Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Grisham's column >>

GRISHAM

Home Page
There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness. Dalai Lama
Articles Posted: 312  Links Seeded: 187
Member Since: 11/2010  Last Seen: 5/16/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Are Atheists Immoral?

Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:16 PM EDT
religion
By Grisham

Live Poll

Do you believe that atheists are less moral than theists?

View Results
  • 153826
    Yes, they're less moral
    7%
  • 153827
    No, they're no less moral than theists
    93%
  • 153828
    Undecided
    0%

VoteTotal Votes: 246

Advertise | AdChoices

Many Americans (and people throughout the world) will not vote for a President or leader if they are known to be an atheist. The question is why? The answer is that atheists are thought to be immoral or at least less moral than someone who embraces religion.  There are various myths about atheist morality and in this article I will attempt to work through the most popular ones and show that atheists are no less moral than their Theist counterparts.

There is no reason for an atheist to be moral

Many Theists will state that atheists have no reason to be moral. It’s probably the single most used argument against atheists. Theists will argue that if there is no God or Supreme Being or judge, then everything is up for grabs and there is no reason to be moral.

I’d like to point out that even if the above myth were true; it’s still an illogical argument. The statement puts forth the idea that atheism (the absence of a God) isn’t true, rational or logical and that Theism is true, rational and logical, when in fact there is no proof whatsoever that a God exists. This means that without verifiable proof of Gods existence, the Theist asks that their set of moral codes be held up as the standard without any proof that it is a valid moral code. In other words, the Theists moral code that they live by is no more valid than an atheist’s.

The second thing that is wrong with this myth is that it assumes that atheists don’t care about the suffering of their fellow human beings. It presupposes that atheists only care about themselves and without a God, are incapable of feeling any empathy towards other people.

On the other hand, you could turn this argument around -- If God is a prerequisite of morality, than presumably, many Theists only act morally because their God told them too. This could mean that they have a hard time feeling empathy and only force themselves to behave morally because God supposedly told them too.

If you take God out of the equation, you are left with the same basic question: What is the point of morality?

The point to morality is that we should care about our fellow man and try to relieve any suffering we may run across. Morality is required if we want to build a successful social structure. Human communities thrive when each of us takes some time to consider the feelings, needs and wants of other people. You do not need a God for that. All you need is common sense and empathy.

You need God for morals to exist at all

Sometimes when Theists fail with the above argument, they will resort to the argument that without a God to provide moral absolutes, humanity has no way to choose which moral code is best.

For example, they might argue that Nazism can be viewed as just as valid a moral code as the one North Americans live by today. After all, without a God to step in and tell us that killing more than six million people is wrong, we might never figure it out on our own.

However, instead of supposing that there is a God who is needed to tell us right from wrong, we can just as easily say that a ‘good’ morality is one that enhances society and minimizes suffering. This would mean that the argument that the Nazi’s have a sound moral system is preposterous to most Atheists because it enhances the suffering of a huge segment of the population and doesn’t further society. We can look at our own history and see what works and what causes suffering. By valuing life, we can clearly see that Nazism is not a good way of life and therefore we can rightfully reject it.

The fact that we have a moral code proves there is a God

This is another popular argument that Theists like to make. This argument puts forth the idea that we are moral because God made us that way. Without God, we would be nothing more than beasts looking to satisfy every whim, fancy and pleasure we can find. It also presumes that every human being has some sort of moral conscience put there by God.

The problem with this argument is that while most of us share the same moral values it is a logical fallacy to argue that God put it there. The Atheist could put forth the argument (with significantly more proof than the Theist) that our morality stems from evolutionary selection. In other words, we are social animals and those social aspects are what enabled us to become successful as a species.

We can also look at the animal world and see some of the same traits we exhibit. For example, chimpanzees exhibit shame when they do something that violates the social order of their group. So do dogs for that matter. Should we then jump to the conclusion that chimpanzees and dogs believe in God or that they are social creatures that have developed a code of conduct that benefits their species?

Atheists are more likely to be criminals

I almost didn’t add this one to the list because it’s ridiculous in my opinion. I decided to add it because someone in a seed of mine actually made this argument.

There is no proof that atheists are more likely to perpetrate a crime than a Theist. Countries that have more atheistic tendencies do not have a significantly greater violent crime rate. In fact, even just looking at Canada (19%-30% say they don’t follow any organized religion) and the US where religion is much more prevalent, you’ll find the crime rate to be FAR less in Canada than the US.

Atheists do not fear punishment or death so they can’t be moral

This argument seems to put forward the idea that because there is no fear of an afterlife, hell or some type of punishment for wrongdoing while we’re alive, those atheists have no reason to uphold moral standards.

I would argue that this is the opposite of reality. Christianity (and many Theist religions) believe in an afterlife. For example, Christians believe that if they ask Jesus for forgiveness that their sins will be forgiven and they’ll be in Heaven once they die.

If we look at that scenario, what is there really to fear? Why fear death if you think you will live forever in paradise?

In reality, most atheists probably fear death more than Theists. It doesn’t make sense to think that all atheists don’t fear death when their basic stance is that this life is all they have and they should make the most of it while they’re here, when the Theist believes death is a gateway into another state of existence.

Atheists lack of moral values in modern culture

We see in modern culture where the religious are touted to be morally superior. For example, if you’ve ever seen a vampire movie, you’ll probably see a priest brandishing a cross and some holy water to destroy the evil vampire. Another example would be movies based on demon possession, where it takes a religious person to banish the pesky demon.

While I know these types of movies (which I love by the way) are made to entertain us, they do help to reinforce the image that religious people are morally stronger than a Godless person and more able to combat evil no matter what form that evil takes.

I simply put forward the argument that people are people. Being an atheist doesn’t make you morally corrupt. There are good and bad people in every segment of society.

 

 

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Back To Top | Front Page

Published to:

  • Grisham's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: Atheism 101, Creation vs. Evolution, Invalidating the Holy Bible
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (980)
Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 ... 5
Grisham

I hope you enjoyed reading the article. Please stick to the CoH. If you're religious, I hope this article adds to your understanding of atheists. I welcome your comments. Don't be shy. Thank you for reading, commenting and hopefully voting for the article.

  • 31 votes
#1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:17 PM EDT
Mongowildman

Morality is not determined by religious beliefs. Any conscientious person knows the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. It is a conscious decision to do harm or to do evil. It does not matter what they believe as far as religion is concerned.

What bothers me are the people who do evil because it is their religious mandate or whatever. You know, make them all your way or they die, kind of thing. That is a perversion of religious beliefs and serves only the evil that is professed. It is the deliberate intent to do harm for selfish purposes, whether their own of for those who control them.

Determining what is good and what is bad seems to be different among the various people of this world. Anybody who values life, including those of his enemies, knows the difference. Anybody who deliberately brings harm and death does not. That is what evil is.

  • 42 votes
#1.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:11 PM EDT
Lola-984242

No, atheists are not less moral than theists, however at times I feel theists are less moral than atheists. I am sickened by the uprising of intolerance and hate that some theists have against those who disagree and/or live their lives differently than theists.

  • 55 votes
#1.2 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:31 PM EDT
PeaceBlessing

Hi Grisham,

I simply put forward the argument that people are people. Being an atheist doesn’t make you morally corrupt. There are good and bad people in every segment of society.

I agree, the main difference for me is that I believe in God and Atheist do not believe in God. Because of my belief, I therefore, choose to see this world from God's perspective according to what is written in the Holy Bible. Atheist do not see it that way which can be a big difference, but there are also those who believe in God that also see it differently than I do so from my perspective it's really no big deal, all that matters from my perspective is my sincere attempt to see things from God's perspective as best I can with the understanding that God will be final judge of all.

  • 12 votes
#1.3 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:35 PM EDT
DonVito

I tend to equate morality and ethics with conscience. How would I like it if (insert action or scenario here)? Theists rape and reprogram the human conscience! I would never even consider doing the things to theists that they have done to me and my family. However, that does not mean than their actions must go unpunished. My conscience has also not been altered to believe I must turn the other cheek.

  • 10 votes
#1.4 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:40 PM EDT
Grisham

@Mongowildman,

I agree with your points. Thank you so much for stopping in and making them.

@Lola,

Yes, religious zealots make life unpleasant to say the least. It's also the reason I fight hard and write a good chunk of articles on religious fundamentalismn and the impact it has on our laws and governance. Thanks for taking the time to comment.

@PeaceBlessing,

I agree. Sometimes it is all about perspective.

@Don Vito,

I do the same thing. Sometimes I ask myself how I would feel. I do not think all theists rape the conscience. I think that is too broad a brush. Some are very nice people who I would have no problem calling a friend. However, I do think religion in its fundamentalist state is a threat to civilized society and should be opposed for as long as I'm personally able.

I wish you and your family all the best. Thank you for commenting.

  • 22 votes
#1.5 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:21 PM EDT
Polka14

Many Theists will state that atheists have no reason to be moral.

They are right. We atheists need no reason to be moral...or immoral as we are all individuals and have our own sense of right and wrong and do not typically mindlessly follow ideology and dogma like a robot platform or a trained animal. I understand that not all religious people act like that but the majority does follow that mindset due to the indoctrinating aspects of religion itself. Many atheists are simply jaded to be forced to live in a world overrun by religious intolerance and ignorance. The vast majority of atheists simply wish to live in peace like most people do but we desire the free world to acknowledge the fact that atheists and the religious hold equal value to the Republic as citizens and no one should be discounted or discriminated against.

Because of that, all citizens (theists and atheists) must stand against the rise of people like Bachmann and Huckabee that will use religion as a modern weapon of oppression as it was used in the past.

  • 31 votes
#1.6 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:20 PM EDT
Lola-984242

Polka14, I really enjoyed your post.

Grisham - It's also the reason I fight hard and write a good chunk of articles on religious fundamentalismn and the impact it has on our laws and governance.

And I for one am grateful you do. Great article BTW!

  • 15 votes
#1.7 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:30 PM EDT
CEW-1678197

Atheism... one of many belief systems that do not involve deities. Personalities are driven by many things, including knowledge, experience, and beliefs...

I don't expect anyone to believe what I do, or agree with it, and that is why I do not bring it up for discussion. I let people do what they think is best (for them).

Don't infringe on my rights and I won't push back. I won't be getting involved in your life unless you ask for help or appear to be in need of assistance. But even then, the help is not going to come in the form of a religious experience.

  • 10 votes
#1.8 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:31 AM EDT
Jason Burnham

Determining what is good and what is bad seems to be different among the various people of this world.

But there is some common threads among all the various people in this world.

There seems to be three main laws common to all people.

1) Do not murder. Obviously if we go to War then we kill but murder is different than killing. Murder seems to be killing for the pleasure of killing.

2) Do not steal from your own people. Going out and stealing from other tribes was acceptable but the moment you stole from your own family or tribe they usually kicked you to the curb.

3) False Testimony or keeping your word. In many 3rd world cultures all you have is your word and once that is gone you are kicked out. In Progressive Cultures such as the U.S. this is called Giving false testimony or Perjury. Highly looked down world wide.

Then we have a couple of minors.

4) Take care of those that raised you. Pretty much world wide no matter where you go. It's a sign of a Progressive Culture to take care of those that are elderly or disabled but in the 3rd World it's even more prevalent. There is a certain wisdom in the elders that is needed for life to continue.

5) Treat others like you would like to be treated. Mutual respect. We see it in the different ways we greet each other through out this world. For the U.S. it's a shaking of the hands.

Yes, religious zealots make life unpleasant to say the least.

Zealots of any type make life unpleasant. I try to avoid them and when I do run into one I am shortly reminded on why I avoided them in the first place. There are atheist zealots, religious zealots, political zealots, animal zealots, vegie zealots... Take a ride out to California and in a space of two hours you will meet every single type of zealot you could ever imagine plus a few you couldn't imagine. All of them believing that their way is the only way to live life.

Theists rape and reprogram the human conscience!

Seriously? Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, Castro, etc. have shown that Theists do not have a monopoly on the whole raping and reprograming agenda. In the last 100 years Atheism have not only taken that whole rape and reprogram Trophey but they done ran off with it too. All I know is I never ever want to live in a world where an Atheist has came to power. Nothing good has came from it.

  • 9 votes
#1.9 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 AM EDT
joe wobblie

— Are Athiests Immoral? — A Truly Asinine Postulate!

NO, most Athiests believe in Science and Humanitarianism!

BUT so-called "Christian Conservatives" are! — They are not only immoral but also bigoted racists, hypocrites and homophobes who are consumed by their own egomania and swinish greed!

  • 19 votes
#1.10 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:15 AM EDT
TheJackel

Firstly, Awesome Thread Grisham :) You make quite a few points that needed to be addressed, and I can't praise you enough for such a well thought out article. GJ! And keep writing my friend :)

Also, for those who, haven't read the following article yet, and for those who might want to better understand morality itself, and why it's a relative thing latent in nature. This article outlines it pretty well:

Understanding Moral Evolution: System of behavioral Adaptation

I wrote the article above because I know that many theists think morality comes, and originates from their religion, or whatever GOD they believe in. And this is the root to much of where Theists believe Atheists are "immoral". They assume such just simply based on the notion that Atheists don't believe in their religion. In fact, religions often paint each other or anyone not of their religion as such. They will also willfully ignore the fact that morality is relative, and a natural phenomenon of behavior learning, and adaptation. :)

  • 14 votes
#1.11 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:35 AM EDT
Grisham

Thanks Jackel! I love writing. I'll probably keep on doing it till I either go blind from old age (maybe I'll be a brail writer) or get put in the ground.

They will also willfully ignore the fact that morality is relative, and a natural phenomenon of behavior learning, and adaptation. :)

I think in some cases they've been raised to believe that atheists are bad, immoral people. Hopefully, this article and the one you wrote will help dispel such myths.

  • 11 votes
#1.12 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:14 AM EDT
Tessy

Just because someone doesn't belive in God or a God doesn't mean we don't have morals, or a sense of right and wrong.

  • 16 votes
#1.13 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:10 AM EDT
chance-3449654

I object that you capitalize THEIST but not ATHEIST.

  • 1 vote
#1.14 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:25 AM EDT
lydiammowDeleted
aphill

Many Americans (and people throughout the world) will not vote for a President or leader if they are known to be an atheist. The question is why? The answer is that atheists are thought to be immoral or at least less moral than someone who embraces religion.

I in no way think that atheists are more or less moral than anyone else.

But, in an effort to play devil's advocate...Perhaps it's not necessarily that people think atheists are immoral. When people cast their vote for a president (or any other leader), they probably choose the one that they feel represents their opinions, political standards, values, etc. the most. "Atheist" does not describe most Americans. Just a thought...

  • 5 votes
#1.16 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:18 AM EDT
Nick46

I hope this article adds to your understanding of atheists.

I don't need to understand any other religion but my own.

