Morality question #1...?

Question

Can you name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by a religious person, that could not have been uttered or performed by an unbeliever?


Please look for my follow-up question.




see here if you would like to know what my question is based upon:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2007/09/hitchens_1.html

Andy: I'm a non-believer and I have had spiritual experiences.

D-Bo: Not bad, I think you have come the closest.

Snout: Excellent! Well said.

Answer 1

It is morally right to worship God. A non-believer can't do that.

Answer 2

Well, the September 11 attacks are one of the most recent prominent examples. The attackers' motivation was based in part on the belief that their own deaths were insignificant compared to the reward they believed they would get in Paradise. And similarly, that the deaths of the victims were necessary to further the cause of their brand of Islam. I find it hard to believe an atheist could come to those conclusions.

The real question is whether it is religion that's the problem here, or blind adherence to a toxic ideology, of which some types of religion are examples. There are non-religious toxic ideologies too - Nazism and the political ideologies of Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot have all motivated people to commit atrocities as well.

The answer is that blind adherence to belief systems can corrupt morality (as well as corrupting reason). Some times those systems are religious, and sometimes they are not. And not all religions demand blind adherence. But we should be very wary of those that do, especially those which target children before they have the cognitive capacity to recognise what is being done to them.

Answer 3

I would say that your wording makes this difficult for a lot of people to answer. To make this clear, I'll give an example. A nonbeliever *could* use corporate mortification to release himself from the desires of the flesh, so as to no longer desire physical satisfaction. Freed from this impediment, a person is better equipped to serve others, as one's personal comfort is no longer an issue. However, the nonbeliever does not have the singular focus--the face of the Christ, or the Buddha permeating his will--that the believer does to motivate him. It is therefore more difficult for him to find the same incentive to strive towards perfection, as he has no tangible image of perfection off of which to base his progress.

This is why, incidentally, I think the problem of pain affects atheists somewhat more than it does theists; pain is obviously ubiquitous in the world, and if good is thought of as having only a contingent existence, the eye that sees pain will become sharper, and begin to associate it with "evil". This doesn't really speak to your question, but it came to my mind as I was thinking about it.

Answer 4

"Could not" covers a broad set of ideas. No "moral statement" is impossible to come from a non-believer, because much of morality is based on taste. Communists were atheists, but ideologues, and their morality condemned homosexuality based on their ideology.

The statements that assert that "sin" is pervading the US, and that the only way to restore a connection to God is to purge immorality is a moral statement that would not be made by a non-believer, but I doubt you are being this specific.

The question remains is not can a non-believer have morals in line with believers, but does a non-believer base their morals on rational assessment of information or on prejudicial judgments against others.

Answer 5

No but the reverse is true. I can name a moral statement or action, uttered or performed by an unbeliever, that could not have been uttered or performed by a religious person.

Answer 6

Dude: just want you to note that an unbeliever is also a religious person... he is on a seemingly intense religious crusade to prove to the world that RELIGION DOES NOT EXIST AND THAT THERE IS NO GOD AND JESUS WAS A BONDAGE HEAD... he religiously prefers to anahilate God in his life. So your morality question is premised on two religious groups. The moral law does not depend on your religious persuasion.

Answer 7

Doing something moral for the sake of morality instead of doing something good so you can be in the good books with "God."

That's true morality.

Oh wait a religious person doing something moral an atheist can't....I dunno...nothing. They like to think killing is moral like the crusades and 9/11. But you know....it's not REALLY.

Answer 8

No, because everything written in the Bible was written for ALL men. Believers or non-belivers are to read and adhere to the Bibles message, so there is no difference.

Answer 9

Well your question is from an article written by an atheist who is trying to promote his ideas.
Can he or anyone else forgive someone's sin? Can he or anyone turn water into blood? Can he or anyone actually levitate into the air and have angels join him?

Answer 10

Good link. That is why we should not allow prayer in public school. What gives that teacher the right to indoctrinate other peoples children into her religion? She should have been fired.

Answer 11

Considering that a parrot can speak and take action, I don't think I can dispute you.