Religous vs. Agnostic/Athiest

[ccoa]

It seems a lot of people are more willing to trust in the morals of the religous than those of an agnostic or, especially, athiest.

What about a person subscribing to a religon makes them more trustworthy? Do you believe that an athiest is more likely to act immorally than a Christian, for example? Why?

George Bush was quoted as saying this: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." At statement he has refused to apologize for or retract. Is this not religous discrimination? Why would a lack of religon negate a person's ability to be a patriot?

As an agnostic, I'd love to give my take on morality, but I'd like to see a few replies first. ^_^

[Elias]

Oh boy ccoa, you've opened the discussion for so many things. I can almost see the replies now... =X

My views on this are:

1) If your religious, thats great. Really, it is. You have a faith in something. However, it does not make you a better person, or superior to another person. If a person chooses not to have a religion, that's their business. You don't need to be all up in their face about it trying to 'convert' them. It's their choice, so just stop. You probably aren't going to convert them anyway. PS. GEORGE BUSH! Those people live on that land. It's no more yours than it is theirs. Goodness, talk about discrimination.

2) If you are atheist, also, great. You choose not to follow the crowd (since the majority of the population is religious). While many people may label you as some things, you stick up for what you believe in. After all, atheism itself is a religion.

I don't think people should be forcing views on people. It's their choice. If you think they will go to hell at the end of their life, let them! If you really believe that, they are going to get whats coming to them, right? (Not that I believe in hell, I would never want you to go there ccoa<3; even it it were real.)

[Elijah von Böse]

I'm agnostic as well - and I find that, generally speaking, as a majority, the intelligent beings I encounter are generally floating towards Agnosticism and Atheism. I also hold the belief that Religion is a crutch for the weak - people who can't stand on their own, cannot truly live with a definite time-line.

Specifically, I am in distaste for religion, but most, if not all, of my friends are religious, and I hold dearest affection for them. This saying, I dislike the concept of religion, not those who are religious.

As for the debate on morality, I truly despise it. It's a stereotype - same as your "black gangster," your "uppity brit," your "igloo canadian," your "ignorant american," or your "video-game-loving asian." It's typically the same scenario as people with long hair. It's a personal preference, and the people who have long hair are stereotyped as being untrustworthy. A lot of people with long hair I distrust, sure, but it's not their hair length. I trust a few of my friends, who have long hair, with my life!

There are good people and bad people - religion does not play a role in that.

[Elias]

I also hold the belief that Religion is a crutch for the weak

People could also argue agnostic people are lazy people who don't have 'time' for a belief, or don't want to 'answer' to something if they want to live their life like they want.

Just giving two perspectives here, not being biased towards any one decision. :)

[Erk]

As an atheist myself, it's an opinion that makes me hurt and angry. When one considers the acts of atrocity that have been commited in the name of religion over the centuries, claiming that atheism is a morally ambiguous belief (well, lack thereof) system is hypocrisy of the highest degree.

I'm not saying modern religious groups should be held accountable for, say, the spanish inquisition, or the crusades, but those acts were done unquestionably with the support of the religious standard at the time. Those people were religious people who believed in God. Claiming, therefore, that my lack of belief in God makes me capable of horrible things no christian would do, is equal (in my books) to claiming that I would without compunction torture someone to death by ripping their head apart with a slowly expanding prong... in fact, do worse, since such acts were done by people who, I have little doubt, honestly believed in God.

The difference that I mainly see is just one of perception. Religious people who believe like this generally believe that a moral compass is something that relies on the certainty of outside punishmentt. One cannot be moral unless one is afraid of some kind of invisible man (or multiple men and women and other things) in the sky (or rocks and trees or what have you) who watches you and throws lightning at you if you misbehave.

Contrarily, atheists generally consider a moral compass to be internal. Living in Japan has confirmed for me that it is, in fact, cultural (quite similar, but not identical, across cultures). Therefore, since north american atheists have grown up in a predominately christian-rooted foundation will (surprise surprise) have a christian-rooted moral basis.

It amazes me that religious groups never look beyond their own borders for evidence of their points. Or, perhaps they do, and then ignore the results when they can't find any. I mean, Japan is a predominately atheist country in effect: though the Japanese ascribe to buddhism and shinto, the Japanese are an extremely non-religious people. Their religions are not (anymore) a part of their peoples' punishment and belief structure (if they were, the Japanese would not eat meat, I'd expect).

