ARE NON BELIEVERS LOWER IN MORAL CHARACTER THAN CHRISTIANS? Peanut Gallery.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Formal Debate may be found here:

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

First post is up!

 

[Unix]

Are non-believers lower in moral character than Christians?
From all my experiences, yes, because:

• They all use foul language sometimes
• Some of them seduce Christians in relationships and marriages, convincing the Christians that having a faith in common doesn't matter - only moral and other things matter
• Many of them mock the Bible and some other important Christian works such as Ptolemy's letter to Flora, Teachings of Silvanus, Gospel of Truth
• Many of them view being Christian as just a hobby or special interest (although some Christians actually are like that)

 

[essentialsaltes]

First post is up!

TCMD starts with a long boring No True Scotsman.

REAL CHRISTIANS have Fruits, including "greater expressions" of moral behavior.
Christians without fruits are pseudo Christians.

Survey #1: Theists rate certain moral qualities "very important" at higher rates than atheists.

As the press release itself notes, "That's not to say that God-believers always translate their values into action."

The study tells us nothing about actual behavior.

Survey #2: Evangelical Christians say they do 'bad things' less frequently than atheists.

The study tells us nothing about actual behavior.

I think Barna does good work, but they do have a religious slant, if only that the evangelicals they identify will want to make their team look good. There are social expectations of evangelicals, and it is easier to say you adhere to them, than to actually adhere to them.

As an unrelated example, look at the data on extramarital sex.

"Men were also twice as likely to have had sex<staff edit> in the past week with someone to whom they were not married (13% vs. 6%)."

As the phrase goes, it takes two to tango. Either a lot of these men are having homosexual sex with each other, those ladies are having extramarital sex with more than twice as many different partners as the men, or for social reasons, women are less likely to admit to extramarital sex.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Are non-believers lower in moral character than Christians?

From all my experiences, yes, because:

• They all use foul language sometimes
• Some of them seduce Christians in relationships and marriages, convincing the Christians that having a faith in common doesn't matter - only moral and other things matter
• Many of them mock the Bible and some other important Christian works such as Ptolemy's letter to Flora, Teachings of Silvanus, Gospel of Truth
• Many of them view being Christian as just a hobby or special interest (although some Christians actually are like that)

LOL

Christians never use foul language? I hope you're joking. I don't know about "seducing" but my atheist grandfather and Catholic grandmother were married for decades until death did they part -- so yeah, it's definitely possible, and they were in love and happy too. I know many Christians who also mock atheists. Not only that but they'll tell us we're headed to hell, not only because of a state of affairs they cannot control but revel in the idea of us roasting there. Many Christians also view atheist as something that is unreal, that we "know" deep in our hearts there is a God and we're just being defiant brats or because we just want to sin all the time.

I challenge anyone here to think of a moral action performed or moral statement made by a believer that could not be made by a non-believer. Our non-belief does not blind us from taking into account human suffering. In fact, it may even drive us to more compassion and empathy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wow. TheycallmeDavid starts right out of the gate with a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. Classy. Then he decides, for some reason, to define Christians right out of any possible studies he's going to cite. I imagine he thought by narrowing the definition of a Christian so sharply that he'd be able to dismiss any studies or examples that BSH comes up with without actually having to address the evidence therein. What he actually did was destroy any evidence any studies he presents because of his own narrow definition. There's no way any scientific study would bother to survey each subject so deeply as to find out if they actually hold all those views that TCMD described. Any study he presents then is invalid. Speaking of invalid studies....

The first one he cites doesn't even have anything to do with the topic. The topic is ARE christians more moral than non christians....not do christians THINK they're more moral than non christians. So that study in no way addresses the topic. The second one is by the Barna group...a group that is outright admittedly biased towards christians. Of course that doesn't make their results automatically invalid...it just makes them automatically suspect.

I'd be really surprised if BSHMT doesn't slam dunk this.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The problem with atheism is not that atheists cannot arrive moral conclusions, as after all, God had reasons for the laws He made, but the problem is that atheism lacks a commonly held transcendent standard which basically defines morality and sin.

Thus the atheist himself becomes the standard, with no objective standard that he must be judged by.

One atheist from atheistrepublic expressed a common view in stating,

For Atheists? Well, it&#8217;s a case of whatever legal activity rings your bell, or floats your boat, or raises your flagpole. Homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual, one at a time or in multiples&#8230;it doesn&#8217;t really matter. If you are curious about something, go ahead and try it out. If you like it, great, and if not then don&#8217;t do it again. But there are no eternal consequences one way or another. You will not spend sleepless nights contemplating ultimate damnation in your final years agonizing over a single homoerotic encounter in your teens. Have fun, and see if it works for you. Who knows? You might find a new hobby...

