Why are christians morally inferior to atheists

[Magic Man]

On what foundation can we base morality outside of religion?

Common sense and reason. Religious morality is generally based on these things, too, it's just attributed to God instead of humans. It's perfectly reasonable to say "Treat others as you'd like to be treated". We don't need God to tell us that.

 

[Autodidact]

You could do that even with religious morality.



Because you're human. This is the basis for all morality.

Isn't it amazing what pre-kindergarten stuff you have to tell religionists? Its as though religion retards their moral education.

 

[Autodidact]

And what makes the things their doing evil things?

Because they cause suffering.

Is there some sort of secret evil-o-meter that you have that lets you know if something is or isn't evil?

No, it's not secret. All us normal people have it. It's based on causing harm or suffering.

You keep talking about my character as if that makes the answer to this question obvious. However, you haven't actually explained how murdering an innocent person is intrinsically evil.

And you haven't explained how adding the word "intrinsically" helps the discussion. Basically, do you agree or disagree that murdering an innocent child is evil?

Sure, you could say "it should be obvious that murder is evil" but that doesn't help all those people who don't see it as evil.

Are there such people??

The whole point of this thread is the fact that the religious assert that your world has no morals. My world has morality that is clearly defined by God (a morality that forbids child-rape and baby-killing).

Can you find the passage please where God forbids child-rape and baby-killing? Actually I'm pretty sure he commands it quite a lot. On the other hand, He clearly prohibits trimming your beard and other important moral rules.

Yours on the other hand is a world where moral judgments are made illogically and based on fleeting emotional whims.

Not mine. You haven't even asked me what mine are based on.

 

[Autodidact]

I never said that the believer's behavior is moral from his birth to his grave. Moreover, at some point he might justify his immorality.

But do religionists in general behave any more morally than non-religionists? If not, you might want to question your assumption.

But belief in God/religion provides a universal absolute standard for morality (and hence humanity).

Actually, no, it doesn't. It's not universal, as different religions prohibit different things. And it's not absolute, as it changes over time and place.

Religion provided the notion that human beings enjoy free will and thus able to differentiate between what's right and what's wrong.

Religion provided that notion? I don't think so. Please show us how religion is responsible for the notion that human beings have free will.

So when an individual justify the immoral behavior (that is according to him might be moral), still religion can be the fixed moral reference for the individuals or the society as a whole.

Only if everyone shares the same religion, and the same interpretation of the morals of that religion, which doesn't happen.

In contrast to the notion that everything is relative (maybe this is the only absolute?), and the definitions of morality are only subjected to the materialistic reality that is in continuous change and hence moral definitions change accordingly.

The choices are not: religion and relativism. I am neither religious nor a relativist, not at all.

We are programmed to act according to our biology and genetics, thus we don't enjoy free will to differentiate between what's right and wrong, we are only DNA and neuro circles and wires (ie material) and a group of instincts that are subjected to the natural law like any other being in the universe.

This is a mishmash of ideas. The fact that we are material, and subject to the laws of nature, does not imply that we don't have free will, or don't have morals.

Nothing is actually sacred.

I guess it depends what you mean by "sacred." If you mean something about God, then no, atheists don't have sacredness in that sense. If you mean revered, or treated with special awe and reverence, then yes, we do.

For example, if religion was taking out of the equation (or remnants of religion), what would stop an individual from having sex with his sister/brother, his mother/father with taking all the precautions?

There appear to be natural, evolutionary taboos against this. There have been societies in which God commanded it, and those societies practiced it. For example, (I believe) ancient Egypt. They had religion, and also brother/sister incest.

 

[Autodidact]

So we see now in the societies that threw religion away that new definitions are given, (and humanity history is completely ignored or rejected as there is nothing called universal humanity/morality), for example the definition of the family now can be one man and children, one woman and children, two men and children, two women and children or two men, a woman and children.

Yup. You have a problem with that? Are you trying to say that's immoral for some reason? btw, you're talking about my family: two women plus children.

 

[Autodidact]

You keep talking about my character as if that makes the answer to this question obvious.

It's not your character, TheKnight, it's your morality. That's the point.

 

[Aquitaine]

Damn, TheKnight, and not4me, I'd give up if I were you lol xD

It seems Autodidact has a whole fridge full of cans of Whoop-***

 

[Autodidact]

What the Bible says about rape:

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

I thought you said the Bible prohibits rape, TheKnight. Actually, it seems to just result in a payment and marriage.

 

[rageoftyrael]

That's funny. So, if i see some young girl i like, i can go rape her, pay her father, and bam, i'm married to her. If it wasn't for the fact that i find rape abhorrent, that would be a sweet deal!

