Do Christians feel that athiests are amoral or unprincipled?

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I don’t doubt it - you obviously hang out with a better class of people. I was certainly not implying that the two of you felt this way. But can you explain the opposition to gay marriage in any other fashion?
There have been a few threads about this, and IIRC people opposing gay marriage, and not driven exclusively by religon, acknowledged that they could find no secular reason to oppose it. One, I think, changed his mind.
[/QUOTE]

I meant to say I wasn’t implying that only the two of you felt that way. And I lost an apostrophe in another post. The hamsters must be hungry and are eating parts of my post. :eek:

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]

So, to summarize, I’d say that it is improper to accept a belief on faith alone if you are going to use that belief to adversely affect other people. (I say adversely, but it is kind of true even for things to benefit people. There is always justification for those outside of faith, so it isn’t relevant.)
[/QUOTE]

And here , I think, is the qualifier that seperates what Der trihs asserts and my stance. It is not unreasonable to to accept something on faith alone until you try to impose that belief upon others. That might be through legislation or merely knocking on their door. I agree with Sam Harris that beliefs that deeply affect our lives need to be challenged and examined. THe SDMB has helped convince me that anyone who really wants to examine their beliefs need to engage in discussions with those who can intelligently disagree. One of the problems of much of Christianity IMHO is that they don’t really do this. If someone wants to take up my time telling me about the Lord then they’d better come prepared.

And this comes directly from the Constitution, as you mentioned at the beginning of your post. The purpose of the establishment clause, or the benefit, is to force a secular justification. That was why the attempts to teach creationism failed - the proponents failed to show a secular reason to do so. Creation “science” exists to try to develop this secular justification, and has failed miserably, of course.

I have sometimes thought that the DOC and Constitution better reflect what Jesus taught than many preachers do. The principles it speaks of have to do with our common humanity rather than any particular dogma. I think those are the details we should be considereing. That’s why terms like “Christian Principles” or “American values” irritate the crap out of me. They are figments of someones imagination. There are values and principles worth discussing but they are not owned by any one group. They relate to “all men being created equal”

Not in this Congress, alas. But I thought John Kerry’s statement on abortion during the third debate was a textbook case of how this should be handled. He had an opinion, out of faith, but did not wish to impose it on others.

I feel the same way. We need to focus on real actions and the consequences of those actions. Making a choice illegal has a lot implications for all of us.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]

So, to summarize, I’d say that it is improper to accept a belief on faith alone if you are going to use that belief to adversely affect other people. (I say adversely, but it is kind of true even for things to benefit people. There is always justification for those outside of faith, so it isn’t relevant.)
[/QUOTE]

And here , I think, is the qualifier that seperates what Der trihs asserts and my stance. It is not unreasonable to to accept something on faith alone until you try to impose that belief upon others. That might be through legislation or merely knocking on their door. I agree with Sam Harris that beliefs that deeply affect our lives need to be challenged and examined. THe SDMB has helped convince me that anyone who really wants to examine their beliefs need to engage in discussions with those who can intelligently disagree. One of the problems of much of Christianity IMHO is that they don’t really do this. If someone wants to take up my time telling me about the Lord then they’d better come prepared.

And this comes directly from the Constitution, as you mentioned at the beginning of your post. The purpose of the establishment clause, or the benefit, is to force a secular justification. That was why the attempts to teach creationism failed - the proponents failed to show a secular reason to do so. Creation “science” exists to try to develop this secular justification, and has failed miserably, of course.

I have sometimes thought that the DOI and Constitution better reflect what Jesus taught than many preachers do. The principles it speaks of have to do with our common humanity rather than any particular dogma. I think those are the details we should be considereing. That’s why terms like “Christian Principles” or “American values” irritate the crap out of me. They are figments of someones imagination. There are values and principles worth discussing but they are not owned by any one group. They relate to “all men being created equal”

Not in this Congress, alas. But I thought John Kerry’s statement on abortion during the third debate was a textbook case of how this should be handled. He had an opinion, out of faith, but did not wish to impose it on others.

I feel the same way. We need to focus on real actions and the consequences of those actions. Making a choice illegal has a lot implications for all of us.

[Der_Trihs]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
And neither of us has conclusive proof either way.

