Atheism and morality

[Unsane]

How does an atheist respond to the following criticism: "without religion, an atheist has no basis for morality"?

[girl gone mad]

1. Morality existed before religion. n/t

[Unsane]

4. did it?

[varkam]

44. Sure.

If you say that things are good because god says so, then the notion of god actually being good is empty. Of course god's good - he's playing by the rules he set up and called those "good". If god is more of a messenger -- saying that things are good because they are good -- then the next logical step is that morality is independent of god. Either way, the notion of god is kind of a fifth wheel when it comes to discussions about morality (unless everyone is in agreement about god, I suppose).

[Bad Thoughts]

89. Actually, ...

The earliest deities weren't particularly good or ethical, just powerful.

[Art_from_Ark]

2. How about the Golden Rule?

That seems to be a pretty universal thing, regardless of one's religion (or lack thereof).

[Unsane]

5. Biblical

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. Hardly. Predates. By far.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. If you mean "the golden rule" is biblical, then, no, you're wrong.

You can find it is most religions, independent of the Bible. And in Greek philospohy, for instance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

[Unsane]

21. it still fails to rebut the criticism. It is a religious concept

[trotsky]

23. It is?

Then perhaps you can state exactly which religion first came up with it.

Go ahead.

[Unsane]

24. i'm playing devil's advocate here

[trotsky]

36. You'll find it's hard to be devil's advocate

for such a miserably poor position.

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. What about the examples from ancient Greek philosophy and Confucianism?

It's not just tied to religion.

[skater314159]

99. Actually...

... the "golden rule" is a cross-cultural and cross-philosophical idea. It's one of the things that Chaplains (such as myself) can use to help peoples of different cultures and faiths/philosophies to see their commonalities. The "golden rule" is something that people of all faiths, including none, can understand and relate to.

From http://www.religioustolerance.org/">Religious Tolerance.org

Some "Ethic of Reciprocity" passages from the religious texts of various religions and secular beliefs:
Bahá'í Faith: "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah
"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf

Brahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma : Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "
Buddhism: "...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

Christianity: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that were widely accepted among early Christians, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).

Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4

Ancient Egyptian: "Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written. 3

Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517

Humanism: "(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."
"(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. " 4
"Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you, British Humanist Society. 3

Islam: "None of you believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 5

Jainism: "Therefore, neither does he (a sage) cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.
"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

Judaism: "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 6

Native American Spirituality: "Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.
"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk
"Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb.

Roman Pagan Religion: "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."
Shinto: "The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form"
"Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God." Ko-ji-ki Hachiman Kasuga

Sikhism: Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world". Japji Sahib
"Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259
"No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend." Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299

Sufism: "The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.

Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49

Unitarian: "The inherent worth and dignity of every person;"
"Justice, equity and compassion in human relations.... "
"The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;"
"We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarian principles. 7,8

Wicca: "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One's will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede

Yoruba (Nigeria): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."

Zoroastrianism: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5
"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29

Some philosophers' statements are:
Epictetus: "What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (circa 100 CE)
Kant: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."
Plato: "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." (Greece; 4th century BCE)
Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)
Seneca: "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors," Epistle 47:11 (Rome; 1st century CE)



Examples from moral/ethical systems are:
Humanism: "...critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled." Humanist Manifesto II; Ethics section.
Scientology: Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you." This is one of the 21 moral precepts that form the moral code explained in L. Ron Hubbard's booklet "The Way to Happiness."

[Manifestor_of_Light]

3. A wrong statement.

[DCKit]

6. If athiests weren't (at least) as moral as those who claim to be religious...

We'd be over-run with murderers, rapists, used car salesman, politicians, lawyers and other criminal types. The Crusades, Spanish Inquisition and Jihad all use(d) the excuse of religion in pursuit of power and wealth. Then again, that doesn't excuse the various "godless" tyrants over the millennia, but at least they were more honest about their intentions.

It's wise to be suspicious of anyone who has to tell you how religious they are. Acts and deeds speak far louder.

[elleng]

8. There's a bit in the bible about that,

as in, hypocrites:

Matthew 6:5-6: "And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men....when thou prayest, enter into thy closet and when thou has shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret...."

[varkam]

108. Hey now...

I'm in law school! :evilgrin:

[elleng]

7. Human

nature, free will enables people to strive. 'Morality' grows from time spent with others, as members of society.

[ngant17]

10. the altruism of primitive communism

existed for ten of thousands of years, certainly before written history. And it can be assumed that it existed before the oral tradition. Which is to say, it predates the development of human languages. Organized religions do not even factor into the equations for that time.

Approx. 1,000,000 years ago, in the Pleistocene era, there existed archaic and modern humans {H. erectus ;
H. sapiens}, who were living in Band and Tribal Societies. You can even go back to the Pliocene, when the first (ape-like) humans {Homo australopithecus) were living in Band Societies. You have to assume altruistic behavior (i.e., the pre-emergence of morality) existed under those conditions. That was a matter or survival.

Group life gave the hominoids and the chimps safety from predators. Once hominoids emerged as social animals they had conquered the Earth, as far as fearing predators is concerned. That is, as long as they stayed "social." In other words as long as they stayed together. A wandering lone hominoid could be caught and eaten then as well as now.

Rudimentary "moral" behavior can be implied in observing Old World/New World monkeys and apes in the field.

[Unsane]

22. good answer

[sakabatou]

11. Code of Hamurabi?

[snot]

12. Insulting and pathetically benighted?

We have nothing better to do than make the world better. Quite simply, there IS no better game in town. We may not be the masters of the universe, but we most certainly help shape it. When you're on your deathbed, would you rather have helped create a better universe, or worse? Your actions will have an effect one way or the other, regardless of whether or which you consciously chose.

I choose to try consciously to make it better.

