NationStates Jolt Archive

Before everybody dives in with their ideas, I'd like to point a few things out:

- Morality and moral codes existed long before today's major religions did

- Every major religion has a well-thought-out moral code, not just Christianity.

- Are people really being Moral if they only "do the right thing" because they're afraid of Hell?

- It's rare to find Atheists in prisons, at least in North America.

Religion is an excellent way to deliver morality, however, most atheists, particularily those who forsaked their religion, should not require religous dogma to behave properly. I am an atheist who shares many of my values with that of Christianity, not because i believe that they are simply the right thing to do, but because i understand the logic in exercising self control. Pleasures of the body are all very addictive and can easily cause one's logic to be obscured, expecially when there isnt a definite outlet of some kind to ensure that you will be allowed to remain sane and controlled...

I know plenty of good-hearted atheists. But I know even more wicked christians.

Nobody is perfect. We are all sinners.

Unfortunately its true that no amount of belief or dogma might make a sufficiently unintelligent person behave in a sane manner. Not to mention perfectly intelligent people who lack the wisdom and insight to realize the logic behind the practices of self-restraint on which civilization stands. Discipline over oneself is ultimately the only way we can be truly free, otherwise there will always need to be a greater authority to enforce this

Wowie...14 votes ALL AGREEING FOR ONCE!

Someone needs to Prt Scr this!

Wowie...14 votes ALL AGREEING FOR ONCE!

Someone needs to Prt Scr this!

the poll should include an option for people who think that only those who don't subscribe to superstition are moral. i would be interested to see the results.

the poll should include an option for people who think that only those who don't subscribe to superstition are moral.

Are you including mainstream religions in your definition of "Superstition"?

the poll should include an option for people who think that only those who don't subscribe to superstition are moral.

Are you including mainstream religions in your definition of "Superstition"?At a guess I'd say she is.

Speaking as a Christian, I will say that an aetheist is moral as long as they follow 7 of the 10 Commandments:

Honor Thy Father and Mother.
Thou Shall Not Kill.
Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery.
Thou Shall Not Steal.
Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness (Lie).
Thou Shall Not Covet the Goods of Another.
Thou Shall Not Covet the Spouse of Another.

Obviously, an aetheist wouldn't touch the first three commandments with a ten foot pole:

I am your One True God; therefore Thou Shall Not Worship Others.
Thou Shall Not Use the Lord's Name in Vain.
Thou Shall Keep Holy the Sabbath.

Religion has existed since prehistoric times. Some deep roots, such as those in Chinese religion, may tap this source directly.

Morality means doing the right thing, or it means nothing. A person who is totally relativist in his or her thinking cannot have this as a goal; they can tear ideas down but cannot offer any positive direction. Of course there are relativists on both sides of this division.


My feeling is that, all other things being equal, a person benefits from a spiritual dimension because it brings them out of themselves and puts them more in touch with the universe which exceeds our comprehension.
Theism is not required, Buddhists are not theists yet are quite spiritual. Something beyond the four walls of the self, though, something that D.H. Lawrence called "not I, verily not I" is needed for our wholeness.

Some people find it in poetry, music, or sexual love. The transendent.

I disapprove of Bottle's stance.

Discriminating against any religion or considering any religion superior to another is not to be done. Doing such will place hatred and prejudice over reason. Atheism is not a religion, but in this sense it should be treated as one. I pity people who believe dogmatically in what i feel to be falsehood but i do not enforce this or believe them to be stupid due to this. Limited perhaps but certainly not impaired. Many of the most intelligent religious types probably view me in this manner as well. My respect goes out to them.

Antoinasia Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:58 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking as a Christian, I will say that an aetheist is moral as long as they follow 7 of the 10 Commandments:

Honor Thy Father and Mother.
Thou Shall Not Kill.
Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery.
Thou Shall Not Steal.
Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness (Lie).
Thou Shall Not Covet the Goods of Another.
Thou Shall Not Covet the Spouse of Another.

Obviously, an aetheist wouldn't touch the first three commandments with a ten foot pole:

I am your One True God; therefore Thou Shall Not Worship Others.
Thou Shall Not Use the Lord's Name in Vain.
Thou Shall Keep Holy the Sabbath.

to bring this into account i would guess that you believe in "god" and the bible but how can you take this to be the truth when you can look at other religions adn see all kinds of parellels such as jesus and hercules in greek mythology and there are a ton of things that are written in the bible that if you were to look at philosophy you could see the same things written in differnt text

Antoinasia Posted: Mon Apr 12, 2004 8:58 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking as a Christian, I will say that an aetheist is moral as long as they follow 7 of the 10 Commandments:

Honor Thy Father and Mother.
Thou Shall Not Kill.
Thou Shall Not Commit Adultery.
Thou Shall Not Steal.
Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness (Lie).
Thou Shall Not Covet the Goods of Another.
Thou Shall Not Covet the Spouse of Another.

Obviously, an aetheist wouldn't touch the first three commandments with a ten foot pole:

I am your One True God; therefore Thou Shall Not Worship Others.
Thou Shall Not Use the Lord's Name in Vain.
Thou Shall Keep Holy the Sabbath.

to bring this into account i would guess that you believe in "god" and the bible but how can you take this to be the truth when you can look at other religions adn see all kinds of parellels such as jesus and hercules in greek mythology and there are a ton of things that are written in the bible that if you were to look at philosophy you could see the same things written in differnt text

Hmm, one vote versus the rest. That's kind of interesting. But like you said. Moral standards HAD to exist before a lot of the religions came out.

"God is dead." Nietszche

Many Christians roast him for stating this because they take it literally. When he says "God is dead." he means it in so far as... "God is dead as a vehicle for progress". When mankind was young, he needed direction...

Back to the main point. Man has come far enough to create his own moral code thus killing the need for God and his instruction manual known as the bible. We can debate this but my point is self-evident in the fact that hundreds of thousands of atheists live day to day in just as moral (or more so) a fashion as their Christian contemporaries.

I think the question that needs to be answered in this vote is: What are morals and what is their source?

Without answering this question you are not truly landing decidedly on one side of the issue or the other.

Morality doesn't need religion.

Read Bishop John Berkleys Godless Morality if you want to take a Clergymans take on why it is important to keep religion and morality seperated.

Although religious practice does influence the basic flow and evolution of morality, its becoming almost defuct in modern times. It is easier to take a Moral standpoint from none religious then religious grounds - as explained in Thomas Paine's Age of Reason. Moral arguements based on 'Revelation' can be viewed as second hand information and are little consequence to an athetist, whereas a logical idea, ie Murder is wrong because it deprises someone of their right to a free life, can be argued very easily between atheists through to more extreme factions of religion, as a social neccessity. It also aviods the gaps between some religous and the 'my gods better then yours, cause mine real' arguements that sometimes seperate religous groups.

Morals must be accepted as social norms before they have any real effect on society, as none religious arguement can potentially be far more reaching then religous, it is better to have a secular morality then a theological one.

And I've never seen Atheists start holy wars...

It is my perogative, that while atheists may have morals when it fits their agenda, they are less consistent, because they lack the genuine zeal for doing right. Because, to them, life is one big joke, with no standard to live up to, only the half baked teachings of an inheritly evil society.
Such is my warped perogative.

And I've never seen Atheists start holy wars...

...or think paradise awaits them as a reward for "martyring" themselves with suicide bombs.

I think the question that needs to be answered in this vote is: What are morals and what is their source?

The source of morality is humanity, and religions are often the vehicle for teaching and enforcing morality.

Hmm, one vote versus the rest. That's kind of interesting. But like you said. Moral standards HAD to exist before a lot of the religions came out.

I disagree. Religion is as primeval as anything in society. It has biological roots, and serves social survival. How does morality predate society itself?

On another note, while atheists by definition do not start holy wars, atheistic ideologues have started many unholy ones.

Religion defines a society's moral code. Or, in another way, society's moral code defines religion. Roman gods were deities of passion and lust, defining the Romans lifestyle. Judaism is filled with commandments and rules, in a very structured and ordered society. With an atheist, morals are based more on their experiences with people they hae met. No one has a perfect moral code, it's all relative

of course atheists can be moral people. and i also know alot of religious people who are just plain asses.

but as my sophomore bible teacher said,

"there are plenty of good people going to hell"

Hitler was an Atheist.

Religion has very little to do with morality on a practical scale.
If it did, there would be very few Christians in prisons right now wouldnt there?
Being a decent person is not an issue of wether or not you attend any sort of Church, it is a matter of how you conduct yourself in your day to day life.
I have only met 3 Christians who honestly "practiced what they preached" and none of them were the sort of person to imply that they were better than any athiest.

I disapprove of Bottle's stance.

Discriminating against any religion or considering any religion superior to another is not to be done. Doing such will place hatred and prejudice over reason. Atheism is not a religion, but in this sense it should be treated as one. I pity people who believe dogmatically in what i feel to be falsehood but i do not enforce this or believe them to be stupid due to this. Limited perhaps but certainly not impaired. Many of the most intelligent religious types probably view me in this manner as well. My respect goes out to them.

huh? my "stance"? i just said i would be interested to see the results of such a poll option...so are you saying that you disagree that i am interested in those results? because that's a bit silly, if you'll pardon me for saying so.

and just to clarify: I AM NOT AN ATHEIST. i have stated that many times on the forums, but there still seems to be some confusion on that front. i believe atheism is a path of faith as much as religious belief is, and as such i cannot embrace it. i still respect people who chose to make what i believe are the wrong choices in matters of faith, and i don't mean to imply that i personally think they are bad people or any such thing.

Speaking as a Christian, I will say that an aetheist is moral as long as they follow 7 of the 10 Commandments:
...

Thou Shall Not Covet the Goods of Another.
Thou Shall Not Covet the Spouse of Another.


i dunno, i covet things all the time...i mean, my neighbor has an X-box and a smokin' girlfriend; can God really blame me for coveting the hell out of that stuff?

the poll should include an option for people who think that only those who don't subscribe to superstition are moral.

Are you including mainstream religions in your definition of "Superstition"?
i don't see how they are different from any other sort of superstition.

I must say I do indeed covet my neighbour's ass.

*innocent*

I must say I do indeed covet my neighbour's ass.

straight to hell with you. God specifically said no ass-coveting is allowed.

:(

Damn you God! Damn you!

I see no reason for religion to be necessary for a person to be moral. I consider myself a moral and good person and I don't do the things I do because God or anyone else wants me to. I do what I believe is the right thing to do because it is the right thing to do. There's no better reason than that.

By the way, I also think it would be interesting if there was an option in the poll that said atheists are more moral.

How few Christian fundamentalists such as myself must exist anymore... I believe all morality, all of it, comes directly from God, and immorality directly from Satan and from our own sins. The reason why atheists may be moral without being religious is because they have adapted the morality of our world so as not to seem out of place or deviant, since atheists are a minority in this world. In other words, they follow common law so as not to be punished, so they are indirectly moral. Can anyone honestly say that an athesit world would be superior in any way to a theist one? Where would the hope of salvation be? Where would mankind's motivation come from? Who would we thank for our daily gifts?

Hitler was an Atheist.

Hitler was not an atheist; he was a Roman Catholic, and was actually deeply religious, even considering becoming a monk when he was younger. Hitler's germany amalgamated church and state; Nazi germany was a very christian country. Note that anti-jewish sentiment was very common in Hitler's day, and even remained in catholic liturgy until the early sixties.


As for morals, they simply serve as guidelines for behaviour, and do not require religion. Humans are a social species, and survival is not an individual thing, but something we work as a community to achieve. Thus, morals are simply labels for the social behaviours we have developed in order to survive. Even the most primitive humans could see that if everyone spent their whole time robbing and killing each other, survival chances and quality of life were poor. Not to mention the fact that humans gain a great deal of pleasure from interacting with each other, and this is rather impossible where everyone is being anti-social.

Also, I wouldn't quote the old testament as a good source for moral advice, since it prescribes public execution by stoning for just about everything. If your son disobeys you and is lazy, drag him into the village square and batter him to death with blunt objects!

to bring this into account i would guess that you believe in "god" and the bible but how can you take this to be the truth when you can look at other religions adn see all kinds of parellels such as jesus and hercules in greek mythology and there are a ton of things that are written in the bible that if you were to look at philosophy you could see the same things written in differnt text

The fact that there are parallels in other religions actually can serve to increase faith in your own. After all, if you were told that there were 1000 religions in the world and 999 of them were totally wrong and only 1 was absolutely right, would you believe it? It makes much more sense to take the stance that (a) no one has everything right and (b) all religions have some things right, but some are closer than others. Or, you could take the atheist standpoint.

Either way though, you don't have to be a religious person to have morals that you hold very dear. And to the person who said atheists see life as a joke, I wonder how many atheists you have known. The atheists I have known see life as anything but a joke, as they view it as all they have. It is not uncommon for an atheist to value life much more than a religious person who believes they have something to look forward to afterwards.

Can anyone honestly say that an athesit world would be superior in any way to a theist one?

perhaps; i don't see any reason why it would be inferior in any way.


Where would the hope of salvation be?


in a secular world there would be no need or desire for salvation. i don't want or need salvation, and i find my life quite fulfilling and enjoyable.


Where would mankind's motivation come from?

life, love, passion, intellect, wherever...i have never understood why people can find motivation in superstition or fables, myself. how can mankind have any motivation other than that which it creates for itself? no God is necessary for motivation, as evidenced by the numerous brilliant acheivers who reject religious faith.


Who would we thank for our daily gifts?

ourselves, our fortune, our planet, our loved ones...we would thank the actual source of "daily gifts" rather than giving credit to an unknown entity that may or may not exist.

The fact that there are parallels in other religions actually can serve to increase faith in your own. After all, if you were told that there were 1000 religions in the world and 999 of them were totally wrong and only 1 was absolutely right, would you believe it? It makes much more sense to take the stance that (a) no one has everything right and (b) all religions have some things right, but some are closer than others.

This is likely to do with the fact that most religions evolved from a common ancestor, rather like languages. Christianity is to Islam as English is to French, and so on. Also, there is their tendency to influence each other. I don't know what point I'm trying to make, I'm just saying stuff...

And I apologise to any muslims for comparing your religion to french ;)

How few Christian fundamentalists such as myself must exist anymore... I believe all morality, all of it, comes directly from God, and immorality directly from Satan and from our own sins. The reason why atheists may be moral without being religious is because they have adapted the morality of our world so as not to seem out of place or deviant, since atheists are a minority in this world. In other words, they follow common law so as not to be punished, so they are indirectly moral.

Having actually known atheists (which you apparently have not), I can say that most of what you have written here is a bunch of bull. I also believe that morals come from God, but I also believe that most humans have an inherent sense of right and wrong.

Unfortunately, it is many of the people with religious views on morals that tend to do the right thing not because they want to, but because "God will send you to hell if you don't" or because "God will send you to heaven if you do". It is a carrot-stick type of mentality. Atheists (and some religious people), on the other hand, tend to do the right thing just because it is the right thing. They don't expect heaven or hell, they just want to do what they believe is right here in the only life they believe they will have.

In other words, they follow common law so as not to be punished, so they are indirectly moral.

Just like all the fundamentalist christians who follow common law so as to avoid hellfire, then.

Unfortunately, it is many of the people with religious views on morals that tend to do the right thing not because they want to, but because "God will send you to hell if you don't" or because "God will send you to heaven if you do". It is a carrot-stick type of mentality. Atheists (and some religious people), on the other hand, tend to do the right thing just because it is the right thing. They don't expect heaven or hell, they just want to do what they believe is right here in the only life they believe they will have.
YES. that is one of my primary complaints with religiously-based morality; it tends to stall people at a very childlike level of moral understanding, the basic punishment/reward system. people just do what will keep them out of hell, rather than understanding the full ramifications of actions and chosing to do the right thing out of conscious choice. i don't believe that counts as moral action, i think it's just a sort of null answer that is neither moral nor immoral.

In other words, they follow common law so as not to be punished, so they are indirectly moral.

Just like all the fundamentalist christians who follow common law so as to avoid hellfire, then.

you beat me to it :).

How few Christian fundamentalists such as myself must exist anymore... I believe all morality, all of it, comes directly from God, and immorality directly from Satan and from our own sins. The reason why atheists may be moral without being religious is because they have adapted the morality of our world so as not to seem out of place or deviant, since atheists are a minority in this world. In other words, they follow common law so as not to be punished, so they are indirectly moral.

Having actually known atheists (which you apparently have not), I can say that most of what you have written here is a bunch of bull. I also believe that morals come from God, but I also believe that most humans have an inherent sense of right and wrong.

Unfortunately, it is many of the people with religious views on morals that tend to do the right thing not because they want to, but because "God will send you to hell if you don't" or because "God will send you to heaven if you do". It is a carrot-stick type of mentality. Atheists (and some religious people), on the other hand, tend to do the right thing just because it is the right thing. They don't expect heaven or hell, they just want to do what they believe is right here in the only life they believe they will have.

Exactly. I live here and now in this world, so my primary concern is to make it a good place. I can affect what happens here because I live and exist here. Every good action people take in their life makes the world a better place, and since this is what we've got now, we need to take care of it and make it a good place.

In staying true to accurate Christian doctrine, i do not believe that morality grants you passage to either heaven or hell. Only faith, not good works, can bring you to heaven. If we all had to be perfectly moral to get to heaven, no one would get there. I know I sure wouldnt. Being moral is just a way to make the world a better place, or, in the case of religious people, to come closer to God and advance his will. I in no way think people going to hell has anything to do with their morality. Furthermore, I do not believe atheists to be inferior. Being a lover of science myself, I applaud their respect for the natural world. I'm no crusader or witch-hunter. Not that anyone accused me of that, but I have gotten such responses in the past.

Others may have mentioned this point already, but many of the atheists I know became atheists BECAUSE of their morals, and the fact that they believed that it was against those morals to follow a religion they believed was false.

Madesonia, that really pisses me off. I'm Jewish myself, and the implication that Hitler did what he did because he was an atheist (which he wasn't) offends me greatly. Isabella and Ferdinand, who presided over the Spanish Inquisition were devout Catholics, many of Hitler's allies were Lutheran or other Protestant faiths. Also, there are radical Muslims who strap bombs to themselves and walk into cafes in Jerusalem for the sole purpose of killing others. It isn't about what faith you have, or whether you believe in ANY religion. There are good and evil people in all religions, and there are good and evil people who are atheists, agnostics, wiccans, or any other number of pagan or sideline faiths.

Saying that atheism makes people less moral, or that people who choose to be athiest are immoral, is simply not reasonable. And the implication that Atheism condones intolerance or genocide is asinine.

It's rare to find Atheists in prisons, at least in North America.
haha, i find this comment funny. Atheists aren't in prison because once they realize what an idiot they were and how screwed up they are they turn to religion to try and reconcile. Its the same as, "There are no atheists in a fox hole." I just find garaj's comment kinda funny, anyone else?

In staying true to accurate Christian doctrine, i do not believe that morality grants you passage to either heaven or hell. Only faith, not good works, can bring you to heaven. If we all had to be perfectly moral to get to heaven, no one would get there. I know I sure wouldnt. Being moral is just a way to make the world a better place, or, in the case of religious people, to come closer to God and advance his will. I in no way think people going to hell has anything to do with their morality. Furthermore, I do not believe atheists to be inferior. Being a lover of science myself, I applaud their respect for the natural world. I'm no crusader or witch-hunter. Not that anyone accused me of that, but I have gotten such responses in the past.

That is an interesting stance. To follow your line of reasoning, then, any person who believes in God and (insert whatever else is necessary minus living a good life) the person could get to Heaven even if they killed and ate babies every day for dinner, because of their faith. (Granted that they might have to repent after every meal). Now, I appologize for the crude example, but I felt the need to point out the flaw in your argument. Morality is certainly necessary from a Christian stand point. To quote the man, "If your foot causes you to sin, cut it off." (Mark 9:45) Christianity definatly supports that morality is necessary for their version of salvation.

I had an argument with my mother once about the best reason to do the right thing. She was teaching Sunday school and her lesson plan was to teach that people should do the right thing because Jesus says so and God wants you to. When I tried to tell her that I thought that the best reason to do the right thing is because it's the right thing she couldn't understand what I was saying. I agree with the person said that the carrot/stick reasoning for morality that religion can have may stunt people's development. You scold and punish a child who does the wrong thing and doesn't really understand, but you don't hold it against them. You expect an adult to know the difference and make the right choice for the right reasons. If the adult never gets past doing the right thing for fear of punishment, then the adult is still child-like in many ways.

It's rare to find Atheists in prisons, at least in North America.
haha, i find this comment funny. Atheists aren't in prison because once they realize what an idiot they were and how screwed up they are they turn to religion to try and reconcile. Its the same as, "There are no atheists in a fox hole." I just find garaj's comment kinda funny, anyone else?

ah, that is your opinion, which is no more valid than any other persons opinion

- It's rare to find Atheists in prisons, at least in North America.

What percent of North Americans are Athiest?

- It's rare to find Atheists in prisons, at least in North America.

What percent of North Americans are Athiest?

