Only Atheists can be Truly Moral

[ImmortalFlame]

Right. So it's your mission on earth? To correct them?

I never said that.

What if they're right?

What if anyone's right about anything? The whole point of debating these issues is to find out who is right.

You'd ask for proof?

Sure.

They'd say perhaps these aliens are like, angels, perhaps -- spiritual entities that cannot be proved by material sciences. Then you'd laugh and call them ignorant and stupid. In their own home, so to speak.

Why do you automatically assume I would be derisory? You clearly have a very strong prejudice against me, for some reason. I've debated religion for years and I have never onced laughed at and called a theist ignorant or stupid just for stating that their belief isn't subject to empirical evidence.

Also, what you just did was a prime example of putting words in my mouth.

Then they'd get fed up of being insulted as intellectually inferior to your own good self. And eventually they'd just stop trying to have a conversation with a brick wall. Perhaps.

Again, in this entirely imagined scenario constructed by you, anything can happen. The reality is actually very different - why not try engaging in it rather than telling me what would happen?

Please don't nitpick the words and phrases of this post, and come back with inferences that aren't there. Try to grasp what it's actually saying.

Speaking of claiming intellectual superiority, are you going to stop putting words in my mouth and patronizing me?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

@ImmortalFlame:


You have to understand that not all Christians are young earth fundamentalists.

I do understand that. Where have I ever said otherwise?

Many scientists do believe in God, and evolution -- both.

I am also aware of this and have repeatedly said this in innumerable debates on the topic. Where have I said otherwise? What gave you the impression I don't understand that?

The Catholic Church accepts evolution 'may have happened' but with a divine first cause.

This is also something I am aware of. What's your point?

Yes it's unfortunate that a small group are trying to push science out of schools, etc. In America.

Except it's not just a "small group". Studies show that almost half of Americans (42%) don't believe in evolution, and one of the primary reasons for that is because of religious objection. There are lobbying groups that have campaigned repeatedly to get evolution out of classrooms, or force creationism in. Religious organizations and institutions campaign tirelessly to dictate people's freedoms by adherence to religious doctrines. This happens all over the world, so that's why it's important to challenge not just the extremists, but the foundations of religious thought itself on every level. The challenge needn't be aggressive or violent, regardless of your hyperbolic overreaction to my posts.

But there's a big world going on outside America. And the subject of 'God' has fascinated wise people and kings etc, forever.

EDIT: If you are not speaking from an American perspective, there's far less reason to be out crusading against religion. Most western states are secular democracies.

I live in the UK, where only recently has Ireland voted to make abortions legal due to the stranglehold of Catholic orthodoxy on the region. These issues are still relevant and still affect people today in numerous countries across the globe. And even if they didn't, why do you think religion isn't worth debating and challenging? Why are you so defensive?

 

[Glaurung]

There is much talk about whether or not Atheists can be moral people, for we don't have such things as the Bible to guide us, but think of this:

I don't deny the capacity of atheists to behave morally. The argument is not that an atheist is ipso facto a bad person, but that assuming a materialistic worldview there can be no moral justification for anything beyond the inter-subjective.

An Atheist and a Christian (or anyone of any religion-- i'll use 'Christian' here just to keep it simple) both donate the same amount to the same charity. I argue that the charitable action of the Atheist is more moral than that of the Christian, because the Atheist did so without any incentive or motivation.

I very much doubt that when an atheist does something charitable, it is without incentive or motivation. All human action is motivated.

I also reject the notion that all instances of Christian compassion are nothing more than attempts to curry favor with God. To me, it seems like a selective cynicism serving a narrative rather than an objective observation about what motivates Christians. (Hint, Christians don't ever cease being human beings).

The Christian has heaven to look forward to, so in truth, no good thing they do goes un-rewarded. The Atheist on the other hand, doesn't believe in an afterlife, and so they donate genuinely expecting nothing in return.

There's a double edge sword to Christian belief. God rewards the just, but there's no guarantee that any given Christian will persevere in justice until the end. Every sin will be accounted for; every idle word. If you can claim that I'm motivated in the hopes of being rewarded in the afterlife, I get to claim that you are motivated by a denial of God's judgement.

Does not the expectation of reimbursement negate the morality of an action?

God's offer of eternal happiness is open to everyone as an unmerited gift. One fact you've failed to take into account is that Christians generally don't believe it's possible to earn one's way into heaven.

