Why are christians morally inferior to atheists

[TheKnight]

"There is no such thing as an inherently immoral action. As I said, there is a goal and there are actions which either promote that goal or detract from it. In the religious perspective (or at least my religious perspective), Service of God is the goal. Therefore there are those actions which He tells us to do, and those which He does not. The morality of an action, in this context, is based upon what He tells us to do"

Right okay, fair enough, that seems to be the stance with most religious people. But it doesn't make you any more Moral simply by following a religion and it's protocol just because it claims to be true, divine and "moral". So I don't know why you said earlier that without Religion we'd loose our sense of "Morality". After all, no-one has tre "moraliy" because such a thing doesn't exist. If Morality did exist, it wouldn't be Morality itself, since if one could define and objectify "good" and "bad" and simply follow them, they'll just be sheep following orders rather than questioning things for themselves.

If we lost religion, we'd loose Religion's opinion on what is Moral. We wouldn't be any worse off in general since..... what is Morality?

We wouldn't lose our morality. I didn't say that. I said "Without religion we cannot have objective moral values" (not in those same words, but the meaning is the same).

I see religious values as being more objective than personally determined values because of the external source from which religious values are derived.

 

[Autodidact]

We wouldn't lose our morality. I didn't say that. I said "Without religion we cannot have objective moral values" (not in those same words, but the meaning is the same).

I see religious values as being more objective than personally determined values because of the external source from which religious values are derived.

Unless they're not.

btw, if objective, then they're horrible. If not horrible, then they're not objective.
Remember, RF, this is the person who thinks genocide and infanticide are moral when God commands them. That's his objective morality.

 

[TheKnight]

Unless they're not.

btw, if objective, then they're horrible. If not horrible, then they're not objective.
Remember, RF, this is the person who thinks genocide and infanticide are moral when God commands them. That's his objective morality.

Would you prefer that I be an inconsistent hypocrite and try to illogically explain how I'll do one thing that God says and not another?

My morality is based on what God commands because (as we discussed in that other thread) actions don't have any moral value outside of that system.

 

[Autodidact]

Would you prefer that I be an inconsistent hypocrite and try to illogically explain how I'll do one thing that God says and not another?

My morality is based on what God commands because (as we discussed in that other thread) actions don't have any moral value outside of that system.

Oh no, I encourage you to be a consistent genocidal baby-killer, just not around my kids. I also encourage you to be honest about it.

 

[logician]

Morality comes from within, not without, religion has no corner on morality, in fact, it may work in many cases counter to being moral.

 

[Father Heathen]

Well if you agree than you agree. I would think that someone who sees morality as subjective wouldn't seek to judge other people.

Just because someone believes morality is subjective doesn't mean that they believe all forms of morality are equal.

For example, I believe strongly in liberty, rights, equality and justice, and I believe that any moral codes which conflict with those values are inferior to my own, especially when they lead people to victimize and violate the rights of innocent people.

 

[Father Heathen]

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?

Because they believe that people actually need to be threatened with a punishment (Hell) and bribed with a reward (Heaven) to order to be "good" people.

Most atheists however derive their own code of morals through logic, action and reaction, cause and effect, rational self interests, mutual benefit, honor, honesty, integrity, self-worth, and innate compassion. We're social animals after all. You don't need an invisible sky daddy to care for others and to be mindful of the consequences of ones own actions.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

We can't help it but to care, with or without religion.

I use to believe this, but then I considered 200,000 people die every 24 hours. If that statement were true the world would be in a constant state of sadness.

It caused me to rethink that whole premise. I am not saying you are completely wrong, but there is something wrong with the statement.

 

[Father Heathen]

On what foundation can we base morality outside of religion?

Real life consequences? Godless does not equal mindless. All psychologically sound individuals have a conscience (which is not beamed down from the clouds).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I never said that one was objectively proven. My statement was that without religion we cannot have objective morality.

If God provides a moral code for us to follow, then there is no way we can justify behaving immorally (against that code). After all, if we see God as higher than us, and if we see Him as our Creator, then we would see His standards of morality as being the right one.

"Provided by God" does not necessarily equal "objective".

Objective, in this case, would be a "nuetral third party of sorts". If humans all disagree on morality, then the best morality would be one that comes from something not-human IE God.

But why God?

If all we need of our source for morality is that it be non-human, then there are lots of things to choose from. What about my aunt's dog? It's non-human. Why is it more valid to take our morality from God than it is to take it from Taz the Jack Russell Terrier? Is it just his "thou must scratch the heck out of any latched door" commandment that you'd take issue with?

Tolstoy argued that a religion is the relationship a person has with God and other people, and therefore morality could not exist without religion.

