Are religious people more moral than athiests?

[mrmarklin]

10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

You don’t need to define him. Historical consensus by his biographers is that he was an atheist. 

His political base was in southern Germany which is Catholic and conservative.  He made a lot of statements in his speeches pandering to this base. But he didn’t believe a word of it. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

You don’t need to define him. Historical consensus by his biographers is that he was an atheist. 

His political base was in southern Germany which is Catholic and conservative.  He made a lot of statements in his speeches pandering to this base. But he didn’t believe a word of it. 

No, historical consensus is that he did not like Christianity. That does not mean the consensus is that he was atheist.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

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. 

Most of that Temple visitation is honoring ones ancestors. Not exactly a definitive religious indicator.

Some Japanese (mostly extreme nationalists) still believe the emperor is divine. Well, them and it seems you do too based on your statement here. Not exactly a majority. The emperor’s political power waxed and waned. While the current emperor is mostly powerless it was not always so. In the 1940’s there was a join American-Japanese effort to absolve Emperor Hirohito of culpability for Japan’s actions in the Second World War. The emperor was not as distant from the war effort as he was made to appear. The Japanese wanted to protect him and the Americans cooperated with the deception to preserve the emperor and win the favor of the Japanese people figuring they needed them as an ally in the coming Cold War with the Soviets. So no, the emperor was not always a figurehead for a thousand years,

You may find my arguments tedious and ill-conceived whatever that is supposed to mean but I find yours factually dubious. Based on your comment can I assume your knowledge of Shinto was compiled in the last few hours on Wikipedia and you are asking me to join you? And I am supposed to respect your conclusions about Japan?

P.S. And???

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours 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 firm believe in Teutonic myth, and truly enjoyed Wagner.  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

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.

We can't even control human trafficking here in good old USA.  It is especially obvious when Mara Salvatrucha 13 is doing the trafficking, and I can promise you that Jeff Sessions will not even make a dent in the actions of MS-13.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

......................................

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.

Brilliant, Nehor !!  You have surpassed even yourself.

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Brilliant, Nehor !!  You have surpassed even yourself.

Thanks, I think.

[thesometimesaint]

14 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

You don’t need to define him. Historical consensus by his biographers is that he was an atheist. 

His political base was in southern Germany which is Catholic and conservative.  He made a lot of statements in his speeches pandering to this base. But he didn’t believe a word of it. 

Hitler vs The Catholics

SEE http://www.bigccatholics.com/2016/09/pope-vs-hitler-utterly-refutes-spurious.html

[RevTestament]

On 10/25/2017 at 7:59 PM, JAHS said:

We are told that all people have the light of Christ in them to know the diffference between right and wrong, but is that enough to be the most moral person we can be?
Are athiests incapable of being as moral as a religious person because they don't learn or adhere to a set of values and principles that originate from God?

I believe there are some false assumptions here. I basically believe that the basic system of morals most atheists believe they adhere to are derived from "religion." I believe the word of God was introduced in the day of Adam, who introduced it to mankind. As I understand it many of the fables of Sumeria and Akkadia were derived from these earliest stories rather than vice versa. In other words I believe the basic fabric of morals which hold society together are from God. So when Atheists proclaim they are rejecting God's laws in favor of basic human principles, they are really just adopting the basic morals of God whom they say they do not believe in. So, in essence I believe your questions are moot. The common atheist rules of morality involve equality and rights to pursue happiness. These are basically derived from God's law to love they neighbor as thyself, which was introduced through Adam rather than Moses as generally believed. Moses reiterated this law, but gave a whole list of commandments to help the people learn the greater law which had long since been introduced, and not lived very well. 

[RevTestament]

18 hours 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.

You don't need machine guns to kill all those people. In fact the gun had been in existence for centuries already. All you need is a single shot or to starve/imprison them. Those were the usual means of killing these masses under Marxist socialism, and they had existed for centuries. It was the twisted ideology of Marxism which was the difference. Marxist ideas were the fault, and responsible for all the deaths since it sought to eliminate religion. So I respectfully disagree with what you seem to be saying here.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

You don't need machine guns to kill all those people. In fact the gun had been in existence for centuries already. All you need is a single shot or to starve/imprison them. Those were the usual means of killing these masses under Marxist socialism, and they had existed for centuries. It was the twisted ideology of Marxism which was the difference. Marxist ideas were the fault, and responsible for all the deaths since it sought to eliminate religion. So I respectfully disagree with what you seem to be saying here.

I disagree.

Industrialized murder requires industry. To reach the numbers they did of dead requires the numbers to be there so it has to be recent. Also they are more properly called Stalinist ideas. Also, the idea that the primary purpose was the elimination of religion is simplistic. That was more of a side goal because churches were a part of the culture they were trying to wipe out.

[sunstoned]

On 10/26/2017 at 1:56 AM, The Nehor said:

Yes, but much of that was apostate Christianity which means it can only fairly compared to apostate atheists.

I think you are confusing the teachings of Christ with Christianity.  They can be very different.

