Atheist morals

Tim Robbins

Do you believe that the average Christian has better morals and ethics than the average atheist?

Mods: is it possible to edit poll to make voters public just so we know if it is a reflection of Christians or Christians and Atheists.

robindch

Can't speak for anybody else, but I think that's enough polls for this week.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Can't speak for anybody else, but I think that's enough polls for this week.

Ok. This is the last one until next week or thereafter.

Asiaprod

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Ok. This is the last one until next week or thereafter.

Tim, instead of polls why don't you just do what this forum is all about and debate your issues.

Tim Robbins

Asiaprod wrote: »

Tim, instead of polls why don't you just do what this forum is all about and debate your issues.

I like the idea of getting snap shots on how people think. People rarely change their mind in these forums so sometimes debates can be a waste of time.

JoeB-

I voted for the atheists... for the simple reason that I (as an atheist / agnostic) consider each situation on its merits... for example I don't consider abortion or contraception immoral in all cases, I don't believe homosexuals should be considered 'bad' for their sexual orientation which is unlikely to be a free choice.. etc etc

Kold

It's hard to say who has better morals seeing as 'good morals' aren't set in stone. I don't think that people need to believe in an afterlife to live life right. I said the average atheist because they don't have someone speaking for them. Then again, it's possible to be Christian and think for yourself.

philologos

JoeBallantine wrote: »

I don't believe homosexuals should be considered 'bad' for their sexual orientation which is unlikely to be a free choice.. etc etc

We don't either. It's the homosexual acts that are the issue.

stevejazzx

Jakkass wrote: »

We don't either. It's the homosexual acts that are the issue.

That's like saying it's not the murderer it's the 'murder'. If it's one it's the other.

philologos

stevejazzx wrote: »

That's like saying it's not the murderer it's the 'murder'. If it's one it's the other.

It's not about the attraction to men, it's about acting upon said attraction. It's more self control than anything else. I have to exercise this self control over lust as a heterosexual as well. I don't get why the harsh opposition.

Fanny Cradock

I don't believe it is a case of one group having stronger or better morals than another. From a Christian perspective it is about the individual and what impact God has their life. In my experience that impact is always positive. This isn't to say that they will automatically have better morality than an atheist.

Besides, how can you reach an agreement on what constitutes 'good morals' between two very disparate belief systems?

JoeB-

Jakkass wrote: »

We don't either. It's the homosexual acts that are the issue.

I should have been clearer... I don't have a problem with people acting upon their inclinations whether homesexual or hetrosexual.. to say that consenting adults are in some sense immoral, 'evil' or 'bad' for performing mutually consented acts is in my view controlling and in itself immoral... who made the Christians judges of what is right or wrong?

To go around professing that homesexualiuty is wrong is akin to going around professing the opinion that black people are inferior to white or that Polish people are stupid (imo)... all these opinions have no real intrinsic merit.
(No offence intended to Polish or black people, simply making a point)

I also think it's wrong to attempt to indoctrinate children that these views on homosexuality have merit ... or even that there is the possibility of being tortured for ever (Hell) if you don't jump through certain hoops, this can have a profound and long lasting effect on impressionable people.

JoeB-

Kold wrote: »

It's hard to say who has better morals seeing as 'good morals' aren't set in stone. I don't think that people need to believe in an afterlife to live life right. I said the average atheist because they don't have someone speaking for them. Then again, it's possible to be Christian and think for yourself.

I agree with this... but I'd go further and say that belief in God (,an afterlife) and absolute morality MUST result in lower morals... this is because if you believe that every word in a 1,900 year old book written in a backward, paternal society is correct that you are constricted in your sense of right and wrong.. you cannot change your views on changing evidence, you can't think for yourself as you have a rulebook which can't be changed. (Or if you do attempt to think for yourself you can't consider yourself to be a part of the religion if it has absolute rules, people seem to ignore this last point)

Is anyone up for going out stoning people to death this Sabbath and then claiming it is the moral thing to do? that they had no choice but to throw the stones? (Because God told them to!)

In other religions some parents believe that the moral thing to do is to let their children die rather than recieve a blood transfusion... virtually all non-subscribers to this would say that it is completely immoral... but the subscribers cannot change.. and so their sense of morality is utterly affected by their arbitrary beliefs.

