Are religious people more moral than athiests?

[Robert F. Smith]

57 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Godless communism has killed more people in the last one hundred years than supposed religious atrocities have done since the beginning of time. 

Since so-called "communism" (which is not communist) is a religion without a god (unless Karl Marx is that god; a religion does not need a god), your premise is wrong and so are your conclusions.

57 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Can 1.5 billion Muslims be wrong?  At some level, these are largely successful societies.  The terrorists are a very small segment of that society. By and large, Muslims are moral people both personally, and toward their fellow man. 

1.2 billion Roman Catholics (out of 2.4 billion Christians), 1.5 billion Muslims, 1.5 billion Hindus, 500 million Buddhists, 27 million Sikhs, etc.  What do those numbers mean?  Why are Shiites and Sunnis so intent on murdering  one another?  Since Jews and Mormons are vastly outnumbered, does that tell us that Judaism and Mormonism are wrong?

57 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

I know several. Do you?

Many more than you do.  In addition to living and traveling in the Middle East, I have studied Islam and Arab history at two universities (got straight As), and a couple of dialects of Arabic at one university (under Arab Muslim instructors).  I have been the night guest of gracious Muslim hosts in the Middle East.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

And this is not putting the words in the mouth of an Evangelical? Are you one or are you speaking for those that are?

Technically I am one as I said the prayer as specified in an Evangelical pamphlet I received. I saw nothing objectionable in the prayer as it did what I often do. Admit to the Savior that I have sinned and need his forgiveness and strength to become clean and accept him as the Messiah and Savior. I just did not and still do not believe that confession alone guaranteed me eternal life.

So I am covered in case the evangelicals are right.

So since I did that I can speak as one, though a slightly apostate one, and say it is a very nutty doctrine. Its doctrine has no real historical Christian precedent and is a relatively modern conception. So is the LDS faith but we rely on the idea of apostasy and a divine restoration to deal with that gap.

[mrmarklin]

4 hours ago, Gray said:

Yes, part of a dwindling minority of religious British people.

Weak. Really? That’s what you’ve got?

[mrmarklin]

4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

CFR

It’s a known fact that Stalin killed 30MM and Mao killed more than that. Wikipedia is your friend. 

 

Before 1917 there were no wars anywhere that had the cumulative amount of deaths these two guys alone killed. 

[Gray]

3 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Weak. Really? That’s what you’ve got?

You asked for successful atheist nations, I gave you several. Your response has been very weak. 

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

You asked for successful atheist nations, I gave you several. Your response has been very weak. 

Define "successful".
If they have rid themselves of God they are failures.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Gray said:

Religion will have to evolve to stay relevant. Of  course it has constantly been evolving since the dawn of humanity, nothing new there.

Politically relevant maybe? I think it will stay culturally relevant in a more muted way.

Considering professed Christians are noted in the United States for using what might be their last gasp of political might to vote in a stupid boastful insulting autocratic misogynistic serial adulterer into the highest office in the land I kind of hope its political relevance dies quickly.

At least he has a deep and respectful belief of the seriousness of sin and how vital the Savior is in the process of repentance:

Oh...........never mind.

[mrmarklin]

4 hours ago, LittleNipper said:

Are Muslim societies successful or have they been enlightened by a Christian influence.  Even Europe was once under the spell of paganism and hedonism. but slowly over the centuries, Christianity has changed values and opinions. Now we are facing a society that is seemingly disregarding God, and it is quickly reverting. 

Of course Muslims are people of the book and have been heavily influenced by Christian ethics. Adam organized the first Christian Church, and Moses restored it. 

To the extent Muslims are influenced by satan, they will of course continue their decline. We must remember that the rise of Islam coincided with the concurrent rise of the dark ages and the apostasy of True Christianity. 

[mrmarklin]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Since so-called "communism" (which is not communist) is a religion without a god (unless Karl Marx is that god; a religion does not need a god), your premise is wrong and so are your conclusions.