 

[Mox]

Yawn ...

Why just Christians?

What sbout Buddhists? Hindus? Taoist? Moslems?

Why do so many atheists come to a faith website? Its so funny. In fact the majority here seem to be atheists. So you'll find yourself in good company to air intelligent superiority over the one-third of the world population who are Christian. Never mind all the other believers of all the countless other faiths and religions?

 

[`mud]

We're supposed to talking about charity here...right ?
Charity to who ? With what ? Maybe money ? Or actions ?
A lot of people die leaving un-spent billions un-donated...why ?
Some people pick up a drying worm and put it back in the garden, why ?
Even Mother Teresa left un-spent millions, while living in wealth.
Morality vs. religion, evil vs. good, poor vs. rich, dying vs. worms,
how does one measure the differences, the measure is in the action,
not the need, nor the cause, nor the wealth....... but it's the reason !
The reason is in one's mind, and the satifaction is one's spirit,
that spirit that will flow with the winds of the Cosmos,
into whatever is there to recieve us, beliefs or lack of same.
Charity is the inner wealth within one's being, to give or not.
NuffStuff

 

[David T]

There is much talk about whether or not Atheists can be moral people, for we don't have such things as the Bible to guide us, but think of this:

An Atheist and a Christian (or anyone of any religion-- i'll use 'Christian' here just to keep it simple) both donate the same amount to the same charity. I argue that the charitable action of the Atheist is more moral than that of the Christian, because the Atheist did so without any incentive or motivation.

The Christian has heaven to look forward to, so in truth, no good thing they do goes un-rewarded. The Atheist on the other hand, doesn't believe in an afterlife, and so they donate genuinely expecting nothing in return.

Does not the expectation of reimbursement negate the morality of an action?

Is a Taylor guitars superior, or equal to, or inferior to Martin guitars? This is an ongoing debate that seems all sort of nebulous with involved parties agreeing the debate makes sense!

 

[ERLOS]

I do understand that. Where have I ever said otherwise?


I am also aware of this and have repeatedly said this in innumerable debates on the topic. Where have I said otherwise? What gave you the impression I don't understand that?


This is also something I am aware of. What's your point?


Except it's not just a "small group". Studies show that almost half of Americans (42%) don't believe in evolution, and one of the primary reasons for that is because of religious objection. There are lobbying groups that have campaigned repeatedly to get evolution out of classrooms, or force creationism in. Religious organizations and institutions campaign tirelessly to dictate people's freedoms by adherence to religious doctrines. This happens all over the world, so that's why it's important to challenge not just the extremists, but the foundations of religious thought itself on every level. The challenge needn't be aggressive or violent, regardless of your hyperbolic overreaction to my posts.


I live in the UK, where only recently has Ireland voted to make abortions legal due to the stranglehold of Catholic orthodoxy on the region. These issues are still relevant and still affect people today in numerous countries across the globe. And even if they didn't, why do you think religion isn't worth debating and challenging? Why are you so defensive?

So you're living in one of the most democratic secular societies on earth. If people are keeping abortion in North Ireland, it's because it's what they VOTED for. If they like to believe in the Protestant Church view there, they have that right.

Or are you saying churches shouldn't be permitted to voice their opinion in political.debate, where educated intelligent people may listen and then choose for themselves how to vote?

Are you seriously trying to say that in the UK your freedom is so seriously crippled by other peoples' religious beliefs that you have to stand up and fight it (religion) every day?

Well, each to his own ...

 

[ERLOS]

Because it's clear your only real purpose in debating with theists is an almost fanatical determination to convince them of the error of their ways?

 

[Audie]

Right. She wasn't a perfect human being. These are debates about her cannonization. In the process of cannonization there's a process called the devils-advocate to investigate less attractive aspects of the proposed saint's life. No one's perfect. However she was cannonized. That was the decision: that the immense good outweighed the bad.

Whatever. You guys hate anything to do with God or religion, especially anything to do with Catholics. I haven't all day to read through all that stuff and debate crap.

Which "guys" are those? I've never even heard of a person
who fits your description. It does not even make sense.
As for anti-catholic, the virulence of the hatred and contempt
for Catholics that I see here, is from other Christians.

 

[Audie]

Superior atheist charity to evil 'religious' (especially Christian) charity?