[Realityhack]

14. Well replys vary

'I'm sorry your stupid.' is a good response but unsafe in some areas.
Providing scientific evidence from sociological studies demonstrating that morality is not associated with religion, or logically demonstrating that religiously based 'morality' is a horrible horrible no good very bad thing might be ok in some circles but really only where people should be smart enough to already know the answer.

Adding the person making the statement to your internal mental list of intellectually differently abled people who may present a serious threat to your life is probably the safest bet.

[fasttense]

15. That is a very selfish way to look at morality.

You are implying that if you didn't have religion, you would be a very immoral person because you would have nothing holding you back. You would have no self-control, no sense of right and wrong if God wasn't there to punish you when you did the wrong thing. What happens when God doesn't punish you?

But a conscious is not based on religion it is a part of the mind. People without consciouses are manipulative, cruel, and sometimes deadly. They are also sometimes religious. Freud answered this question with the Super-ego:

"Freud's theory implies that the super-ego is a symbolic internalization of the father figure and cultural regulations. The super-ego tends to stand in opposition to the desires of the id because of their conflicting objectives, and its aggressiveness toward the ego. The super-ego acts as the conscience, maintaining our sense of morality and proscription from taboos. Its formation takes place during the dissolution of the Oedipus complex and is formed by an identification with and internalization of the father figure."

Atheists are moral because it is logical. By making society better (even your own little part of it) we make our lives and our children's lives better. If everyone lied, and conned everyone else, what kind of society would you have? The religious are moral because they think an Almighty creator will make them suffer if they were immoral? What a way to live.

[trotsky]

16. He or she simply points to theists who lack morality.

If religion doesn't bring a basis for morality, how can you fault atheism?

[Jim__]

17. Human beings are social animals.

Morality is inherent.

[PassingFair]

33. If we intend to get along with others in any kind of "society"!

Heathens would have ALL MURDERED THEMSELVES..

if the BuyBull had not told them that
killing HURTS!

[cosmik debris]

18. My response

I would simply say:

Look child, it is OK for you to say things like that around me, because I will understand. But you should never talk like that around other grown-ups. They will think you are a freaking idiot. Alright? Now go play with your toys.

[Realityhack]

126. Nice response. n/t

[edhopper]

19. You can

Just read Sartre'

[Jim__]

20. "The Neuroscience of Fair Play"

See the review of this book at Amazon. An excerpt from one review:

Pfaff, head of the Laboratory of Neurobiology and Behavior at Rockefeller University, explains his purpose in clear terms: The whole focus in these pages is on the possibility that some rules of behavior are universally embedded in the human brain—that we are 'wired for good behavior.' He claims he's surveyed the world's religions and found some variant of the Golden Rule in every one, leading him to conclude that this trait is likely to be under some sort of genetic control. The simple mechanism for the occurrence of altruistic acts, he says, is the brain's tendency to confuse self and other—similar to the blurring of identities that occurs in a love relationship. This empathy—whose neural mechanism Pfaff explains—can prevent us from harming others as well as leading us to do good. The author goes into great detail, far more than is necessary to drive his point home, about how neurobiology and neurochemistry interact to help shape behavior. His sections on parenting, sexual love and aggression are intriguing, but the technical information will make this appeal primarily to those with a strong interest in the brain and the science of behavior. B&w illus. (Dec.)

[Zebedeo]

27. Close, but it's not the brain;

it's the heart.

"I will put My law within them and on their heart"
Jeremiah 31:33

"The law of his God is in his heart" Psalm 37:31

"I delight to do Your will, O my God; Your Law is within my heart." Psalm 40:8

"You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men; being manifested that you are a letter of Christ, cared for by us, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God, not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts." 2 Cor. 3:2-3

Even those who don't believe in God have God's law written on their hearts:

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves" Romans 2:14

[uberllama42]

28. Are you serious?

Are you really trying to rebut science performed by a trained neurologist with quotes from the bible?

You make this board so much more interesting.

[Zebedeo]

30. Thank you. I try

to offer my perspective in a straightforward manner. I was once as you are now.

[uberllama42]

34. Are you trying to say that you used to be an atheist?

Or otherwise that you were a less committed believer than you are now? If so, what convinced you that the scripture is true and that the heart is really the seat of the conscience, for instance?

I'm sorry if I'm misreading you, but that seems to be the most straightforward interpretation of what you have written here.

[Zebedeo]

47. I had a change of heart.

I was raised in an unbelieving household and I was atheistic until 2003. I was not a militant, activist atheist, like some on this board. I just thought religion was all BS and I didn't pay any attention to it. I believed that the material universe was all that existed.

My change of heart was literally that. A change in my heart. More specifically, a softening of a heart that was hardened and cynical.

Once I softened my heart and truly, genuinely invited Jesus into it, I was filled with the Holy Spirit and life has not been the same ever since. Some people have their "come to Jesus" moment only when they are at the lowest point in their lives. My experience was not exactly that. I just decided to drop my cynicism and open my mind to the possibility that what the Bible says is actually true. I now have come to realize that it is.

Life is so much sweeter and more joyous for me as a Christian than it was before. I am frequently brought to tears of joy when I reflect on what my Savior has done for me - an undeserving sinner of the worst kind.

[uberllama42]

59. How do your parents feel about your conversion?

Thanks for sharing this, by the way, but really the whole "change of heart" thing is just confusing. There's absolutely no evidence that the heart has any cognitive function whatsoever. I don't know what it means to "soften" one's heart. I don't have conscious control over what goes on in my heart. I might be able to soften my heart in a metaphorical sense, working some kind of emotional change in personality, but that has no literal, physical connection to the heart.