  • 2 votes
#1.17 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:19 AM EDT
chance-3449654

Nick, that is very closed minded. When we understand what is different in others we usually discover how much a like we are. You can't really understand Christianity unless you first understand Judaism. Same with Islam. They all trace their beginnings back to Abraham. Jews and Christians even share the same Bible. The Torah and the Pentetoch are the same.

  • 12 votes
#1.18 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:28 AM EDT
Nick46

I did not mean my comments in a negative way. I think I do understand Christianiy since I spent 12 years in private Christian schools. I don't dislike other religions but I don't have any need to understand them. It's like being gay I don't need to understand that either but it's there. No problem for me. To each their own.

  • 4 votes
#1.19 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:40 AM EDT
SuzyQ-323497

I hope this article adds to your understanding of atheists.

I don't need to understand any other religion but my own.

Nick46,

Atheism is not a religion.

  • 14 votes
#1.20 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:47 AM EDT
Nightbreeeze

Growing up in New York I knew guys who went to church every Sunday and were guilty of some of the most heinous crimes imaginable. I've known atheists that gave all they had in their lives, literally all, and devote themselves to helping those less fortunate.

I believe morality and ethics have less to do with religion and more to do with upbringing. You can be 'religious' and be a saint or a scumbag. The same holds true for atheists (or any segment of the population).

  • 16 votes
#1.21 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:02 PM EDT
xrayspex

Are some Atheists immoral ? Of course, just as some Christians, Muslims and Jews are immoral. But are all Atheists immoral or does being an Atheist make you immoral?? Absolutely not. I support the right of belief and non-belief equally. Being an American gives you freedom of religion but also freedom from religion if that is your choice.

  • 13 votes
#1.22 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:21 PM EDT
Randi is a girl

this is really stupid to be honest (not the article). anyone who thinks that atheists are more immoral than anyone else needs to look into any religious history and, especially, review their personal ignorance.

  • 10 votes
#1.23 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:36 PM EDT
Ben-478550

I've known more hypocritical Christians than I have immoral atheists.

  • 14 votes
#1.24 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:14 PM EDT
Iceman25-835270

BUT so-called "Christian Conservatives" are! — They are not only immoral but also bigoted racists, hypocrites and homophobes who are consumed by their own egomania and swinish greed!

Does anybody want to condemn this statement? Is this not a violation of the CoH?

I've only read this far down and this is the only statement that upset me. There are some that I don't agree with, but they were at least respectful.

I am a conservative Christian and I assure you that your generalizations in no way represent the majority of Christians, especially the Christians that live in my area.

Of course there are some sects of Christianity that take a hard line, but you are talking about a small minority of people. The same can be said about all groups of people.

  • 6 votes
#1.25 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:16 PM EDT
aphill

@ Iceman

Does anybody want to condemn this statement? Is this not a violation of the CoH?

I agree with you. This statement is not only off topic, but it also offensive, inflammatory, and uncalled for. I am appalled that it was voted up so many times. Why do people support such blatant hatred?

  • 4 votes
#1.26 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:32 PM EDT
ScubaGolfJim

Iceman25-835270

Does anybody want to condemn this statement? Is this not a violation of the CoH?

I am a conservative Christian and I assure you that your generalizations in no way represent the majority of Christians, especially the Christians that live in my area.

While I do not think this is a violation of the CoH (it does not attack specific viners,) I do believe it has been, as our host has stated earlier, "painted with too broad a brush." I firmly believe that the comment is directed to the much smaller group some have taken to calling the Talibangelicals. These "evangelicals" try to force their perverted beliefs (yes, I said 'perverted') onto others like the Taliban did to the people of Afghanistan, "Do it through 'law' and 'government'." Take over the government, or simply make the government bow to your own will and force everyone to live by your own religious beliefs.

Do some people think they are "under attack?" Yes, on both sides. The main difference is that the people of religious belief that think they are under attack usually comes from the misunderstanding of why atheists try to remove "under god" from the PoA or "in god we trust" from currency and as our National Motto: Because it was put there after religious actions against the McCarthyism of the 50's. (The PoA in 1955, the US Motto in 1956.)

Anybody need a small sample of this type of action? Read about the State of Georgia license plate vote fiasco here.

  • 7 votes
#1.27 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:38 PM EDT
radagast

@ Mongowildman: I agree with your point that those who use religion to do harm to others seem hypocritical.

This article does a very good job of describing the source of secular morality and contrasting it to theist morality. I would argue that since secular morality can be described as having its origin in the evolution of socialization, that the same must be true of theist morality, whether theists prescribe their morals to god or not. All morals stem from the collective acceptance of behaviors deemed good and proper by the group. One of the consequences of social groups is the emergence of in-group morality and out-group morality. We experience these every day.

Members of a group act differently towards their own than they do towards others. This can manifest as racism, sexism, classism, nationalism, bullying, war, and it even governs the interactions between sports fans, religious groups, political groups, social groups, and those with intellectual differences. The evolution of socializing explains why this is so and it is absolutely not just a problem of the religious, although those who make such a strong case for absolute morality probably look the most hypocritical when using out-group morality on those not within their congregation.

The bright light for us all comes when we realize that morality is not something given to us by god - something which is immutable and instructs us to go to war against heathens and non-believers. But that it is rather something that can grow as we continually widen the definition of the groups to which we belong. In other words, if we see ourselves as defined simply by race or creed we allow for racism and religious hatred. If we rather define ourselves as Americans we can see past racial and religious differences. Seeing past race, class, sex, religion, nationality, and whether or not we like the Red Sox or Yankees, we easily expand our in-group morality to everyone on the planet and do away with destructive out-group thinking.

It is the natural course of things that those who define themselves as in-group moralists will expand their groups and form new broader allegiances. However there are those who define themselves by out-group thinking who resist expanding their groups and deny brotherhood to others. Religions often fall under strict out-group regulation. Atheists most often operateunder in-group inclusiveness (except of course when dealing with creationists - yikes! LOL)

  • 4 votes
#1.28 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:43 PM EDT
Fred Evil

Ok, on the vote, why is there no option for 'No, atheists are MORE moral than theists'?

  • 9 votes
#1.29 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:22 PM EDT
MWeaver

'No, atheists are MORE moral than theists'?

I could argue that point of view, based on American society, of course.

  • 9 votes
#1.30 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:24 PM EDT
Nick46

Atheism is not a religion.

Yes I know that.

  • 2 votes
#1.31 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:51 PM EDT
cowboygrandpa

Personally, I don't know if any "religion" makes a person more moral than another, or the lack of "religion" makes a person less moral than another.

I know that holding a belief in Jesus Christ and His teachings about the "Old Testament" and what the Bible really is meant to teach us has opened my eyes. But I have also seen atheists step out and help people where some who claim to be"Christians" won't.

I think that sometimes people mix up "religious behavior" with Holiness. Nothing could be farther from the Truth.

Radical religious people turn me away from their behaviors just as radical non religious people do.

  • 8 votes
#1.32 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:58 PM EDT
spg64-1292127

If you look at the rates of criminal and anti-social behaviors in US politics, it is the FAR RIGHT that that has the most extreme behaviors and numbers.

The Far Right in US Politics often portrays themselves as "more Moral" due to their fundamentalist Christian beliefs, yet their behavior is continually "less Moral" than those on the left who do not portray themselves in a religious manner.

Just look at the revelations that have been uncovered about Members of "The Family" (the C-Street House) a bi-partisan, but primarily right wing group of Politicians that today seem to dominate US Politics. They believe themselves to be "chosen" by god and have been fairly open about that idea that this allows them to be judged separately from the masses. Maybe this is why so many of them who have been caught in strange sexual and less than legal affairs.

  • 5 votes
#1.33 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:18 PM EDT
ScubaGolfJim

In Bill Maher's movie "Religuous" one of the best lines spoken was when Bill thanked the group of truckers at their little chapel for being "Christ-like" not "christian" in their interactions with him. That says a lot.

I agree that the Jesus portrayed in the bible is someone whose general actions are worthy of emulating. I also believe the bible is not the "word of god" but a collection of fables.

We all know someone we admire and would like to "live up to" his/her admiration. I believe this is the source of the bible's Jesus. Was there a man named Jesus that had such liberal (and they were!) views in that time? Probably? Was he a cult leader (as we would call it today) starting a religion? Maybe. Was he a moral man? According to what we know, yes. Do you have to believe in him or the teachings of him or some other religious deity to be moral? No.

An example of my problem with the loud religious... if a non-religious man cheats on his wife, he is guilty of adultery. If a religious man cheats on his wife, he is guilty of adultery and hypocrisy, but thinks he is forgiven while the other is not.

  • 9 votes
#1.34 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:46 PM EDT
JM California

Grisham, good solid question. There is no certainty whether religious zealots or atheists will act morally.

A purist Atheist may have no moral issue with a lack of personal civility. Most atheist's moral guidance is framed by empathy, social mores, logic and humanist philosophy rather than a single book or the opinion of a religious leader. An atheist can attain ethical conclusions, but may need some help along that path.

Morality, defined is ethics, decency, probity, honesty, integrity, virtue, godliness or saintliness. Some of its attributes are not genetically preprogrammed within humanity.

One can look into the poorest communities, such as in Calcutta, and missionaries will say that they had to teach basic civics to common thieves. The message, it is wrong to steal, is a foundation of civilized culture and is learned. The goal of the missionary is to educate and introduce what is right and wrong so that a successful community can form.

The problem with atheism, according to primate biologist, Frans de Waal, is that it doesn't offer a replacement for this system of moral guidance traditionally offered by religion. The removal of religion would not result in anarchy and total selfishness, as some have claimed, but the framework for deciding these abstract ethical questions would be gone.

Grisham, I agree with your assertion that morality is required if we want to build a successful social structure. Common morality is vitally important and it likely existed before organized religion.

Much of de Waals piece emphasizes that since the building blocks for morality–empathy and a sense of fairness–are present in primates and other mammals, they must have predated the origin of modern religion.

So where does that leave modern man?

Some purist atheists may abandon morality, but they can't avoid modern civilized society and it's law and order. Other Atheists abandon the hocus pocus of god and religion, but not it's moral teachings. Some Atheists will have learned morality or civil conduct by example, from their parenting and the "village".

I am an atheist because it makes sense. My Christian religion became illogical and outdated. I don't judge religious people; I tolerate them, unless they try to impose their dogma upon me. I am not immoral. I know that there is a fundamental illogicality to my morality base, but I choose morality because it is good for society and me.

  • 5 votes
#1.35 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:00 PM EDT
K1NGZ

there all atheists, you really think its all that hard to pretend to be religious?

  • 2 votes
#1.36 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:37 PM EDT
sms29s66

If God is required for morality to exist, then morality is really nothing but fear. When I first started wrestling with belief as a teenager, the blashpemous thought came to me--Christianity is nothing more than bargaining with God. If You guarantee me heaven, I'll believe in You--otherwise take a hike.

  • 8 votes
#1.37 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:48 PM EDT
samenslow

Hunger always trumps morality as does fear. Remember The Lord of the Flies?

  • 6 votes
#1.38 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:59 PM EDT
JM California

sm29s66:

That certainly is another way to look at it. Reminds me of Pascal's Wager:

It is a suggestion posed by French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal that even the existence of God cannot be determined through reason, a rational person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.


  • 3 votes
#1.39 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:02 AM EDT
sms29s66

JM, Pascal may not have considered his dignity as a human being a loss. I would.

My ex and I argued his wager to death.

  • 3 votes
#1.40 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:09 AM EDT
JM California

That could cause a divorce.

    #1.41 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:32 AM EDT
    sms29s66

    Not my ex husband. We divorced for other reasons. My most recent boyfriend (I hate that word). :)

    • 1 vote
    #1.42 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:51 AM EDT
    Nick46

    But I have also seen atheists step out and help people where some who claim to be"Christians" won't.

    This statement has me thinking. Just how do you know someone is an atheist or Christian? I am not sure I know any atheists. But I think I know Christians because they attend church or at least say they do.

      #1.43 - Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:13 PM EDT
      MadaTx

      Mongo has made some good points. I am a theist but I am not a religious person in any particular kind. Morality is an extremely complex matter. Far too often I felt something was wrong for a second, then thoughts came up creating excuse after excuse that it wasn't really wrong. I'd bet all of you have run into situation like this before.

      As of atheists, in the past I have discussed with many of them and found something in common. Most of them are more like anti-orthodox Christianity than really atheists.

        #1.44 - Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:25 PM EDT
        Dubbya R

        The answer is that atheists are thought to be immoral or at least less moral than someone who embraces religion.

        I've certainly met and listened to a number of people who believe this way, but I wonder if in the case of elections, the reason why so many shy from voting for an atheist candidate is a matter of 'perceived' predictability.

        Our citizenry punishes politicians who change their stance on issues by calling them 'flip-floppers', even if they make clear their claimed change in view is motivated by conscience or morality. Yet the public will also repeatedly vote into or back into office, a politician who has a history of criminal charges or questionable morals.

        If they don't understand atheism, the public has trouble predicting how that person/candidate will vote or what their stand will be on issues.

        I think the old saying of 'better the devil you know, than the one you don't' plays a large role in the public's comfort with candidates.

        Nicely written and thought provoking article Grisham.

        • 3 votes
        #1.45 - Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:21 AM EDT
        NYPeach

        No, I do not believe that Atheists are Immoral. I am a Christian and find some comfort in prayer but for some strange reason that bothers "some" Atheists. Just as Atheists do not like religion shoved down their throats, I do not like it when "some" Atheists disrespect my belief in God.

        My mother-in-law finds comfort in prayer and says the rosary everyday. My late grandmother found great comfort in the Catholic church and I believe that is what got her through some troublesome spots towards the end of her life. The older I get, the more I lean towards my belief in God and you can mock me for that till the cows come home.

        All in all....I just wish all people of all faiths or lack of faith could find some way to just freaking get along.

        • 3 votes
        #1.46 - Tue Jul 19, 2011 3:07 PM EDT
        Ave Luciferi!

        All in all....I just wish all people of all faiths or lack of faith could find some way to just freaking get along.

        Now, that would be some feat. If only, NYPeach, if only. :/

        • 2 votes
        #1.47 - Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:01 PM EDT
        JM California

        All in all....I just wish all people of all faiths or lack of faith could find some way to just freaking get along.

        I assume you live in the United States where people of all faiths do get along and have for a few centuries.

        • 3 votes
        #1.48 - Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:06 PM EDT
        NoExaggerations

        Jason Burnham, I agree with most of what you said except with this:

        Seriously? Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, Castro, etc. have shown that Theists do not have a monopoly on the whole raping and reprograming agenda. In the last 100 years Atheism have not only taken that whole rape and reprogram Trophey but they done ran off with it too. All I know is I never ever want to live in a world where an Atheist has came to power. Nothing good has came from it.

