Why are christians morally inferior to atheists

[Mythunderstood]

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?

 

[Chesterton]

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?

What's the big deal about not causing harm to oneself or others? Hey don't shove your morals down my throat.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, I have been approached by evangelicals who DID have huge self-control issues. For them faith in a higher power was godsend, as it were.
.
But I dont think they represent the average Christian.
.

 

[humblemuslim]

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?

My response is generic in application to Theists and Atheists, not just Christians.

Humans are constantly tempted to do bad things. This is a universal condition we all find ourselves in. We are all tempted at different times to do different things, but we are all tempted none the less.

The Theist believes God is all knowing of what we do.

The Atheist believes God is a fairytale.

Assuming the conditions are just right where no other person can interfere with a person partaking in their temptations we find a fundamentally different mindset of the believer and disbeliever.

The believer is more likely to abstain because they believe they are being watched. Just like people are more likely to refrain from certain things around their parents or authority figures. A common example most of us can relate to is police officers and speeding. When people see police officers they suddenly slow down. They when the police officer goes away they speed right back up. But why? Because they are not being watched and consequences have been removed.

The disbeliever does not believe they are being watched in the first place by God. So they would therefore be more likely to succumb to their temptations.

Is it because believers have more moral fiber or are just better people in general? Not really. It is just a matter of mindset. A mindset you asked be explained to you, which has been done in this post.

Hope this helps.

 

[SiderealExalt]

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.

 

[durangodawood]

...The disbeliever does not believe they are being watched in the first place by God. So they would therefore be more likely to succumb to their temptations....

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.
.

 

[SiderealExalt]

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.
.

And personally..I have a hard time trusting people who think they need a cosmic eye on them at all times to avoid "temptations" in the first place.

 

[durangodawood]

And personally..I have a hard time trusting people who think they need a cosmic eye on them at all times to avoid "temptations" in the first place.

They are children, morally, not adults.
.

 

[Chesterton]

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.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

I would hate to live in a society in which people generally do harm to each other.
.
Generally, morality is derived from knowledge about the necessities of good human living. Humans naturally like freedom, social interaction, material security, health, knowledge, and spiritual satisfaction. Correct moral values promote those things.
.
Thats why I should be good... because I know, generally, when I'm building a moral world vs. tearing it down. I have a conscience. Its about living with yourself.
.

 

[HumbleSiPilot77]

What's the big deal about not causing harm to oneself or others? ...

Police and other law enforcement make sure that you don't do that anyway.

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).

Who made this claim? There are also "Christians" also live certain lifestyles as you suggest, they drink, they steal, they live filthy rich lives, partying etc etc. The faith comes into picture when it is about spiritual discipline. Everyone can have good morals, morals are not the measuring stick for God who looks deeper into our hearts.

 

[Chesterton]

I would hate to live in a society in which people generally do harm to each other.

I should be moral because you like it? That's a wish, that's not a reason.

Generally, morality is derived from knowledge about the necessities of good human living. Humans naturally like freedom, social interaction, material security, health, knowledge, and spiritual satisfaction. Correct moral values promote those things.

"Good human living" is open to definition. Why should I agree with your definition? Humans also naturally like money, sex, power, etc. Some humans like being cruel. So again, I should just make myself like the same things you like? Fail.

Thats why I should be good... because I know, generally, when I'm building a moral world vs. tearing it down. I have a conscience. Its about living with yourself.

To build a moral world? I should be moral for the sake of morality? Fail.

 

[durangodawood]

I should be moral because you like it? That's a wish, that's not a reason.

Reason: because when we are good, we all enjoy a better world. Sounds good to me... and most all people.
.

"Good human living" is open to definition. Why should I agree with your definition? Humans also naturally like money, sex, power, etc. Some humans like being cruel. So again, I should just make myself like the same things you like? Fail.

