Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is a good argument that only atheists are moral.
Picture two people who do all the same things: they refrain from killing other people, committing adultery, or lying; they donate generously to causes that help the less fortunate; they are responsible members of the community.
One person does it because he has been taught that he will suffer endless and unimaginable torment if he doesn't, and that he will reap unimaginable rewards for all eternity if he does.
The other doesn't believe in any god, but does what he does because he concludes that it is a morally superior way to act, it helps sustain a responsible and cooperative community, and it treats all people the way he would like to be treated.
Wouldn't you agree the the moral person is the one who acted without any regard to any benefit for himself?
Religion trains people of one faith to think they are better, or more entitled than another group of people without knowing anything about each other because they think they have a direct line with God(s).
Religion trains people of one faith to think they are better, or more entitled than another group of people without knowing anything about each other because they think they have a direct line with God(s).
Not necessarily true. There are religions that understand they are only one of the many ways to G-d.
I can think of only 2 religions who they they have the only truth and that is Christianity and Islam.
And within those 2 religions you will find folks who see that maybe just maybe they don't necessarily have the only truth.
I don't think I have a direct line to G-d, nor do I think I have the only truth. I don't even look at what I have as truth ( in the sense then others are false), it just works for me.
IMO, in the case of Christianity, it teaches high morals. The problem is the moral bar is set to unattainable levels. Christianity constantly tells you that you will never be anything more than a miserable, unworthy sinner.... whilst at the same time, it constantly demands that you be more "Christ like" ....which you can never do.....because you're a miserable, unworthy sinner. This is the way in which Christianity drives you into an ever decreasing circle of self-hate and self-rejection.... until you arrive, as so many have, at the point when you feel that you couldn't survive without having a supernatural entity to help you through the miserable, sinful life that they have convinced you that you lead. That's the clever thing about religion.....it feeds off the insecurity of the masses.
This is spot on, in my experience, and the succinct way in which you've written it was helpful to me, personally. Thanks.
It seems US christianity teaches high moral standards. I don't know too much about other religions. (But, come one, how many guys out there don't have at least one neighbor with a wife he covets?)
OK, even if that is true, it doesn't provide any evidence that a god exists.
I'd say it's a little of both, but of course it depends on the individual mostly. The more I read and observe, the more I feel that, although not everyone necessarily needs religion to get along in society, some do. And I'd also suggest that perhaps religion has been necessary in the past to keep populations under control. Daniel Dennett has compared religion to nurse crops:
He suggests that religions helped humanity to establish a basic moral code that kept everyone in check early on, but it isn't necessarily required in modern times. I think that's a clever comparison, but I'm tempted to believe that some do, in fact, still need religion to behave themselves.
There is a good argument that only atheists are moral.
Picture two people who do all the same things: they refrain from killing other people, committing adultery, or lying; they donate generously to causes that help the less fortunate; they are responsible members of the community.
One person does it because he has been taught that he will suffer endless and unimaginable torment if he doesn't, and that he will reap unimaginable rewards for all eternity if he does.
The other doesn't believe in any god, but does what he does because he concludes that it is a morally superior way to act, it helps sustain a responsible and cooperative community, and it treats all people the way he would like to be treated.
Wouldn't you agree the the moral person is the one who acted without any regard to any benefit for himself?
An important question to ask is "what constitutes high morals"? Is it only acting altruistically? Is it actions with good outcomes?
I think it's interesting that you think "treating people the way he would like to be treated" is acting without any regard to benefit for oneself. It appears to me that if you treat someone a particular way because you want to be treated in that same way, there is inherent in that action self-regard.
To be clear, I think it is perfectly moral and a practical and responsible way to live if we treat others the way we want to be treated. What child doesn't learn the "Golden Rule"? Elaborating on that point, in the Bible in the book of Matthew, chapter 7, verse 12 (feel free to read the whole chapter, because it's on point) "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the prophets."
As for doing something because it is morally superior, Philippians 4:8 tells us: "Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable-- if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think about such things." The Bible tells us to do and to think about what is morally right.
Digging into what I think you're getting at, that outward actions are not sufficient to make someone moral, and instead you have to look at that person's motivations... 1 Samuel 16:7 "The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” Jews and Christians are told from the get-go that one's actions do not stand alone, but rather are judged on the motivations.
Even people that deny Jesus as the son of God generally recognize him as a great moral teacher, so how can it be that religion makes people less moral?
Morals based on religious teachings are sometimes unethical when they lead to discrimination or intolerance towards nonconforming groups of people. Most basic moral teachings of most religions - or from non-religious ethical teachings - are similar and compatible. However, the problems arise when you approach non-mainstream issues.
I can't speak for Christians, I can only speak to the behaviors that I have seen.
I grew up in the south, the land of fundamentalism. I have never been around a group of hypocrites bigger than many of the so-called Christians I knew. Talk about Sunday morals! It certainly made me re-think organized religion.
Don't get me wrong, i'm not saying they're ALL bad, but I haven't met enough of the good ones to fill a church.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