Both the atheist and the deist can go good as well as bad things, but what basically defines what Good is? Certainly both atheistic as well as religious reasonable men can agree on many things as regards morality, but in atheism what is reasonable can mean something totally different than another.

One can invoke the Inquisitions of an example of Christians acting contrary to other Christians, but it is easily shown that this was contrary to Christian faith as seen in the NT.

However, a Mao or Mussolini or Pol Pot can easily justify their actions as being justified in the broader scheme. And likewise, in one culture i read of it was considered a virtue to lure your opposing tribe into false security with kindness, and then slay them.

Atheists will invoke Joshua's conquests (of wicked people) as examples of Biblical morality, but Joshua was provided with abundant incontrovertible supernatural evidence (unlike Muhammad) that God was real and was directing him (which did not prevent Israel from sometimes acting like atheists. Or me).

And the author of life can take it, and as omniscient He knows that the outcome of His actions will be good, and is consistent with laws He gave for man such as sanctions just killing of unjust people, while acting consistent with their intent in slaying the innocent, delivering them from becoming like their father, taking them to Heaven, and terminating the Canaanites from perpetuating their viral iniquity.

As far as empirical evidence that atheists have lower moral character than Christians, the problem is that the latter are even more broadly defined than atheists are. And as far less get married, and they tend to be well educated, then their marriages, among the ones that do rather than just cohabiting, if that, can last longer.

Thus the comparison should be on views and behavior with other things being equal, which is difficult.

Some stats can be seen here: Revealing Statistics, or "present costs of the war against God"

And an interesting state by sate comparison of many factors can be seen here. Statistical Correlations

 

[Genersis]

Arguing which group of people is most moral is ultimately pointless, as it is too subjective.

People will always choose their own group, as those are the people who share and are trying to follow their moral code.

Of course, I think people without religion would be more likely to be moral.
As I think a lot of religious laws and beliefs can cloud judgement on right and wrong.

Likewise, a Christian would think Christians are most moral because they try and follow their God, who is has the final say on morality.

A Muslim would believe Muslims are most moral as they also try and follow their God.

ETC, ETC.

 

[Gadarene]

Well, this should be hilarious.

From his postings on e&m, tcmd's sources actually only prove that people are bigoted against atheists, not that they are inherently less trustworthy. They only examine people's attitudes to atheists, not the character of atheists.

Maybe he's come up with something new, but given that he's made that argument on e&m at least twice and was corrected on it both times and it still didn't register, I wouldn't be surprised if he hadn't.

 

[Unix]

Why do You think I'm joking? This really is my experience of devout Christians. I have a hard time remembering any non-believers being like that. This may also be a cultural difference. Over here the language is Swedish. People usually curse in English over here and I've been told by my college English teacher that it's because people take impressions from movies and TV from the States; but there's one native curse word which is very popular and it translates to something like "a devil".

In the old days, people perhaps were even able to go to Church. I don't have many Churches to choose from - I travel over an hour one way to get to Church even though I don't live remotely, if I would be together with a non-Christian I would get to go to Churches even less and I would have a hard time arguing for why to spend years learning Biblical Greek and a bit of Theology and why to use up valuable time for reading academic Christian books + also a bit of devotionals:

LOL

Christians never use foul language? I hope you're joking. I don't know about "seducing" but my atheist grandfather and Catholic grandmother were married for decades until death did they part -- so yeah, it's definitely possible, and they were in love and happy too.

Are those Christians specifically attacking the writings Atheists use? Sometimes they do for example regarding Big Bang vs. Creationism, but other than that? As I've understood it, most Atheists and Agnostics (at least over here in the capital of Sweden - the most Atheistic City in the world, and by non-believers I referred to both Atheists and Agnostics) can't stand that some use these old writings I mentioned. For example if I stand reading some of these writings (especially if it's the Bible because people recognise it) in the commuter traffic, people can give me grins of dislike, or even come up to me and question, in a very negative and hostile tone, why I'm reading it - and this happened at the metro station of the most upscale villa-area where only well-educated people live with their kids and few non-natives (I'm white myself as well) - not a dangerous ghetto at all.
I'm not quite like that talking about hell:

I know many Christians who also mock atheists. Not only that but they'll tell us we're headed to hell, not only because of a state of affairs they cannot control but revel in the idea of us roasting there.