I've had rather the opposite experience. When I was young I believed everything in the bible literally, but the more I learned about the way the universe actually works the more I had to reject it. The language about the heart and the conscience is just one example of something that I could not reconcile with reality. A literal reading of those passages is not compatible with empirical observation of the world. That makes the bible pretty much impossible to accept.

[Zebedeo]

63. My parents are grudgingly accepting

of my conversion and my new, annoying habit of "wasting" every Sunday morning by spending it in church.

Regarding the "heart" - I suppose the change I am talking about did not take place in the physical muscle that pumps blood through my body. I am using the term "heart" in a more figurative sense. What I mean by "softening" my heart is that I dropped the snarkiness, cynicism and pride that I once had and considered, with a genuinely open mind, what if? What if the Bible really is the truth? Once I did this, I realized that I had been a fool and I asked Jesus to come into me and change me. It was the most important moment of my life.

[Silent3]

72. Funny, I still see quite a bit of snarkiness, cynicism and pride...

...which is simply being pressed into service under the conceit of having God on your side.

[Zebedeo]

83. God is not on my side.

I am on His side.

[Silent3]

85. A flip, smug remark like that...

...proves my point.

[Zebedeo]

90. The remark is brief, but

not flip and certainly not smug. I merely pointed out that there is a difference between saying "God is on my side" and actually attempting to serve God by being on His side.

As for being smug, I am far from it. I readily admit that I am the worst of sinners. I have broken every commandment and by all rights I deserve the harshest of penalties.

[MikeH]

91. The less conceited you think you are, the more conceited you are

As for being smug, I am far from it.

A lot of people, including myself, would very strongly disagree with that statement.

I readily admit that I am the worst of sinners. I have broken every commandment and by all rights I deserve the harshest of penalties.

You seem to get a masochistic sense of pride in thinking that, and groveling before your tyrant of a God.

[Zebedeo]

106. Not pride.

I am certainly not proud of my sins. To the contrary, I am ashamed of them. I am also eternally grateful to my Savior, who took my sin and shame upon His own shoulders and paid my debt. I wish that hadn't been necessary, but it was.

[Silent3]

92. It's the smugness of the "Look at me and how humble I am" variety.

The smugness of repeated bald assertions which you know others can and do have good reasons to disagree with or challenge, without the slightest acknowledgment that there could possibly be any basis to challenge what you say. The smugness of being so very certain that you're simply repeating and relaying the Word of God that don't even acknowledge that you own the rightness or wrongness of the words you say, as if we should all simply accept that the only rightness at issue is God's rightness, and you're just the oh-so-humble messenger.

The smugness of thinking that your deep, abiding feeling of TRVTH must be better and truer and more real than anyone else's similarly described feeling, at least in the case of people who claim to feel exactly the same way but who claim different things are true. For some reason we should accept that you're the one who is right (who doesn't even have to worry about being wrong or right, because you're just a humble messenger relaying God's rightness). It must be that those silly (evil?), misguided (in league with Satan?) other people merely use the same words that you do to describe their inner feelings, but they still haven't felt the same, TRUE version of that feeling that your humble self has. I'm sure you "humbly" pray that those others get the chance to feel what you've felt so they can be as right as you.

The smugness of thinking that your commonplace, dime-a-dozen sense of certainty, because you "opened your heart", a feeling shared by millions around the world, many of whom feel just as certain but believe different things, trumps millennia of human pondering which has lead any thoughtful person to realize that for most deep questions an "I don't know", or at least a careful tentativeness, is a lot more honestly humble than pious certainty.

The smugness of demanding from others who disagree with you impossible levels of proof that you can't come close to meeting for your own beliefs. "Proof" of the Biblical Flood requires only the coarsest match-up between physical data and a fanciful conjecture of how the mythical Flood might have happened, with all inconsistencies and problems hand-waved away, to be answered another day if at all, filled in with as many miracles as necessary for it to all come out right, whereas the standard scientific view of geological history could never be proven to you with anything short of an hour-by-hour video history of the past few billion years, without the slightest inconsistency to be found, including "inconsistencies" which only exist in the minds of people who know very little about the subject matter. Oh, and the scientific version of the story has to be so "repeatable" in every detail that nothing short of making a new Earth from scratch, one that turns out exactly the same as this one, or it doesn't count as "scientific" either.

As for "deserv(ing) the harshest of penalties"... when the "harshest of penalties" is eternal, unending barbaric torture, you don't DESERVE that, I don't deserve that, nor does the most hideously evil and cruel human who has ever lived deserve that.

[Zebedeo]

105. Thank you for your comments

on my personality. I will thoughtfully consider them. In the meantime, would you please thoughtfully consider the following?

1. Is it possible that your negative views regarding me are influenced in any way by a general preconceived hostility toward the Christian religion?

2. Can you see that your preconceptions have a major influence on your own standards of proof? For example, since you are a materialist, and you reject all supernatural explanations a priori, you apply highly unrealistic standards of proof when challenging a theist regarding miraculous events described in Scripture, yet you cavalierly overlook gross inconsistencies and even logical impossibilities in your own belief system, such as your belief that the universe could have sprung forth out of nothingness, without cause, and your belief that DNA could have formed spontaneously, through random, undirected reactions of chemicals in a hypothetical "primordial soup," despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this conjecture. To my point of view, you rely on far more implausible "miracles" to support your belief system than I do to support mine.

In any event, I appreciate your comments, and wish you the best in all your endeavors.

Yours cordially,

Zebedeo

[cyborg_jim]

124. Canards

yet you cavalierly overlook gross inconsistencies and even logical impossibilities in your own belief system,

Here we go again.

such as your belief that the universe could have sprung forth out of nothingness,

If you are referring to the "Big Bang" then this is, as you have been told before numerous times, a misrepresentation - i.e. not what is actually said.

Humble enough to retract this?

and your belief that DNA could have formed spontaneously, through random, undirected reactions of chemicals in a hypothetical "primordial soup," despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever to support this conjecture.

