Why do Christians ask questions of atheists re: morals? Are they suggesting morals are religious in nature?

Question

I realize that not all Christians do this, but.....

Why do you keep asking this same type of questions, when you are always answered by atheists who have a better set of morals than you do? Atheists have morals because we have sole responsibilty for our actions. Yet you require a redeemer and are therefore unresponsible. We see there are consequence and benefits to all of our actions. Your system of morals consist of reward in heaven or punishment in hell.

Understand this:

When I do good, I see the benefits.

When I do bad, I and others suffer the consequences

Icarus, you're right on the money. Do they even understand the concept of true compassion vs religious duty?

Megan, you're referring to Greg T. There are many more like him. They pretentiously speak for their god, who apparently has trouble speaking for himself.

Chieko, atheists gladly pay for our own mistakes. Your sins are paid for by blood sacrifice, how sick is that.

SNCK, perhaps I understand your religion better than you do, your defensive posture hints at a very weak faith. Read the first line in the details and rethink your knee jerk response.

Answer 1

Why do Athiest question the religion and what they believe in. Thats what they do, everyone questions everything. Get over it.

Answer 2

Where is the moral authority in a secular worldview? It is you. You make the rules, judge yourself, adjust the rules as necessary. You take "sole responsibility" which means taking no responsibility when there is no one to whom you owe responsibility. Only a fool can lose. Of course you say you have better morals. You make the rules.

You say you see consequences and benefits to your actions. That's punishment and reward.




Why do you keep asking this same type of questions, when you are always answered by atheists who have a better set of morals than you do? Atheists have morals because we have sole responsibilty for our actions. Yet you require a redeemer and are therefore unresponsible. We see there are consequence and benefits to all of our actions. Your system of morals consist of reward in heaven or punishment in hell.

Understand this:

When I do good, I see the benefits.

When I do bad, I and others suffer the consequences

Answer 3

Just passing the buck, I suppose.

"The devil made me do it" excuse has got to be the most lame and weak excuse in the history of mankind. If you do wrong, admit it and apologize and make amends. Easy-peasy.

Doing "good" for an eternal reward in heaven is, to me, a useless act. But, hey, whatever gets them through the night. I personnally think it is a folly of man to believe in heaven and hell. I think religion is all a creation of man to explain the mysteries of life. Again, just my thoughts and beliefs.

I do good because it makes me happy. I do good because it is just the right thing to do. I do good because it saves me a lot of personal headaches down the road.

Answer 4

Let's try a little language lesson.

Atheist: does not believe in a creative force. Accepts chance as the source of the cosmos and living creatures. Ignores complexity and what the atheist Fred Holye described as a universe that appears to be monkeyed with. Does not know, does not care.

Antitheist: Denies a creative force. Insists that all of the cosmic reality it enjoys is the result of a super-cosmic dice throw. Actively resists opinions of creation. Adamantly opposes creationists. Actively opposes and denies all spirituality.

Agnostic: Does not know. May care, may not.

What is odd about this trilogy of disbelief is the activism. The agnostic claims uncertainty, while unapologetically opposing those who believe. The atheist claims conviction while actively countering all suggestion or evidence, while the antitheist aggressively insults those with faith.

The motivation of the agnostic is obvious: He is lazy. He has no need to choose.

The motivation of the atheist is equally obvious: He is confident of the value of confidence. He is assured that all of the harmonious complexity he encounters in the real world is the result of myriad lucky dice rolls. Or, he is stupid enough to not even recognize the luckiness of his existence, never having counted the number of dice roll needed for him to be him.

The motivation of the antitheist is less obvious. What is the point of the assault on harmless ignorance, if that is what it is? Why denigrate the believers, if they are so mistaken? Is not the certainty or the atheist sufficient?

Apparently not. The antitheist must chase the believers, must denigrate their thoughts, must find some way to denounce them and insult them and embarrass them.

And, they (antitheists) feel a need to support their “morals”. Which morals are those? Do you love your neighbor? Do you love your enemy? Do you forgive those who transgress against you?

If you do, why do you do so? The folk around you, as well as your self, are no more than chemistry. You, in fact, are no more than chemistry. You are determined by your chemistry and the environment which permitted your maturation. You have no choice. Your genetic and historical environment have produced you. Why, then, do you actively oppose those who disagree? Where do you think you find the choice that is morality? This was your question, right? Why do “we” think you have no source of morality?

We think you have no source because you defend awareness and intellect as sufficient, with no basis for absolute morality. Your morality lies in selfishness. It lies is preservation of YOU. It has no other home. We think you are certain of your circumstance as though is is axiomatic and could never have been any other. We think you are have no concept or the billions of years of complex harmony that permit you to breathe, much the thousands of year of human history that allow you to think and verbalize.

All that you defend is no more than mud, or a pool of organic molecules, that being what you are. I suppose this will be my next question: How does a lump of derived organic chemistry find the motivation to oppose differing opinion within the context of morality, since chemistry obviously has no moral standard?

Or, sir, are you more than chemistry?

Answer 5

The need to be led is also a need to follow the leader. Couple that with the economic interests of the ministers and the ease of finger pointing and you have a successful campaign to smear the opposition

Answer 6

"Your system of morals consist of reward in heaven or punishment in hell."

I don't think your characterizing the other sides argument correctly. I think you could point to morals as one bit of evidence that their is a Supreme being or God. I am not a strict fundamentalist that reads the bible word for word and I only think its a portion of Gods overall message an purpose for us, but when you read that God created us in his image I think the moral consciousness is part of what he/she/it is referring too. I don't think that means 2 arms, 2 legs, a nose and hair. People know right from wrong.

BTW, your whole soap box rant about being responsible and believers being unresponsible is very misguided. Might want to rethink that after getting a better handle on the beliefs of others.

Answer 7

morals are God-based principles.

you say:

"When I do good, I see the benefits.

When I do bad, I and others suffer the consequences"

perhaps it's nearer to the truth to say that IF you see the benefits, you do good. God calls on us to do good, regardless if we ever see the "benefit". your version is selfish and based on you...

and then your take on doing "bad" - perhaps it's nearer to the truth to say that when you do bad and you/others suffer, perhaps you decide whether the consequences are acceptable and then proceed to do evil, having rationalized it...God calls on us to use His standards and not deviate from them. actions that are bad, are always bad....

so to claim that atheists have "a better set of morals" is meaningless as there is no standard or benchmark to measure your "better".

and to claim that we require a redeemer, yet are not responsible for our actions, is just a bitter, ignorant remark made by someone who does not understand true discipleship...Christians accept that we have a nasty side that constantly needs to be dealt with - we keep it real. If not for the redeeming power of God, we would be just like you...selfish, self-centered, and arrogant...

Answer 8

Heaven and hell are metaphors for the principle that actions have consequences. What goes around comes around.

Intelligent, self-governing people don't need religion.

Answer 9

My question to people who think atheists can't be moral because we don't believe in jesus or the god person is: What happened to Larry Craig? Ted Haggard? Warren Jeffs? Oral Roberts (and his offspring)? Jim Bakker? Jerry Falwell?

I could go on, but you see my point.

Answer 10

It gets tiring, doesn't it? A few questions back the asker accused atheists of being monsters and threatened to have us leave the country and implied there was no way we could have morals and ethics. It's just plain sad to me.

Answer 11

They can't understand how morality can come from Christianity, and of course the reason they can't understand it is that it can't. Morality comes from people - from evolution - not from religion, and the questions just reflect the difficulty they have in accepting that.