Japan also has a crime rate that is the envy of most of the 1st world. Hell, if you want to ask about the real north american "hot topics" here, this country is not even politically correct about gender discrimination or gay rights. The USA's fundamentalist faction, for all its complaints about the gays getting out of control, is doing worse with its tightfisted christian stance than Japan with its borderline-atheist moral philosophy. Most Japanese are still somewhere in the western 1970s era of not really entirely believing that gay people are real. It's a christian fundamentalist's paradise. Even the nuclear family is going strong here, although the Japanese have seen a breakdown recently - again, lagging about 15-30 years behind north America's (at a guess, and of course the japanese nuclear family is a different unit than the modern fictional nuclear family supported by most fundie groups). A country that does not at all espouse christianity is more morally christian than ... well, than the majority of first world "christian" nations.

No, folks, the issue in morality is not if you are atheist or religious. The issue is if you are a moral person or an immoral person. Plenty of people believe in a god, and use that to justify to themselves their own morality. Plenty of people do not believe in a god, and do not understand why they would have to have someone telling them right from wrong when it is plain to them.

[Elias]

in fact, do worse, since such acts were done by people who, I have little doubt, honestly believed in God.

Oh, no, most of them did believe in god, they just thought god was 'permitting' them to do it. Lame excuse.

[Erk]

Oh, no, most of them did believe in god, they just thought god was 'permitting' them to do it. Lame excuse.Nevertheless, an excuse still in use to justify any number of atrocities, from air pollution to bombing raids. Name a religion, pretty much.

[Kettlehead]

Religion is handy for helping a society enforce morality and for helping people who may be in a morally ambiguous situation because it is absolute. However, because religions are absolute, and to a certain extent arbitrary, (from an atheists point of view), that means that you might have very unfortunate morals inherited; the condemnation of homosexuality in the main monotheistic religions being an example.

On the other hand, while Christians should follow the morality in the Bible unquestioningly, it is the most fervently religious, (note, not the most religious), who twist that morality into what they personally see as right and wrong. Hence the Inquisition, Crusades, gay-bashing, etc.

Overall I think religion is beneficial to a society, as long as it isn't hostile to people who don't subscribe to it, it doesn't disagree with the laws of the state, and it isn't exclusive, (that is, Christianity should be, and often is, inclusive because it accepts everyone as sinners with the possibility of redemption, but in other cases it's practiced as exclusive because people use it to exclude undesirables from the group). Oh, and I do think that religious statements have to stick to morality; I don't know that I can defend statements like "God made the universe in seven days" if people try to take them litterally. Religion and science should never mix.

[Elias]

Oh, and I do think that religious statements have to stick to morality; I don't know that I can defend statements like "God made the universe in seven days" if people try to take them litterally

Oh, I agree too.

Also, what about all the religions that 'bless' wars? Like, isn't violence pretty much against the bible?

[ccoa]

I said I'd do it and here it is.

When you are religous, what is right and wrong is clearly defined and set out, and the punishments and rewards for acting immorally and immorally are established from the start. Love thy neighbor, get into heaven. Kill your neighbor, go to hell.

When you are an agnostic (or athiest), you have two choices.

You have to determine what morality is and why you should behave morally for yourself. The rules aren't written down anywhere, and there are no certain rewards or punishments.

Or you can use the default rules of society, which are most likely the prominent religon's morals, anyway.

I spent many years determining my own morals after I found I could no longer believe in the Christian God. My determination is this: there are no universal morals. There is only moral gray. Any act can be more morally right than the alternative under the right circumstances, even if that circumstance is extremely farfetched.

However, as a baseline, I believe human life has an intrinsic value. That value is not variable, all human life is equally valuable. It is not the most valuable thing on the planet, but it ranks up there. It is valuable both for how precious and fleeting it is, and from a biological/instinctive viewpoint about the preservation of my species over all others.

Following from that, a human life is more valuable than the life of an animal or plant. Ending a human life is generally (but not always, see Moral Gray) morally wrong.

I'm sure you don't want to follow my entire moral journey from that point, since it took me ten years to construct and is still developing.