I think it's roughly 10% or so, though I think a large percent of the remainder are 'default Christians', if you know what I mean...

Unfortunately, it is many of the people with religious views on morals that tend to do the right thing not because they want to, but because "God will send you to hell if you don't" or because "God will send you to heaven if you do". It is a carrot-stick type of mentality. Atheists (and some religious people), on the other hand, tend to do the right thing just because it is the right thing. They don't expect heaven or hell, they just want to do what they believe is right here in the only life they believe they will have.
YES. that is one of my primary complaints with religiously-based morality; it tends to stall people at a very childlike level of moral understanding, the basic punishment/reward system. people just do what will keep them out of hell, rather than understanding the full ramifications of actions and chosing to do the right thing out of conscious choice. i don't believe that counts as moral action, i think it's just a sort of null answer that is neither moral nor immoral.

Perhaps I should just put "What Bottle said." in my sig.

It's rare to find Atheists in prisons, at least in North America.
haha, i find this comment funny. Atheists aren't in prison because once they realize what an idiot they were and how screwed up they are they turn to religion to try and reconcile. Its the same as, "There are no atheists in a fox hole." I just find garaj's comment kinda funny, anyone else?

ah, that is your opinion, which is no more valid than any other persons opinion

Opinions, unlike beliefs, are not equal...yet what you said in comment remains true.

Perhaps I should just put "What Bottle said." in my sig.

LOL Might not be a bad idea, actually. I usually agree ^_^

It's rare to find Atheists in prisons, at least in North America.
haha, i find this comment funny. Atheists aren't in prison because once they realize what an idiot they were and how screwed up they are they turn to religion to try and reconcile. Its the same as, "There are no atheists in a fox hole." I just find garaj's comment kinda funny, anyone else?

Whoo boy, do you ever misunderstand what I said. I was actually suggesting that Atheists perhaps tended to be too smart & moral to break the law and end up in prison in the first place - which has no relation at all to the "foxhole" cliche does it?

Before everybody dives in with their ideas, I'd like to point a few things out:

-Morality and moral codes existed long before today's major religions did.Sorry about the Christian attitude here, but part of my religion states, "In the beginning God", so, in my belief nothing existed before God. Therefore your "moral codes" did not exist before religion.

- Every major religion has a well-thought-out moral code, not just Christianity.As has been pointed out to me by many Atheists, Atheism is a religion. Can you show me a link or a place I can find the Atheist's Moral Code? How are Atheist held accountable to follow this code?

- Are people really being Moral if they only "do the right thing" because they're afraid of Hell?.Most of the people that I know, of various faiths, "do the right thing", not because they are afraid of going to hell. They do the right thing, because their faith has taught them that it is the right thing to do. The only exception to this statement is the Atheist religion (they have no one teaching them the right thing to do). If an Atheist does the rigt thing, it is just that they happen to be in a good mood that day.

- It's rare to find Atheists in prisons, at least in North America.This is a total lie. I, myself, have been in prison, on two different occasions. The majority of the inmates classify themselves as Atheist.

uh... atheism is not a religion or moral code. It is, at most, a belief that there is either no God or that we can never know if there is a God or not. So no, Atheism is not a religion.

uh... atheism is not a religion or moral code. It is, at most, a belief that there is either no God or that we can never know if there is a God or not. So no, Atheism is not a religion.A religion is a belief system. So if Atheist "believe" there is no God, then that makes it a religion. Even if Atheist believe that we can never know if there is a God (which is agnostism) then they believe in something, there also making them a religion.

uh... atheism is not a religion or moral code. It is, at most, a belief that there is either no God or that we can never know if there is a God or not. So no, Atheism is not a religion.A religion is a belief system. So if Atheist "believe" there is no God, then that makes it a religion. Even if Atheist believe that we can never know if there is a God (which is agnostism) then they believe in something, there also making them a religion.

there you go again, trying to apply what your religion has taught you to atheism

]A religion is a belief system. So if Atheist "believe" there is no God, then that makes it a religion. Even if Atheist believe that we can never know if there is a God (which is agnostism) then they believe in something, there also making them a religion.

That's not really what agnostic means, though it's sort of come to mean that. Atheism is not a belief system though, anymore than 'theism' is a religion. Yeah, maybe there's some beliefs there, but Christianity and Shnito are both theistic, but obviously not the same religion. Also, I don't want to get into this right now, but Atheists generally don't believe that there CAN"T be a God, just that there's no evidence of it, and thus we shouldn't behave as if it exists. IT's tricky semantics...

A religion is a belief system. So if Atheist "believe" there is no God, then that makes it a religion. Even if Atheist believe that we can never know if there is a God (which is agnostism) then they believe in something, there also making them a religion.

'there you go again, trying to apply what your religion has taught you to atheismAnd just how am I doing that by giving the meaning of a word?

uh... atheism is not a religion or moral code. It is, at most, a belief that there is either no God or that we can never know if there is a God or not. So no, Atheism is not a religion.A religion is a belief system. So if Atheist "believe" there is no God, then that makes it a religion. Even if Atheist believe that we can never know if there is a God (which is agnostism) then they believe in something, there also making them a religion.

there you go again, trying to apply what your religion has taught you to atheism

Atheism only requires a single belief, that there is no god. Atheists can believe in Christian-like values or they can believe in self-gratification and selfishnish because Atheism is not a Religion and apart from not believing in god Atheists can believe whatever the hell they want and still be considered an Atheist. Religion is a belief system. Religions are organized and have dogmas, moral codes, etc, like what your are describing, Jay W, but Atheism does not. One belief held by one person does not make a religion.

Theism is the belief in a god but is theism a relgion? I think not.

uh... atheism is not a religion or moral code. It is, at most, a belief that there is either no God or that we can never know if there is a God or not. So no, Atheism is not a religion.A religion is a belief system. So if Atheist "believe" there is no God, then that makes it a religion. Even if Atheist believe that we can never know if there is a God (which is agnostism) then they believe in something, there also making them a religion.

there you go again, trying to apply what your religion has taught you to atheism

Atheism only requires a single belief, that there is no god. Atheists can believe in Christian-like values or they can believe in self-gratification and selfishnish because Atheism is not a Religion and apart from not believing in god Atheists can believe whatever the hell they want and still be considered an Atheist. Religion is a belief system. Religions are organized and have dogmas, moral codes, etc, like what your are describing, Jay W, but Atheism does not. One belief held by one person does not make a religion.

Theism is the belief in a god but is theism a relgion? I think not.In your own words Atheist are required to have a single belief. Which is a belief system. Whether, you believe in something or against something you still believe.

Before everybody dives in with their ideas, I'd like to point a few things out:

-Morality and moral codes existed long before today's major religions did.Sorry about the Christian attitude here, but part of my religion states, "In the beginning God", so, in my belief nothing existed before God. Therefore your "moral codes" did not exist before religion.

- Every major religion has a well-thought-out moral code, not just Christianity.As has been pointed out to me by many Atheists, Atheism is a religion. Can you show me a link or a place I can find the Atheist's Moral Code? How are Atheist held accountable to follow this code?

- Are people really being Moral if they only "do the right thing" because they're afraid of Hell?.Most of the people that I know, of various faiths, "do the right thing", not because they are afraid of going to hell. They do the right thing, because their faith has taught them that it is the right thing to do. The only exception to this statement is the Atheist religion (they have no one teaching them the right thing to do). If an Atheist does the rigt thing, it is just that they happen to be in a good mood that day.

- It's rare to find Atheists in prisons, at least in North America.This is a total lie. I, myself, have been in prison, on two different occasions. The majority of the inmates classify themselves as Atheist.

There is no Atheist code of morals and no outside anything holds Atheists to their beliefs. There are of course Atheists who will bad things just as there are Christians, Jews, Muslims, or any other type of religious person who will do bad things. The point that has been made is that Atheists hold themselves to their own moral code. They are answerable to themselves, their personal standards, and beliefs on right and wrong (and of course the laws which govern wherever they are, but that is beside the point).

I am Christian, but I think one of the worse reasons to do the right thing is because God wants me to. Doing something because someone else wants me to is a horrible reason to do anything, even if it is a good thing. I do what I do because I think it is the right thing to do. If that goes along with what God wants, then all the better (God is good and whatnot), but as soon as God wants me to sacrifice my firstborn to him I'm saying no because killing a child is wrong.

Atheists have a much more immediate reason to do “good” than Christians. Christians die with the belief that they will go to Heaven, leaving this world behind, so to Christians the "goodness" of this world falls short to more heavenly goals. Atheists, on the other hand do not believe they're going anywhere after death. This world is what they have, so it had better be taken care of for the sake of future generation, and that means helping those in need, helping the environment, helping to bring about lasting peace and justice on Earth, and all other good things. (There are of course people who will adhere to "Get while the getting is good" or other such more self centered ideologies. The version of Satanism that doesn't worship or necessarily believe that Satan exists is a good example of this. This is again beside the point as there are Christian, Jews, Muslims, and people in every faith who are just as self-serving.)

The point is, of course, that Atheists can and are just as moral as Christians or people of any other belief. Atheists can and are also just as amoral as Christians or people of any other belief as well.

The point of what myself and many other posters have made is that we believe that many Atheists have better reasons for doing “good” than many Christians. (Again this does not apply to everyone. There are certainly Christians who do the right thing because it’s the right thing like I do, as well as Atheists who do the right thing for fear of getting in trouble with the law only.) The best reason to do the right thing is always because it is the right thing to do. I hope we can all agree on that. =)

A religion is a belief system. So if Atheist "believe" there is no God, then that makes it a religion. Even if Atheist believe that we can never know if there is a God (which is agnostism) then they believe in something, there also making them a religion.

equivocation. a belief system is a very different sort of thing from the act of holding a belief. we all hold lots and lots of beliefs. a belief is just a thought that we think is true or in some way maps onto reality. for example, three things that i currently believe would be 1)that my name is matt, 2)that it is dark outside, and 3)that i am wearing pants. none of that qualifies as religion.

uh... atheism is not a religion or moral code. It is, at most, a belief that there is either no God or that we can never know if there is a God or not. So no, Atheism is not a religion.A religion is a belief system. So if Atheist "believe" there is no God, then that makes it a religion. Even if Atheist believe that we can never know if there is a God (which is agnostism) then they believe in something, there also making them a religion.

there you go again, trying to apply what your religion has taught you to atheism

Atheism only requires a single belief, that there is no god. Atheists can believe in Christian-like values or they can believe in self-gratification and selfishnish because Atheism is not a Religion and apart from not believing in god Atheists can believe whatever the hell they want and still be considered an Atheist. Religion is a belief system. Religions are organized and have dogmas, moral codes, etc, like what your are describing, Jay W, but Atheism does not. One belief held by one person does not make a religion.

Theism is the belief in a god but is theism a relgion? I think not.In your own words Atheist are required to have a single belief. Which is a belief system. Whether, you believe in something or against something you still believe.

Just disect the word quickly for me. Theism is a belief in some kind of god or religion. Theism can be used as a general term to group all religous beliefs together. When you put "A" in front of theism you get Atheism. The A means lacking or without. Therefore Atheism is a lack of belief in religion or god. Atheists share the belief that there is no god, but that doesn't make Atheism a religion.

uh... atheism is not a religion or moral code. It is, at most, a belief that there is either no God or that we can never know if there is a God or not. So no, Atheism is not a religion.A religion is a belief system. So if Atheist "believe" there is no God, then that makes it a religion. Even if Atheist believe that we can never know if there is a God (which is agnostism) then they believe in something, there also making them a religion.

there you go again, trying to apply what your religion has taught you to atheism

Atheism only requires a single belief, that there is no god. Atheists can believe in Christian-like values or they can believe in self-gratification and selfishnish because Atheism is not a Religion and apart from not believing in god Atheists can believe whatever the hell they want and still be considered an Atheist. Religion is a belief system. Religions are organized and have dogmas, moral codes, etc, like what your are describing, Jay W, but Atheism does not. One belief held by one person does not make a religion.

Theism is the belief in a god but is theism a relgion? I think not.In your own words Atheist are required to have a single belief. Which is a belief system. Whether, you believe in something or against something you still believe.

Fine, I'll get a dictionary

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

Let's see. Is atheism a cause? No. Principle? No. System of Beliefs? No. hmm...

Religion is a SYSTEM of beliefs. One belief does not make a religion. Does my belief in the reliability of my Chevy constitute a religion? Is theism a religion?

It's rare to find Atheists in prisons, at least in North America.This is a total lie. I, myself, have been in prison, on two different occasions. The majority of the inmates classify themselves as Atheist.

You sure you don't perhaps mean that most prisoners are Agnostic? Years ago I read a couple of studies which asked prisoners in federal penitentiaries in Canada and the U.S. if they believed in the existence of god. The majority answered "don't know" (agnostic) or "yes" (believer). The number who answered with a definite "no" was under 5%, less than half the percentage in the general population.

Or have things changed that much in the past two decades?

Buddhism is an atheistic religion, is is humanism, but atheism itself is not a religion.

I know plenty of good-hearted atheists. But I know even more wicked christians.

Nobody is perfect. We are all sinners.

Wow Ray.. I'm impressed. I would of thought you would of trashed us atheists. Instead you took the high ground. Excellent. However, I'm not a sinner :P

I don't believe that religion sets a moral compass personally. In some ways atheists could be considered to have a higher moral compass because they choose to be moral. Of course I'm sure Christians and other religions people follow, they also choose. However the absents of a belief in a god to fear one would think atheists would go around doing the most immoral things, yet the majority of us don't and not because of some fear of any god, but because it's the right thing to do as a human being. Some thing to be said for that I think. :)

Just disect the word quickly for me. Theism is a belief in some kind of god or religion. Theism can be used as a general term to group all religous beliefs together. When you put "A" in front of theism you get Atheism. The A means lacking or without. Therefore Atheism is a lack of belief in religion or god. Atheists share the belief that there is no god, but that doesn't make Atheism a religion.Once again using your own words. "Atheist share the belief that there is no god." And before it was stated that just because one person believes one thing does not make it a religion. Here we have a group of people who all believe the same thing. Great Strong Badia looked up the definition of the word religion. In the second, third and forth definitions, you find where Atheism fits in. Here let me copy them for you:

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Now let look at them separately:
2.) A system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. Atheism has the religious attitude that God doesn't exist. They believe this. They act accordingly to this belief (which is a practice).
3.)Scrupulous conformity. Atheist adamantly conform to the belief that God does not exist.
4.) A cause, principle, or system of beliefs. Once again we find the actions of Atheism decribed.

So I think we have established that Atheism is a religion after all.

It's rare to find Atheists in prisons, at least in North America.This is a total lie. I, myself, have been in prison, on two different occasions. The majority of the inmates classify themselves as Atheist.

You sure you don't perhaps mean that most prisoners are Agnostic? Years ago I read a couple of studies which asked prisoners in federal penitentiaries in Canada and the U.S. if they believed in the existence of god. The majority answered "don't know" (agnostic) or "yes" (believer). The number who answered with a definite "no" was under 5%, less than half the percentage in the general population.

Or have things changed that much in the past two decades?No I mean Atheist. I spent thirteen and a half months in prison between 1983 and 1984. In that time, I found the majority of prisoners held the Atheist belief. Agnostics were a close second. Believers, a very small portion. That is why our church services had less than 1% of the population that attended.

Just disect the word quickly for me. Theism is a belief in some kind of god or religion. Theism can be used as a general term to group all religous beliefs together. When you put "A" in front of theism you get Atheism. The A means lacking or without. Therefore Atheism is a lack of belief in religion or god. Atheists share the belief that there is no god, but that doesn't make Atheism a religion.Once again using your own words. "Atheist share the belief that there is no god." And before it was stated that just because one person believes one thing does not make it a religion. Here we have a group of people who all believe the same thing. Great Strong Badia looked up the definition of the word religion. In the second, third and forth definitions, you find where Atheism fits in. Here let me copy them for you:

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Now let look at them separately:
2.) A system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices. Atheism has the religious attitude that God doesn't exist. They believe this. They act accordingly to this belief (which is a practice).
3.)Scrupulous conformity. Atheist adamantly conform to the belief that God does not exist.
4.) A cause, principle, or system of beliefs. Once again we find the actions of Atheism decribed.

So I think we have established that Atheism is a religion after all.

You missed the point again.

Atheists cannot act accordingly to no god existing. It in no way brings about a way to act. People do not practice Atheism. Atheism is not organized.

Believing that god does not exist is the only thing which Atheists even attempt to agree on from a theological stand point. One belief does not make a religion, especially when Atheists will disagree on lots of other important things (i.e., morality of the Satanists I described in previous posts and the Atheists whose morals are more closely alligned with Christian beliefs). A single belief does not make up a religion. It makes up an ideology (and a rather vague one), but not a religion.

Just in case anyone who has been following this thread has not noticed, I have not even answered the original question that was posted.
I do not believe that Atheist are any less moral than believers.
I only think that moral behavior, from the two different religions, is done for very different reasons.
I feel that Atheist do the right thing when it suits them to do so.
I feel believers do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
I do not feel that believers only do the right thing out of fear of going to hell.
I also do not feel that Atheist only do the right thing out of fear of punishment of some kind.

Just in case anyone who has been following this thread has not noticed, I have not even answered the original question that was posted.
I do not believe that Atheist are any less moral than believers.
I only think that moral behavior, from the two different religions, is done for very different reasons.
I feel that Atheist do the right thing when it suits them to do so.
I feel believers do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
I do not feel that believers only do the right thing out of fear of going to hell.
I also do not feel that Atheist only do the right thing out of fear of punishment of some kind.

I mostly agree ^_^
The majority of Atheists do the right thing because it is the right thing, not because it suits them.
Also not all believers do the right thing because it's the right thing.

3.)Scrupulous conformity. Atheist adamantly conform to the belief that God does not exist.


You missed the point again.

Atheists cannot act accordingly to no god existing. It in no way brings about a way to act. People do not practice Atheism. Atheism is not organized.

Believing that god does not exist is the only thing which Atheists even attempt to agree on from a theological stand point. One belief does not make a religion, especially when Atheists will disagree on lots of other important things (i.e., morality of the Satanists I described in previous posts and the Atheists whose morals are more closely alligned with Christian beliefs). A single belief does not make up a religion. It makes up an ideology (and a rather vague one), but not a religion.Here lets narrow this down to insure you don't once again miss the point. We will only look at the third definition this time.

3.)Scrupulous conformity. Atheist adamantly conform to the belief that God does not exist.

Now in your word the only thing that Atheist agree on is the belief that God does not exist. Hmmm.. sounds suspiciously like a religion to me.

3.)Scrupulous conformity. Atheist adamantly conform to the belief that God does not exist.


You missed the point again.

Atheists cannot act accordingly to no god existing. It in no way brings about a way to act. People do not practice Atheism. Atheism is not organized.

Believing that god does not exist is the only thing which Atheists even attempt to agree on from a theological stand point. One belief does not make a religion, especially when Atheists will disagree on lots of other important things (i.e., morality of the Satanists I described in previous posts and the Atheists whose morals are more closely alligned with Christian beliefs). A single belief does not make up a religion. It makes up an ideology (and a rather vague one), but not a religion.Here lets narrow this down to insure you don't once again miss the point. We will only look at the third definition this time.

3.)Scrupulous conformity. Atheist adamantly conform to the belief that God does not exist.

Now in your word the only thing that Atheist agree on is the belief that God does not exist. Hmmm.. sounds suspiciously like a religion to me.

And again, one belief doesn't make a religion. Many beliefs also don't make a religion. Member of the U.S. Republican party are not members of a Republican religion. The same is true for Democrats. And liberals and conservatives and vegetarians and vegans and people on the Atkins diet. The same thing holds for agnostics. Agnostics are not members of a religion because of their beliefs about theology. You can be suspicious all you want, but that doesn't make it so.

Just in case anyone who has been following this thread has not noticed, I have not even answered the original question that was posted.
I do not believe that Atheist are any less moral than believers.
I only think that moral behavior, from the two different religions, is done for very different reasons.
I feel that Atheist do the right thing when it suits them to do so.
I feel believers do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
I do not feel that believers only do the right thing out of fear of going to hell.
I also do not feel that Atheist only do the right thing out of fear of punishment of some kind.

I mostly agree ^_^
The majority of Atheists do the right thing because it is the right thing, not because it suits them.
Also not all believers do the right thing because it's the right thing.Case in point; I did not use the word "all". I was speaking generally.

Once again using your own words. "Atheist share the belief that there is no god." And before it was stated that just because one person believes one thing does not make it a religion. Here we have a group of people who all believe the same thing.
...
So I think we have established that Atheism is a religion after all.

large groups of people share the same beliefs about lots of things all the time. such as 'the sky is blue', 'people are dying in iraq', 'it is april', etc. a group of people conforming to some belief does not a religion make.

And again, one belief doesn't make a religion. Many beliefs also don't make a religion. Member of the U.S. Republican party are not members of a Republican religion. The same is true for Democrats. And liberals and conservatives and vegetarians and vegans and people on the Atkins diet. The same thing holds for agnostics. Agnostics are not members of a religion because of their beliefs about theology. You can be suspicious all you want, but that doesn't make it so.I am only going by the definition from a dictionary. All these groups could rightly be looked at as a religion. Does the fact that the US government looks at Atheism as a religion hold any importance to you?