No evidence apart from all the evidence.

To my point of view, you rely on far more implausible "miracles" to support your belief system than I do to support mine.

In other words folks, in his view, it is less implausible that something simple and understandible and directed could have occurred that breaks the consistency of the physical world than something that is consistent but "random".

My own hypothesis is that you don't really understand the mathematics nor the nature of randomness.

[Realityhack]

94. Out of curiosity

Who did you murder?

[Zebedeo]

107. My brothers

"Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer." 1 John 3:15

[Realityhack]

112. how interesting.

I think I am starting to understand where Christians develop their habit of constantly making up strange new definitions for words that have absolutely nothing to do with the actual meaning of the word.

[Realityhack]

95. I dissagree.

I think your remark was both flip and smug.

The distinction you where 'pointing out' is completely irrelevant to the statement Kerry4Kerry made.

[John Gauger]

98. Do you really believe that?

I mean, we have our disagreements, but I find it hard to believe that you are truly a bad person. You really believe that you are the the worst of sinners? I don't know about you, but when I hear language like that, I think of someone like John Wayne Gacy. I can see thinking yourself imperfect, but aren't you being a little harsh on yourself?

[Zebedeo]

109. I am certainly no better than St. Paul

who said: "Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst." 1 Tim. 1:15

If such a great saint as Paul describes himself in that manner, I can hardly claim to be any better.

It is interesting that you mention Mr. Gacy. He surely committed some grievous sins. Yet I am equally guilty before God, because I, too have sinned and fall short of God's glory. It is only through the grace of God and his free gift of redemption that I am saved. If judged on our merits, both Mr. Gacy and I would deserve the inextinguishable fires of hell.

[John Gauger]

111. Well, I had intended to use Gacy

as somebody that you could not possibly draw an equivalence between and yourself. I tried to think of the most base and depraved individual I knew of to contrast with you in saying that you could not possibly be all that bad. Now, you can say that you both fall short of god's glory, but just because you both fall short of a standard somebody has set that doesn't mean that you are equally in error. I would like to use something that is more normative than empirical, but the simplest example I can think of is to suppose that two men are expected to run marathon in four hours, and neither of them make it. There are two ways to examine their failure: the first is to record their failures as values of a binary state (that is to say, you either made it or you didn't.) Both failed. But the other method of looking at it is to note their distance from the finish line at the end of the time period. If one man is ten yards from the finish line and the other is ten thousand yards from the finish line, you could not reasonable draw an equivalence between the two. One of them has clearly done much better.

Not that it's of much importance, but from the quote you presented, it is clear he is telling other people to say that. This does not in any way imply that it also applies to Paul (maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.) But suppose that Paul was the worst of sinners - on what are you basing the assumption that you are not any better than he is? Perhaps you are twice the man Paul was. I mean, you seem like an alright guy to me - why are you so quick to write yourself off?

Getting back to Gacy, if the gift of god's grace is free, what is to keep Gacy from getting that gift? I mean, if you are equally deserving of damnation, aren't you also equally deserving of salvation? I'm trying to think of a way to frame this to see whether or not that follows.

[Zebedeo]

113. The Bible makes clear that it is a pass/fail test

rather than one with degrees of success and degrees of failure.

"There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 3:23

You asked: "Getting back to Gacy, if the gift of god's grace is free, what is to keep Gacy from getting that gift? I mean, if you are equally deserving of damnation, aren't you also equally deserving of salvation?"

The answer is that no one is "deserving of salvation." Not Gacy and not me. But it is available as a free gift to anyone who accepts it. It was available to Gacy while he was alive. I don't know if he accepted it.

You seem to be drawing a distinction between those people that you perceive as very evil, and people that you presume are predominantly good. But that's not the way it works.

Consider this commentary by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn: "Wouldn’t it be wonderful if you had good people in the world and bad people in the world? We put all the good people on one side, all the bad people on the other." But he said, "The line does not go between the good people and the bad people. The line really does not run there." "The line between good and evil runs through every single human heart."

Most of the time, Gacy and Dahmer all the rest were probably normal, decent members of their community. But from time to time, the evil in their hearts would be acted out in horrific ways. I believe that each of us has the same potential for acts of great evil. It comes from the fact that we each have free will and, if we choose to do evil, we have that ability.

[Realityhack]

75. "What if the Bible really is the truth?"

Then god is a mass murdering fuck head?

[Silent3]

76. And you'd better mind your manners...

...and humble yourself before that mass murdering Fuckhead, or He'll torture you for all eternity. But please, understand, this is Justice from a Loving God we're talking about, true and infinite Justice that you simply refuse to see and understand because of your own pride and evil, and never-ending suffering must be the fate you actually want, or quite obviously, you'd choose worshiping this Tyrant, and play the right head games with yourself to convince yourself He's a Great Guy too.

[Realityhack]

77. lol

didn't god admit he over-reacted a bit when he killed off dam near everyone?

[Evoman]

35. ..........

:wow:

[trotsky]

37. Well, he thinks demons cause mental illness.

What'd ya expect?

[Zebedeo]

41. It's sad

that you feel compelled to offer such an inaccurate representation of my position regarding demon possession and mental illness. You know for a fact that your portrayal of me is inaccurate, and yet you do it anyway. Why? Is it out of pure malice?

I have been quite clear in expressing my view that demon possession and mental illness are two different phenomena. I have never stated that demons cause mental illness. Please retract your false statement about me, or, in the alternative, link to one of my posts in which I made such a claim.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Yours Cordially,

Zebedeo

[trotsky]

43. So you don't believe demons can cause mental illness, or symptoms of mental illness?

Please state outright if so, and I will gladly apologize. Because your words so far have been (deliberately?) vague on the issue.