I don't hold to that view, and I understand that some Atheists can be irritated if Christians are like that. A "non-convinced Atheist" would perhaps be defined as an Agnostic although I don't think that the belief an Agnostic has is a lot of belief:

Many Christians also view atheist as something that is unreal, that we "know" deep in our hearts there is a God and we're just being defiant brats or because we just want to sin all the time.

Of course, that's why I define very narrowly the period I've been a Christian, I only count myself as having been a Christian for maximally 2½ years now, maybe less if I don't count the start-period when I searched for typical Christianity in the New Testament. As I've recently taken just a little bit of impression from the Reformed Church, I don't count previous "attempts" - but also because I previously used to attempt at false beliefs. I think that many of the beliefs and details of Christians are false beliefs because they haven't taken any impression at all from "Gnosticism" (some see the writings I mentioned as Gnostic, but they are not strikingly Gnostic). Additionally what I count as false beliefs is that some Christians believe in books or chapters of the Bible such as Esther, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom of Solomon, Daniel, Mark 16:9-20, John 21, The Pastorals (1-2 Timothy, Titus), Hebrews 9:15-13:25, 2nd Peter, Apocalypse (=Revelation).
Now that I've got rid of false beliesf I have compassion and empathy:

I challenge anyone here to think of a moral action performed or moral statement made by a believer that could not be made by a non-believer. Our non-belief does not blind us from taking into account human suffering. In fact, it may even drive us to more compassion and empathy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why do You think I'm joking? This really is my experience of devout Christians. I have a hard time remembering any non-believers being like that. This may also be a cultural difference. Over here the language is Swedish. People usually curse in English over here and I've been told by my college English teacher that it's because people take impressions from movies and TV from the States; but there's one native curse word which is very popular and it translates to something like "a devil".

In the old days, people perhaps were even able to go to Church. I don't have many Churches to choose from - I travel over an hour one way to get to Church even though I don't live remotely, if I would be together with a non-Christian I would get to go to Churches even less and I would have a hard time arguing for why to spend years learning Biblical Greek and a bit of Theology and why to use up valuable time for reading academic Christian books + also a bit of devotionals:




Are those Christians specifically attacking the writings Atheists use? Sometimes they do for example regarding Big Bang vs. Creationism, but other than that? As I've understood it, most Atheists and Agnostics (at least over here in the capital of Sweden - the most Atheistic City in the world, and by non-believers I referred to both Atheists and Agnostics) can't stand that some use these old writings I mentioned. For example if I stand reading some of these writings (especially if it's the Bible because people recognise it) in the commuter traffic, people can give me grins of dislike, or even come up to me and question, in a very negative and hostile tone, why I'm reading it - and this happened at the metro station of the most upscale villa-area where only well-educated people live with their kids and few non-natives (I'm white myself as well) - not a dangerous ghetto at all.
I'm not quite like that talking about hell:



I don't hold to that view, and I understand that some Atheists can be irritated if Christians are like that. A "non-convinced Atheist" would perhaps be defined as an Agnostic although I don't think that the belief an Agnostic has is a lot of belief:



Of course, that's why I define very narrowly the period I've been a Christian, I only count myself as having been a Christian for maximally 2½ years now, maybe less if I don't count the start-period when I searched for typical Christianity in the New Testament. As I've recently taken just a little bit of impression from the Reformed Church, I don't count previous "attempts" - but also because I previously used to attempt at false beliefs. I think that many of the beliefs and details of Christians are false beliefs because they haven't taken any impression at all from "Gnosticism" (some see the writings I mentioned as Gnostic, but they are not strikingly Gnostic). Additionally what I count as false beliefs is that some Christians believe in books or chapters of the Bible such as Esther, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom of Solomon, Daniel, Mark 16:9-20, John 21, The Pastorals (1-2 Timothy, Titus), Hebrews 9:15-13:25, 2nd Peter, Apocalypse (=Revelation).
Now that I've got rid of false beliesf I have compassion and empathy:

Sweden, huh? It's really interesting to think that's what people are like over there. Imagine this...

Everything you describe happens over here, in the USA, except in reverse. I can still remember hiding my atheism as a young man and little boy so I wouldn't be made fun of and mocked. The difference is that over here in the USA, it's a lot worse. There are christians on tv who tell people that you shouldn't let your daughter date an atheist. Atheists shouldn't hold public offices. Over here, atheists are trusted less than rapists, murderers, and terrorists.

 

[poolerboy0077]

Why do You think I'm joking? This really is my experience of devout Christians. I have a hard time remembering any non-believers being like that. This may also be a cultural difference. Over here the language is Swedish. People usually curse in English over here and I've been told by my college English teacher that it's because people take impressions from movies and TV from the States; but there's one native curse word which is very popular and it translates to something like "a devil".

