Does having religious beliefs make a person more moral than someone who is an atheist

[SalixIncendium]

It would be nice to see some of the religious not assuming what atheists as a whole tend to do or think.

No assumptions, I assure you.

I speak from experience, not conjecture.

 

[Mock Turtle]

No assumptions, I assure you.

I speak from experience, not conjecture.

But does my experience trump yours?

 

[Mock Turtle]

To accept a moral code as presented by a religion is to accept it as aligning with your own. To reject it, or part of it, is to reject it for not aligning with your own. Either way, one has to consider their own ethical imperatives, and those being presented to them by their religion, to make the choice. I would think this is self-evident.

Yes, but how many just get the religion handed down to them (with the morality)? Too many I suspect.

 

[PureX]

I think you've put the cart before the horse here.
Do people choose their religion, or do they absorb it at a pre-critical stage of cognitive development, and adhere to it out of familiarity and conventionalism; because it "fits" their familiar world-view or status community?

It doesn't matter, because as adults, no one is forced to accept the ethical imperatives of any religion. If they do so, it's because they have determined that those imperative align with their own. We can force people to act in certain ways, but we cannot force them to believe, anything.

The fact that people overwhelmingly end up embracing the religion of their parents is telling.
Despite the fact that Christian theology says your religion is the most important decision you'll ever make in life, people give it very little thought.

You don't have any way of knowing what other people have given thought to, or how much. So you're talking out of bias and ignorance, here. Every self-proclaimed adult Christian on Earth has chosen to proclaim themselves a Christian. None of them are being forced into it so far as I know. So any of them could have chosen to reject that designation, and to reject the beliefs/ethics that go along with it. And MANY of them do reject some of those religious ethical imperatives. So there is proof that these folks are not just accepting religious morality blindly, or thoughtlessly.

 

[SalixIncendium]

But does my experience trump yours?

Are you suggesting that you have experienced what I have seen? If not, I don’t see how it could.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

When one starts with a faulty premise, one ends with a faulty conclusion. A 2009 poll conducted by Pew Research shows 51% of scientists believe in either God or a universal spirit/higher power.

And although you don't show it, this was a poll in the USA. In India, a survey showed only 6% non-religious (data from Rice University). Evidently growing up in a "Christian country" is liable to put you off religion all together!

PS I might add that even if the majority of scientists in the world were irreligious, why should I care? Why should I prefer scientists to historians or philosophers? Any one who went to a "proper" university (e.g. with subjects like physics and philosophy, rather than accountancy and media studies) knows that many of the scientists can be very odd ducks!

 

[PureX]

Yes, but how many just get the religion handed down to them (with the morality)? Too many I suspect.

The fact that a great many religious adherents do reject some of the ethical imperatives of their religion tells me that a great many of them do consider their own ethical imperatives against those being presented to them by their religions. As examples: abortion, euthanasia, divorce, homosexuality, adultery, fornication (outside marriage), crime and punishment, ... the list is almost endless. For every moral/ethical imperative that a religious proposes, there are countless religious adherents that have chosen to disagree with them. Which indicates that all those adherents took the time to consider their own ethical imperatives, weigh them against those being presented to them by their religions, and chose for themselves which they would try to adhere to.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well at least you are not an electrical engineer. Most of the relativity cranks I've come across seem to be electrical engineers.

I left sparkies out because they're too close to computers,
which tend to threaten religious conspiracy theorists, who
fear the singularity.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I heard atheists argue atheists are just as moral as theists. …If nothing is sacred then why have any reverence for life?

Belief that morality is laid down by religion is a monotheist thing. The rest of us believe that virtue is simply the natural behaviour for humans — see Aristotle and Mencius. If you accept that view, the atheist can be faulted for their belief system, but not for their morality.

 

[Revoltingest]

The fact that a great many religious adherents do reject some of the ethical imperatives of their religion tells me that a great many of them do consider their own ethical imperatives against those being presented to them by their religions.

What is the religion of our leaders who get us into all these needless wars?
(Hint: The're not atheists.)

 

[PureX]

What is the religion of our leaders who get us into all these needless wars?

Greed. They worship the twin gods of money and ego.