 

[Aquitaine]

What the Bible says about rape:

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

I thought you said the Bible prohibits rape, TheKnight. Actually, it seems to just result in a payment and marriage.

Y' see? Religion DOES establish correct Morality!

 

[Magic Man]

I kill another human. That hurts them and the world. Not me. If it doesn't hurt me, why should I care?

First, you should care because it should cause bad emotions in you. Second, you will care when someone comes to avenge that person's death.

*sighs* Again you fail to misunderstand the concept of Devil's Advocate.

That's true, although I'm guessing you meant "Again you fail to understand the concept of devil's advocate" or "Again you misunderstand the concept...". Are you saying that you don't actually believe that there is no basis for morality outside of religion? Because that's what you're arguing, so that would be the thing you don't believe, but you're arguing for anyway.

The whole point of this thread is the fact that the religious assert that your world has no morals. My world has morality that is clearly defined by God (a morality that forbids child-rape and baby-killing). Yours on the other hand is a world where moral judgments are made illogically and based on fleeting emotional whims.

So, again, do you actually believe this, or are you just playing devil's advocate? It sure sounds like you believe it to be true.

It's interesting that you think that your world has a clearly defined morality. Last time I checked, no more than a few thousand members of of an Abrahamic religion could agree on what's moral and what's not. It seems to me that your morality is not very clearly defined because if it was, then 2 billion+ people in the world would agree on every moral situation.

Now, I'm not sure where you're getting this "illogically and based on fleeting emotional whims", but you're sorely mistaken. You do realize this is no better than me saying "All Jews are money-grubbing scrooges". Maybe you should pay attention before coming off this ignorant. All morality is based on treating others as you'd want to be treated, yours, mine, my Catholic parents', Said in India, Nneka in Africa, everyone. Some people attribute it in different ways. Some like to say some god said so because it makes it sound more authoritative. Atheists, like Auto and me, like to call it what it is, common sense and reason.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

*sighs* Again you fail to misunderstand the concept of Devil's Advocate. My point is not that abducting/rape/murder isn't wrong. My point is that it's not intrinsically evil. The worse thing you can say about it is that it hurts someone and makes the quality of their lives go down. To which I could ask why I should care. It does not make the actions intrinsically (meaning that their very nature is) evil.

Empathy.

And what makes the things their doing evil things? Is there some sort of secret evil-o-meter that you have that lets you know if something is or isn't evil?

Kinda. It's the same "meter" that lets you call God "good". If the determination of good and evil is only up to God, how do you know that God isn't evil? The fact that you think He told you He's good? An evil God could do that... He'd just be lying.

Sure, you could say "it should be obvious that murder is evil" but that doesn't help all those people who don't see it as evil.

Just as your version of "do what God says" doesn't help the situation when the victim is an Amalekite or someone else your God has taken offense to.

The whole point of this thread is the fact that the religious assert that your world has no morals. My world has morality that is clearly defined by God (a morality that forbids child-rape and baby-killing). Yours on the other hand is a world where moral judgments are made illogically and based on fleeting emotional whims.

Both our moralities are based on the same thing. The difference is that when I encounter a moral judgement that appears to be "made illogically and based on fleeting emotional whims", I'm free to discard it. However, a moral code that's purported to be handed down by God can't be corrected or changed without negating the whole raison d'etre for the code in the first place.

For example, if religion was taking out of the equation (or remnants of religion), what would stop an individual from having sex with his sister/brother, his mother/father with taking all the precautions? Moreover, what would stop the society from allowing such relation?

Religions have allowed exactly that. Most haven't, but some have. Similarly, some secular moral systems may condone that sort of behaviour, but most condemn it. How are the two any different?

 

[TheKnight]

It's reasonable for a religious person to conclude something that's false? Well, that's religion for you, since religious people do this regularly.

In case you did not know, it is possible to reach a false conclusion based on sound logic.

In which case I don't see the point in trying to discuss morality with you.

I am not a psycho/sociopath. But if I were, you would simply give up discussion entirely with me? That, I believe, is quite harsh. In essence, you have this superiority complex. You believe that the random evolution you believe in allowed these people to lack certain emotional components and because of it you are superior. While I can see why you'd make that decision, it's certainly not one or moral value.

You're trying to advocate for your position by maintaining something that you don't actually believe? Do you find that effective?

Yes. As these people (sociopaths) do exists and they happen to be people too.

Very few Jews do.

Most of the (religious) Jews I have met believe this way.

First, please take note that you just asserted that God created evil. That pretty much does away with Mr. Omnibenevolent, doesn't it.

That only matters if you believe that benevolent=not evil. My argument would be that you can't define evil beyond stating that "evil" is something you just don't like.

Baloney. You can certainly freely choose between two unequal things.