And again, one belief doesn't make a religion. Many beliefs also don't make a religion. Member of the U.S. Republican party are not members of a Republican religion. The same is true for Democrats. And liberals and conservatives and vegetarians and vegans and people on the Atkins diet. The same thing holds for agnostics. Agnostics are not members of a religion because of their beliefs about theology. You can be suspicious all you want, but that doesn't make it so.I am only going by the definition from a dictionary. All these groups could rightly be looked at as a religion. Does the fact that the US government looks at Atheism as a religion hold any importance to you?

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: 'A-thE-ist
Function: noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
- athe·is·tic /"A-thE-'is-tik/ or athe·is·ti·cal /"A-thE-'is-ti-k&l/ adjective
- athe·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Atheism is NOT a religion, but rather a lack of one.

And again, one belief doesn't make a religion. Many beliefs also don't make a religion. Member of the U.S. Republican party are not members of a Republican religion. The same is true for Democrats. And liberals and conservatives and vegetarians and vegans and people on the Atkins diet. The same thing holds for agnostics. Agnostics are not members of a religion because of their beliefs about theology. You can be suspicious all you want, but that doesn't make it so.I am only going by the definition from a dictionary. All these groups could rightly be looked at as a religion. Does the fact that the US government looks at Atheism as a religion hold any importance to you?

Not really. The US government holds that Scientology is a religion. I don't know if you've looked into it at all, but Scientology specifically avoids any sort of beliefs in a higher power or anything like that. In my book, Scientology isn't a religion.

Anyway, I know that Democrats and vegetarians have nothing to do with religion, but the reason i used them as an example is that the number 3 definition says nothing about the adament belief has to have anything to do with religion. If you want to change it "Scrumpulous conformity pertaining to anything religiously related" or something like that its your choice, but I still won't agree with it. Anyway, agree to disagree?

atheist: one who denies the existence of God ...
believer: one with a firm religious faith...

These aren't exactly opposites. I can have a firm religious belief and not believe in God. I can also believe that the highest authority is myself and still be 'moral'. Or I could believe that a three legged frog is the ultimate authority, and in strictly adhering to the tenets of the holy book of my religion, consider myself quite moral.

If you are asking whether Christians are more ethical than non-christians, no. They are just as human, and just as prone to errors of judgement as everyone else.

Not really. The US government holds that Scientology is a religion. I don't know if you've looked into it at all, but Scientology specifically avoids any sort of beliefs in a higher power or anything like that. In my book, Scientology isn't a religion.

Anyway, I know that Democrats and vegetarians have nothing to do with religion, but the reason i used them as an example is that the number 3 definition says nothing about the adament belief has to have anything to do with religion. If you want to change it "Scrumpulous conformity pertaining to anything religiously related" or something like that its your choice, but I still won't agree with it. Anyway, agree to disagree?First the full name is the Church of Scientology and they look at themselves as a religion. Secondly, definition number three does not say anything about belief at all just scrupulous conformity, that is the only thing needed to classify a group as a religion. Yes we can agree to disagree. You have made some good points as well as I have. I could become narrow minded and only look at the first definition, as some have, but I chose to look at the entire definition to see what the word may mean. That comment was not made towards you. I have enjoyed this debate very much. It is one of the few that has occurred that did not resort to needless name calling nor the "I am right and you are wrong" type of arguement. This has been nice.

atheist: one who denies the existence of God ...
believer: one with a firm religious faith...

These aren't exactly opposites. I can have a firm religious belief and not believe in God. I can also believe that the highest authority is myself and still be 'moral'. Or I could believe that a three legged frog is the ultimate authority, and in strictly adhering to the tenets of the holy book of my religion, consider myself quite moral.

If you are asking whether Christians are more ethical than non-christians, no. They are just as human, and just as prone to errors of judgement as everyone else.

People seem to try and attach all sorts of things to atheism, which negates their total understanding of it. Being an atheist means one thing and one thing only. You don't believe in a god. Nothing more, nothing less. I should know I've been one for over 25 years.

atheist: one who denies the existence of God ...
believer: one with a firm religious faith...

These aren't exactly opposites. I can have a firm religious belief and not believe in God. I can also believe that the highest authority is myself and still be 'moral'. Or I could believe that a three legged frog is the ultimate authority, and in strictly adhering to the tenets of the holy book of my religion, consider myself quite moral.

If you are asking whether Christians are more ethical than non-christians, no. They are just as human, and just as prone to errors of judgement as everyone else.Believer: One who believes in the existence of God. (Does not have to belong to any faith)

Not really. The US government holds that Scientology is a religion. I don't know if you've looked into it at all, but Scientology specifically avoids any sort of beliefs in a higher power or anything like that. In my book, Scientology isn't a religion.

Anyway, I know that Democrats and vegetarians have nothing to do with religion, but the reason i used them as an example is that the number 3 definition says nothing about the adament belief has to have anything to do with religion. If you want to change it "Scrumpulous conformity pertaining to anything religiously related" or something like that its your choice, but I still won't agree with it. Anyway, agree to disagree?First the full name is the Church of Scientology and they look at themselves as a religion. Secondly, definition number three does not say anything about belief at all just scrupulous conformity, that is the only thing needed to classify a group as a religion. Yes we can agree to disagree. You have made some good points as well as I have. I could become narrow minded and only look at the first definition, as some have, but I chose to look at the entire definition to see what the word may mean. That comment was not made towards you. I have enjoyed this debate very much. It is one of the few that has occurred that did not resort to needless name calling nor the "I am right and you are wrong" type of arguement. This has been nice.

Agreed! I'm also glad that it there was none of the name calling and the like you described. It has been a pleasure.

People seem to try and attach all sorts of things to atheism, which negates their total understanding of it. Being an atheist means one thing and one thing only. You don't believe in a god. Nothing more, nothing less. I should know I've been one for over 25 years.

Exactly. My girlfriend is an Atheist, and through her I have had a lot of contact with Atheists. Atheism not being a religion is an important part of being Atheist to her.

People seem to try and attach all sorts of things to atheism, which negates their total understanding of it. Being an atheist means one thing and one thing only. You don't believe in a god. Nothing more, nothing less. I should know I've been one for over 25 years.

Exactly. My girlfriend is an Atheist, and through her I have had a lot of contact with Atheists. Atheism not being a religion is an important part of being Atheist to her.

Yes, it's a total rejection of religion and any type of god, super being, higher power, etc..etc.. so when people try to attach a belief system to us, we get ticked. The whole point is it's a lack of belief. We don't gather for meetings or pass the collection plate.. we don't all have a set of rules to follow. Pretty much the only thing besides not believing in a god that we have in common is advocating for the Separation of Church & State.

However, yes, it annoys me to no living end when people try to ascribe a belief to atheism.. that's the whole point.. we believe you die, you're worm food.. end of story! ;)

atheist: one who denies the existence of God ...
believer: one with a firm religious faith...

These aren't exactly opposites. I can have a firm religious belief and not believe in God. I can also believe that the highest authority is myself and still be 'moral'. Or I could believe that a three legged frog is the ultimate authority, and in strictly adhering to the tenets of the holy book of my religion, consider myself quite moral.

If you are asking whether Christians are more ethical than non-christians, no. They are just as human, and just as prone to errors of judgement as everyone else.

People seem to try and attach all sorts of things to atheism, which negates their total understanding of it. Being an atheist means one thing and one thing only. You don't believe in a god. Nothing more, nothing less. I should know I've been one for over 25 years.
And where did I attribute anything other than not believing in god(s) to atheists? One sentence here pertained to atheism, the rest all considered other belief possibilities.
MY point was that the assumption that one is either a believer or an atheist is flawed, simply because the phrasing indicates that the choices are a Christian God or no god at all. If you somehow read that as me thinking Atheists believe in the Three Legged Frog God, perhaps you ought to read it again.

My girlfriend described me as an Atheist Christian once. I was amuzed because its pretty accurate. If you just cut out the belief in God in me everything else I believe falls into Atheism very comfortably. I took a quiz once about which enemy of the Christian church are you and laughed because of the result: The quiz was positive I was Atheist ^_^

atheist: one who denies the existence of God ...
believer: one with a firm religious faith...

These aren't exactly opposites. I can have a firm religious belief and not believe in God. I can also believe that the highest authority is myself and still be 'moral'. Or I could believe that a three legged frog is the ultimate authority, and in strictly adhering to the tenets of the holy book of my religion, consider myself quite moral.

If you are asking whether Christians are more ethical than non-christians, no. They are just as human, and just as prone to errors of judgement as everyone else.

People seem to try and attach all sorts of things to atheism, which negates their total understanding of it. Being an atheist means one thing and one thing only. You don't believe in a god. Nothing more, nothing less. I should know I've been one for over 25 years.
And where did I attribute anything other than not believing in god(s) to atheists? One sentence here pertained to atheism, the rest all considered other belief possibilities.
MY point was that the assumption that one is either a believer or an atheist is flawed, simply because the phrasing indicates that the choices are a Christian God or no god at all. If you somehow read that as me thinking Atheists believe in the Three Legged Frog God, perhaps you ought to read it again.

Perhaps you're playing with semantics? I believe that the sun will rise. I believe that I will make dinner for my family.. these are real life tangible things. There is a difference. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.. fair enough :)

"firm religious faith" doesn't mean they belong to a structured faith, it means they strongly believe in whatever they believe in. There are infinite gods in the religions of the world, but there is only one God listed among them. This is why I said the poll choices indicate Christianity, but Christianity and Atheism are not the only choices, and for that reason "atheist" and "believer" are not mutually exclusive.

How sad that the point - that religion of any sort does not equal moral superiority - seems to have escaped notice.

An example of moral religious acts include

The Inquistion.
The Crusades.
Suicide bombs.
Settlements in Gaza and the West bank.


I could go on.

Those that are "religious" are just as morally impure than the rest of us. i.e. there are many good people who are atheists as well as religious and there are many bad people who are religious as well as atheists.

The difference is that the religious ones who are "bad" delude themselves into thinking that what they do is right.

atheist: one who denies the existence of God ...
believer: one with a firm religious faith...

These aren't exactly opposites. I can have a firm religious belief and not believe in God. I can also believe that the highest authority is myself and still be 'moral'. Or I could believe that a three legged frog is the ultimate authority, and in strictly adhering to the tenets of the holy book of my religion, consider myself quite moral.

If you are asking whether Christians are more ethical than non-christians, no. They are just as human, and just as prone to errors of judgement as everyone else.

People seem to try and attach all sorts of things to atheism, which negates their total understanding of it. Being an atheist means one thing and one thing only. You don't believe in a god. Nothing more, nothing less. I should know I've been one for over 25 years.
And where did I attribute anything other than not believing in god(s) to atheists? One sentence here pertained to atheism, the rest all considered other belief possibilities.
MY point was that the assumption that one is either a believer or an atheist is flawed, simply because the phrasing indicates that the choices are a Christian God or no god at all. If you somehow read that as me thinking Atheists believe in the Three Legged Frog God, perhaps you ought to read it again.

Perhaps you're playing with semantics? I believe that the sun will rise. I believe that I will make dinner for my family.. these are real life tangible things. There is a difference. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.. fair enough :) You believe, firmly one would think, since you have believed it for 25 years, that there are no gods, correct? That IS a religious belief. It is your view of the existence of gods, yes? Your view of the nature of gods? And what you use as a guide in worship, by consciously not worshipping at all, yes? Perhaps I take a larger view of the definitions in question here, but 'playing with semantics'? No.

"firm religious faith" doesn't mean they belong to a structured faith, it means they strongly believe in whatever they believe in. There are infinite gods in the religions of the world, but there is only one God listed among them. This is why I said the poll choices indicate Christianity, but Christianity and Atheism are not the only choices, and for that reason "atheist" and "believer" are not mutually exclusive.

How sad that the point - that religion of any sort does not equal moral superiority - seems to have escaped notice.I think I hit on that point exactly when I posted:

Just in case anyone who has been following this thread has not noticed, I have not even answered the original question that was posted.
I do not believe that Atheist are any less moral than believers.
I only think that moral behavior, from the two different religions, is done for very different reasons.
I feel that Atheist do the right thing when it suits them to do so.
I feel believers do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
I do not feel that believers only do the right thing out of fear of going to hell.
I also do not feel that Atheist only do the right thing out of fear of punishment of some kind.

Athiests Are just as moral (or amoral) as anyone. At least they don't preach.

Jim

An example of moral religious acts include

The Inquistion.
The Crusades.
Suicide bombs.
Settlements in Gaza and the West bank.


I could go on.

Those that are "religious" are just as morally impure than the rest of us. i.e. there are many good people who are atheists as well as religious and there are many bad people who are religious as well as atheists.

The difference is that the religious ones who are "bad" delude themselves into thinking that what they do is right.And another example of an act of the believers, in almost all theist religions:

The forgiveness of sin.

The difference is that the Atheist are stuck with all the bad they do in their life. The believer can look forward to redemption.

atheist: one who denies the existence of God ...
believer: one with a firm religious faith...

These aren't exactly opposites. I can have a firm religious belief and not believe in God. I can also believe that the highest authority is myself and still be 'moral'. Or I could believe that a three legged frog is the ultimate authority, and in strictly adhering to the tenets of the holy book of my religion, consider myself quite moral.

If you are asking whether Christians are more ethical than non-christians, no. They are just as human, and just as prone to errors of judgement as everyone else.

People seem to try and attach all sorts of things to atheism, which negates their total understanding of it. Being an atheist means one thing and one thing only. You don't believe in a god. Nothing more, nothing less. I should know I've been one for over 25 years.
And where did I attribute anything other than not believing in god(s) to atheists? One sentence here pertained to atheism, the rest all considered other belief possibilities.
MY point was that the assumption that one is either a believer or an atheist is flawed, simply because the phrasing indicates that the choices are a Christian God or no god at all. If you somehow read that as me thinking Atheists believe in the Three Legged Frog God, perhaps you ought to read it again.

Perhaps you're playing with semantics? I believe that the sun will rise. I believe that I will make dinner for my family.. these are real life tangible things. There is a difference. Perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying.. fair enough :) You believe, firmly one would think, since you have believed it for 25 years, that there are no gods, correct? That IS a religious belief. It is your view of the existence of gods, yes? Your view of the nature of gods? And what you use as a guide in worship, by consciously not worshipping at all, yes? Perhaps I take a larger view of the definitions in question here, but 'playing with semantics'? No.

No incorrect. It's a lack of belief. However please feel free to believe as YOU wish. I feel no obligation to try and explain some thing to you that you don't understand. Sorry.

Any way.. the thread is about a moral compass.. not about being an atheist per se.. we should stick to the topic. I have already said that one does not need religion to be moral. I am your average upper-middle class wife and mother and business professional.. No one would even know I was an atheist if I didn't tell them.. or perhaps notice my absents at the local churches.

:

I feel that Atheist do the right thing when it suits them to do so.
I feel believers do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.


That doesn't sound morally superior to you? That believers do the right thing just because they should, but atheists only do the right thing when it suits them?

I think most people do the right thing most of the time because they have to live with their own expectations of themselves. And I think most people are disappointed in themselves when they do not do the right thing, for whatever reason. A fair portion of those people, I believe, them make some kind of effort to make ammends for the wrong. An apology at the least, and correction of the problem when possible.

People are people, you find good and bad everywhere.

I think atheists are no less immune from preaching than believers are, if by that we mean stridently venting opinions and being closed minded to receiving any rebuttal. Notice I am NOT saying "all" of any group do this; it's just a human tendency to get ideological.

It's like that flame-warrior profile from the other thread, the "Ideologue" type. Some are religious and some are non-religious but the personality type remains the same.

I've known some fine believers: kind, gentle, simple, humble, generous, I get sentimental just thinking about them.

I've also known some believers who were the world's worst scum, backstabbing, manipulative, smug, nasty, destructive, cynical and heartless.

I have known atheists who were pleasant, rational, helpful and considerate. I have known some who were two-faced, violent and cowardly.

So?

I would say yes. A lot of morals that I hold (such as abortion is wrong) come from what my religion says. Therefore some atheists (not necessarily all of them) may not believe what I believe to be a moral and thus, in my eyes, they are less moral than I am (that's not say all atheists, just some).

:

I feel that Atheist do the right thing when it suits them to do so.
I feel believers do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.


That doesn't sound morally superior to you? That believers do the right thing just because they should, but atheists only do the right thing when it suits them?

I think most people do the right thing most of the time because they have to live with their own expectations of themselves. And I think most people are disappointed in themselves when they do not do the right thing, for whatever reason. A fair portion of those people, I believe, them make some kind of effort to make ammends for the wrong. An apology at the least, and correction of the problem when possible.If you want to quote me use the entire quote. Also note the following post that relate to the one you are posting. No I do not feel any superiority to anybody reguardless of their religion.

Here's my two cents on the whole "is Atheism a religion?" debate:

As has been stated several times, Atheism is simply the belief that there is no God. This immediately allows the Atheist in question to reject all religions as a firm base for reasoning and ethics. From that point it becomes necessary to create a new set of ethics based upon humans, their interactions, and needs. From these come human rights and the laws that are needed to uphold them. A simple example that pretty much can agree to is that humans have the right to continue living and so murder and genocide are illegal. Whether religions come to the same conclusion on these ethical issues is irrelevant really, but it's interesting to see to what extent the ethics overlap.

But the point is that the belief that there is no God in itself is in now way sufficient to create a system of ethics. If anyone can demonstrate otherwise then I would be very happy to discuss the ideas further, because so far all my decisions that affect other people have been based upon how those actions will affect other people, which cannot be extrapolated from my belief in the nonexistance of god alone.

I suppose that taking this argument further, one can argue that Deism is not a religion. Believing that there exists a God or other Supreme Being does not in itself lead to a system of ethics and therefore is just another belief. I've often made the point to Christians who debate my Atheism with me that I could just as easily believe in a Deity that has no influence on the Universe just as happily as I believe that there is no God at all, because the consequences are just the same in either case. Technically that makes me an Agnostic, but I refuse to believe that an entity exists simply because I can't prove that it doesn't exist, and at the and of the day there are several other more plausible things (like the teapot that's currently orbiting the sun) that I can't disprove either, but that's certainly no reason to believe that there really is a teapot out there in orbit.

Finally, one of the consequences that there's nothing supernatural out there (which is another step after Atheism I suppose- there are several Atheists out there who believe Astrology, for example) is that there is no afterlife. If the only way to demonstrate that there is no afterlife is to die and realise that there's nothing there after all means that it's no wonder people create the ideas of an afterlife or reincarnation, because after all you can't demonstrate that there is no afterlife for the very reason that there is no return! That's one heckuva tangent, I know, but it's food for more debate if people want to discuss beliefs similar to, but not equivalent to the belief in the nonexistance of a God or Gods.

I hope all the Christians out there had a rocking Easter and that everyone else enjoyed the brief respite from the rat-race.

Aidan

- It's rare to find Atheists in prisons, at least in North America.This is a total lie. I, myself, have been in prison, on two different occasions. The majority of the inmates classify themselves as Atheist.

it can't be a TOTAL lie, since every source i can find on the matter puts atheism as one of the lowest possible religious orientations in prison populations. i know you'd really love for all of us to just take your word for it, but frankly i hesitate to trust the opinion of somebody who was dumb enough to get caught twice.

so for anybody who's interested, here are some actual facts:

Prison population in England and Wales by recorded religion, 31 March 1999 and 31 March 2000:

0.3% atheist, 0.2% agnostic

Two generations of statisticians have found that the ratio of convicts without religious training is about 1/10th of 1%. W.T. Root, Professor of Psychology at the University of Pittsburgh, examined 1,916 prisoners and said, "Indifference to religion, due to thought, strengthens character," adding that Unitarians, Agnostics, Atheists and Free-Thinkers were absent from penitentiaries, or nearly so. During 10 years in Sing-Sing, of those executed for murder 65% were Catholics, 26% Protestants, 6% Hebrew, 2% Pagan, and less than 1/3 of 1% non-religious.

Steiner and Swancara surveyed Canadian prisons and found 1,294 Catholics, 435 Anglicans, 241 Methodists, 135 Baptists, and 1 Unitarian. Dr. Christian, Superintendent of the N.Y. State Reformatories,checked records of 22,000 prison inmates and found only 4 college graduates. In "Who's Who," 91% were college graduates; Christian commented that "intelligence and knowledge produce right living," and, "crime is the offspring of superstition and ignorance." Surveyed Massachusetts reformatories found every inmate to be religious. In Joliet Prison, there were 2,888 Catholics, 1,020 Baptists, 617 Methodists and no prisoners identified as non-religious. Michigan had 82,000 Baptists and 83,000 Jews in the state population; but in the prisons, there were 22 times as many Baptists as Jews, and 18 times as many Methodists as Jews. In Sing-Sing, there were 1,553 inmates, 855 of them (over half) Catholics, 518 Protestants, 117 Jews, and 8 non-religious.

