Why are christians morally inferior to atheists

[durangodawood]

Chesterton, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the totality of my position. Perhaps I havent been clear. Are you making any effort to understand me?
.
I've been clear and direct about the role of accumulated wisdom in discerning deep, lasting, human life satisfactions from the shallow transitory ones. And that there is cross cultural consensus on which satisfactions lead to a truly good life, overall, and which lead to a dull meager existence.
.
And after my effort, you simply restate this:

It's man's nature to enjoy a lot of things, both good and bad.

If it's a pleasure, that would seem to be all an organism need concern itself with. A lion doesn't seem to care that it's satisfying itself at another animal's expense.....

Lions? We're humans. We deal in human living as observed in every wisdom tradition. Moral facts are derived from specifically human realities.
.
What we call "good" is condusive to a deeply satisfy human and spiritual life. What we call bad is detrimental to that. All according to the best accumulated wisdom to date. If I'm wrong, please tell me exactly how.
.

 

[peaceful soul]

I thought that I would throw in a few comments to some observations.

For those who think that morality comes form looking, learning, and through nature, you are holding to a naturalistic cause for it. The capacity to be moral comes from your creator, God. It is then your guidance through your god given conscience to utilize moral principles which God put into your conscience. You can then learn, grow, and hopefully become more wise in discerning what is moral in God's eye by being obedient to God; otherwise, you are just following a moral relative path that I see in observing this back and forth discussion mainly between Chesterton and durangodawood. I agree with Chesterton because he better illustrates to me what is more in line with an objective outlook whereas durangodawood has more of a relativistic view because morals are based upon natural and human prinicples.

If Christians are looking into the Bible for their answers, they will not see the need to be moral to please a deity or a society. That amounts to appeasement They would be doing it because they love God and are more inclined to allow God to influence their minds, thoughts, and consciousness to correspond with God's demands upon us. God is the center of objectivity, wisdom, rationality, goodness, etc. and not you, me, man, or society as many non theist are inclined to believe. You moral relativists have your starting point and focal points of morality misconstrued.

The bottom line is that if you think that morality is a social and human construct, you can only practice a moral relative life, which will change with the next fad while climbing on the moral ladder. It is to God that we get our morals and can know how to live an objective moral life. The deception for you is that while you may see yourself being good and morally progressing, you are only doing so because of what God has already blessed you to have--a moral conscience along with the proper tools to think and reason via the brain and mind.

 

[JudaicChristian]

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 there is no God or after life, then morality is nothing more than some mans opinion.

 

[durangodawood]

...whereas durangodawood has more of a relativistic view because morals are based upon natural and human prinicples...

Not at all. My position is the opposite of moral relativism. I observe an objective morality at work in the world, as derived from objective facts about good human living, which are discerned through accumulated wisdom.
.
For example: moral relativity would have me holding that the human-sacrifice practices of the Aztecs were ultimately morally valid. Not at all. It was a massive moral error that persisted for a while but ultimately corroded the society from the inside and engendered bitter enemies outside, leading to the culture's downfall.
.
I do not believe in moral relativism, and will argue the moral error of many practices in our culture, and in others.
.

 

[Rasta]

If there is no God or after life, then morality is nothing more than some mans opinion.

Wrong. A collective of human experience spanning thousands of years. But it is an opinion. Just like religion.

 

[peaceful soul]

Not at all. My position is the opposite of moral relativism. I observe an objective morality at work in the world, as derived from objective facts about good human living, which are discerned through accumulated wisdom.
.
For example: moral relativity would have me holding that the human-sacrifice practices of the Aztecs were ultimately morally valid. Not at all. It was a massive moral error that persisted for a while but ultimately corroded the society from the inside and engendered bitter enemies outside, leading to the culture's downfall.
.
I do not believe in moral relativism, and will argue the moral error of many practices in our culture, and in others.
.

I do apologize to you, durangodawood for mislabeling your view. I don't see where your objectivity comes from.

 

[peaceful soul]

Wrong. A collective of human experience spanning thousands of years. But it is an opinion. Just like religion.

It would still be linked to man's opinion if there is no objective point of reference. That means something outside of the human scope of influence that dictates morals.

