Why are christians morally inferior to atheists

[laffy_taffy]

Well, now that I got your attention.....I really don't think christians are morally inferior, but this is in response to those who claim that if they did not have a belief in god, then nothing would stop them from living a hedonistic type lifestyle (drinking, sex, stealing, etc). I really want to know what is it in the makeup of the christian psyche, that leaves them unable to lead a "moral" life without some kind of belief in a deity. Why don't they have the self-regulating ability to control their actions not to cause harm to themselves or others? Most atheists I know are able to do this, so why aren't christians able to self-regulate? What are they missing?

 

[AlsoAnima]

Meh..

 

[TheKnight]

Well, now that I got your attention.....I really don't think christians are morally inferior, but this is in response to those who claim that if they did not have a belief in god, then nothing would stop them from living a hedonistic type lifestyle (drinking, sex, stealing, etc). I really want to know what is it in the makeup of the christian psyche, that leaves them unable to lead a "moral" life without some kind of belief in a deity. Why don't they have the self-regulating ability to control their actions not to cause harm to themselves or others? Most atheists I know are able to do this, so why aren't christians able to self-regulate? What are they missing?

I think that Christians (and other religions) use it to show that outside of religion, there really is no reason to be "moral". Sure, I could refrain from sex, and drinking, etc etc etc. But, without religion, I am nothing more than an animal. After all, this is what many Atheists will say in debate with religious people. That human beings are animals. Well, animals have instincts. Without religion, there is no external reason to refrain from indulgence in every bodily physical pleasure that exists.

I have heard people say that "it is best for a society if the individual behaves morally", but the response to that would be "Why should I give a damn about society? It was here before me, it will be here after me and all I must do is leave my mark."

This is, perhaps, why the religious will often say that to be an Atheist is to be immoral, because of the potential to commit immorality. Most religious know that Atheists are not immoral by nature and will most often do the moral thing when it comes down to it.

 

[CarlinKnew]

I think that Christians (and other religions) use it to show that outside of religion, there really is no reason to be "moral". Sure, I could refrain from sex, and drinking, etc etc etc. But, without religion, I am nothing more than an animal. After all, this is what many Atheists will say in debate with religious people. That human beings are animals. Well, animals have instincts. Without religion, there is no external reason to refrain from indulgence in every bodily physical pleasure that exists.

I have heard people say that "it is best for a society if the individual behaves morally", but the response to that would be "Why should I give a damn about society? It was here before me, it will be here after me and all I must do is leave my mark."

This is, perhaps, why the religious will often say that to be an Atheist is to be immoral, because of the potential to commit immorality. Most religious know that Atheists are not immoral by nature and will most often do the moral thing when it comes down to it.

If no one gets hurt in the process, what is immoral about drinking and having sex?

Yes we're animals. Yes we have a sense of morality, and it's not because of religion. For hundreds of thousands of years humans lived in close-knit tribes of about 40 people. Without morality, we wouldn't have lasted very long. It's an evolved trait. All of us have it in our DNA (minus the sociopaths) regardless of whether or not we believe in a deity.

 

[TheKnight]

If no one gets hurt in the process, what is immoral about drinking and having sex?

Nothing? I don't know. I was just using those examples.

Yes we're animals. Yes we have a sense of morality, and it's not because of religion. For hundreds of thousands of years humans lived in close-knit tribes of about 40 people. Without morality, we wouldn't have lasted very long. It's an evolved trait. All of us have it in our DNA (minus the sociopaths) regardless of whether or not we believe in a deity.

Either way, there is no reason not to physically indulge oneself however one pleases without religious morality.

 

[CarlinKnew]

Nothing? I don't know. I was just using those examples.


Either way, there is no reason not to physically indulge oneself however one pleases without religious morality.

I'm still wondering why you think it's immoral to "physically indulge oneself" as long as no one gets hurt in the process...

 

[TheKnight]

I'm still wondering why you think it's immoral to "physically indulge oneself" as long as no one gets hurt in the process...

It's not. Hence my point. Morality outside of religion does not exist. I could do all sorts of things like Killing and what not so long as I found a justification for it.

You added on "as long as no one gets hurt in the process". Without religious morality, why should I care if someone else gets hurt?

 

[Heneni]

Well, now that I got your attention.....I really don't think christians are morally inferior, but this is in response to those who claim that if they did not have a belief in god, then nothing would stop them from living a hedonistic type lifestyle (drinking, sex, stealing, etc). I really want to know what is it in the makeup of the christian psyche, that leaves them unable to lead a "moral" life without some kind of belief in a deity. Why don't they have the self-regulating ability to control their actions not to cause harm to themselves or others? Most atheists I know are able to do this, so why aren't christians able to self-regulate? What are they missing?

Christianity is not the denial of living for that which brings us immense pleasure. Christianity is just not satisfied by the hedonistic pleasures of drinking, sex etc. A hedonistic lifestyle is not the problem, its being far too easily pleased with the things of this world that is. Somebody who finds pleasure in sex and drugs and immorality is far too easily pleased. A christian lives for pleasure as well. The pleasure we have in god. Now that sounds terribly boring to people, unless you have pleasure in god, in which case all other things just seem to fade on the pleasuremeter.