I am actually more inclined to trust the morals of an empirical agnostic than a Christian (no offense to Christians), because they are scientifically minded and have probably worked through a similar proces themselves. Their beliefs about morality are more likely to be personal and ingrained than those learned by rote.

In general, I am not inclined to believe some groups are more likely to act immorally than others. Some fundamental Christian religous groups are infamous for discrimination, censorship, and even murder (gay bashing and blowing up abortion clinics). However, they are far outnumbered by people whose worst sin is knocking on my door and inviting me to pray with them (annoying, but not really evil).

I do not believe Athiests as a whole are not more likely to be immoral than a Christian. In general, some athiests hold viewpoints that I, personally, find immoral (such as pro-choice on abortion, but that's another debate), but I do not believe that a murderer is more likely to be an athiest any more than I believe he or she's more likely to be black.


I am reminded of a story a friend related to me. She is a pagan (not a Wiccan), and wore a small silver pentacle. She was working as a waitress, but had to quit because instead of tips, those she served would often scribble notes such as "Jesus loves you" on napkins. Since she had to pay taxes on the tips she wasn't getting, she wasn't making enough to make ends meet. It seems this is only a country of equal opportunity if you belong to the majority group, or at least hide your affiliations if you don't.

[Cocoa]

Honestly, I've followed Buddhism, and I still do. Kinda. Everything you do is a direct cause of your actions, and only you can redeem yourself, much like how athiests work. Although, does it really matter what our religion is? We're gonna die in the end, and religion is only something to help us make the transition between life to death easier.

[Elias]

I believe human life has an intrinsic value. That value is not variable, all human life is equally valuable. It is not the most valuable thing on the planet

What could be more valuable than a human life? Physically talking here, everything exists and is appreciated because you can live. o_o

Even emotions and feelings and values exist because of human life.

[ccoa]

Mostly abstract concepts. Let me get my favorite quote on the subject.

"There's no such thing as `one, true way'; the only answers worth having are the ones you find for yourself; leave the world better than you found it. Love, freedom, and the chance to do some good -- they're the things worth living and dying for, and if you aren't willing to die for the things worth living for, you might as well turn in your membership in the human race."

Freedom, for example, is worth more than a single human life, or even many human lives.

[Elias]

I sort of see what you're saying here...but my concept is that you can't really have freedom if you don't have human life.

But I see what your saying here. Abstract concepts, got it. :)

[Mac]

Religions cancel each other out and theres no undeniable proof, they are tales that someone wrote of which gave them a sense of false hope. I am an athiest as you can tell, i just believe giving people false hope is wrong....if there is proper proof a religion is true then i'll believe but there isn't so yeah that's my opinion on the matter.

[Kettlehead]

There is no such thing as an 'undeniable proof' regarding empiricle fact, and even more importantly with religion. If a religion could be proven true, then it would be science, not religion.

Number one, hope from religion isn't 'false' hope, since a religion can not be shown to be either true or false.
Number two, why is 'false' hope wrong?


From my point of view, all morality is fundementalist and arbitrary. My morals are all taken from the statement, "suffering is wrong." I try to work out how the rights of the community stand vs the rights of the individual, how suffering can be weighed against suffering etc as best I can. That is entirely based on my sense of empathy. However, if someone wants to base their morality on a different arbitrarily chosen principle - the Bible, for instance, then how could I give my own feelings greater justifacation - or any? "Suffering is wrong," is the justifacation for all my other beliefs; even if I had something to justify it, that thing could not itself be justified.

However, that doesn't mean that I'm tolerant of other moralities. Sure, I recognise that mine may be as arbitrary and fundementalist as the WBC's, but I sure as hell don't accept them. I will accept any morality that does not contradict that one moral principle of mine, but I can't tolerate anything which does. Why? There is no reason; this is where the reasoning comes forward from. This is how I understand morality.

[InFecTioN]

Religion is a good way to keep order in the world, because if it were to never have existed, we'd surely be in turmoil. I'm not sayign I belong to any religion, because I don't, I'm glad it exists. It keeps people hopeful which is a nice trait to have. I have nothing to believe in other than myself.