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I disagree.

Industrialized murder requires industry. To reach the numbers they did of dead requires the numbers to be there so it has to be recent. Also they are more properly called Stalinist ideas. Also, the idea that the primary purpose was the elimination of religion is simplistic. That was more of a side goal because churches were a part of the culture they were trying to wipe out.

You can disagree, but you have the burden of proof to convince me. I suggest doing some research and seeing how most of those people were killed - it had nothing to do with high tech weaponry.... I will agree that the elimination of religion was only one of a series of goals, but it ended up being one of the primary reasons for those killed to be killed - they refused to give up their religion. This refusal to acknowledge the primacy of the state was obnoxious to Marxist socialism. I will say that I believe your characterization of the primary cause for all this genocide being "Stalinist ideas" is a bit simplistic. Marx was the primary root of the ideology which passed through China, Cambodia, and other places - as well as Russia. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, sunstoned said:

I think you are confusing the teachings of Christ with Christianity.  They can be very different.

Wait, what? How did I do that?

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You can disagree, but you have the burden of proof to convince me. 

No, you have the burden of proof to convince me SO THERE!

Seriously, what kind of nonsense is that?

54 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I suggest doing some research and seeing how most of those people were killed - it had nothing to do with high tech weaponry.... 

It did have a lot to do with advanced industrial society to process the people to be killed. The primary advances used was a developed state with advanced communications, record keeping, and a nation-state level organized military to organize the rounding up and killing of the undesirables. It was not just gunpowder.

57 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

 I will agree that the elimination of religion was only one of a series of goals, but it ended up being one of the primary reasons for those killed to be killed - they refused to give up their religion. This refusal to acknowledge the primacy of the state was obnoxious to Marxist socialism.

Some were killed for that. I did not deny that. Stalin and Mao and their nations were horrible places.

59 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I will say that I believe your characterization of the primary cause for all this genocide being "Stalinist ideas" is a bit simplistic. Marx was the primary root of the ideology which passed through China, Cambodia, and other places - as well as Russia. 

I don't think you have read Marx. One of the goals of Marx's society was to advance so that working hours could be shortened and people able to pursue artistic and intellectual pursuits. They would have time to pursue individual goals. The totalitarianism of Stalin's Russia and Mao's China would have horrified him. He saw the state as becoming mostly obsolete in his communist society which would function democratically through collaborative workplace and social environments.

Marx was naive and his plan was unlikely to work but it bears no relation to Stalinism or Maoism and to say otherwise is just historically wrong. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, and other totalitarian leaders had to radically revise what he said (and they did) to make it fit with what they were doing. Stalin in particular fed the line that a temporary state would be necessary for the transition to pure communism. The Soviet and Chinese purging of the educated and the religious would have horrified Marx. Marx had an ambiguous take on religion and saw it as a kind of opium dulling the people but also as an expression of the oppressed. Lenin was the one who made atheism the credo of Communism.

Marx also saw the development of communism as a natural outgrowth from a kind of late-stage capitalism. He expected it to flourish first in Western Europe in the freer states. My guess is he would have seen Russia and China's attempt to implement it as premature and doomed to failure as they were simply not ready.

I am not defending or advocating communism. I am objecting to your characterization of Stalin and Mao being devout followers of Marx. They were devout followers in the same way that the Inquisition was made up on devout followers of Christ. They professed it but they did not follow through on it.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 10/25/2017 at 8:52 PM, The Nehor said:

No, you cannot be moral without God since the Light of Christ is what enlightens people to be good. It is LDS doctrine. 

Are you a proponent of the divine command theory?  In LDS doctrine (depending on your interpretation) God was like us and had to work to achieve godhood, so how can morality come from God? In LDS thought morality seems to be independent of God because he didn't create it. 

On 10/25/2017 at 8:52 PM, The Nehor said:

 However it is a pointless debate to have because we cannot prove it

I am no fan of speculation conversations, but we can have one if you want 

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Are you a proponent of the divine command theory?  In LDS doctrine (depending on your interpretation) God was like us and had to work to achieve godhood, so how can morality come from God? In LDS thought morality seems to be independent of God because he didn't create it. 

Not entirely, while anything God commands is moral God does not want or need to command in all things and such decisions can be ethical without divine input.

My understanding of divinity is that God both became a God and is and was and will be throughout all of eternity.

[Not Sure]

This conversation is just full of false equivalencies.  Atheistism is the lack of belief in a God.  It says nothing about the person's moral beliefs.  I could also ask, are soulless gingers less moral than brunettes?

A more interesting question would be "Are humanists more moral than religious people?"  Besides the fact that you can be religious and humanist, that question is still very, very terrible, as it invokes a tribal "us vs them" response.  It also invokes a non-critical response where only the pro's of each "team's" arguments are presented.  A similar question would be are Calvinism more moral than Lutherans, but yet since you are neither Calvinist nor Lutheran you are probably not going to do any one sided association that one of the two are cannibalistic.  Another similar question is, are Americans more moral than Europeans...as observed by Brazilians.