1.2 billion Roman Catholics (out of 2.4 billion Christians), 1.5 billion Muslims, 1.5 billion Hindus, 500 million Buddhists, 27 million Sikhs, etc.  What do those numbers mean?  Why are Shiites and Sunnis so intent on murdering  one another?  Since Jews and Mormons are vastly outnumbered, does that tell us that Judaism and Mormonism are wrong?

Many more than you do.  In addition to living and traveling in the Middle East, I have studied Islam and Arab history at two universities (got straight As), and a couple of dialects of Arabic at one university (under Arab Muslim instructors).  I have been the night guest of gracious Muslim hosts in the Middle East.

Maybe you know more Muslims than I do, but that doesn’t make my conclusions incorrect.  They are still a viable civilization  having spent time in Muslim countries, you must know this.  I only quoted numbers to bolster my case for civilization.  Having fewer numbers doesn’t invalidate the religion restored by Joseph Smith.

How Marxism which is Godless in all its forms, is a religion in any sense is beyond me.  I guess I’m just not sophisticated enough to understand it. I’ll buy it’s perhaps a religion substitute, after all one must believe in something. 

[mrmarklin]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

You asked for successful atheist nations, I gave you several. Your response has been very weak. 

The problem is these nations are not atheistic.  The head of state of at least two of them are religious leaders as well. 

Japan,s head of state is technically a diety.  I don’t recall the fourth you quoted, but please do better. 

Did you read the article?  Don’t confuse secularism with atheism. 

[mrmarklin]

23 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

 

Edited October 26, 2017 by mrmarklin
Delete

[LittleNipper]

18 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

Of course Muslims are people of the book and have been heavily influenced by Christian ethics. Adam organized the first Christian Church, and Moses restored it. 

To the extent Muslims are influenced by satan, they will of course continue their decline. We must remember that the rise of Islam coincided with the concurrent rise of the dark ages and the apostasy of True Christianity. 

There were no CHRISTIAN churches before the CHURCH existed. The CHURCH is the direct result of PENTECOST --- OR are you speaking of some other Adam and Moses. 

[mrmarklin]

4 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

There were no CHRISTIAN churches before the CHURCH existed. The CHURCH is the direct result of PENTECOST --- OR are you speaking of some other Adam and Moses. 

The idea that Adam did not believe in Christ is ludicrous. He was the first Christian  .

 

Every prophet prophesied of Christ. To say or believe otherwise denies the validity of the Old Testament. 

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

The problem is these nations are not atheistic.  The head of state of at least two of them are religious leaders as well. 

Japan,s head of state is technically a diety.  I don’t recall the fourth you quoted, but please do better. 

Did you read the article?  Don’t confuse secularism with atheism. 

Atheism is the rejection of a belief in God. By that measure, these are atheist nations. But I'm happy you're up to date on 1940s Japanese politics. 

[Gray]

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Politically relevant maybe? I think it will stay culturally relevant in a more muted way.

Considering professed Christians are noted in the United States for using what might be their last gasp of political might to vote in a stupid boastful insulting autocratic misogynistic serial adulterer into the highest office in the land I kind of hope its political relevance dies quickly.

At least he has a deep and respectful belief of the seriousness of sin and how vital the Savior is in the process of repentance:

Oh...........never mind.

Evangelicals have gotten bored with Jesus and have decided to try the exact inverse of Jesus instead. Good luck with that, evangelicals. 

[Brother Bear]

What about non-religious theists? Or non-religious spiritualists? Or atheistic spiritualists? Are these also incapable of doing good because of their lack of religion?

[JAHS]

21 minutes ago, Brother Bear said:

What about non-religious theists? Or non-religious spiritualists? Or atheistic spiritualists? Are these also incapable of doing good because of their lack of religion?

I think everyone is capable of doing good and being "moral" without religion, as measured by the general definition of morality in a given culture. Smart people are going to know that to get along with others and live a relatively happy life in society,  living by some set of morals that involve making right choices to live by is the right thing to do and beneficial to all. The question is do people who adhere to a particular religion that believe in God have any advantage to be more moral? Or can they only be considered more moral when measured by the principles within that religion? 
The study I mentioned earlier talks about how people are more liable to trust a religious person compared to an atheist who might not adhere to the same morals even though there might not be any real reason to trust them any less.  
 