You are free to come to your own conclusions. You are even free to ridicule those who disagree with you. That doesn’t make you right , nor does it require me to provide evidence for my beliefs, unless I seek to prove something to you. I don’t. I humbly admit that I can’t. I simply claim that I do indeed care about the truth and am seeking it in my own way.
[/quote]
If you did, you would not believe in something that has zero evidence, at best.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
If it is you trying to prove that you are the right one {because you care so deeply} then let’s have the proof. Please don’t mention Occam’s Razor again. It’s interesting and all but hardly qualifies as proof.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t regard religion as a special case, unlike you. I don’t believe in God for the same reason I don’t believe in elves, and the default logical position is disbelief. Should I refrain from speaking against someone who does ? A complete lack of evidence is all the proof a rational person needs.

If I took the attitude that you want, it would be the equivalent of a self-lobotomy. I would be forced to believe so many things that I’d go mad, because there are an infinite number of things with zero evidence. Therefore, I choose to disbelieve them all, including the zero evidence concept called “God”.

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
And here , I think, is the qualifier that seperates what Der trihs asserts and my stance. It is not unreasonable to to accept something on faith alone until you try to impose that belief upon others.
[/quote]
Nonsense. If you have faith you can walk on water, and try to do so, you’ll drown. Drowning by that kind of stupidity is unreasonable. If you have faith that prayer can cure disease, your faith won’t protect you from AIDS or cancer; refusing medical care and relying on prayer is unreasonable.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
If you did, you would not believe in something that has zero evidence, at best.
[/QUOTE]

Well, we’ve had this go round before. Subjective evidence is valid evidence and thats what I base my belief on. I recognize it as evidence that I cannot use to convince anyone else which is why I don’t.

Do you believe love is a positive emotion? How about mercy? How about compassion? Can you offer any evidence to prove your beliefs?

I don’t regard religion as a special case, unlike you. I don’t believe in God for the same reason I don’t believe in elves, and the default logical position is disbelief. Should I refrain from speaking against someone who does ? A complete lack of evidence is all the proof a rational person needs.

I don’t regard religion as a special case. I do believe that some things are subjective and the spiritual experience is one of them. Where religious beliefs speak of the objective then by all means , lets look at the objective evidence.

If I took the attitude that you want, it would be the equivalent of a self-lobotomy. I would be forced to believe so many things that I’d go mad, because there are an infinite number of things with zero evidence. Therefore, I choose to disbelieve them all, including the zero evidence concept called “God”.

Nonsesne. You would not be forced to believe in anything. Since I have no experience subjective or otherwise suggesting the reality of elves I have no reason to consider them. I have had subjective experiences that I consider spiritual and that is a rational reason to believe until the evidence shows me otherwise. It is my beliefs about God and mankinds connection to God that make it relevant to me and worth considering. Elves may exist in some alternate dimension just as aliens may exist on other planets but at this point their existance is irrelevant to me.

Nonsense. If you have faith you can walk on water, and try to do so, you’ll drown. Drowning by that kind of stupidity is unreasonable. If you have faith that prayer can cure disease, your faith won’t protect you from AIDS or cancer; refusing medical care and relying on prayer is unreasonable.

I can swim so I doubt I’d drown. I’ve never been seriously ill. Is that evidence that prayer works? I kid. I confess, my statement needs more qualification and you make a valid point. I was refering to the belief that God is and moral judgements rather than the details you speak of.

Let me ask you this. I was reading about DaVinci’s thoughts on flying and other men who tried to create gliders and failed. Were they unreasonable for imagining something that seemed impossible? Were the ones who injured themselves trying just irrational fools? IMHO the concept of something more, that seed of inspiration and the desire to know is a nessecary part of human development.

[Princhester]

[QUOTE=Oy!]
I can’t speak for all atheists, but I can say that this particular atheist doesn’t not believe in God because of a decision not to, but rather because the evidence doesn’t support it and I lack the faith to believe despite the lack of evidence.
[/QUOTE]

No one has ever made this point better than the person who said something like “describing atheism as a kind of faith is like describing good health as a particularly beneficial state of illness”.

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Well, actually, evidence only needs to be provided if someone trying to convince you that God exists. .
[/QUOTE]

Presumably that “someone” includes yourself, unless you just believe without any evidence. Which of course you may do. In which case perhaps one should believe in the tooth fairy as well. Which I suspect people usually don’t. Their belief in God without evidence but lack of belief in the tooth fairy without evidence is simply irrational.