And I can argue that a spider is a type of dog, and therefore dogs spin webs and eat flies. My mis-definition of terms doesn't make the statement true, though.

 

[TheKnight]

. All psychologically sound individuals have a conscience (which is not beamed down from the clouds).

And what of those who are not psychologically sound? What do you do with them? Not everyone's conscience is the same.

"Provided by God" does not necessarily equal "objective".

Right, but it's external. Any human-devised moral system has less weight because we're all human. To place one human-devised moral system above another is to call the designer of that moral system superior.

But why God?

Because God is external. Plus, if God created us, then He would (logically) know what is best for us.

If all we need of our source for morality is that it be non-human, then there are lots of things to choose from. What about my aunt's dog? It's non-human. Why is it more valid to take our morality from God than it is to take it from Taz the Jack Russell Terrier? Is it just his "thou must scratch the heck out of any latched door" commandment that you'd take issue with?

The optimal source (or at least one that we could be somewhat content with) would be a source that is non-human and superior to humans in knowledge (and possibly ability--like God).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right, but it's external.

External at our level, but objectively external, i.e. external at all levels? How can you say?

Actually, if morality comes from God, then it's not objective. For it to be objective, it would have to be above everything... and that everything would include God, if he were to exist.

Any human-devised moral system has less weight because we're all human. To place one human-devised moral system above another is to call the designer of that moral system superior.

Not necessarily. I may agree to particular societal norms out of expediency or pragmatism, not because I think they're necessarily better than what I can come up with.

To use an analogy... during the Great Chicago Fire, they discovered a huge problem: every fire department had their own standard for hoses. When all the firefighters from surrounding towns and counties poured into Chicago, they found that none of their hoses would fit onto Chicago fire hydrants. This meant they were reduced to fighting the fire mainly with buckets, and because of this, the fire burned longer and did more damage than it would have otherwise.

I'm sure that every fire department had their reasons for picking the hoses they did, but in the end, it was more important to have a single standard than it was for an individual fire department to have the "perfect" one. Would a 2.5" diameter hose be better than a 2" diameter hose in some way? Maybe... but unless you can get everyone else to agree with you, it's probably better to get the 2" hoses. Is some funky bayonet style hydrant connection better than a standard screw-on one? Maybe... but you still have to realize that you live in a world where everyone else uses the screw-on style.

Does this mean you've conceded that the standard hose is objectively better than the "perfect" hose you wanted? No; it just means you've acknowledged that a single standard is more workable than many.

Because God is external.

But so's my aunt's dog.

Plus, if God created us, then He would (logically) know what is best for us.

Why do you say that?

I brew beer. Does this mean that I (logically) know what's best for the beer, in terms of the beer's welfare?

The optimal source (or at least one that we could be somewhat content with) would be a source that is non-human and superior to humans in knowledge (and possibly ability--like God).

That also describes intelligent aliens. Or the Devil, if he exists.

But now that I think about it, doesn't society fit the bill as well? It's non-human... in the sense that it's not an individual person. It's superior to humans in knowledge... or at least superior to any individual human, since its knowledge is the sum total of the knowledge of all the people within it.

 

[Father Heathen]

And what of those who are not psychologically sound? What do you do with them? Not everyone's conscience is the same.

Those of an unsound and irrational mind will have an unsound and irrational morality, and if that morality leads them to act unlawfully against the innocent then society will see them institutionalized or imprisoned.

 

[TheKnight]

External at our level, but objectively external, i.e. external at all levels? How can you say?

It doesn't matter. So far as we can know, God would be external to us. And since we're talking about our morality, that's all that matters.

Note: I should have said external and superior...external alone is not qualification.

Actually, if morality comes from God, then it's not objective. For it to be objective, it would have to be above everything... and that everything would include God, if he were to exist.

By this logic, morality would also have to be above itself since itself is included in everything. It cannot be above the axiom and in this case, I believe that God would be the axiomatic existence.

Not necessarily. I may agree to particular societal norms out of expediency or pragmatism, not because I think they're necessarily better than what I can come up with.


To use an analogy... during the Great Chicago Fire, they discovered a huge problem: every fire department had their own standard for hoses. When all the firefighters from surrounding towns and counties poured into Chicago, they found that none of their hoses would fit onto Chicago fire hydrants. This meant they were reduced to fighting the fire mainly with buckets, and because of this, the fire burned longer and did more damage than it would have otherwise.