Steiner first surveyed 27 states and found 19,400 Christians, 5,000 with no preference and only 3 Agnostics (one each in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Illinois). A later, more exhaustive survey found 60,605 Christians, 5,000 Jews, 131 Pagans, 4,000 "no preference," and only 3 Agnostics.

In one 19-state survey, Steiner found 15 non-believers, Spiritualists, Theosophists, Deists, Pantheists and 1 Agnostic among nearly 83,000 inmates. He labeled all 15 as "anti-christians." The Elmira, N.Y. reformatory system overshadowed all others, with nearly 31,000 inmates, including 15,694 Catholics (half) and 10,968 Protestants, 4,000 Jews, 325 refusing to answer, and 0 unbelievers. In the East, over 64% of inmates are Roman Catholic. Throughout the national prison population, they average 50%. A national census of the general population found Catholics to be about 15% (and they count from the diaper up). Hardly 12% are old enough to commit a crime, and half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6% supplying 50% of the prison population.

How old are those studies, Bottle?

The language sounds like the 50's (and so do the results).
For example, we don't have "reformatories" in NY now, and there is a large Islamic prison population which has gone unreported here; officials also do not record "pagan" as a religion now.

I would guess people feel more free to identify as atheist these days than formerly.

A national census of the general population found Catholics to be about 15% (and they count from the diaper up). Hardly 12% are old enough to commit a crime, and half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6% supplying 50% of the prison population.

Yeah, but look at their race and the social conditions in which they live. I would say that most Catholic Americans are Hispanics who have come to America and live in terrible conditions in dangerous inner city areas. It has nothing to do with religion (or race).

I would say yes. A lot of morals that I hold (such as abortion is wrong) come from what my religion says. Therefore some atheists (not necessarily all of them) may not believe what I believe to be a moral and thus, in my eyes, they are less moral than I am (that's not say all atheists, just some).

Just a question, but why does a difference in moral values neccessarily equate to "less morals"?

After all, diferent religions have diferent viewpoint on various tough subjects - but what makes one equate to more rather than less? Do we just count up the defined rules and compare?

If so - the Jewish dietary requirements alone would make them arguably the most moral people on theplanet....

-Z-

God is dead.
Nietszche is dead.

Seriously, though, one can be a very moral person without the benefit, or support, or crutch of religion (depending on one's vewpoint). However, I would question how moral anyone who disrespects another's beliefs to the point of being insulting can be.

My two cents: many religions' moral strictures essentially boil down to: 'Treat other people the way you want to be treated.' This is just plain common sense and civility -- unfortunately, as we can see from the behavior of many here on the 'net and in the physical world, it is a concept that escapes many.

On the subject of 'Atheism is a religion', I would think not; it has no liturgy, ritual, worship, or any of the trappings of religion other than a belief in a particular idea. Christians only demand atheism is a religion, so that they can attack it from an equal footing, which is silly.

Besides, atheism doesn't require as much faith as christianity; believing that God doesn't exist, is like believing that aliens aren't invading. Until I see the spaceships and the little green men, I have no reason to believe that anything is out of the ordinary.

I classify myself as agnostic; while I don't believe in the christian God, or the gods of any other religions, I can't be 100% sure that there doesn't exist some entity that could technically be discribed as a god.

Unfortunately, it is many of the people with religious views on morals that tend to do the right thing not because they want to, but because "God will send you to hell if you don't" or because "God will send you to heaven if you do". It is a carrot-stick type of mentality. Atheists (and some religious people), on the other hand, tend to do the right thing just because it is the right thing. They don't expect heaven or hell, they just want to do what they believe is right here in the only life they believe they will have.
YES. that is one of my primary complaints with religiously-based morality; it tends to stall people at a very childlike level of moral understanding, the basic punishment/reward system. people just do what will keep them out of hell, rather than understanding the full ramifications of actions and chosing to do the right thing out of conscious choice. i don't believe that counts as moral action, i think it's just a sort of null answer that is neither moral nor immoral.

Okay, I haven't read all six pages of this thread yet, but I want to speak to this. I think you're giving far too much power to religion and far too little recognition to mankinds innate sense of "morality stalling."

I can only speak from my own experience, but many people I know who are good, law-abiding citizens do not do so out of any particular moral ethos. They may have some nebulous concept of right and wrong based solely on their formative years and whatever was pounded into them as they grew up, but as for a truly objective understanding of, for lack of better terms, "good vs. evil," they neither want it nor need it. Instead, they are happy with the much more subjective "choices have consequences" paradigm. They follow laws, not because they particularly believe they are right, but because they see it as advantageous to obey them and not be punished. They do not operate on a metastrata of cognitive value judgements.

I'm not saying this is bad. Nine times out of ten the average work-a-day Joe doesn't need to ask himself, "If I am late to work and I choose to speed, does this make me, at base, an evil person?" or, more seriously, "If I take a life, do I have a right to claim any sort of protection from someone taking mine?" At least, they don't have to consider them in such lofty detail. They understand that, if you speed and you get caught, then you'll get a ticket, so if you can afford it, go ahead. Or, if you kill someone, you may be killed in return. They sometimes put labels on it, calling action A good and action B bad, but they are terribly subjective and loosely applied.

Of course, this doesn't completely excuse religion. I will be the first to admit that, while many religions offer up a set menu of morals, many of those who claim adherance are the first to spit those morals back up or not completely appreciate or understand exactly why they subscribe to them. However, I'm not convinced that this is, at root, a trait of religion as opposed to a trait of humanity.

We make much of our innate curiosity, claiming it as one of our most valuable survival tools. Yet, when it comes to introspection, we tend to be very scared of looking too closely. Of course, I'm making huge generalizations based on a small population sample, but it does seem to hold true. We, as a species, seem to be more comfortable with the outside world than with our inner workings, as if we're afraid that, should we look inward, something will collapse. The truth is, it might. Religion can then be used as a brace to erect an even stronger understanding of self, purpose and meaning, including moral codes. It is not fundamentally necessary, though. An athiest or an agnostic can come to the same conclusions without going through the same steps. Neither process invalidates the other and certainly neither path is inherantly necessary to arrive at valid conclusions. They are simply different pathways.

Religion, Bottle, may indeed serve as an excuse to stunt the emotional, moral and spiritual growth of an individual, but I would argue that this isn't because of religion, but rather because of human proclivity and a misapplication of religious thought.

An example of moral religious acts include
The Inquistion.
The Crusades.
Suicide bombs.
Settlements in Gaza and the West bank.
I could go on.
Those that are "religious" are just as morally impure than the rest of us. i.e. there are many good people who are atheists as well as religious and there are many bad people who are religious as well as atheists.
The difference is that the religious ones who are "bad" delude themselves into thinking that what they do is right.And another example of an act of the believers, in almost all theist religions:
The forgiveness of sin.
The difference is that the Atheist are stuck with all the bad they do in their life. The believer can look forward to redemption.

Not really. If there is a god, then that god will not forgive those who wantonly kill in his or her name. So in the examples in the first quote, those who take/took part in those acts, are going to be dammed (assuming there is a god or gods) but will just be deluded in that THEY think that they will not.

Also, if a god refuses to reward a person even if they were good, just because they did not worship god, or bowed to the wrong idol, then that being is just sad, and immoral. i.e. good people should be rewarded even if they are not religious or if they are of the wrong religion.

I am a Unitarian Christian. Before that, I was, for ten years an Agnostic/Athiest. I kept going back and forth between Agnosticism and Atheism. This is largely due to my rocky relationship with the Roman Catholic Church, in which I was raised...and the great number of things I was unable to reconcile between the words, and the actions, of the Church.

I just could not square up the words and the actions of the Church, they seemed incredibly hypocritical and quite frankly, often contradictory.

I went through this ten-year period where I'd lost the faith. I WANTED to believe, but couldn't make myself believe. you might say this was my time wandering in the desert.

Since then, I have come back to faith in Christ, though I now practice my faith in a Unitarian Universalist Church.

See, my mistake, and it took me ten years to learn this...I needed faith in CHRIST...not faith in the man-made religion and dogma. It was the man-made religion and dogma, and the constant falling short on the part of modern religion that caused me to turn away from it for those ten years.

I still do not take much stock in modern day organized religion, hence my choosing to partake of my spiritual journey in a Unitarian Universalist church.

All that said, I believe that all people, religious/spiritual or not...have a conscience. If their conscience guides their actions, and causes them to act in a way most would agree was moral...if they do the right thing (or what most reasonable people would agree was the right thing) because they truly want to do the right thing...and not because of fear of Hell, then, I think those people may even be MORE moral than the modern-day religious zealots.

In the Bible, the Pharisees and Sadducees were chastised by Jesus for cleaning only the outside of the glass. This was a metaphor in which Jesus was pointing out the very hypocrisy and holier-than-thou attitude that existed among those people...and which, in my opinion, exists today among most of the people who wear their religion on their sleeve. Jesus pointed out that the Pharisees and Sadducees, ON THE SURFACE, appeared to be all moral and pure...but in their HEARTS...they were filthy.

The Bible admonishes us all "For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God." And "Man seeth the outside appearance, but the Lord seeth the HEART."

All that said, I see no reason why subscrition to any religion make one any more inclined to be truly moral any more (or less) so than one who does not subscribe to any organized religion. These things only show that the subscribers care about how the OUTSIDE of their cup is seen BY THEIR FELLOW MAN. It says nothing about the heart, the character, or their moral fiber. These things can only be judged by the ACTIONS of people. And the process by which a person arrives at the decisions they arrive at.

So, the short answer is "No."

double post...actually triple

triple post...damn Forum...

I would say yes. A lot of morals that I hold (such as abortion is wrong) come from what my religion says. Therefore some atheists (not necessarily all of them) may not believe what I believe to be a moral and thus, in my eyes, they are less moral than I am (that's not say all atheists, just some).

Catholic Europe...you know I like you, but I cannot resist this one.

You Pharisee!!!

Sorry, but you remind me, with these words, of the parable of the Pharisee who was in the temple beating his breast and prostating himself in thanksgiving that he was better than the common publican. I disremember exactly the chapter and verse in which this parable is related, since I do not have my Bible in front of me at the moment.

And, not as a crack on you, C.E. but...in my not so humble opinion...ANY person who would place themselves in a morally superior position to others...well, that is not morally superior. It is not for YOU to place yourself there. Only your Lord and Savior may make that judgement. And if you feel the need to raise yourself on a pedestal and claim moral superiority, it makes me wonder if you really believe in your own self-proclaimed moral superiority. If you really WERE morally superior, and really believed you were...it would shine through on its own, and you'd need not proclaim it...for others would see it in your actions, without you ever having to say so much as a word.

In fact, the best way I have ever heard what I just said phrased succinctly is..."If one has to TELL you that they are a Christian, chances are they really aren't."

I don't like to hear people tell me they are morally superior, but I have to wonder if this may be because I am afraid they may just be right.

I guess it depends on what you think is and is not moral.

For example, I do not think that abortion and homosexuality are morally wrong.

I do think murder, rape, incest, paedophilia and robbery are immoral however.

So, in order to answer the question, the definition of morality has to be argued about first.

I am an athiest with a stong sense of right and wrong. Morality if you will. The Fact that I do not need to believe in a higher power does not alter that fact. I have friends of a great many beliefs and they All have a sense of morality: Christians (Various denominations) Muslims, Jews, Pagans (various and I'm related to several) And at least one Satanist.

Its not what words you believe but how you react to the reality around you that defines your morality.

TBO

Its not what words you believe but how you react to the reality around you that defines your morality.


Exactly! Well said!

And I've never seen Atheists start holy wars...

...or think paradise awaits them as a reward for "martyring" themselves with suicide bombs.

I've never seen atheists burn people at the stake for bring 'witches' either.

Unfortunately, it is many of the people with religious views on morals that tend to do the right thing not because they want to, but because "God will send you to hell if you don't" or because "God will send you to heaven if you do". It is a carrot-stick type of mentality. Atheists (and some religious people), on the other hand, tend to do the right thing just because it is the right thing. They don't expect heaven or hell, they just want to do what they believe is right here in the only life they believe they will have.
YES. that is one of my primary complaints with religiously-based morality; it tends to stall people at a very childlike level of moral understanding, the basic punishment/reward system. people just do what will keep them out of hell, rather than understanding the full ramifications of actions and chosing to do the right thing out of conscious choice. i don't believe that counts as moral action, i think it's just a sort of null answer that is neither moral nor immoral.

That would be my major gripe with religion as well.

And I've never seen Atheists start holy wars...

...or think paradise awaits them as a reward for "martyring" themselves with suicide bombs.

I've never seen atheists burn people at the stake for bring 'witches' either.

But these types of arguments are the same as the ones used in the 70s claiming rock music and Dungeons and Dragons inspired kids to kill themselves, or the ones in the 90s saying without "Beavis and Butthead" little Jimmy wouldn't have set himself on fire or the ones out there now claiming that MMORPGs inspire suicide. It is not fair to indict an entire philosophy based on the actions of a fringe minority.

Have terrible things been done in the name of religion? Of course they have. Have terrible things been done without religion ever figuring into it? Yes, they have. The common thread is not the school of thought, but rather the presence of a skewed value system. If you took away rock music, religion and MMORPGs, people would still find excuses to kill themselves, oppress others and commit terrible actions.

And I've never seen Atheists start holy wars...

...or think paradise awaits them as a reward for "martyring" themselves with suicide bombs.

I've never seen atheists burn people at the stake for bring 'witches' either.

But these types of arguments are the same as the ones used in the 70s claiming rock music and Dungeons and Dragons inspired kids to kill themselves, or the ones in the 90s saying without "Beavis and Butthead" little Jimmy wouldn't have set himself on fire or the ones out there now claiming that MMORPGs inspire suicide. It is not fair to indict an entire philosophy based on the actions of a fringe minority.

Have terrible things been done in the name of religion? Of course they have. Have terrible things been done without religion ever figuring into it? Yes, they have. The common thread is not the school of thought, but rather the presence of a skewed value system. If you took away rock music, religion and MMORPGs, people would still find excuses to kill themselves, oppress others and commit terrible actions.

So if religion didn't exist then things like the crusades and the inquistion would still have happened in a different form?

And I've never seen Atheists start holy wars...

...or think paradise awaits them as a reward for "martyring" themselves with suicide bombs.

I've never seen atheists burn people at the stake for bring 'witches' either.

But these types of arguments are the same as the ones used in the 70s claiming rock music and Dungeons and Dragons inspired kids to kill themselves, or the ones in the 90s saying without "Beavis and Butthead" little Jimmy wouldn't have set himself on fire or the ones out there now claiming that MMORPGs inspire suicide. It is not fair to indict an entire philosophy based on the actions of a fringe minority.

Have terrible things been done in the name of religion? Of course they have. Have terrible things been done without religion ever figuring into it? Yes, they have. The common thread is not the school of thought, but rather the presence of a skewed value system. If you took away rock music, religion and MMORPGs, people would still find excuses to kill themselves, oppress others and commit terrible actions.

So if religion didn't exist then things like the crusades and the inquistion would still have happened in a different form?

Maybe not those specific types of crimes but other forms of violence certainly. Nobody has ever really needed religion as an excuse to kill people. It was just convenient at times.

So if religion didn't exist then things like the crusades and the inquistion would still have happened in a different form?

Yes. People would still find justification to do terrible things to one another. It is to be hoped that, someday, we may evolve past this. History, however, argues that mankind will always find some channel to send his hatred down. Religion is a convenient excuse, but so is nationalism/patriotism, family/clan ties, property rights, and a thousand other reasons less esoteric than religion.

And I've never seen Atheists start holy wars...

...or think paradise awaits them as a reward for "martyring" themselves with suicide bombs.

I've never seen atheists burn people at the stake for bring 'witches' either.

But these types of arguments are the same as the ones used in the 70s claiming rock music and Dungeons and Dragons inspired kids to kill themselves, or the ones in the 90s saying without "Beavis and Butthead" little Jimmy wouldn't have set himself on fire or the ones out there now claiming that MMORPGs inspire suicide. It is not fair to indict an entire philosophy based on the actions of a fringe minority.

Have terrible things been done in the name of religion? Of course they have. Have terrible things been done without religion ever figuring into it? Yes, they have. The common thread is not the school of thought, but rather the presence of a skewed value system. If you took away rock music, religion and MMORPGs, people would still find excuses to kill themselves, oppress others and commit terrible actions.

So if religion didn't exist then things like the crusades and the inquistion would still have happened in a different form?

Knowing humans nature toward destruction, yes. Even without political/religious beliefs, some one would have destroyed the World Trade Center. Why? Because they could. At least with religious Fanatics, you know WHY they do things. It is the poeple who do these kind of things with No beliefs, the thoughtless soulles one that frighten even me.

Jim SC

A national census of the general population found Catholics to be about 15% (and they count from the diaper up). Hardly 12% are old enough to commit a crime, and half of these are women. That leaves an adult Catholic population of 6% supplying 50% of the prison population.

Yeah, but look at their race and the social conditions in which they live. I would say that most Catholic Americans are Hispanics who have come to America and live in terrible conditions in dangerous inner city areas. It has nothing to do with religion (or race).

i completely agree with your point, and i wasn't trying to say anything in particular about the criminal leanings of Catholics...i was just trying to point out that atheists are not over represented in prison populations, but some religious sects are. it was meant as more of a disproof of an earlier statement than a proof of my own position. personally i don't really think there is any established link between religious belief (or lack thereof) and crime, except for crimes like bombing abortion clinics or hate crimes in which there is an obvious relationship to religious fundamentalism.

Religion, Bottle, may indeed serve as an excuse to stunt the emotional, moral and spiritual growth of an individual, but I would argue that this isn't because of religion, but rather because of human proclivity and a misapplication of religious thought.
dude, you're preaching to the choir. read my stuff more carefully before you lecture, it'll save you time.

i have often said that i feel religion is a symptom of other human problems, and merely provides a convenient expression for natural human weaknesses or unanswered needs. i think religion makes it a little too easy for people to succumb, particularly if they are indoctrinated at a young age, but i don't think religion is the problem in and of itself. i strongly believe that religion cannot be eliminated unless the underlying causes are treated, so i don't encourage any of the extreme "atheist agenda" crap you read about where folks try to erradicate religion or force other people to give up their faith.

Religion, Bottle, may indeed serve as an excuse to stunt the emotional, moral and spiritual growth of an individual, but I would argue that this isn't because of religion, but rather because of human proclivity and a misapplication of religious thought.
dude, you're preaching to the choir. read my stuff more carefully before you lecture, it'll save you time.

i have often said that i feel religion is a symptom of other human problems, and merely provides a convenient expression for natural human weaknesses or unanswered needs. i think religion makes it a little too easy for people to succumb, particularly if they are indoctrinated at a young age, but i don't think religion is the problem in and of itself. i strongly believe that religion cannot be eliminated unless the underlying causes are treated, so i don't encourage any of the extreme "atheist agenda" crap you read about where folks try to erradicate religion or force other people to give up their faith.

Sorry if I sounded like I was lecturing. It wasn't my intent. :lol:

However, I do wonder why you feel religion as a whole needs to be eliminated?

Knowing humans nature toward destruction, yes.

Not that I'm making any assumptions about what you believe here, but this reminds me of a point that I want to make; the tendency to destroy is not specifically human nature. It is the nature of all living things to destroy their competition, either directly, by killing them outright, or indirectly, by denying them resources.

Animals fight over territory and resources with as much vigour as we do; the only difference is that they don't have the intellectual capacity or physical means to build weapons. If they could, they probably would. If the little tweety birds had guided missiles, there wouldn't be a tree left standing.

I don't know why I wanted to make this point, since it doesn't advance the debate a great deal. I just find the opinion among a lot of people, that humans are somehow evil destroyers compared to other forms of life, to be particularly naive.

Religion, Bottle, may indeed serve as an excuse to stunt the emotional, moral and spiritual growth of an individual, but I would argue that this isn't because of religion, but rather because of human proclivity and a misapplication of religious thought.
dude, you're preaching to the choir. read my stuff more carefully before you lecture, it'll save you time.

i have often said that i feel religion is a symptom of other human problems, and merely provides a convenient expression for natural human weaknesses or unanswered needs. i think religion makes it a little too easy for people to succumb, particularly if they are indoctrinated at a young age, but i don't think religion is the problem in and of itself. i strongly believe that religion cannot be eliminated unless the underlying causes are treated, so i don't encourage any of the extreme "atheist agenda" crap you read about where folks try to erradicate religion or force other people to give up their faith.

Sorry if I sounded like I was lecturing. It wasn't my intent. :lol:

However, I do wonder why you feel religion as a whole needs to be eliminated?

no worries, i didn't mean to sound too snippy either.

again, i don't feel it is religion specifically that needs to be eliminated, but rather the underlying problems that lead to a life based around superstitious belief. it's like how we don't try to cure sneezing, we try to cure pneumonia or related diseases. a single sneeze isn't a problem, just like little bits of superstition aren't a problem...there are tons of harmless little superstitions that are fun and silly and do no damage to anybody, like telling kids about Santa or pixies, or having good luck charms.

the problem is when people feel the need to base their lives and their morality on a construct rather than on the realities of their minds and their world. in my opinion (please note, only my opinion), that is not a desireable way to live, and it is not a worthy lifestyle for human adults. but that's just what i believe, and by definition it would be impossible for me to force it on anybody even if i wanted to...which i don't. that would be like me yelling at somebody to quit having a fever until the fever went away, something which would be a waste of both of our time.