[Pazu]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Well, I certainly don’t live in a homogenous area! I realize that she will be exposed to a lot, and we live where we live specifically because I want that to be the case. One of the most difficult things about raising children is that there will be other influences, and much more scary ones than learning about another religion! So, yes, I expect her to ask questions, and I will not be ready to jump off a bridge if she chooses another path. More than anything, I probably hope that she finds a way to know God that works for her. It will be very satisfying for us as a family if we all have the same beliefs, but of course this isn’t always how it works.
[/QUOTE]

Sarahfeena, thank you for your replies (both here and in the Pit thread). Both threads have moved on way too fast for me to keep up with, so I think I’ll return to lurking for a while.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=Princhester]
Presumably that “someone” includes yourself, unless you just believe without any evidence. Which of course you may do. In which case perhaps one should believe in the tooth fairy as well. Which I suspect people usually don’t. Their belief in God without evidence but lack of belief in the tooth fairy without evidence is simply irrational.
[/QUOTE]
It doesn’t matter if I am irrational or not, really. For argument’s sake, let’s say I am completely off my nut. It is irrelevant in terms of what I said to Der Trihs. He said that the onus is on the person who claims something exists to provide evidence for it. Perhaps this is true, if I not only believe it exists, but if I am also trying to convince him that it exists. Otherwise, I can have my own standards of evidence, or no evidence at all. It really doesn’t matter. I can go through life believing, and I don’t have to prove a damn thing to anyone. I coud see pixies in the woods and know they exist. But those pixies are darn hard to catch, so Der Trihs will never believe that I saw them. Well, what do I care if he believes me or not? Does HIS belief have any effect whatsoever on 1) whether or not pixies actually exist, or 2) whether or not I am going to believe that they exist? Most likely not. I am more than happy for him to reject any & all evidence I might have. His belief or lack thereof is his problem, not mine.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
It doesn’t matter if I am irrational or not, really. For argument’s sake, let’s say I am completely off my nut. It is irrelevant in terms of what I said to Der Trihs. He said that the onus is on the person who claims something exists to provide evidence for it. Perhaps this is true, if I not only believe it exists, but if I am also trying to convince him that it exists.
[/QUOTE]

It is also required if you are trying to force him to follow the laws of your religion, whether or not you are trying to convince him of its truth. I realize that you and your small circle of friends never do this, but any inspection of laws from the past two centuries shows that many have been religiously based. One of the big objection to blue laws was that they applied to Jews also - and I don’t think any of the legislators passing these laws were trying to convince Jews that Sunday was the right Sabbath.

[Sarahfeena]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
It is also required if you are trying to force him to follow the laws of your religion, whether or not you are trying to convince him of its truth. I realize that you and your small circle of friends never do this, but any inspection of laws from the past two centuries shows that many have been religiously based. One of the big objection to blue laws was that they applied to Jews also - and I don’t think any of the legislators passing these laws were trying to convince Jews that Sunday was the right Sabbath.
[/QUOTE]
Gosh, I didn’t realize I was defending the legal code from 200 years ago…I’m sure I’m not prepared to do that. Legal issues are kind of irrelevant to what we are talking about. In talking about the Christians I know, some of them are politically active, mostly on the left, actually. But I was speaking of them in terms of whether or not they care what religion a person belongs to, or if they belong to any at all (per the OP’s question).

But if you want to talk about legal issues…these Christians I know are mostly political leftists because they believe this follows the principles Jesus taught (love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, let he without sin throw the first stone, feed the hungry, all that good stuff). Should they be condemned too, for wanting other people to live the way that THEY think is right, because of THEIR irrational religion?

[Oy]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
Gosh, I didn’t realize I was defending the legal code from 200 years ago…I’m sure I’m not prepared to do that. Legal issues are kind of irrelevant to what we are talking about. In talking about the Christians I know, some of them are politically active, mostly on the left, actually. But I was speaking of them in terms of whether or not they care what religion a person belongs to, or if they belong to any at all (per the OP’s question).

But if you want to talk about legal issues…these Christians I know are mostly political leftists because they believe this follows the principles Jesus taught (love thy neighbor, turn the other cheek, let he without sin throw the first stone, feed the hungry, all that good stuff). Should they be condemned too, for wanting other people to live the way that THEY think is right, because of THEIR irrational religion?
[/QUOTE]

What, you don’t think blue laws exist today?

With respect to your second paragraph, the thing of it is that almost everyone who lives within a society considers things like feeding the hungry and not beating the crap out of every idiot who annoys you to be good and even necessary things, whether or not they agree that the government should perform or enforce those things. All the world’s religions’ laws that don’t have specifically to do with God and/or worship share fundamentally the same tenets: don’t murder, don’t lie, don’t steal, don’t beat the crap out of people on a whim. And atheists believe in these rules as well - how could they not when they’ve been socialized at every level and point in their lives to believe in this morality? So you’re setting up a strawman, because the “rules for living”-type laws are pretty much universally shared, and what you’re voting about is how best to achieve the results.