[TZ]

58. To be fair Trotsky

I believe that Zeb thinks that demonic possession exists but it doesn't explain all mental illness. I obviously am truly skeptical on the demonic possession and I beleive myself that the "possessed" are mentally ill. But Zeb truly does think its a different phenomena.

[trotsky]

60. I notice, however, that he has failed to make the statement I requested.

So perhaps it's a little from column A, and a little from column B.

[Zebedeo]

64. I believe

that demonic possession and mental illness are two different phenomena.

Your question is the following:

"So you don't believe demons can cause mental illness, or symptoms of mental illness?"

That question is compound. It is two questions. I will answer both questions individually. In addition, the question is vague in that you and I likely have different definitions of the phrase "symptoms of mental illness."

With that said, here are my responses to the two questions:

1. I don't believe demons can directly cause "mental illness," in the sense of an actual, physical, chemical imbalance or imperfection in the brain of a human being. Surely they can do so indirectly, such as by tempting an alcoholic or a drug addict to consume or inject a mind-altering substance.

2. I do believe demonic possession can result in symptoms that trotsky would characterize as "symptoms of mental illness." I, however, would characterize them as symptoms of demonic possession.

If this response is not satisfactory to you, please clarify your question, and I will be more than happy to provide further explanation of my beliefs regarding this subject.

[trotsky]

78. You have answered it enough.

Enough that I can be sure no apology is necessary. You believe that demons can cause mental illness. I spoke the truth.

[Zebedeo]

114. Your record is consistent, at least.

You have never apologized to me for any of your insults. In fact, I don't recall seeing you ever apologize to anyone. Perhaps you are incapable of it.

Best wishes to you.

Yours Cordially,

Zebedeo

[cosmik debris]

38. Here's proof!

Every time a person gets a heart transplant they automatically begin to express the morality of the donor rather than the morality they had before the transplant.

It's a proven fact, I saw it on TV. You believe me don't you?



:rofl:

[Jim__]

42. And the evidence for this is?

The Bible says it? And we should believe the Bible because ...

[varkam]

46. Because it's god's word...

and we know it's god's word because the bible says so...or so I'm told :D

[Zebedeo]

48. Have you never felt a pang of guilt in your heart

after doing something that was morally wrong? Have you a conscience? That conscience is God's law, written on your heart. Thoughtful reflection is all it takes to realize that it is there.

[Silent3]

49. And the definitive distinction between a pang...

...of guilt felt due to "God's law, written on your heart", and a pang of guilt due to social conditioning and inborn traits perfectly in line with expected results for a species adapted for cooperative communal living is exactly what?

[Zebedeo]

50. "inborn traits"

is just another way of saying what I am saying.

[Silent3]

51. Not in the least.

I know perfectly well that you think an inborn trait can only get there by a Big Sky Daddy putting it there (I wonder where He go His built-in traits?), but as a convincing argument for someone who doesn't already buy the whole crazy package deal you're selling, it falls completely flat to expect the mere existence of feelings of guilt to be taken as an convincing indicator of God at Work.

[Evoman]

56. A list of things I feel no pang of guilt that I should if I "disappointed god"

-premarital sex

-Swearing/using gods name in vain.

-approving of "the gay lifestyle"

-calling the Holy spirit a douche

-not going to church

-masterbating

-working on the sabbath

-coveting my neighbours donkey.

-making "heathen" Jesus jokes.


I'm sure there are a bunch more. The things I would feel guilty about I don't do. Most of those things are explainable by evolution, sociology and psychology without bring god into them.

I'm not convinced of your god-morality thing...in fact, when I read some of the god sanctioned actions in the bible, they make me feel sick. I'm glad your god doesn't exist, because if he did, the world would be even shittier than it is now.

[Jim__]

61. Actually no. Any pain I feel from doing something wrong, ...

... mistreating another person in some way, is in my mind, my thoughts.

When I feel a pain in my heart, it usually means that I haven't been exercising enough.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. You may feel something in your heart with certain emotions

but that's the action of chemicals, such as adrenaline, in your body on the heart and other organs. You may as well say that the law is written on your skin, because of the reaction of blushing.

[Zebedeo]

110. And who designed the human heart

such that it is affected by an uptick in adrenaline in a way that makes you feel guilty when you have done something that is morally wrong? God, that's Who.

You are focusing on the specific biochemical means, while I am talking about the overarching reason.

[muriel_volestrangler]

115. You have cause and effect the wrong way around

An uptick in adrenaline doesn't make you feel guilty (it's involved in other emotions too); but feeling guilty, an emotion that is the result of what happens in your brain, may cause the adrenaline.

Who designed the human heart? No-one. And the 'overarching reason' is clearly the reaction of the brain to what happens when a person interacts with other people - which I suspect you believe yourself, and you just want to string along a reaction to a few bible verses you quoted. I doubt that anyone with a basic western education would really think that the heart is the seat of what we think is 'good behaviour'. I note you've never attempted to rebut the point about heart transplants.

[Zebedeo]

117. No one designed the heart?

Interesting theory. I call into question your hypothesis that an organic machine so seemingly well-designed as the heart could have built itself with no designer. If that is what you believe, is it also possible that the computer that you are now using to read this post also assembled itself without a designer? If not, why not? Surely you will concede that the human body is far more complex than your computer.

The "point about heart transplants" is an irrelevant nonsequitur. I do not believe that there is physical writing on the heart muscle with a Sharpie. That's a caricature of my beliefs, known as the strawman fallacy.

[varkam]

45. A most excellent rebuttal.

.

[Silent3]

54. Since you're such a literalist...

...is there some reason we don't see Divine Writing on people's hearts during heart surgery, or post mortem in autopsies? Does God use invisible ink?

Are people waiting for heart transplants, living by means of stop-gap artificial pumps, incapable of moral decisions?