        It's true, that some atheist have committed atrocities, but so have a lot of religious people like Osama Bin Laden, most of the leaders in the Crusades and most of the leaders in Thirty Years' War, who committed atrocities on religious grounds and there are many people who were religious and committed atrocities but not on religious grounds like Genghis Khan(Mongol Conquests), Saddam Hussein, Hong Xiuquan(Taiping Rebellion) and Zhang Jue(Yellow Turban Rebellion). Among the people you mentioned only Stalin committed some mass murders based on atheism (or rather opposition to religion based on communism(he permitted religion during WWII to support patriotism)) and in the end his atheistic repression claimed less than 200000 lives (Thirty Years War claimed 3 million - 11,5 mln lives when the world population was about 600 mln and the Crusades claimed 1 mln - 9 mln lives when the world population was about 300 mln). The atrocities committed by the people you mentioned are because of communism not atheism (all of the people you mentioned were communists) and if you observe information in you will find that religious people have murdered a lot more people than everyone together in WWII and even more than atheists. There are bad atheist leaders like there are good atheist leaders just like it is with religious leaders. For example the prime minister of Norway, Jens Stoltenberg, the prime minister of Sweden, John Fredrik Reinfeldt and the prime minister of Australia, Julia Gillard, none of them are religious and since all of those countries have constitutional monarchies, prime minister has the most political power in those countries and as far as I know all of those countries are doing fine. You shouldn't generalize the leadership of atheists since there are good atheist leaders in the modern world and all generalizations(except the definition of group like christians belive in christianity) are false. Your statment would be far closer to truth if you would have replaced atheism with communism but still it wouldn't have been perfectly true.

        • 5 votes
        #1.49 - Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:36 PM EDT
        Tim S.-560036

        The atrocities committed by the people you mentioned are because of communism not atheism (all of the people you mentioned were communists)

        Not one of them was communist. All of them were totalitarian. If you would look at what communism is you would know that totalitarian regimes and communism are diametrically opposed to one another. A dictator is a dictator and they have one moral, power. Power corrupts and it is hard to find a power that competes with a dictatorship until one looks at religion. In fact, religion is the WMD equivalent of the dictator. The religion of those mentioned above is them. They weren't atheists, they believed they were god.

        • 7 votes
        #1.50 - Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:13 PM EDT
        NoExaggerations

        @Tim S.-560036

        Still, self-proclaimed communist in power is the closest thing you can get to a communist in power so for simplicity let's declare them communists since ideologically they were that. Basically what they established was totalitarian socialist states, while socialist anarchy would already be communism. That's the closest thing anyone has ever gotten to communism and socialist anarchy would be impossible since anarchism would be impossible to achieve without destroying the country. Clearly communism in concept and communism in practice are two completely different things. Most of the communistic (not exactly but the closest you can get) states declared their state socialistic while promising to work towards communism. All the communistic movements have always only promised communism, just like religious movements have used the promise of divine approval and people believed both. I think communism should be declared religion since it works like one, but instead of divine approval and eternal utopic afterlife it promises a 'better' society and like other religions, dictators have used it as a weapon. And of course the atheism of these people could be questioned but they are still widely regarded as atheists. I personally would like to declare communism a religion and end the "atheist war crimes" dispute.

        • 2 votes
        #1.51 - Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:40 PM EDT
        Tim S.-560036

        Still, self-proclaimed communist in power is the closest thing you can get to a communist in power so for simplicity let's declare them communists since ideologically they were that.

        No they weren't. They were dictators that used propaganda and rhetoric. They can call themselves dradles for all I dare it does not make them a children's toy. They weren't socialist states any more than a monarchy is a socialist state. They were feudal states. An aristocrat class ruled and told the rest what to do. That is not socialist. @!$%# man use your brain and quit accepting everything those wanting to manipulate you say. How is Stalin different than any Tsar or King George III or Louis XIV or XVI? How are they different than Hitler or Mussolini? Where did the people have a say in the economy let alone in the government? A real say? If society doesn't have a say, how can it be a socialist system?

        Now if you want to discuss the practicality of communism that is a different story and discussion. Since it has never existed in practice there is no way to compare the theoretical to the practical.

        • 6 votes
        #1.52 - Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:18 PM EDT
        NoExaggerations

        Definition of socialist state: A socialist state (or socialist republic) generally refers to any state that is constitutionally dedicated to the development of a socialist society. By that definition those countries clearly were socialist states. Soviet Union didn't have the kind of "true socialism" you were referring to, but it did have state socialism. Socialism is an economic system while monarchy is a form of government so they can co-exist just like socialism and autocracy or socialism and anarchy. Soviet Union did have collective industrial property and collective land while the government owned the means of production and that is state socialism. State socialism is basically a transaction stage to "true socialism" and it is socialistic. The difference between Stalin and the other people you mentioned is that Stalin established state socialism and used communism as an ideological weapon. Also who was communist or not is not the point of what I was trying to say. I was trying to say that communism is the ideological weapon that was used for the acts of terror by these people not atheism and those dictators used communistic propaganda and communistic rhetoric btw. Also declaring people communistic or not can be subjective at times, but those dictators clearly used communism as an ideological weapon so just like I would declare a person who uses religion as an ideological weapon a religious person I declare a person who uses communism as an ideological weapon a communist.

        • 2 votes
        #1.53 - Sat Jul 23, 2011 8:07 AM EDT
        Tim S.-560036

        I don't care how the cold war defined the term with propaganda. Yes the economics was run by the state. But the state was not representative of the society. It was run by and for an elite group. In that way it is no different than the early absolute monarchies. They were not socialistic in any way and neither was the USSR or China. Get your head out of the cold war and look at the writings.

        • 3 votes
        #1.54 - Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:39 AM EDT
        NoExaggerations

        Socialism is only an economic system. Whether the form of government is a democracy, monarchy or totalitarianism doesn't matter, the state can still have socialism. There are many branches of socialism and state socialism is one of them. The main difference of state socialism and other branches of socialism is that state socialism advocates state ownership of the means of production while other forms of socialism advocate public ownership of the means of production. USSR and China during Mao Zedong clearly adopted state socialism as an economic system while having totalitarian governments. Totalitarianism is the similarity those two countries had to the early absolute monarchies, but their economic systems were different. Whether the state is run by an elite group or whether it represents it's society isn't in any way relevant to socialism.

        • 2 votes
        #1.55 - Sat Jul 23, 2011 4:05 PM EDT
        Daniel A. Hallo

        "Egoism, in a broader sense, has been... presented as the source of moral action. It has been said that we feed the hungry, clothe the naked, bind up the wounds of the man beaten by thieves, pour oil and wine into them, set him on our own beast and bring him to the inn, because we receive ourselves pleasure from these acts... These good acts give us pleasure, but how happens it that they give us pleasure? Because nature hath implanted in our breasts a love of others, a sense of duty to them, a moral instinct, in short, which prompts us irresistibly to feel and to succor their distresses... The Creator would indeed have been a bungling artist had he intended man for a social animal without planting in him social dispositions. It is true they are not planted in every man, because there is no rule without exceptions; but it is false reasoning which converts exceptions into the general rule." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814.

        • 5 votes
        #1.56 - Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:37 PM EDT
        Tim S.-560036

        "state socialism" with a small elite fraction of the population comprising the State is not socialism. Society is not making the economic decisions and oligarchy is. An oligarchy is not society.

        • 6 votes
        #1.57 - Sun Jul 24, 2011 3:12 PM EDT
        NoExaggerations

        Definition of socialism: Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system.
        Definition of public ownership(in this context): State ownership, also called public ownership, government ownership or state property, are property interests that are vested in the state, rather than an individual or communities. State socialism is socialism where the means of productions are owned by state and it completely fits in the boundaries of the definition of socialism. Whether a small elite fraction of the population is comprising the state or whether economic decisions are made by an oligarchic government has no relevance to whether the state has a socialistic economy since socialism only means who owns the means of production. Also a very good thing to know: The word socialism refers to a broad range of theoretical and historical socio-economic systems, and has also been used by many political movements throughout history to describe themselves and their goals, generating numerous types of socialism. You are confusing the general term socialism with a lot more strict form of socialism.

        • 1 vote
        #1.58 - Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:23 PM EDT
        Daniel A. Hallo

        "To us [is committed] the important task of proving by example that a government, if organized in all its parts on the representative principle, unadulterated by the infusion of spurious elements, if founded not in the fears and follies of man but on his reason, on his sense of right, on the predominance of the social over his dissocial passions, may be so free as to restrain him in no moral right and so firm as to protect him from every moral wrong." --Thomas Jefferson to Amos Marsh, 1801

        • 4 votes
        #1.59 - Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:56 PM EDT
        Tim S.-560036

        NoEx,

        It really doesn't matter. We are a Constitutional, Representative Republic with a high degree of democracy. We are not some totalitarian culture that is used to a command economy. Socialism does not have to be a command economy. And there is nothing that says we have to be a pure capitalist or socialist or any other ist economy.

        • 7 votes
        #1.60 - Mon Jul 25, 2011 2:33 PM EDT
        SoCAGal

        You need God for morals to exist at all

        I was discussing this with a friend last evening and as we thought about it, we determined that morals come from our parents who got their morals from their parents and so on and so forth all the way back to the beginning of time. It doesn't have anything at all to do with believing in a God or not. The God component comes in as a way for many of us to have guidance and conscience's. Not to say that somebody who doesn't believe in God doesn't have a conscience - its just that their conscience is based on the morals they acquired over their lifetime. I do believe in God and that type of structure is good for me and helps me to keep my morals and values because my conscience kicks in when I don't because I feel as if I'm accountable to God. Thats my own belief. Everybody has to find their own way of keeping their morals and values in check, if they so choose.

        • 3 votes
        #1.61 - Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:19 PM EDT
        Daniel A. Hallo

        "When [the moral sense] is wanting, we endeavor to supply the defect by education, by appeals to reason and calculation, by presenting to the being so unhappily conformed, other motives to do good and to eschew evil, such as the love, or the hatred, or the rejection of those among whom he lives, and whose society is necessary to his happiness and even existence; demonstrations by sound calculation that honesty promotes interest in the long run; the rewards and penalties established by the laws; and ultimately the prospects of a future state of retribution for the evil as well as the good done while here. These are the correctives which are supplied by education, and which exercise the functions of the moralist, the preacher, and legislator; and they lead into a course of correct action all those whose depravity is not too profound to be eradicated." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814.

        • 6 votes
        #1.62 - Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:23 PM EDT
        PeaceBlessing

        Seems like the long version of "Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you" or "Love thy neighbor as thyself"?

        • 3 votes
        #1.63 - Tue Jul 26, 2011 1:51 PM EDT
        Artie-3438207

        It's a deliberation on how to make the immoral moral, notably by TJ.

        • 3 votes
        #1.64 - Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:01 PM EDT
        Daniel A. Hallo

        It's plain and simple english, and is what it says.

        "Truth is certainly a branch of morality, and a very important one to society." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Law, 1814.

        • 4 votes
        #1.65 - Tue Jul 26, 2011 2:09 PM EDT
        Artie-3438207

        Question addressed in 1.62 is how to convince others to be moral.

        When the moral sense is wanting...by presenting the being so unhappily conformed...

        These are correctives which are supplied by education...and they lead into a course of correct action all those whose depravity is not too profound to be eradicated.

        Jefferson believed that democracy by the masses was possible through education. Others believed in a representative government instead. Plain, but not simple :)

        • 3 votes
        #1.66 - Tue Jul 26, 2011 5:51 PM EDT
        Artie-3438207

        The point of 1.62 is a deliberation on how to make the immoral act morally.

        I don't see the point of the paragraph being that "Truth is certainly a branch of morality..."

        • 3 votes
        #1.67 - Tue Jul 26, 2011 9:25 PM EDT
        Reply
        Abby.

        When I first saw the title on the tracker, I thought "What the??"
        But I am so glad that I popped in anyway.
        Thankyou for your article, Grishy.
        :)

        • 15 votes
        Reply#2 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:22 PM EDT
        Grisham

        LMAO. You were ready to blast me, weren't you, Abbster? *wink*

        • 13 votes
        #2.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:33 PM EDT
        MWeaver

        You son-of-a...(well, Weaver at least read it first)...oh, great article Grisham! Very well said. ;-)

        • 15 votes
        #2.2 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:01 PM EDT
        MWeaver

        But all kidding aside, you nailed it.

        • 18 votes
        #2.3 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:02 PM EDT
        Grisham

        Thanks MWeaver! I'm just glad I ducked the Abby fist. She can be a feisty one.

        • 13 votes
        #2.4 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:22 PM EDT
        etva

        Add me to the "nearly deleted the article" list, until I saw it was from you.

        Great article, Grish. I think moral and immoral is a reflection of the individual, rather than a specific religion or population.

        • 12 votes
        #2.5 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:48 PM EDT
        Grisham

        Ha ha! So I'm like a boxer, ducking and weaving from the Newsviners fists!

        I'm glad you didn't delete it and stopped in, etva.

        • 12 votes
        #2.6 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:52 PM EDT
        etva

        You're just lucky Abby didn't come in swinging the NOPS!

        • 8 votes
        #2.7 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:56 PM EDT
        Grisham

        The NOPS would have no effect on me. Only Neale. A stick hasn't been made that can hurt me...yet.

        • 8 votes
        #2.8 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:50 PM EDT
        etva

        I heard the there was some confusion about the GROPS. Enoch said we needed and "e":)

        • 6 votes
        #2.9 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:53 PM EDT
        Jazzy Does (Droid Doesn't)

        @ Iceman:

        BUT so-called "Christian Conservatives" are! — They are not only immoral but also bigoted racists, hypocrites and homophobes who are consumed by their own egomania and swinish greed!

        Does anybody want to condemn this statement? Is this not a violation of the CoH?

        I'm not going to lie, but the word "swinish" really reminds me of what the Nazis referred to the Jews as. The connection I made between that statement and the Third Reich made me upset at the comment, probably even more so than one should get over it.

          #2.10 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:05 PM EDT
          Abby.

          A stick hasn't been made that can hurt me...yet.

          That depends on who's wielding the stick!
          *giggle*
          ;)

          • 5 votes
          #2.11 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:36 PM EDT
          Reply
          bobby3053155

          Grisham, having morals has more to do with common sense than anything else. Look, I couldn't care if some one hugged trees as a religion, if they are good people I would have no problem voting for them. Good people do the right thing.

          Look what humanity does to each other in the name of God. I believe in God and doubt that he would approve of what some humans do in his name.

          • 14 votes
          Reply#3 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:39 PM EDT
          Grisham

          I think those are wise words, bobby. Always a pleasure to see you in one of my threads.

          • 10 votes
          #3.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:23 PM EDT
          C. Y.

          Well said, bobby.

          Great article, Grish.

          • 8 votes
          #3.2 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:51 PM EDT
          Kearney Outlaw

          Yup. Bobby sez the right thing again.