 

[Revoltingest]

Greed. They worship the gods of money and ego.

Greed is a human trait.
What is the common religion of presidents, eg,
Reagan, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump?
(Hint: They're not atheists.)

 

[Mock Turtle]

The fact that a great many religious adherents do reject some of the ethical imperatives of their religion tells me that a great many of them do consider their own ethical imperatives against those being presented to them by their religions. As examples: abortion, euthanasia, divorce, homosexuality, adultery, fornication (outside marriage), crime and punishment, ... the list is almost endless. For every moral/ethical imperative that a religious proposes, there are countless religious adherents that have chosen to disagree with them. Which indicates that all those adherents took the time to consider their own ethical imperatives, weigh them against those being presented to them by their religions, and chose for themselves which they would try to adhere to.

All that tells us is that the non-religious are free to work out and assess their own morality without having the conflict that religious beliefs might bring. And no matter how one might see things differently, having a religious belief often entails towing the line regardless of what one might want.

 

[PureX]

Greed is a human trait.
What is the common religion of presidents, eg,
Reagan, Bush, Bush, Clinton, Obama, Trump?
(Hint: They're not atheists.)

The religious ideologies of presidents is irrelevant to their responsibilities of office.

 

[PureX]

All that tells us is that the non-religious are free to work out and assess their own morality without having the conflict that religious beliefs might bring. And no matter how one might see things differently, having a religious belief often entails towing the line regardless of what one might want.

You're going to stick to that bias no matter what, aren't you.

 

[Revoltingest]

The religious ideologies of presidents is irrelevant to their responsibilities of office.

You're arguing that religious people are more moral.
It would be useful to see how religious people with
great power conduct themselves.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I heard atheists argue atheists are just as moral as theists.

Oh look. Yet another atheist-bashing thread from an insecure theist who needs to validate himself by demeaning those whose lives need no religion or god belief. We just saw a half dozen or so atheist haters, you among them, yesterday on a related atheist-bashing thread ironically asking about why atheists obsess over global catastrophes - ironic because it is you theists obsessing over atheists as you have done yet again here.

I mentioned on that thread that you rarely see secular humanists starting threads demeaning theists, and that I save my best arguments against theism and religion for these kinds of threads intended to marginalize and demonize atheists. How insecure you must be about your beliefs to feel the need to attack those who live without them just for that reason alone.

Now you wish to impugn our morality. Great. Let's go. Let's see who is actually more moral.

Anyway, if you heard atheists argue that they are as moral as theists, you heard wrong. Secular humanists outperform theists in that department. They have an evolved moral code that none of the religions can touch, and they live a moral life not in hope of external reward, but because they want to. If your behavior is motivated by the hope of a celestial cookie or to escape punishment, then your behavior is not moral. That's what children and pets do.

Also, Christianity has divine command theory, or "a meta-ethical theory which proposes that an action's status as morally good is equivalent to whether it is commanded by God." This has got to be the worst idea in all of moral philosophy. According to that, if you can convince a person that his god has ordered him to hate atheists, for example, then it becomes immoral not to do so, which is probably your position.

Many scientists work on weapons designed to destroy humanity. Scientists are mostly atheists, and many scientists are engineering weapons of mass death. Then can I conclude there something inherently missing from the way atheists believe?

Really? This is your argument for why atheists are less moral than you? You should be ashamed to post such a dishonest argument. Where are your morals?

Where were your morals when you decided to start a thread impugning the character of atheists, who are largely law-abiding, honest, hard-working people trying to support their families and communities, communities that might benefit from having fewer churches generating bigots.

Yes, I am an anti-theist, meaning that I think that religion and faith-based thought of any kind are a net negative, and that the world would be a better place without bigotry factories churning out failed people by the millions. And you want to claim the moral high ground from that position. Sorry, but you've got a long way to go to catch up, so get off your high horse.

It seems to me someone could use their religious beliefs as a way of seeing working on weapons of mass death as being immoral, and therefore, a person with religious beliefs might not create such evil weapons in the first place because of the potential consequences as held by the religious beliefs.

Well, you're wrong. There is nothing about Christianity, for example, that has any problem with the destruction of the world. They lust for it. They see any social degeneration as a positive thing heralding in their much anticipated Armageddon.

