Can Atheists/Non-religious Lead Completely Moral Lives?

[ChristineM]

I'm just saying that I just checked on it and it is not true now. I checked on very recent stats per capita.

Link please

 

[Kathryn]

Link please

Links and no, I've already checked them out and closed them out. I don't care enough to find them again. You can provide the Pew Research link though since you brought that up. Or not, I really don't care.

 

[ChristineM]

I'm just saying that I just checked on it and it is not true now. I checked on very recent stats per capita.

I've just done quick Google search, you seem to be partially correct while rapes seem to be lower than they were there are conflicts between sites with one naming Alaska and another naming Texas as the worst states.

Stis are still high.

Drug use is lower in the bible belt than it was.

But violent crime is still high.

 

[firedragon]

Perhaps just being human leads to immoral behavior.

So then, can the non-religious become moral agents?
Moral: conforming to a standard of right behavior.

Everyone can be "moral agents". Religious or not. But immoral behavior cannot be from the religious. They are not religious, but may pretend to be. That's my take on this.

 

[firedragon]

Not remotely true. Check out prison population, crime statistics, incidence of teen pregnancy, incidence of sti, incidence of rape, incidence drug taking.

All higher in the bible belt areas of America

Interesting. I'd like to see this research. Could you give the link please?

 

[Kathryn]

Interesting. I'd like to see this research. Could you give the link please?

I have asked for it already.

 

[ChristineM]

I have asked for it already.

Like i asked for your link, that's the way it goes

 

[Kathryn]

Like i asked for your link, that's the way it goes

Links.

 

[ChristineM]

Links.

Whatever, i think i asked for your link but, as you say,it doesn't matter

 

[Kathryn]

Whatever, i think i asked for your link but, as you say,it doesn't matter

True dat! (I did ask for yours too.)

 

[Valjean]

Communists are always defenders of the social status quo with a particular dislike of minorities. Sort of the opposite of the democrats there.

I thought the "godless commies" were revolutionaries bent on overthrowing the whole system.
As for minorities, isn't radical equality and democracy one of the basic tenets of communism? Didn't The Communist Manifesto predict a "classless society?"

Have you ever actually read any communist or socialist literature? You seem to have bought in to a bunch of McCarthyist propaganda. Do you really think the Soviet or Maoist societies were anything like what Marx or Engels wanted?

 

[Valjean]

Evidence of that please.

We are weak, slow, physically defenseless plains apes. Like other social species, our survival was enhanced by banding together in coöperative groups. We'd never have survived living alone like bears or leopards.

Like other primates, humans are social animals, like baboons or chimps, both of which are considerably more formidable than humans. Have you ever heard of a population of solitary humans?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We are weak, slow, physically defenseless plains apes. Like other social species, our survival was enhanced by banding together in coöperative groups. We'd never have survived living alone like bears or leopards.

Like other primates, humans are social animals, like baboons or chimps, both of which are considerably more formidable than humans. Have you ever heard of a population of solitary humans?

Okay, you go the inderect route of reasoning your way to trust. Fair enough.

You did a double post.

 

[Argentbear]

I thought the "godless commies" were revolutionaries bent on overthrowing the whole system.
As for minorities, isn't radical equality and democracy one of the basic tenets of communism? Didn't The Communist Manifesto predict a "classless society?"

Remind me again how well LGBT people got on under the soviets

 

[Valjean]

A religious person by believing in a higher power has an extra way to self censor, even when nobody is watching. If you do not believe in a higher power that sees all, you can pretend when people are watching, and cheat if nobody is watching, since who will know?

Your conscience is watching, if you've developed one. Of course, if you have an external rule book you can pick and choose from, there would be no need to develop any internal foundation.

A good example is the internet where one can become anonymous. In this site, the least tolerant are the Atheists. They are always on the attack and cannot live and let live.

Do you mean attack, or question?
We question ideas, and point out inconsistencies, countervailing facts and logical errors. If you see this as an attack you must be awfully insecure in your religiosity.

Isn't your goal Truth, and correct belief? Isn't that best achieved by looking for problems in any given claim; by sorting the well evidenced and reasonable from the poorly evidenced and illogical? Doesn't that make our pointing out the problems a help?
We're trying to assist you to achieve your goal. That's helping, not attacking. It's no more an attack than a maths instructor correcting your calculations on a exam.

Those Atheists who vote D, are more likely to lie or promote deception. They are part of a propaganda group who all recite together.

Au contraire. We're a pretty independent bunch, and we have no propaganda, doctrine or beliefs to promote -- unlike the theists who actually are part of a propaganda group that recites, prays; even sings together.

