Only Atheists can be Truly Moral

[ChristineM]

What I'm saying: how do you have so much time in your life to spend discussing this God you don't believe in? Weird ...

Actually discussing many topics, if religiouscentric people didnt keep with the god magic then the discussion would not exist. And what fun would a discussion forum be without discussion?

 

[Quintessence]

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

I don't see why it would. Granted, I'm something of a moral nihilist. I don't really care if someone calls something "moral" or not, I care about tangible impacts. And as far as tangible impacts go, it's the same. Besides, I tend to believe that if one makes honorable behavior about a contest of one-upmanship, one is entirely missing the point of being honorable. It's not about doing better than "that guy," it's about being true to yourself and who you are. Both theists and atheists express analogous behaviors in ways that are true to themselves, for different internal reasons.

 

[EverChanging]

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?

No it absolutely does not.

First off, how do you know the Christian's sole motive is to gain heaven rather than exercise compassion? Many Christians don't even believe heaven can be earned in this way.

Secondly, compassion does have pay backs. It feels good -- that's why we engage in it. We evolved as a social species. It even has health benefits.

What makes benefiting from altruism immoral anyway? I do for others because it makes me feel good.

 

[Katzpur]

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 completely disagree. Morality is based on what your conscience tells you, what you know within your heart to be right or wrong. Certainly religions can guilt people into being "good," but genuine morality comes from the heart. No one has an advantage or disadvantage over anyone else in that regard.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

One could be moral independently of a reward.

 

[columbus]

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

I don't think so. I am pretty utilitarian. If you're improving the human situation you are acting in a moral fashion. It doesn't matter why you're doing it.

I have noticed a few things in this regard, though. Religious people tend to give less to charity than nontheist people. That's because they have a budget item that nontheists don't have, which is supporting their church or whatever. They see that as charity, and so does the government (in terms of tax deductibles.
What religious people are vastly better at than nontheist people is organization. When you can draw on the skills and resources of a diverse community you can get things done that are nearly impossible for unorganized groups like nontheists.

That's why I like staying connected to my local Catholic parish. "Organized Volunteer Opportunity". You don't have to reinvent the wheel every time you see a need and want to fill it. There's already an organization in place that is trusted by a wide variety of people with skills and resources and feedback.

Tom

 

[Apologes]

You assume that religious people are only acting morally because they want to get to heaven. Why can't it be that religious people simply do the right thing because it's the right thing? Why would heaven be the primary motivation?

Also, it's not at all clear why a good deed done in hope of eternal bliss would be less virtuous than one done in the absence of it?

 

[Sir Doom]

My problem after reading through and no one has commented on, what makes charity moral? Many people have come out against charity, especially in poor countries has it tends to compete with there ability to make more businesses. Charity is almost always empathetic not altruistic. Moral for me means values for how people should be treated and valued, not how much stuff I should give them. Personally, I don't believe charity should ever be considered moral.

I was trying to avoid that can of worms, but I must agree. Charitable giving in my state (California) has reached and exceeded critical mass. It does more to perpetuate homelessness then it does to alleviate it. That's my observation anyway.

EDIT: my point being it's hard to call it moral if it does more harm than good.

 

[Skwim]

Like Mother Teresa, you mean? Or the Catholic missionaries working for AIDS and leprosy patients in Africa?

If you note, I didn't say all Christians. Gotta pay attention, ERLOS. Gotta pay attention.

"Like Mother Teresa, you mean."

Implying she was charitable out of compassion for others. I brought up evidence that she was less than compassionate and charitable. No words were put in your mouth.

If you note, I didn't say all Christians. Gotta pay attention, ImmortalFlame. Gotta pay attention.



.

 

[Skwim]

Why do so many atheists come to a faith website?

Because that's where the entertainment lies. Think they come here to suffer?

Its so funny.

Well, at least they amuse you. Gotta give them credit for that, don't you?

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.

Atheists are intelligently superior? Really? Personally, I think agnostics living in Minneapolis, Minnesota are intelligently superior. But then, that's me.

Never mind all the other believers of all the countless other faiths and religions?

I'm pretty certain that if "all the countless other faiths and religions" cared to come on board the atheists here would be more than willing to talk with them.

.

 

[ChristineM]

An atheist necessarily borrows morality from other civilized cultures

Not quite true. Atheist are human beings, morality is a human concept. Religions took the comcept and remodeled it to their own ends to exclude anyone not them.

 

[`mud]

How the hell does one `borrow` morality` ???
Some of these believers `borrow` common sense !!!
But.....they simply don't use any of it !

 

[Truthseeker]

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?