Some religions are based upon the idea of an objective moral point of reference. Christianity is one of them. It rests on the premise that God sets the standards of morality and gives His Creation the tools and capacity to be moral.

If religions are opinions, what about the viewpoints and propositions of the non religious?

 

[Rasta]

It would still be linked to man's opinion if there is no objective point of reference.

Hence the words I wrote: "But it is an opinion".

That means something outside of the human scope of influence that dictates morals.

Why does it mean that?

Some religions are based upon the idea of an objective moral point of reference. Christianity is one of them. It rests on the premise that God sets the standards of morality and gives His Creation the tools and capacity to be moral.

Which ultimatly is an opinion.

If religions are opinions, what about the viewpoints and propositions of the non religious?

Opinions. We are the only creators that have ever been documented.

 

[durangodawood]

I do apologize to you, durangodawood for mislabeling your view. I don't see where your objectivity comes from.

No problem.
.
The objectivity is in the basic facts of human living that make life good, deeply satisfying, not shallow, boring or miserable.
.
Pretty much all people, across cultures, have arrived at these values: freedom, friendship, material security, health, knowledge, love, and spiritual satisfaction. Societies that violate these values typically fail. These values serve our nature as human beings. They are observable in human life whether you think God made us, or whether we are purely natural beings.
.
What we call wisdom is the recognition of these values, and social and personal strategies for their persuit.
.

 

[ACougar]

I believe you hit the nail on the head.

For the most part I think theism and atheism are relatively immaterial to moral discipline. They can certain color your moral structure. But good people are pretty much going to be good religion or not, and bad people are going to be bad people religious or not.

 

[ACougar]

Honour. People choose to lead an honorable life, you may choose not to be "good" but by doing so you bring dishonor to yourself, your family and your community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honour

I'd still like to have my question answered, since it's a question the OP raises. If you think I should be "good" without God, you need to give me a good reason. Preferably one not based on emotion.

 

[humblemuslim]

For me, and for many people I know, it's enough to know right from wrong. Moral knowledge does its own policing, for anyone with a conscience.
.

Sometimes, yes. I would say it depends on the situation. Sometimes we might feel something is right when in fact it is not. Other times we might find ourselves weighing options, or taking a lesser of two evils approach. And even other times we might reason 'Only this time' or 'it is not that big of a deal'.

Major things like murder would be hindered by one's conscience (More than likely), if they have one and hold common beliefs with the group (Humanity).

Minor things like stealing a cookie every once in awhile, maybe not. Depends on the person.

I use the cookie example because I have witnessed people I used to know from High School that used to steal cookies and such from the lunch line. They were not bothered by it in the least. I personally was even though I was not the one taking the foods. But everyone has their own value associated with each action.

 

[durangodawood]

Sometimes, yes. I would say it depends on the situation. Sometimes we might feel something is right when in fact it is not. Other times we might find ourselves weighing options, or taking a lesser of two evils approach. And even other times we might reason 'Only this time' or 'it is not that big of a deal'.

Major things like murder would be hindered by one's conscience (More than likely), if they have one and hold common beliefs with the group (Humanity).

Minor things like stealing a cookie every once in awhile, maybe not. Depends on the person.

I use the cookie example because I have witnessed people I used to know from High School that used to steal cookies and such from the lunch line. They were not bothered by it in the least. I personally was even though I was not the one taking the foods. But everyone has their own value associated with each action.

I truly believe that if you had an month long moral conversation with these cookie-stealers, none of them would ever steal a cookie again.
.
People like that are typically "good" but theyre not in the habit of thinking in moral terms, especially in high school. Thats where education, parenting, and yes, religion come in.
.
Just because moral truths are derived from objective facts of human living, not everyone will perform the derivation themselves. They need parents, society, or faith to get the message.
.

 

[SiderealExalt]

I don't think any of those factors are really the most pertinent moral influence for me. My parents..well maybe in the sense of some of the mistakes I've seen in them. And that is not to excuse me, seeing the flaws in my tend to make me reflect on my own flaws. Society..well this is an open ended thing. There are a lot of factors that can fall under that term. Faith..not for me. I find faith useless and harmful. It may sound selfish to a theist. But I find I am the ultimate factor in my moral underpinnings. I can only control myself and its me that nags me if I do something wrong that needs to be done right.