Just a question, but why does a difference in moral values neccessarily equate to "less morals"?

No, what I'm saying is that I have a different defintion of morals. I see it as moral to not have an abortion, thus it being immoral to support or have abortions.

Perhaps 'less moral' was wrong of me to use.

No, what I'm saying is that I have a different defintion of morals.

Since morals cannot be defined objectively, this entire debate would appear to be moot.

Just a question, but why does a difference in moral values neccessarily equate to "less morals"?

No, what I'm saying is that I have a different defintion of morals. I see it as moral to not have an abortion, thus it being immoral to support or have abortions.

Perhaps 'less moral' was wrong of me to use.

if it helps, i interpretted your statement as simply that you were trying to make clear how your definition of morality makes other people "immoral" according to your standards. i didn't see that you were trying to claim you were objectively "more moral," but more that you were pointing out how things look from your moral viewpoint. hope that's not too off base.

i think most of us think of things in those terms; how people measure up to our personal morality. some people go a step farther and claim that their morality must be right and therefore everyone else is wrong. but some folks can admit that it's just from their perspective, and that to other people they are likely just as "immoral."

Knowing humans nature toward destruction, yes.

Not that I'm making any assumptions about what you believe here, but this reminds me of a point that I want to make; the tendency to destroy is not specifically human nature. It is the nature of all living things to destroy their competition, either directly, by killing them outright, or indirectly, by denying them resources.

Animals fight over territory and resources with as much vigour as we do; the only difference is that they don't have the intellectual capacity or physical means to build weapons. If they could, they probably would. If the little tweety birds had guided missiles, there wouldn't be a tree left standing.

I don't know why I wanted to make this point, since it doesn't advance the debate a great deal. I just find the opinion among a lot of people, that humans are somehow evil destroyers compared to other forms of life, to be particularly naive.

Oh, absolutely agreed. Destruction is certainly a permanent part of the natural order of things. In order for there to be life there must be death and so on.

Still, it seems that human beings excel at the destruction and are sometimes lacking at the creating. Whereas animals fight for territory, humans fight for grudges. Like you said, though, our only difference may lie in our awareness and not in some sort of unique racial bent for wholesale devistation.

And, not as a crack on you, C.E. but...in my not so humble opinion...ANY person who would place themselves in a morally superior position to others...well, that is not morally superior. It is not for YOU to place yourself there. Only your Lord and Savior may make that judgement. And if you feel the need to raise yourself on a pedestal and claim moral superiority, it makes me wonder if you really believe in your own self-proclaimed moral superiority. If you really WERE morally superior, and really believed you were...it would shine through on its own, and you'd need not proclaim it...for others would see it in your actions, without you ever having to say so much as a word.

I see what you are saying but I don't agree. I didn't state that I knew that I was morally superior to others at all. I just said, speaking hypothetically, that I could consider myself, on grounds of my religious belief and dogma, to be a more moral person compared to other people - we know this to be true (whether it is me or not).

Someone who murders and is not repentant of their murders is less moral than somebody who has lead a good life.

And on the basis of God only saying whether we are mroal or not, surely by following his commandments (such as thou shalt not murder) which are morals, we are morally superior (regardless of whether you are Christian or not) to people who do murder?!

Have I made sense? :?

i completely agree with your point, and i wasn't trying to say anything in particular about the criminal leanings of Catholics...i was just trying to point out that atheists are not over represented in prison populations, but some religious sects are. it was meant as more of a disproof of an earlier statement than a proof of my own position. personally i don't really think there is any established link between religious belief (or lack thereof) and crime, except for crimes like bombing abortion clinics or hate crimes in which there is an obvious relationship to religious fundamentalism.

Oh, okay. Suspicion on my part (I believed that you were subetly showing Catholicism and Catholics to be a criminal thing). I apologise.

if it helps, i interpretted your statement as simply that you were trying to make clear how your definition of morality makes other people "immoral" according to your standards. i didn't see that you were trying to claim you were objectively "more moral," but more that you were pointing out how things look from your moral viewpoint. hope that's not too off base.

Yes, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

Zeppistan - I never once claimed that I was morally superior to other people (because I'm not - we all sin, which is, IMO, being immoral).

No, what I'm saying is that I have a different defintion of morals.

Since morals cannot be defined objectively, this entire debate would appear to be moot.

Well, they can in a way - whatever you believe to be right and wrong is your set of morals.

Listen to Bottle! He is much smarter than all of you fairy-tale believing selves.

i completely agree with your point, and i wasn't trying to say anything in particular about the criminal leanings of Catholics...i was just trying to point out that atheists are not over represented in prison populations, but some religious sects are. it was meant as more of a disproof of an earlier statement than a proof of my own position. personally i don't really think there is any established link between religious belief (or lack thereof) and crime, except for crimes like bombing abortion clinics or hate crimes in which there is an obvious relationship to religious fundamentalism.

Oh, okay. Suspicion on my part (I believed that you were subetly showing Catholicism and Catholics to be a criminal thing). I apologise.

given my forum history that's not surprising. but i honestly don't think religion causes people to be criminal (except in extreme cases like those i mentioned), i think it simply helps them select an outlet for a problem they already had. if they hadn't been religious they might have chosen a different criminal activity, but that's as far as it could go...they still would have been cut of the same cloth, and still would have had all the problems that lead to their criminal choices.

No, what I'm saying is that I have a different defintion of morals.

Since morals cannot be defined objectively, this entire debate would appear to be moot.

Exactly! The question is poorly phrased (no offence, Garaj) in that, to indicate something is "less than" there must be some sort of agreed upon metric so as to be able to quantifiably analyze it in the first place. There can obviously be no such measure for who has more morals than someone else. It might even be argued that, assuming the definition of "morality" is "Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character," (from trusty Dictionary.com) all people have an equal amount of morality although those morals themselves may differ.

It is inappropriate to say that someone is morally superior unless the two people being compared share identical moral criteria. As this rarely happens, it is very hard to say who is "more moral" than whom.

A better question might have been, "Is Theisim an intrisic part of moral development or can morals develop in it's absence?" or, possibly, "Are moral standards developed on the basis of theisim more socially valid in Western Culture than those developed in it's absence?"

No, what I'm saying is that I have a different defintion of morals.

Since morals cannot be defined objectively, this entire debate would appear to be moot.

Well, they can in a way - whatever you believe to be right and wrong is your set of morals.
also, there are many people who don't agree that morality is relative. for those people, and for those of us who have to live with them, this discussion is very relavent.

also, there are many people who don't agree that morality is relative. for those people, and for those of us who have to live with them, this discussion is very relavent.

Basically, it's up to the individual as to what they think, and with regards to this thread question - it's up to you as to what you believe is right.

No, what I'm saying is that I have a different defintion of morals.

Since morals cannot be defined objectively, this entire debate would appear to be moot.

Well, they can in a way - whatever you believe to be right and wrong is your set of morals.

But that is a subjective, personalized definition, not an objective, all encompassing one that everyone subscribes to.

Listen to Bottle! He is much smarter than all of you fairy-tale believing selves.

Er, um, huh?

Speaking in a purely philosophical tone...

Morality might b irrelevent.
In the world there could only be just cause and effect.

#If you kill, you are eventually found and are imprisoned or executed for your crime.
#If you are lecherous, you incur the wrath of the husband/wife.

Is there really a need for morality? The need to appeal to the victim's emotions and to treat individuals fairly was the primary driving force behind the creation of the first ever laws. One could see it in a way that one pays a penalty for hurting one's emotions or harming another because in all; we as human beings wish to stick up for each other.

These are not necessarily my beliefs. This as I said is a possibility.

Speaking in a purely philosophical tone...

Morality might b irrelevent.
In the world there could only be just cause and effect.

#If you kill, you are eventually found and are imprisoned or executed for your crime.
#If you are lecherous, you incur the wrath of the husband/wife.

Is there really a need for morality? The need to appeal to the victim's emotions and to treat individuals fairly was the primary driving force behind the creation of the first ever laws. One could see it in a way that one pays a penalty for hurting one's emotions or harming another because in all; we as human beings wish to stick up for each other.

These are not necessarily my beliefs. This as I said is a possibility.

Listen to Bottle! He is much smarter than all of you fairy-tale believing selves.

Er, um, huh?

though i am obviously delighted by compliments, i must add my own "huh?" to the mix. i'm not smarter than most of the people on Nationstates, and i believe more in fairy-tales than God, so i'm not sure how accurate the compliment was :P.

Speaking in a purely philosophical tone...

Morality might b irrelevent.
In the world there could only be just cause and effect.

#If you kill, you are eventually found and are imprisoned or executed for your crime.
#If you are lecherous, you incur the wrath of the husband/wife.

Is there really a need for morality? The need to appeal to the victim's emotions and to treat individuals fairly was the primary driving force behind the creation of the first ever laws. One could see it in a way that one pays a penalty for hurting one's emotions or harming another because in all; we as human beings wish to stick up for each other.

These are not necessarily my beliefs. This as I said is a possibility.

i agree. morality is purely subjective, and it is quite possible to lead "moral" lives (i.e. no murder, rape, theft, etc) without moral appeals or moral codes. practicality enforces a large degree of "moral" behavior on its own.

Listen to Bottle! He is much smarter than all of you fairy-tale believing selves.

Er, um, huh?

though i am obviously delighted by compliments, i must add my own "huh?" to the mix. i'm not smarter than most of the people on Nationstates, and i believe more in fairy-tales than God, so i'm not sure how accurate the compliment was :P.
Plus, aren't you female?

Listen to Bottle! He is much smarter than all of you fairy-tale believing selves.

Er, um, huh?

though i am obviously delighted by compliments, i must add my own "huh?" to the mix. i'm not smarter than most of the people on Nationstates, and i believe more in fairy-tales than God, so i'm not sure how accurate the compliment was :P.
Plus, aren't you female?

There is that. Some people just don't know how to give compliments do they? :?

No, what I'm saying is that I have a different defintion of morals.

Since morals cannot be defined objectively, this entire debate would appear to be moot.

Well, they can in a way - whatever you believe to be right and wrong is your set of morals.

That's what I mean. That's a subjective definition, not an objective one.

That's what I mean. That's a subjective definition, not an objective one.

Well, it's always better to personalize than generalize.

Listen to Bottle! He is much smarter than all of you fairy-tale believing selves.

Er, um, huh?

though i am obviously delighted by compliments, i must add my own "huh?" to the mix. i'm not smarter than most of the people on Nationstates, and i believe more in fairy-tales than God, so i'm not sure how accurate the compliment was :P.
Plus, aren't you female?
last time i checked.

*pause*

yup, still female.

last time i checked.

*pause*

yup, still female.

Ah...as I thought. :)

That's what I mean. That's a subjective definition, not an objective one.

Well, it's always better to personalize than generalize.

Maybe, but that doesn't make the debate any less moot. Since believers are moral by their moral standards, and atheists are moral by theirs, it cannot be determined if one is more moral than the other. Neither can it be determined if one set of moral standards is better than another, unless one obviously causes human suffering, or some such.

Only if there are general morals that all parties can agree on, can it be decided if one group is more moral than the other. That, however, is largely impossible.

I'd like to know what you consider a "Christian" to be. Someone who merely states themself to be one? Someone who attends a Christian church twice a year or every Sunday? Or someone who believes in Jesus Christ and has faith in the Lord?

I'd like to know what you consider a "Christian" to be. Someone who merely states themself to be one? Someone who attends a Christian church twice a year or every Sunday? Or someone who believes in Jesus Christ and has faith in the Lord? :?:

I'd like to know what you consider a "Christian" to be. Someone who merely states themself to be one? Someone who attends a Christian church twice a year or every Sunday? Or someone who believes in Jesus Christ and has faith in the Lord? :?:

I'd like to know what you consider a "Christian" to be. Someone who merely states themself to be one? Someone who attends a Christian church twice a year or every Sunday? Or someone who believes in Jesus Christ and has faith in the Lord? :?:

Before everybody dives in with their ideas, I'd like to point a few things out:

- Morality and moral codes existed long before today's major religions did

- Every major religion has a well-thought-out moral code, not just Christianity.

- Are people really being Moral if they only "do the right thing" because they're afraid of Hell?

- It's rare to find Atheists in prisons, at least in North America. Very good! Show them God worshipers!

I'd like to know what you consider a "Christian" to be. Someone who merely states themself to be one? Someone who attends a Christian church twice a year or every Sunday? Or someone who believes in Jesus Christ and has faith in the Lord?

Were you addressing this to someone specific or can anyone answer?

When I use the word "Christian" I tend to be referring to someone who espouses aggrement, either in total or in part, with the Judeo-Christian Church or some related ethic. In general, I consider them to:

1) Belive in a personal relationship with some definition of God;
2) Believe, either in factuality or in mythologic idea, of the story of the Christ;
3) Accept the Bible as being a founding basis for belief (although not necessarily accepting that it is the infalliable word of God and must be interpreted literally);
4) Accept both Old and New Testiments as ongoing revelations;
5) Attempt to lead a "Christian Life" by practicing the teachings of the Christ.

Membership or attendence in an official church is not necessary.

For example, I identify as a Quaker. I also identify as a Christian. I do believe it is possible to achieve a personal relationship with God, although the definitions and form of that are still being worked out. I believe in the mythology of the Christ, meaning that while I am uncertain about his physical existance or the particulars of his conception, I feel that his message of redemption, peace, love, tolerance and forgiveness is valid and important. I believe that the Bible, both Old and New Testiments, offer insightful parables and some excellent literature, but do not believe in a literal interpretation of it. I also do not believe that God gave us the Bible, some 2000 years ago, and has since abandoned us. Therefore I believe in a continuous, ongoing revelation of God occuring and refining all the time. Furthermore, I do not believe that The Bible is the single source of potentially divinely inspired wisdom, therefore I do not believe that it is either better or worse than other religious works, both from the Christian faith as well as from other faiths. Finally, I try very hard to live a life that I feel to be good. I try to refrain from harming others in word or deed. I work for many different volunteer causes and try to give to charity. I speak out against injustice when I see it, both for people who's views I agree with and for people who I differ with. I try to make my life an example, not forcing others to follow my beliefs (indeed, I think the world would be a very boring place if everyone believed the same), but perhaps giving them a curiosity to find out more through my actions and deeds while taking that same curiosity into myself and trying to find out more about others and their beliefs. I do not go to meeting every Sunday, but I try to make it when possible. I am a member of my local meeting, though.

There, does that answer your question or were you just trying to start something?

There, does that answer your question or were you just trying to start something?

That answers my question wonderfully. Thank you.

There, does that answer your question or were you just trying to start something?

That answers my question wonderfully. Thank you.

You're welcome. :D

I'm too lazy to read nine pages of material not presented in "The Personal History of David Copperfield" so I apologize beforehand if I'm merely repeating someone.

Let's see, the question was "Are atheists less moral than Christians?"

The answer I would say would be "Not necessarily."

I say this because there are very immoral people who call themselves Christians. They are probably not, but that is another issue. There are also very immoral atheists, I'm sure.

However, due to a little thing called natural law, that law which is instinctive in humans and animals but to which one can be desensitized by one's ubringing or society, there are also atheists who are very moral. By which I mean that they don't go around killing people or having affairs or something like that; they know what is right or wrong by their conscience. The difference is that they weren't taught what is right or wrong like Christians are taught.

I don't like to hear people tell me they are morally superior, but I have to wonder if this may be because I am afraid they may just be right.

Don't worry...they aren't right. See my reply to Catholic Europe on page 6 of this thread.

And, not as a crack on you, C.E. but...in my not so humble opinion...ANY person who would place themselves in a morally superior position to others...well, that is not morally superior. It is not for YOU to place yourself there. Only your Lord and Savior may make that judgement. And if you feel the need to raise yourself on a pedestal and claim moral superiority, it makes me wonder if you really believe in your own self-proclaimed moral superiority. If you really WERE morally superior, and really believed you were...it would shine through on its own, and you'd need not proclaim it...for others would see it in your actions, without you ever having to say so much as a word.

I see what you are saying but I don't agree. I didn't state that I knew that I was morally superior to others at all. I just said, speaking hypothetically, that I could consider myself, on grounds of my religious belief and dogma, to be a more moral person compared to other people - we know this to be true (whether it is me or not).

Someone who murders and is not repentant of their murders is less moral than somebody who has lead a good life.

And on the basis of God only saying whether we are mroal or not, surely by following his commandments (such as thou shalt not murder) which are morals, we are morally superior (regardless of whether you are Christian or not) to people who do murder?!

Have I made sense? :?

Yes, on that level you do make sense...however, I still say that you remind me of the parable of the Pharisee, beating his breast in thanksgiving at the temple that he was "better than the common publican." I really have to wonder if those who are self-proclaimed "more moral" than those around them really believe themselves so. If so, and if they really ARE "more moral," then why do they need to announce it to everyone? It seems to me that people would notice it for themselves, in your actions. You would not need to beat your breast, promethian, and proclaim your "moral superiority."

TRemember that Jesus admonished the Pharisees and Sadducees of his day to "clean the INSIDE of their cup." This is a metaphorical reference to morality. What Jesus was saying to the Pharisees and Sadducees was this..."Sure...on the outside, which your fellow man sees...you appear to be morally pure, as with Ceasar's wife...above even the appearance of sin...however, INSIDE...in your HEART...where the LRD sees...your soul and your heart is as black as everyone else's.

Bottom line? I say this for myself...I'm not better than anyone else...but I'll be damned if I ain't just as good!

I suppose that most universities were origionally run by religious groups.

No, what I'm saying is that I have a different defintion of morals.

Since morals cannot be defined objectively, this entire debate would appear to be moot.

Well, they can in a way - whatever you believe to be right and wrong is your set of morals.

That is not objective in any way. Would you like to borrow my Funk & Wagnall's? That is SUBJECTIVE...NOT objective.

Sorry, but although religion is a way of morality, Morality is not dependant on religion. I can prove this


http://www.angelfire.com/tx6/jimp/images/Picture_20.jpg
Ave Satanis!
Rege Satanis!
Hail Satan!

Big Jim P!
SC!

http://www.magickalshadow.com/daca/

http://www.shelterfordarkness.com/dadv/index.html

Has one person yet questioned what morality is? Morality isn't some mere abstraction that can be defined by us, that has and will continue to lead to chaos. Ethics without a transcendental basis is FLAUD.

Maybe, but that doesn't make the debate any less moot. Since believers are moral by their moral standards, and atheists are moral by theirs, it cannot be determined if one is more moral than the other. Neither can it be determined if one set of moral standards is better than another, unless one obviously causes human suffering, or some such.

Which is why we give our personal opinions.

Actually, I would even go so far as to say that being an Atheist makes you that much more moral.

I can't begin to count the ways religion has wronged us. Inquisition anybody? Draconian marriage and drug laws? Television censorship?

Utter idiocy?

Shouldn't it suffice to say that posessing/proclaiming the attainment of mores is distisnct from actually using them - that is the measure of one's morality.

It should be quite clear that religion makes one no more moral and a lack of religion makes one no less so. The fact of the matter is that people do not always act morally. Given the circumstances, the measure of morality is in the attempt to live out one's mores and the attempt to get back to them when mistakes are made.

Respectfully,
Cubed1
Foreign Minister of the Democratic Republic of Boozehoundia

Before everybody dives in with their ideas, I'd like to point a few things out:

- Morality and moral codes existed long before today's major religions did

- Every major religion has a well-thought-out moral code, not just Christianity.

- Are people really being Moral if they only "do the right thing" because they're afraid of Hell?

- It's rare to find Atheists in prisons, at least in North America.

Do you have any stats to prove that last claim? I'd agree with everything else you said.

In answer to the question, in general, no, but *some* atheists might be less moral than believers (of what? I assume you meant Christians)

Has one person yet questioned what morality is? Morality isn't some mere abstraction that can be defined by us, that has and will continue to lead to chaos. Ethics without a transcendental basis is FLAUD.

And why, exactly, isn't morality self-definable? Morals are simply the dictums which an individual chooses to give value to in their lives. It may be because that person believes in some sort of higher order that will grade their performance in this life to assess their placement in the next or it may be because the person considers observance of these values an important function of a healthy society and wishes to garner the benefits granted by practicing them faithfully. Or still, and this may be a little trancendental, some might feel some sort of inner compulsion, some sort of natural inclination to view some things as a subjective "good" and others as a subjective "bad".

The point is, not all of these approaches to mores and morality require anything like a religious construct to support them, yet they're all valid. Why do you feel that mores without a metaphysical aspect are somehow invalid?