If I like vanilla over chocolate ice cream then have I chosen vanilla when I do? I will admit that a person could choose if the decisions are not equal. But, the decision is not entirely free unless the two options are equal.

Does adding the word "intrinsically" make any significant difference?

Yes. Philosophically, the words you use all make a difference in the concept you are trying to convey.

Can you explain how something is intrinsically wrong? So far you have said that it is because it causes suffering. Is everything that causes suffering wrong? If it is, why is it wrong to cause suffering?

No, you can say it's bad.

Not logically you can't.

Because you're a person.

And? What does that mean? Does it mean that if I don't care I am not a person?

It doesn't matter whether it's intrinsic or not, and adding that word adds nothing to the discussion. Bad things happen. God lets them happen. God is either unable or unwilling to prevent that.

You keep saying "bad" things without defining what bad is. So far, you have said that it is bad because it causes suffering. My response to that is "What is so bad about causing suffering?" You say "Because it's wrong."

It's wrong to cause suffering because causing suffering is wrong <<If that is your opinion than your logic is circular.

All people need to label things in order to be able to talk about them

Yes, but labeling should be a logical venture. Nothing should be interpolated (like calling things evil) in labeling them.

religious.

And what do you have in common with those people? You both figure it's OK to incorrectly label things.

We call those people "logical," "rational" or possibly "normal." You can't discuss things rationally without defining them. Defining things is not pathological; it's part of rational discourse.

I agree. So please, define evil. If evil is that which causes suffering, than please tell me why it is evil to cause suffering. Because I'm a person isn't an answer because that presupposes that you and I both know that people aren't supposed to cause suffering.

You could do that even with religious morality.

Yes, but religiously you cannot justify it.

Because you're human. This is the basis for all morality.

Is a person who doesn't care about the suffering of another not human?

It's based on causing harm or suffering.

What's wrong with causing suffering?

Are there such people??

Yes. Jails have them. Psychiatric hospitals have them. Religious groups have them.

What the Bible says about rape:

If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.
Deuteronomy 22:28-29

I thought you said the Bible prohibits rape, TheKnight. Actually, it seems to just result in a payment and marriage.

Does it say that the woman has no say in the matter?

First, you should care because it should cause bad emotions in you. Second, you will care when someone comes to avenge that person's death.

What if I like the bad emotions? What if I am a masochist? Also, "should care" does not make the action wrong in nature.

That's true, although I'm guessing you meant "Again you fail to understand the concept of devil's advocate" or "Again you misunderstand the concept...". Are you saying that you don't actually believe that there is no basis for morality outside of religion? Because that's what you're arguing, so that would be the thing you don't believe, but you're arguing for anyway.

I believe that there is no logically consistent moral basis outside of religion.

My point was that I would not actually be OK with murdering someone.

It's interesting that you think that your world has a clearly defined morality. Last time I checked, no more than a few thousand members of of an Abrahamic religion could agree on what's moral and what's not. It seems to me that your morality is not very clearly defined because if it was, then 2 billion+ people in the world would agree on every moral situation.

The fact that something is clear does not mean that everyone will agree with it. I could go on and on with examples of this.

Now, I'm not sure where you're getting this "illogically and based on fleeting emotional whims", but you're sorely mistaken.

It was directed at Autodidact who, as of yet, has not given any intellectual reason for labeling something as evil when there is no possible way to determine the intrinsic morality of an action.

All morality is based on treating others as you'd want to be treated

So then it's OK for a person who doesn't care if they get murdered to go out and murder?

Kinda. It's the same "meter" that lets you call God "good". If the determination of good and evil is only up to God, how do you know that God isn't evil? The fact that you think He told you He's good? An evil God could do that... He'd just be lying.

God is neither good nor evil. I said already that technically we cannot accurately describe God. We do for practical reasons, however philosophically we recognize that we cannot do so with any reasonable expectation of accuracy.

 

[Autodidact]

In case you did not know, it is possible to reach a false conclusion based on sound logic.

Yes, if you start with false premises. So maybe that's why it's reasonable for religous people to believe false things; their premises are false? Are you sure you're not a Poe?

I am not a psycho/sociopath. But if I were, you would simply give up discussion entirely with me?

There would be no point. Sociopaths are not amenable to moral persuasion.

That, I believe, is quite harsh. In essence, you have this superiority complex.

Thanks, I'll pass on your psychiatric diagnosis. It's not a matter of being superior; it's a matter of it being pointless.

You believe that the random evolution you believe in allowed these people to lack certain emotional components and because of it you are superior.

Actually, I believe there is no such thing as random evolution.

Yes. As these people (sociopaths) do exists and they happen to be people too.

True, but how does that explain why you're maintaining a position you don't believe in? Are you advocating for psychopaths? You've lost me at this point.

