Atheist morality.

[ArAvalon]

You said militant atheists, and those atheists are likely to oppose those two beliefs that christians sometimes assert

Yup, good thing too.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Yup, good thing too.

So... I provided militant atheists having VERY good positions on christians actiins or ideas.

 

[ArAvalon]

On the opposite side of this, would you agree there are some people who could be labled; militant Christians?

Definitely.

 

[ArAvalon]

So... I provided militant atheists having VERY good positions on christians actiins or ideas.

Far from all the ideas and actions (I already gave a bunch of examples in another post), but I'd say militant atheists help more than they hinder, even the ones with incorrect views.

 

[JGG]

I imagine there's no general consensus on a fixed definition. Anyhow, I personally agree with this:
New Atheism - RationalWiki

So when you say militant atheist, you don't really know to what it refers? To Christians, who coined the phrase, it just means atheist.

 

[Hikarifuru]

Far from all the ideas and actions (I already gave a bunch of examples in another post), but I'd say militant atheists help more than they hinder, even the ones with incorrect views.

I agree they probably do more good, the word militant is commonly used by the opposition and doesn't imply any wrong. Its not as if Christianity is kind and loving and accepting in general

 

[ArAvalon]

So when you say militant atheist, you don't really know to what it refers?

No, I don't know how you inferred that.

To Christians, who coined the phrase, it just means atheist.

I'm not sure who coined the phrase, but I disagree with labeling all atheists as militants.

 

[JGG]

No, I don't know how you inferred that.

Okay. How is it defined?

I'm not sure who coined the phrase, but I disagree with labeling all atheists as militants.

A Christian did. How can you disagree if you don't even know how the term is defined?

 

[ArAvalon]

Okay. How is it defined?

Militant atheism could be defined as either a) political movements favoring the destruction of religion by force, or b) New Atheism, which is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises" - not my words.

A Christian did. How can you disagree if you don't even know how the term is defined?

I know the definitions, but neither a) nor b) should be used as a label for the entire atheist population.

 

[FireDragon76]

One example is in marriage. If I dated a woman who lets say her whole life believed looking at porn was a sin, but then suddenly changed her mind on it. I would dump her and never talk to her again. If she can change her mind on one thing (a thing we know is a sin), whats to stop her from changing her mind once married about things like divorce, cheating, spending alot of money...etc. I have no trust in people who change their mind and morals all the time.

Maybe you need to stop being so rigid in your demands on other people? People can, and do change their mind without you being in the right to judge them.

I believe it is far more healthy to be open to change than rigid.

I am a Christian but I can say for certain there are atheists that are politically conservative and even share a lot of moral intuitions with conservative Christians. Conversely there are Christians whose morality is strictly based on "political correctness".

 

[Hikarifuru]

CounselorForChrist

One example is in marriage. If I dated a woman who lets say her whole life believed looking at porn was a sin, but then suddenly changed her mind on it. I would dump her and never talk to her again. If she can change her mind on one thing (a thing we know is a sin), whats to stop her from changing her mind once married about things like divorce, cheating, spending alot of money...etc. I have no trust in people who change their mind and morals all the time

But isn't that exactly what happens when sinners meet Jesus and become radically changed and the old man dies and the new man lives in Christ?

I mean Saul became Paul in like a few days man.

and Sanctification us suppose to be a progression, a continual and ever lasting process of change. Christians do change their minds all the time, supposedly every time the bible or Jesus shows them something new.

 

[JGG]

Militant atheism could be defined as either a) political movements favoring the destruction of religion by force, or b) New Atheism, which is a social and political movement in favour of atheism and secularism promoted by a collection of modern atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises" - not my words.

I find (a) interesting. Who would be a prominent, contemporary atheist who favors the destruction of religion by force?

I have never encountered a response that views militant atheists as a political movement, that is also interesting.

I ask because your reply is vastly different from replies I have been given before. Here are some of the definitions I have been given:

(c) "An atheist who firmly holds no room for God in his heart."