And I've never seen Atheists start holy wars...

i second that

And I've never seen Atheists start holy wars...

i second that

And I've never seen Atheists start holy wars...

i second that

Fair enough, but again, how do you answer the argument that this isn't a function of religion specifically, but human (and, indeed, any sort of animal) aggression in general? Without religion, some other cause would be substituted in to give those who wish to sufficent justification (at least in their own minds) to committ any sort of attrocity they wish. History has shown us many times over that you don't need to be religious to be a completely evil minded twit.

Again, I'm not saying religion hasn't had horrible things done in it's name, but simply because athiests wouldn't start 'holy wars' doesn't somehow make them automatically more moral than theists, just as proclaiming theisim doesn't instantly confer a higher moral stance than not subscribing to one. To put this blame on religion is to ignore the root of the problem and remove responsibility from where it should be rightly placed, on us as humans, not necessarily as athiests or theists.

And I've never seen Atheists start holy wars...

i second that

Fair enough, but again, how do you answer the argument that this isn't a function of religion specifically, but human (and, indeed, any sort of animal) aggression in general? Without religion, some other cause would be substituted in to give those who wish to sufficent justification (at least in their own minds) to committ any sort of attrocity they wish. History has shown us many times over that you don't need to be religious to be a completely evil minded twit.

Again, I'm not saying religion hasn't had horrible things done in it's name, but simply because athiests wouldn't start 'holy wars' doesn't somehow make them automatically more moral than theists, just as proclaiming theisim doesn't instantly confer a higher moral stance than not subscribing to one. To put this blame on religion is to ignore the root of the problem and remove responsibility from where it should be rightly placed, on us as humans, not necessarily as athiests or theists.

Has one person yet questioned what morality is? Morality isn't some mere abstraction that can be defined by us, that has and will continue to lead to chaos. Ethics without a transcendental basis is FLAUD.

And why, exactly, isn't morality self-definable? Morals are simply the dictums which an individual chooses to give value to in their lives. It may be because that person believes in some sort of higher order that will grade their performance in this life to assess their placement in the next or it may be because the person considers observance of these values an important function of a healthy society and wishes to garner the benefits granted by practicing them faithfully. Or still, and this may be a little trancendental, some might feel some sort of inner compulsion, some sort of natural inclination to view some things as a subjective "good" and others as a subjective "bad".

The point is, not all of these approaches to mores and morality require anything like a religious construct to support them, yet they're all valid. Why do you feel that mores without a metaphysical aspect are somehow invalid?

Seeing ho
w I can't put it better I offer you this:

Every now and then, especially when new crime statistics are released or when electioneering rhetoric heats up or some horrible story of a mangled life hits the press, speeches pour forth urging us to teach our children moral principles again. Few indicators of the paucity of our moral resources are more mind-staggering than a bestseller in the 1990s that was nothing more than a compilation of old stories of moral rectitude. The book sold on a massive scale, beyond the publisher's greatest expectations, with purchasers lining up at the cash register like starving peasants queuing up for bread in a famine-stricken country.

Sadly enough, in a time when nary a school budget does not have funds allocated for what is called "character education," bloody campus tragedies seem more abundant than ever before in our nation's history. Why is this? To put it simply, we have moved away from our objective point of reference. We speak of morals, while at the same time eschewing the Moral Lawgiver from whom all morals flow. To put it metaphorically, we have rushed to cut the flowers from off the bush, only to be disappointed when the flowers die for lack of sustaining roots.

We savor tales of morality, yet neglect God's Word. God has given to us a record of his thoughts, his laws, his dealings with humanity. This is the basis which provides structure and a ground for moral judgments. If we do not believe that God has spoken, then all moral points of reference, individually and corporately, become vacuous, and all that remains are pretty stories, at best, and the din of competing wills to power, at worst. We expect our children to act in ways that exhibit self-sacrifice, delayed gratification, honesty and the like, yet without the sufficient impetus or rationale to do so.

Let me wrap up these thoughts. Feminist writer Ellen Goodman observed that yesterday's political shouting match over family values has become today's choir, as those from Left, Right, and Center are all singing in harmony the lyrics of morality and character. In May 2000, The Los Angeles Times ran an article on the booming business of ethical and moral consultation. In a time when we are drawn to talk of values, let us reconsider the One from whose nature all goodness proceeds, and remember that just as flowers cut from their branches cannot flourish and grow, severed morals cannot nourish a life. And that, dear friend, is the moral of the story.
© 2003 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. All Rights Reserved.

Seeing how I can't put it better I offer you this:

Every now and then, especially when new crime statistics are released or when electioneering rhetoric heats up or some horrible story of a mangled life hits the press, speeches pour forth urging us to teach our children moral principles again. Few indicators of the paucity of our moral resources are more mind-staggering than a bestseller in the 1990s that was nothing more than a compilation of old stories of moral rectitude. The book sold on a massive scale, beyond the publisher's greatest expectations, with purchasers lining up at the cash register like starving peasants queuing up for bread in a famine-stricken country.

Sadly enough, in a time when nary a school budget does not have funds allocated for what is called "character education," bloody campus tragedies seem more abundant than ever before in our nation's history. Why is this? To put it simply, we have moved away from our objective point of reference. We speak of morals, while at the same time eschewing the Moral Lawgiver from whom all morals flow. To put it metaphorically, we have rushed to cut the flowers from off the bush, only to be disappointed when the flowers die for lack of sustaining roots.

We savor tales of morality, yet neglect God's Word. God has given to us a record of his thoughts, his laws, his dealings with humanity. This is the basis which provides structure and a ground for moral judgments. If we do not believe that God has spoken, then all moral points of reference, individually and corporately, become vacuous, and all that remains are pretty stories, at best, and the din of competing wills to power, at worst. We expect our children to act in ways that exhibit self-sacrifice, delayed gratification, honesty and the like, yet without the sufficient impetus or rationale to do so.

Let me wrap up these thoughts. Feminist writer Ellen Goodman observed that yesterday's political shouting match over family values has become today's choir, as those from Left, Right, and Center are all singing in harmony the lyrics of morality and character. In May 2000, The Los Angeles Times ran an article on the booming business of ethical and moral consultation. In a time when we are drawn to talk of values, let us reconsider the One from whose nature all goodness proceeds, and remember that just as flowers cut from their branches cannot flourish and grow, severed morals cannot nourish a life. And that, dear friend, is the moral of the story.
© 2003 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. All Rights Reserved.

This doesn't answer the question. It simply assumes that theism has the corner market on morality without providing any sort of objective reasoning to show why mores require a religious context to develop.

I think I hit on that point exactly when I posted:

[quote=jay]Just in case anyone who has been following this thread has not noticed, I have not even answered the original question that was posted.
I do not believe that Atheist are any less moral than believers.
I only think that moral behavior, from the two different religions, is done for very different reasons.
I feel that Atheist do the right thing when it suits them to do so.
I feel believers do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
I do not feel that believers only do the right thing out of fear of going to hell.
I also do not feel that Atheist only do the right thing out of fear of punishment of some kind.
But you also said that atheists are only moral when they are in a good mood- so I'd guess that either you don't ACTUALLY believe that Atheists are as moral as believers- or else, in your experience, atheists are pretty much always in a good mood :D (see, that's me in a good mood)
I'm not an atheist, or a believer, or anything really- though I do lack the belief that god exists, I don't hold the belief that he doesn't. As such, I believer non-believers can be just as moral as believers as long as they follow three of the ten commandments in the way that they have been modified.
Thou shall not initiate force against another
Thou shall not steal except to be Robin Hood (and give back to that whom it was stolen from)
Thou shall not bear false witness to anyone you respect

(I had trouble with that last one...so there might still be some problems with it...)

English journalist Steve Turner wrote a tounge and cheek column in it was what he called The Creed Of The Atheist, he writes,

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin,
We believe everything is okay as long as you don't hurt anyone,
To the best of your definition of hurt,
And to the best of your definition ofknowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better,
Despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated,
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there is something in horoscopes,
U.F.O.'s, and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man,
Just like Buddha, Muhamed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher,
Although we think some of his good morals were basically bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same,
At least the ones that we read were.
They all believe in love and goodness,
They only differ on matters of creation, sin, Heaven, Hell, God and salvation.
We believe that after death comes nothing,
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end then the dead have lied,
Then its compulsory heaven for all,
Except for perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Gzhengis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson,
Whats selected is average,
Whats average is normal,
Whats normal is good.
We believe that each man must find the truth,
If it is right for him,
And reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust,
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth,
Except the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be the father of all flesh disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear, state of emergency, sniper kills ten, troops on rampage, whites go looting bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker.

Back to me now. The violence we see is the result of that creed. One has the coice of believing morals are objective which leads to this creed, or one can acknowledge the Moral Lawgiver.

English journalist Steve Turner wrote a tounge and cheek column in it was what he called The Creed Of The Atheist, he writes,

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin,
We believe everything is okay as long as you don't hurt anyone,
To the best of your definition of hurt,
And to the best of your definition ofknowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better,
Despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated,
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there is something in horoscopes,
U.F.O.'s, and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man,
Just like Buddha, Muhamed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher,
Although we think some of his good morals were basically bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same,
At least the ones that we read were.
They all believe in love and goodness,
They only differ on matters of creation, sin, Heaven, Hell, God and salvation.
We believe that after death comes nothing,
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end then the dead have lied,
Then its compulsory heaven for all,
Except for perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Gzhengis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson,
Whats selected is average,
Whats average is normal,
Whats normal is good.
We believe that each man must find the truth,
If it is right for him,
And reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust,
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth,
Except the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be the father of all flesh disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear, state of emergency, sniper kills ten, troops on rampage, whites go looting bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker.

Back to me now. The violence we see is the result of that creed. One has the coice of believing morals are objective which leads to this creed, or one can acknowledge the Moral Lawgiver.

English journalist Steve Turner wrote a tounge and cheek column in it was what he called The Creed Of The Atheist, he writes,

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin,
We believe everything is okay as long as you don't hurt anyone,
To the best of your definition of hurt,
And to the best of your definition ofknowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better,
Despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated,
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there is something in horoscopes,
U.F.O.'s, and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man,
Just like Buddha, Muhamed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher,
Although we think some of his good morals were basically bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same,
At least the ones that we read were.
They all believe in love and goodness,
They only differ on matters of creation, sin, Heaven, Hell, God and salvation.
We believe that after death comes nothing,
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end then the dead have lied,
Then its compulsory heaven for all,
Except for perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Gzhengis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson,
Whats selected is average,
Whats average is normal,
Whats normal is good.
We believe that each man must find the truth,
If it is right for him,
And reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust,
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth,
Except the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be the father of all flesh disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear, state of emergency, sniper kills ten, troops on rampage, whites go looting bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker.

Back to me now. The violence we see is the result of that creed. One has the coice of believing morals are objective which leads to this creed, or one can acknowledge the Moral Lawgiver.

Okay, couple of things. You're still assuming that all moral foundation must come from a divine inspiration. What is your rationalization for this? Indeed, one might be able to argue that morality can be shown to be subjective as many different religions espouse different moral structures. How then, assuming religious thought is the only road to true morality, do you tell which one is "right?"

What does this piece of writing have to do with anything? It's certainly very facile and glib, but shows a profound lack of empathy and understanding for those who have, at the end of their search for God, found only themselves. It also is guilty of assumption, generalization and complete bias in it's reporting. Finally, it is not logical. It's a collection of statements, perhaps reflecting the personal feelings of the author, without offering any sort of rational structure underneath. Basically, it simply says: Oh, ho, ho, atheists are silly so the world sucks.

In order for you to be able to state that morality depends on a divine source, you must show the link and so far you haven't offered one. If you agree with your original assumption, then yes, perhaps you have a point. If you don't, though, and you've offered no compelling reason to, then your reasoning is flawed from the start.

Additionally, your last scentence is contradictory. If all morality flows from the same divine source, then it must be by definition, objective as there is only one charter of morals and it applies equally to all. However, you may have ment to say subjective where you said objective, as a subjective view of morality indicates that all cognizant beings are capable of establishing their own moral framework.

English journalist Steve Turner wrote a tounge and cheek column in it was what he called The Creed Of The Atheist, he writes,

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin,

No....GOD no...yeah, I guess that one's right
but instead of doing that for the rest of the post, I'll just reply in a tongue and cheek impersonation of Mr. Steve Turner...

*vomit*

Thank you

English journalist Steve Turner wrote a tounge and cheek column in it was what he called The Creed Of The Atheist

I wouldn't call that article "tongue-in-cheek" at all. Rather, it's a vicious pack-of-lies attack on all Atheists which we don't deserve. Granted, Believers have been unfairly attacked like this too - but two wrongs don't make a right do they? Steve Turner brings shame on himself and all Believers with this spew.

Does it not depend on how one views morality? Atheists are not moral from a religous perpsective, but they may be moral from a secular or scientific perspective.

English journalist Steve Turner wrote a tounge and cheek column in it was what he called The Creed Of The Atheist, he writes,

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin,
We believe everything is okay as long as you don't hurt anyone,
To the best of your definition of hurt,
And to the best of your definition ofknowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better,
Despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated,
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there is something in horoscopes,
U.F.O.'s, and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man,
Just like Buddha, Muhamed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher,
Although we think some of his good morals were basically bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same,
At least the ones that we read were.
They all believe in love and goodness,
They only differ on matters of creation, sin, Heaven, Hell, God and salvation.
We believe that after death comes nothing,
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end then the dead have lied,
Then its compulsory heaven for all,
Except for perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Gzhengis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson,
Whats selected is average,
Whats average is normal,
Whats normal is good.
We believe that each man must find the truth,
If it is right for him,
And reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust,
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth,
Except the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be the father of all flesh disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear, state of emergency, sniper kills ten, troops on rampage, whites go looting bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker.

Back to me now. The violence we see is the result of that creed. One has the coice of believing morals are objective which leads to this creed, or one can acknowledge the Moral Lawgiver.

Actually, it is most organized religion that rejects the flowering of individual thought. This is why I am a Christian practicing my faith and worshipping in a Unitarian Universalist church. because THEY still believe in allowing the flowering of individual thought. I've found no Christian congregation in my area that does not seek to restrict the flowering of individual thought.

So tis isn't tongue and cheek, it's spew, and blatant lies, and a bald-faced attack on non-believers. It is not worthy of any TRUE believer to mae such a statement, or to pass it on, in my not so humble opinion.

English journalist Steve Turner wrote a toungue and cheek column in it was what he called The Creed Of The Atheist, he writes,

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin,
We believe everything is okay as long as you don't hurt anyone,
To the best of your definition of hurt,
And to the best of your definition of knowledge.
We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that taboos are taboo.
We believe that everything is getting better,
Despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated,
And you can prove anything with evidence.
We believe there is something in horoscopes,
U.F.O.'s, and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man,
Just like Buddha, Muhamed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher,
Although we think some of his good morals were basically bad.
We believe that all religions are basically the same,
At least the ones that we read were.
They all believe in love and goodness,
They only differ on matters of creation, sin, Heaven, Hell, God and salvation.
We believe that after death comes nothing,
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end then the dead have lied,
Then its compulsory heaven for all,
Except for perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Gzhengis Khan.
We believe in Masters and Johnson,
Whats selected is average,
Whats average is normal,
Whats normal is good.
We believe that each man must find the truth,
If it is right for him,
And reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust,
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth,
Except the truth that there is no absolute truth.
We believe in the rejection of creeds,
And the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be the father of all flesh disaster is his rainbow in the sky. And when you hear, state of emergency, sniper kills ten, troops on rampage, whites go looting bomb blasts school, it is but the sound of man worshipping his maker.

Back to me now. The violence we see is the result of that creed. One has the coice of believing morals are subjective which leads to this creed, or one can acknowledge the Moral Lawgiver.

Okay, couple of things. You're still assuming that all moral foundation must come from a divine inspiration. What is your rationalization for this? Indeed, one might be able to argue that morality can be shown to be subjective as many different religions espouse different moral structures. How then, assuming religious thought is the only road to true morality, do you tell which one is "right?"

What does this piece of writing have to do with anything? It's certainly very facile and glib, but shows a profound lack of empathy and understanding for those who have, at the end of their search for God, found only themselves. It also is guilty of assumption, generalization and complete bias in it's reporting. Finally, it is not logical. It's a collection of statements, perhaps reflecting the personal feelings of the author, without offering any sort of rational structure underneath. Basically, it simply says: Oh, ho, ho, atheists are silly so the world sucks.

In order for you to be able to state that morality depends on a divine source, you must show the link and so far you haven't offered one. If you agree with your original assumption, then yes, perhaps you have a point. If you don't, though, and you've offered no compelling reason to, then your reasoning is flawed from the start.

Additionally, your last scentence is contradictory. If all morality flows from the same divine source, then it must be by definition, objective as there is only one charter of morals and it applies equally to all. However, you may have ment to say subjective where you said objective, as a subjective view of morality indicates that all cognizant beings are capable of establishing their own moral framework.

I will give you my rationalization for "'assuming' that all moral foundation must come from divine inspiration," with this illustration:
In my hand is a sword, and on the table before me is an infant. If I were to hack away at that child how would you feel? Now some who believe in moral relativism have answered me like this, "Well I wouldn't feel right but I wouldn't be able to tell you it is right or wrong." Interesting respones. Why then would you, or rather the person who answered me, FEEL wrong even while believing that there is no absolute truth?

As for your statement on different religions I assume you have been trapped into thinking that religion is something only of the heart and not the mind, and when one enters a church he leaves his mind at the door. I reject that. If you want to know why here you go,

Postures of the Mind, Affections of the Heart download mp3 SureStream details

Now why did I post Turner's writing? Well first off I think it would have been better for him to title this The Creed of the Moral Relativist" The reason I posted it was to show the, moral relativist's, world. Aside from the horoscope part, and the death and dead part it is remarkably perceptive. By the way its not supposed to make sense, it is the atheist's creed.

well Labrador you missed the last line. It says We believe in the rejection of creeds, and DO BELIEVE in the flowering of individual thought. Whether thats a bad thing or not is for you to decide as it appears you have. I really don't see any lies here. the only thing that shouldn't be taken to heart if you ask me is the part on horoscopes, U.F.O.s, and bent spoons as well as the dead people part. Thats just a touch of humor. Everything else though looks accurate.

*kicks server*

I am agnostic, mainly because I find atheism too entrenched and arrogant a position to justify. We do not and quite possibly cannot know of the existence or not of higher powers.

I find the articles reproduced by Zuckoo lazy and absolutist. The underlying assumption of atheist (and, by extension, agnostic) amorality is really quite offensive. Although you state it should be the moral relativist's creed, in the same sentence you attribute it again to atheists. Regardless, moral relativism is not the issue at debate in this thread.

How to describe my morality? Well, it's that ghostly, insubstantial, elusive quality called 'conscience'. In my heart and my head I know if something is wrong. It's linked with empathy and respect for others. Can I fully explain why my conscience exists as it does? No, because humans aren't fully logical creatures. We are not completely rational. This doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to be rational and logical but we ought to acknowledge our failings here.

bloody server

and again...

I will give you my rationalization for "'assuming' that all moral foundation must come from divine inspiration," with this illustration:
In my hand is a sword, and on the table before me is an infant. If I were to hack away at that child how would you feel? Now some who believe in moral relativism have answered me like this, "Well I wouldn't feel right but I wouldn't be able to tell you it is right or wrong." Interesting respones. Why then would you, or rather the person who answered me, FEEL wrong even while believing that there is no absolute truth?


why would one believe in moral relativism while still having "gut" reactions to things? well, i could just point you toward the Biology section of the bookstore and let you learn for yourself, but that doesn't seem to work very often with people of your stripe. so let me put it to you this way:

i feel revulsion when i see people eating fried chicken. i mean serious revulsion, so strong that i can't understand why other people don't see how fundamentally WRONG it is to eat fried chicken. but i don't confuse my "ick factor" with morality. human beings are programmed biologically to have gut reactions to situations, and the mutilation or murder of a an infant human provokes those programmed reactions. it's not God whispering in our hearts or any such nonsense, it is a proven and well-established biological adaptation.

if you were to take your sword to that infant i could tell you a whole host of reasons why your behavior is maladaptive, and give you tons of reasons why you shouldn't do it. but you could, in turn, present your reasons why that action would be beneficial, and if you concluded that the sum of these factors prompted hard-core baby swording then i would have no grounds to rule you objectively immoral.

hell, your own God has encouraged people to murder infants for various reasons, so you know that the situation you describe can be "moral."

I will give you my rationalization for "'assuming' that all moral foundation must come from divine inspiration," with this illustration:
In my hand is a sword, and on the table before me is an infant. If I were to hack away at that child how would you feel? Now some who believe in moral relativism have answered me like this, "Well I wouldn't feel right but I wouldn't be able to tell you it is right or wrong." Interesting respones. Why then would you, or rather the person who answered me, FEEL wrong even while believing that there is no absolute truth?

1) Your example is a classic "lifeboat" situation and, in general, can not be used to illustrate day-to-day morality. In such an emergency situation, one's concepts of morality and appropriate action may be skewed.