Here's how much Christians in American government care about climatologic catastrophe:

• "We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position and responsibilities)

• "My point is, God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous." - Sen. Inhofe, R-Okla

Yeah, religion sure has made these better people. The world is better off without them and their religion.

And here's Sam Harris' take on that peaceful religion:

• "It is, therefore, not an exaggeration to say that if the city of New York were suddenly replaced by a ball of fire, some significant percentage of the American population would see a silver-lining in the subsequent mushroom cloud, as it would suggest to them that the best thing that is ever going to happen was about to happen: the return of Christ ... Imagine the consequences if any significant component of the U.S. government actually believed that the world was about to end and that its ending would be glorious. The fact that nearly half of the American population apparently believes this, purely on the basis of religious dogma, should be considered a moral and intellectual emergency. " –Sam Harris

This argument rings truer than your calumny.

If nothing is sacred then why have any reverence for life?

Do you think that asking this question makes you seem morally superior? It doesn't. It does the opposite. You seem morally blind if you have to ask it.

It's called a conscience. It's a voice that those who mature morally hear. Growing up believing that you are continually being watched and judged inhibits maturing morally, keeping one permanently in the pet or child state, hoping for the treat rather than the rolled-up newspaper.

Assuming that you are in your last third of life, your window of opportunity for seeing through atheist eyes has passed. It will just need to remain a mystery to you.

Hopefully, your grandchildren will get a chance to learn authentic moral behavior. Hopefully, they will know the joy of pulling over on a rural road to save a turtle crossing it knowing that nobody but they are aware of the godlike role he or she played saving this creature, since there was no god there to do it, and with with no expectation of external reward. That's a peak experience unavailable to those stuck in stick-and-carrot pet-and-child "morality." Had you ever had that experience, you wouldn't have asked your naive question.

I hope you learned something here. If nothing else, these hateful threads will get answers that you won't see elsewhere. My moral values tell me that it would be immoral to start a theist-bashing thread, but perfectly acceptable to make the arguments that would appear in such a thread on the atheist-bashing threads. So thanks for that.

 

[Heyo]

They choose what to cut, and they choose what to past, and they choose to adhere to it, then, as best they can. That's a lot more than a lot of other people do.

Usually I'm the one who has a very optimistic view of mankind but in this case I think you give too much credit to the theists. Most don't choose, at least not rationally. Just as most don't choose their religion, they get born into it.

 

[Valjean]

It doesn't matter, because as adults, no one is forced to accept the ethical imperatives of any religion. If they do so, it's because they have determined that those imperative align with their own. We can force people to act in certain ways, but we cannot force them to believe, anything.
You don't have any way of knowing what other people have given thought to, or how much. So you're talking out of bias and ignorance, here. Every self-proclaimed adult Christian on Earth has chosen to proclaim themselves a Christian. None of them are being forced into it so far as I know. So any of them could have chosen to reject that designation, and to reject the beliefs/ethics that go along with it. And MANY of them do reject some of those religious ethical imperatives. So there is proof that these folks are not just accepting religious morality blindly, or thoughtlessly.

As adults, the programming is already installed, and it seems to be ROM. It's hard to alter.

No force needed to impart a religion. Enculturation proceeds effortlessly.
No-one forced me to speak and think in English, nor was it a reasoned choice.

People aren't born with either beliefs, religion or a moral code. There's nothing for religion to either 'align with' or diverge from; nothing is forced. It's installed effortlessly, before any firewalls or anti-malware is installed. We're cultural sponges at that point.

 

[Valjean]

To accept a moral code as presented by a religion is to accept it as aligning with your own. To reject it, or part of it, is to reject it for not aligning with your own. Either way, one has to consider their own ethical imperatives, and those being presented to them by their religion, to make the choice. I would think this is self-evident.

But a religious moral code is imparted before there's anything to align with, it becomes "your own." It's the original.
As such it becomes convenient. One need not grapple with ethical imperatives or questions of right or wrong. They're already enculturated.
It takes an effort to question these original teachings. It's disconcerting and socially disruptive. Few make the effort. Baptists produce more baptists; Republicans more Republicans.