(d) "A militant atheist is one of those who shouts at religion because they can't stand people who disagree with them."

(e) "Someone who only wants to undermine religious beleifs and values."

And the guy who claims to have coined the term writes that:

(f) "[A militant atheist is] an atheist who cannot be convinced that there is a God, is actively trying to convert others to atheism, and believes that religion is detrimental to society."

But think of it this way: According to your definition (a) Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins would not be considered militant atheists. According to definition (b) they would be. How is such a term useful in communication? You may be speaking using definition (a), your audience might be hearing definition (b-f). Of course, I have to ask which of your two conflicting definitions is the correct definition? When you use the term, which definition do you use?

I know the definitions, but neither a) nor b) should be used as a label for the entire atheist population.

You know your definition(s). It doesn't seem that other Christians recognize it. According to most, (c), (d), and (e) would refer to all atheists. If two different definitions are equally correct, why not more? Why not one where "militant atheist" is encompasses all atheists?

See using how a term with no recognized definition is problematic?

 

[JGG]

Technically this could turn into that other topic about is science a religion. Glad to know until the day I die my beliefs won't change. Thats not to say they won't teeter on the edge like if I had something tragic happen to me.

Do you still believe that non-Christians are lesser persons?

 

[stevevw]

Really? Why do deeply religious Christians get divorced more often than atheists?

Strange how you focus on a small sector of religion which is not a true reflection of religion as a whole to make a point. I doubt the survey it as well as it is a very small one and may not reflect true data. The ones I have included are national ones and cover thousands of people.

Study: atheists get divorced less than deeply religious couples.

What about racism behaviors and Christianity?

Does Christianity Contribute to Racism? - Science and Religion Today

Speaking of compassion:

Religious People Less Driven By Compassion Than Are Atheists And Agnostics, Study Says

And quality of life and crime rates in less religious countries:

Misinformation and facts about secularism and religion | Psychology Today[/quote]
Well there you go two conflicting reports. I am not sure where you got your info from but the one i had included was done by the US national library and the National institute of health and the inland revenue. Its showing conflicting results for what yours is showing. The ones you have included seem to be done on a small amount of people by some study i am not sure of. It is focusing on a certain small sector so i guess you could find something to support what you want somewhere.

But the fact is the major survey shows that being connected to a religion gives benefits for physical, mental and emotional health. Most other surveys show that religion doesn't have any great bearing on the success of marriage or not and if anything gives a slight advantage.

The hypothesis that religious involvement may enhance marital happiness and stability has also received considerable attention in the literature. A large number of studies report a positive relationship between measures of religiosity and indicators of marital satisfaction and stability (e.g., Glenn and Supancic 1984; Heaton and Pratt 1990). However, the cross-sectional design of these analyses, with both key variables measured at the same point in time, implies that the estimates confound the direction of causality. Two recent studies have addressed this shortcoming. Using data from waves 1 and 2 of the National Surveys of Families and Households, Call and Heaton (1997) find that higher levels of husband’s and wife’s church attendance as found at the initial interview reduce the likelihood that the union will have been dissolved by the second wave, about five years later; differences between the spouses in attendance levels are found to be destabilizing. In contrast, in their analysis of a 12-year longitudinal sample, Booth et al. (1995) find that although an increase in religious activity over time reduces the chance of considering divorce, it does not increase marital happiness or decrease marital conflict.
The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis

But the fact is done by national surveys that marriage and religion lead to positive outcomes by providing social support and integration and by encouraging healthy behaviors and lifestyles.

As for being more compassionate. Once again I guess you can find any result you like. But the survey you have quoted focuses on a small obscure section and the survey itself is very small and may not reflect accurate results. But surveys done nationally not of 2 or 3 thousand people show different results.

