Only Atheists can be Truly Moral

[ERLOS]

The question isn't whether she's perfect. Your brought her up as an example of a selfless and charitable religious person. I informed you that she wasn't entirely selfless or charitable.


Then why are you on a debate forum?

1) No-one said she was entirely anything, my friend.
2) Hopefully to debate, not to be treated sarcastically as intellectually inferior by people whose eventual tactic when losing a debate is to deliberately misunderstand the whole spirit of the discussion and nitpick around words and phrases.

 

[HonestJoe]

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

You wrongly assume that a Christian (let alone any other theist) can only every be motivated by theological promises of reward and that atheists can’t be motivated by a desire for (perceived) personal gain.

Donating to charity, especially openly donating to charity can bring obvious temporal rewards and benefits which I believe it the primary motivation of pretty much everyone who does so regardless of their religious beliefs. Even in private, altruism in itself can bring emotional benefits to the giver. If being nice didn’t feel nice, I doubt any of us would do it.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

1) No-one said she was entirely anything, my friend.

You brought her up as an example of a selfless, charitable person. I simply pointed out that she had (quite significant) flaws. If you accept that, why are you being so defensive about it? The first thing you did when I brought it up was accuse me of basically being complicit in an "atheist lie" perpetrated by a single article. Now suddenly she's "not perfect", so we can ignore and dismiss all her harmful actions when weighed against the good? Which is it? Is she a victim of a malicious smear campaign, or is she just a flawed person who earned criticism?

2) Hopefully to debate, not to be treated sarcastically as intellectually inferior by people whose eventual tactic when losing a debate is to deliberately misunderstand the whole spirit of the discussion and nitpick around words and phrases.

I feel you're being somewhat disingenuous here.

 

[ERLOS]

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?

Oh! So that's it? That's your reason? To spend your days pushing your (lack of) belief on the same people you accuse of pushing theirs. As in: although a few do push their theism, of whatever cloth, the vast majority do not, although (before you deliberately misunderstand) they see no harm in discussing their thoughts on a RELIGIOUS forum.

Sigh ...

 

[ERLOS]

I feel you're being somewhat disingenuous here.

You're accusing me of lying? To my face?

 

[ERLOS]

You brought her up as an example of a selfless, charitable person. I simply pointed out that she had (quite significant) flaws. If you accept that, why are you being so defensive about it? The first thing you did when I brought it up was accuse me of basically being complicit in an "atheist lie" perpetrated by a single article. Now suddenly she's "not perfect", so we can ignore and dismiss all her harmful actions when weighed against the good? Which is it? Is she a victim of a malicious smear campaign, or is she just a flawed person who earned criticism?


I feel you're being somewhat disingenuous here.

Don't put words in my mouth. Go back and re-read point 2) above. Anyway I've got to get to work. I don't have time to go round and round the roundabout all day ...

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Oh! So that's it? That's your reason? To spend your days pushing your (lack of) belief on the same people you accuse of pushing theirs.

I've never "pushed" my position on anyone. I'm here to debate. To test the beliefs held by others, because doing so may enact real change (either in them or in me). That's the purpose of debates. To put forward ideas and to allow others to challenge them in the hope of reaching a greater mutual understanding. I have zero interest in forcing my beliefs on anybody.

As in: although a few do push their theism, of whatever cloth, the vast majority do not, although (before you deliberately misunderstand) they see no harm in discussing their thoughts on a RELIGIOUS forum.

Now you're just waffling, and also being unnecessarily rude and dismissive.

Sigh ...

Case in point. Are you willing to discuss this like an adult, or are you going to *roll your eyes* like a teenager?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Don't put words in my mouth. Go back and re-read point 2) above. Anyway I've got to get to work. I don't have time to go round and round the roundabout all day ...

You said, in response to this post:

In a sense it certainly does. Being charitable out of compassion for others is more virtuous than being charitable so as to help one self get into heaven.
.

"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.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're accusing me of lying? To my face?

I feel you've completely changed your tone from "this isn't a place to debate" to "if you're going to debate, debate fairly and don't be rude", despite the fact that you are clearly being rude yourself.

