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

[Howard Is]

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

Have you heard of the Magdalene Laundries ?
Please listen to this.

 

[Altfish]

I agree that there are many immoral people, but saying “…there is no place in the Nazi party for non-believers....” doesn’t make anyone Christian. Christian meant originally a disciple of Jesus. And a disciple of Jesus is a person who remains in the teachings of Jesus, which include the idea “love your enemy”.

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Mat. 5:44-45

Atheists don’t follow Jesus, so it is more likely they do some unloving things.

The Roman Catholic Church supported Hitler (Mainly because he was anti-Jew) and the Nazi Uniform belt buckle said, "Gott mit uns" - the slogan pre-dates Hitler but he took advantage of it.

 

[Valjean]

I suppose one could ask the question as to what's the specific difference that stands out between religious and secular morality?

If you ask me, religious folks do not corner the market in that regard because nothing stands out for one to think otherwise.

Religious morality, IMHO, is often deontological; even Divine Command.

Religious morality is based on lists of do's and don'ts, once useful in maintaining order, cultural identity or power, many centuries ago, in cultures very different from our own. Today, however, many of these precepts seem a poor fit.

Secular morality tends to be consequential, ie: based on an action's effects. Consequentialist morality can explain itself; it has a clear function; a "why?"
"God commands it!" morality can be pretty perplexing; even dysfunctional.

 

[sooda]

Trump's spiritual advisor, Paula White, is raving about Satanic pregnancies in America. She and Trump are a perfect pair of con artists.

 

[sooda]

Religious morality, IMHO, is often deontological; even Divine Command.

Religious morality is based on lists of do's and don'ts, once useful in maintaining order, cultural identity or power many centuries ago in, cultures very different from our own. Today, however, many of these precepts seem a poor fit.

Secular morality tends to be consequential, ie: based on an action's effects. Consequentialist morality can explain itself; it has a clear function; a "why?"
"God commands it!" morality can be pretty perplexing; even dysfunctional.

Paula White: Christians Must Pray That “Satanic Pregnancies” End in Miscarriage

Paula White: Christians Must Pray That “Satanic Pregnancies” End in Miscarriage

 

[sooda]

Southern Baptist theologian and ethicist Russell D. Moore said that "Paula White is a charlatan and recognized as a heretic by every orthodox Christian, of whatever tribe."[55] Michael Horton, a professor of theology at Westminster Seminary California, wrote in early January 2017 that White represented a heretical movement and that her then-upcoming address at President Trump's inauguration was helping to introduce heresy into mainstream public life. Horton addressed White's denial of the Trinity and the prosperity gospel's position that Christ died on the cross not for the forgiveness of humankind but to rescue people from financial hardship.[55]


Other allegations of heresy have emerged among conservative Christians, such as that White has denied the Trinity, partly as a result of a video shared by Christian author Erick Erickson that shows White assenting to the viewpoint that Jesus Christ was not the only son of God, in contravention of the Nicene Creed.[22][56] Erickson has stated:


The President of the United States putting a heretic on stage who claims to believe in Jesus, but does not really believe in Jesus, risks leading others astray.... I'd rather a Hindu pray on Inauguration Day and not risk the souls of men, than one whose heresy lures in souls promises of comfort only to damn them in eternity.[56]


Connor Gaffey has drawn attention to a 2007 televised event at which White stated, "Anyone who tells you to deny yourself is from Satan." Gaffey contrasts that with Jesus' words in the Gospel of Matthew: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me."[38]


Paula White - Wikipedia

 

[ChristineM]

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

No, what is does is give the illusion of being more moral which massages religious egos. Why is this? Because of the way morality is understood. If i had a euro for every time a christian has said to me "you are not moral because you don't worship a god".. the same argument is used against those who do worship a god or gods but not the same god as the accuser, or they worship the same god in a different way.

Morality does not need a god sitting on your shoulder to tell you what is right and what is wrong.

I heard atheists argue atheists are just as moral as theists. But I am not sure this is true in general. 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?

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.

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

You should note that some (few) scientists are religious, and that religion itself was the first weapon of mass destruction.

Also, the only people who have used atomic weapons in anger were said to be good christians living in a vast majority christian country, the majority of that christian population welcomed the use of the weapons.

 

[Valjean]

I agree that there are many immoral people, but saying “…there is no place in the Nazi party for non-believers....” doesn’t make anyone Christian. Christian meant originally a disciple of Jesus. And a disciple of Jesus is a person who remains in the teachings of Jesus, which include the idea “love your enemy”.

Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, "If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free."
John 8:31-32

But I tell you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who mistreat you and persecute you, that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust.
Mat. 5:44-45

Atheists don’t follow Jesus, so it is more likely they do some unloving things.

I agree with your initial points, but take issue with your conclusion.

Christian based morality can be pretty superficial, and easily forgotten when it becomes inconvenient.And christian fundamentalists, schools and organizations can be pretty un-loving and severe.

Even the constant reminder, "Gott mit uns" on the Wehrmacht's belt buckles apparently failed to sink in. Then there was the brouhaha at the US Air Force Academy, which was promoting fundamentalist Christianity among cadets. Apparently Christian doctrine is flexible enough even to support militarism, when convenient.
Historically, religious morality is easily manipulated political tool. It's a thin veneer.