2) You are fond of making assumptions that you shouldn't. Some may have given you that answer, that they would feel wrong but might not do anything. However, not all would. Many would jump in and put a halt to the process or, at the very least, condemn your actions. As for the "feeling wrong" aspect, there are a myriad of explanations for this unfocused general feeling. It could be a rejection of the clear slaughter of an innocent. It could be some sort of biological response, hardwired into our genes, causing a sense of "wrongness" at the obvious destruction of a genetic line. It could be a response to your obvious madness, indicating that you are a danger and possibly a threat to either themselves or their offspring. You assume simply because you have some vauge feeling that indicates that it's origin must be outside of self. While I will admit that it's possible, the scenario presented does not preclude other explanations.


As for your statement on different religions I assume you have been trapped into thinking that religion is something only of the heart and not the mind, and when one enters a church he leaves his mind at the door. I reject that.

Again, you're fond of those assumption. In this case I can tell you conclusively that your assumption is dead wrong. I in no way, shape or form feel that religion is something of only the heart and mind and that it demands a subservience of intellect to the demands of faith. I have struggled long and hard to arrive at my personal faith and I question and modify it every day because as I change and the world around me changes, so must my faith change to encompass it. Otherwise I run the risk of becoming psychotic and completely out of touch with reality.

I must admit, though, I am uncertain why you level this accusation at me and what, exactly, in my post has led you to this conclusion. Should the facts be independently regarded, I feel confident that an outside source would claim you to be the one who is abandoning your powers of reason to order to dance the call of some faceless God whereas I demand accountability of my faith, my church and my God and am more than willing to admit I might be wrong. Although, this may all just be an assumption on my part.



If you want to know why here you go,

Postures of the Mind, Affections of the Heart download mp3 SureStream details


What is this? Who is this Ravi person? Why should I be listening to him?


Now why did I post Turner's writing? Well first off I think it would have been better for him to title this The Creed of the Moral Relativist" The reason I posted it was to show the, moral relativist's, world.

But, you see, you didn't and neither did Turner. Instead of an empathic, honest attempt to understand someone who has come to a moral stance without the benefit of religious underpinning (or, possibly, in spite of it), Turner has concocted a pack of lies, slander and self-congratulatory rhetoric that not only marginalizes the spiritual paths of others (for the rejection of walking the spiritual path is a valid path in and of itself) but proves him to be an uncaring, unenlighted, unsympathetic and, most importantly, uninformed bigot. There are just as many theists who practice this creed while vowing to work against it as there are athiests.


Aside from the horoscope part, and the death and dead part it is remarkably perceptive. By the way its not supposed to make sense, it is the atheist's creed.

That is simply a very uninformed, egotistical statement. Why do you assume that an atheist is any less able to make logical judgements about their life and their perception of existance than you are? What hubris.

Again, you have continued to make assumptions. I'll grant you that if I made the exact same assumptions you are making then I would most likely come to the same conclusions you are espousing. However, I say your initial assumptions are faulty or at least far to vauge to claim superiority over a valid school of thought that has sought to establish an objective right and wrong without any sort of Father In The Sky telling all us children what to do. In a way, I would almost (and I know I'm going to get it for this) be willing to say atheists and moral relativists who practice their morality faithfully are more moral than most theists who simply rely on dogma and the reasoning of others. At least the non-theists can claim it's theirs.

I will give you my rationalization for "'assuming' that all moral foundation must come from divine inspiration," with this illustration:
In my hand is a sword, and on the table before me is an infant. If I were to hack away at that child how would you feel? Now some who believe in moral relativism have answered me like this, "Well I wouldn't feel right but I wouldn't be able to tell you it is right or wrong." Interesting respones. Why then would you, or rather the person who answered me, FEEL wrong even while believing that there is no absolute truth?

1) Your example is a classic "lifeboat" situation and, in general, can not be used to illustrate day-to-day morality. In such an emergency situation, one's concepts of morality and appropriate action may be skewed.

2) You are fond of making assumptions that you shouldn't. Some may have given you that answer, that they would feel wrong but might not do anything. However, not all would. Many would jump in and put a halt to the process or, at the very least, condemn your actions. As for the "feeling wrong" aspect, there are a myriad of explanations for this unfocused general feeling. It could be a rejection of the clear slaughter of an innocent. It could be some sort of biological response, hardwired into our genes, causing a sense of "wrongness" at the obvious destruction of a genetic line. It could be a response to your obvious madness, indicating that you are a danger and possibly a threat to either themselves or their offspring. You assume simply because you have some vauge feeling that indicates that it's origin must be outside of self. While I will admit that it's possible, the scenario presented does not preclude other explanations.


As for your statement on different religions I assume you have been trapped into thinking that religion is something only of the heart and not the mind, and when one enters a church he leaves his mind at the door. I reject that.

Again, you're fond of those assumption. In this case I can tell you conclusively that your assumption is dead wrong. I in no way, shape or form feel that religion is something of only the heart and mind and that it demands a subservience of intellect to the demands of faith. I have struggled long and hard to arrive at my personal faith and I question and modify it every day because as I change and the world around me changes, so must my faith change to encompass it. Otherwise I run the risk of becoming psychotic and completely out of touch with reality.

I must admit, though, I am uncertain why you level this accusation at me and what, exactly, in my post has led you to this conclusion. Should the facts be independently regarded, I feel confident that an outside source would claim you to be the one who is abandoning your powers of reason to order to dance the call of some faceless God whereas I demand accountability of my faith, my church and my God and am more than willing to admit I might be wrong. Although, this may all just be an assumption on my part.



If you want to know why here you go,

Postures of the Mind, Affections of the Heart download mp3 SureStream details


What is this? Who is this Ravi person? Why should I be listening to him?


Now why did I post Turner's writing? Well first off I think it would have been better for him to title this The Creed of the Moral Relativist" The reason I posted it was to show the, moral relativist's, world.

But, you see, you didn't and neither did Turner. Instead of an empathic, honest attempt to understand someone who has come to a moral stance without the benefit of religious underpinning (or, possibly, in spite of it), Turner has concocted a pack of lies, slander and self-congratulatory rhetoric that not only marginalizes the spiritual paths of others (for the rejection of walking the spiritual path is a valid path in and of itself) but proves him to be an uncaring, unenlighted, unsympathetic and, most importantly, uninformed bigot. There are just as many theists who practice this creed while vowing to work against it as there are athiests.


Aside from the horoscope part, and the death and dead part it is remarkably perceptive. By the way its not supposed to make sense, it is the atheist's creed.

That is simply a very uninformed, egotistical statement. Why do you assume that an atheist is any less able to make logical judgements about their life and their perception of existance than you are? What hubris.

Again, you have continued to make assumptions. I'll grant you that if I made the exact same assumptions you are making then I would most likely come to the same conclusions you are espousing. However, I say your initial assumptions are faulty or at least far to vauge to claim superiority over a valid school of thought that has sought to establish an objective right and wrong without any sort of Father In The Sky telling all us children what to do. In a way, I would almost (and I know I'm going to get it for this) be willing to say atheists and moral relativists who practice their morality faithfully are more moral than most theists who simply rely on dogma and the reasoning of others. At least the non-theists can claim it's theirs.

I will give you my rationalization for "'assuming' that all moral foundation must come from divine inspiration," with this illustration:
In my hand is a sword, and on the table before me is an infant. If I were to hack away at that child how would you feel? Now some who believe in moral relativism have answered me like this, "Well I wouldn't feel right but I wouldn't be able to tell you it is right or wrong." Interesting respones. Why then would you, or rather the person who answered me, FEEL wrong even while believing that there is no absolute truth?

1) Your example is a classic "lifeboat" situation and, in general, can not be used to illustrate day-to-day morality. In such an emergency situation, one's concepts of morality and appropriate action may be skewed.

2) You are fond of making assumptions that you shouldn't. Some may have given you that answer, that they would feel wrong but might not do anything. However, not all would. Many would jump in and put a halt to the process or, at the very least, condemn your actions. As for the "feeling wrong" aspect, there are a myriad of explanations for this unfocused general feeling. It could be a rejection of the clear slaughter of an innocent. It could be some sort of biological response, hardwired into our genes, causing a sense of "wrongness" at the obvious destruction of a genetic line. It could be a response to your obvious madness, indicating that you are a danger and possibly a threat to either themselves or their offspring. You assume simply because you have some vauge feeling that indicates that it's origin must be outside of self. While I will admit that it's possible, the scenario presented does not preclude other explanations.


As for your statement on different religions I assume you have been trapped into thinking that religion is something only of the heart and not the mind, and when one enters a church he leaves his mind at the door. I reject that.

Again, you're fond of those assumption. In this case I can tell you conclusively that your assumption is dead wrong. I in no way, shape or form feel that religion is something of only the heart and mind and that it demands a subservience of intellect to the demands of faith. I have struggled long and hard to arrive at my personal faith and I question and modify it every day because as I change and the world around me changes, so must my faith change to encompass it. Otherwise I run the risk of becoming psychotic and completely out of touch with reality.

I must admit, though, I am uncertain why you level this accusation at me and what, exactly, in my post has led you to this conclusion. Should the facts be independently regarded, I feel confident that an outside source would claim you to be the one who is abandoning your powers of reason to order to dance the call of some faceless God whereas I demand accountability of my faith, my church and my God and am more than willing to admit I might be wrong. Although, this may all just be an assumption on my part.



If you want to know why here you go,

Postures of the Mind, Affections of the Heart download mp3 SureStream details


What is this? Who is this Ravi person? Why should I be listening to him?


Now why did I post Turner's writing? Well first off I think it would have been better for him to title this The Creed of the Moral Relativist" The reason I posted it was to show the, moral relativist's, world.

But, you see, you didn't and neither did Turner. Instead of an empathic, honest attempt to understand someone who has come to a moral stance without the benefit of religious underpinning (or, possibly, in spite of it), Turner has concocted a pack of lies, slander and self-congratulatory rhetoric that not only marginalizes the spiritual paths of others (for the rejection of walking the spiritual path is a valid path in and of itself) but proves him to be an uncaring, unenlighted, unsympathetic and, most importantly, uninformed bigot. There are just as many theists who practice this creed while vowing to work against it as there are athiests.


Aside from the horoscope part, and the death and dead part it is remarkably perceptive. By the way its not supposed to make sense, it is the atheist's creed.

That is simply a very uninformed, egotistical statement. Why do you assume that an atheist is any less able to make logical judgements about their life and their perception of existance than you are? What hubris.

Again, you have continued to make assumptions. I'll grant you that if I made the exact same assumptions you are making then I would most likely come to the same conclusions you are espousing. However, I say your initial assumptions are faulty or at least far to vauge to claim superiority over a valid school of thought that has sought to establish an objective right and wrong without any sort of Father In The Sky telling all us children what to do. In a way, I would almost (and I know I'm going to get it for this) be willing to say atheists and moral relativists who practice their morality faithfully are more moral than most theists who simply rely on dogma and the reasoning of others. At least the non-theists can claim it's theirs.

I am not quite sure I understand the difference between 'day-to-day' morality opposed to the illustration in the picture, we use the same conscience. For your first quote and second point: They wouldn't do anything if they couldn't say what your doing is wrong, in that case who are they to tell me what to do. If a person did stop me or condemn my actions then obviously they feel such an action is wrong and therefore are not moral relativists.

I am glad that my assumption, yes you heard me right, my assumption about your thinking was wrong. I forget what it was that promted me to type this but something must have. By the way though I'm not so sure I would change my faith to make it run parallel to the world.

Ah yes this Ravi character. He happens to be my favorite Christian apologist.
Ravi Zacharias has spoken in over fifty countries, including the Middle East, Vietnam and Cambodia (during the military conflict) and in numerous universities worldwide, notably Harvard, Princeton and Oxford University. He has addressed writers of the peace accord in South Africa, President Fujimori's cabinet and parliament in Peru, and military officers at the Lenin Military Academy and the Center for Geopolitical Strategy in Moscow. He has been privileged to bring the main address at the National Day of Prayer in Washington, DC, an event endorsed and cohosted by President George W. Bush, and at the Pentagon. As well, Mr. Zacharias has spoken at the Annual Prayer Breakfast at the United Nations in New York, which marks the beginning of the UN session each year, and in 2003, at the invitation of the President of Nigeria, he will address the delegates at the First Annual Prayer Breakfast for African Leaders, being held in Mozambique.

Mr. Zacharias was born in India in 1946 and immigrated to Canada with his family twenty years later. While pursuing a career in business management, his interest in theology grew; subsequently, he pursued this study during his undergraduate education. He received his Masters of Divinity from Trinity International University in Deerfield, Illinois. Well-versed in the disciplines of comparative religions, cults and philosophy, he held the chair of Evangelism and Contemporary Thought at Alliance Theological Seminary for three and a half years. Mr. Zacharias has been honored by the conferring of a Doctor of Divinity degree from Houghton College, a Doctor of Laws degree from Asbury College and a Doctor of Divinity degree from Tyndale College and Seminary, Toronto.

At the invitation of Billy Graham, he was a plenary speaker at the International Conference for Itinerant Evangelists in Amsterdam in 1983, 1986 and 2000. Mr. Zacharias has been a visiting scholar at Cambridge University, where he studied moralist philosophers and literature of the Romantic era. While at Cambridge he also authored his first book, A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism (Baker Book House, 1994, 2nd ed.). His second book, Can Man Live without God (Word Publishing, 1994), was awarded the Gold Medallion for best book in the category of doctrine and theology, and has been translated into eight languages. Deliver Us from Evil (Word, 1996) followed with an accompanying video series. Cries of the Heart (Word, 1998) was his fourth book. His first children's book, The Merchant and the Thief (Chariot Victor), was released in 1999, followed by The Broken Promise (Chariot Victor, 2000). Jesus Among Other Gods (Word, 2000) was nominated for a Gold Medallion. The first in a series of great conversations, The Lotus and the Cross: Jesus Talks with Buddha was released by Multnomah in October 2001, and the second, Sense and Sensuality: Jesus Talks with Oscar Wilde, in October 2002. Mr. Zacharias's very personal response to the September 11th tragedy is Light in the Shadow of Jihad, (Multnomah, 2002). Recapture the Wonder was released by Integrity Publishers in July 2003 and I, Isaac Take You, Rebekah, a book on marriage, will be made available in the Winter of 2004 by the W Publishing Group.

Mr. Zacharias is listed as a distinguished lecturer with the Staley Foundation. His weekly radio program, "Let My People Think," is broadcast over 1000 stations worldwide, and he has appeared on CNN and other international broadcasts. He is president of Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, with additional offices in Canada, India, Singapore, and the United Kingdom. Mr. Zacharias and his wife, Margaret, have three grown children; Sarah, who is married to Jeremy, Naomi, and Nathan. They reside in Atlanta.



© 2003 Ravi Zacharias International Ministries. All Rights Reserved.


Do I understand the atheist/moral relativist no I don't, but I do understand the implications of a secular world that they want to see. (and fine o.k. maybe not every single one but its a darn high percentage, if it isn't the more sensible atheists aren't talking) I would also like to contritely ask you to point out a lie in that creed. I can't really counter, filthy lies without knowing which ones and why they are lies.

I didn't see what was nonsensical about it in the first place, my comment was a sort of cheap way a sweeping your allegation under the rug.

For your last point I will partly agree with you. There are some atheists that are more moral according to Christian standards than Christians themselves.

I am not quite sure I understand the difference between 'day-to-day' morality opposed to the illustration in the picture, we use the same conscience. For your first quote and second point: They wouldn't do anything if they couldn't say what your doing is wrong, in that case who are they to tell me what to do. If a person did stop me or condemn my actions then obviously they feel such an action is wrong and therefore are not moral relativists.

The situation you proposed is an extreme. It is fallacious reasoning to judge a condition by the behavior of the extremes. Specifically, a craven coward might give their life in a selfless gesture in an emergency situation, whereas up to that point they had been the most selfish and cruel person. Does this one act of morality (admittedly this is a very vauge example) completely overturn a life of base immorality? Was this even a moral choice or simply the expedience of the moment?

Ideally, we all hope that our moral stances would not change when confronted with both every day tests as well as extrordinary challenges, but as we face the every day and common place questions, by definition, more often, they are the true barometer by which we can judge our actions. So, unless you are frequently killing children, this is clearly an extreme case and the imperatives of it may differ.


I am glad that my assumption, yes you heard me right, my assumption about your thinking was wrong. I forget what it was that promted me to type this but something must have. By the way though I'm not so sure I would change my faith to make it run parallel to the world.

Well, that's your faith and I support your right to view it however you would. I don't think I exactly change my faith to run parallel to the world. However, I do believe in an ongoing process of revelation and that what I feel to be true today in my faith may not be the case tomorrow and may not be true for someone else ever.


Ah yes this Ravi character. He happens to be my favorite Christian apologist.
Ravi Zacharias has spoken in over fifty countries, including the Middle East, Vietnam and Cambodia (during the military conflict) and in numerous universities worldwide, notably Harvard, Princeton and Oxford University. He has addressed writers of the peace accord in South Africa, President Fujimori's cabinet and parliament in Peru, and military officers at the Lenin Military Academy and the Center for Geopolitical Strategy in Moscow. He has been privileged to bring the main address at the National Day of Prayer in Washington, DC, an event endorsed and cohosted by President George W. Bush, and at the Pentagon. As well, Mr. Zacharias has spoken at the Annual Prayer Breakfast at the United Nations in New York, which marks the beginning of the UN session each year, and in 2003, at the invitation of the President of Nigeria, he will address the delegates at the First Annual Prayer Breakfast for African Leaders, being held in Mozambique.

Hmmm, thanks for the information. I will be sure to read some of his writings. While I may not agree with all religious thinkers as I believe a spiritual path is a highly personalized thing, I enjoy reading those who bring an open, honest approach to the discussion of faith and religion.


Do I understand the atheist/moral relativist no I don't, but I do understand the implications of a secular world that they want to see.

But I don't think you really do. You assume you do. You assume that, simply because an atheist or a moral relativist does not agree with your basic assumptions they must also somehow be against your ultimate conclusion. This is not always the case. An atheist and a theist can share the same set of moral conclusions, they have simply arrived at those conclusions via different pathways. Additionally, you have assumed that moral relativism is ultimately 'wishy-washy' due to your quoted experiences. However, this is again not always true (and by and large isn't true). All moral relativism amounts to is the acknolwedgement that people may see the same situation in different ways and place different weights on different moral principles. An excellent example of this is Les Miserable. Jean Valjean stole the bread which is breaking the law and, most likely, immoral. He did it with a good cause, however, and the question remains was the situation fair in the first place. If it wasn't, is it an accurate condemnation of his mores to break the law. Why this great fear of moral relativisim and atheisim. Many atheists I know are some of the best people because they understand the preciousness of life and hold it's value sacrosanct whereas many theists I know are just holding out for whatever may or may come after this, sure that any injustices they perceive as suffering in this life will move them up the ladder of the next.

People arrive at their conclusions by different paths, but it doesn't make those paths wrong or the conclusions any less valid, unless those paths are blindly followed and those conclusions are unfairly assumed.


and fine o.k. maybe not every single one but its a darn high percentage, if it isn't the more sensible atheists aren't talking)

But what is your basis for this? You say it and you offer no rationale other than "from what you've seen". Therefore, in a way, you're guilty of practicing your own form of moral relativisim by condemning an entire subset of humanity based on a limited population sample.


I would also like to contritely ask you to point out a lie in that creed. I can't really counter, filthy lies without knowing which ones and why they are lies.

Pretty much all of it. I know athiests who do not believe in a God, but do believe in a continued existance after death. Not all athiests "believe" in Marx, many theists "believe" in Darwin and since when did psychosexual analysis become a point of contention between theisim and atheisim? Why isn't everything okay as long as you don't hurt someone? Does this mean Christians in the Crusades were practicing the Atheist Creed as they slaughtered Muslims? Lots of people believe in sex before, during and after marriage. It's unfair to call this atheisim or moral relativisim. Many Christians who claim the title even think blow jobs don't count as sex. Are they wrong and, if so, what's your basis for judgement? It is an unfair charge to say athiests or moral relativists are more adulterous by nature and belief than theists. I can show you a good many Christians who have and continue to indulge in that particular vice. What, exactly, is the therapy of sin? Taboos frequently are silly. If one is silly, then why should it be allowed to stand? Many taboos are outlined in The Bible, yet good Christian women still continue to consort with men during their periods and men still tend to shave their beards. Why are you condemning people for having a positive outlook ("We believe everything is getting better, despite evidence to the contrary.") also, I think many atheists would agree that we live in troubled times. Evidence must be investigated. That's simple scientific principle. Also, not every atheist or moral relativist believes in New Age practices and the fact that he chose to include them argues for his profound and smugly self-satisfied misunderstanding of the issue. Jesus was a good man. That was the whole point. Buddha and Muhamed were good men as well. They were all great moral teachers. What's the beef here? Also, as a Christian, I worship a living God who's revelation in ongoing and current, not the dead words of men from some two thousand years ago which have been corrupted, mistranslated and misused for personal gain many, many times since. Beware of false idols. We do not worship the Bible, we worship a living God whom we can all have a personal relationship with. You don't have to be an athiest to believe that, on some fundamental level, all religions are indeed basicially the same and that they all tap the same wellspring. And as for "compulsory heaven", well, yes, I personally believe in that too, but I'm neither an athiest or a moral relativist. How can we claim to follow a kind and loving God of forgiveness and then, in the same breath, claim to know someone is going to Hell (which I personally don't believe in and actually wasn't a part of the Bible until later)? Masters and Johnson did good research. What's the problem with them? What's selected isn't average. If it's selected for, it's beneficial and then becomes average, but it doesn't start out that way. "What's normal is good," isn't that a rhetoric espoused by Christian limitors when they claim homosexuality is bad? Isn't Christianity, in some way, a strive for normalicy?