How do religious and secular people vary in their charitable behavior? To answer this, I turn to data collected expressly to explore patterns in American civic life. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (sccbs) was undertaken in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. The data consist of nearly 30,000 observations drawn from 50 communities across the United States and ask individuals about their “civic behavior,” including their giving and volunteering during the year preceding the survey.

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.

The data show that if two people — one religious and the other secular — are identical in every other way, the secular person is 23 percentage points less likely to give than the religious person and 26 points less likely to volunteer.
Religious Faith and Charitable Giving | Hoover Institution

And the surveys are not done on a small basis but even state by state shows religion gives more.
The study, released Monday by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, found that residents in states where religious participation is higher than the rest of the nation, particularly in the South, gave the greatest percentage of their discretionary income to charity.
The Northeast, with lower religious participation, was the least generous to charities, with the six New England states filling the last six slots among the 50 states.

The study was based on Internal Revenue Service records of people who itemized deductions in 2008, the most recent year statistics were available. The data allowed researchers to detail charitable giving down to the ZIP code.
Religion And Giving: More Religious States Give More To Charity

It doesn't just show that religious people are more charitable it also shows that people trust religious organizations more when giving money and that religious organizations use the money better to get more of it to the needy.

Christian charitable organizations rank highest in terms of using donor money toward charitable projects and services, according to a recent Forbes study.

Four out of the five charities that received a perfect rating in both fundraising efficiency and charitable commitment are Christian organizations.
Christian Charities More Reliable Than Others, According to Forbes

 

[KCfromNC]

Research has shown that people that belong to a religious organizations

Weren't you just telling us that we can't believe studies about people's reported religious because they might not correctly follow the religion?

 

[bhsmte]

Strange how you focus on a small sector of religion which is not a true reflection of religion as a whole to make a point. I doubt the survey it as well as it is a very small one and may not reflect true data. The ones I have included are national ones and cover thousands of people.

Study: atheists get divorced less than deeply religious couples.

What about racism behaviors and Christianity?

Does Christianity Contribute to Racism? - Science and Religion Today

Speaking of compassion:

Religious People Less Driven By Compassion Than Are Atheists And Agnostics, Study Says

And quality of life and crime rates in less religious countries:

Misinformation and facts about secularism and religion | Psychology Today

Well there you go two conflicting reports. I am not sure where you got your info from but the one i had included was done by the US national library and the National institute of health and the inland revenue. Its showing conflicting results for what yours is showing. The ones you have included seem to be done on a small amount of people by some study i am not sure of. It is focusing on a certain small sector so i guess you could find something to support what you want somewhere.

But the fact is the major survey shows that being connected to a religion gives benefits for physical, mental and emotional health. Most other surveys show that religion doesn't have any great bearing on the success of marriage or not and if anything gives a slight advantage.

The hypothesis that religious involvement may enhance marital happiness and stability has also received considerable attention in the literature. A large number of studies report a positive relationship between measures of religiosity and indicators of marital satisfaction and stability (e.g., Glenn and Supancic 1984; Heaton and Pratt 1990). However, the cross-sectional design of these analyses, with both key variables measured at the same point in time, implies that the estimates confound the direction of causality. Two recent studies have addressed this shortcoming. Using data from waves 1 and 2 of the National Surveys of Families and Households, Call and Heaton (1997) find that higher levels of husband’s and wife’s church attendance as found at the initial interview reduce the likelihood that the union will have been dissolved by the second wave, about five years later; differences between the spouses in attendance levels are found to be destabilizing. In contrast, in their analysis of a 12-year longitudinal sample, Booth et al. (1995) find that although an increase in religious activity over time reduces the chance of considering divorce, it does not increase marital happiness or decrease marital conflict.
The Benefits from Marriage and Religion in the United States: A Comparative Analysis

But the fact is done by national surveys that marriage and religion lead to positive outcomes by providing social support and integration and by encouraging healthy behaviors and lifestyles.

As for being more compassionate. Once again I guess you can find any result you like. But the survey you have quoted focuses on a small obscure section and the survey itself is very small and may not reflect accurate results. But surveys done nationally not of 2 or 3 thousand people show different results.

