Only Atheists can be Truly Moral

[lewisnotmiller]

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?

Nope. The action is what's moral, and the action is unchanged.

 

[osgart]

What your conviction is has nothing to do with your morality. Out of the heart a person is who they are. You can throw away all of the window dressing about beliefs and convictions. In the end you are who you are.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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

Read more about Mother Theresa. You'll quickly learn she cared much more about getting converts than about helping others in need. She even encouraged people to embrace their own suffering. Definitely not a "saint" and arguably a very immoral person.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

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?

Good points. Perhaps "altruistic" would be a better word choice than "moral." Of course, all humans are somewhat self-interested. I'm not convinced anyone is purely altruistic, which is somehow probably an ultimate good for the evolution of the species.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

... over the one-third of the world population who are Christian. .

Meaning 2/3 of the world are NOT. Hmmmmm.... if argument by popularity is your goal? You set the bar pretty low...

But don't worry! All those 2/3's god is not the real god... right? That would be yours.... the Catholic god...

... which is, at last count, less than 20% of the world....? (or less? )

Arguing numbers is never a good idea, if you are a theist...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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

Well Teresa was pretty selfish, really. About as evil a human being as you could imagine. She literally built effective prisons for the dying to suffer as much as possible without actually beating them or anything.

She believed that suffering was Magic and Magically Made You More Like Jesus or some such crap. An ugly person indeed.

As for AIDS? Considering how the Catholic Church's HORRIFIC lies about condoms? Which actually helps SPREAD AIDS? The least they could do, I think, is try to mitigate the damage they are directly responsible for...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Oh she was such a wicked woman. On the strength of a single highly biased article by a TRAVEL writer in a new-atheist magazine?

https://newint.org/features/2014/09/01/mother-teresa-torture-kolkata

I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people.’ This clearly indicates that Mother Teresa and, by extension, Missionaries of Charity believe that suffering enhances holiness.

Which obviously means the womsn who dedicated her life to picking up the outcast and dying human debris from the worst diseased streets in the world so they could die with dignity did it to enjoy watching them suffer? How's that for utter crap?

Get on

It is utter crap-- she was given money to TREAT these misfortunes-- but she greedily held on to those millions, funneling it into the Vatican's Coffers (which seem to be bottomless)

It is a fact that her "charity" is being investigated for fraud and deliberate mishandling of monies.

Yeah... you cannot get much more evil that she was.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

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.

My bet is the ONLY reason she was "cannonized" was to keep the incredible wealth she generated-- money that was SUPPOSED to treat and help the dying -- to keep that money lining the pockets of Vatican City.

Those gold-encrusted statues don't get gold-plated for free after all...

... and neither do the silk-lined luxury apartments for Cardinals get built on the cheap.

And finally, the Catholic Church has to keep paying off the victims of priest abuses...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Because the vast majority of people in the world DO believe in a God, and many of those people's beliefs play a major role in informing their actions, and a lot of those actions affect everybody - including atheists. If this was a forum dedicated to debating conspiracy theories or aliens, would you level the same criticism at people who frequent those forums specifically to refute arguments made in favor of conspiracy theories or aliens?

The problem with lumping all theists into the same lump? Is that they believe in vastly different gods.

Even among so-called christians? They worship various flavors of "god"-- some so different that it's literally impossible to reconcile their respective versions of the word "god".

You cannot have a square-circle. You cannot have a god who fits all the attributes requred by more than 45,000 different brands of Christianity alone-- let alone all the gods in Islam, Judaism (just to name the Big Three Abrahamic brands).

And, naturally, there are the many gods of Native Peoples, and Hindus, China, the Pacific Islanders, and so on.

There must be at least half a million versions of the word "god", who are believed in, even today.

It's a Fallacy to attempt to lump them all into one pile; not to mention, you'd likely get a giant fight going if you tried...

"It would be almost unbelievable, if history did not record the tragic fact, that men have gone to war and cut each other's throats because they could not agree as to what was to become of them after their throats were cut."
~ Walter P. Stacy (1925-1952)

 

[Milton Platt]

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?