Its not as open as you think. Go around the world, you'll find people at heart pretty much prefer my definition of the good life. The vast majority.
.
Discerning the difference between, say, love and greed, as values, is called wisdom. And wisdom is required for true moral knowledge. Wisdom reveals, for example, that cruelty, though appealing for very short moments or for damaged individuals, is ultimately detrimental to the fullest human satisfaction.
.

To build a moral world? I should be moral for the sake of morality? Fail.

I previously told you for what sake we build a moral world. This statement of yours makes me think you are not even attempting to understand what I'm saying, which is pretty disrespectful. I would just ask that you try to understand what I'm getting at, rather than reflexively throwing up a wall.
.

 

[Gardenia]

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).

To be fair, it's not just Christians. I believe I most recently saw such a comment from a Muslim on these forums.. of course, it's not all theists either, it does (thankfully) seem to be a fairly small amount of people who feel this way - and wow, I hope they never lose their faith, if such is truly the case.

It's not really a point of thinking I personally understand. Although I am a theist, I do not try to be a good person only for the sake of Deity. I would not want to go about stealing and such because that's not the sort of world I want to live in. (And obviously just because I feel this way doesn't mean it stops others from doing this, hopefully the point still comes across.) Even if nothing else, what of the consequences one would face here on earth?

 

[Chesterton]

Reason: because when we are good, we all enjoy a better world. Sounds good to me... and most all people.

I didn't ask why "we" should be good, I'm asking why "I" should be good. If you and the rest of the world want to cooperate with each other, that's fine with me, but I could enjoy a better world for myself by stealing all your money, and there are people who do just that. Some even enjoy the idea of it.

Its not as open as you think. Go around the world, you'll find people at heart pretty much prefer my definition of the good life. The vast majority.

You're not answering my question. If you and the rest of the world prefer something, that's not a reason I should prefer it. Maybe I don't care about the same things you care about. By your reasoning, all atheists should agree with the idea of a God and/or the supernatural, since the vast majority of the world prefers to believe in those things.

Discerning the difference between, say, love and greed, as values, is called wisdom. And wisdom is required for true moral knowledge.

Wisdom might help me discern the difference, because I agree they are different, but wisdom doesn't tell me which one is right, only conscience does. And I don't see a rational basis for conscience unless it's from God.

Wisdom reveals, for example, that cruelty, though appealing for very short moments or for damaged individuals, is ultimately detrimental to the fullest human satisfaction.

How is cruelty detrimental to the fullest human satisfaction?

I previously told you for what sake we build a moral world.

Yeah, you said because you'd hate an immoral world. I hate peach ice cream; should everyone else hate it too?

This statement of yours makes me think you are not even attempting to understand what I'm saying, which is pretty disrespectful. I would just ask that you try to understand what I'm getting at, rather than reflexively throwing up a wall.

I understand what you're getting at, you're just not answering the question. "Majority rules" doesn't impress me, especially when the majority idea is irrational standing on its own.

Besides that, you mentioned human freedom as a good. Am I only free to agree with you?

 

[Isambard]

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?

A conscious. I consider such arguments an admission of sociopathy, and such people should be treated by mental health practitioners.

 

[durangodawood]

You're not answering my question. If you and the rest of the world prefer something, that's not a reason I should prefer it. Maybe I don't care about the same things you care about. By your reasoning, all atheists should agree with the idea of a God and/or the supernatural, since the vast majority of the world prefers to believe in those things.

You dont prefer freedom because its the majority opinion. You prefer it because its man's nature to enjoy freedom.
.
Even people who are more comfortable in life with one foot nailed to the ground, so to speak, are free to submit to constraints of their choosing.
.
If it were possible to determine the existence of God like we determine the facts about good human living, then yes, everyone should get on board as a matter of factual reality. But God is simply not accessible to investigation the way that human life is. God is for the realm of faith.
.

How is cruelty detrimental to the fullest human satisfaction?