Yes, I think that's disingenuous.

 

[ERLOS]

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?

Why on earth would I want to spend hours of my days on conspiracy/alien websites?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

What on earth would I spend hours of my days on conspiracy/alien websites?

Again, debating conspiracy theories or aliens.

Imagine there was an almost all-pervading belief in aliens. Most of the world, in fact. And not only that, most of the world believed aliens had visited us (although many people in the world disagree on what these aliens looked like and when and where they arrived) and left a message telling us how we should live in order to become part of the great intergalactic conglomeration of planets (although many people disagree on what the message was, and even those who agree on which message was relayed disagree over how to interpret said message). Now imagine that these alienists not only lived by these codes, but often (though not always) expected or demanded others did. Imagine wars and genocides were (in whole or in part) inspired by certain groups interpretation of this message. And imagine that politicians around the world still determine domestic and foreign policy - and the rights of their people - based partly on their interpretation of the particular message they believe the aliens passed on.

Do you not think that, in such a world, it might be worth some people asking the question "why do you believe this and how can you justify it"? Do you understand why people, even if they don't believe the aliens ever existed, might have a vested interest in challenging those that do?

 

[ERLOS]

Right. So it's your mission on earth? To correct them? What if they're right? You'd ask for proof? 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.

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.

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.

 

[Nakosis]

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'd suspect the motivation for most folks is from a feeling of compassion. Religion just identifies that feeling and creates a narrative for it.

 

[Augustus]

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?

This is a bit naive and self-congratulatory.

Most people would agree it is better to do an action out of kindness than out of expectation of reward.

Your example is flawed though as it assumes atheists are being charitable without expectation of reward, assumes 'heaven' is the only reward, assumes that just because good deed may be rewarded then Christians only do them to claim the reward rather than simply seeing them as good acts, ignores the Christians who don't think good deeds lead to heaven, ignores religions without heavens, etc, etc.

 

[ERLOS]

@ImmortalFlame:


You have to understand that not all Christians are young earth fundamentalists. Many scientists do believe in God, and evolution -- both. The Catholic Church accepts evolution 'may have happened' but with a divine first cause.

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

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.

(Sorry, I have veered off topic.)

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

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?

Who says atheists are as charitable as Christians? And who says their charitability isn't ego-driven? Atheists seem to believe that the charity of Christians is in part a result of some pathological belief system. Who says that atheists are any less vulnerable to such pathology? And given that atheists in the west grow up in a culture dominated by Judeo-Christian values, how could one make the claim that their sense of morality isn't affected by it?

 

[Sunstone]

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?

Did you want this moved to the jokes section?

 

[Fool]

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?

this is the same problem jesus had with the pharisees.

in simple terms, its called quid pro quo.

so basically you're implying an action dictates morality and not a form of ism. donating to charity for the sole purpose of alleviating suffering is moral. doesn't matter if you atheist or theist

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What sbout Buddhists? Hindus? Taoist? Moslems?
Why do so many atheists come to a faith website? Its so funny.

I feel the answer to these questions is multi-faceted, but not at all contrary to common sense:

1. Religion is literally pushed in atheists' faces if we reside in a culture that is majority Christian or Muslim.
2. Within the whole of atheists, there tends to be a subset who actively feel the need to challenge the religion being pushed in their faces.
3. In majority Christian cultures, there tends to be less threat of actual punishment/harm if one reveals that they are atheist than in majority Muslim countries.
4. Therefore that subset of challengers in majority-Christian cultures ends up more easily finding outlets to channel those frustrations with the religious establishment. Online forums are one of them.
5. Most of the other religions of the world outside the two I have mentioned are not really all that pushy. Especially not when compared to Christianity/Islam. Less push, fewer challengers.

Personally (and no, I don't care at all how unpopular this opinion/stance is) I think all religions need fact checks, challenged, put through the wringer, shaken up a bit. If we admit that there is good to religions, then the focus should be there. Keep the good... shred and discard the bad.

 

[bobhikes]

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?

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.