Where would atheists interact with theists, if not on a site about the subject?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is utter crap-- she was given money to TREAT these misfortunes-- but she greedily held on to those millions, funneling it into the Vatican's Coffers (which seem to be bottomless)

It is a fact that her "charity" is being investigated for fraud and deliberate mishandling of monies.

Yeah... you cannot get much more evil that she was.

Hitchens was no can of hers:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Hitchens was no can of hers:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2003/10/mommie_dearest.html

Indeed. I had always kind of ignored the Elephant In The Room, with regards to Teresa, until I listened to Hitchen's comments on the subject (several years ago, before he passed).

That made me dig into her "charity" some more, and the more I dug, the worse she got.

The final Hypocrisy? Was the manner of her own death-- No Medical Procedure was Too Expensive. A special air charter took her back to Europe for the best of all medical treatment.

The way Teresa ended up, kind of reminds me of Star Wars: The Jedi are Sacrosanct-- nothing is out of reach, to go Rescue A Jedi. But if you are just a grunt? Cannon fodder. Lots more where those came from, no big dealio.

The Catholic Church treated hers as some sort of Golden Goose, sparing no expense in an attempt to preserve her life. And I suppose, they were accurate: She raised much moola for them... seeing as how so very little of what her "charity" raised went to the actual poor...

I wonder, there at the end, did she lament her Golden Special Treatment? Was she even given a choice?

Or was she as big a hypocrite as everyone (who knows the facts) thinks? I doubt we'll ever know.

But-- if she had been permitted (or commanded to) follow her own "code"? They'd have removed ALL medical care--including pain management -- and locked her into a bare room with a thin pallet to sleep on, only bread and water, next to other dying folk, and waited until she dies "naturally".

Had she died in that way? THEN at least, you could say she wasn't just another Hypocrite...

 

[gnostic]

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?

Probably because many of the atheists here were former Christians.

Either they were brought up with Christian background, or had converted but then later left...for whatever reasons.

So I suppose that Christians and Christianity are brought frequently here, are probably matter of personal experiences.

I went to schools and I grew up in a neighbourhood with lot of Christians: Catholics, Orthodox, Anglicans and various Protestants. At that time, there were very little atheists and agnostics.

And as a teenager, my sister joined a church, that got me interested in the bible and church, and I almost joined her and didn’t.

But by the time I was in college, I didn’t have much time seeking new churches to join or even read the bible in about 14 or 15 years.

And by the time, I did touch the bible again in 2000, after the 15-year hiatus, re-reading the bible, my outlook have changed, so I considered agnostic, even though I didn’t know what agnosticism is until a couple years (2003) when I joined my first forum (not here).

It changed because I don’t agree with Christian and church interpretations of the bible, mostly regarding to the so-called messianic prophecies. My agnosticism had nothing to do with science, like with evolution.

 

[Samantha Rinne]

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.

Actually, the root of the problem is this.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ProtagonistCenteredMorality

Everyone thinks their stuff doesn't stink. You, me, everyone.

They can only see one side of the story, and so they see the believers as immoral. Let me ask you something. Is it moral to want to protect your family and friends? To want to protect your country? I looked up "Is Jesus conservative" under images today, 2/3 of them were pictures basically asserting that Jesus would want heavily subsidized government care. Yes, these programs exist for a reason. They also cost the average person lots of money in taxes, money that in turn makes them poorer. Makes them have to work harder at their job, and eventually quit due to stress.

Or priests equating welcoming strangers as anywhere near the same level as being forced to welcome people who hurt others, who take your stuff, who are brutal and thuggish. Who is your neighbor in the good Samaritan story? It's the one who shows mercy. Jesus was peaceful, but he also believed in boundaries. Alot.

Did Jesus "welcome the stranger" when they tried to push him off a cliff? No. He for the most part stood up for himself, and believed others should also do so when necessary. While Jesus does not condone violence, in Luke 22:36 he does tell his disciples to go out and buy a sword. Note, this is different from Muhammad's "revelation" that now people can use force to convert others. This is only for self-defense, and it is clear that those who live by the sword die by it.