PDN

I got mugged this afternoon in St Petersburg. I bet they were atheists.

Fanny Cradock

No way! Are you OK?

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

No way! Are you OK?

Unharmed but shaken. There was a gang of 6 or 7 guys jumped me on the Metro. They got my mobile phone, but I managed to hold on to my wallet. I started shouting some most unChristian threats at the top of my voice about how I was going to break their necks and they ran away because a crowd was gathering. I thought I was big and ugly enough to take care of myself in these kinds of situations, but these were pretty tough looking characters so I'm glad they didn't take it further.

Anyway, nothing to do with the OP, so i guess that's another thread derailed.

philologos

nerin wrote: »

what if the 2 guys get married

Defines how you define marriage, Biblically it is between a man and a woman.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

I got mugged this afternoon in St Petersburg. I bet they were atheists.

We'll get you yet, pesky Christian person!

glad you're OK,
Scofflaw

Asiaprod

PDN wrote: »

I got mugged this afternoon in St Petersburg. I bet they were atheists.

Damn, hope you are ok. We would miss you around here.

Nerin

I got mugged this afternoon in St Petersburg. I bet they were atheists.

scientoligists strike again.

drat,we were so close pinning it on them. curses!

glad youre okies

daveyjoe

JoeBallantine wrote: »

I agree with this... but I'd go further and say that belief in God (,an afterlife) and absolute morality MUST result in lower morals... this is because if you believe that every word in a 1,900 year old book written in a backward, paternal society is correct that you are constricted in your sense of right and wrong..

Not all beliefs in God and an afterlife rely on a 1,900 year old book, so be careful how you word things. However, the three abrahamic religions do and the question referred to Christian morals, so your point is fair.

I would say that they are about the same. I would lean towards the atheist having better morals, however, must Irish christians don't read the bible literally so I'll be pragmatic.

Christopher Hitchens makes this salient point...

Christopher Hitchens wrote:

Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first -- I have been asking it for some time -- awaits a convincing reply.

Húrin

I am a Christian and I voted for "the same". And that is a scandal... most of us Christians do not appear to be influenced by the transforming power of faith.

see Romans 12

Kold wrote: »

It's hard to say who has better morals seeing as 'good morals' aren't set in stone. I don't think that people need to believe in an afterlife to live life right. I said the average atheist because they don't have someone speaking for them. Then again, it's possible to be Christian and think for yourself.

Atheists do not, as a whole, think any more critically than Christians do. Most of both groups conform to the ideas and morality of their culture.

Húrin

Jakkass wrote: »

Defines how you define marriage, Biblically it is between a man and a woman.

Not according to King David!

JoeBallantine wrote: »

I agree with this... but I'd go further and say that belief in God (,an afterlife) and absolute morality MUST result in lower morals... this is because if you believe that every word in a 1,900 year old book written in a backward, paternal society is correct that you are constricted in your sense of right and wrong.

The New Testament is countercultural. It recognises the backwardness of the Jewish society in which it was written.

you cannot change your views on changing evidence, you can't think for yourself as you have a rulebook which can't be changed.

Does not hold up either in reality or theologically. Christianity teaches that faith and reason must be combined in order to reach God through Christ.

Literalism in Christianity is a minority pursuit that is dependent entirely on reductionist readings of the Bible and abandonment of reason.

In other religions some parents believe that the moral thing to do is to let their children die rather than recieve a blood transfusion... virtually all non-subscribers to this would say that it is completely immoral.

I agree that it is wrong. But it is also wrong to stereotype all Jehovah's Witnesses in this way.

daveyjoe wrote:

Christopher Hitchens makes this salient point...

Christopher Hitchens wrote:

Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever. And here is my second challenge. Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith? The second question is easy to answer, is it not? The first -- I have been asking it for some time -- awaits a convincing reply.

Not all that salient. It is easy to think of good and evil actions and words uttered due to religious faith.

I was at a conference of Christian students last weekend. One of the speakers there discussed how environmental care was a Biblical and moral imperative. I contend that an atheist speaker could not have done this. Thus, good has come about from both a Christian and a secular viewpoint.