I'm a brooder, and I sometimes dwell on how my actions can effect others. So that for me has always been the strongest factor. Having to look myself in the mirror.

 

[Chesterton]

Chesterton, you seem to be deliberately ignoring the totality of my position. Perhaps I havent been clear. Are you making any effort to understand me?

I've been clear and direct about the role of accumulated wisdom in discerning deep, lasting, human life satisfactions from the shallow transitory ones. And that there is cross cultural consensus on which satisfactions lead to a truly good life, overall, and which lead to a dull meager existence.

Yes, you're clear, but also very subjective. I understand your answer to my question, and if I assume the position of atheism, I simply don't accept your answer. I may place no value in wisdom, in long-term satisfaction or in anything you consider a good life. And you know that's not a fantastic idea; there are people who live that way. If you think they're wrong, fine, but without an external standard, they are equally entitled to think you're wrong.

Lions? We're humans. We deal in human living as observed in every wisdom tradition. Moral facts are derived from specifically human realities.

Atheists say we're animals, and if atheism is right, they're right about that.

What we call "good" is condusive to a deeply satisfy human and spiritual life. What we call bad is detrimental to that. All according to the best accumulated wisdom to date. If I'm wrong, please tell me exactly how.

If what you say is so objectively and obviously right, we'd need no laws, cops or jails; everyone would know it and everyone would be good.

Even if I agree with everything you've said about wisdom and the "fact" of what good human living is, that still doesn't give me a reason why I should play along if and when it doesn't benefit me. You'd probably say I won't be happy if I'm not good, but that's a judgment call, and even then that requires that your "happy" is the same as my "happy".

 

[durangodawood]

Yes, you're clear, but also very subjective. I understand your answer to my question, and if I assume the position of atheism, I simply don't accept your answer. I may place no value in wisdom, in long-term satisfaction or in anything you consider a good life. And you know that's not a fantastic idea; there are people who live that way. If you think they're wrong, fine, but without an external standard, they are equally entitled to think you're wrong.

You may place no value in long term satisfaction... but so what? Most people do hold those values, for reasons that are intrinsic to human nature. You are stuck with going along, or living outside society, or rotting in jail.
.

Atheists say we're animals, and if atheism is right, they're right about that.

Of course we are animals. But we are not "just animals" in that we have qualitatively different mental and spiritual capacites from all other animals, as best we can tell. But I dont see how this is relevant to our discussion.
.

If what you say is so objectively and obviously right, we'd need no laws, cops or jails; everyone would know it and everyone would be good.

Major misunderstanding. All along I've been discussing the derivation of morals, where they come from... yet you are getting hung up on the transmission of morals.
.
There is no way the average person alone can derive all the correct morals that are contained in the worlds various wisdom traditions. Its absurd to expect that. Moral originate in the long term application of wisdom to the realities of human life. But they are transmitted via education, cultural products, parental example, and religion.
.
So, if you dont get the transmission, you are quite vulnerable unless you are exceptional, and jail becomes a distinct possibility.
.

Even if I agree with everything you've said about wisdom and the "fact" of what good human living is, that still doesn't give me a reason why I should play along if and when it doesn't benefit me. You'd probably say I won't be happy if I'm not good, but that's a judgment call, and even then that requires that your "happy" is the same as my "happy".

"Happy" is less subjective than you think. The particulars may vary considerably. But the basics do not. Again, they are: freedom, friendship, material security, health, knowledge, love, and spiritual satisfaction... and others I'm surely forgetting.
.
If you dont "get it" then we have other tools to make you play along until you do "get it": shame, guilt, honor, law, etc.
.

 

[Tinker Grey]

The law doesn't prevent evil. The law merely defines the punishment.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Wrong. A collective of human experience spanning thousands of years. But it is an opinion. Just like religion.

I have always said that Atheism is a belief. They have a dogma, and they are organized. Disbelief in a God, is a belief.

 

[durangodawood]

...Disbelief in a God, is a belief.

... like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
.

 

[JudaicChristian]

... like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
.

A unrelated topic would not be a good example of making a point. Disbelief and belief go hand and hand, because both are a faith.