I'm sure that every fire department had their reasons for picking the hoses they did, but in the end, it was more important to have a single standard than it was for an individual fire department to have the "perfect" one. Would a 2.5" diameter hose be better than a 2" diameter hose in some way? Maybe... but unless you can get everyone else to agree with you, it's probably better to get the 2" hoses. Is some funky bayonet style hydrant connection better than a standard screw-on one? Maybe... but you still have to realize that you live in a world where everyone else uses the screw-on style.

Does this mean you've conceded that the standard hose is objectively better than the "perfect" hose you wanted? No; it just means you've acknowledged that a single standard is more workable than many.

But what is the weight behind the choosing of the hose? Will it matter whether you have the 2.5" or the 2" or will the end result be the same?

But so's my aunt's dog.

External and superior, I should have said that beforehand.

Why do you say that?

I brew beer. Does this mean that I (logically) know what's best for the beer, in terms of the beer's welfare?

No. It doesn't. However, as far as the beer knows, you do. And the beer has no logical foundation on which to go against what you tell it is best for it.

That also describes intelligent aliens. Or the Devil, if he exists.

But now that I think about it, doesn't society fit the bill as well? It's non-human... in the sense that it's not an individual person. It's superior to humans in knowledge... or at least superior to any individual human, since its knowledge is the sum total of the knowledge of all the people within it.

As I said earlier, the only acceptable form of human-devised morality would be one that everyone agrees upon. I'm certain we'd all agree on some general moral values.

 

[TheKnight]

Those of an unsound and irrational mind will have an unsound and irrational morality, and if that morality leads them to act unlawfully against the innocent then society will see them institutionalized or imprisoned.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked you "On what foundation can we base morality outside of religion?"

You responded saying "Real life consequences? Godless does not equal mindless. All psychologically sound individuals have a conscience (which is not beamed down from the clouds)"

I asked "And what of those without sound mind?"

If your system is based on the opinion of "those with a conscience" then what of those without a conscience? And how can you know that their not having a conscience is worse than your having one?

 

[CarlinKnew]

I use to believe this, but then I considered 200,000 people die every 24 hours. If that statement were true the world would be in a constant state of sadness.

It caused me to rethink that whole premise. I am not saying you are completely wrong, but there is something wrong with the statement.

I, by no means, meant to imply that everyone's a good person. I was explaining why those that care, do care: because they can't help it; it's hardwired. We all develop some sense of morality, no matter how skewed, thanks to our DNA.

 

[Father Heathen]

That doesn't answer my question. I asked you "On what foundation can we base morality outside of religion?"

You responded saying "Real life consequences? Godless does not equal mindless. All psychologically sound individuals have a conscience (which is not beamed down from the clouds)"

I asked "And what of those without sound mind?"

If your system is based on the opinion of "those with a conscience" then what of those without a conscience? And how can you know that their not having a conscience is worse than your having one?

Like I said; Real. Life. Consequences.

You even quoted me saying it. I also said in this very same thread:

Most atheists however derive their own code of morals through logic, action and reaction, cause and effect, rational self interests, mutual benefit, honor, honesty, integrity, self-worth, and innate compassion. We're social animals after all. You don't need an invisible sky daddy to care for others and to be mindful of the consequences of ones own actions.

 

[TheKnight]

Like I said; Real. Life. Consequences.

You even quoted me saying it. I also said in this very same thread:

So tell me, what real life consequences make it wrong to murder?

 

[Autodidact]

That doesn't answer my question. I asked you "On what foundation can we base morality outside of religion?"

You responded saying "Real life consequences? Godless does not equal mindless. All psychologically sound individuals have a conscience (which is not beamed down from the clouds)"

I asked "And what of those without sound mind?"

If your system is based on the opinion of "those with a conscience" then what of those without a conscience? And how can you know that their not having a conscience is worse than your having one?

For those without conscience (psychopaths) it's important that we don't have institutions like religion that give them undue power to distort and dictate morality. A good example would the the Catholic Church and its abuse of children. Clearly, the many priests and bishops without conscience were put in a position to do great harm because of the moral privilege granted to the church. Better for us all to be equal, to increase the chances of finding and isolating those individuals.

 

[Aquitaine]

C'mon TheKnight, humaity isn't dependant on religion to provide a sense of "Morality", we don't have such a thing anyway (objectively speaking). What difference would it make, we wouldn't lose an objective sense of Morality, we'd loose what some people think and claim to be Morality.
As far as I'm concerned, getting rid of an ideology that teaches people that Morality is objective and that their opinion of it is correct and everyone elses is wrong, would be if anything, a good thing in my opinion.

Besides, who says that religious people are more "moral" than us? How often do we here of Religious people doing something horrendous purely in the name of their religion, and using their convictions in their beliefs to justify them?