How do religious and secular people vary in their charitable behavior? To answer this, I turn to data collected expressly to explore patterns in American civic life. The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (sccbs) was undertaken in 2000 by researchers at universities throughout the United States and the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. The data consist of nearly 30,000 observations drawn from 50 communities across the United States and ask individuals about their “civic behavior,” including their giving and volunteering during the year preceding the survey.

The differences in charity between secular and religious people are dramatic. Religious people are 25 percentage points more likely than secularists to donate money (91 percent to 66 percent) and 23 points more likely to volunteer time (67 percent to 44 percent). And, consistent with the findings of other writers, these data show that practicing a religion is more important than the actual religion itself in predicting charitable behavior. For example, among those who attend worship services regularly, 92 percent of Protestants give charitably, compared with 91 percent of Catholics, 91 percent of Jews, and 89 percent from other religions.

The data show that if two people — one religious and the other secular — are identical in every other way, the secular person is 23 percentage points less likely to give than the religious person and 26 points less likely to volunteer.
Religious Faith and Charitable Giving | Hoover Institution

And the surveys are not done on a small basis but even state by state shows religion gives more.
The study, released Monday by the Chronicle of Philanthropy, found that residents in states where religious participation is higher than the rest of the nation, particularly in the South, gave the greatest percentage of their discretionary income to charity.
The Northeast, with lower religious participation, was the least generous to charities, with the six New England states filling the last six slots among the 50 states.

The study was based on Internal Revenue Service records of people who itemized deductions in 2008, the most recent year statistics were available. The data allowed researchers to detail charitable giving down to the ZIP code.
Religion And Giving: More Religious States Give More To Charity

It doesn't just show that religious people are more charitable it also shows that people trust religious organizations more when giving money and that religious organizations use the money better to get more of it to the needy.

Christian charitable organizations rank highest in terms of using donor money toward charitable projects and services, according to a recent Forbes study.

Four out of the five charities that received a perfect rating in both fundraising efficiency and charitable commitment are Christian organizations.
Christian Charities More Reliable Than Others, According to Forbes[/quote]

Let me put it this way, for every study you come up with that shows religious people are somehow more moral than atheists, I can come up with several that point the other direction. I could also show you studies that show Christians are prejudice towards atheists, for no other reason than these people disagree with them.

Keep believing what you like though.

 

[stevevw]

Let me put it this way, for every study you come up with that shows religious people are somehow more moral than atheists, I can come up with several that point the other direction. I could also show you studies that show Christians are prejudice towards atheists, for no other reason than these people disagree with them.

Keep believing what you like though.

I could do the same. But I am not saying that Christians are more moral. There will be good and moral people in both groups. But bey nature people that belong to religions and believe in a God will be more active in helping others. There will be non religious organizations that help but when it comes down to when everyone else is not doing it, it will be some sort of charity that is involved with a religion. Why because its in their doctrine, they are taught that every week, they have classes and meetings on it and its part of their creed.

I was thinking about this today. I work in the community services industry as a volunteer. I did a check of my local area and the surrounding areas in which one i also use to live and moved from recently. So I had first hand knowledge of these two areas. I work for the local community center that is run by a few paid employees that the government funds and the rest are volunteers. Every region will have a community center to service the locals. This is a service which is provided by the local Government in response for the needs of people with problems but also to just get info on local services. They may also hold groups to do with families, marriage or just activities such as craft groups. We will know of every organization in our area that is available for help. Of the emergency outlets to deal with homeless, feeding people and outreach most are run by churches being the salvation army, St Vincent de pauls and local independent churches. They have food give away, vouchers for food and petrol, emergency cloths and accommodation. This is the same for all areas.