Your avatar seems somehow appropriate.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So you're living in one of the most democratic secular societies on earth. If people are keeping abortion in North Ireland, it's because it's what they VOTED for. If they like to believe in the Protestant Church view there, they have that right.

So you don't see the value in debating religion as a subject because... Democracy exists? Despite the fact that religion can be and is a determining factor in how many people vote?

Or are you saying churches shouldn't be permitted to voice their opinion in political.debate, where educated intelligent people may listen and then choose for themselves how to vote?

Not even remotely. I have never, not even once, suggested that religion or religious viewpoints should be silenced. Unless you consider being challenged being "silenced". Which it isn't.

Are you seriously trying to say that in the UK your freedom is so seriously crippled by other peoples' religious beliefs that you have to stand up and fight it (religion) every day for hours?

Why are you exaggerating? Why are you so defensive just because I think religion - which is an important aspect of billions of people's lives around the world - is worth questioning, challenging and debating? What scares or upsets you so much about the fact that some people - even non-religious ones - think it's important to spend their time challenging religious ideologies?

You just come off as extremely insecure to me.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Because it's clear your only real purpose in debating with theists is an almost fanatical determination to convince them of the error of their ways?

Considering you've read maybe a dozen of my posts, and practically all of them were directed as a response to you and things you said rather than theism in general, you have absolutely no basis for that opinion whatsoever and I can happily ignore it.

 

[ERLOS]

Your avatar seems somehow appropriate.

It's deliberate.

So you don't see the value in debating religion as a subject because... Democracy exists? Despite the fact that religion can be and is a determining factor in how many people vote?


Not even remotely. I have never, not even once, suggested that religion or religious viewpoints should be silence. Unless you consider being challenged being "silenced". Which it isn't.


Why are you exaggerating? Why are you so defensive just because I think religion - which is an important aspect of millions of people's lives around the world - is worth questioning, challenging and debating? What scares or upsets you so much about the fact that some people - even non-religious ones - think it's important to spend their time challenging religious ideologies?

You just come off as extremely insecure to me.

But you're not challenging anything except peoples' personal belief. Mine in this particilar thread, sure. It's got nothing to do with your life what other people like to believe.

No-ones challenging you all the time, except reacting.

The point is its irritating and exausting to have every debste constantly interrupted by someone constantly demanding me to explain this and that, word by word and phrase by phrase -- who's not actually at all interested in hearing what I'm really saying anyway, except to prove I'm wrong.

Round and round and round.
Enough ...

 

[Audie]

It's deliberate.

Is this a deliberate falsehood, or is it merely reckless? You
seem to has dodged responsibility for it. Tsk.

Whatever. You guys hate anything to do with God or religion, especially anything to do with Catholics.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But you're not challenging anything except peoples' personal belief.

So? Why does that mean that I shouldn't be allowed to question, debate or challenge it? Should ALL personal beliefs be immune and shielded from criticism, questioning or analysis, or do religious beliefs earn some sort of unique status in that regard?

Mine in this particilar thread, sure. It's got nothing to do with your life what other people like to believe.

But it does affect my life, and the lives of people around me. Even if a belief doesn't affect me personally in a direct way, why should that mean I am not allowed to question or debate it? Do you apply the same standards in debates about philosophy, science and politics? If a parent believes that feeding children battery acid is good for them, it doesn't affect me whatsoever - should I not question or challenge them either?

The point is its irritating and exausting to have every debste constantly interrupted by someone constantly demanding me to explain this and that, word by word and phrase by phrase -- who's not actually at all interested in hearing what I'm really saying anyway, except to prove I'm wrong.

But I've not done that. I raised simple challenges and you reacted in a way that was abrasive, rude, defensive and inflammatory. Literally, all I did was point out that there are good reasons why someone who isn't religious may want to debate or challenge religion, and as a direct result of that you have accused me of laughing at and calling theists names, of being disrespectful, of wanting to "silence" religious views and making all sort of arguments and statements I never made nor ever would make. You've clearly overreacted, and I have no idea why.

 

[Audie]

So? Why does that mean that I shouldn't be allowed to question, debate or challenge it? Should ALL personal beliefs be immune and shielded from criticism, questioning or analysis, or do religious beliefs earn some sort of unique status in that regard?


But it does affect my life, and the lives of people around me. Even if a belief doesn't affect me personally in a direct way, why should that mean I am not allowed to question or debate it? Do you apply the same standards in debates about philosophy, science and politics? If a parent believes that feeding children battery acid is good for them, it doesn't affect me whatsoever - should I not question or challenge them either?