Then we start getting personal. "We believe that each man must find the truth." Each man must. Period. Otherwise his faith or lack thereof is not his own and is weak, fragile and brittle, incapable of withstanding the pressure true belief requires. Additionally, you sort of argue against faith here with "and reality will adapt accordingly, The universe will readjust, History will alter." Well, we have no actual proof that God exists in general or that the Judeo-Christian conception of God exists. Reality would seem to almost argue against it. Yet, in spite of this, we continue to believe and expect reality to catch up. You can't mock a belief in the concrete and then expect that same concrete to support you when it becomes convenient for it to do so. Many athiests do believe in an absolute truth as do many moral relativists. Again, this is gross generalization and it is insufferable.

Finally, we come to the end. "We belive in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought." This is a condemnation? This is something to be avoided? We should all be part of a hive mind? Where, exactly, does it say this in Christian thought or the Bible? Christ himself came to reject a creed.

The last paragraph is simply bunk. Those things happen with or without religion.


I didn't see what was nonsensical about it in the first place, my comment was a sort of cheap way a sweeping your allegation under the rug.

Well, it didn't work. :lol:


For your last point I will partly agree with you. There are some atheists that are more moral according to Christian standards than Christians themselves.

Well, at least we're in accord somewhere.

I am not quite sure I understand the difference between 'day-to-day' morality opposed to the illustration in the picture, we use the same conscience. For your first quote and second point: They wouldn't do anything if they couldn't say what your doing is wrong, in that case who are they to tell me what to do. If a person did stop me or condemn my actions then obviously they feel such an action is wrong and therefore are not moral relativists.

The situation you proposed is an extreme. It is fallacious reasoning to judge a condition by the behavior of the extremes. Specifically, a craven coward might give their life in a selfless gesture in an emergency situation, whereas up to that point they had been the most selfish and cruel person. Does this one act of morality (admittedly this is a very vauge example) completely overturn a life of base immorality? Was this even a moral choice or simply the expedience of the moment?

Ideally, we all hope that our moral stances would not change when confronted with both every day tests as well as extrordinary challenges, but as we face the every day and common place questions, by definition, more often, they are the true barometer by which we can judge our actions. So, unless you are frequently killing children, this is clearly an extreme case and the imperatives of it may differ.


I am glad that my assumption, yes you heard me right, my assumption about your thinking was wrong. I forget what it was that promted me to type this but something must have. By the way though I'm not so sure I would change my faith to make it run parallel to the world.

Well, that's your faith and I support your right to view it however you would. I don't think I exactly change my faith to run parallel to the world. However, I do believe in an ongoing process of revelation and that what I feel to be true today in my faith may not be the case tomorrow and may not be true for someone else ever.


Ah yes this Ravi character. He happens to be my favorite Christian apologist.
Ravi Zacharias has spoken in over fifty countries, including the Middle East, Vietnam and Cambodia (during the military conflict) and in numerous universities worldwide, notably Harvard, Princeton and Oxford University. He has addressed writers of the peace accord in South Africa, President Fujimori's cabinet and parliament in Peru, and military officers at the Lenin Military Academy and the Center for Geopolitical Strategy in Moscow. He has been privileged to bring the main address at the National Day of Prayer in Washington, DC, an event endorsed and cohosted by President George W. Bush, and at the Pentagon. As well, Mr. Zacharias has spoken at the Annual Prayer Breakfast at the United Nations in New York, which marks the beginning of the UN session each year, and in 2003, at the invitation of the President of Nigeria, he will address the delegates at the First Annual Prayer Breakfast for African Leaders, being held in Mozambique.

Hmmm, thanks for the information. I will be sure to read some of his writings. While I may not agree with all religious thinkers as I believe a spiritual path is a highly personalized thing, I enjoy reading those who bring an open, honest approach to the discussion of faith and religion.


Do I understand the atheist/moral relativist no I don't, but I do understand the implications of a secular world that they want to see.

But I don't think you really do. You assume you do. You assume that, simply because an atheist or a moral relativist does not agree with your basic assumptions they must also somehow be against your ultimate conclusion. This is not always the case. An atheist and a theist can share the same set of moral conclusions, they have simply arrived at those conclusions via different pathways. Additionally, you have assumed that moral relativism is ultimately 'wishy-washy' due to your quoted experiences. However, this is again not always true (and by and large isn't true). All moral relativism amounts to is the acknolwedgement that people may see the same situation in different ways and place different weights on different moral principles. An excellent example of this is Les Miserable. Jean Valjean stole the bread which is breaking the law and, most likely, immoral. He did it with a good cause, however, and the question remains was the situation fair in the first place. If it wasn't, is it an accurate condemnation of his mores to break the law. Why this great fear of moral relativisim and atheisim. Many atheists I know are some of the best people because they understand the preciousness of life and hold it's value sacrosanct whereas many theists I know are just holding out for whatever may or may come after this, sure that any injustices they perceive as suffering in this life will move them up the ladder of the next.

People arrive at their conclusions by different paths, but it doesn't make those paths wrong or the conclusions any less valid, unless those paths are blindly followed and those conclusions are unfairly assumed.


and fine o.k. maybe not every single one but its a darn high percentage, if it isn't the more sensible atheists aren't talking)

But what is your basis for this? You say it and you offer no rationale other than "from what you've seen". Therefore, in a way, you're guilty of practicing your own form of moral relativisim by condemning an entire subset of humanity based on a limited population sample.


I would also like to contritely ask you to point out a lie in that creed. I can't really counter, filthy lies without knowing which ones and why they are lies.

Pretty much all of it. I know athiests who do not believe in a God, but do believe in a continued existance after death. Not all athiests "believe" in Marx, many theists "believe" in Darwin and since when did psychosexual analysis become a point of contention between theisim and atheisim? Why isn't everything okay as long as you don't hurt someone? Does this mean Christians in the Crusades were practicing the Atheist Creed as they slaughtered Muslims? Lots of people believe in sex before, during and after marriage. It's unfair to call this atheisim or moral relativisim. Many Christians who claim the title even think blow jobs don't count as sex. Are they wrong and, if so, what's your basis for judgement? It is an unfair charge to say athiests or moral relativists are more adulterous by nature and belief than theists. I can show you a good many Christians who have and continue to indulge in that particular vice. What, exactly, is the therapy of sin? Taboos frequently are silly. If one is silly, then why should it be allowed to stand? Many taboos are outlined in The Bible, yet good Christian women still continue to consort with men during their periods and men still tend to shave their beards. Why are you condemning people for having a positive outlook ("We believe everything is getting better, despite evidence to the contrary.") also, I think many atheists would agree that we live in troubled times. Evidence must be investigated. That's simple scientific principle. Also, not every atheist or moral relativist believes in New Age practices and the fact that he chose to include them argues for his profound and smugly self-satisfied misunderstanding of the issue. Jesus was a good man. That was the whole point. Buddha and Muhamed were good men as well. They were all great moral teachers. What's the beef here? Also, as a Christian, I worship a living God who's revelation in ongoing and current, not the dead words of men from some two thousand years ago which have been corrupted, mistranslated and misused for personal gain many, many times since. Beware of false idols. We do not worship the Bible, we worship a living God whom we can all have a personal relationship with. You don't have to be an athiest to believe that, on some fundamental level, all religions are indeed basicially the same and that they all tap the same wellspring. And as for "compulsory heaven", well, yes, I personally believe in that too, but I'm neither an athiest or a moral relativist. How can we claim to follow a kind and loving God of forgiveness and then, in the same breath, claim to know someone is going to Hell (which I personally don't believe in and actually wasn't a part of the Bible until later)? Masters and Johnson did good research. What's the problem with them? What's selected isn't average. If it's selected for, it's beneficial and then becomes average, but it doesn't start out that way. "What's normal is good," isn't that a rhetoric espoused by Christian limitors when they claim homosexuality is bad? Isn't Christianity, in some way, a strive for normalicy?

Then we start getting personal. "We believe that each man must find the truth." Each man must. Period. Otherwise his faith or lack thereof is not his own and is weak, fragile and brittle, incapable of withstanding the pressure true belief requires. Additionally, you sort of argue against faith here with "and reality will adapt accordingly, The universe will readjust, History will alter." Well, we have no actual proof that God exists in general or that the Judeo-Christian conception of God exists. Reality would seem to almost argue against it. Yet, in spite of this, we continue to believe and expect reality to catch up. You can't mock a belief in the concrete and then expect that same concrete to support you when it becomes convenient for it to do so. Many athiests do believe in an absolute truth as do many moral relativists. Again, this is gross generalization and it is insufferable.

Finally, we come to the end. "We belive in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought." This is a condemnation? This is something to be avoided? We should all be part of a hive mind? Where, exactly, does it say this in Christian thought or the Bible? Christ himself came to reject a creed.

The last paragraph is simply bunk. Those things happen with or without religion.


I didn't see what was nonsensical about it in the first place, my comment was a sort of cheap way a sweeping your allegation under the rug.

Well, it didn't work. :lol:


For your last point I will partly agree with you. There are some atheists that are more moral according to Christian standards than Christians themselves.

Well, at least we're in accord somewhere.

Man - that's one *very lopsided* poll result ain't it? Any speculations? Should we be encouraged by it? I'm pleasantly surprised by how tolerant folks around here are in general.

I think I hit on that point exactly when I posted:

[quote=jay]Just in case anyone who has been following this thread has not noticed, I have not even answered the original question that was posted.
I do not believe that Atheist are any less moral than believers.
I only think that moral behavior, from the two different religions, is done for very different reasons.
I feel that Atheist do the right thing when it suits them to do so.
I feel believers do the right thing because it is the right thing to do.
I do not feel that believers only do the right thing out of fear of going to hell.
I also do not feel that Atheist only do the right thing out of fear of punishment of some kind.
But you also said that atheists are only moral when they are in a good mood- so I'd guess that either you don't ACTUALLY believe that Atheists are as moral as believers- or else, in your experience, atheists are pretty much always in a good mood :D (see, that's me in a good mood)
I'm not an atheist, or a believer, or anything really- though I do lack the belief that god exists, I don't hold the belief that he doesn't. As such, I believer non-believers can be just as moral as believers as long as they follow three of the ten commandments in the way that they have been modified.
Thou shall not initiate force against another
Thou shall not steal except to be Robin Hood (and give back to that whom it was stolen from)
Thou shall not bear false witness to anyone you respect

(I had trouble with that last one...so there might still be some problems with it...)So you noticed that I hold no ill feelings towards Atheist. In my dealings with Atheist, I generally find them to be in a good mood. Just as I find theist to generally be in a good mood. While I don't agree with their religion, I would gladly give my life in a fight defending their right to believe as they wish. Morals can be abundant or lacking in any person of any religion.

If religion were truly the wellspring of morality..the Crusades, and the Inquisitions would never have happened.
The thousands of cases of priest pedophilia wouldnt have happened...
The fact is...they did happen.

Morality has very little do to with religion of any kind..it is the beholder of those morals that the burden falls.

Athiests are no more or less moral than christians or any other religion.

As for your statement on different religions I assume you have been trapped into thinking that religion is something only of the heart and not the mind, and when one enters a church he leaves his mind at the door. I reject that.

Ah, but most fundamentalist churches DO require exactly that...that you check your brain at the door. They give it back when you leave...after they have washed it, that is...

This is the major reason that, though I am Christian, I practice my faith in a Unitarian Universalist church. I have yet to find a Christian church that does not require me to check my brain at the door.

Most of these churches TELL you what to believe, think, and feel. And most follow along like blind little sheep. I refuse to do that.

When I do something "moral" when I "do the right thing," I do it because I truly want to...and because I believe it to be the right thing to do, in my heart and in my mind. I can decide for myself, I doo not need some preacher to TELL me what I oughta think, believe, feel, see, or read.

I am an atheist and I’ll try and explain my moral base to you.

First of all, let’s take at what I believe:

1) The universe is purely scientific, a bunch of particles and energies following physical laws. No gods involved.
2) As a human body is a part of the universe, it’s just made out of particles and therefore nothing special. What makes us a human being is not our body that looks like most human bodies, but our mind, that thinks in a human way. The mind is a product of the physical process that takes place in our brain. Therefore there is no soul and no afterlife, as the thinking process that we are is directly connected to the physical process in our brain. So as soon as this physical process ends, the thinking process stops and we won’t even know we ever existed, as there would be no more I to think about it. Another consequence is that our lives are meaningless, no goals, no purposes.

As our lives are meaningless then why should we continue to live? It’s a question you’ll have to answer for yourself: It can be for your family and friends, because you have developed a vast interest in something (science for example) and want to devote a part of your live to it, help other people.... Or perhaps you could just say: hey, our lives are perhaps meaningless, but I live now, so I could just make the best of it and enjoy the ride. Another option is suicide, which is in my eyes acceptable, although it’s not that easy for most people to deal with it in our society. A couple of weeks ago, a girl in my village disappeared and later she was found death in a river. I was relieved to hear it was suicide (at least this is what the cops think of it) as this was the girls own choice, not something that was forced on her, like murder.

This last example brings me back to morality: why do I believe suicide is a better way to go than being murdered? The answer is empathy. You don’t want to be murdered, so you project this feeling on the victim of murder and conclude that murder is wrong. As most people don’t want to commit suicide, they’ll feel bad for someone who committed suicide, although it was that person’s own choice to step out of life and is therefore not that horrible.

So as you can see I use empathy as a base for morality. A few examples:

Abortion:

The people that say that abortion is murder do this because they project their own feelings of not wanting to be killed on the foetus. My point is that this projection is wrong. A foetus is not yet a human being because their brain hasn’t developed some sort of human thinking. The foetus doesn’t know it exists and it doesn’t feel it is getting aborted and therefore it does not feel the pain and the fear of a human that is murdered, so abortion is fundamentally different from murder. One can say that a foetus has the ability to become a human and by denying the foetus this ability to become a human you are denying the right to live to that human, that is true, but so do a sperm cell and an egg. So not having sex one night also makes you deny the right to live to a potential human being in the same way as abortion does. Therefore abortion is perfectly acceptable in my eyes.
Conclusions:
-Women that abort their child are moral, but so are women that do not abort their child.
-Allowing abortion is a moral choice as this gives women the choice to abort or not to abort.
-Banning abortion is immoral as this forces women that want to have an abortion to keep their child, which leads to poverty, ruined lives of women and possibly of their children too and dangerous back alley abortion causing deaths. So therefore people that are against abortion (more precise: against allowing others to chose for abortion) are immoral.

Homosexuality and gay marriages:

Two consenting adults that love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together should be allowed to marry, hetero or homo, as it does not hurt anyone.
Homosexual people are as moral as others.
People that are against homosexuality or against gay marriage are immoral, as they don’t allow others the rights heterosexual people have and by condemning/discriminating homosexual people they clearly damage the rights and lives of homosexual people.

Polygamy:

If all people involved are adults and agree: why not? Although women should be allowed to have multiple husbands as you don’t want to discriminate. The only problem here is that it would be too hard for the government: imagine one guy being married to 10 women, each of them being married to 10 men…It just wont work.

Bestiality, paedophilia…:

This doesn’t take place with the consent of all beings involved and the condition that all beings are capable of consenting, and therefore adult. So therefore these are clearly immoral.

Casual, out of marriage sex:

If it takes place between two or more consenting adults, I don’t see any problem, so it’s moral.
People judging casual, out of marriage sex are immoral. It’s not because they don’t want to be involved that others should not be involved, as long as nobody is hurt and all are consenting adults.

Adultery:

When you marry someone you make a promise that you will become monogamist. So by committing adultery you break this promise and cause grief to the one you married. Therefore it is immoral.
On the other hand, if you and the person you are married with agree that you see other women/men, I deem it moral. And anyone judging that is then again immoral.

A moral dilemma:

“Say that by killing one innocent child you would find a cure for aids, would you do that?”
Killing a child is immoral, but so is not killing the child as this kills millions of people. Therefore both choices are moral, as morality is still about what the right thing to do is, and in this case saving millions of lives or sparing the life of a child are both perfectly moral. I do think that killing the child and saving millions of people is the best choice for the world, but morality can never force anyone to kill an innocent person. So therefore they are both equally moral. If I had that choice, I would think the best thing to do is to kill the child, but still I would not be able to do it.

According to my moral system, a lot of religious and/or conservative people, and off course others are immoral because they are against abortion, or they don’t think homosexuality is right…
I’m not saying that atheists are more moral than Christians, but they certainly aren’t less moral.

"For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Philippians 1:21).

If I believed there were no God and no eternal life, then I would kill myself. Life without God, and even with God, living here on earth, has too few joys and too much suffering, to go on without Him, and even if humanistic joys were more frequent, and suffering less, life with nothing after life is absurd; thus, I would kill myself. ~ Michael.

"God is dead." Nietszche
"Nietszche is dead."

--God

DP

"For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain" (Philippians 1:21).

If I believed there were no God and no eternal life, then I would kill myself.

wow, you sound exactly like the drug addicts i council. "if i knew i would never get a hit again i would just kill myself."

please, for your own sake, seek professional help. it is very possible for you to learn to live a full and healthy life, and you don't have to keep suffering this way. i know you probably aren't ready to make that effort now, but don't forget you have it, and someday i know you will be able to free yourself.

((bump))

((bump))
Heh....you having fun?

I do believe Athiesm, leads to immorality because you know whatever you do there will be no consicuences in the afterlife and you will be nothing once your dead just dark so you figure what the hell and do immoral stuff. Also all religons teach morality but in athism it teaches to whatever the hell you want.

I do believe Athiesm, leads to immorality because you know whatever you do there will be no consicuences in the afterlife and you will be nothing once your dead just dark so you figure what the hell and do immoral stuff. Also all religons teach morality but in athism it teaches to whatever the hell you want.

How so? Most true atheists I know don't believe this at all. In fact, they are more strongly moral that most religious folk precisely because they don't believe in an afterlife. That makes their actions in this one all that much more important and their sanctity and respect for human existance even more profound because they truly believe once you are gone, all that you were, did or cared about is lost. It is incorrect categorization to accuse atheists of all being hedonists just as it is incorrect categorization to assume, simply because someone professes a spiritual belief, that makes them moral.

I do believe Athiesm, leads to immorality because you know whatever you do there will be no consicuences in the afterlife and you will be nothing once your dead just dark so you figure what the hell and do immoral stuff. Also all religons teach morality but in athism it teaches to whatever the hell you want.

so there aren't worldly consequences for our actions? wow, where the hell do you live?! and religious people are only being good so they can get a spiritual cookie after they die? so they aren't actually being good people, they just want a reward and are kissing up to God to get it...doesn't sound very moral.

there are plenty of earthly reasons to be moral, and atheists are bright enough to see them. atheists don't need a perpetual father figure standing over them with his Hell Wand in order for them to behave themselves. it's okay that you are jealous of people who are more intellectually developed then you, but you'll never catch up to them if you don't at least TRY to use simple logic.

I do believe Athiesm, leads to immorality because you know whatever you do there will be no consicuences in the afterlife and you will be nothing once your dead just dark so you figure what the hell and do immoral stuff. Also all religons teach morality but in athism it teaches to whatever the hell you want.

Atheism doesn't "teach" anything. There are no Books, no Rules, about what atheists should or shouldn't do. It's not an organisation or a movement.

Unpleasant people do unpleasant things, and then, if they happen to be religious, twist and selectively edit their various Scriptures to "prove" that they didn't do anything wrong. "'Thou shalt not kill'... no, no... 'Do unto others'... hmm, no... 'Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.' Bingo! Light the fire, boys, God says it's OK!"

Other people live unselfishly, and try to help others, whether or not they are religious, and without worrying about post-mortem rewards and punishments. The presence or absence of religiosity makes no difference to whether someone is bad or good. Although I suppose you could say that a bad atheist is at least more personally honest than a bad believer.

I do believe Athiesm, leads to immorality because you know whatever you do there will be no consicuences in the afterlife .

Nevermind the consequences *now*. :roll:

Try: "For ALL have sinned and fallen short of the glory of the Lord," on for size. Religious people are no better or more holy than atheists. There--you satisfied? ALL MEN ARE EVIL BY NATURE. It's why we do sick and twisted things--like in Abu Gharab, or under Saddam's regime, or the Holocaust. GET A CLUE, YE PEOPLE. Peace!
~Anithraldur