So if it wasn't for the church charities there wouldn't be any backup for people. The Salvation Army and St Vincent de Paul's have been going for years and are world famous. They help people all over the world. Religion is famous for helping people and when people think of charity they think of religions. I am not trying to make out religious people are better than non religious people. I am just sick of people who put down religion and dont give the credit where it is due. The fact is Religions help people all the time in rain, hail or shine and everyone knows it. I'm just get tired of people that dont acknowledge this and try to make out they are no better and then put them down and diminish their role become they dont want to admit it like its going to show them up or something. Its ridiculous everyone knows they do more thats their business. Its actually a slap in the face for them by denying this for them. So what if they are doing more it doesn't mean they are better. It isn't a competition. You should just give credit where credit is due. It is not going to mean you are any less by admitting that.

 

[madaz]

I could do the same. But I am not saying that Christians are more moral. There will be good and moral people in both groups. But bey nature people that belong to religions and believe in a God will be more active in helping others. There will be non religious organizations that help but when it comes down to when everyone else is not doing it, it will be some sort of charity that is involved with a religion. Why because its in their doctrine, they are taught that every week, they have classes and meetings on it and its part of their creed.

Research indicates it’s social ties NOT religion or creed that makes people give to charity.

I was thinking about this today. I work in the community services industry as a volunteer. I did a check of my local area and the surrounding areas in which one i also use to live and moved from recently. So I had first hand knowledge of these two areas. I work for the local community center that is run by a few paid employees that the government funds and the rest are volunteers. Every region will have a community center to service the locals. This is a service which is provided by the local Government in response for the needs of people with problems but also to just get info on local services. They may also hold groups to do with families, marriage or just activities such as craft groups. We will know of every organization in our area that is available for help. Of the emergency outlets to deal with homeless, feeding people and outreach most are run by churches being the salvation army, St Vincent de pauls and local independent churches. They have food give away, vouchers for food and petrol, emergency cloths and accommodation. This is the same for all areas.

Whilst I commend you for volunteering your time, I'm skeptical as to your intentions. There are many Christian volunteers working in "healing" centers without any councelling qualifications whatsoever taking advantage of vulnerable people needing respite care by proselytizing their religion. Some of these centers are also excempt from paying tax.

So if it wasn't for the church charities there wouldn't be any backup for people. The Salvation Army and St Vincent de Paul's have been going for years and are world famous. They help people all over the world. Religion is famous for helping people and when people think of charity they think of religions. I am not trying to make out religious people are better than non religious people. I am just sick of people who put down religion and dont give the credit where it is due. The fact is Religions help people all the time in rain, hail or shine and everyone knows it. I'm just get tired of people that dont acknowledge this and try to make out they are no better and then put them down and diminish their role become they dont want to admit it like its going to show them up or something. Its ridiculous everyone knows they do more thats their business. Its actually a slap in the face for them by denying this for them. So what if they are doing more it doesn't mean they are better. It isn't a competition. You should just give credit where credit is due. It is not going to mean you are any less by admitting that.

Whilst I acknowledge religious charities deserve credit where credit is due, I will never donate to salvation army again. Their predjudiced stance on the LGBT community in New Zealand along with their responsibility in child sex crimes here in Australia is dispicable.

There are now atheist/secular communities growing exponentially worldwide so I think it is only a matter of time before atheist/secular charities surpass religious charities.

I enjoy donating, it doesn't matter to me if I donate to secular or theist organisations so long as the charity is working positively in the community.

I volunteer most Sundays to help feed the homeless for no other reason than it simply makes me feel good.

 

[stevevw]

Research indicates it’s social ties NOT religion or creed that makes people give to charity.

I am sure social ties will cause people to help others. A sense of community will build connections and bridges which will bring people together. But charity is also provoked by campaigns and advertisement. That is why we are seeing many organizations doing market research and getting professional sales teams out there to try and drum up money. Its harder now that people are struggling and charities are feeling this. At the same time charities like the salvation army are reporting increases in people seeking help and handouts.