You are not obligated to tell the truth or even admit the truth, since you are anonymous. Most will not say the same things to people's faces, since the push back can become real;

But we're not an organization or movement. Why would we be duplicitous? Noöne's going to kick us out of the club for heresy.
We're perfectly upfront. There is no secret agenda, no duplicity, and we confront your claims all the time, do we not?
When we point out doctrinal problems we explain our objections with facts and logic. There is no secret agenda, no duplicity, and we confront your claims all the time, do we not?

two faces will not confront one face. Religious people are more vulnerable having one face. They are more honest and easy to bully, since another face is not an option, if it is deceptive.

Again. We're perfectly upfront; no duplicity or secret agenda.

The religious make unsupported, erroneous or illogical claims and objections all the time, founded not on observed or testable facts, but on an old collection of unsupported religious mythology. It's all an appeal to authority; an apocryphal, untestable, often fantastical authority. Their house is built of straw. It's they who need be most defensive and zealous.
The atheist objections to theist claims are based on demonstrable facts and logic -- built on stone. We feel no threat to our claims that your apologetics is flawed..

 

[Valjean]

Okay, you go the inderect route of reasoning your way to trust. Fair enough.

You did a double post.

Thanks. Double post fixed.

 

[Valjean]

Remind me again how well LGBT people got on under the soviets

What are you talking about? The Soviets were repressive, authoritarian tyrants, not Marxist communists.
Are we talking about communists, socialists, or Soviets? There are differences. You seem to conflate communism with Stalinism or Maoism.

 

[Valjean]

If that were the case then why did the Nazi's work so hard to hide the holocausts from the rest of the world? It would seem that if they really thought they were being normal they would have ben very open about the huge amount of "good" they were doing.

And then there is the uncomfortable fact that Nazi's were Christians.

They hid their actions because of probable repercussions after the war. Not from any epiphany of conscience.

 

[Valjean]

I've just done quick Google search, you seem to be partially correct while rapes seem to be lower than they were there are conflicts between sites with one naming Alaska and another naming Texas as the worst states.

Stis are still high.

Drug use is lower in the bible belt than it was.

But violent crime is still high.

Compare the Religious USA with the largely atheist Scandanavia, or the whole of Western Europe. It looks like there's an inverse relationship between religiosity and crime, prosperity and quality-of-life.

 

[Kathryn]

Your conscience is watching, if you've developed one. Of course, if you have an external rule book you can pick and choose from, there would be no need to develop any internal foundation.

Do you mean attack, or question?
We question ideas, and point out inconsistencies, countervailing facts and logical errors. If you see this as an attack you must be awfully insecure in your religiosity.

Isn't your goal Truth, and correct belief? Isn't that best achieved by looking for problems in any given claim; by sorting the well evidenced and reasonable from the poorly evidenced and illogical? Doesn't that make our pointing out the problems a help?
We're trying to assist you to achieve your goal. That's helping, not attacking. It's no more an attack than a maths instructor correcting your calculations on a exam.

Au contraire. We're a pretty independent bunch, and we have no propaganda, doctrine or beliefs to promote -- unlike the theists who actually are part of a propaganda group that recites, prays; even sings together.
But we're not an organization or movement. Why would we be duplicitous? Noöne's going to kick us out of the club for heresy.
We're perfectly upfront. There is no secret agenda, no duplicity, and we confront your claims all the time, do we not?
When we point out doctrinal problems we explain our objections with facts and logic. There is no secret agenda, no duplicity, and we confront your claims all the time, do we not?
Again. We're perfectly upfront; no duplicity or secret agenda.

The religious make unsupported, erroneous or illogical claims and objections all the time, founded not on observed or testable facts, but on an old collection of unsupported religious mythology. It's all an appeal to authority; an apocryphal, untestable, often fantastical authority. Their house is built of straw. It's they who need be most defensive and zealous.
The atheist objections to theist claims are based on demonstrable facts and logic -- built on stone. We feel no threat to our claims that your apologetics is flawed..

Here's what I believe. I believe I don't know the answers to a lot of questions but I trust that the collective wisdom of many decades at least may approach some level, deeper than mine, of truth. And I think we are all in for a whole lot of surprises one day anyway. That's why I so often do not proselytize. I don't know the answers and sometimes I don't know the questions! But what I do know is that my faith in God has never failed me, and I've been through some dark valleys, like having a very sick baby, and losing my husband, my younger brother, and both my parents within just a few years. Oh and having to put two dogs down, one on the very day I got a cancer diagnosis. So yeah, it's been a rough few years, and I haven't even shared all of what I've gone through. I've had a great career, and now I am retired, but still...I have a burning inside of me to DO SOMETHING BIG WITH MY LIFE. But maybe I have, by having and raising four fantastic (now adult) kids. I don't know what the future holds but I do know what I do know, if that makes sense. And I do know that in my darkest hours, God has been there for me. I know that beyond a shadow of a doubt.