I can think of numerous evil acts perpetrated in the name of ideology elevated to a fanatacism beyond reason, much as the Talibans of this world do. A good example is the extermination of the agricultural middle class in the 1930s USSR. Or almost any policy of Nazi Germany concerning Jews.

daveyjoe

Húrin wrote: »

Not all that salient. It is easy to think of good and evil actions and words uttered due to religious faith.

Re-read the question... "that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever" and the corollary... "an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith". Of course religion has been responsible for good and evil actions. The point is that all of the good actions could have been undertaken by a secular person but the opposite is not true, Mr. Hitchens is quite explicit.

Húrin wrote: »

I was at a conference of Christian students last weekend. One of the speakers there discussed how environmental care was a Biblical and moral imperative. I contend that an atheist speaker could not have done this. Thus, good has come about from both a Christian and a secular viewpoint.

What specific point did the speaker argue that a secular person couldn't?

Now let me take the counter argument. Many religions but in particular catholic church dogma teach us that contraception is a sin. I don't think many people would argue that excessive growth in the worlds population is bad for the environment. If everybody were to listen to the catholic church we would be in even bigger trouble right now. And please don't reply advocating abstinence, this is the real world!

Húrin wrote: »

I can think of numerous evil acts perpetrated in the name of ideology elevated to a fanatacism beyond reason, much as the Talibans of this world do. A good example is the extermination of the agricultural middle class in the 1930s USSR. Or almost any policy of Nazi Germany concerning Jews.

I'm not sure what your point is here? Are you trying to provide balance to your previous paragraph ? Fanaticism is almost always brought about because of religion or a religion-like ideology.

PDN

daveyjoe wrote: »

Re-read the question... "that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever" and the corollary... "an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith". Of course religion has been responsible for good and evil actions. The point is that all of the good actions could have been undertaken by a secular person but the opposite is not true, Mr. Hitchens is quite explicit.

Maybe you should reread the question? Hitchens is indulging in intellectual dishonesty and sleight of hand. The opposite of the sentence, "Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever" is "Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a nonbeliever that could not have been uttered or done by a believer". I will be very happy to debate those two propositions if you wish.

Hitchen's second challenge is: "Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?" The opposite of this would be, "Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of a lack of religious faith?" I think anyone with a smattering of knowledge of history and human nature will admit that both questions can be answered in the affirmative.

In fact the dishonesty in Hitchen's reasoning is so transparent that I'm surprised anyone could ever fall for it. However, the fact that you posted it on here would indicate that it fooled at least one person.

Pompey Magnus

I don't believe that there is any major difference between atheists and Christians in almost every subject, its just when you get to certain topics which has been pushed by their churches that you notice some unfortunate attitudes in Christians, for example Catholics who oppose contraceptives as a method of helping reduce the spread of AIDS in Africa or those who feel it is any of their business what someone else gets up to in the privacy of their own bedroom.

Of course Christians have good reason for acting good, they qare doing what they were told and expect heavenly and eternal reward for so doing. We atheist just do good because its the right thing to do.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

In fact the dishonesty in Hitchen's reasoning is so transparent that I'm surprised anyone could ever fall for it. However, the fact that you posted it on here would indicate that it fooled at least one person.

Well there is certainly dishonesty going on here, but it isn't from Hitchens :rolleyes:

Hitchens in this article to Gerson's assertions that atheists lose a sense of morality when they reject God and the Bible, the source of morality.

The point of Hitchens questions is to demonstrate that there isn't a single moral in Christianity that one cannot imagine coming instead from a secular source, even the bad ones like the dogma around homosexuality or premarital sex. And likewise Christian morality has proved no better than anything else at stopping people doing bad things.

He finishes his questions with this

"By what right, then, do the faithful assume this irritating mantle of righteousness? They have as much to apologize for as to explain."

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Well there is certainly dishonesty going on here, but it isn't from Hitchens :rolleyes:

So, since you are claiming that Hitchens is not being dishonest, are you prepared to argue the case that the two statements in daveyjoe's post are true opposites?

Sapien

PDN wrote: »

Hitchen's second challenge is: "Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?" The opposite of this would be, "Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of a lack of religious faith?" I think anyone with a smattering of knowledge of history and human nature will admit that both questions can be answered in the affirmative.