If such patients survive long enough to receive a transplant, do they take on the moral characteristics of the donor?

[Zebedeo]

65. You are far too literalistic

If you say you are waiting for "the other shoe to drop," are you really expecting an actual, physical shoe to drop on the floor?

If you say "I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around that concept" are you really engaging in an attempt to physically wrap your mind around something?

If, upon departing from a friend, you say "I'll catch you later" do you really intend to physically catch the person at a later time?

If so, you are a most unusual person.

[Silent3]

67. I don't expect that at all.

But then again I'm not one to assign literal meaning to crazy things like Noah's Ark either. It's hard to tell where literalists decide to draw the line in the absurdity of their literalism.

[Realityhack]

68. um..

"Close, but it's not the brain; it's the heart"
Are those or are they not your words?

That's extremely literal. But perhaps you should just try to be more precise with the terms YOU use to avoid confusion.

How about starting with this. Exactly what actions are you referring to when you say you 'opened your heart' to whatever? We know you didn't use a scalpel and open your heart literally so what DO you mean? What exactly is 'opening your heart'?

[Zebedeo]

79. Opening my heart

You asked: "What exactly is 'opening your heart'?"

I'm not sure I used that exact terminology; I think I said I "softened my heart" and had a "change of heart." Anyway, what I mean is that I earnestly, in good faith, put aside my cynical, closed-minded rejectionism and genuinely considered the possibility that the Bible is true. Instead of looking for reasons to reject God, I welcomed Him and invited Him to indwell me. Once I did this, the truth became clear and I realized the error of my previous way of thinking.

[Realityhack]

86. Well that prompts some new questions.

"Anyway, what I mean is that I earnestly, in good faith, put aside my cynical, closed-minded rejectionism and genuinely considered the possibility that the Bible is true."
Ok that makes sense.

"Instead of looking for reasons to reject God, I welcomed Him and invited Him to indwell me."
Ok I lost you somewhere around the comma.
what do you mean by 'welcomed him in' what does that euphemism represent? How about 'dwelling' in you (I am assuming a typo here)?

Just for clarity based on previous issues around clarity... what exactly is the truth that became clear?

More interestingly HOW did it become clear? What specifics did you realize or change your mind about that led you to change your larger conclusion?

Finally and perhaps most importantly, on what basis did you not believe before?

[Crunchy Frog]

88. So if a person has an artificial heart,

will they then be devoid of morality? Would it be possible for manufacturers to inscribe morality on artificial hearts?

[Random_Australian]

125. I see a slight difference between neuroscience and bible quotes.

Evidence.

[rexcat]

127. It is the brain...

the heart is a nice organ that pumps blood throughout the body so that oxygen can be carried from the lungs via blood (hemoglobin) to the other organs and tissues and carbon dioxide taken to the lungs and expelled.

We are who we are because of our brains which is determined genetically. The way our brains are "wired" make us who we are as individuals and as a species. Without altruism and being kind to our fellow beings we as a species would have never survived to evolve over the past 1,000,000+ million years.

[ngant17]

40. "The Evolution of Cooperation"

that's the title of a book by Robert Axelrod. It's based on game theory, but it can be applied to the theory of evolution and how living organisms would have naturally tended to cooperate rather than compete to each organism's advantage.

In addition, the biologist Lynn Margulis contends that symbiosis is a major driving force behind evolution. She considers Darwin's notion of evolution, driven by competition, as incomplete, and claims evolution is strongly based on co-operation, interaction, and mutual dependence among organisms. A positive symbiotic relationship is called "mutualism" which is any relationship between two (species of) organisms that benefits both. From the biological meaning, a negative symbiosis is known as parasitism.

According to Margulis and Sagan (1986), "Life did not take over the globe by combat, but by networking."

As in humans, organisms that cooperate with others of their own or different species often out-compete those that do not.

So from cooperation and mutualism, one can proceed to "morality" as human societies developed down the road.

Organized religion as it relates to morality is an after-thought more than anything else.

More people have been killed in the name of a religion than from any political ideology, BTW. And yes, that includes Stalin and the USSR.

References

* Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan, Microcosmos: Four Billion Years of Evolution from Our Microbial Ancestors. Summit Books, New York, 1986. ISBN 0-520-21064-6

[BurtWorm]

25. What is a theist's basis for morality?

[Unsane]

29. bible

[BurtWorm]

31. What about on an issue like stem cell research or cloning?

What in the bible gives a clue as to how to proceed with that?

PS: What is a Hindu's basis for morality? Or an animist's? Or a Deist's?

[PassingFair]

32. If that's your answer, I don't want to have to rely on YOU!

Lots of bad behavior and even God-ORDERED
GENOCIDE in that book.

[girl gone mad]

39. God performed an abortion, too.

And murdered children (for talking back to their father).

He killed almost everyone on the planet, then later admitted he had overreacted.

This book is the supposed foundation of modern morality?

[John Gauger]

97. They, just like us, make it up.

They cry about "How can you have morality without god?" but god doesn't exist, so their morality doesn't come from god, they make it up just like we do. The difference is that we (at least claim) to base our morality on logic.

[Unsane]

52. What makes an atheist act morally?

Fear of punishment under the law?

[SidDithers]

53. No, an atheist acts morally because it's the right thing to do...

What makes a theist act morally? Fear of eternal punishment in the fires of hell? Gold stars for good behaviour given out in heaven?

Sid

[Unsane]

55. right thing according to whom?

you? your parents? your friends? is the concept of morality different for every atheist? Where does this sense of morality come from?

[Realityhack]

57. actualy

it's fairly consistent across cultures without regard to religion. There is some personal variation but in general most of the same principles are found rather universally.

[SidDithers]

69. All morality is subjective...

or are you saying that there exists an objective moral standard?

