Atheists are less moral than Christians
Billy Graham:
There are shitloads of others, but they wander so far into the crazy they are not worth linking to.
Oh yes they do, Billy Bob, ever since tribalism appeared and more so when nation states came to be:
I don’t consider myself an atheist, I jump nowadays from deism to agnosticism, only that I do know that atheists have more evidence to report on why and how is that they could be moral with no god or religion.
Just curious… does anyone have any idea what the prevailing religion/belief system is on Wall Street? I would say that these people are some of the most immoral people I know, and the recent financial crisis caused by the gang was driven by greed, not a concern for one’s neighbor.
Yes, I know some of these people. I have one in the family. And he’s a greedy prick. He also is most certainly NOT an athiest, and believes he’s heading to heaven on a path of gold.
I think that being moral or immoral is driven by something inside you… not a fear of an eternal life of damnation, but a concern (or lack of concern) for others. You don’t have to believe in God to be a good person. You have to have a sense of fair play, an internal compass that keeps you pointed in a direction that causes you to have concern for others, to look out for those around you when it is possible to do so.
How a person on Wall Street can screw people out of money to make money for themselves and not feel a twinge of guilt fascinates me. I think there is a word to describe these people… sociopath.
I think that most of them consider themselves to be Christian. However, I don’t consider them to be Christian, for exactly the reasons you give.
You sir, haven’t debated enough theists then. Or maybe you are a really smart theist and never think to ask such retarded questions to atheists. I have been asked this point on more than a dozen occasions in the last 3 to 4 years that I started openly discussing my non-religious beliefs. It seems to come up quite often.
Because god doesn’t exist and their fears are unfounded
That’s nice. Good for you. But we atheists don’t feel that way, at all.
Please don’t ever apologize for expressing your religious views (unless it’s somewhere inappropriate, like a job interview, or dinner at your boss’s house! 
). If people take offense, tough shit for them.
As I always say to religious people who act all butt-hurt at my attacks on religion: you have a right to disagree with me, and you have a right to believe what you wish, and you even have a right to feel offended, but you DO NOT have a right to never have your views attacked.
That works for atheists, too, the other way round. We don’t have a right never to be disagreed with. So thanks, but please don’t apologize. 
Exactly
Right. Because YOU don’t hear this argument often, it can’t be used often.
:rolleyes:
I could find you a dozen, just amongst my closest friends and family.
You clearly don’t have much experience with theists of a fundamentalist American stripe.
Someone’s butt-hurt. 
Out of curiosity, if no one ever makes this argument in real life, why did a Christian website feel the need to explain to (what I assume are) other Christians why the argument is invalid?
On a more general note, do you think that it should be a requirement to always pit a specific individual, and not a general philosophical position? If someone wants to pit anti-vaxxers, do they have to specifically name Jenny McCarthy, or can they criticize the concept as a whole without getting into specifics? Or racism, or institutionalized government corruption, or terrorists, or what have you? Because that sort of pitting is pretty common on these boards, but I haven’t noticed you making a stink about it on other subjects.
Lastly, you’ve stated that you think the OP is flat-out lying about having heard this in real life. Does that judgment apple equally to other posters in this thread who have related hearing this sentiment from immediate family members? If not, is there any particular reason you have only engaged the OP in this debate, and not anyone else who has had similar experiences?
FTR, I am an atheist, but I’ve never heard anyone utter this idea in real life. I don’t assume that my personal experiences are normative, though.
Now this, I’m pretty sure, is not actually a position that any atheists really hold. When atheists ask this question, it’s usually meant as a rhetorical device to highlight the logical errors in the idea that theism is a necessary component of moral behavior.
Wow. Quite petulant and touchy for someone who’s careless with even basic Google searches. Get your shit straight first, THEN act snarky.
Listen to me, bitch: Whether you’re too fuckwad-stupid, ignorant, or stubborn to believe it, we American atheists hear this shit all the time. I have heard this argument used by my grandfather, mother, two former preachers, three co-workers, about five close friends, and countless TV/radio/web theists.
And those are the only ones I can remember.
Another atheist checkin in who has heard this before from more than one person.
Fuck that shit.
The OP is under no obligation to do this just because YOU have your panties in a fucking wad.
That’s just because you’re extremely fucking ignorant of US religious culture. And our own personal goddamn upbringings. :mad:
It’s not a strawman. It’s a legitimate question. I have offered that the only response is some sort of utilitarianism. Heck, even as a Christian, I justify my ethics to non-Christians by utilitarianism, because I know that citing the Bible is useless.
I will also point out that I know a lot more immoral self-proclaimed atheists than self-proclaimed theists. But I believe that’s because I live in a place where a certain brand of Christianity is mainstream, and thus the atheists who don’t move away are often the type that became that way as a response to Christianity. These people often throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak, or, worse, only claim to be atheists to alleviate their guilt.
I could thus understand theists assuming that all, or even most, atheists are like this.
There is always going to be a certain percentage of antisocial malcontents looking for a way to be a nonconformist, in the middle of the bible belt athiesm is an easy card to play.
It might be an obvious choice, but believe me, it isn’t easy to play. Atheists get a lot of grief from theists. Of course, there is a subset of nonconformists who are indeed looking for fights.
Thank you, that’s exactly correct, and simply an extension of the argument I’ve heard made by some God-believers, that atheists are of suspect morals because God didn’t tell them how to be moral. Hey, I went through quite a lot of Presbyterian Bible study when I was a kid; I don’t see any particular need to believe in YHWH to consider some of the Biblical teachings to be useful.
I’m feeling a bit nonplussed that what was essentially a throw-away line in the other thread has now become a bone of contention. It certainly wasn’t my intent to hee-haw at Christians in general.
Just curious: How are you defining “immoral” here?
Some people have accused Christopher Hitchens (one of our atheist “leaders” :rolleyes:) of being “immoral” because he’s a bit of a bon vivant: enjoys booze and cigarettes. (Or at least used to, before esophageal cancer.)
To me as an atheist, “immorality” is basically breaking a foundational societal rule, such as the prohibitions on assault, murder, rape, theft, perjury, fraud, extortion, vandalism, etc. Using a four-letter word or watching a little porn? Getting a little blitzed on the weekend, or having some unmarried (and/or gay) sex? Not immoral.
THAT’S why we atheists are immoral scum. We pay no attention to god’s law, and each substitute our own laws. Seriously. As noted in one of my earlier links, our actions are only moral when they are in agreement with… whoever’s… canon.
I will add, however, that in my atheist definition of “immorality” I include “sins” that are strictly context-dependent. For example, while I don’t find viewing (lots of) porn or having casual sex to be inherently immoral, I’m married, and engaging in those things would be quite wrong because of how they would make my wife feel and how they would adversely affect our marriage.
So even though an act isn’t necessarily absolutely wrong, the relationships we have with other human beings can render them so, based on the commitments we make. Betrayal is always wrong, even if the specific action per se that entails that betrayal isn’t, necessarily.