In the old days, people perhaps were even able to go to Church. I don't have many Churches to choose from - I travel over an hour one way to get to Church even though I don't live remotely, if I would be together with a non-Christian I would get to go to Churches even less and I would have a hard time arguing for why to spend years learning Biblical Greek and a bit of Theology and why to use up valuable time for reading academic Christian books + also a bit of devotionals:



Are those Christians specifically attacking the writings Atheists use? Sometimes they do for example regarding Big Bang vs. Creationism, but other than that? As I've understood it, most Atheists and Agnostics (at least over here in the capital of Sweden - the most Atheistic City in the world, and by non-believers I referred to both Atheists and Agnostics) can't stand that some use these old writings I mentioned. For example if I stand reading some of these writings (especially if it's the Bible because people recognise it) in the commuter traffic, people can give me grins of dislike, or even come up to me and question, in a very negative and hostile tone, why I'm reading it - and this happened at the metro station of the most upscale villa-area where only well-educated people live with their kids and few non-natives (I'm white myself as well) - not a dangerous ghetto at all.
I'm not quite like that talking about hell:



I don't hold to that view, and I understand that some Atheists can be irritated if Christians are like that. A "non-convinced Atheist" would perhaps be defined as an Agnostic although I don't think that the belief an Agnostic has is a lot of belief:



Of course, that's why I define very narrowly the period I've been a Christian, I only count myself as having been a Christian for maximally 2½ years now, maybe less if I don't count the start-period when I searched for typical Christianity in the New Testament. As I've recently taken just a little bit of impression from the Reformed Church, I don't count previous "attempts" - but also because I previously used to attempt at false beliefs. I think that many of the beliefs and details of Christians are false beliefs because they haven't taken any impression at all from "Gnosticism" (some see the writings I mentioned as Gnostic, but they are not strikingly Gnostic). Additionally what I count as false beliefs is that some Christians believe in books or chapters of the Bible such as Esther, Judith, Tobit, Baruch, Wisdom of Solomon, Daniel, Mark 16:9-20, John 21, The Pastorals (1-2 Timothy, Titus), Hebrews 9:15-13:25, 2nd Peter, Apocalypse (=Revelation).
Now that I've got rid of false beliesf I have compassion and empathy:

Your responses have simply backpedaled your initial assertions. You didn't qualify initially that foul language must've been directed at holy texts, which is rather arbitrary. Atheists don't have holy texts. It's not as if we're emotionally invested in the Origin of Species or the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right. That's ultimately the problem -- that many Christians want special treatment when it comes to criticisms. If you take a step back and look at the bigger picture you'll notice our criticism and even mockery at times is no different than anything else we might -- in some instances, rightfully -- mock like: sports mania, radical feminism, superstitions, or any other ideology or fanatical devotion.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Well, this should be hilarious.

From his postings on e&m, tcmd's sources actually only prove that people are bigoted against atheists, not that they are inherently less trustworthy. They only examine people's attitudes to atheists, not the character of atheists.

Maybe he's come up with something new, but given that he's made that argument on e&m at least twice and was corrected on it both times and it still didn't register, I wouldn't be surprised if he hadn't.

The link in my above post does provide some survey results on moral views or practices of atheists.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Wow. TheycallmeDavid starts right out of the gate with a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. Classy... the Barna group...a group that is outright admittedly biased towards christians. Of course that doesn't make their results automatically invalid...it just makes them automatically suspect.

Actually, defining both terms beforehand is needed. If done based on the original source for that claim, (Acts 11:26) then it could eliminate much of Christianity, especially in the West, in which pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-welfare state, prevaricating politicians lay claim to that sacred title, while atheists, being a minority, which use their identification more carefully.

As for Barna, simply because they are Christian does not mean they are biased, and in fact Bonner is hotter on evangelicals due to the basic criteria it uses to define them, whereas other pollsters usually lump "born-again" with evangelical, or determine the latter classification based upon the determination they identify with (SBS, etc.)

But for this reason, atheism vs. evangelical based on Barna surveys does not mean atheism vs. Christians.

Outside Barna there is not a lot of data on the moral views of atheism, and lacking the transcendent objective standard by which they define morality, and by which they are judged by (and even the golden rule presumes a foundational moral framework behind it), then what one atheist reasons to be moral can be quite contrary to what another atheist judges as moral. As history shows.