 

[Storm]

You added on "as long as no one gets hurt in the process". Without religious morality, why should I care if someone else gets hurt?

Innate compassion.

 

[CarlinKnew]

It's not. Hence my point. Morality outside of religion does not exist. I could do all sorts of things like Killing and what not so long as I found a justification for it.

You added on "as long as no one gets hurt in the process". Without religious morality, why should I care if someone else gets hurt?

For the same reason that you should smile when you're happy or cry when you're sad. It's part of our emotional circuitry. It's an evolved trait. Any healthy human being will care when someone else gets hurt. We can't help it but to care, with or without religion.

 

[TheKnight]

Innate compassion.

Oh? So someone makes me angry and I want to kill them, why should I kill them? Maybe you feel compassion, suppose I don't? Should I be allowed to kill that person? If you say no, then why not? Because you don't like it?

On what foundation can we base morality outside of religion?

 

[AlsoAnima]

For the same reason that you should smile when you're happy or cry when you're sad. It's part of our emotional circuitry. It's an evolved trait. Any healthy human being will care when someone else gets hurt. We can't help it but to care, with or without religion.

What would you call one without this evolved trait?

 

[CarlinKnew]

What would you call one without this evolved trait?

I'd call him a sociopath if he's indifferent to others' feelings or a psychopath if he derives pleasure from hurting others.

 

[AlsoAnima]

I'd call him a sociopath if he's indifferent to others' feelings or a psychopath if he derives pleasure from hurting others.

So a psychopath is just a sadistic sociopath?

 

[TheKnight]

I'd call him a sociopath if he's indifferent to others' feelings or a psychopath if he derives pleasure from hurting others.

So lets say he normally feels compassion for his fellow human being and cares about their feelings, but simply values his own feelings above theirs? For instance, I care about you, but if you make me angry I will kill you. After all, if we look at the animal kingdom, killing other animals is a natural part of life. Humanity, being that it is just another animal, should operate no differently.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Hmmmmmmm, perhaps morally inferior people need something else in their lives and God fits the bill for them.

Perhaps Christians don't try to be perfect because they know they are forgiven.

The ol Reverend knows that being a Christian is not a requirement for living a moral life.

Atheists may even hold themselves to a higher standard than Christians. I guess it is more about the individual than it is the path that you choose in life.

 

[CarlinKnew]

So lets say he normally feels compassion for his fellow human being and cares about their feelings, but simply values his own feelings above theirs? For instance, I care about you, but if you make me angry I will kill you. After all, if we look at the animal kingdom, killing other animals is a natural part of life. Humanity, being that it is just another animal, should operate no differently.

If it were 100,000 years ago, we were both members of the same 40-person tribe, and you wanted to kill me, the tribe leader would intervene, because he knows what's best for the tribe. Well now we live in a 7 billion-person tribe and the tribe leaders are our presidents and lawmakers.

 

[AlsoAnima]

So lets say he normally feels compassion for his fellow human being and cares about their feelings, but simply values his own feelings above theirs? For instance, I care about you, but if you make me angry I will kill you. After all, if we look at the animal kingdom, killing other animals is a natural part of life. Humanity, being that it is just another animal, should operate no differently.

Animals kill other animals for four reasons: Food, Leadership, Mates, Mercy

 

[TheKnight]

If it were 100,000 years ago, we were both members of the same 40-person tribe, and you wanted to kill me, the tribe leader would intervene, because he knows what's best for the tribe. Well now we live in a 7 billion-person tribe and the tribe leaders are our presidents and lawmakers.

And if it were 100,000 years ago and I were strong enough to take over the tribe by defeating the old tribe leader then the lower members of the tribe would be likely to fall under my rule, either my fear or by loyalty.

Now, suppose I were able to conquer this nation and inflict my will upon whosoever I should desire?

It's understandable that a lot of people wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be wrong. It would just be something a lot of people didn't like. And while that might matter to me, if it doesn't it doesn't make me immoral.

Also, suppose I am a sociopath. Does that make me immoral? After all, by your logic I should have a moral drive because of evolution. So evolution forgot to include me and other sociopaths. How does that make us immoral? If anything it means that you, the evolved "moral" person, should have compassion for us less evolved beings. Of course, if we try to kill you that doesn't make it wrong. If anything it just means that you developed a trait that made you weaker and if we wipe out all you "moral" people then survival of the fittest prevails and those who evolved negative traits were eliminated leaving a world of sociopaths.

 

[CarlinKnew]

And if it were 100,000 years ago and I were strong enough to take over the tribe by defeating the old tribe leader then the lower members of the tribe would be likely to fall under my rule, either my fear or by loyalty.

Now, suppose I were able to conquer this nation and inflict my will upon whosoever I should desire?

It's understandable that a lot of people wouldn't like it, but it wouldn't be wrong. It would just be something a lot of people didn't like. And while that might matter to me, if it doesn't it doesn't make me immoral.

It would make you immoral in the eyes of those who thought you were immoral. Morality is subjective.