Yeah, you said because you'd hate an immoral world. I hate peach ice cream; should everyone else hate it too?

Cruelty stunts a persons ability to create their own satisfactions in life, as its a very low grade vampiric gain in pleasure at someone elses extreme expense. This could be explored at great length....
.
Peach ice cream is pure individual taste. And your enjoyment of it places no burden on chocolate ice cream lovers. I dont see its relevance to moral issues. A morally bankrupt world, on the other hand, is miserable for almost everybody.
.

Wisdom might help me discern the difference, because I agree they are different, but wisdom doesn't tell me which one is right, only conscience does. And I don't see a rational basis for conscience unless it's from God.

Wisdom DOES tell you which value truly serves a good human life. Thats exactly what wisdom is. Even fools know that love and greed are different. The wise persue the best human lives possible, according to our accumulated knowledge of our nature as human and spiritual beings. Successful societies institutionalize that wisdom in education and law.
.
Conscience is the crux though. How exactly does the individual internalize moral facts and live them? I think its knowledge of ourselves as part of the world, and a love for others, and a natural reluctance to act in opposition to known reality. Perhaps that kernel of ourselves is God given. Or perhaps it strictly "natural". Either way I think its clear that the content of moral facts is derived from natural observable human realities.
.

 

[Chesterton]

A conscious. I consider such arguments an admission of sociopathy, and such people should be treated by mental health practitioners.

I'm reminded of "A Clockwork Orange". If the sole reason for being good is for the sake of society, I wonder who here would be in favor of a Ludovico Technique to effectively disable free will?

 

[Rasta]

I'm reminded of "A Clockwork Orange". If the sole reason for being good is for the sake of society, I wonder who here would be in favor of a Ludovico Technique to effectively disable free will?

The whole reason for being good for the sake of society is based on the individual's want for happiness.

I don't forsee too many people signing up.

 

[Chesterton]

You dont prefer freedom because its the majority opinion. You prefer it because its man's nature to enjoy freedom.

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

Cruelty stunts a persons ability to create their own satisfactions in life, as its a very low grade vampiric gain in pleasure at someone elses extreme expense. This could be explored at great length....

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.

Peach ice cream is pure individual taste. And your enjoyment of it places no burden on chocolate ice cream lovers. I dont see its relevance to moral issues. A morally bankrupt world, on the other hand, is miserable for almost everybody.

Atheists are quick to point out that we live on an unimaginably tiny speck which matters not the slightest in the scheme of things. But then when you ask them why we should be moral in such a place, they say "oh it's just so obvious, we have to keep the organisms on this tiny speck living together orderly. We have to make sure human society continues on safely." I really don't get it. All they're saying is "I like being alive, and I like being safe". What anyone or everyone else happens to like cannot be a rational determiner of any given individual's behavior.

Wisdom DOES tell you which value truly serves a good human life. Thats exactly what wisdom is. Even fools know that love and greed are different. The wise persue the best human lives possible, according to our accumulated knowledge of our nature as human and spiritual beings. Successful societies institutionalize that wisdom in education and law.

I'm pretending to be an atheist here, so spirituality doesn't enter into it. What you see as wisdom embodied in law, I can see as pure selfishness. It's men who have property wanting to hold onto their property. Men who have wives and daughters wanting to protect them. Men who like peacefulness passing laws against disturbing the peace, etc. There's no high wisdom in it, just men protecting what they like, as a lion would protect the food it just killed.

Conscience is the crux though. How exactly does the individual internalize moral facts and live them? I think its knowledge of ourselves as part of the world, and a love for others, and a natural reluctance to act in opposition to known reality. Perhaps that kernel of ourselves is God given. Or perhaps it strictly "natural". Either way I think its clear that the content of moral facts is derived from natural observable human realities.

If conscience is strictly natural, I'm not beholden to it. I'm free to use other natural qualities like reason and free will to disobey it when I deem it's good for me to do so.