          (I'll just follow Bobby around and paste this in everywhere. It's easier.)

          • 7 votes
          #3.3 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:21 PM EDT
          Reply
          oldfogey

          I would submit that atheists tend to be more moral than the religious. Atheists need no crutch other than being human to explain their morality.

          • 17 votes
          #4 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:42 PM EDT
          Grisham

          The thing I find (this is only my opinion) is that many religious people exude what I think of as false morality or false niceness. Not all obviously, but some. I think there are immoral and moral people on both sides of the fence. I just don't agree with how organized religions tend to try and control people and whole countries using the word of their God. It doesn't make sense to me on any level.

          • 15 votes
          #4.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:26 PM EDT
          PeaceBlessing

          I just don't agree with how organized religions tend to try and control people and whole countries using the word of their God. It doesn't make sense to me on any level.

          I understand your concern, and I do not believe in organized religion myself. However, I do believe in God, and according to my understanding based on what is written in the Holy Bible , God does not expect that any individual use His word to control anyone, only that one believe Him and do our best to do as He instructs. From my experience, God's word speaks for itself, and all God desires is that the individual choose of their own free will to seek His truth while rightly dividing His truth (by understanding the when, the who, the what, the where and the why). When one does this, God is able to lead, guide and direct the individual according to His plan and His purpose for those He created. It does take faith to please God, many do not consider faith as an option and thereby they rule themselves out.

          The good news from my perspective is that God is always there when and if one choose to sincerely consider Him as a real option. Again, I know not everyone see things as I do, and as I've said previously, not a problem for me.

          • 2 votes
          #4.2 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:09 PM EDT
          TheJackel

          , God does not expect that any individual use His word to control anyone, only that one believe Him and do our best to do as He instructs

          PeaceBlessing, I don't know which bible you read, but that is not actually the case.

          • 5 votes
          #4.3 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:44 AM EDT
          PeaceBlessing

          Hi TheJackel,

          PeaceBlessing, I don't know which bible you read, but that is not actually the case.

          I use a KJV Companion Bible as a study Bible. To further explain my comment in the context it is meant is that God desires a one on one relationship with whosoever will. Those who share God's word are to share it as it is written, nothing more. No one is to use God's word to lord over anyone, just stick to His truth as it is written, and one is free to believe or not believe, it's just that simple.

          I know what actually occurs from some is just the opposite, however that has nothing to do with what God expects, it is what those do who actually believe that they are the ones providing salvation which I find somewhat humorous since one can't even save themselves let alone anyone else.

          Many have no wisdom, no knowledge and no understanding of what is expected from God so they take what they think they know and run with it, and a lot of folks follow suit because they do not take the time to actually seek God's truth for themselves, they prefer to get their understanding based on what they might hear from the pulpit; not so much based on what is actually instructed from God as it is written. Rightly divided, God's truth is a beautiful thing, it is too bad many choose to fore-go gaining wisdom, knowledge and understanding directly from it according to God's will but rather choose instead to go with misinterpretations and/or with what someone else tells them which usually as I've learned from actually studying for myself, has nothing to do with what God says nor what God expects. Obviously, from your comment, your understanding is different than mine which is not a problem for me, I'll just stick to my understanding based on what is actually written from God.

          I do recommend a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance as it does allow any to translate words in the Holy Bible back to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Manuscripts which can bring much clarity to what is written from God. I also understand from what is written that God Himself has put the spirit of slumber (stupor) on many for their own safety to guard against them being led to far astray as many will just say "that doesn't make any sense" and just leave it at that; this is a good thing from my perspective based on what I've heard some claim in God's name.

          • 4 votes
          #4.4 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:36 AM EDT
          TheJackel

          God desires a one on one relationship with whosoever will.

          That's not what the bible teaches what-so-ever. Especially the KJV.

          God Himself has put the spirit of slumber (stupor) on many for their own safety to guard against them being led to far astray

          Yeah because Omniscience kind of tends to make beings a GOD and uncontrollable doesn't it? If you need them little mortals to keep worshiping you like servants, you have to keep them in a stupor don't you? Hmmm sounds just about right in regards to religion and the real world. Teaching ignorance and keeping the flock in a state of Stockholm stupor makes them easy to control.

          God's truth is a beautiful thing

          Yeah, we always wanted to be there when he decided to drown babies, kittens, puppies, school kids, pregnant mothers ect.. We just wanted to say that is such a "beautiful" thing!

          it is too bad many choose to fore-go gaining wisdom

          Oh yeah, nice religious dogma. And yet you tell people that your GOD likes them in a state of stupor.. Make up your mind kid. And telling people they are for-going wisdom for rejecting this nonsense is just purely begging for ignorance while subliminally insulting peoples intelligence for the purpose of promoting your religion. You kindly display typical use of the mechanics found in brainwashing.

          What that translates to is this:

          Uneducated people are easier to control, manipulate, incite, brainwash, and use as servants. It's the very process of holding power, controlling the masses, obtaining all the wealth and land.

          God's will but rather choose instead to go with misinterpretations

          You mean like yours? Or was that the Orthodox, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, or those who worship hundreds of other GODS? And I am sure you like to cherry pick and self-invent your own "interpretations" of the bible since you so clearly display that very tact in your own post above.

          I do recommend a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance as it does allow any to translate words in the Holy Bible back to the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek Manuscripts which can bring much clarity to what is written from God.

          This is usually a setup argument to make excuses for anything anyone can find that contradicts your self-invented "interpretations" of the bible. Usually revolves around dual use words, or rearranging words to change the meaning to suit your needs. And if you are going by the KJV, you are far off from any meaningful source of original text. Though I can see you sitting there pretending as if you do.

          • 9 votes
          #4.5 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:40 AM EDT
          ScubaGolfJim

          Grisham

          The thing I find (this is only my opinion) is that many religious people exude what I think of as false morality or false niceness.

          I agree totally. And a prime example in my opinion? When some "believer" on the vine, knowing you object to any religious belief, wants to further assail you by inputting "i'll pray for you" or some other BS and ending with "dog bless you" (yes, that was intentional.) They don't actually mean what they have written, they simply want to throw more fuel on the fire because they know their "innocent and caring statements" are potentially offensive to you.

          With a moniker like PeaceBlessing , honestly I thought I was about to see that kind of action from them, but I've been pleasantly surprised by the comments thus far.

          Well written article. I invite you to visit my column and read the one I published a little over a year ago now. (No comments there please. I like that it ended with 911.) We appear to be on the same page. I'd be honored to have you accept my Friend Request I'm sending very soon.

          • 2 votes
          #4.6 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:54 PM EDT
          Grisham

          Thanks Jim. I will for sure stop over and as soon as I finish reading the comments, I'd be happy to accept your friend request.

            #4.7 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:21 PM EDT
            aphill

            Yeah, we always wanted to be there when he decided to drown babies, kittens, puppies, school kids, pregnant mothers ect.. We just wanted to say that is such a "beautiful" thing!

            So often people emphasize and highlight the negative things in this world as an argument against God but forget about all the good things.

            Uneducated people are easier to control, manipulate, incite, brainwash, and use as servants. It's the very process of holding power, controlling the masses, obtaining all the wealth and land.

            Are you insinuating that people who believe in God are uneducated, ignorant, and easy to manipulate?

            This is usually a setup argument to make excuses for anything anyone can find that contradicts your self-invented "interpretations" of the bible.

            Why is a believer's interpretations of the Bible "self-invented" but your interpretations "truth"?

              #4.8 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:33 PM EDT
              TheJackel

              So often people emphasize and highlight the negative things in this world as an argument against God but forget about all the good things.

              This is like saying:

              Hey, don't pay attention to that, or DON'T LOOK HERE!..

              Are you seriously suggesting that we ignore these things in order to magically find a path to accepting them? Really? I think not, and I think addressing them really show's why it's nonsense to begin with.

              Are you insinuating that people who believe in God are uneducated, ignorant, and easy to manipulate?

              No I am not. In no way does this make uneducated people worthless than any of us. I was stating a fact of reality, especially when such people are victims of a system that holds them down. It's not insulting at all, it's saying they deserve better than that.

              Why is a believer's interpretations of the Bible "self-invented" but your interpretations "truth"?

              Do I really need to get into quoting? I could literally sit here all day long posting examples. But if you really want me to, I can. Finding examples of this would be easier than fishing with dynamite in a pool full of fish.

              • 5 votes
              #4.9 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:50 PM EDT
              PeaceBlessing

              Hi TheJackel,

              We obviously have a totally different understanding of what is written in the Holy Bible, and as I've commented previously, this is not a problem for me. Are you an Atheist? You seem to be very uptight regardless and there is really no need for you to be condescending in your response to me, I only share based on my belief; it's okay if you do not agree with me?

              And if you are going by the KJV, you are far off from any meaningful source of original text. Though I can see you sitting there pretending as if you do.

              That would make you akin to a prophet wouldn't it? Sorry, no disrespect, but I fine that humorous, LOL! You may have missed the comment where I suggested one also use a Strong's Concordance to assist with translating back to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, that's okay if you did, but it does help if one desires to understand what is written based on the original languages?

              Hi ScubaGolfJim,

              With a moniker like PeaceBlessing, honestly I thought I was about to see that kind of action from them, but I've been pleasantly surprised by the comments thus far.

              Hey, what's in a name, LOL. You know it is ones actions that can make or break a deal? Thank you for your comment.

              • 1 vote
              #4.10 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:30 AM EDT
              Chirmly

              Why even discuss the bible, much less ascribe to it any moral credibility. If you believe that it IS a source of divine morality, the kind of morality that couldn't have come from nigh-paleolithic tribes, then PLEASE enlighten us all -- provide us an example.

              All we rationalist see are things where god's backing Samson (psychopath antisocial savage with no redeeming qualities, yet considered a hero even after killing worshippers during prayer), or advocating and condoning slavery, rape, murder, pillaging and even participating in killing of innocent children and woman, en masse.

              Where, in the bible does one find actual lessons of morality which evince any semblance of divine origin?

              Wouldn't the bible be far more a testament to shockingly barbaric beharioural rationalization?

              I will cede that it extols a great many teachings. It's just that as a font of any system of morality, it's not one a non-psychopath would think worthy of emulating.

              • 4 votes
              #4.11 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:55 AM EDT
              PeaceBlessing

              Hi Chirmly,

              Why even discuss the bible, much less ascribe to it any moral credibility.

              I discuss the Bible because I can and because I believe it to be the written word of God, however I do not ascribe it to be anything more than that? Others are free to ascribe it to be whatever or whatever not they so choose. I also simply expressed that my belief in God is what makes the difference between me and those who claim to be Atheist. I make no claim that this difference makes me or an Atheist more or less of a moral person which is the topic of this thread; it is just that we each come from a different perspective IMHO.

              I will cede that it extols a great many teachings. It's just that as a font of any system of morality, it's not one a non-psychopath would think worthy of emulating.

              Wow Chirmly, I am sure you didn't mean this to come across as an insult, right?

              Hi Grisham,

              I have appreciated the opportunity to comment based on your article, I found it to be very well written. I believe morals can be a fleeting attribute that can be exhibited and/or not depending on the individual at any given time.

              • 1 vote
              #4.12 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:22 AM EDT
              TheJackel

              PeaceBlessing,

              Are you an Atheist?

              I am, and I was a Christian. The funny part about this is that you really think I don't know what you're doing. You're playing a game you aren't going to win here lol. Not with me, not with someone who's been there and done that. If you want to play for ignorance, you might want to try somewhere else. You would be a fool to think if you're going to pass this nonsense by me:

              That would make you akin to a prophet wouldn't it? Sorry, no disrespect, but I fine that humorous, LOL! You may have missed the comment where I suggested one also use a Strong's Concordance to assist with translating back to the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, that's okay if you did, but it does help if one desires to understand what is written based on the original languages?

              Let's make this quite clear as to where the limits of your position will stand with me:

              , I only share based on my belief;

              That is exactly the limits of your argument, especially concerning the interpretation of the bible.

              I make no claim that this difference makes me or an Atheist more or less of a moral person which is the topic of this thread;

              Yeah, you came here to preach. And preach dishonestly no less. But hey, your belief is that of your own, even if it's a self-invented belief or interpretation of the bible. :/

              • 5 votes
              #4.13 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:28 AM EDT
              Chirmly

              PB, do you think Samson was someone worth emulating? Do you think that sentencing people and their children to death simply because they did one thing that didn't harm any other person or creature?

              You'd have to treat the bible as a buffet-table, where you pick and choose what you want to adopt and what parts you want to ignore. If you believe slaves are property, then -- yeah, I would guess that would make you a psychopath. Sorry about that.

              Personally, I can't see having a bear maul 42 children to death as justifiable, so the source sounds all tainted to me.

              And I think that you also have much higher morals than that.

              • 4 votes
              #4.14 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:41 AM EDT
              JM California

              TheJackel:

              That's his main contradiction. He has abandoned organized religion to create his own "religion" (or has he?)..which he preaches. In the end, it's still a religion, which is faith based and not much different from most Christian sects. He'd of had more credibility if he included other non-Christian philosophies in his proselytizing...oops, I meant, spiritual journey.

              He's free to indulge his fantasies...I won't try to stop him.

              • 2 votes
              #4.15 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:50 AM EDT
              ScubaGolfJim

              PeaceBlessing

              Hey, what's in a name, LOL. You know it is ones actions that can make or break a deal? Thank you for your comment.

              Hey PeaceBlessing...

              Agreed LOL! I do agree that it is one's actions that define them. Unfortunately, an overwhelming majority of people that can choose their own "name" (or moniker in our case) and chooses one of a specific "type," tend to be overly that "type." I see it in political monikers as well as religious ones, and on both sides on both issues. While some do indeed come across as reasonable, most with a "position" moniker tend to take that position with a fervent disposition. I was happy to be "disappointed" in my expectations based on the "cover of the book."

              Have a great day!

              • 3 votes
              #4.16 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:07 AM EDT
              TheJackel

              JM California

              I don't mind if he self-invents or interprets the bible into his own beliefs. But it comes a problem when his arguments become rather dishonest. He has a right to believe what he wants, and that is ok. But the limit of the respect I have for his position is that I wouldn't seek to ban it, harm him for it, or force him not to believe in it. That's what practical tolerance is, and that is the limit of respect I give to his position :)

              Plus I think he's assuming that I am magically uptight by being direct with him on a rational level.. As if rationality is something to avoid since he tries to paint it being "uptight".. Such dishonest nonsense, and he seems to think he's clever in doing so. Oh how this brings back memories of when I use to do the same thing :/

              A little secret though.. He knows what he's doing, and he knows that he's being dishonest. He will swear up and down in contrary to that, but I know the game all to well. :)

              • 4 votes
              #4.17 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:14 AM EDT
              aphill

              Are you seriously suggesting that we ignore these things in order to magically find a path to accepting them? Really? I think not, and I think addressing them really show's why it's nonsense to begin with.