[Erk]

I have plenty to believe in other than myself, and I am not religious. What about the fundamental existence of the universe, the complexity of life, the miraculous dance of chaos from which our flawed world arose? Or, failing that, the frustrating but everchanging face of society on earth in a constant battle for survival? The fundamental rights of living things? Claiming that you need religion to believe in something is a cop-out, no different from being religious and claiming that atheists are incapable of belief... just from the other side.

Religion has a place in the world, but I don't think that place is preventing turmoil. The majority of current turmoil is, in fact, fueled by religious fervour (whether or not there are other real goals behind it, religion is certainly used to motivate and drive soldiers).

[Cup o' Wisps]

The day a religion comes with a set of inescapable unified morals is the day I decide to jump off a building and see what's what. Last I checked no faith, including atheism (and yes I clarify atheism as a faith) has followers all abiding by the exact same unbroken morale code.

There is no requirement for believing in something either. You do not have to belong to a specific clique in order to think something is good or bad, nor do you need to not be part of one. I know plenty of Christians who can't agree on the death penalty, just as I know plenty of atheists who can't agree on stem cell research.George Bush was quoted as saying this: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." At statement he has refused to apologize for or retract. Is this not religous discrimination? Why would a lack of religon negate a person's ability to be a patriot?Sadly, that doesn't surprise me this has been said. Nice to know the separation of church and state is still so soundly standing.

[Lunarea]

I don't think that morality is dictated by religion.

I think morality comes from personal judgment based on a combination of our personal values, situational perception and possible consequences. This makes morality fall into a very gray area, where there isn't a clear right or wrong, regardless of religion/non-religion.

Religion comes into play as a secondary agent. It can define some of personal values and it can provide a possible consequence. For example, Christianity defines monogamy as a personal value and it tells that should you go against that value, you'll burn in hell.

Personal values are also defined by our environment: friends, family, upbringing, social law, or stories/events we are inspired by. Both religious and non-religious people draw their values from here, and they are usually presented in a way that provides possible consequence. For example - and this is terribly simplistic - monogamy is a personal value and if you go against it, you will be put in jail (against the law) and your family/friends won't like you anymore.

I'll tackle the grayness of morality now.
People (religious or not) will find explanations for choices they consider morally right, even if they are seemingly against their values.

For example, a religious nut will say: "Yes, killing people is a sin. But the Bible also says we should fight against and destroy Evil, so I'm just doing the work of the Lord by killing these people over here."
Or a non-religious person will say: "Yes, killing people is wrong, but this guy came after me and tried to hurt me. I'm right by the law - said I killed in self-defense. And I'm right by my family - who saw the crazy guy and are glad that he's no longer a threat to us." (not related to the first example)

So, the effect of morality is the same for both religious or non-religious people. Both are equally moral - by their own standards, anyway. The difference lies entirely in how the moral actions are viewed with someone with a different set of personal values.

As a side note, I've personally observed is that the motivations for actions are sometimes different.

A religious person might not cheat on their partner primarily because it's a sin. A non-religious person might not cheat on their partner primarily because they don't want to hurt them.

Again, depending on our values, we might find one motivation better than the other, or find them equally as important.

[Lene]

It seems a lot of people are more willing to trust in the morals of the religous than those of an agnostic or, especially, athiest.

What about a person subscribing to a religon makes them more trustworthy? Do you believe that an athiest is more likely to act immorally than a Christian, for example? Why?

Because people at least know what someone who is religious believes in. For someone who doesn't believe or chooses not to believe, how would you really know what they think is acceptable?

I think people would rather stick with the "evil" they know rather than the "evil" they don't know.

George Bush is an idiot. I know that is not much of a response to your question, but there you go.

Japan also has a crime rate that is the envy of most of the 1st world.

Please, are you implying that because Japan as a culture is irreligious, fewer crimes? I find that hilarious and completely wrong. The guy who robs a bank is not doing it in the "Name of God".

No, folks, the issue in morality is not if you are atheist or religious. The issue is if you are a moral person or an immoral person.

I agree with you. Being a member of a religion is not a Get out of Hell Free card, and it doesn't make the person a saint. But for the most part it's better than uncertainty for a lot of people.

I've heard of a number of non-religious or irreligious people mention that they'll go to a church to meet nice people in their neighborhoods. Is it fair? Not really...and yeah people should be aware of that.

