I see things in exact diametric opposite to this. I can behave myself without threat of eternal damnation or promise of eternal reward. I need no external motivation to do good things for my fellow man.
I am entirely responsible and accountable for my own actions. No one to blame when faced with an obstacle; and no one to forgive me when I have made a mistake.
Hogwash! Almost every religion has a strong overlap of rules with all the rest because they are the basic things necessary to live within a society; don’t kill, don’t cheat, don’t lie, don’t steal, make nice on other people.
Atheists are raised in the same cultures as religious people. They’re going to soak up the same general morality (less the rules dealing with ritual and belief if their parents are atheists) as anyone else. What atheists lack is a belief that hell awaits them if they violate these rules. Personally, I find morality based on duress a lot more shallow than morality based on a personal ethos that largely reflects the society in which they live. But of course, most Christians don’t base their morality on the threat of hell; they base it on exactly the same thing atheists do - the fact that they’ve been taught in every possible medium that certain things are wrong. I strongly suspect that “What would Jesus do” doesn’t enter into the equation when someone is debating whether or not to steal or murder.
Where I grew up, anyone or anything that wasn’t explicitly Christian was automatically Satanic.
I once told a girl from my hometown that I didn’t believe in Jesus and she literally gasped, stumbled backwards, and shreiked “OH MY GOD!”
She was in her early 20s and had never met anyone who wasn’t a Christian.
Many of the Christians I grew up around believed that Atheist = Satan Worshipper = Demon-possessed. To say those types think we are amoral or unprincipled is a gross understatement. They would like to see us lynched.
We’re a convenient target for the most militant ones. It’s water off a duck’s back to me (as long as they don’t try to legislate anything) but something I find interesting is the way that a lot of people are labelled as atheists who are not. For instance, there seems to be a weird misconception among many people that anyone who is a liberal, who believes in evolution, or who opposes theocratic politics is necessarily an atheist. I’ve gotten in arguments with people who refused to believe that most Democrats believe in God. For some reason they thing the Republicans are the “Christian” party and the Democrats are not only majority atheist but that they actively hate Christians and seek to persecute them. Showing them cites for most Dems self-identifying as Christians provokes the Scotsman fallacy. For a certain segment of Christians (by no means all, but certainly a non-trivial percentage), it’s “us Christians” (meaning Christians who believe everything we do, both theologically and politically) and “those Godless atheists.”
My wife is a Christian who sees lack of faith in others as a non-issue in how she forms her opinions of them.
Factoid: So long as you believe in God - any God whatsoever - you can be a Boy Scout Scout. If you don’t, e.g., are an atheist or strong agnostic, you can’t. Cite. That’s a pretty big group of mainstream Christians taking the position that nontheists are amoral. And make a point of teaching this principle to developing young minds.
I will say, though, that I have known a great many Christians who don’t hold to this view.
I don’t think that word means what you think it means.
I’m so glad you stepped in, Diogenes the Cynic. I consider your comments and opinions as valuable as reference when it comes to this topic.
So why does a lack of faith translate to someone who intends to persecute Christians? Is it a historical, Bibical trend or a current myth brought on by our present political climate?
Yes it does. In the context “a contemptible person.”
This is the kind of stubborn, dig your heels into the dirt, stick your fingers in your ears, and scream at the top of your lungs attitude that leads people to pretend the Earth is 6,000 years. I mean, those people don’t really believe that shit.
It’s a mix of Emperor’s Clothes, No True Scotsmen, and good-old-fashioned I’m right, you’re wrong, and that’s that, no matter what kind of proof you have.
That’s why these types all love GW Bush. See the similarities?
I like Dawkins’ term “Faith-sufferers”.
I don’t know if there’s a simple explanation. I think part of it is a resistance to cultural change (if the surrounding culture no longer accepts our tenets as facts then the culture is our enemy), some of it is a universal tendancy towards tribalism and some of it has to do with a desire to feel “special” or “chosen.” I’ve had some Christians tell me that the Bible says Christians will be persecuted, therefore Christians are being persecuted because the Bible says so (it’s dumb, I know, but it seems to be important to them to FEEL persecuted even if they aren’t).
Of course, a lot of it has to do with cynical, political manipulation of naiive but essentially well-meaning people by demagogues and politicos who use deception, distortion and fear to make people vote the “right” way. Telling people that God is on one side or another of the political spectrum should be seen as the transaparent fraud that it is, but it works nonetheless, unfortunately.