Things like blue laws have to do specifically with the religion in question. Anyone who wants to outlaw the sale of alcohol on a Sunday, but not on other days has no problem with alcohol per se, just in the fact that it is the Sabbath for them, and they feel that the sale of alcohol in some way dishonors that. Same thing with laws having to do with consensual sexual practices; there is no universal consensus, and those who attempt to limit these things are almost always doing so from an ostensibly religious standpoint (I say ostensibly, because I think there are a fair number of hypocrites around). Why should I, as an atheist, not be able to buy alcohol on Sunday or limit my sexual practices (as if I had any!) to those sanctioned by Christianity? For things like that, you’d better come up with a better reason than “I have an inner belief in the reality of God,” because I could just as readily say that I have an inner belief in the reality of the Easter Bunny and therefore you should be limited to wearing purple and green at all times.

In short, there’s a qualitative difference between the laws Voyager was describing and the beliefs you were describing, Sarahfeena, and your argument doesn’t hold water.

That being said, I doubt you and Christians of your sort DO try to legislate such things as the blue laws Voyager was describing, and I doubt that the people who are pushing for them would admit that their religion was based entirely on faith, with no evidence whatsoever to support it - i.e. an irrational belief.

[Voyager]

[QUOTE=Oy!]

In short, there’s a qualitative difference between the laws Voyager was describing and the beliefs you were describing, Sarahfeena, and your argument doesn’t hold water.

That being said, I doubt you and Christians of your sort DO try to legislate such things as the blue laws Voyager was describing, and I doubt that the people who are pushing for them would admit that their religion was based entirely on faith, with no evidence whatsoever to support it - i.e. an irrational belief.
[/QUOTE]

Thank you. I was beginning to think I was writing in some sort of obscure code or something.

Not only do not all theist try to impose their morality on others, some religous leaders are even in the forefront of trying to create a fair and just society. 40 years ago if you thought about politically active religious leaders, you’d think about people like Martin Luther King and William Sloane Coffin. That today this niche is filled by assholes like Pat Robertson doesn’t mean that this is necessary.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Thank you. I was beginning to think I was writing in some sort of obscure code or something.

Not only do not all theist try to impose their morality on others, some religous leaders are even in the forefront of trying to create a fair and just society. 40 years ago if you thought about politically active religious leaders, you’d think about people like Martin Luther King and William Sloane Coffin. That today this niche is filled by assholes like Pat Robertson doesn’t mean that this is necessary.
[/QUOTE]

Concerning blue laws. Isn’t it correct to expect religion to have some effect on our society. If I lived in Israel I wouldn’t expect to find ham at every shop, but I wouldn’t cry “prejudice!!” “unfair” Of course the culture of any society will be effected by it’s most dominant religion. We strive for that influence to not be oppressive. If we have to kick some ass to make sure that happens then so be it.

[jayjay]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Concerning blue laws. Isn’t it correct to expect religion to have some effect on our society. If I lived in Israel I wouldn’t expect to find ham at every shop, but I wouldn’t cry “prejudice!!” “unfair” Of course the culture of any society will be effected by it’s most dominant religion. We strive for that influence to not be oppressive. If we have to kick some ass to make sure that happens then so be it.
[/QUOTE]

There is a difference, though. Israel is an explicitly Jewish state, founded as a homeland for the world’s Jews. You would expect them to show some amount of favoritism to that religion.

The US is NOT an explicitly Christian state. We were not founded as a homeland for Christians (though the majority of our population was and is such). We have explicit separation of church and state written into our foundation document. That’s the difference.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=jayjay]
There is a difference, though. Israel is an explicitly Jewish state, founded as a homeland for the world’s Jews. You would expect them to show some amount of favoritism to that religion.

The US is NOT an explicitly Christian state. We were not founded as a homeland for Christians (though the majority of our population was and is such). We have explicit separation of church and state written into our foundation document. That’s the difference.
[/QUOTE]

I understand that. I completely support the separation clause. I’m only saying that if you live in a community comprised primarily of a certain religion then you might expect and tolerate a certain amount of it’s influence without being offended. That’s just me. Where the lines are drawn is debatable. I wonder if the desire to be to be religion neutral is realistic or not.

If Christian ,Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist children decide to pray openly in the school cafeteria will we vigorously defend their right to do so?

[Sarahfeena]

What I was trying to say is that it is like chasing your tail to try to blame Christianity when people support policies you don’t agree with. Some Christians are open-minded, and love their neighbors, and some are narrow-minded bigots. I imagine these qualities are found in all groups. I believe that this kind of narrow-mindedness comes a lot more from lack of exposure to people who are different than from religion. The people I know in my area aren’t special, and I don’t think they are all that unusual. However, I live in a particularly diverse neighborhood in a large city. There are people of all ethnic & religious stripes, a lot of ethnic intermarrying, a lot of gay couples. We are exposed to all kinds of people, and it makes it hard to be afraid of them.