Okay, here's a reality check. Our government last term tried to sell us out. They tried to flood the country with immigrants, they tried to ruin our economy, they wrecked our healthcare (I cannot afford insurance right now, so I can't afford to be sick either. Thanks Obama!), and they tried to make the US like an EU country. Let's talk about how Sweden and Germany are suffering under these insane "moral" activities. Jesus agreed to paying the taxes of Rome, but he didn't actually protest the Jewish state. "Judea should be abolished and become a pagan state." No, Jesus did not say those words. He clearly believed in his faith as a Jew, but also believed in the civic duty to obey leadership. But government should not betray its people.

I fully support the right of people living in small towns to make an honest living as entrepreneurs. I fully support the deportation of immigrants, yes even if it comes to separating children from their parents. We do not owe random people favors, at the expense of our own flesh and blood. We do have charity, but it is far easier to do so from a position of steady income. Trust me, I lost my job, before I could donate to charities, now I can't. "The poor are always with us," Jesus said. Every day, I saw the poor, as part of my job at the library. Every day, I tried to help them. I donated to charities, I was happy to give. But I lived at my parent's because a normal person at my job would have part-time hours that make it hard even to hold an apartment. This is precisely what happens in a slump economy.

Is it selfish to want your loved ones and you to be happy and healthy? Yes, of course it is. But the alternative is perverse.

Jesus didn't say, "Love your neighbor not yourself." He said, "Love your neighbor as your self." This means staying clear of abusive behaviors in addition to having a kind heart that cares for others.

 

[ERLOS]

It is utter crap-- she was given money to TREAT these misfortunes-- but she greedily held on to those millions, funneling it into the Vatican's Coffers (which seem to be bottomless)

It is a fact that her "charity" is being investigated for fraud and deliberate mishandling of monies.

Yeah... you cannot get much more evil that she was.

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

Selective, aren't we?

 

[ERLOS]

It is utter crap-- she was given money to TREAT these misfortunes-- but she greedily held on to those millions, funneling it into the Vatican's Coffers (which seem to be bottomless)

It is a fact that her "charity" is being investigated for fraud and deliberate mishandling of monies.

Yeah... you cannot get much more evil that she was.

You don't know anything about her, except what Hitchens said? You don't even understand that she established hospices for the dying. They weren't hospitals.

She said suffering could be holy -- sharing Christ's suffering on the cross -- in order to give some encouragment to those suffering, not because she wanted them to suffer. This is such an unbelielivable lie.

She spent her whole life picking up the dying detritus of humanity that everyone else walked over, from the worst streets in the world, to bathe them and clothe them and let them die with dignity in a clean bed in a place of love and safety.

And you call her evil?

A little ignorance goes a long way.

 

[ERLOS]

Where would atheists interact with theists, if not on a site about the subject?

But I thought atheism wasn't the opposite of theism? I thought atheism wasn't the 'off' switch to the 'on' switch of theism? I thought there just was no switch there. So why would you want to go looking for theists to debate with if there's nothing to be said?

Why would an atheist want to spend so much valuable debating this God he don't believe in?

Weird.

I don't believe in aliens. I think it's a silly idea. So why would I want to spend hours around alien websites seeking debate with people who do. Why would I want to do that?

Weird ...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Selective, aren't we?

Nope. I am not blinded by a desperate need to "justify" the pure evil that was Teresa's "charity".

The list of her evil is endless.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You don't know anything about her, except what Hitchens said?

False. You didn't bother to read what I wrote.... so I won't read your false post beyond this sentence.

I said I dug deeper and deeper AFTER listening to Hitchens--- the more I learned? The more I realized how evil she was.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

But I thought atheism wasn't the opposite of theism? I thought atheism wasn't the 'off' switch to the 'on' switch of theism? I thought there just was no switch there. So why would you want to go looking for theists to debate with if there's nothing to be said?

I don't believe in aliens. Doesn't mean I spend hours around alien websites debating with people who do. Why would I want to do that?

Weird ...

Because people don't rip children from their parents, based on Alien Sightings?

Because parents don't kick their gay kids out of the house (before 18) based on Alien Sightings?

Because people don't deny their children desperately needed medical care based on Alien Sightnings?

Because nobody who believes in Alien Sightings, wants to force giant stone monuments carved with "alien rules of acquisition"?

Theists do ALL of the above and worse....