Atheists are the moral ones

[JakeStarkey]

No, your questions don't get answered because they are answered above.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Not only can you have morals (Ethics) with religion, but any atheist source for morality is demonstrably amoral at best, and frequently completely immoral.

The above emendation is as sensible as that of guno.

 

[DriftingSand]

No ... just that bubble that's blinded your sense of good judgment.

You clearly have a problem with "white evangelical Protestants." In one sentence you use three qualifiers: a) white Christian, b) evangelical Christian, c) Protestant Christian. However, one needs not be white, evangelical, or Protestant to be a Christian.

Are you blind? Those were category labels in the graph in the OP under discussion. Did you not bother reading it?

You and the OP and most of other Libtards are "blind" to the fact that the ills of the world aren't to be blamed on "white, evangelical, Protestant" Christians. The ills of the world are to be blamed on folks who don't adhere to the basic tenets of Christ's original message. Whomever created your graph never asked me or any of the Christians I know whether or not we agreed with torture so I can only assume that it is likely a biased piece of propaganda that does NOT represent me in any form or fashion.

 

[guno]

Not only can you have morals (Ethics)without religion, but any religious source for morality is demonstrably amoral at best, and frequently completely immoral.

Most religion-based moral codes have completely inconsistent definitions of "good" and "bad", which in practice amount to little more than lists of things which are considered "good" or "bad", with little respect for whether any of these things can actually be demonstrated to be "good" or "bad". In religious context, something is "good" if the religion says it's good (even if it's demonstrably bad by any other standard, like demonizing or killing those with different beliefs or ritually mutilating infants), and something is "bad" if the religion says it's bad (again, even if it's demonstrably good by other standards, like questioning authority or equality between the sexes). This is not morality. It's just a dictated set of entirely arbitrary rules intended to control a population and glorify religion. That religions frequently claim that this *is* morality is nothing other than a deliberate corruption of the very concept, and worse, that many religions claim to be the only acceptable source of morality while preaching a deliberate perversion of natural morality is itself *deeply* immoral. But just in case that wasn't bad enough, many religions then exempt their followers from taking responsibility for their own actions, blaming some "evil spirit" or another (Satan) for anything "bad" they might do within the religious culture, giving them ample justifications for committing all manner of demonstrably bad acts outwith the culture without risk of censure, and finally saying that all "sins" will be forgiven if they devoutly follow the religion.

Religion distorts and cheapens morality for its own ends

Atheists Are 0.07% of the Federal Prison Population, Threatening Fact for Christian Fundamentalists
It's a big disruption to the Christian right argument that you need a belief in God to live morally.

Atheists Are 0.07 of the Federal Prison Population Threatening Fact for Christian Fundamentalists Alternet

 

[guno]

Not only can you have morals (Ethics) with religion, but any atheist source for morality is demonstrably amoral at best, and frequently completely immoral.

The above emendation is as sensible as that of guno.

Albert Einstein: God is a Product of Human Weakness
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

Albert Einstein & Spinoza's God: Harmony in the Universe
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger

Albert Einstein: It is a Lie that I Believe in a Personal God
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Those free from faith are clearly just as moral as theists, where religious dogma in no way has a monopoly on morality – far from it, in fact.

 

[cnm]

You and the OP and most of other Libtards are "blind" to the fact that the ills of the world aren't to be blamed on "white, evangelical, Protestant" Christians. The ills of the world are to be blamed on folks who don't adhere to the basic tenets of Christ's original message. Whomever created your graph never asked me or any of the Christians I know whether or not we agreed with torture so I can only assume that it is likely a biased piece of propaganda that does NOT represent me in any form or fashion.

White non-evangelical Christians were most supportive of torture according to the data in the OP.

You are possibly represented in one of the categories of Christian that does not support torture recorded in the OP's graphic. Or not. You are definitely represented in the category 'All Adults'.

Have you looked at the graphic in the OP?

 

[cnm]

Not only can you have morals (Ethics) with religion, but any atheist source for morality is demonstrably amoral at best, and frequently completely immoral.

The above emendation is as sensible as that of guno.

What a load. Morals are community norms. Valid morals are those which assist a community to survive.

 

[guno]

Not only can you have morals (Ethics) with religion, but any atheist source for morality is demonstrably amoral at best, and frequently completely immoral.

The above emendation is as sensible as that of guno.

Albert Einstein: God is a Product of Human Weakness
"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind, January 3, 1954

Albert Einstein & Spinoza's God: Harmony in the Universe
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" quoted in: Has Science Found God?, by Victor J Stenger

Albert Einstein: It is a Lie that I Believe in a Personal God
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman

Albert Einstein: Idea of a Personal God Cannot be Taken Seriously
It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere.... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

- Albert Einstein, "Religion and Science," New York Times Magazine, November 9, 1930

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fun to watch militant atheists deny the claims made by militant religionists yet use the same argumentation.

Both are guilty of fallacious argumentation.

 

[hjmick]

I do so enjoy it when folks from both sides start painting each other with such broad brushes...

 

[PratchettFan]

Seems rather specific in its approach, which makes me suspicious right off the bat. It breaks out religion into three categories, all Christian, and then only in terms of whites. Does that make "no religion" anyone who is not a Christian? How do Jews fall into this, a far larger category than Atheists. What is the age break down? Geographic location, economic status, etc? Finally, what was the source of the poll? How many were actually contacted and how is the pollster qualified?

What this shows is pretty much nothing at all.

 

[hipeter924]

Yes, I believe atheists are more moral.