              I am not suggesting that the negative things in this world be ignored. I also don't think that they offer any proof into the non-existence of God. I am pointing out that you chose to ignore the truly beautiful things in this world in your effort to justify the non-existence of God.

              No I am not. In no way does this make uneducated people worthless than any of us. I was stating a fact of reality, especially when such people are victims of a system that holds them down. It's not insulting at all, it's saying they deserve better than that.

              So, am I to understand that you are saying that religions prey on the weak-minded? And that in your opinion, they deserve better than religion and need to be enlightened by Atheist individuals such as yourself?

              Do I really need to get into quoting? I could literally sit here all day long posting examples. But if you really want me to, I can. Finding examples of this would be easier than fishing with dynamite in a pool full of fish.

              Your overall tone is condescending. You can feel free to post examples if you wish, but it will more than likely not change the minds or hearts of anyone here. And I am sure that if you quote the Bible, it will not be anything I have not read myself.

              If I come to find out when I die that most of the world's population was wrong about God, and you are right, you, I, and everyone will succumb to the same fate. But, if you're wrong, you're fate will be very different than that of believers. I would rather live my life feeling happily fulfilled in what might turn out to be a "fairy-tale", than live with faith in nothing and find out I was terribly wrong.

              • 1 vote
              #4.18 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:57 AM EDT
              TheJackel

              proof into the non-existence of God.

              You only need opinion for that. And giving by the fact that such a thing is completely undefined in any sort of real context, it's meaningless to begin with. If you go by Christian GOD, it's a fire/volcano god.. So yes fire and volcanoes exist, but please see opinion section above. Gods are titles of opinion, and concepts of pure opinion regardless if any object, thing, or entity should exist to which you might choose to worship.. Cows are divine creatures of worship, and I could worship my bag of Doritos should I choose to as well. You can see here why the concept of GOD is purely meaningless to where anything and everything are a GOD or GODS, or there are no such things as GOD's at all:

              The Challenge to Theists: Evidence of GOD?

              But let's make this even more clear, The GOD described by such religions could never be worthy of my consideration to even remotely be considered a GOD. Please read:

              I DENY THE HOLY SPIRIT: Test Of Tolerance.

              I am pointing out that you chose to ignore the truly beautiful things in this world in your effort to justify the non-existence of God.

              That's a logical fallacy. And you are trying equate that all the beautiful things in this world are magically contributed to that of a supposed GOD as if such things wouldn't have such beauty without such a thing as a deity. That is completely nonsense. Lets give you an example:

              Existence itself is a very beautiful thing. However, Existence doesn't require or even need a GOD to exist. Any entity you might choose to bow down to would be slave to require existence, and the rules of to exist at all!. Beauty is not bound to need a "GOD".

              And that in your opinion, they deserve better than religion

              The context of my argument doesn't deal with religion in a generalizing sweep. It deals with oppressive religions that promote brainwashing, hate, violence, dogma ect. Kinda like Christianity, and Islam. However, there are religions that are inherently peaceful, religions such as Pantheism, Wicca, or other religions to which don't have doctrines of hate, violence ect.

              need to be enlightened by Atheist individuals such as yourself?

              What makes you think anyone need be enlightened by an "Atheist"? It doesn't take being an Atheist to think with a rational mind, or even have commonsense. I even wonder if you realize that there are a lot of Theists in this world that reject religion all together, accept (logic, reason , rationality, science, and commonsense) without need compromising their beliefs. What they choose to consider a GOD or potential GOD is irrelevant, and that is a personal thing to which is inherently relative to each individual. But when I see someone promote the bible and then claim it teaches the opposite of what it teaches ect, it just gets nonsensical.

              Your overall tone is condescending.

              Perhaps that's what a direct tone sounds like, or a tone that attempts to not allow circular logic, or dishonest discourse from poisoning the water hole.

              but it will more than likely not change the minds or hearts of anyone here

              I've said this before, you are not the target audience. Neither am I trying to change your heart or your mind. The objective of my posts clearly are an attempt to keep you honest, to educate those who might come here and read these discussions, and to point out common logical fallacies of religions such as Christianity. Especially when we are in a climate where Christian's are seeking to install a religious theocracy. There is a reason why Atheists are becoming more vocal. And if Theists don't like it, that is too bad.

              And I am sure that if you quote the Bible, it will not be anything I have not read myself.

              I've made no such claim

              If I come to find out when I die that most of the world's population was wrong about God, and you are right, you, I, and everyone will succumb to the same fate. But, if you're wrong, you're fate will be very different than that of believers. I would rather live my life feeling happily fulfilled in what might turn out to be a "fairy-tale", than live with faith in nothing and find out I was terribly wrong.

              Pascals wager is a meaningless game. Especially when such a concept is till entirely a matter of pure opinion, and title of pure opinion. It's entirely moot.

              • 4 votes
              #4.19 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 12:34 PM EDT
              PeaceBlessing

              Hi TheJackel,

              I am, and I was a Christian.

              So, by definition of Christian, that would mean that at one time you believed in God and His only begotten Son Jesus Christ as I do now, but now you don't, and I still do? Okay, from my understanding this happens all the time, it is not a concern for me.

              The funny part about this is that you really think I don't know what you're doing. You're playing a game you aren't going to win here lol. Not with me, not with someone who's been there and done that. If you want to play for ignorance, you might want to try somewhere else. You would be a fool to think if you're going to pass this nonsense by me:

              TheJackel, this is NV, people comment here on NV, so if there is a game being played as we all comment back and forth, it would seem that it is a game that we all are playng here on NV. But, as far as you're concerned, I have no desire to play a game specifically with you or anyone else. I am just as comfortable with my belief in God as you now seem to be with your being an Atheist.

              I do not feel the need to call you ignorant nor call that which you think or believe nonsense yet your entire response mode toward me has been attack, attack, attack because of my belief in God, and now it seems according to you it's a conspiracy on my part or as you say "You're playing a game here you're aren't going to win here, lol". From that comment, it appears you are playing a guessing game, and you're right I am not going to win because I am not playing your guessing game. You seem to have all the answers and can see into the future, and that is a game you've gotten me beat at because it is your game of solitaire, please do have fun playing it.

              Yeah, you came here to preach. And preach dishonestly no less. But hey, your belief is that of your own, even if it's a self-invented belief or interpretation of the bible.

              No, I believe you got me beat there also, however, let's be clear, being able to discuss my belief freely and openly isn't preaching, but I believe you know this already, you just throwing stuff out there to see if you can get something to stick, not sure why my belief in God is such an offense to you? It does appear that you are not accustom to others being able to articulate their belief in God outside of what you've been taught and/or learned, I hope you do not fine fault in me for making the effort to gain wisdom, knowledge and understanding of that which I believe in, it is actually what God expects those who believe in Him to do?

              Nothing I've commented has been done dishonestly, you do not care for me sharing my belief in God, that doesn't make it dishonest. I agree my belief in God is personal, no need for me to invent anything, God gives very clear instruction via His written word (Holy Bible). God freely shares His wisdom, knowledge and understanding through His written word to whosoever will, all I do is take Him up on His offer and seek it out as it is written, I truly find it to be a very beautiful personal relationship.

              Hi Chirmly,

              It is important that one rightly divide God's written word, when one is able to do this, that which one may lack understanding can suddenly become clear. Everything God does is according to His Plan and His Purpose for all those He created. All souls belong to God and if He decides to kill the flesh so that those souls can return back to where He is, it is His right to do. I have faith, I believe, I trust and I love God and I believe He loves all of those He created and He does and/or allows everything to occur according to His Plan and His Purpose.

              Absent from the body "flesh" is to be present with the Lord so all those who die in flesh (no matter how they die) their soul just goes back to God and the soul is very much alive. Really, there is no need to be overly concerned for those who have died in the flesh, yes we miss our love ones when they pass away, but knowing that their soul is very much alive with God should bring some peace and comfort. And, of course, no one with any compassion for others should enjoy seeing anyone suffer in the flesh regardless, and I have much compassion and do not care for anyone to suffer in their flesh, but I also know that flesh is temporary and that it is our soul that has the opportunity to live forever and ever, the flesh will end up back in the dirt, how and when is just a simple matter of time.

              And I think that you also have much higher morals than that.

              I am glad you think I have higher morals, but my morals are nothing compared to God.

              Hi JM,

              That's his main contradiction. He has abandoned organized religion to create his own "religion" (or has he?)..which he preaches. In the end, it's still a religion.

              My saying that I do not believe in organized religion isn't a contradiction, it is just the truth, I do not believe in organized religion, it's very simple. No need to make this to be anymore than it is. I believe in God but I do not need anything to come between me and God, religion tends to get in the way so I leave it to others. Really, it is no big deal.

              Hi SGJ,

              While some do indeed come across as reasonable, most with a "position" moniker tend to take that position with a fervent disposition. I was happy to be "disappointed" in my expectations based on the "cover of the book."

              Yes, believe me, I do understand where you coming from on this which is why I am very happy to disappoint you, LOL.

              Have a great day!

              Thanks, and you do the same!

              Oh, TheJackel, BTW...

              A little secret though.. He knows what he's doing, and he knows that he's being dishonest. He will swear up and down in contrary to that, but I know the game all to well. :)

              Not intended it to be a secret, and I do know it is difficult to really know this over the internet, but I would think while you're staring into your crystal ball or whatever you use to gain all your wisdom about me and my belief in God, you would have gotten it correct? In any case, please feel free to refer to me as a she since that is what I am, and yes this, I do swear up and down to, I am a very nice lady!

              thanks :-)!

              • 1 vote
              #4.20 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:16 PM EDT
              TheJackel

              So, by definition of Christian, that would mean that at one time you believed in God and His only begotten Son Jesus Christ as I do now, but now you don't, and I still do?

              That is one pile of incoherency.. If I don't believe anymore it really negates me being a "Christian" at this current time. I would think that is quite obvious. That however did not make me a non-Christian at the time when I had out of pure ignorance.

              TheJackel, this is NV, people comment here on NV, so if there is a game being played as we all comment back and forth, it would seem that it is a game that we all are playng here on NV.

              No this is called you preaching your religion as an off-topic subject. As in, your preaching has zero value in regards to the article and it's premises. You can define proselytizing, and internet troll here:

              Definition of PROSELYTIZE

              intransitive verb

              1
              : to induce someone to convert to one's faith

              2
              : to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause

              --

              Troll (Internet)

              In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory[citation needed], extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3]

              Now lets evaluate the following:

              I do not feel the need to call you ignorant nor call that which you think or believe nonsense yet your entire response mode toward me has been attack, attack, attack because of my belief in God, and now it seems according to you it's a conspiracy on my part or as you say "You're playing a game here you're aren't going to win here, lol".

              And yet you kindly continue to display it like a badge of honor. Your continued off-topic preaching is not only disrespectful to the person who seeded the article, it's the exact definition of being an internet troll. As in someone who has no proper forum etiquette. We are on your case because you are trolling, preach, and proselytizing. You are using the article as a launching pad for your religion.

              I am not playing your guessing game

              I suggest you don't because you will definitely lose that game. Especially in regards to the bible.

              No, I believe you got me beat there also, however, let's be clear, being able to discuss my belief freely and openly isn't preaching,

              Wrong!.. Especially when it's off-topic.. Your argument is like trying to defend spamming articles.. Your arguments are no better than someone coming in here spamming Political propaganda.

              Nothing I've commented has been done dishonestly,

              This is a continuation of your dishonest discourse.

              • 2 votes
              #4.21 - Tue Jul 19, 2011 2:21 PM EDT
              PeaceBlessing

              TheJackel,

              This is a continuation of your dishonest discourse.

              And we all can read your comments and see that everthing you've said has been directly on topic...you are not only dishonest, you come across as a lot more than that.

              To be on topic, I do not care what you claim to be because from my perspective you seem unstable so next week you'll probably claim something else, but as far as your morals, I assume those who know you may get to witness those attributes, at least I hope they do.

              • 1 vote
              #4.22 - Tue Jul 19, 2011 4:40 PM EDT
              TheJackel

              And we all can read your comments and see that everthing you've said has been directly on topic...you are not only dishonest, you come across as a lot more than that.

              Please point out where my posts are "off-topic", or not addressing someone's off-topic arguments here? I bet you will find that to be a rare event in this article ;). I in fact turned this very discussion with you into the topic of discussion on the moral value of your off-topic arguments that you regularly display. Such as this under a discussion on homosexuality:

              Satan is doing his job perfectly in this flesh age; he uses whosoever allows him to which puts homosexuals in the same boat with all flesh.

              Seriously? And you call yourself "peaceBlessing".. And it makes me wonder if you agree with the Bible about killing homosexuals and equating their blood to be on their own hands.

              you are not only dishonest, you come across as a lot more than that.

              I don't know about you, but my comments are still referring to morality specifically.. Perhaps you can try again?

              To be on topic, I do not care what you claim to be because from my perspective you seem unstable so next week you'll probably claim something else, but as far as your morals, I assume those who know you may get to witness those attributes, at least I hope they do.

              This dogmatic comment sounds much like your comment about homosexuals, and you sit there and claim I am magically "unstable". It's like you can't help but self-invent one logical fallacy after another.

              • 5 votes
              #4.23 - Tue Jul 19, 2011 5:53 PM EDT
              PeaceBlessing

              TheJackel,

              This dogmatic comment sounds much like your comment about homosexuals, and you sit there and claim I am magically "unstable". It's like you can't help but self-invent one logical fallacy after another.

              My comment in a different thread in a different discussion with me admitting that we're all in the same boat according to my belief regardless of what, and/or who we are, is what you choose to hold against me? Wow, TheJackel, why don't you just go bring all of my comments I've made on NV to this thread, but please make sure they are related to the topic of THIS THREAD, and if you can't do that, could you please use them in the context they were made not just the bits and peaces of what is written like a bible thumper, you know, I am beginning to believe that maybe you haven't given up on all of your false teaching religious upbringing after all?

              And the nerve to say that I am being disrespectful to this thread with off topic comments, it really must be difficult for you walking around with that plank in your eye, I mean with all your morals and stuff, it has to be difficult for you to see.

              No, there is nothing "magical" about your unstableness, it is what it is, you deal with it.

              • 2 votes
              #4.24 - Tue Jul 19, 2011 10:58 PM EDT
              Reply
              Vlad's dog

              My wife came home with a good saying today

              "if going to church makes you a christian then going to the garage makes you a car".

              Morals are not exclusive to religion.

              • 30 votes
              Reply#5 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:51 PM EDT
              Grisham

              Couldn't agree more, Vlad. Thanks for stopping in, bro.

              • 10 votes
              #5.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:26 PM EDT
              etva

              Vlad, your wife is a wise woman!