Go on then.

DinoBot

If people believe that all morals come from god then why does god give morals to non believers, or to people who believe in false gods ?

PDN

DinoBot wrote: »

If people believe that all morals come from god then why does god give morals to non believers, or to people who believe in false gods ?

Try substituting 'noses' for the word 'morals' in your question. Morals, like noses, are something God has given to everyone.

DinoBot

PDN wrote: »

Try substituting 'noses' for the word 'morals' in your question. Morals, like noses, are something God has given to everyone.

So the actual belief in god is not required then ? Thats only needed for the afterlife I guess.

PDN

DinoBot wrote: »

So the actual belief in god is not required then ? Thats only needed for the afterlife I guess.

Required for what? Christians believe the following.
1. All humans have been given a set of moral standards by God.
2. All humans obey some of those standards and disobey others.
3. No-one, except Jesus Christ, can ever keep those standards 100% of the time.
4. Genuine Christianity, which requires faith, gives an individual the power to improve morally.

I would add an observation of my own, that some nonbelievers live more moral lives than believers. This is because each of us starts off with a unique set of circumstances. So, a child born in a gypsy slum in Romania who is taught to steal for a living may, after Christian conversion, still be less honest in paying his VAT than an atheist who grew up in an atmosphere of comfortable middle-class morality.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

Required for what? Christians believe the following.
1. All humans have been given a set of moral standards by God.
2. All humans obey some of those standards and disobey others.
3. No-one, except Jesus Christ, can ever keep those standards 100% of the time.
4. Genuine Christianity, which requires faith, gives an individual the power to improve morally.

I would add an observation of my own, that some nonbelievers live more moral lives than believers. This is because each of us starts off with a unique set of circumstances. So, a child born in a gypsy slum in Romania who is taught to steal for a living may, after Christian conversion, still be less honest in paying his VAT than an atheist who grew up in an atmosphere of comfortable middle-class morality.

That's a hilariously shaky comparison. One of them may have a better accountant, but otherwise I see little difference...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

So, since you are claiming that Hitchens is not being dishonest, are you prepared to argue the case that the two statements in daveyjoe's post are true opposites?

Hitchens isn't claiming they are "true opposites"

Did you actually read what he wrote?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I would add an observation of my own, that some nonbelievers live more moral lives than believers. This is because each of us starts off with a unique set of circumstances. So, a child born in a gypsy slum in Romania who is taught to steal for a living may, after Christian conversion, still be less honest in paying his VAT than an atheist who grew up in an atmosphere of comfortable middle-class morality.

Are you arguing that a child born in a gypsy slum in Romania who is taught to steal for a live cannot be as honest as the same child if they went through a "Christian conversion"? That in essence the child needs Christianity to be more moral than they would be without it?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Hitchens isn't claiming they are "true opposites"

Did you actually read what he wrote?

I responded to a post in which daveyjoe quoted Hitchens. I read that post, and responded to what davejoe thought was a "salient point" and to his presentation of the two statements as opposites.

However, maybe you are saying that Hitchens is OK and that davejoe is just a bit confused and has misunderstood Hitchens?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you arguing that a child born in a gypsy slum in Romania who is taught to steal for a live cannot be as honest as the same child if they went through a "Christian conversion"? That in essence the child needs Christianity to be more moral than they would be without it?

I am saying that, on average, the child brought up in a gypsy slum has a greater number of environmental handicaps to overcome in the pursuit of morality. Therefore it is unfair to compare 2 people with differing circumstances as if Christianity was the sole determining factor in one displaying more or less morality than the other.

I am also saying that genuine Christianity will produce a moral improvement in an individual greater than that which would be achieved without a Christian faith in the same individual.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote: »

That's a hilariously shaky comparison. One of them may have a better accountant, but otherwise I see little difference...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Maybe I've spent more time with Romanian gypsies than you?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I am also saying that genuine Christianity will produce a moral improvement in an individual greater than that which would be achieved without a Christian faith in the same individual.

Ok, fair enough. At least you are being honest. I would disagree, obviously.

DinoBot

PDN wrote: »

I

I am also saying that genuine Christianity will produce a moral improvement in an individual greater than that which would be achieved without a Christian faith in the same individual.