On a fundamental level, they do what is right because it is right. When an atheist does charity work or gives to a charity, there is no ulterior motive. Religious people do it because of the reward promised or the threat of burning in hell.

1) I can name a LOT more Christian charities than I can atheist charities.
2) How do you know what another person's "ulterior motive" is? Are atheists mind-readers?
3) On a fundamental level I became a lot more moral and charitable when I recognized my position and status under my Creator God. That's a fact!!
4) Giving to charities isn't going to keep a person from going to hell so that isn't my motive for giving. I give because I care. However, I do have an ulterior motive when I give: it makes me feel good.

Atheists are only estimated at 2% of the world population, so realistically you can't expect there to be more 'atheist charities'.

 

[theHawk]

No ... just that bubble that's blinded your sense of good judgment.

You clearly have a problem with "white evangelical Protestants." In one sentence you use three qualifiers: a) white Christian, b) evangelical Christian, c) Protestant Christian. However, one needs not be white, evangelical, or Protestant to be a Christian.

Are you blind? Those were category labels in the graph in the OP under discussion. Did you not bother reading it?

Funny how the chart breaks down a few catagories into "white", but not black or non-whites. Curious ain't it? Maybe because the "poll" is nothing but bunk.

 

[hipeter924]

Not only can you have morals (Ethics)without religion, but any religious source for morality is demonstrably amoral at best, and frequently completely immoral.

Most religion-based moral codes have completely inconsistent definitions of "good" and "bad", which in practice amount to little more than lists of things which are considered "good" or "bad", with little respect for whether any of these things can actually be demonstrated to be "good" or "bad". In religious context, something is "good" if the religion says it's good (even if it's demonstrably bad by any other standard, like demonizing or killing those with different beliefs or ritually mutilating infants), and something is "bad" if the religion says it's bad (again, even if it's demonstrably good by other standards, like questioning authority or equality between the sexes). This is not morality. It's just a dictated set of entirely arbitrary rules intended to control a population and glorify religion. That religions frequently claim that this *is* morality is nothing other than a deliberate corruption of the very concept, and worse, that many religions claim to be the only acceptable source of morality while preaching a deliberate perversion of natural morality is itself *deeply* immoral. But just in case that wasn't bad enough, many religions then exempt their followers from taking responsibility for their own actions, blaming some "evil spirit" or another (Satan) for anything "bad" they might do within the religious culture, giving them ample justifications for committing all manner of demonstrably bad acts outwith the culture without risk of censure, and finally saying that all "sins" will be forgiven if they devoutly follow the religion.

Religion distorts and cheapens morality for its own ends

Atheists Are 0.07% of the Federal Prison Population, Threatening Fact for Christian Fundamentalists
It's a big disruption to the Christian right argument that you need a belief in God to live morally.

Atheists Are 0.07 of the Federal Prison Population Threatening Fact for Christian Fundamentalists Alternet

I facepalm when they bring up Mao, Stalin (brought up as an Orthodox Christian), Pol Pot, or Hitler (who was Christian and imprisoned Atheists, also a classic godwin). It is absurd to argue that another person can be judged on the basis of the actions of someone else. By that logic, if your neighbor rapes or kills someone, you are guilty of the crime.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yes, I believe atheists are more moral.

On a fundamental level, they do what is right because it is right. When an atheist does charity work or gives to a charity, there is no ulterior motive. Religious people do it because of the reward promised or the threat of burning in hell.

While I don't believe that all god-believers are bad and all atheists are good, I think this is an important point.

Belief in a god is pretty much the Ultimate Insurance Policy that never pays off but believers say they behave in certain ways so they can get that pay off. If one does not believe in heaven or hell, there's no after-death pay off. WYSIWYG

And as the saying goes, if you need religion to tell you be a good person, you're not worth much.

I suspect that more than 2% of the world is atheist but -

Interestingly, it seems to be the believers who are in favor of torture, taking food away from children and the elderly, punishing victims. As we see here, many see themselves as victims. A lot of "christians" are real racists and haters of their fellow man. More are criminals and more abuse animals. Many of the worst do their damage in the name of their god.

 

[cnm]

What this shows is pretty much nothing at all.

Or you could look up 'Steve Benen Maddow blog' and get something like this:

This Week in God 12.20.14 MSNBC

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Yes, I believe atheists are more moral.

On a fundamental level, they do what is right because it is right. When an atheist does charity work or gives to a charity, there is no ulterior motive. Religious people do it because of the reward promised or the threat of burning in hell.

I wonder how many tax accountants would agree with you?

 

[cnm]

Funny how the chart breaks down a few catagories into "white", but not black or non-whites. Curious ain't it? Maybe because the "poll" is nothing but bunk.

Yes, I mentioned that but apparently it wasn't relevant.

 

[cnm]

Or one could continue down the link track and get to this site:

Religion Dispatches

Christians More Supportive of Torture than Non-Religious Americans

A new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds that Americans, by a 59-31% margin, believe that CIA “treatment of suspected terrorists” in detention was justified.

 

[cnm]

This is interesting and reflects my own observations:

Christians More Supportive of Torture than Non-Religious Americans

Christians More Supportive of Torture than Non-Religious Americans Religion Dispatches

Sixty nine percent of white evangelicals believe the CIA treatment was justified, compared to just 20% who said it was not. (Those numbers, incidentally, roughly mirror the breakdown of Republican versus Democratic voters among white evangelicals.) A full three-quarters (75%) of white non-evangelical Protestants outnumber the 22% of their brethren in saying CIA treatment was justified. White Catholics believe the treatment was justified by a 66-23% margin.