I often here Christians claim that Atheists are amoral, sinc ethe belief is that without some absolute authority looking over us, we have no basis for ethics. Now, for those of you that live in predominately Christian areas (the word "Muslim" can be substituted anywhere you see "Christian"), here's the question that keeps coming up for me.
If one lives in such an area, it is benificial (socially) to say that you are a Christian, It leads to being more accepted, and thus having opportunities within the community that non-Chritians will tend to be denied. In such a situation, would not an amoral person say they are Christian? So, just the fact that so many in the Us, for instance, are beginning to say they are atheistic, seems to mean they have enough morality to tell the truth about their convictions even when there seems to be great likwelihood of external cost. How do those making the amorality claim address this?
2007-11-23 08:36:33 · 15 answers · asked by neil s 7 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Green Meklar: Your "loophole" requires an Atheist that believes in hell. Sorry, not consistent.
2007-11-23 08:47:11 · update #1
Zorro: so everyone in the Western world kills a child that talks back? You're wrong.
2007-11-23 08:49:32 · update #2
Assigning groups characteristics says nothing about individuals. Learn statistics.
2007-11-23 08:54:13 · update #3
Serious studies have been done into this 'moral' dilemma. There is absolutely no difference in moral stature between atheists and Christians or any other belief system.
In a country that is 90% christian, 90% of the prison population will be christian. The same works for a country that is 90% atheist or 90% muslim. (those are example percentages) Human beings are inherently 'good'. Good being the word we use to describe someone who fits in to a society and inputs as much as they gain. We are social animals and it dosen't serve to be immoral as we stand to loose out on what society has to offer us. Chimpanzee societies are exactly the same. Misbehaving chimps are 'run out of town' by other chimps. That is not to say that we only do good things for selfish reasons, there are many human emotions such as sympathy and empathy that allow us to be selflessly caring. However, our humanitarian nature is not inhenrently human. It can be seen in many other members of the animal kingdom. It is a more or less substatiated fact that our morals do not come from religion or any divine force.
If this is a bastion example from the religious, it might do them well to remember the atrocities (and I'm talking recent) that people carry out with religion as a sole benifactor. In what world would an atheist murderer claim his motives were doing gods good work? Not in this world.
2007-11-23 08:57:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yea that's an interesting point. The only problem is, you're assuming that all amoral people want the opportunities that come with being Christian, which is kind of weak. Perhaps there are other opportunities in the Atheist communities which they prefer. I'm an amoral Atheist btw.
lololol green meklar is an idiot
2007-11-23 09:08:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If anyone, Christian or whatever , is only nice to people because of a threat, i.e. going to hell, they are selfish people. I am a Christian but I TRY to do the right thing by other people not because I'm afraid of going to hell, but because I believe in treating people how I would like to be treated. In a lot of religions this is a fundamental belief. I also know Atheists that live by this rule too. It doesn't matter what you believe or don't believe, morals should come from your heart and soul not borne out of fear.
2016-05-25 03:22:14 · answer #3 · answered by renetta 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Uh, not sure about the logic of what you are saying, but this is reality. Every person has a measure of morality even before they decide they are atheist or Christian. Not everyone who says they are a Christian meet the moral criteria, and not every atheist meets the criteria of being a free-thinker. You only have individuals, not groups. Assigning groups such characteristics only serve to be discriminatory against individuals.
2007-11-23 08:48:34 · answer #4 · answered by ignoramus_the_great 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
We (humans) have a choice.
We can be accountable to each other.
We can be accountable to something unseen.
The benefit of being accountable to each other is that there are real world consequences to our actions. The feedback is unarguable. Human accountability can be practiced by anyone, anywhere, at anytime, and requires no special beliefs, faith, or practices.
The downside of being accountable to each other is that we are forced to take TOTAL responsibility for our actions, no matter how vile or heinous. This can be extremely distressing to immature people. Many people can not function knowing that they alone must decide what is right and wrong.
The benefit to being accountable to something unseen is that the powerful emotions of hope and fear can be exploited to keep people in line. From a social/civil point of view, it's an easier way to maintain order/obedience. Unseen threats and rewards can be very powerful.
The downside to being accountable to something unseen is that there is know way to know for certain if we are truly accountable to anything more than ourselves. Since we alone decide the attributes of the unseen entity, we could be obeying nothing more than an elaborate delusion.
2007-11-23 08:59:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are correct in that some people who CLAIM to be Christians are not followers of Christ.
I have never said that ANYONE was amoral.
Have you noticed that some atheists have accused us of being amoral and immoral? Yes, they say that the only reason we do not go around murdering, stealing, raping, etc. is because we are afraid of God. I say that is not so.
How do you address this? Is it fair? I don't think it is.
I also don't think it is fair of anyone to say that atheists are amoral or that they have no morals.
2007-11-23 08:42:31 · answer #6 · answered by batgirl2good 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Nice question, it's good to see another attempt to get the theists thinking (something they seem to find rather difficult at times). However, your question does have a loophole. Your suggestion that an atheist would call himself a christian in order to fit in and be treated more nicely is based on the idea that an atheist is just looking after his own best interests. However, if the atheist is NOT just looking after his own best interests, but rather actively trying to cause harm to others, he might well have to call himself an atheist in order to have a better chance at converting more people to atheism so that they end up going to Hell. Alternatively, the atheist might just find that the whole business of paying money to the church and going to church every Sunday and so on just isn't worth it, and that ultimately, revealing that he is an atheist is the lesser of those two evils.
2007-11-23 08:44:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
A devout christian who lives under the dictates of the bible, and behaves accordingly for fear of hell, and his god's wrath is not moral from my perspective.
But for the threat of hell and his god's wrath, it is assumed that this christian would not behave well. That is not my ideal of morality.
2007-11-23 09:10:11 · answer #8 · answered by CC 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Christian morality: be good or you are tortured for eternity.
One could argue that being good under threat (or possibly to gain a reward; heaven) is really not morality at all.
Of course, their morality doesn't come from their book or their god. We're social creatures in complex societies.
2007-11-23 08:40:05 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 11⤊ 1⤋
Religious books teach laws, not morality. Morality comes from life experience.
2007-11-23 08:39:23 · answer #10 · answered by Dharma Nature 7 · 11⤊ 1⤋