Would you say the same is true for other faiths ? Would belief in any faith produce a moral improvement in an individual greater than that which would be achieved without a faith ?

It always confuses me why god allows people of other faiths to appear more moral in some cases.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I responded to a post in which daveyjoe quoted Hitchens. I read that post, and responded to what davejoe thought was a "salient point" and to his presentation of the two statements as opposites.

However, maybe you are saying that Hitchens is OK and that davejoe is just a bit confused and has misunderstood Hitchens?

Well I've no idea, you would have to talk to davejoe. I'm not sure what you think a "salient" point means so to be honest with you I'm having a hard time following what you think the davejoe's point was that you are arguing. But ultimately that is between you and daveyjoe.

My response was to your claim that Hitchens himself was being dishonest.

There was nothing dishonest in what Hitchens wrote.

PDN

DinoBot wrote: »

Would you say the same is true for other faiths ? Would belief in any faith produce a moral improvement in an individual greater than that which would be achieved without a faith ?

It always confuses me why god allows people of other faiths to appear more moral in some cases.

I wouldn't think any faith would produce moral improvement. But I certainly believe some non-Christian faiths can do so.

Pompey Magnus

PDN wrote: »

I am also saying that genuine Christianity will produce a moral improvement in an individual greater than that which would be achieved without a Christian faith in the same individual.

Could I infer from this that you hold the inverse to be true also, that a rejection of Christianity by a person brought up in the faith will have a negative impact on their morality?

PDN

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Could I infer from this that you hold the inverse to be true also, that a rejection of Christianity by a person brought up in the faith will have a negative impact on their morality?

No, it may have that affect, but not always and for the following reasons:

1. Being brought up in the faith is no guarantee of genuine Christianity. Many people who are brought up in the faith are simply aping their elders and have never made a conscious decision to follow or obey Christ.
2. Some people retain morality that they learned as Christians even when they abandon Christianity.
3. While I believe Christianity to be the best form of moral improvement, it is not the only one. I would expect a former Christian who becomes a Buddhist, for example, to continue to demonstrate moral improvement.

However, I do believe that someone who abandons Christianity will fail to achieve the moral development that would have occurred if they had remained as a sincere follower of Christ.

daveyjoe

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you should reread the question? Hitchens is indulging in intellectual dishonesty and sleight of hand. The opposite of the sentence, "Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever" is "Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a nonbeliever that could not have been uttered or done by a believer". I will be very happy to debate those two propositions if you wish.

Hitchen's second challenge is: "Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?" The opposite of this would be, "Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of a lack of religious faith?" I think anyone with a smattering of knowledge of history and human nature will admit that both questions can be answered in the affirmative.

In fact the dishonesty in Hitchen's reasoning is so transparent that I'm surprised anyone could ever fall for it. However, the fact that you posted it on here would indicate that it fooled at least one person.

Why is this dishonest? The point still stands up if you make the sentances equivalent...

"Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever"

To my knowledge there is none, I am willing to be corrected of course.

"Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a nonbeliever that could not have been uttered or done by a believer"

Well, this question doesn't quite follow because there are many different belief systems (which explains the logic for Hitchens' wording of the questions). If you are a Jehovah's witness then you wont donate blood. Christians who believe that embryonic stem cell research is essentially murder (The biblical teaching is that human are created at the moment of conception - Psalm 139:13-16; Jeremiah 1:4-5).

Now, I am well aware that there are Jehovah's witnesses who will donate blood and there are christian proponents of embryonic stem cell research but I am taking the religions in their purest form because that is the only fair way to assess them.

"Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith?"

Suicide bombings, the crusade, teaching young children about hellfire. I'm sure there are many more.

"Can any reader of this column think of a wicked statement made, or an evil action performed, precisely because of a lack of religious faith?"

Again, I don't know that there is one. I'm open to suggestions. Remember any examples have to be "precisely because of a lack of religious faith"

Scofflaw

PDN wrote: »

Maybe I've spent more time with Romanian gypsies than you?

Quite likely. Do all of them fiddle their taxes the same way the middle classes do?

cordially,
Scofflaw

JoeB-

PDN wrote: »

Maybe you should reread the question? Hitchens is indulging in intellectual dishonesty and sleight of hand. The opposite of the sentence, "Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever" is "Name one ethical statement made, or one ethical action performed, by a nonbeliever that could not have been uttered or done by a believer". I will be very happy to debate those two propositions if you wish.