Besides Barna, a major survey by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that only 14% of atheists and 10% of agnostics believe that homosexuality is a way of life that should be discouraged by society, versus 51% of of Protestant churches (64% of Evangelical) and 30% of Catholics. http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-key-findings.pdf

In addition, 11% of atheists were living with a partner, vs. 5% of Protestants.

37% of of atheists never married, vs. 17% of both Prots and Catholics.

75% of of atheists and 66% of Prots and 61% of Catholics had no children.

1% of atheists had 4 or more kids, as did just 3% of Prots (1% of Episcopalians) and 4% of Catholics. The LDS had the most at 10%, followed by Muslims at 6%, though a could Prot. denoms had 8%.

37% of atheists are btwn 18-29 versus 17% of Prots and Evangelicals, and 18% of Catholics, and 29% Muslim. New Age was highest at 43% btwn 18-29.

70% of atheists are male, versus 46% of both Prots and Catholics together.

Also of interest which would affect moral stats,

21% of atheists are college grads, with 21% being post grads, vs. 16% of both Prots and Catholics being college grads, and 9% and 10% respectively, being post grads. The Episcopal church was 30%/27% college grads/post grads, respectively. Hindus are the highest educated in the US, with 48% being post grads.

86% of atheists are White, 28% make over 100,000 a year, and the most live in the West, versus 74% and 64% of Catholics being White, and only 18% of Prots. and 19% of Catholics making over 100k a year. Traditionally the more money one has, the less they are conscious of a need for God, while Anglican/Episcopal churches at 35% making over 100k and Mainline Presbyterians at 28% beat out atheists for the highest. - http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report-religious-landscape-study-full.pdf

 

[Gadarene]

The link in my above post does provide some survey results on moral views or practices of atheists.

Results which are avowedly informal and nonprofessional, so I read them for about as long as it took me to move my finger to the close button

 

[Queller]

The link in my above post does provide some survey results on moral views or practices of atheists.

I took a look at the site you linked to. Among the claims is this;

While only representing 10% of the population, the segment of the prison population which self-identifies as non-religious is approximately twice as large as found in the general population.” http://www.adherents.com/misc/adh_prison.html

However, when you actually look at the study that found this, you find this

Baptist 39,781 30.3% Unknown* 28,890 22.0% Catholic 23,637 18.0% Other 39,009 29.7% -------- ------- ------ Total 131,316 100.0%* Unknown: "22 percent are categorized as 'unknown,' representing inmates who didn't say or didn't care when asked for their religious denomination." Most of these would be classified functionally in the "nonreligious" category. [Emphasis mine]

There is no logical reason to automatically call people who did not indicate what their religious beliefs were "non-religious." Unknown meets "not known." It does NOT mean "non-religious."

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Results which are avowedly informal and nonprofessional, so I read them for about as long as it took me to move my finger to the close button

What do you mean avowedly informal? The compilation is itself but the stats are well substantiated, and from professional researchers. Or does your dismissal indicate a desire to disallow undesirable evidence?

 

[PeaceByJesus]

I took a look at the site you linked to. Among the claims is this;

There is no logical reason to automatically call people who did not indicate what their religious beliefs were "non-religious." Unknown meets "not known." It does NOT mean "non-religious."

Rather, "unknown" does not necessarily mean non-religious or religious, but not identifying with any faith certainly indicates they are not Christian in faith, and the debate is titled, "Are non-Christians lower in moral character than Christians."

Meanwhile, 37% of Americans classify themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious,” and some self identified atheists say they sometimes pray, while some self identified Christians seldom do.

Thus labels can be misleading, and what really should be debated here is how much strong Christian faith versus committed atheism translates into morality, which itself needs to be defined.

The link also states, "The high estimates of "8 to 16%" of Americans being atheists are actually produced by combining figures from non-atheist groups. Basically, all people who don't profess a religious preference are sometimes claimed by atheists part of their grouping. The Kosmin survey of 1990 indicated that 1.5% of the population is agnostic, and 7.5% "nonreligious." "Nonreligious" does not mean the same thing as "atheist." It is a classification which includes people who believe there is no god, believe there is a god, or who don't believe either way, or believe that such information is unknowable." - Prison Incarceration and Religious Preference

 

[bhsmte]

my first post is up, being reviewed by moderator.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

I've noticed non believers seem to have good morals. Teach their kids how to behave very well. Also they don't even talk about it much. Also my non believer friend tells me. That some people wont allow their kids to play with her kids, when they find out. That's very Christian of them. Also the reason she doesn't believe in God is because of all wars over religion. She also notice Christian don't set the good example they are supposed to set. I been noticing the Christians I know are bad examples too. At least they claim they are.