              • 9 votes
              #5.2 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:49 PM EDT
              Little Sure Shot

              My morality is guided by my conscious, not by a religious affiliation. I am what you call a liberal agnostic. I don't believe there is a god, but who am I to say there isn't. Vlad, a big shout out and a high 5 to your wife.

              • 7 votes
              #5.3 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 10:41 AM EDT
              C. Y.

              "if going to church makes you a christian then going to the garage makes you a car".

              That's awesome! I'm going to have to remember that one. Hopefully, it'll catch on if enough of us use it and be sweeping the nation! :)

              • 5 votes
              #5.4 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:53 PM EDT
              thelyamhound

              Another expression of the same sentiment: "If a cat has kittens in the oven, that don't make 'em muffins."

              • 9 votes
              #5.5 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 5:58 PM EDT
              Reply
              CL1

              I enjoyed reading your article, Grisham. In answering your question: No.

              Atheism is not synonymous with being immoral; it only refers to a lack of belief in a God. However, from a societal view, I do believe that Christian 'values' add morality to a given society, particularly 'ethics' in government regarding laws, policy and the judicial system.

              • 4 votes
              #6 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:47 PM EDT
              Grisham

              Thank you very much, CL1.

              However, from a societal view, I do believe that Christian 'values' add morality to a given society, particularly 'ethics' in government regarding laws, policy and the judicial system.

              I very much disagree with this statement. Would you mind explaining why you think this?

              • 14 votes
              #6.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:28 PM EDT
              CL1

              Elaborating *only* in the context of what I put it in - government - (because there is a much larger, complex statement that could be made - but I don't have the time or desire to go 'all-encompassing')-- this is my opinion, that because there is Christian influence within the system, we are putting a 'check' on the State, generally. I disagree with some of the harsh realities coming out of Catholic Law and resulting influences, as well as some of the atrocities in the military, but to paraphrase another, without the influence of religion in the system, the State would be less ethical, and thus a decrease in moralism. In other words, religious values puts a check on human fallacies.

              Best I can do for now, Grish, ran out of time. I don't really want to argue or defend this. :) History has proven it, if we look to Greek/Roman ethics and moralism.

              • 5 votes
              #6.2 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:41 PM EDT
              Grisham

              No problem. We all have time constraints but thanks for your honesty, CL.

              When it comes to government, I have to disagree with you. By using the morality I talked about in the article, I think when religion mixes with politics on any level it adds suffering or injustice to large segments of the population. For example, the LGBT community has been fighting for equal rights for a long while. IMO it is religion that has seen the gay community denied rights.

              If we look at the ME and at the countries that practice Sharia Law, we can see that religion is being used to hurt whole segments of the population and increase suffering.

              You spoke of history, and I would put forth the argument that historically, relgion has been used to condemn whole swaths of the population.

              • 11 votes
              #6.3 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:56 PM EDT
              CL1

              If we look at the ME and at the countries that practice Sharia Law, we can see that religion is being used to hurt whole segments of the population and increase suffering.

              Grish, we're not talking apples and oranges. I don't support 'Theocracy' either. I 'am' supporting what we in the US currently have - Christian 'influence' by way of our Congressmen/women. Would I support voting for someone because of their religious faith? No. Would I want religious influence other than Christianity in the system? No. ..Because Christianity offers us choice and freedom that the others don't. Again, I want balance, and without Christian influence, balance would be lost...imo. As for the Gays, Barney seems to have that issue covered.

              • 4 votes
              #6.4 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:58 PM EDT
              Grisham

              I don't support 'Theocracy' either. I 'am' supporting what we in the US currently have - Christian 'influence' by way of our Congressmen/women.

              I would argue that influence has led to the continued oppression of the gay people in your country. It has led to the war on women that is taking place now and it is leading towards zealots like Bachman and Santorum.

              No. Would I want religious influence other than Christianity in the system? No. ..Because Christianity offers us choice and freedom that the others don't.

              Secularism and putting aside religion when considering government policies leads to even more choice and freedom IMO.

              • 12 votes
              #6.5 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:07 AM EDT
              CL1

              People don't have to support them (Bachman and Santorum), and I don't. There are zealots in other areas than religion, and I often don't support them either. I don't like extremism. I don't support it no matter what the agenda is, i.e., over taxation.

              I don't support "religion" in government, I support "values" and ethics that come from 'insight' taken from Christian "principles" - not necessarily doctrine. :)

              • 4 votes
              #6.6 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:20 AM EDT
              Grisham

              I don't support "religion" in government, I support "values" and ethics that come from 'insight' taken from Christian "principles" - not necessarily doctrine. :)

              I support morals and ethics as well. Hell, we could use more of it in politics! But I think religion isn't necessary to have those morals and ethics present. I also think many of the morals and ethics found within the Bible (for example) hurt society more than help it.

              • 11 votes
              #6.7 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:29 AM EDT
              CL1

              Hell, we could use more of it in politics!

              Definitely.

              But I think religion isn't necessary to have those morals and ethics present.

              In a personal sense, I totally agree, as I've stated more than once, that morals and a belief in God don't have to go hand-in-hand.

              But right now, we're talking about a Plutocracy government here in the US. An oligarchy of a small group of people controlling the majority. A corrupt group, as it is, but I 'shudder' to think about how much worse things would be for all of us if we didn't have 'any' influence of the Christian value system present in ruling our Nation. ..guess we'll just have to see this a little differently. :)

              • 5 votes
              #6.8 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:40 AM EDT
              Grisham

              Yes, we will have to agree to disagree, although I do agree with some of your points. I appreciate the chat though. It's been interesting.

              • 10 votes
              #6.9 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:51 AM EDT
              CL1

              Thank you, too. :)

              • 3 votes
              #6.10 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:57 AM EDT
              DREAM THEATER

              If I understand you correctly, and I'm not saying I do, but are you implying that until only 2,000 or so years ago, when "Christian principals" originated, humans had no morals? So the other however many tens of thousands of years humans have been on the planet, they've had no morals? WOW, how did we ever survive?

              • 7 votes
              #6.11 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:09 PM EDT
              CL1

              I am talking about the 'effects' that Christian 'values and principles' *should* have on our current system; perhaps why there is a 'reminder' to criminals with a display of the Ten Commandments in the Supreme Court. I had hoped it would be apparent that my point isn't a God or a specific 'religion' with my use of "Christian principles." My point is the 'value' of the system in reminding human nature of what is right, and to instill 'conscience' into our actions. I am not saying that 'some' won't have a conscience without it; I 'am' saying that it will hopefully give 'guilt and conscience' to those that otherwise wouldn't have it.

              • 2 votes
              #6.12 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:17 PM EDT
              samenslow

              It seems you have confused a belief in God with a belief in the Christian God, the nature of which not even Christians are in agreement.

              It should not be guilt and punishment that dictates behavior but a sense of ethics and of ones own interests. I can remember walking by churches in NYC in the late 60's and watching such people as Carlo Gambino, Joe Colombo, Joey Gallo entering. The services did not help their feelings of guilt, but their donations did help the churches which had no qualms about accepting "dirty" money.

              • 3 votes
              #6.13 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:25 PM EDT
              CL1

              sns - yes, as I pointed out in 6.6, what I think is good about Christian values - moralism, ethics, human rights and freedom - is present in Congress and adds a sense of balance to an otherwise corrupt system. I do think 'attempting' to instill a sense of guilt in an amoral (different from immoral) person, is a good thing.

              • 1 vote
              #6.14 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:32 PM EDT
              thelyamhound

              sns - yes, as I pointed out in 6.6, what I think is good about Christian values - moralism, ethics, human rights and freedom - is present in Congress and adds a sense of balance to an otherwise corrupt system.

              I'm just not sure why you seem to think these values are unique to Christianity, and not just as present in, say, Buddhism or Taoism (or even constructs like naturalistic pantheism, panpsychism, or atheistic "religious" systems like social constructivism).

              • 8 votes
              #6.15 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:48 PM EDT
              CL1

              thelyam, ..no, I wasn't wanting to say that those values are 'only' present in Christianity - rather, earlier when I said I wouldn't want another influence on Congress (if you might be referring to that at all) was pointing to those systems that oppose 'choice and freedom,' e.g. Islam.

              • 2 votes
              #6.16 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:52 PM EDT
              samenslow

              There are choices in Islam. One can be @!$%#e, Sunni, Wahabbist, Salafi, etc. There are hundreds of varieties of Sufi. Islam is not monolithic.

              From the writing of possibly the best known Sufi, Rumi.

              Christian, Jew, Muslim, shaman, Zoroastrian, stone, ground, mountian, river, each has a secret way of being with the mystery and not to be judged.

              We rarely hear the inward music, but we are all daancing to it nevertheless.

              Sufi means path and there are many paths to God.

              • 2 votes
              #6.17 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:00 PM EDT
              thelyamhound

              I see what you're getting at. The word choice is where I think you go a little wrong, in that case; suggesting that "another influence" would be unwelcome doesn't really limit exclusion to those religious forces that support theocracy. Moreover, Islam includes under its umbrella schools of thought like Sufism, which stands as strongly in opposition to Sharia law (a reasonable thing to fear) as does Christianity (Sufi are somewhere between the Quakers and the [G/g]nostics of Islam).

              What I would like to see is the doctrine of free exercise vigorously defended in such a way that true freedom of conscience is held sacrosanct, so clearly enumerated that no religious influence could threaten the choice and freedom of any other group except where a foundational utilitarian value faced measurable threat.

              • 6 votes
              #6.18 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:06 PM EDT
              CL1

              sns -- Thanks for the info. Yes, I've been learning about the different forms.

              In the context of all of my previous comments, I am point to a 'path' to moralism and ethics - not a specific religion or belief - as what it is in our government system, so I point to "principles" not a specific discipline... as offered in a Christian based value system (as well as certain others..but those others don't always 'focus' on secularism, freedom, and human rights as Christianity does).

              Sufi means path and there are many paths to God.

              Thank you for all of the info, sns. Of course, here, I'm not focusing on a path to God, rather a focus on instilling the principles of moralism and ethics into government officials that are 'lacking' those, causing harm to the populace.

              • 2 votes
              #6.19 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:12 PM EDT
              samenslow

              Re: 6.17:I have no idea where the symbols came from. Maybe they thought I wrote a bad wod!

              • 1 vote
              #6.20 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:40 PM EDT
              katrix

              But Christian values deny choices too - look at the whole gay marriage thing. I'd rather have no religious influence at all in politics.

              • 11 votes
              #6.21 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:50 PM EDT
              ScubaGolfJim

              I do not believe that we have a "christian" influence in our Government. I believe we have a lot of amoral greedy people that know they can get elected when they proclaim to be "good christians" and act so in public while they get their knobs polished in airport restrooms, have their prostitutes in DC and follow those religious leaders with their cocaine cowboy boyfriends and their own prostitutes that simply cry on camera to be forgiven by their "flock."

              • 9 votes
              #6.22 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:02 PM EDT
              CL1

              Yes, there are impostors... in every venue. But, that doesn't mean 'everyone' is.

              Back to the title question -- I agree that Atheists aren't necessarily immoral, just as a proclaimed Theist isn't necessarily moral - not everyone that does or doesn't believe in a God is a morally principled person. And, that's why I brought up government -- individuals are as they are, and have a 'right' to be. But when it comes to government, they don't have a right to be whoever they want to be when they are supposed to be 'representing' us as 'our agency.' ...We then have a responsibility to not only hold them accountable - but to do whatever we can to instill a sense of moralism and ethics into the system, that allows both 'choice and freedom.' I see that best being accomplished by a Theist, not an Atheist in Congress. In other words, I see more relativism correlating "immoral to Atheism" in a government setting - than I do in general society.

              • 2 votes
              #6.23 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:28 PM EDT
              CL1

              I meant to say " best being accomplished by a Christian Theist".

              • 2 votes
              #6.24 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:45 PM EDT
              dAt crAzy bOk

              So why, then, do Christians desire to restrict freedom and choice to so many groups? For examples, atheists, abortion, gay marriage, other religions...

              • 6 votes
              #6.25 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:47 PM EDT
              CL1

              Let me clarify again, "best being accomplished by a non-extremist Christian Theist".

              I interpret modern Christianity as having evolved to focus on 'choice and freedom' in secularism as well as human rights against inhumane treatment and prevention from harm (physically, property damage, and ethically, e.g. embezzlement, or other similar types of crime such as seen in 2008). We might not be getting 100% of the moralism and ethics we deserve - but as I pointed out before - something is better than nothing - what I think would be happening without the influence of Christianity in the system.

              I don't want to see Christian extremism in government, either.

              • 3 votes
              #6.26 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:58 PM EDT
              dAt crAzy bOk

              This whole post is a generalization. Just to get that out of the way... I'm torn on your point, though. Good post, either way. While I agree that Christianity has evolved, I just disagree that anywhere close to a majority of Christians have. Especially the ones in office.

              • 3 votes
              #6.27 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:10 PM EDT
              CL1

              Especially the ones in office.

              I agree, we never know what's really going on behind the scenes - with the 'good' ones or the bad ones.

              • 1 vote
              #6.28 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:16 PM EDT
              Artie-3438207

              I do not believe that we have a "christian" influence in our Government. (#6.22)

              Then why the fight against women's reproductive rights?

              Why the fight against gay rights?

              Then why the fight to have Creationism taught in Public Schools?

              Why the fight for Prayer in Public Schools?

              Christians are actively working through legislation and the Courts to force their beliefs into our secular government.

              • 9 votes
              #6.29 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:17 PM EDT
              DREAM THEATER

              Personally, the most moral people I have ever encountered personally, have been either Atheist or Agnostic. Not that I haven't encountered wonderful Christians, Buddhists, or many other kind of Theists, I just , and again, this is just my personal view, have found that a lack of believing is ANY kind of Deity is beneficial to achieving a strong personal morality because it is up to the individual to find his/her morality, not anyone or anything TELLING them what is or isn't moral. When you get someone, be it priest, pastor or whatever/whoever trying instill morality in anyone, you open yourself up to their interpretation of morality, be it right, wrong or indifferent. Too many have fallen prey to too many immoral people. Just my 2 cents worth. O.K., that was probably a nickels worth.

              • 5 votes
              #6.30 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:31 PM EDT
              CL1

              Then why the fight to have Creationism taught in Public Schools?

              Why the fight for Prayer in Public Schools?

              Because our Constitution gives us that right. If interpreting the Founders' intentions correctly, the body of citizens making up a state (as in the 50 States), were to have the 'right' to incorporate religion into the curriculum if they so choose. The "fight'" is against misinterpretation and re-interpretation.

              Btw, this is all off-topic to the written article.

              • 2 votes
              #6.31 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:34 PM EDT
              Cather

              ...Perhaps it's not necessarily that people think atheists are immoral. When people cast their vote for a president (or any other leader), they probably choose the one that they feel represents their opinions, political standards, values, etc. the most. "Atheist" does not describe most Americans. Just a thought...

