Atheism and Morality

[451ffan]

Hi,

I got a lot of discussion on my thread in another room about Atheism and morality. Specifically as to people's tendency to pronounce judgement upon atheists as amoral, when the truth of the matter is that we simply derive morals aside from having them conviently handed to us from above. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[bammertheblue]

"Deriving morals" is the problem. Atheists simply make up whatever morals are convenient for them at any particular time. In fact it seems likely that they are more likely to lie, rape, steal and murder because they want to "get back" at God and don't care about their own sins.

Buzz, wrong, try again!

 

[bammertheblue]

Perhaps you should examine why all you can do is deny the truth rather than make an argument.

Well, why don't you make an argument to back up your bizarre assertion? You know, with facts and things like that?

For example, from the Federal Bureau of Prisons:
(Prisoners divided by religious affiliation. I chopped off some of the tiniest percentages at the bottom cause it's not relevant.)


Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%

So atheists make up less than one quarter of one percent of all prisoners. Population-wise, atheists make up 12% of the American people. (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/129492.htm)

So clearly, atheists are not running around raping, stealing, and murdering people at a greater percentage than theists are.
Atheists don't believe in god, so there is no reason for them to try to "get back" at something they don't believe in.

 

[Gipper]

Well, why don't you make an argument to back up your bizarre assertion? You know, with facts and things like that?

I don't need evidence. Its common sense.

For example, from the Federal Bureau of Prisons:
(Prisoners divided by religious affiliation. I chopped off some of the tiniest percentages at the bottom cause it's not relevant.)


Response Number %
---------------------------- --------
Catholic 29267 39.164%
Protestant 26162 35.008%
Muslim 5435 7.273%
American Indian 2408 3.222%
Nation 1734 2.320%
Rasta 1485 1.987%
Jewish 1325 1.773%
Church of Christ 1303 1.744%
Pentecostal 1093 1.463%
Moorish 1066 1.426%
Buddhist 882 1.180%
Jehovah Witness 665 0.890%
Adventist 621 0.831%
Orthodox 375 0.502%
Mormon 298 0.399%
Scientology 190 0.254%
Atheist 156 0.209%

So atheists make up less than one quarter of one percent of all prisoners. Population-wise, atheists make up 12% of the American people. (http://atheism.about.com/b/a/129492.htm)

So clearly, atheists are not running around raping, stealing, and murdering people at a greater percentage than theists are.
Atheists don't believe in god, so there is no reason for them to try to "get back" at something they don't believe in.

The majority were obviously atheists when they committed the crime, and then converted in prison, or during their trial. The threat of jail or worse brings a lot of people to God.

 

[bammertheblue]

I don't need evidence. Its common sense.

Ok, no evidence. It's also "common sense" to have an actual argument when you're trying to prove a point, something you obviously failed at.

The majority were obviously atheists when they committed the crime, and then converted in prison, or during their trial. The threat of jail or worse brings a lot of people to God.

A lot of people do "find jesus" in jail, sure. But again, prove that the majority of people were atheists when they committed their crimes.
Oh wait, you don't believe in evidence. Never mind.

 

[Gipper]

Ok, no evidence. It's also "common sense" to have an actual argument when you're trying to prove a point, something you obviously failed at.

Its not an argument if its the truth.

A lot of people do "find jesus" in jail, sure. But again, prove that the majority of people were atheists when they committed their crimes.
Oh wait, you don't believe in evidence. Never mind.

God is all the evidence one needs.

 

[bammertheblue]

Its not an argument if its the truth.



One doesn't need evidence if they listen to God.

Okay, you have fun with that.

 

[JGG]

In fact it seems likely that they are more likely to lie, rape, steal and murder because they want to "get back" at God and don't care about their own sins.

Get back at God for what? Not existing?


You betcha.

 

[marblehead]

The majority were obviously atheists when they committed the crime, and then converted in prison, or during their trial. The threat of jail or worse brings a lot of people to God.

Perhaps you should examine why all you can do is deny the truth rather than make an argument.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice.

 

[bammertheblue]

I'm definitely not trying to argue that all theists are immoral or anything stupid like that...but I have many times heard theists say things like "If it weren't for belief in God I would think that it's ok to rape and murder and steal and cheat on my spouse because if there is no God there is no right or wrong so I might as well do what I want".

