Are atheists equally moral?

[_Mercury]

Did anyone read the Time Magazine article this month?

Are evangelical christians equally Ethical?

[_cksalmon]

Did anyone read the Time Magazine article this month?

Are evangelical christians equally Ethical?

Compared to whom? Yes, and no, I'd guess. Again, I think individual comparisons would be more useful than blanket statements (but that's not particularly feasible). But, I don't think we can stereotype entire cross-sections of the population.

CKS

[_Gadianton]

This discussion can get really convoluted. There isn't one atheist or theist position.

But as a best guess, I actually entirely disagree with you, Kevin, that it's religious enlightenment which fosters moral incentive to get strangers clothed and fed. On the whole, there might be a higher emphasis by Christians on "loving" and feeling warmth and compassion for the needy and the stranger. I'm not convinced that when you dig down that Christians really are so loving, but surely, it's an ideal that they preach and manifests in sponsored charities and so on. There are most certainly fewer atheist soup kitchens in America. Granted, religion already has a huge organizational start, but I might concede it unlikely that atheists would coordinate to do the same kind of charity work Christians do. (I don't want to make an issue of it here, but let's also remember that when the church sends 7 truck loads of supplies to Qualcomm Stadium, they get press and so on for it. there is a self-interest PR side to charity work, for sure).

Something I have to point out at least once a year on FAIR/MAD when apologists bring up the issue of Christians and their altruistic motives vs. atheist egocentricism is that the very word "altruism" was invented by the atheist Augustus Comte. Comte offered something rather extreme, but a kernal of insight he had was that morality is governed by reason, and we can't rely on frivolous human empathy to do much good in the long run. Altruism, contrary to how Christians use the word, doesn't describe touchy-feely oriented self-sacrafice, but an enlightened position that realizes one's own needs come last, and the needs of society come first. With this framework in mind, one doesn't need to work on fostering a personal bond with every homeless and starving person to be moral. Not to say that such bonds are bad, but practically speaking, it's easier to understand the idea of human rights than it is to empathize with every stranger. The level of self-sacrifice Comte expected based on reason was impractical as well, but his kind of model is what's at the root of socialism.

There's an interesting article I read a few years ago, not sure if I'm going to be able to dig it up, but it talked about the difference between morality in America and Europe. America has this idea of intimate contact with the poor and downtrodden, personal service in soup kitchens and so on while Europe has a more secular influenced abstract idea of human equality. Which is better? Well, if you're a stranger in America or even a poor American and break your leg, you'll have Coggins and his Christian buddies protesting your treatment on the government's dime. Whereas in Europe, and many other countries, it's just a really weird idea that Americans don't have the basic human value of healthcare for everyone.

I think Europe is far more socially aware than the American religious right, and for that reason, when it comes to providing for the stranger, I would say by leaps and bounds secular or "atheistic" morality does a better job than Christian hit and miss soup kitchens and bread runs to Africa.

[_dartagnan]

I think a point is being missed here.

If humans need some kind of guidance in order to properly apply the innate morality that comes already in their henetic makeup, then what guidance do atheists rely upon?

Saying you believe atheists are more moral than theists is just nonsense based on a need to believe.

Theists already have the required guidance system to properly apply morality to where it extends beyond the immediate area. They are taught to give to anyone and everyone who needs it, no matter who they are or where they live. Without this religious mechanism how can atheists match a Christian's morality? Without some kind of guidance mechanism, according to social science, the natural human isn't going to give food and money to complete strangers on the other side of the planet. At best, they will give a dollar to a guy on the side of the road, only if they happen to feel empathy.

The article made it seem like the natural morality in humans was very limited, just as it is in apes. Only when it is guided by a system of rules and regilations does his obtain any sense of meaning. My question is simply this. What guidance system does the atheist rely upon?

How many atheists here are involved in charities abroad? Be honest.

I ask because virtually every Christian I know is involved on some level.

And I get the point you guys make about religion in so far as Islam is concerned. But all religions are not equal. Islam is a political and totalitarian form of theism that truly is a danger to this world.

Islam sees the world in two halves. The abode of Islam and the abode of war, whereby any jihad minded Muslim can legally kill in order to spread Islam.

[_CaliforniaKid]

one of the early atheists, Joseph Barker, had a problem w/ the Bible largely because it didn't live up to his standard of extreme, teetotaling Victorian prudery.

[_dartagnan]

Well the problem with the Bible is that it has the Old Testament connected to it, which means that as a whole, it can be interpreted to mean just about anything for any one. But we do have traditional Christian dogma that has stood the test of time.

[_Ray A]

There's an interesting article I read a few years ago, not sure if I'm going to be able to dig it up, but it talked about the difference between morality in America and Europe. America has this idea of intimate contact with the poor and downtrodden, personal service in soup kitchens and so on while Europe has a more secular influenced abstract idea of human equality. Which is better? Well, if you're a stranger in America or even a poor American and break your leg, you'll have Coggins and his Christian buddies protesting your treatment on the government's dime. Whereas in Europe, and many other countries, it's just a really weird idea that Americans don't have the basic human value of healthcare for everyone.

On that point I have to agree.

I think Europe is far more socially aware than the American religious right, and for that reason, when it comes to providing for the stranger, I would say by leaps and bounds secular or "atheistic" morality does a better job than Christian hit and miss soup kitchens and bread runs to Africa.

