them good. 

[NaamTiharoJoJape]

37 minutes ago, GurjantGnostic said:

My mother was alive to see prayer removed from schools. She said she could see a difference in people almost immediately. When I was really young she told me sometimes you see a religous person, and you think... they're not the best person...she told me religion was probably the only thing keeping them good at all and an atheist is the same quality of person just with nothing to keep them good. 

But schools cannot administrate any of that unless you want to send your kids to a certain school 

It begins in the family 

Do what you want with your kids regarding their education (home school, sikh institution, etc.) But dont expect the public education system to implement a curriculum to accommodate any specific community, you get what I mean? 

 

[NaamTiharoJoJape]

Everyones moral compass is different, and everyones moral priorities are different. Kindness, forgiveness, and all that is good but the eradication of discrimination and tyranny would be more important (although one can argue the former qualities are integral to achieving these, but more people would agree that killing someone is far bigger moral issue than having to greet your neighbor everyday) 

These things are up to the individual, you get what I mean 

[GurjantGnostic]

1 hour ago, NaamTiharoJoJape said:

But schools cannot administrate any of that unless you want to send your kids to a certain school 

It begins in the family 

Do what you want with your kids regarding their education (home school, sikh institution, etc.) But dont expect the public education system to implement a curriculum to accommodate any specific community, you get what I mean? 

 

Schools can't force any one type of prayer. In the united states for example we respect all relgions supposedly. Nobody complains it says In God We Trust on the money when they spend it. God is written into our founding documents.  A period could be held every morning still where students are invited to pray, meditate, or remain quiet and focus. It's supposed to be all religions equal not no religion. 

The military provides services for a variety of religions with different chaplains. You can go to your group or you can go learn about someone elses. There's no reason federal schools can't do the same as federal armed forces. 

To remove God from all things is enforced Atheism. Which is not constitutional or in spirit with the founding documents of this country. 

[NaamTiharoJoJape]

6 hours ago, GurjantGnostic said:

Schools can't force any one type of prayer. In the united states for example we respect all relgions supposedly. Nobody complains it says In God We Trust on the money when they spend it. God is written into our founding documents.  A period could be held every morning still where students are invited to pray, meditate, or remain quiet and focus. It's supposed to be all religions equal not no religion. 

The military provides services for a variety of religions with different chaplains. You can go to your group or you can go learn about someone elses. There's no reason federal schools can't do the same as federal armed forces. 

To remove God from all things is enforced Atheism. Which is not constitutional or in spirit with the founding documents of this country. 

supposedly, we get breaks during which we can use for things you mentioned

and we have time at home as well, why allocate the time we have school  to things we can best do in private