And THAT is disturbing on several levels.

 

[MemeBuster]

I think religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for morality.

A person's morality has more to do with his/her upbringing and social and cultural norms of his time and place and it has to do with his god.

Good old Christians could live with slavery and segragation, persecution of homosexuals, opression of wemon and waging war.

As I said, religion is neither necessary nor sufficient for morality. In fact, in some cases religion provokes immoral acts in the name of gods.


MB.

 

[KarateCowboy]

"Deriving morals" is the problem. Atheists simply make up whatever morals are convenient for them at any particular time. In fact it seems likely that they are more likely to lie, rape, steal and murder because they want to "get back" at God and don't care about their own sins.

I second this. I find that many atheists do some strange things when it comes to morality. Like for example one of my atheist friends says that absolute right and wrong (which is morality) do not exist, yet he says he has 'his own' set of morals. It's like saying he believes some things are absolutely right or wrong but does not believe in absolute right or wrong.

One trend I find among humanists is that they say there is no such thing as true right or wrong but then say it is immoral for Christians to say people of other faiths will go to Hell.

 

[Merlin]

Without an absolute reference point, such as God, morals become meaningless as they are dependant on whatever one feels like at any given moment.

 

[marblehead]

Without an absolute reference point, such as God, morals become meaningless as they are dependant on whatever one feels like at any given moment.

Well, looking at all the crimes committed by religious people would suggest that morals can become meaningless to god believers too.

Why does someone need god as a reference point for morals? What makes god an "absolute" reference point?..There's always been much disagreement on what god would consider moral/immoral, and that seems to just lead to more divisions in churches causing more denominations to form, and ultimately people will fall back on the "no true Christian" arguments.

 

[WalkingforHim]

"Deriving morals" is the problem. Atheists simply make up whatever morals are convenient for them at any particular time. In fact it seems likely that they are more likely to lie, rape, steal and murder because they want to "get back" at God and don't care about their own sins.

You don't know many atheists, do you.

 

[WalkingforHim]

The majority were obviously atheists when they committed the crime, and then converted in prison, or during their trial. The threat of jail or worse brings a lot of people to God.

And you know this how?

I second this. I find that many atheists do some strange things when it comes to morality. Like for example one of my atheist friends says that absolute right and wrong (which is morality) do not exist, yet he says he has 'his own' set of morals. It's like saying he believes some things are absolutely right or wrong but does not believe in absolute right or wrong.

One does not have to believe in an absolute set of morals while having there own. There is no contradiction, you just can't understand it.

Without an absolute reference point, such as God, morals become meaningless as they are dependant on whatever one feels like at any given moment.

Speak for yourself. Not everyone needs fear as the source of their morality.

 

[Stinker]

Before I became a Christian, I understood morality as something you felt you shouldn't violate because to do so would end with a negative result for you. God sending one to hell for the violation was never the primary reason for deciding not to violate any moral code.

 

[Voegelin]

problem. Atheists simply make up whatever morals are convenient for them at any particular time.

Seems most are moral relativists. 22 year director of the ACLU Corliss Lamont stated it clearly in "The Philosophy of Humanism" when he wrote:

The Humanist refuses to accept any Ten Commandments or other ethical precepts as immutable and universal laws never to be challenged or questioned. We bow to no alleged moral authority either past or present . . . Humanism assigns us nothing less than the task of being our own savior and redeemer . . .human beings do not possess supernatural and immortal souls..our cosmos does not posses a supernatural and eternal god . . .

As good a defination of situational ethics and moral relativism I've found anywhere. Whatever someone feels is moral and ethical today is moral and ethical. In a few hours or tommorow, they are free to change their mind.

 

[Adriac]

Without an absolute reference point, such as God, morals become meaningless as they are dependant on whatever one feels like at any given moment.

Except God isn't an absolute reference. There are as many different conceptions of God as there are believers. This argument disproves itself.

 

[Adriac]

Seems most are moral relativists. 22 year director of the ACLU Corliss Lamont stated it clearly in "The Philosophy of Humanism" when he wrote:


As good a defination of situational ethics and moral relativism I've found anywhere. Whatever someone feels is moral and ethical today is moral and ethical. In a few hours or tommorow, they are free to change their mind.

This is only wrong if you believe that people are incapable of being genuinely kind to each other.

You can have that one to yourself.