Ok, no problem.

If a young girl (i.e 13 and mentally deranged) came to me and said she had been raped by a soldier in a war zone I would advocate an abortion in some cases (not all cases)

A believer in Christanity could not. Explain how it is moral for the child to be born to a parent that cannot cope, you are potentially destroying two lives. I know you will try to justify that stance and I am interested in how you will do it.


If a desperately sick person came to me and said they had a terminal illness which caused constant and unendurable pain I believe it could be moral to end the individuals suffering... the same as we would do for a horse with a broken leg. A christian will simply say 'No, we have a rule, I don't care what the situation is, I cannot advocate that, you must suffer. (God has a plan blah blah)'.

So these are moral positions a non believer could take that would be considered ethical and moral by the (thinking) majority but that a Christian couldn't advocate.

Húrin

daveyjoe wrote: »

Re-read the question... "that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever" and the corollary... "an evil action performed, precisely because of religious faith". Of course religion has been responsible for good and evil actions. The point is that all of the good actions could have been undertaken by a secular person but the opposite is not true, Mr. Hitchens is quite explicit.

So Hitchens is saying that there would be less war and other acts of evil without religion? This must be a joke. Almost no wars were ever undertaken for purely religious reasons; they were waged because of greed for land, resources, royal succession, etc. Religion was only the ostensible reason. A number of wars have surely also been avoided because of religious pacifism.

What specific point did the speaker argue that a secular person couldn't?

Mostly using his knowledge of the books of Mark and Isaiah. Non-Christians wouldn't take those seriously.

Now let me take the counter argument. Many religions but in particular catholic church dogma teach us that contraception is a sin. I don't think many people would argue that excessive growth in the worlds population is bad for the environment.

Lack of contraception didn't cause world population to become overshot. Fossil fuels did. But that's another story.

I do not agree with the Catholic position on contraception because it leads to suffering among the African poor. It also logically leads to a ridiculous belief that, as monty python says, "every sperm is sacred". I think that these are not at odds with Christian ethics, which do not cause suffering.

I'm not sure what your point is here? Are you trying to provide balance to your previous paragraph ? Fanaticism is almost always brought about because of religion or a religion-like ideology.

I don't need balance; I'm well capable of identifying and admitting the bloody history of some strands of religion.

Yes, ideology leads to fanatacism. That was my point. Whether you think it is religion like or not is irrelevant. You have identified a part of the nature of some humans - perhaps all of us - that seeks to draw boundaries around ourselves and eliminate those on the other side of it. Christian Biblical teaching discourages the drawing of boundaries, which is why Christians should be (and in a great many cases, are) tolerant and welcoming of non-Christians.

Depeche_Mode wrote: »

Of course Christians have good reason for acting good, they qare doing what they were told and expect heavenly and eternal reward for so doing. We atheist just do good because its the right thing to do.

No, that's not what Christianity says. My morality is every bit as internalised as yours. I do not live with the threat of hell for disobedience. Christ came in order to restore humanity's relationship with God. It is faith in him, and not good works, that is the central tenet of Christianity (Catholics may disagree). However, I find it hard to imagine how to possess a strong Christian faith without simultaneously making an effort to do good in whatever way one can.

Most atheists who do good are acting on humanist morals, which come from the cultural influence of Christianity.

Húrin

DinoBot wrote: »

It always confuses me why god allows people of other faiths to appear more moral in some cases.

Appearances are subjective. Are you really asking why God allows humans to think independently?

Bottle_of_Smoke

Meh, morals are just a product of reciprocal altruism. I'd imagine Christians are more likely to try their damnest to appear moral but I wouldn't trust them any more in a life/death situation.

Not gonna vote on the poll. Too many variables. I mean a girl I was once best friends with who became a born again christian I don't see as having high morals. Technically she's a Christian but from her behaviour you don't suspect she's in any way hell fearing. Fred Phelps is also a Christian but it would be most unfair to the like of the Christians on this board to put him in the same category.

/strolls off to feedback to request a ceiling on number of polls one can post in a week.