Agnostic.com

6 0

Why do people swear that being atheist/agnostic makes you morally bankrupt? I think to be a good atheist is morally superior than a being a good Christian. Because for us atheists a heavenly reward is not our goal. Our goal is just to be good people

SCatheist85 4 Mar 7
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

6 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Which people? Major money-grubbng evangelicals (or their followers)?
Why oh why would you listen to one of those?

0

In my view morality is in the act of thinking what is right or wrong. Religion discourages this by proposing rules that should be followed without questioning. So I would expect atheists to be more moral but I haven't looked at any studies that support or contradict this claim.

Dietl Level 7 Mar 7, 2019
0

I tell my Evangelical friends that, "If you have to outsource your morals to a book, you're not read to be talking about morality."

1

It's because the religious are marinated in the patent nonsense that religion is the inventor and protector of morality. If that were true, then sure, no one without religion (and let's be honest, the specific religion of the person making this ridiculous claim) could possibly be moral. It's typical self-ratifying nonsense from these folks. And because it's not based in reality or empirical evidence, there's no countering it.

What is actually true is that religion simply appropriates morality from its host society and claims to be the inventor and sustainer of something that it didn't lift a little finger to concoct. Morality is a work product of society, and religion has no part in it other than incidentally to the extent it is part of society. For those varieties of religion that fancy themselves set apart from society (in their parlance, sanctified by god), they inherently disavow the heavy lifting done by people outside their own tribe to hammer out the implicit and explicit rules we all agree to live by. It's arrogance and appropriation on a grand scale. But they can't see it.

Am in agreement with all but the last sentence. Am fairly sure the scholars of religion, and even many lay-persons realize exactly how it is, and exactly how it works......for sure Trump knows how it works

0

I don’t think it makes us morally superior it just proves that morality doesn’t need to originate from religion or threats. If anything it’s easier for a realistic person to be/do good without the cognitive dissonance of myths that pit us against each other. I have higher expectations of atheists than theists because we’ve got a major obstacle out of the way already. I’m more impressed by left leaning Christians who despite their ideological deficit still don’t fall for fundamentalist tribalism. That seems like it takes more resolve than being a good atheist does.

0

Because they base their reasoning on the false premise that without the threat of Hell and the salvation of Christ, you cannot possibly be responsible for your own moral code.
It is of just another veiled threat to back up Religion's unsubstantiated claims of being the guardian of right and wrong.

They also base it on the false premise that morality doesn't even count unless it has an Enforcer who both hands it down and punishes those who don't conform. "All [human] righteousness is as filthy rags" in the sight of god, thus, if an unbeliever does a good deed, it doesn't count as "real" righteousness because it has the "wrong" motivation and source. To them, morality is not the quality of your character and actual actions in the world, it is rather whether you blindly obey a ruleset they claim god authored and demands of you ... and usually they imply that even that's not valid unless you have the right attitude when you obey, one of "cheerful obedience".

This divorce of morality from actual deeds explains how for example a so-called man of god, Jerry Falwell Jr, could openly fantasize about shooting Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez with one of his guns at the just-concluded CPAC conference, or how he and a host of other "men of god" can endorse the Citrus Caligula, or, for that matter, the likes of "judge" Roy Moore. Righteousness is right-ness, not right action. This means the test of right-ness is adherence to approved doctrine, not how you actually conduct yourself toward others.

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:305462
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.