[Brother Bear]

23 minutes ago, JAHS said:

I think everyone is capable of doing good and being "moral" without religion, as measured by the general definition of morality in a given culture. Smart people are going to know that to get along with others and live a relatively happy life in society,  living by some set of morals that involve making right choices to live by is the right thing to do and beneficial to all. The question is do people who adhere to a particular religion that believe in God have any advantage to be more moral? Or can they only be considered more moral when measured by the principles within that religion? 
The study I mentioned earlier talks about how people are more liable to trust a religious person compared to an atheist who might not adhere to the same morals even though there might not be any real reason to trust them any less.  
 

 I was just being dumb. I do enjoy the topic. I see as an invitation to see what people consider moral. For some, I think that critical moral behaviors are framed by religious belief, so by definition an irreligious person cannot be moral. I personally see morality as following the golden rule. I know how I'd like to be treated and I don't see why anyone, regardless of belief in God can't follow the golden rule. This has been confirmed to me by my experience with people all along the faith spectrum. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Maybe you know more Muslims than I do, but that doesn’t make my conclusions incorrect.  They are still a viable civilization  having spent time in Muslim countries, you must know this.  I only quoted numbers to bolster my case for civilization.  Having fewer numbers doesn’t invalidate the religion restored by Joseph Smith.

During the European Dark Ages, Islam went through a Golden Age of great learning and high culture.  Sadly, they have not been able to reacquire that lost nadir, even though all of us  should be grateful that they transmitted their great learning and culture to the West and helped bring about the Renaissance.  We are still riding high on the helpful push that they gave us.  American Muslims tend to be exceptionally well-informed and progressive, and are deeply embarrassed by the jihadists elsewhere.

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

How Marxism which is Godless in all its forms, is a religion in any sense is beyond me.  I guess I’m just not sophisticated enough to understand it. I’ll buy it’s perhaps a religion substitute, after all one must believe in something. 

Had you studied Marxism in school, you'd hear all manner of religious palaver, such as the "inevitability" of this or that consequence, or the automatic harmony of a communist culture when the "withering away of the state" takes place -- religious concepts, requiring tremendous faith, leading to their Millennium.  The greatest British philosopher of the 20th century, Bertrand Russell argued vehemently that Marxism-Leninism was a religion, something which caused him great fear and loathing.

Buddhism is also a religion without a god.  Why do you erroneously believe that a religion requires god(s)?

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

It’s a known fact that Stalin killed 30MM and Mao killed more than that. Wikipedia is your friend. 

Before 1917 there were no wars anywhere that had the cumulative amount of deaths these two guys alone killed. 

It is also true that there are more slaves worldwide now than at any time in history.  Indeed, more slaves now than in all the combined numbers of slaves in history.  Why is it that our much vaunted "Christian" civilization isn't doing something about that?

World War II resulted in 50 million dead -- that was Hitler's war.

I am unaware that the numbers of those killed is proportional to the level of evil.  The rate of killing in Rwanda, by the way, was higher than any other death-dealing culture ever -- and they were not even employing industrial methods of killing the way the Germans did.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

It’s a known fact that Stalin killed 30MM and Mao killed more than that. Wikipedia is your friend. 

 

Before 1917 there were no wars anywhere that had the cumulative amount of deaths these two guys alone killed. 

True, but is that because of the development of much more efficient weapons with which to kill and a growing population that provided the bodies or is it the shift from religion to atheism? I would argue it is the former.

If you moved Stalin or Mao back a century or two it is unlikely they could have killed those numbers even if they had been virulent atheists and attempted the same plans.

2 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

The problem is these nations are not atheistic.  The head of state of at least two of them are religious leaders as well. 

Japan,s head of state is technically a diety.  I don’t recall the fourth you quoted, but please do better. 

Did you read the article?  Don’t confuse secularism with atheism. 