But I'm not convinced that "atheistic morality" has any bearing on this. The Mormon ethic has long been, basically, "teach a man to fish". Feed him forever, and he could become a parasite on society. Taxes will be usurped on bludgers. This is not the same as helping the genuine poor, whether in America, or Africa. Remember Joseph Smith's revelation: Wo unto the rich who take advantage of ther poor, but wo unto the poor who refuse to work and siphon the rich. There has to be a balance. This is not a competition to see who's the most charitable, but the most practical in solving problems.

Cog may take a more radical approach. I would like to see a more merciful society to the genuine poor and disadvantaged. Not the bludgers. And there are too many of them. It's not easy striking a balance.

[_Mercury]

Did anyone read the Time Magazine article this month?

Are evangelical christians equally Ethical?

Compared to whom? Yes, and no, I'd guess. Again, I think individual comparisons would be more useful than blanket statements (but that's not particularly feasible). But, I don't think we can stereotype entire cross-sections of the population.

CKS

I find the same to be true when one asks for a blanket statements abut atheists.

[_cksalmon]

Did anyone read the Time Magazine article this month?

Are evangelical christians equally Ethical?

Compared to whom? Yes, and no, I'd guess. Again, I think individual comparisons would be more useful than blanket statements (but that's not particularly feasible). But, I don't think we can stereotype entire cross-sections of the population.

CKS

I find the same to be true when one asks for a blanket statements abut atheists.

I agree.

CKS

[Guest]

When I was a believer I was very concerned about sin.

Yes...

Why?

Religious Indoctrination.

I was worried about me sinning sexually,

Why?
Religious Indoctrination.

I was concerned with other people sinning sexually,

Why?
Religious Indoctrination.

I was concerned that being gay was a sin.

Why?
Religious indoctrination.

All that worrying about sexual sin is gone.

How convenient...

I'm a monogamous, married, heterosexual wife and mother. Not sure what you see as convenient. My point was illustrating how my though processes changed from being consumed with my own behavior to being focused outside what was just happening to me. Much like a person with OCD spends so much time washing their clothes that their house becomes deplorable.

For instance I'm not overly fond of cohabitation but at the same time I realize this is not hurting anyone.

So you say...

It's not hurting me if a committed couple is living together without being married.

Oh?
Yes, that's right. Do you have any proof that it's hurting me?

It's not hurting the world or society.

Oh really?
Yes, that's right. Do you have any proof it's hurting the world?

Where I used to feel being gay was a sin I now feel that legislated prejudice against gay people is a sin.

Unless homosexuality is a sin, in which case, any prejudice for it is a sin.

Yeah, but it's not.

You are the one who brought up Africa - how much money has this administration put into passing the Marriage Amendment? How much time and effort have been put into making double-safe laws that these committed couples will never have the legal rights that other citizens have? How much good could we have done in Africa with those recourses? No, no, gay couples MUST be stopped at whatever cost. Society as we know it will be destroyed if we don't.

Since "gay" couples who have either any intention or, historically, any ability to form lasting unions is a vanishingly small subset of the whole, what is your point? Gay "marriage" is an artifact of the gay rights movement of the nineties. Before that, one never heard of such a thing because it wasn't a part of the gay subculture at all.

So freaking what. If a tax paying, law abiding citizen wants to marry a person they love who cares when they started asking for it. Women didn't ask for the right to vote till a certain time in history, should women then not have the right to vote?

I think there is MORE morals outside of religion. To bring up the gay situation again - there is no legal reason to deny these citizens marriage. None.

There are both legal, moral, philosophical, and theological reasons to deny them precisely this.

And those legal, moral and philosophical reasons would be?????

Every single argument I've heard has been religious. Religion makes it impossible to sit down and discuss things rationally and decide to change the rules if necessary.

Nonsense. It is fanatical political ideology that makes it impossible to discuss anything rationally. All religion is not created equal, and the patterns inherent in the core of the great religions are, in fact, the only things that make rational discourse possible at all. To the extent that that religion qua religion is fused with politics, to that extent is it corrupted. The fact of the matter is that there is no substantive intellectual argument for homosexuality that is not anti-religious, and the reason for this is that only in the absence of moral and metaphysical standards does homosexuality stand a chance; only in a relativistic and arbitrary epistemic world can such a mode of life hold its own.

Once again, we're talking about tax paying, law abiding citizens that want the same right as the next tax paying, law abiding citizen. I'm willing to hear your non-religious arguments against it. I stated I have yet to hear one. That is still the case.

Religion is very ingrained and flies in the face of reason. Have you noticed what happened this week with the English teacher who allowed her student to name a teddy bear Mohammad? She's lucky she's alive. Over a freaking teady bear.

Did you notice what the atheistic Nazis did to Jews, what communists did to poets, journalists, philosophers, theologians, entrepreneurs, and middle class farmers, and what the ACLU is has been doing to Christians for the last 40 years?

I'm not debating that people are really crappy to other people. I don't see any cure in religion. Funny how when a Christian group kills for religion (like the thousands of women burned at the stake for witchcraft) it's a few misguided people. When a person has no religion and does something crappy it's all the atheists - who don't even meet in groups or have common beliefs. I guess vast generalization are only okay when it's not you being generalized. Unethical behavior is unethical behavior period. This exists outside any of the many religions in the world today.

This level of analysis begs for mercy. Let there be none.

(Eyeroll)