I guess it just makes me a little ticked off when I see my religion being blamed for small-minded people. Some people are just small-minded, and they use whatever tools they have to try to justify that. There are many, many people out there doing good works in the name of Christianity, as well.

[CurtC]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I’m only saying that if you live in a community comprised primarily of a certain religion then you might expect and tolerate a certain amount of it’s influence without being offended.
[/quote]
But your comments were about blue laws, not tolerating children praying. Right there in the Bill of Rights, the very first one, it explicitly says that the government is not allowed to play favorites with religion. Blue laws were playing favorites to Christianity. Case closed IMO.

If Christian ,Muslim, Jewish or Buddhist children decide to pray openly in the school cafeteria will we vigorously defend their right to do so?

Of course we would, as long as someone doesn’t try to pass a law that the children should be praying to a particular one (or two or three) gods.

[jayjay]

Not to mention that blue laws are usually judged unconstitutional not on purely religious grounds, but on the grounds that they create unfair conditions for non-Christian businesses. If a Jewish deli owner is required to stay closed on Sundays, that’s two days a week (Sabbath being the other one) that they’re losing revenue, rather than the one day that, say, an Italian deli owner would be losing.

[Princhester]

[QUOTE=Sarahfeena]
It doesn’t matter if I am irrational or not, really. For argument’s sake, let’s say I am completely off my nut. It is irrelevant in terms of what I said to Der Trihs. He said that the onus is on the person who claims something exists to provide evidence for it. Perhaps this is true, if I not only believe it exists, but if I am also trying to convince him that it exists. Otherwise, I can have my own standards of evidence, or no evidence at all. It really doesn’t matter. I can go through life believing, and I don’t have to prove a damn thing to anyone. I coud see pixies in the woods and know they exist. But those pixies are darn hard to catch, so Der Trihs will never believe that I saw them. Well, what do I care if he believes me or not? Does HIS belief have any effect whatsoever on 1) whether or not pixies actually exist, or 2) whether or not I am going to believe that they exist? Most likely not. I am more than happy for him to reject any & all evidence I might have. His belief or lack thereof is his problem, not mine.
[/QUOTE]

I understand your point well. Of course, from this point forward, I’m going to watch your posts to see if you ever suggest that your beliefs have any validity outside your own mind or should in any way be acted upon, and then play “gotcha”, but for the moment, I’m done here.

[Zoe]

[quote]
Beaucarnea:
My original purpose in this thread was to compare atheist and Christian morals. Christians find atheists amoral; I find following Christian convictions amoral; or at least insufficient and impractical. I think it may have been a surprise or insult to some Christians here that some atheists find many Christian attitudes amoral.

I guess it would depend on which conviction you were speaking of as “Christian.” I can see why you might say that belief in the Virgin Birth is 1) a Christian conviction of some Christians and 2) possibly neither moral nor immoral. But other “Christian convictions” do have to do with morals. I use the quotation marks because these same convictions are often found in teachings outside of Christianity also. An example would be: “Love they neighbor as thyself.” I would be surprised if you found that conviction amoral.

<snip>

If Christians have a cosmic get out of jail free card, then how can they be expected to respect the laws and mores of modern society?

<snip>

At the risk of offending; I will simplify again: If God is in control; then why bother to employ morals at all?

For the same reason that most atheists are moral. We are compelled by our natures to be compassionate. We all mess up a lot too, but ultimately, most human beings don’t desire to be unkind.

BTW, many Christians have said that they would be Christians even if there were no promise of eternal life. The cosmic Get Out of Jail Free Card isn’t the point.

I don’t think you are being offensive. I do wonder if you are keeping an open mind about the huge differences in Christian beliefs. Trying to pin down what a single Christian believes in a single statement is like trying to describe the “typical American.” For example, I don’t know that all Christians believe that “God is in control.” Certainly opinions differ on predestination and free will. Some Christians don’t even think about it one way or the other. Or perhaps they dealt with it so long ago that they see it as irrelevant to their view of the God they worship now.

God quit being definable and measurable and arguable and small and capturable for me about twenty-five years ago. I’m okay with others not being okay with that.

I don’t feel smug or absolutely certain, but I am at peace with myself about my beliefs.

I also believe in social, political and economic equality for all and separation of Church and State.

Pax