[ccoa]

@Lunaria - Actually, going by your example of monogomy:

Christianity says adultery is a sin. Period, no matter what. Even marrying a divorced woman (odd, they don't say anything about divorced men) is adultery because divorce can't disolve a marraige.

Whereas a person who is not bound by that moral code could practice polygamy, or have sex with a different person, or sex with their partner and another person, or sex with a divorced person, and not have it be morally wrong (to them) as long as all parties affected by it gave their consent and are not hurt by it.

There seems to be much less room for moral gray in many religons.

@Lene - You can't say for sure what a religous person believes in. So many disagree with and twist the meaning of their religon in order to do what they please. God says do not kill, but some Christians blow up abortion clinics. God says hate the sin, not the sinner, but some Christians beat homosexuals within an inch of their life.

[Lunarea]

Except:
http://www.christianpolygamy.com/

Not saying that it's sanctioned by the church or that it's a good thing, but it's still an example of how the Bible may be interpreted as allowing polygamy.

Even though religion seems to have more strict guidelines when it comes to morality, there are still people out there that find ways for religion to fit their personal values - even when their values go against what the church is preaching.

Edit: Though I agree entirely that for the majority of religious people, the religious moral code is less of a gray area than for people who don't subscribe to said moral code.

[Lene]

@Lene - You can't say for sure what a religous person believes in. So many disagree with and twist the meaning of their religon in order to do what they please. God says do not kill, but some Christians blow up abortion clinics. God says hate the sin, not the sinner, but some Christians beat homosexuals within an inch of their life.

You can't say for sure, I agree with you. It's not very logicial when you think about it but most people find it practical and continue to use religion as a marker for morality. Religion is like a reference on a resume.

You don't have the reference, you may still be a great person but there isn't any proof and some people may not to risk it.

Personally, I try not to do that, because of what you've mentioned. But I know that in a society where being religious is the norm...that's how a lot of people will make judgement calls.

[Erk]

Please, are you implying that because Japan as a culture is irreligious, fewer crimes? I find that hilarious and completely wrong. The guy who robs a bank is not doing it in the "Name of God".

Not at all, I'm implying as I said it: that though Japanese are effectively irreligious, their crime rate is very low. The two - religion and morality - are unrelated.

[Draken]

Religion is a good way to keep order in the world, because if it were to never have existed, we'd surely be in turmoil. I'm not sayign I belong to any religion, because I don't, I'm glad it exists. It keeps people hopeful which is a nice trait to have. I have nothing to believe in other than myself.

Not really.
Just look at the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, not exactly keeping order is it now?

[Atnas]

Besides Lene, who I know to be Roman Catholic, is anyone here of Christian Denomination? I was surprised to see the number of agnostic and atheistic members who responded here. (I am an agnostic, practicing Catholicism, by the way.)

I remember thinking atheists were evil when I was littler (before age 11). The stereotype exists because of fear. I feared someone who did not believe in a God. How could they possibly obey any moral code without laws? They would kill me on sight, of course. I couldn't comprehend it.

In my opinion, simply put, morales can not be judged by a religion. They might have been, thousands of years ago, while we were of a more primitively oriented mindset. I have faith in the average person in this age to not need a religion to be in a "morally right" spectrum. I believe I value the fellow man with higher respect than many people who are religious, of whom I am able to observe daily. In fact, my deviation from religion has made me realize just how precious human life really is. Once you stop considering someone as an immortal spirit inside of a body, but as a creature, against all odds, being beautiful in it's flaws, it is amazing to reflect why you thought you might have needed religion at all.

This only applies to those with the capacity to grasp simple concepts, though. I would actually say a mentally retarded male adult would most likely not be able to remain agnostic/atheist without minor moral blunders. In all likelihood, a religion would help someone of that intellectual standing.

Variables, ugh.

I respect and envy those who are Religious, having kept their faith and taking comfort in their eternal life. Religion should never be forced upon anyone, as it is being done to me. I find it insulting to my beliefs, though to anyone facing these same problems, I would suggest looking at it from the believer's point of view. They want you to share in their eternity, and they are honestly doing it for your own good; in their opinion it is their love for you which makes them do it - not wanting to see your soul suffer eternal torment.