If you don't believe in anything you can't rightly be called a hypocrite, so is it better to believe in nothing at all? Is it a child molester with no remorse less a dangerous to society than a person who believes it child molestation is wrong but still molests children? Is it better to have a high ideal and fall short (be a hypocrite) or have no ideal at all?
2007-06-23 17:24:01 · 10 answers · asked by Wondering 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Definition of Hypocrite:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
http://m-w.com/dictionary/hypocrite
2007-06-23 17:27:59 · update #1
Note: I said nothing about atheist, nor anything about what they may or may not believe.
2007-06-23 17:51:53 · update #2
Hmmm.... I think it is better to believe nothing than to claim to be something you aren't. The first is innocent, the second guilty. I'd prefer some people not say they are Christians if they aren't going to live it, than to say that they are with such conviction and live like the devil. Your walk talks louder than your talk talks.
2007-06-23 17:39:25 · answer #1 · answered by Dulos 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
I think everyone is a hypocrite though. Why is believing in nothing seen as a bad thing? I'm not missing anything. I went from a xtian to an atheist, and I like my life, I have peace of mind, and I found happiness with myself. It took me a long time but here I am. ;-)
2007-06-24 00:29:03 · answer #2 · answered by kissthesky 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Webster's New World College Dictionary describes Hypocrite below:
Hypocrite is a person who pretends to be what he or she is not; one who pretends to be better than is really so, or to be pious, viruous, etc. without really being so.
Basically my understanding of the definition is not what you believe in but how you pretend to be or act like something you are not.
Hope this helps
2007-06-24 04:35:01 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The child molesting example was a very bad one. I'm afraid I cannot answer this question without bias now...but I'll try. It's better to believe nothing (ex. God) and live your life well, than claim to believe strongly in something (again, God) and live your life the opposite way. Make sense? Maybe not....it's getting late. :)
2007-06-24 00:27:45 · answer #4 · answered by Mara 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
just because a person is Atheist doesn't mean they don't have morals. I'm an Agnostic Atheist, and i have morals. i still believe in Right and Wrong. i have only met 1 atheist without morals, and she was/is a horrible person, but by the same token, it isn't because she's atheist, it's because she has no morals. people don't seem to get that. Atheism does not equal immorality. there are just as many immoral Theists as immoral Atheists.
2007-06-24 00:32:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't know, but hypocrites are more annoying to me. When someone goes on about how pious they are, they should back their talk up with actions. I like honest people that tell it like it is and don't hide their flaws. Religion doesn't make people behave better all the time. Oftentimes, it just makes people hypocrites.
2007-06-24 00:27:52 · answer #6 · answered by razzthedestroyer 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I hope your not actually trying to say that Atheists believe in nothing. Most of them have a very keen understanding of right and wrong. They just don't need a book to remind them.
2007-06-24 00:32:42 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
A hypocrite doesn't believe what they say they believe in, so being a hypocrite and believing in nothing (in that regards) are one and the same.
2007-06-24 00:26:37 · answer #8 · answered by Mickey Mouse Spears 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
"so is it better to believe in nothing at all"
Who believes in nothing? That makes no sense.
2007-06-24 00:27:14 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
everyones hypocritical when you examine them
2007-06-24 00:25:47 · answer #10 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