Sid

[varkam]

70. To what extent?

Say that I consider murder (the intentional killing of an innocent) to be a moral good. If I murder someone, then am I acting morally?

[Realityhack]

71. Just for clarity that is not a counterpoint.

Either morality IS objective or it IS NOT.

The degree to which it is subjective is an entirely different question.

[varkam]

80. But I wasn't saying anything about objectivity.

I was asking to what extent morality is subjective.

There are those who think, though, that certain moral rules are objective (ostensibly since they are found universally, or nearly so) whereas others are not.

[Realityhack]

84. as I wrote in my post...

"Just for clarity"

As for the universal of killing innocents being wrong that is not a universal as far as I know. In fact given the right circumstances it is often viewed as a moral imperative as long as the killing is an 'indirect' result of the actors choice and not the central point of the action. See switching a train to another track when the other track is also occupied.

[varkam]

87. Given the right circumstances, sure.

But, as a general rule of thumb, murder is generally viewed as a moral wrong. Another (nearly) universal taboo is incest.

[Realityhack]

96. True but...

as you point out it is nearly universal not actually universal.

IIRC the only universal mores are inability to communicate and inability to care for yourself.

[John Gauger]

100. "I have gained this from philosophy:

That I do willingly what other men do from fear of law." Aristotle.

[Unvanguard]

121. What makes a religious person act morally?

Fear of punishment in Hell?

I act morally in recognition of moral duty founded in reason.

[pingzing58]

66. Its in our best interest, living in a society, to live in peace and prosper. Self-interest is the

key to morality. See, "Pascal's Wager" in wikipedia.

[immoderate]

73. More productive is the Atheist's Wager:

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=468107

--IMM

[pingzing58]

81. Good one. I've never heard of this but it sounds reasonable.

[immoderate]

82. There are a few different versions around the web.

--IMM

[goddess40]

74. Atheists morals come from an internal drive

which is much stronger and less likely to fail. If you're being good for an external reason, god and the threat of hell, chances are that you will fail more often.

[and-justice-for-all]

93. So, your saying that since I do not have invisible friends..

or let some preacher shaman hack tell me how to be, I am some how immoral?? I think not.

That old stink is utter none sence, if religious people or so fucking moral, then whats with all the preacher/pastor felonies? Religious people are no more immoral or moral then nontheist. And largely they are actually very immoral because they think that their invisible buddies will forgive them.

[Unsane]

104. nice non answer

[varkam]

101. There's no such thing.

There's no such thing as atheistic or theistic morality. Morality comes from the some place (wherever that is) and we're all "subject" to it. If that weren't the case, then ostensibly Christians would be stoning to death people who break the sabbath.

Also, the logical flip of that is that theists need god (or at least the idea of god) to be moral - which isn't true, but it normally shuts people up who advance that line of argument.

[dmallind]

102. Well something like this...

1) snorts of dersisive laughter at anyone who could be that silly

2) examples of atheist prison populations compared to their actual population ratio

3) explanation of the superior merit of teleological moral philosophies over deontological ones, focusing on the contradictions in deontology, the various scenarios in which following ANY absolutist non-situational ethical system will create much mor harm than benefit, and the primacy of the moral agent

4) personal testimony of believers when given the hypothesis of non-belief ( I have yet to meet ONE believer who when asked "OK imagine you have lost your faith - and no weaselling out saying that's impossible as clearly it has happened to many erstwhile pious folk before - now do you become an amoral hedonist raping and stealing and killing willy nilly?" has said "yes".)

5) demonstration of moral codes similar to and pre-existing the religion of the one making the statement, and indication that these are remarkably similar in societies of all faiths and none.

6) explanation of how mankind as an animal that is individual weak, slow and inefficient but succeeded via gregarious mutually dependent social groups would have developed systems to ensure group cohesion - for example stealing food from the best toolmaker would mean your source for good spearheads dries up, and beating the best hunter means he doesn't share kills with you any more)

7) ask for demonstartions of the horde of rampaging atheists raping and pillaging their home town

8) if all that fails, back to 1)

[crawfish]

103. As a Christian, I believe...

that all people are created in God's image. This refers to His spiritual, not physical, image. Therefore, is it any surprise, if morality comes from God, that everybody has a similar level of morality built into them?

The very basis on which Christianity is built tells us that all people - even atheists - have a moral center.

[emperor124]

116. Ever notice

How all the scumbags in politics like Tom Delay turn out to be Christians? Wierd

[Unsane]

118. so is Jimmy Carter, fwiw

[trotsky]

119. That's why he didn't say

"all Christians in politics are scumbags"

That would be COMPLETELY different, wouldn't you agree?

[emperor124]

120. Course not, Obama's a Christian

There's a lot of good Christians in politics, just pointing out that most of the scum bags tend to be Christian. Or maybe they're "Christian" as in not really Christian at all...

[Unvanguard]

122. In two ways.

First, religion doesn't help. "God said so" is not a rational basis for morality. (See Euthypro, and more broadly Hume's is/ought problem.)

Second, I'm pretty convinced that reason applied to the problem of determination of the will can generate binding moral principles... and good ones, too.

[smoogatz]

123. Some atheists might respond by asking you to define "morality."

And some might point out that the moral authority of religion—deriving as it does from some alleged supernatural source—is imaginary, which means that all religious notions about morality and ethics are entirely human in their origins, which means that atheists have the same basis for morality as theists, i.e., that morality is a cultural construct, entirely fungible and given to change over time. Theists may disagree, but they'd be wrong.

[Marr]

128. I respond with a question. Why don't you murder people for working on Sundays?

After all, the Bible says you're supposed to. I assume that's one of the many rules you've chosen to ignore.

If religion is the source of your morality, what led you to ignore a rule laid out in your holy book? Clearly you have a sense of morality that is independent of your religion.