But I've not done that. I raised simple challenges and you reacted in a way that was abrasive, rude, defensive and inflammatory. Literally, all I did was point out that there are good reasons why someone who isn't religious may want to debate or challenge religion, and as a direct result of that you have accuse me of laughing at and calling theists names, of being disrespectful, of wanting to "silence" religious views and making all sort of arguments and statements I never made nor ever would make. You've clearly overreacted, and I have no idea why.

I think our friend should take some responsibility for
the falsehoods already spoken here, before being
invited to add some more.

 

[Stevicus]

There is much talk about whether or not Atheists can be moral people, for we don't have such things as the Bible to guide us, but think of this:

An Atheist and a Christian (or anyone of any religion-- i'll use 'Christian' here just to keep it simple) both donate the same amount to the same charity. I argue that the charitable action of the Atheist is more moral than that of the Christian, because the Atheist did so without any incentive or motivation.

The Christian has heaven to look forward to, so in truth, no good thing they do goes un-rewarded. The Atheist on the other hand, doesn't believe in an afterlife, and so they donate genuinely expecting nothing in return.

Does not the expectation of reimbursement negate the morality of an action?

I guess some of it might depend on whether donating to charity is even moral at all. A Christian or atheist might passively donate to charity in the belief that they're helping, but refuse to do anything to change the political/economic system which causes people to need charity in the first place.

 

[ChristineM]

Yawn ...

Why just Christians?

What sbout Buddhists? Hindus? Taoist? Moslems?

Why do so many atheists come to a faith website? Its so funny. In fact the majority here seem to be atheists. So you'll find yourself in good company to air intelligent superiority over the one-third of the world population who are Christian. Never mind all the other believers of all the countless other faiths and religions?

Perhaps you didnt read the OP

- i'll use 'Christian' here just to keep it simple

 

[ChristineM]

There is much talk about whether or not Atheists can be moral people, for we don't have such things as the Bible to guide us, but think of this:

An Atheist and a Christian (or anyone of any religion-- i'll use 'Christian' here just to keep it simple) both donate the same amount to the same charity. I argue that the charitable action of the Atheist is more moral than that of the Christian, because the Atheist did so without any incentive or motivation.

The Christian has heaven to look forward to, so in truth, no good thing they do goes un-rewarded. The Atheist on the other hand, doesn't believe in an afterlife, and so they donate genuinely expecting nothing in return.

Does not the expectation of reimbursement negate the morality of an action?

Morality is a human concept, not a religious concept. Without morality early civilizations could not have thrived.

It seems to me religion has taken the concept, remodeled it to their own ends to exclude anyone not them.

Yet i am still human, moral, charitable, no god required to direct me.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

There is much talk about whether or not Atheists can be moral people, for we don't have such things as the Bible to guide us, but think of this:

An Atheist and a Christian (or anyone of any religion-- i'll use 'Christian' here just to keep it simple) both donate the same amount to the same charity. I argue that the charitable action of the Atheist is more moral than that of the Christian, because the Atheist did so without any incentive or motivation.

The Christian has heaven to look forward to, so in truth, no good thing they do goes un-rewarded. The Atheist on the other hand, doesn't believe in an afterlife, and so they donate genuinely expecting nothing in return.

Does not the expectation of reimbursement negate the morality of an action?

Not so. A moral action has worth only when it has meaning. In other words, while you say that atheism > religion, because they needed no incentive, this is untrue. An atheist necessarily borrows morality from other civilized cultures, or they are essentially nihilist. Now, if they truly have no morality, moral action in fact ceases to be moral, and either becomes part of expected set of actions (a ritual of sorts) or a random action. Neither of these are morally meaningful, because they don't have anything attached. If healing the sick is no different from moving a glass of coffee, what use is it?

Jesus died for the sake of all sinners in the world. The early Christians died for their love of Jesus. The modern atheists? They live for nobody and love for nobody, if they do actions then, without any real reason, this gives another one. Lacking a real reason, the reason is in fact to "prove" they are moral. But this in fact is a thing that cannot be proven, since doing such for such an empty and hollow reason proves nothing.

Yes, there are Christians who do moral stuff as a sort of buying their way into heaven. But grace is such that it can't be earned, and Christians that know better necessarily must come up with a better reason.