Atheists tend to be principled and consequentialist. Our morality is not superficial, it's resistant to the winds of politics or public opinion.

 

[Valjean]

Paula White: Christians Must Pray That “Satanic Pregnancies” End in Miscarriage

Paula White: Christians Must Pray That “Satanic Pregnancies” End in Miscarriage

The Devil, you say!

 

[sooda]

The Devil!, you say.....

Crazy, huh? She also claims that Jesus died on the cross to save us from financial hardship.

 

[Revoltingest]

I heard atheists argue atheists are just as moral as theists. But I am not sure this is true in general. Many scientists work on weapons designed to destroy humanity.

There's a problem with your assumption that we design weapons to
destroy humanity. Self defense is moral, & that's why I designed
weapons.
Btw, we should note that our leaders here are just about all Christian.
And it is they who direct the military to use these weapons.

 

[PureX]

I think people who practice a religion tend to contemplate the morality of their and other people's behaviors far more than people who do not practice a religion. However, this does not necessarily make them "more moral". It's just makes them more 'morality minded'.

Everyone is "moral" in that everyone considers to some degree the ethical implications of their and other people's behavior. But some people consider this far more often, and far more intently than other people do. And I think that frequency and intensity is encouraged by most religions.

 

[exchemist]

I heard atheists argue atheists are just as moral as theists. But I am not sure this is true in general. 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?

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.

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

ARE scientists mostly atheists? Is there any kind of survey on that? (Oops, I see this has been answered and that my suspicions about it were well-founded.)

But in any case I think your argument is a bit superficial. There is a fairly strong case for saying that nuclear weapons are pretty good at keeping the peace between the nations that have them. They are primarily defensive. So I don't see that working on them is obviously immoral.

 

[firedragon]

I heard atheists argue atheists are just as moral as theists. But I am not sure this is true in general. 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?

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.

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

1. You said many scientists are atheists. Since when? How many years of violence and how many years of science are you taking into your research in order to make this assessment?

2. If as you say "Many scientists are atheists" then even the person who invents lets say a cure for violence maybe an atheist. See, a cure for violence may come in the form of food, where good food at affordable rates maybe one of the reasons for lower numbers of violence. Even good medical systems maybe a cause for lower violence. Thus, this same scientists may contribute to peace and happiness.

3. If as you say atheists are inventing weapons of death, in that case the invention of the telescope maybe contributing to weapons so galeleo and langley were religious.

I am not putting this on theists or atheists, im just saying that we should not make such assumptions but rather do some extensive research first.

 

[exchemist]

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.

View attachment 36530

Additionally, only 17% identify as atheists.

View attachment 36531

Scientists and Belief

One curiosity about that report is that significantly more chemists seem to have a religious belief than physicists, earth scientists or biologists and medical scientists. Food for thought there - for me at least!

 

[Revoltingest]

I think people who practice a religion tend to contemplate the morality of their and other people's behaviors far more than people who do not practice a religion.

I see the opposite. Since their morality is dictated by scripture or preachers,
they tend to not think about it. They have no need. But we heathens have
no authoritative source, so we must contemplate it.

 

[Revoltingest]

One curiosity about that report is that significantly more chemists seem to have a religious belief than physicists, earth scientists or biologists and medical scientists. Food for thought there - for me at least!

Perhaps it's because physics & biology in particular are more likely
to pose challenges to traditional religious belief than chemistry.
You know....cosmology, origin of the universe, evolution...threatening
stuff to many believers.

 

[exchemist]

Perhaps it's because physics & biology in particular are more likely
to pose challenges to traditional religious belief than chemistry.
You know....cosmology, origin of the universe, evolution...threatening
stuff to many believers.

Could be, I suppose. But that would only be threatening to the fairly small subset of believers who are creationists. Though, actually, thinking about it, this survey was done in the USA, where creationism seems to be far more prevalent than elsewhere.

But to be honest I would find it pretty extraordinary for a chemist to manage to keep himself studiously ignorant of cosmogeny and evolution. And of course the study of abiogenesis, potentially the most contentious area of the lot, is 100% chemistry!

 

[PureX]

I see the opposite. Since their morality is dictated by scripture or preachers,
they tend to not think about it. They have no need. But we heathens have
no authoritative source, so we must contemplate it.

That's a very biased presumption. People choose to adhere to a religious moral code because they believe it represents their ethical imperatives. The fact that the conceptual mechanics of religions make that decision easier to recognize and to follow in the long term doesn't negate the earnestness or awareness of that decision.

People who accept moral codes of any kind without deep consideration can exist in or out of religion. But it will be much harder to be so thoughtless when your religion is constantly reminded you of what the moral path looks like.

 

[SalixIncendium]

One curiosity about that report is that significantly more chemists seem to have a religious belief than physicists, earth scientists or biologists and medical scientists. Food for thought there - for me at least!

That is interesting. Do you have any insights as to why that is the case?

I also found it interesting that belief in God or a higher power diminishes with age. I would have guessed it would have been the other way around.