[DeSwiss]

129. The basis....

...of this supposed criticism:

"How does an atheist respond to the following criticism: "without religion, an atheist has no basis for morality(?)"

...presupposes or assumes that "religion" is itself moral. A point I do not now, nor will I ever concede. And the statement as written, does refer to a presumed basis for morality within "religion," as opposed to "god" -- which from my perspective are hardly the same thing. No one knows what god is or isn't. The desire of which we seemed to have spent much of our time and effort trying to discern, but from my view is something that is superfluous by comparison to Creation itself. However, we certainly do know about religion since it is a man-made institution. Sufficiently knowledgeable in any event to generate an opinion of its presumed "morality," or lack thereof.

So from this perspective, one would have to say at the least that religion is a mixed bag of shared homilies from a variety of cultures and sources, streaked throughout with some of the worst amoral acts that have been ever committed by humankind against humankind.

So my response to this criticism would be:

"Religion has no basis for morality." (not a question, not a criticism, but a simple statement of fact based upon their own written words)

[5LeavesLeft]

130. Why bother?

I don't mean to hijack your thread, Unsane, well, I do, but isn't the real question:

How does an atheist respond to the following criticism: "without religion, why bother with morality?
Right and wrong are exactly what I they say are, and I'm smarter than everybody else."

[rexcat]

132. Religion is not a requisite for morality...

considering the number of christians in jail in the US and those good ministers and priests doing bad things to kids and adults. Get real!

Humans are social animals and the survival of the species depends on fellow humans being altruistic which leads to moral norms for a given group, tribe, etc. Morality is more likely genetically controlled and has evolved over time but I am afraid the concept of evolution and genetics may be above your comprehension, but I hope not.

[Az]

131. It is our own sense of morality that gives basis to religious notions of morality

No religion can long maintain a moral position in direct opposition to the public's sense of morality. Any such religion will quickly be ridden out of town on the next rail. Thus religions that survive do so by forming claims for how and why it is responsible for the public's particular sense of morality.

Human beings have a deeply rooted sense of morality that comes from our evolutionarily developed sense of society. We have a strong sense of fairness as do many other social species. We have a basic sense of when someone or something has taken too much or has received too little. Our sense of fairness compels us to take note of such matters and depending on what we have learned to do in such situations take direct action to correct an unfairness as best we can.

As we are also a social species we have a built in sense of connectivity (to varying degrees depending on neurological condition). This is directly enabled by mirror neurons. These neurons fire when ever we observe another. We internalize their actions or the events occurring to them as if we were doing or experiencing them ourselves. This is our primary means of learning from one another as well as a means to maintain a sense of connectivity within a group.

It is our sense of fairness and our sense of connectivity as well as other evolved functions within the brain that give rise to our moral codes and and social structures. This is where our sense of morality comes from and why each and every religion has to pay heed to what our basic senses tell us about what is right and wrong. As there is a lot of room for variance within this system there is plenty of room for different religions to stake out territory and proclaim their moral code to be the one true moral code. But this is just religions exhibiting territorial behavior as they play out their own evolutionary games within the environment of our social structures.

[unpossibles]

133. morality informed one aspect of the creation of religion, not the other way around

morality and altruism predate religion by a LOT. In fact, I would put more trust (and "faith") in an atheist being good for the sake of being good than someone being "good" because they feared punishment from the Cosmic Hall Monitor.

Hell, even if you are religious (and I am not), you have to understand that gods gave us free will, and that not all of the gods' rules have to do with morality. Heck, in some cases there are plenty of times in which religion allows or encourages immorality, at least to our modern eyes.

JHWH wanted the Jews to kill their neighbors for the crimes of those neighbors' great great grandfathers, did he not? I'd hardly call that moral or just.

[Feron]

134. Well that's simple.

Atheism is simply an unbelief in a deity.

Deities are man-made constructs created in order to understand life and the world around us. Since there was little or no hard science at the time, the supernatural and religion were born as an explanation (also serving as a handy tool to control people). Certainly nobody believes today that Atlas holds up the world. Well I hope. LOL

Now religions do promote the fallacy that they alone are the sole source of goodness. They also use fear and guilt along with false hope to simply to stay in business. Feeling guilty because you laughed at a tasteless Jesus joke does not mean that the Jesus story is true; it simply means that you have been conditioned. People in our society certainly don't feel guilty about laughing at the Greek gods or even the non-Christian beliefs of others today.

If you repeat something often enough, it becomes accepted as a fact. And religion throughout history has proven itself to be just as fallible and corrupt as the humans that created it.

Morality is often wrapped up in religious dress, but it's simply an agreed upon code of conduct. Nothing more. Now some moral systems can have a religious flavor, but you don't need religion in order to have morality itself.

Just like laws, morality exists to maintain order in society. Different cultures sometimes have different moralities. And moral systems can also change. Furthermore not all moralities are equal. Allowing schoolgirls to burn to death, for example, because they aren't properly veiled is simply reprehensible.


The more colorful view is that religion certainly hasn't stopped Father Chester the molester from abusing children. Even better his church will in all likelihood protect him. Or you will have Pat Robertson fleecing money from the faithful and taxpayers in order to finance his lavish lifestyle.

And then there is the Bible telling the faithful to stone adulterers, stone kids that are disrespectful to their parents, and to kill homosexuals for example.

On the flipside, there are atheists that will not hesitate to put others before themselves. Pat Tillman is a famous example. Non-belief in god does not mean that you are also opposed to altruism or anything that would define a good moral character.

Furthermore anthropology, psychology, and sociology are far superior to explaining human behavior than any supposed divine text. Unfortunately superstition and woo refuse to die even in the age of science. People would much rather believe in the fantastic rather than admit that their idea of the divine is rather mundane in origin.