As for my actual feelings toward psychopaths, irrelevant to this discussion, my main attitude is one of compassion. I feel sorry for them. But there's still no point in discussing morality with them.

Most of the (religious) Jews I have met believe this way.

I can tell you I was raised reform Jew, and it was never mentioned as an alternative. I never encountered this view until very recently.

That only matters if you believe that benevolent=not evil.

Yeah, that's kind of what it mean.

My argument would be that you can't define evil beyond stating that "evil" is something you just don't like.

Then your argument would be wrong.

If I like vanilla over chocolate ice cream then have I chosen vanilla when I do? I will admit that a person could choose if the decisions are not equal. But, the decision is not entirely free unless the two options are equal.

Wrong. You're completely free to choose what you prefer. That's what freedom means.

Yes. Philosophically, the words you use all make a difference in the concept you are trying to convey.

O.K., then don't insert words into my statements. I didn't say "intrinsically," you did.

Can you explain how something is intrinsically wrong? So far you have said that it is because it causes suffering. Is everything that causes suffering wrong? If it is, why is it wrong to cause suffering?

Again, hard to provide moral pre-school education for you. Maybe if you think really hard you can see the relationship between causing suffering and immorality?

And? What does that mean? Does it mean that if I don't care I am not a person?

No, it means that if you're a person, you care.

You keep saying "bad" things without defining what bad is. So far, you have said that it is bad because it causes suffering. My response to that is "What is so bad about causing suffering?" You say "Because it's wrong."

Let's just call it a presupposition.

Yes, but labeling should be a logical venture. Nothing should be interpolated (like calling things evil) in labeling them.

Well don't go on a rant about asking for a definition then.

And what do you have in common with those people? You both figure it's OK to incorrectly label things.

Would you stop telling me what I believe? I think clear definitions facilitate discussion. That bears no resemblance to advocating capital punishment for homosexuality.

I agree. So please, define evil. If evil is that which causes suffering, than please tell me why it is evil to cause suffering. Because I'm a person isn't an answer because that presupposes that you and I both know that people aren't supposed to cause suffering.

In this discussion about the problem of evil, I mean harm, or suffering. Suffering exists. An omni, omni, omni, omni God would not allow suffering to exist. Therefore, if God exists, He is not omni x 4. Which omni would you like to give up?

What's wrong with causing suffering?

It is impossible for a normal person to inflict suffering on another without causing suffering for themselves. "If you want others to be happy, practice compassion. If you want to be happy, practice compassion." --Dalai Lama.
"When I do good, I feel good, and when I do bad, I feel bad, and that is my religion."--Abraham Lincoln

Does it say that the woman has no say in the matter?

It says exactly what I quoted.

What if I like the bad emotions?

What if sugar was salty? Then it would be salt.

What if I am a masochist?

That's not what "masochist" means. Also, "should care" does not make the action wrong in nature.

I believe that there is no logically consistent moral basis outside of religion.

First, I believe we've shown that religous morals are extremely inconsistent and illogical. Second, you believe wrong.

My point was that I would not actually be OK with murdering someone.

But you'd be dandy with killing someone, as long as God permits or even commands it.

God is neither good nor evil. I said already that technically we cannot accurately describe God. We do for practical reasons, however philosophically we recognize that we cannot do so with any reasonable expectation of accuracy.

Then why are you attributing extremely specific, and amazing, attributes to Him?

 

[TheKnight]

I can tell you I was raised reform Jew

Reform Jew? I said religious Jew. Reform Jew is like saying Kosher Bacon.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Truthfully, we cannot describe God at all. That includes saying He exists.

Why would you bother posting on this forum if you believe that attributes of God (including existence) are unknowable. Isn't this all just a waste of your time?

 

[rageoftyrael]

beaudreaux, did you mean this thread? cause it's really annoying when people ask atheists why they are in a religious forum, cause they aren't religious. we like to discuss our beliefs! and this place also talks about politics and other random stuff, so shish.

 

[elisheba]

damage done to the subconscious is not readily known

 

[Humanistheart]

Reform Jew? I said religious Jew. Reform Jew is like saying Kosher Bacon.

How so?

 

[blueman]

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?

If that is what Christians are striving for as a barometer of our faith, then we are missing the boat. I'm sure there are nonbelievers out there that lead morally superior lives to many Christians, but living a moral life is not what saves us. It is the belief in Jesus Christ, that He is the Only Begotten Son of God The Father, that He died for my sins and that God raised Him from the dead. That is waht saves us, not our moral works. As a result of following Christ, I strive to love Him and others as Christ loved us, witness to others who do not have a personal relationship with Him and help others in need. I may not be at a moral level than maybe some other secular individuals, but I'm saved through the grace and love of God through Jesus Christ.