              I would agree that could be an argument were it not for the number of States that have voted in state laws not allowing Atheists to hold office. When the only one you can vote for to hold office has to have a belief in god, then it's not about choice or comparing between morals. But those exclusionary laws might show something about theist morality.

              • 3 votes
              #6.32 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:16 PM EDT
              Reply
              BLOGER-486140

              The track record for moral Christians is pretty poor. I think is is extremely arrogant and pridefull of Christians and other theist to think they have a monopoly on morality. One does not need god or the treat of eternal damnation to be good. One could even claim atheist with no recourse to eternal life are more invested in making this world a paradise.

              • 7 votes
              Reply#7 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:04 PM EDT
              Grisham

              I think you've summed up the exact points I tried to make in the article, although I was more long winded. LOL.

              • 6 votes
              #7.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:27 PM EDT
              CL1

              Atheists are every bit as 'moral' in a general sense as Theists, imo. Or in other words, a person that believes in a God, can interpret morality is a similar sense as an Atheist.

              • 3 votes
              #7.2 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:28 PM EDT
              Over Seas

              BLOGER-

              The track record for moral Christians is pretty poor.

              What percentage of the many hundreds of millions of (Christian) people over the last 20 centuries are you basing this statement on?

              I would posit that the exact opposite is true. For every example of an immoral Christian that can be produced, I would suspect that you could find scores of examples of very moral Christian people who lead/led exemplary lives.

              • 1 vote
              #7.3 - Fri Jul 22, 2011 11:38 AM EDT
              JM California

              Good point, Over Seas, re:

              "you could find scores of examples of very moral Christian people..."

              Mother Theresa

              My mother

              Galileo

              Copernicus

              Florence Nightingale

              Mildred Cable

              Martin Luther

              C.S. Lewis

              This is just the tip of the iceberg.

              • 1 vote
              #7.4 - Fri Jul 22, 2011 12:57 PM EDT
              dAt crAzy bOk

              What percentage of the many hundreds of millions of (Christian) people over the last 20 centuries are you basing this statement on?

              Can we elminate all of them, pre1900 or so, based on their treatment of anyone who wasn't a white, anglo-saxon, protestant? Cause, I didn't consider it very moral...

              While I agree with your general point, what standard of morality are you using?

              • 1 vote
              #7.5 - Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:16 PM EDT
              JM California

              dAt crAzy bOk:

              Can we elminate all of them, pre1900 or so, based on their treatment of anyone who wasn't a white, anglo-saxon, protestant? Cause, I didn't consider it very moral...

              No we can't eliminate them all. What was morally obvious today was not the same then. What matters was their intent.

              We don't place Thomas Jefferson into a similar category as Hitler, in spite of Jefferson being a slave owner.

              • 3 votes
              #7.6 - Fri Jul 22, 2011 3:25 PM EDT
              Tim S.-560036

              JM,

              I thought God gave us absolute morals which is why atheists can't be moral. An atheists morals are relative not absolute. So for theists with absolute God ordained morals, if something is immoral today it was immoral 2000 years ago. That means the excuse of Jefferson owning slaves is invalid according to absolutism.

              • 4 votes
              #7.7 - Fri Jul 22, 2011 10:23 PM EDT
              Over Seas

              Can we elminate all of them, pre1900 or so, based on their treatment of anyone who wasn't a white, anglo-saxon, protestant? Cause, I didn't consider it very moral...

              While I agree with your general point, what standard of morality are you using?

              You could make a case for some of them, sure, but Christianity certainly didn't begin with white, anglo-saxon protestants, but Greeks, Romans, Jews, etc - and from all accounts of early church history and secular history, they were highly persecuted, especially in the Roman Empire. I suppose if you want to start pointing to highly obvious and immoral behavior by people associating themselves with Christianity (or more specifically, Catholicism, based on history) you would likely have to fast forward to the 12th century. Another case could be made for the 11th century 1st Crusade, but debating the morality of that one is another topic.

              In answer to your second question, if the point we are discussing is the difference between an immoral and moral person of Christian faith (throughout history), it stands to reason that the moral standard should stem from the things that Jesus taught, said and lived, as the religion is based on him.

              • 4 votes
              #7.8 - Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:21 AM EDT
              dAt crAzy bOk

              No we can't eliminate them all. What was morally obvious today was not the same then. What matters was their intent.

              As was pointed out, doesn't this shatter any concept of absolute morals provided by god, and with it, the myth that atheists are by nature amoral or immoral?

              • 2 votes
              #7.9 - Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:49 AM EDT
              dAt crAzy bOk

              You could make a case for some of them, sure, but Christianity certainly didn't begin with white, anglo-saxon protestants, but Greeks, Romans, Jews, etc

              Great post man, and touche.

              • 3 votes
              #7.10 - Sat Jul 23, 2011 11:56 AM EDT
              Reply
              Libertarian y2k

              Are atheists immoral? I guess that would depend on the atheist :) Concepts of morality has existed from since who knows how long through all the modern religions to the polytheisms of the past. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Perhaps it could even be said that morality created religion, not the other way around. People had concepts of right and wrong but no tangible explanation; it was just "because". Religion was a good way to standardize and validate their "morality" perhaps; not the other way around.

              • 7 votes
              Reply#8 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:28 PM EDT
              Grisham

              Are atheists immoral? I guess that would depend on the atheist :)

              Exactly. It depends on the person. Being an atheist doesn't automatically make them a bad person or make them less moral than a theist. Thanks Libertarian!

              • 2 votes
              #8.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:17 PM EDT
              CL1

              Grish, that was my point in 7.2 as well. Again, Atheism doesn't equate to being immoral.

              • 3 votes
              #8.2 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:50 PM EDT
              CL1

              Btw, does your handle stem from the Author John Grisham, by any chance? (teensy OT, for just a second:)

              • 1 vote
              #8.3 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:23 AM EDT
              Grisham

              Yep, it does. When I first came to NV and they asked me for a screen name my usual screen name (Ghost) was already taken. I wasn't sure if I was going to stay or not and the Grisham novel I was reading was sitting beside me. I figured it was as good as anything. LOL

              • 1 vote
              #8.4 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:26 AM EDT
              CL1

              Grisham is a very classy name! Ghost.. hmmm, you do tend to disappear. :) Thanks for the info!

              • 1 vote
              #8.5 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:06 AM EDT
              Grisham

              Ha ha! Actually my screen name used to be Krylocc. It's the name of a character I made in one of my stories.

              Ghost came about because of two things. The first one being an online game I used to play. You had to build armies etc and you could attack other online players. There was a chat function but I rarely said anything. One of the players said I was like a ghost because I was there but not heard or seen until I attacked. I told my wife and she said I was like that in real life as well, because I walk quietly and sometimes it seems like I sneak up on her.

              The name stuck in the game so I just decided to adopt it. I have grown fond of Grisham though. :)

              • 1 vote
              #8.6 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:23 AM EDT
              CL1

              One of the players said I was like a ghost because I was there but not heard or seen until I attacked.

              Like a secret weapon! That's a great story. ...and a great plan of action: lurk in the shadows - and then pounce when they least expect it. ...know it well; they are called - Bills. ..lol

              • 1 vote
              #8.7 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:36 AM EDT
              Reply
              Kavika

              So because a atheist doesn't believe what other want him/her to believe there immoral!!! beyond ridiculous at best.

              I find it hard to believe that theist can state that arguement. Don't throw stones if you live in a glass house seems to fit quite well here.

              • 3 votes
              Reply#9 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:36 PM EDT
              Grisham

              Well said my friend. :)

              • 1 vote
              #9.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:15 PM EDT
              Iceman25-835270

              I find it hard to believe that theist can state that arguement.

              Most theists, or people of faith as I prefer to call them, do not state that argument. I think we need to be clear on one point. Just because a person of faith disagrees with atheism or an atheist, that doesn't mean we view them as immoral. It just means we disagree with that persons beliefs as I am sure and hope the reverse is true.

              I was taught to judge not. Of course we all do, but it is not my place to tell people how to live or what to believe. If an atheist wants to investigate Catholicism and the idea of God, I will be more than happy to discuss why I believe. However, I will never stand on a street corner and preach the Bible to people who are unwilling to listen. I find those people very disrespectful.

              I am what you call a 'EC' Catholic, meaning Easter and Christmas are the two days I am guaranteed to be in church. I may go a half dozen times in b/t, but I am by no means a regularly attending Catholic.

              • 1 vote
              #9.2 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:42 PM EDT
              Reply
              Pallas Athene

              Being apart of, or believing in, a religion does not grant one anymore morality , by far it can help one attain it. But we also find that in it, people delude their self into thinking they can sin today and go to church tomorrow and all is forgiven, that is the perfect definition of most "Christians" in my experiences on this planet. so in many ways religious people can be more dangerous than atheist as they think they "beat the system" per say.

              OFC that's not to say atheist are perfect some of them don't have morals, but that tends to be from mental illnesses and not fairy god creatures not being in there life. Most people are sane , rational and willing to do the right thing for others as we are "social" creatures, we don't like being alone, and that includes the religious too. It's just religion provides a "back door" for doing something naughty where as a atheist convictions on right or wrong are not based on assumptions of forgiveness but what they believe is right or wrong. Food for thought

              • 5 votes
              Reply#10 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:45 PM EDT
              Libertarian y2k

              Interesting, so in theory an atheist has the potential to be more moral then someone that is religious because they don't have an "out" when they look in the mirror? Provoking idea.

              • 6 votes
              #10.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:51 PM EDT
              Grisham

              people delude their self into thinking they can sin today and go to church tomorrow and all is forgiven

              Whenever someone says something similar to this it always reminds me of the Godfather when Pacino is sitting in the church while his cronies are murdering his enemies.

              Most people are sane , rational and willing to do the right thing for others as we are "social" creatures, we don't like being alone, and that includes the religious too.

              Totally agree. Thanks for making some very good points, Pallas.

              • 3 votes
              #10.2 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:14 PM EDT
              Reply
              Nina Fox

              in fact there is no proof whatsoever that a God exists. This means that without verifiable proof of Gods existence.

              Atheists have always been regarded by the religious sector as having no morals; however more religious people practice adultery, arrested for crimes, sexually abused children than those who do not believe in a god. I not only find that an oxymoron in philosophy but the irrationality within the religious sector.

              any Theists will state that atheists have no reason to be moral. It's probably the single most used argument against atheists. Theists will argue that if there is no God or Supreme Being or judge, then everything is up for grabs and there is no reason to be moral.

              As an Atheist/Agnostic… I laugh at their conjectures and pontificating their BS because they are religious, they are moral. There have been more wars and killings in the name of religion than for any other reason. How moral is that?

              Excellent article, Grisham

              • 7 votes
              Reply#11 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 9:53 PM EDT
              Grisham

              Atheists have always been regarded by the religious sector as having no morals

              IMO it is to keep a lock on their power base. It keeps the Church relevant.

              however more religious people practice adultery, arrested for crimes, sexually abused children than those who do not believe in a god. I not only find that an oxymoron in philosophy but the irrationality within the religious sector.

              Hmmm, not sure about that. I would think it's roughly the same. I'd have to see some type of research on that.

              I laugh at their conjectures and pontificating their BS because they are religious, they are moral. There have been more wars and killings in the name of religion than for any other reason. How moral is that?

              I see religion as a personal matter. If you believe in God that's fine. If you don't, that's fine as well. As long as that religion or lack of religion stays with you, I'm fine with it. When it starts infiltrating our laws, I'm no longer fine with it.

              Thanks for the kind compliment Nina. I'm happy you liked it!

              • 3 votes
              #11.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:11 PM EDT
              Kearney Outlaw

              Right on, Nina.

              I know plenty of good people from both sides of the fence. And plenty of bad, too.

              • 2 votes
              #11.2 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:26 PM EDT
              Reply
              G. H.

              I have never felt that an atheist was less moral than a Christian. In some ways I see them as even MORE moral, simply because they cannot weasel their way out of a guilt thing. A Christian will say, "I prayed and asked forgiveness from G_D, therefore I am free of sin or guilt". And then can *sin* again and again, believing all they have to do is pray and it will fix everything. This is just my own opinion, so please, no attacks.An atheist has to look to his own consciousness, and choose whether to repeat the behavior or not, and many, if not most will choose not to repeat. Too many *use* G_D as an excuse, saying they will always be forgiven. In fact, if one believes in a Creator (as I do), I believe we were given *Free Will*. Everything in life then has been a choice we made. Any human being chooses how they live, for good or ill, and I don't feel one has to be religious to be good, nor do I believe we are called to judge others. ♥

              • 5 votes
              Reply#12 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:16 PM EDT
              Grisham

              I agree, GH. I'm very happy to see you here. You made some great points. The thread is enriched by them.

              • 5 votes
              #12.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:07 PM EDT
              G. H.

              Thank you, my friend. No, I don't believe it is my personal *job description* to try to change anybody! The only people I am called upon to guide or help with Spiritual Growth, are my children, and possibly, their children, to hopefully put them on the path of acceptance and caring. Any Religion should be a personal choice, even for children. ♥

              • 3 votes
              #12.2 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:56 AM EDT
              DV-966373

              Any Religion should be a personal choice, even for children. ♥

              So, G.H. do you think people should introduce their children to many religions so that they can make an educated choice? I mean, most of us try out several cars before we buy the one that fits us, and a car we will only keep for a few years. Because to not introduce children to religion is really making the choice for them.

              How can you decide if you believe what is in the Bible, Koran, etc if you don't know what is in it? I believe in God, but I don't necessarily believe that he is intricately involved in every aspect of our lives. So I struggle with my own convictions. But my spouse, who received no religious education at all, is athiest by default.

              So with my own children, I end up falling back to what I was taught as a child, because I want them to grow up with a sense of something bigger than themselves. I want them to be able to be around people of faith and know what they are talking about and be able to contribute something to the conversation. I don't want them to feel threatened when they are around people who are praying. But on the flip side, I know plenty of athiests (in fact, am married to one) who are just as moral as many people with a religion. Some, even more so.

              There are hypocrites in all walks of life, and invoking the Christian easy out doesn't sit well with me. But neither does denying God. I personally think we all pray to the same god, we just call him by different names, and quite possibly we may ALL have it wrong. He's probably out there laughing his ass off at all of us.

              So, no, I don't think athiests are immoral, nor do I think all persons of religion are moral. None of us has any proof whatsoever, so I do think it is very important that we all figure out a way to get along.

              • 1 vote
              #12.3 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:04 PM EDT
              Reply
              andre gasparre

              Where is the morality in scaring the beejesus out of your child by telling him (without any evidence whatsoever and much evidence to the contrary) that if he or she doesn't behave in a certain manner that he or she will burn for all eternity (like, forever) in a lake of fire, overseen by a scary, evil looking guy with horns, a tail and a pitchfork?