[JLHPROF]

17 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

Atheistism is the lack of belief in a God.  It says nothing about the person's moral beliefs.

It speaks to the source of their morality as well as to its permanence.

Atheists can be moral and have moral beliefs.  I  don't think anyone disagrees with that.

[Not Sure]

On 10/28/2017 at 5:04 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

No, you cannot be moral without God since the Light of Christ is what enlightens people to be good. It is LDS doctrine. 

Then you also can't be moral with God because it is the Light of Christ that enlightens people to be good - its not you.  Basically this line of reasoning has the same exact problems as divine command theory.  Also, this argument is backwards from the normal argument being made here.  The normal argument is that you can't KNOW if the actions a person does is moral without God and they usually concede that a person can do a moral action and just not know why it is moral.

Finally, the Light of Christ is very obviously metaphorical.  There is no actual light going on when you do a moral action, right?  What the metaphor really represents in reality is anybody's guess.  My guess is that it is endorphins which make you feel good and ease anxiety, so the Light of Christ must be the amygdala.  Darn it, I guess you are right, without the amygdala you can't do a altruistic action.  

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

Then you also can't be moral with God because it is the Light of Christ that enlightens people to be good - its not you.

the Light of Christ is very obviously metaphorical.  There is no actual light going on when you do a moral action, right?  

I fail to see why this is an issue.  If every speck of my goodness comes from God then I am drawing nearer to him and becoming more like him.  Why should I expect to be good independent of God? That is impossible - Christ taught that none are good but God.

And the light of Christ is not metaphorical.  In Mormon theology light is synonymous with truth.  The light of Christ refers to our ability to know good or evil when we come across them.

[Not Sure]

11 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It speaks to the source of their morality as well as to its permanence.

Atheists can be moral and have moral beliefs.  I  don't think anyone disagrees with that.

How can the lack of belief in God be a source of morals?  Does being a non-stamp collector speak to their morals as well?   Does not believing in Thor speak to source of your morals as well?

Gingers can also be moral and have moral beliefs.  I don't think anyone disagrees with that.

My morality comes from the experience of consequences of actions I have had.   So of those experiences were related to atheism, most were just everyday interactions with people. Morality is something that is learned.  You teach a child that you can't take that, it belongs to Ashley, and the child may feel bad for their action  (or may not, it takes many tries with children).  Children also learn through observation.  Children do not come programmed with what is moral and what is not.   I can also learn about the neuroscience of altruism such role of the amygdala in learning morality.

That said, while learning about why atheism is compelling have a also have I also learned about morality along with it.  Most definitely, here I am making an argument about morality.  

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Not Sure said:

How can the lack of belief in God be a source of morals? 

My morality comes from the experience of consequences of actions I have had.

Because without God as the source our morals are meaningless.  They are in constant flux due to those experiences you mention.  What is moral becomes whatever society will accept and teaches us is moral.

To the ancient Aztec it is moral to sacrifice people.  To the cannibal it is moral to eat your enemy.  To the Egyptian pharaoh marrying a sibling is the best.  Society and experience do teach us morals, but they can be right or wrong.

Only God can be the source of an absolute moral good.

[Not Sure]

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

If every speck of my goodness comes from God

If it comes from God then it does not come from you, hence the contradiction

15 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

then I am drawing nearer to him and becoming more like him

It a little bit of a stretch that this conclusion follows the last statement.  It seems to a little bit of a play on words; not a good sign if you are describing something that is not abstract.

You mean becoming more like the descriptions of God that are in your religious texts which you believe to be accurate based on faith and personal revelation.  You have never observed God, right?

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

And the light of Christ is not metaphorical.

So the Light of Christ is literal photons?  I really thing you mean to to be metaphorical that you believe represents an undisclosed physical or super-physical phenomena.  The name is metaphorical.

25 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

The light of Christ refers to our ability to know good or evil when we come across them

So the Light of Christ could be the amygdala.  Again, the name is metaphorical, right?  

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Because without God as the source our morals are meaningless.  They are in constant flux due to those experiences you mention.  What is moral becomes whatever society will accept and teaches us is moral.

But our morals are in a constant flux.  And much of that flux comes from people attributing their morals to God.  50 years ago people thought it was moral to discriminate against blacks and deny them the priesthood. 10 years ago people thought it was moral to deny gays their civl rights.  Some even attributed those very actions to what God wanted.  Now you ask that very same group and not all would agree that either of those actions came from God.

Quote

 

To the ancient Aztec it is moral to sacrifice people.  To the cannibal it is moral to eat your enemy.  To the Egyptian pharaoh marrying a sibling is the best.  Society and experience do teach us morals, but they can be right or wrong.

Only God can be the source of an absolute moral good.

 

This actually proves that morals do not come from God but often come from those that believe they know the will of God.  They use that belief to try to persuade society to adopt those morals.  The Aztec did not claim to sacrifice human life on their own morals.  They claimed to sacrifice on their belief in God.  Attributing morality to god has not always been a good reliable source of what is good morals.