I don’t feel that way, and I’m pretty mainstream Christian. I do think that atheism as a lack of belief, as opposed to an affirmation of belief, is not inconsistent with immorality – heck, it’s not inconsistent with anything, except belief in a diety. That doesn’t mean atheists are amoral, as a group on individually – but they certainly can be. Christians, regardless of whether we are or aren’t immoral or unprincipaled in reality, are pretty clearly not supposed to be.
Neither do Christians. The difference is that we believe our internal motivation or impulse to do good comes from God. Many Christians are not sure where you think yours comes from, or – more insulting to you, unfortunately – whether you actually have one, if it didn’t come from God. For me, it seems more likely that God gave you the same impulse to do good that he gave me, and your belief to the contrary is not really relevant.
This doesn’t explain why you are not actuated entirely by self-interest, which is what many religious people don’t understand about atheism.
A simplistic Christian world view of “morality comes from God” leads pretty obviously to the conclusion that “no God = no morality.” Why this isn’t so requires more thought than the “God said it; I believe it; that settles it” crowd is generally willing to invest.
I don’t think they see this as a persecutive amorality, though; the amorality itself, and the rejection of God, is enough reason to distrust atheists in the eyes of fundamentalists of many religions, be they Christian, Muslim or Jews.
I would think that most Christians would want to practice non-judgment about another person’s morals.
Depends what you mean by a Christian. If your talking about a fundamentalist, born again Christian then they probably do.
If your talking about your every day, run of the mill Methodist or Episcopalian type who occasionally goes to church, I doubt it.
I’m a liberal Democrat, a scientist (when I’m working), believe in evolution, pro-choice and God. I agree, I absolutely don’t care what anyone else believes as long as it doesn’t involve legislation.
I’m almost reluctant to use the term Christian any more. Fundamentalist Christians have given anyone with faith a bad name. Being judgemental, intolerent, homophobic and filled with hate for anyone that doesn’t live the way you want them to is not the sort of Christianity I was brought up with.
This is what I had suspected to be true; that in spite of good works and kind actions, an atheist will viewed as amoral because of his ultimate lack of belief.
Or, to rephrase in example:
A law abiding atheist is less moral and trustworthy than a born again convict on Death Row.
This is what you believe?
By some? Sure. And frankly IMO not surprisingly so. Because if a person comes from a mindset that morals come from God, full stop, then “No God” equals “no morals.”
What I don’t understand, I guess, is how an amoral person who somehow manages to do good works and kind actions would be the concern of anyone else, Christian or otherwise. Sure, fundie Christians think you’re burning in hell for your lack of belief, regardless of how good you are, but you don’t believe in God or hell, so who cares? The rest of us Christians are highly unlikely to concern ourselves with your internal motivators so long as you are doing good and being kind. The only difference is that we will believe God made you a good, kind person, while you’ll take the credit for yourself. 
But if you are improving the world by being in it, no moderate or liberal Christian will quarrel with you.
If you tie morals to a belief in God, then a person with that belief is a priori more moral than a person without it. But trustworthy? Trust is earned, and gained or lost through actions, not professions of faith. You might find a truly fundie Christian who would trust a convicted killer over a law-abiding citizen of another faith (or no faith), but that’s just an invitation for a little bit of Darwin in action, IMO.
It sometimes seems this way. Christians have a built-in safety net with the forgiveness thing. A man can break both law and commandment and still find fellowship and salvation with Christ if he asks for forgiveness and is born again.
But an atheist can perform all manner of good works and kind actions and be maligned on the basis of non-belief.
Actions and behavior do not seem to have as much influence with Christians as does simple subscription to the faith.
That sounds like you’re saying “yes,” but trying to find a way to be polite about it. I’m sure you’ve observed the world a little, so I’ll point out that religious people are able to combine pragmatism and personal preference with religion in the most distinct and fascinating ways - so that ultimately, they do what they want, too.
My answer to this is that humans are evolved to survive in communities, not as individuals. Our brain chemistry is set up to facilitate behavior which tends towards preserving the stabilty of thos communities and away from behaviors which destabalize them. This means, for instance, that we are hardwired to have certain kinds of emotional (i.e. empathic) responses to the suffering of others. These responses are just as biological as our instincts to nurture our offspring or form companionships (both friendships and “love” relationships).
I would submit that these emotional responses do not follow moral paradigms but precede them. Of course (as you said) one can easily say that these responses were programmed by God whether we believe in him or not, and that’s not exactly falsifiable but it does raise some questions of its own.
Somehow manages is exactly the kind of maligning that I was describing. That is a backhanded comment deliberately phrased to imply that atheists are not capable of good works and kind actions. And amoral people are not the subject here; atheists are. They are not interchangeable titles.
But your simple answer without insults is that all atheists are amoral because they reject God, who gave them morals in the first place. Which answers my question.