              I was lucky enough not to have parents who tried to scare me into behaving morally, but I wonder how many of you out there have childhood memories of being scared to death by stories about hell and the devil, and how did that affect your moral behavior?

              Good post G-dawg

              • 5 votes
              Reply#13 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:17 PM EDT
              Grisham

              G-dawg...I like that. LOL.

              I actually find Satan a fascinating charcter as he's protrayed in the Bible. What does that say about me?

              • 7 votes
              #13.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:02 PM EDT
              Tessy

              andre gasparre - A very good friend of mine who is gay told his pastor about it when he was about 18 or so and his pastor told him that he was going to burn in hell.

              People are people, gay, straight, whatever - what matters is the kind of person you are - not what religion you choose to practice - I think if everyone followed The Golden Rule - the world would be a much better place.

              I think that one simple principle serves everyone and if everyone followed that one siimple premise - the world would definitely be a wonderful place.

              The only issue I have with any religion are the fundamentalists - the extremists - they are the ones who seem like (the fundamentalists at any rate) the nicest people in the world but once you get to know them they are some of the nastiest people you would ever encounter. A woman I used to work with - when I first met her - she seemed so sweet and kind and seemed to be a very loving person but again once you got to know her it became clear that she was a fundamentalist and she would argue with God (if there is one) himself!

              • 4 votes
              #13.2 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:28 AM EDT
              andre gasparre

              Tessy,

              Word.

              I wonder if anyone here can tell us exactly where hell is supposed to be nowadays.

              I think it was supposed to be in middle earth somewhere, but science has ruled that out, so where are sinners supposed to be going now?

              Anybody able to shed some light on this?

              • 2 votes
              #13.3 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:51 PM EDT
              thelyamhound

              I wonder if anyone here can tell us exactly where hell is supposed to be nowadays.

              I think it was supposed to be in middle earth somewhere, but science has ruled that out, so where are sinners supposed to be going now?

              While I don't believe in the notion of [H/h]ell as anything other than a life condition, I'm not sure that a lack of physical location is any impediment; after all, as creator of the material universe, the [G/g]od posited by the anthropomorphic monotheists, while possessed of certain human-like characteristics, is not a material being; thus our post-death state would not necessarily be bound by such petty material abstractions as time and space.

              The notion that Hell is in the center of the Earth is not necessarily Biblical, but I can certainly see it emerging from, say, Manichean notions of dualism--if those who embrace spirit transcend flesh to reach communion with God, then those who embrace flesh become one with the Earth, sitting at the core of the one planet we know without a doubt has generated and sustained life. Like much religious thought, it serves better as allegory than as meaningful ontological posit.

              • 4 votes
              #13.4 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:13 PM EDT
              samenslow

              Just south of Toledo.

              • 4 votes
              #13.5 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:42 PM EDT
              DV-966373

              Tessy, tell your friend to check out ELCA. They are very liberal, and allow gays to serve as pastors. Nobody should be denied the right to worship just because of how they were born. I agree with what you say about extremists. Whatever happened to "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Do unto others as you would have done unto you"? The zealots give all persons of faith a bad name.

              • 4 votes
              #13.6 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:10 PM EDT
              lol@that

              I wonder if anyone here can tell us exactly where hell is supposed to be nowadays.

              I think it was supposed to be in middle earth somewhere

              No, no, no... that's where the Morlocks are... truth be told, I think Hell is out west where it's so hot you can fry an egg in your underwear...

              • 3 votes
              #13.7 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:31 PM EDT
              dAt crAzy bOk

              Somewhere around Yuma, AZ, probably. Only been through there on the way to San Diego, but... man... if that place isn't hell, it is definitely a hell-hole.

              • 5 votes
              #13.8 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 4:35 PM EDT
              Chthonic Knight

              I wonder if anyone here can tell us exactly where hell is supposed to be nowadays.

              Michigan - http://www.hell2u.com/

              • 3 votes
              #13.9 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:31 PM EDT
              C. Y.

              Somewhere around Yuma, AZ, probably. Only been through there on the way to San Diego, but... man... if that place isn't hell, it is definitely a hell-hole.

              Ditto! LOL

              • 3 votes
              #13.10 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:19 PM EDT
              Chirmly

              Ah, so they can't sway them with logic nor appeal to one's innate sense of justice or fairness, so the alternative is "my magical father will put you in a bad place because you don't agree with me". Yeah, that's sensible. You can actually dismiss ANYTHING claimed by those people.

              If you are dead, you cannot feel pain (it's rather in the brain). If you believe it's a spiritual existence, then burning won't work (flames and burning are purely electro-chemical reactions. If I have no molecules of my own, then there is no burning.

              They will reply : it's a magical (hand waving -- special pleading) fire LOL.

              Then you can argue that it doesn't have a plausible location either, to wit they'd argue "it's a magical place that you can't find..." Umm.. okay.

              You could even argue, strange how for the VAST majority of the chronology of the bible, god never mentions it. Nor do any prophets mention any hell as a place of torture. Only the 50 years after Christ.

              Did god forget to mention it? Did god just realize "holy ghost, I need to make a place for people that don't believe -- where's that catalogue with magic fire and mystical oubliettes -- here it is, OH look, a sale on pitchforks too! wonderful."

              • 4 votes
              #13.11 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:25 PM EDT
              Reply
              Briwnys

              Great article, Grisham. I personally think morality is tied to empathy, not religion or the lack of it. Good work!

              • 7 votes
              Reply#14 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:26 PM EDT
              Grisham

              Thank you very much, Briwyns. :)

              • 6 votes
              #14.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:00 PM EDT
              Reply
              Enoch-2699399

              Dear Friend Grish: Anyone who wants to can become moral or immoral. It is called freedom of choice.

              If history teaches us anything, it tells us two things.

              First, no one group has a monopoly on virtue or vice.

              Second, never ever take the pot luck at Jays Diner.

              Enoch.

              • 11 votes
              Reply#15 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:42 PM EDT
              Grisham

              Excellently said, my friend.

              I will take your advice and stay away from the Pot Luck. My wifes cooking is bad enough.

              • 6 votes
              #15.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:00 PM EDT
              Reply
              It Aint So

              No one gives a damn about atheists.

              Do what you wish.

              • 1 vote
              Reply#16 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:52 PM EDT
              Grisham

              Your logic and reasoning are astounding. Atheists will do as they wish.

              • 13 votes
              #16.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 10:59 PM EDT
              Tessy

              It aint so - can be quite the grumpy gus. :)

              How about following the golden rule It Aint So?

              • 8 votes
              #16.2 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:30 AM EDT
              DV-966373

              I give a damn about athiests.

              • 8 votes
              #16.3 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:14 PM EDT
              Tessy

              DV-966373 - thank you for your kind words and your advice about my friend. Unfortunately, he committed suicide many years ago - he faced many problems with drug addiction and depression.

                #16.4 - Mon Jul 25, 2011 7:52 AM EDT
                Reply
                writer21177

                Judging by all the priests molesting little kids and all the hypocrisy of the religious in general, I would say Atheists are more moral. The religious live a life of lies and hyopocrisy everyday. At least Atheists keep it real. The religious are just FAKE.

                • 3 votes
                Reply#17 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:02 PM EDT
                Grisham

                I'm assuming you're talking about the Catholic Church?

                If so, the rate of child molestation within the church is about the same as it is (percentage-wise) in the general population. I think you bring up a good point, writer. The difference being that they preach morality and so become hypocrites. The other difference is that they use the power and money given to them by their parishioners to hide these pedophiles so they can strike again. The stats show you that by percentage in this area, Catholic Preists are no more moral than the regular citizenry.

                • 6 votes
                #17.1 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:06 PM EDT
                writer21177

                Exactly Grisham when you go out there and pretend you are a moral upstanding family man/woman and go around being all preachy about it and then you cheat on your spouse, you should be held to the high standard to which you preach. There are so many in the religious community who live by the "Do as I say not as I do" mantra that it becomes laughable. Religion is all about greed and power they are just like everyone else. I believe just about anyone can be labeled a hyocrite and there are some really genuine and kind religious people out there but for the most part they are just FAKE.

                • 2 votes
                #17.2 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:21 PM EDT
                DV-966373

                Anyone can quote anecdotal evidence that religious persons are hypocrites or that athiests are more moral or immoral than said religious persons. But to take that anecdotal evidence to make broad, sweeping generalizations is wrong. There are hypocrites and unethical people in ALL walks of life, just as there a truly good, caring people who practice what they "preach".

                Not all those who practice religion are moral, and not all athiests are immoral. I have many athiest friends, and most, not all, are what I would classify as moral. I have many religious friends, and most, not all, are what I would classify as moral. Can't we all just get along?

                • 1 vote
                #17.3 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 3:20 PM EDT
                Reply
                Pacific Apple

                Everyone has a right to believe in whatever god or gods or goddess they want. It does make them morel according to their god, gods, an goddesses.

                Man - humans- are the worst predator on this planet. They destroy their own kind and every other life form that gets in their way. Religions seem to slow this process for the majority. Non-religious people do have their own morals. They may be the same as religious people or they may not.

                I personally have empathy for others and do not think we should kill other humans or life forms for profit or power or religion beliefs. I suffer from what most religious people suffer from - that I am right in my morals and beliefs. But I do not try to force them on others.

                • 3 votes
                Reply#18 - Thu Jul 14, 2011 11:52 PM EDT
                Grisham

                They destroy their own kind and every other life form that gets in their way. Religions seem to slow this process for the majority.

                Why do you think religion slows the proccess of destruction down?

                I personally have empathy for others and do not think we should kill other humans or life forms for profit or power or religion beliefs.

                In this we agree. Thanks, Pacific.

                • 1 vote
                #18.1 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:01 AM EDT
                Libertarian y2k

                Well, religion has been the glue that has held civilizations together in the past and some still to this day. We can't throw a blanket on religion and say they are a detriment to society; it could be argued that without religion there would have not been civilizations of the past and we would not be where we are today.

                Do we still need that glue now? That is a legitimate question.

                • 2 votes
                #18.2 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:24 AM EDT
                writer21177

                Let us not forget all the atrocities commited because of Religious divisions there Libertarian, the glue theory you propose only works if Everyone is the same religion...

                • 4 votes
                #18.3 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:28 AM EDT
                RaisedByWolves

                Hmmm, I don't really think religions slow down the predator instinct; rather it uses the instinct to achieve whatever agenda they which their followers to achieve.

                However, the teaching of ethics can happen in or out of any religion or philosophy. We in America are lucky enough to have the ability to explore all religions and philosophies without government interference - and that is something we must protect.

                • 3 votes
                #18.4 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:49 PM EDT
                samenslow

                Sometimes religion justifies the predator instinct, like during the conquest of the Americas.

                • 1 vote
                #18.5 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:53 PM EDT
                RaisedByWolves

                Ergh! Justifying what we did to indigenous populations as religion giving their imprimatur to our predator instinct is just so... male!

                • 3 votes
                #18.6 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 1:58 PM EDT
                samenslow

                I am not justifying. I am just noting that it was done, and not only by males. Religion was also a justification for slavery and doing what you want with a slave (no souls). Religion can be a tool for both good and evil.

                • 3 votes
                #18.7 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 2:07 PM EDT
                RaisedByWolves

                On that, I truly agree, samenslow.

                • 2 votes
                #18.8 - Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:55 PM EDT
                Reply
                Arad

                In this world, there are good people who do good things, and bad people who do bad things. It takes religion, however, to make good people do bad things.

                (I'm paraphrasing a quote, if someone can come up with the original please post!)

                • 8 votes
                Reply#19 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:07 AM EDT
                Grisham

                Hi Arad,

                That was Steven Weinberg who said:

                With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

                • 10 votes
                #19.1 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:11 AM EDT
                Arad

                Thanks for the original quote!

                • 4 votes
                #19.2 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:47 AM EDT
                Peggy-275040

                And as my son added: "To make evil people look good, it takes politics!"

                • 5 votes
                #19.3 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:02 PM EDT
                CL1

                Character is higher than intellect. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson

                :)

                • 3 votes
                #19.4 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:15 PM EDT
                Reply
                Hiram-1381633

                Grisham my friend good article, I want to address the question that is proposed at the beginning of the article. No Atheist are not immoral, in its truest sense morality is based for the root word that means what is. The morals of any given society is determined by that society, it is the principles and doctrines that allow that society to function. Our laws help establish a sense of morality. So no Atheist who obey the laws and the limits placed upon them by society are not immoral.

                There is however another standard that must be considered. That is the what is ethical, which starts with a root word meaning what ought to be. Coming from a Christian perspective many of the things society considers moral as a Christian I do not see them as ethical. That is even though society accepts them they are not consistent with what God says ought to be.

                There are the principles I live my life by and do not expect anyone who does not believe in God to live their lives by the same principles. That does not make them an evil person or a person, it makes them a person who follows the laws and rules of society but not that standards of God. I do not think I better than they are I have all of the same faults and have probably done many of the same things if not worst than many Atheist. When I was as Atheist I never thought I was bad person I was like many of my friends honest and hard working. I was what most people would see as moral. Just as I consider many of my friends that are still Atheist honest and hardworking good people. There are just things that they do that I do not.

                Peace

                H

                • 1 vote
                Reply#20 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:38 AM EDT
                Grisham

                Thanks, Hiram. I just wanted to make a small point to the many good ones you made.

                That is the what is ethical, which starts with a root word meaning what ought to be. Coming from a Christian perspective many of the things society considers moral as a Christian I do not see them as ethical. That is even though society accepts them they are not consistent with what God says ought to be.

                I agree. Just because something is legal doesn't make it ethical. I think that's agreat point. Lying to your friend is legal, but certainly not ethical. drinking alcohol is legal, but spending your kids diaper money on a 24 of beer is certainly not ethical.

                Thanks my friend. I always enjoy your posts. You offer a different perspective.

                • 2 votes
                #20.1 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:50 AM EDT
                clarke ong

                Not at all as any kind of general rule, no more or less so than any human being of any persuasion. I have seen though that an Atheist will base his or her morality on something that can be quantified as opposed to a mythology.

                I would say that as a general statement, a moral atheist tends to be extremely confident in their morality because it is reasoned.

                • 6 votes
                #20.2 - Fri Jul 15, 2011 11:39 AM EDT
                Reply
                Jump to discussion page: 1 2 3 ... 5
                Leave a Comment:
                You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                Newsvine Privacy Statement
                As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                FUN STUFF:
                • Leaderboard |
                • E-Mail Alerts |
                • Top of the Vine |
                • Newsvine Live |
                • Newsvine Archives |
                • The Greenhouse |
                COMPANY STUFF:
                • Code of Honor |
                • Company Info |
                • Contact Us |
                • Jobs |
                • User Agreement |
                • Privacy Policy |
                • About our ads
                LEGAL STUFF:
                • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com