It depends. A follower of a religion may give just because they are compassionate and they are not thinking of any reward in return.

 

[ERLOS]

Because that's where the entertainment lies ..
.

Lol.
Like pulling the wings off flies? Until they find they've got a hornet

 

[ERLOS]

Actually, it's on the strength of multiple investigations by several journalists, independent health organization surveys and assessments carried out by world health organizations and charity watchdogs.

https://www.timeshighereducation.co...76802.article?storyCode=176802&sectioncode=40
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(94)92353-1/abstract
https://web.archive.org/web/2016040...30301-mother-teresa-anything-but-a-saint.html
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/04/mother-teresas-legacy-under-cloud-as-sainthood-nears/
https://www.christiantoday.com/arti...s-should-she-really-be-made-a-saint/94365.htm
http://www.fmh-child.org/Stern.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Mother_Teresa

Ok. Now look I've had a read through this stuff and it's all based on the 'devil's advocate' observations of the two devils advocates enlisted by the Catholic Church -- Chris Hitchens and Aroup Chatterjee, a fiercely anti Mother Teresa Indian journalist and writer who detested her.

The Church had the honesty to enlist the two fiercest antagonists of M Teresa it could possibly find anywhere and let them do their worst.

They tried to savage her with one or two, frankly, dubious allegations about funds and unsubstantiated statements by people who may have had an axe to grind ( or not -- but it wouldnt be regarded as reliable witness testimony in any court of law) and based the rest on the fact that because she said suffering could be holy, that she wanted people to suffer.

That she refused morphine to people in pain. But who knows why? It's powerfully addictive and perhaps it was kept till really needed. Frankly it really is ridiculous smear material.

Of course anyway negative allegations were sensationalised by public media. And Hitchens and Chatterjee got a book each and a movie out if it. Hitchens titled his book 'Missionary Position' which gives an idea of his impartiality of judgement.

Anyone who reads through it with an open mind will realize, as did the Church, that they were really scraping the barrel to find material against her, balanced against the huge good she did. There are angry allegations, for instance, that she accepted funds from Haiti's Baby Doc and other bad people -- as if this woman who spent her life attending to the dying beggars others walked over would not accept donations from wherever they came.

She wasn't perfect, but she was most certainly not living in luxury spending funds supposed for her hospices for the dying on silly projects. Even Hitchens cannot quite pull it off and his accusations come across as pretty thin, imo.

Now people will direct all sorts of smart indignation at me for posting this. But the honest open-minded ones who read it will understand the reason. Please do realise I am posting it because it's necessary to say something.

And if you are not familiar with the devil's advocate process preceding cannonization, it's easy to Google it.

EDIT: If there are references I've missed, independent of the propaganda above, it's because I was not prepared to pay for articles. My dedication to research here does not extend to spending money to read them. Or to give away my bank details for 'one month free trials'. OK?

So if anybody's going to indignantly correct my deliberate -- whats the word: disingenuity? -- please include the PDF. Thank you

 

[BilliardsBall]

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?

May I speak personally? I personally don't appreciate your assumption that Christian giving is under fear or compulsion. Moreover, the Bible teaches that God rejoices over cheerful givers, from the heart. My church and others don't want anyone to feel even a twinge of guilt over a gift.

Further, every study I've seen shows born again Christians tithe, Jews and others give near 2-3% of annual income. The statistics for the generosity of atheists without tax benefit is appalling.

As for morality, I'm unable to break many of the commands of the OT, but atheists live and breathe to break them--no other gods, honor the Sabbath, honor elders, give to the church. Shall I continue?

 

[Woberts]

They live for nobody and love for nobody

Is that necessarily a bad thing? Why does every action that a person takes have to have a false label of morality attached to it?

 

[sojourner]

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?

Your theological premise is wrong. Heaven isn’t a reward for good deeds. That negates the whole issue of grace. We don’t give “in order to get into heaven. We give because we love our neighbor.

 

[sojourner]

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.

I disagree. You’re assuming that atheists cannot be self-sacrificial. The meaning they ascribe is humanist and not deist or theist. But just because they do not make meaning through the use of deific metaphors does not mean that they’re all self-serving. The serving of our fellows is never empty or hollow.

 

[sojourner]

Seriously, if you want to examine the “morality” of believers, all you have to do is check out how professed American evangelicals have given the immorality of the current <cough> administration, not only a pass, but their accolades and full support, in exchange for political favoritism. This is far, far, far worse than anything Mother Teresa allegedly did.

The root of the problem and the reason why we all keep talking past each other is entitlement. Both sides claim it. It blinds us to the needs of others.