While the Queen of England is technically the head of the Anglican Church her participation is, both by law and custom, incredibly limited in influencing the Church. The Japanese Emperor was required to give up his divine status as part of the surrender in World War II. You can argue that the suicide arms of the Japanese military and other 'die before capture' approaches to warfare came from the Imperial cult. The laws of Imperial succession are decided by the Japanese government and the Emperor is a figurehead leader.

18 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

During the European Dark Ages, Islam went through a Golden Age of great learning and high culture.  Sadly, they have not been able to reacquire that lost nadir, even though all of us  should be grateful that they transmitted their great learning and culture to the West and helped bring about the Renaissance.  We are still riding high on the helpful push that they gave us.  American Muslims tend to be exceptionally well-informed and progressive, and are deeply embarrassed by the jihadists elsewhere.

I agree. Read some of the Muslim works in their golden age and they do not think highly of the debased European barbarians huddling in their castles in ignorance....and that was a pretty fair evaluation of the relative strength of the learning of both cultures.

2 hours ago, Gray said:

Evangelicals have gotten bored with Jesus and have decided to try the exact inverse of Jesus instead. Good luck with that, evangelicals. 

I pity them in many ways. Their hopefully futile quest for a kind of American theocracy has led them down a very dark path. I think when the Baby Boomers die out they will find themselves marginalized and ignored, any moral or spiritual leadership tainted by their recent Faustian bargains.

[The Nehor]

13 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is also true that there are more slaves worldwide now than at any time in history.  Indeed, more slaves now than in all the combined numbers of slaves in history.  Why is it that our much vaunted "Christian" civilization isn't doing something about that?

Because there is only so much you can do without military force. While the League of Nations and the post-WWI hegemony largely stamped out chattel slavery using economic and political pressure, as Tolkien would put it the Shadow retreats and takes new form and reemerges.

[mrmarklin]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

It is also true that there are more slaves worldwide now than at any time in history.  Indeed, more slaves now than in all the combined numbers of slaves in history.  Why is it that our much vaunted "Christian" civilization isn't doing something about that?

World War II resulted in 50 million dead -- that was Hitler's war.

I am unaware that the numbers of those killed is proportional to the level of evil.  The rate of killing in Rwanda, by the way, was higher than any other death-dealing culture ever -- and they were not even employing industrial methods of killing the way the Germans did.

 I really don’t know how slavery got into my comparison.  But I don’t think Chistians are responsible for much slavery these days  

BTW, Hitler was an atheist. 

[The Nehor]

5 minutes ago, mrmarklin said:

 I really don’t know how slavery got into my comparison.  But I don’t think Chistians are responsible for much slavery these days  

BTW, Hitler was an atheist. 

Hitler was a professed Christian and professed follower of Wotan but viewed both as political conveniences. He was not a professed atheist and did not say or do anything to convince me he was one. If I had to define him he was part Agnostic and part worshipper of himself as and avatar of the Master Race. He mostly just did not care about religion at all. Religion was occasionally a political tool but no more then that.

[mrmarklin]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

True, but is that because of the development of much more efficient weapons with which to kill and a growing population that provided the bodies or is it the shift from religion to atheism? I would argue it is the former.

If you moved Stalin or Mao back a century or two it is unlikely they could have killed those numbers even if they had been virulent atheists and attempted the same plans.

While the Queen of England is technically the head of the Anglican Church her participation is, both by law and custom, incredibly limited in influencing the Church. The Japanese Emperor was required to give up his divine status as part of the surrender in World War II. You can argue that the suicide arms of the Japanese military and other 'die before capture' approaches to warfare came from the Imperial cult. The laws of Imperial succession are decided by the Japanese government and the Emperor is a figurehead leader.

 

80% of Japanese worship at some sort of temple from time to time. That’s not atheism. The emperor was required to accept certain limitations, but those were in a written constitution written and imposed by the allies. The emperor had been a figurehead for practical purposes for a thousand years. It’s not new.  He’s still descended from diety. 

I could go on, but your arguments are fairly tedious and ill conceived. Look up Shintō. Wikipedia is your friend. 

 

PS. I think my statements about the arch atheists are true. 

Edited October 27, 2017 by mrmarklin