But you would have to be in total denial to not acknowledge that apart from these methods it is the churches who have things like collection plates 52 weeks a year collecting money for various causes. They also have organized activities on many occasions throughout the year raising funds or volunteering their time to help out. This is because it is part of their calendar and it is a common activity compared to most other organizations. It is not because they are better but it is because that is what they do. That is why they are in business.

Whilst I commend you for volunteering your time, I'm skeptical as to your intentions. There are many Christian volunteers working in "healing" centers without any councelling qualifications whatsoever taking advantage of vulnerable people needing respite care by proselytizing their religion. Some of these centers are also exempt from paying tax.

I anm sure there are some who push their religion as part of their help. But I am sure their intentions are also true. It takes time and dedication to take on other people and their problems. Not all religions believe in healing as their main approach and as far as I understand its the Pentecostal ones that are into this.

But most churches will use a combination of services. A lot of people are referred to our community center where we can refer them onto professional services. We will also refer people to church charities when there is no one else to help them like when they are homeless or seeking food and handouts. My motives are just to help. I was helped by others and i believe i have something to offer. This world and my immediate area have enought problems with hardly any help. Our community center had its funding cut by greedy politicians. So they need all the help they can get.

Whilst I acknowledge religious charities deserve credit where credit is due, I will never donate to salvation army again. Their predjudiced stance on the LGBT community in New Zealand along with their responsibility in child sex crimes here in Australia is dispicable.

I agree that the sex scandal of abuse within religious and other organizations is a shocking state of affairs. It has rocked the nation and Australia should be commended for taking its stance. But is it also across all areas of society. Where ever children were cared for including places like boys town and the boy scouts young people were abused. Though I would say religion should be held more accountable as they profess to be looking after the little children as part of their religion. Jesus said if anyone harms these little child they may as well throw themselves into the sea.
Matthew 18:6
But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.

But you are throwing the baby out with the bath water again. The Salvation army has helped millions since they started in response to helping people in the slums of London. They have been in the front line of war and on the streets for over 100 years helping the needy. They have helped me and if it wasn't for them I would probably be dead. That is the same for thousands of prostitutes, addicts, alcoholics, homeless people, mentally ill, families and children. That is the same for other religions like St Vincents De Paul.

But I am noticing you choose to focus on the small negative and give no leeway or benefit to religions helping people. Despite your personal feelings it should be acknowledged that id it wasn't for them we would be worse of in our societies. When push comes to shove its the only place left for some to turn to. I should know as I have had to search for help for a lot of these people and there are very few non religious places for emergency help and the government has cut a lot of funding.

There are now atheist/secular communities growing exponentially worldwide so I think it is only a matter of time before atheist/secular charities surpass religious charities.

Well I'm glad at least you acknowledge that religion does play a big part in helping others. The thing is though I dont doubt there are many who want to help it is getting harder with the slow down in the economy. Donations have slowed as well and charities have to try harder to get that money. A lot of government aid has been cut and there inst as many services. The thing is apart from those who have the time for one reason or another possibly retired there isn't the time for them to do it. Most have to work and are preoccupied with making money to look after their own families. Pay the mortgage. rent, bills, education, health ect. Get things like cars, food, cloths, toys for the kids, electronics ect. All these things cost and people are consumed with making ends meet more and more nowadays. So secular society just doesn't have the time to do it as much as religions. The Salvation armies occupation is charity. Many will help on weekends but this wont begin to address the problem Our societies are geared by consumerism and profits so having time to put all that aside will be harder with most people who live within these constraints.

I enjoy donating, it doesn't matter to me if I donate to secular or theist organizations so long as the charity is working positively in the community.

Thats good and there should be more doing it. If everyone done a bit we wouldn't be seeing people in poverty here in Australia let alone those in dire poverty around the world. Like I said if the western worlds gave up the extra stuff they use and have and throw away and excepted a more meager life then we could feed the world and no one would die from hunger.

I volunteer most Sundays to help feed the homeless for no other reason than it simply makes me feel good.

That great and I commend you for it.