Are Atheists inherently amoral?

[CaptainFritz28]

No -ist is inherently immoral.

You are right about this, actually. To the individual following that -ist, no -ist is immoral. Even Atheism creates its own morals, based on each individual. That's a form of anarchy. However, when we take those -ists in comparison to each other, all of a sudden we run into problems, which is why they cannot all coexist.

[CaptainFritz28]

I'm not giving a short response because I'm trying to be dismissive, but rather because I think I can summarize usefully here and try to keep us focused on an intelligible list of issues. If I'm misrepresenting anything or dropped a point you think is useful of course feel free to raise it again!

- I don't think you get to judge Christianity on the basis of what would happen if every Christian were a strict adherent to your exact interpretation of the Bible. Firstly, you don't get a coherent ethical framework from the Bible (hence the many denominations of Christianity). Secondly, anyone can make up a perfect moral code and then say "see, if everyone just did this the world will be perfect" - what about Christianity in particular makes it different from some secular moral code that advocates similar morals? What matters is how does Christian belief affects the morality of living human beings - I think you'd agree the record is mixed.

This is a debate about the inherent principles of two worldviews. Christianity's inherent principle is the Bible. If a Christian violates one of those principles, they are violating the inherent principles of Christianity. Thus, that cannot be used as an example of Christian principles. Atheism's inherent principle is that there is no inherent principles, but that each individual is free to determine their own morality. Thus, the moral code of each individual is an example of Atheism's inherent principles. And no, I would not agree that the record is mixed. Name 5 examples in which Christianity has made people worse than they were before. Not examples in which Christians did bad things, examples in which they were made worse than before.

- We could go back-and-forth forever on the chicken-and-egg question of whether Christian belief is responsible for other desirable aspects of Western culture. I get the impression you're from a social group that might really love to claim that their culture is the wellspring of all goodness in broader society. I'd submit to you that the two things (Christianity and other Western cultural markers) are inseparable and it's not necessarily intelligible to say that one is the source of the other. Nearly every Western intellectual for hundreds of years at least pretended to be Christian, but their thoughts and reflections are not inherently Christian even when they're inspired by religious themes. Christianity itself is deeply affected by the cultures it developed in and those it operates in.

Christians caused the foundational rights and principles of modern western governments. They based these off of their Christian beliefs. As an example, the Founding Fathers of the U.S., from which most modern western thought is derived, quoted the Bible more than all other sources combined. Christian principles caused the societal reform of America. Abolitionists, both in the British Empire and America, were almost exclusively Christians. Those who advocated for rights for women did so under the premise that women have just as much value as men, which is a principle found solely in the Bible.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by referring to my social group, but whatever you intend to say there, it is a red herring. Even if everyone who I am surrounded by has lied to me all my life, that doesn't make a difference whether my logic is sound or not. Please, Bert, don't stoop to fallacies. I know you can do better than that.

- "Also, if we want to talk about social reform, no worldview has anywhere NEAR the record of social reform as Christianity. The abolition of slavery, rights for all races, rights for women, equal treatment of all classes regardless of wealth. These are all social reforms brought about because of Christians believing in Christian principles, found in the Bible." This is just factually wrong and probably reflects some pro-Christian bias in your social group / preferred sources. Christians permitted and encouraged slavery too. Christians persecuted women like crazy and many churches still hold views about women I find to be backwards. Even when the reforms happen, it's hard to say they were "Christian" in the sense that nearly everyone back then (say, early civil rights era) was a Christian and/or would have been influenced by Christian themes - you don't get to selectively take credit for the good stuff.

A great majority of Christians did not permit and encourage slavery. Abolitionists, both in the North and South U.S., as well as the British Empire, were primarily Christians. Even in the Confederacy, there were Christians who fled from the South, because they saw that others in the South were willing to die for slavery. Sure, some Christians did permit slavery. That isn't a Biblical principle, and since we are talking about inherent principles, those Christians who claimed that slavery is moral ought to be condemned as much as anyone else. But do you know why we condemn them? Oh yeah, because Christians abolished slavery, and the Bible condemns it. Some Christians do hold and have held false views on women's rights. And? Once again, it was Christians that caused those rights to exist in the first place. You did not refute that. I can't say that everyone who advocated for civil rights was a Christian, nor vice versa. But I can say that the Bible encourages civil rights, and that the leaders of and loudest voices for civil rights were Christians.

You are taking Christianity and applying Atheistic principles to it. Christianity CAN take credit for the good stuff, because the good stuff is based in the principles found in the Bible, and the bad is condemned by the same. Atheism cannot condemn slavery, nor the persecution of women, nor racism. Atheists can, but Atheism inherently does not have any standard that says that they are wrong. Christianity does. THAT is the difference here.

- It sounds like you have very strong views about who is Christian and what Christianity demands. I'll just point out that the religion splintering into hundreds of denominations suggests that you don't get the last word on this. "Just do exactly what Jesus would do" is not the straightforward moral guidance you characterize it to be - it's subject to multiple interpretations, competing values, and is difficult to apply to all sorts of modern moral quandaries.

Ah, yes - I'm sure the Atheist knows far more about Christian history and theology than the Christian who has researched it in depth.
No. You are incredibly wrong here. Christianity is based on the teachings of the Bible. Anything contrary to the Bible is a heresy. The Catholic Church is heretical because it contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9, John 14:6, James 1, and a plethora of other passages like them. Have you read the Bible, Bert? The whole thing? If not, don't consider yourself a moral authority on its teachings. Jesus states that the greatest commandment, on which rest all the law, is to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. (Mark 12:30-31, Luke 10:27, Matthew 22:37-40)

"Do as Jesus would do" is precisely what Christianity is based on. How do we know what Jesus would do? The Bible. Interpretations mean nothing when the Bible is very straightforward about morality.

- I command all atheists to love one another. Now that I've done that, all atheists must follow that moral code and, if they fail to, then they're not true atheist. Therefore, atheism is a perfect moral code and only fails when it's bastardized. You see why this line of reasoning isn't compelling just because you replace the word atheist with Christian right?

Here you highlight the difference between Atheism and Christianity. In this argument here, you are comparing them as equals, as if both had no moral standard, and therefore the individual can make up their own and all others must follow that. For Atheism, that is precisely the case. For Christianity, that is just about as backwards as it gets.

Christianity includes an ultimate moral standard, upon which it is based in its entirety. The Bible is an unchanging standard of moral truth. Atheism has no such standard. The best Atheism can do is appeal to the natural law of the strong holds power over the weak. Atheists have no obligation whatsoever to follow your commands, because you are not Atheism's ultimate moral standard. It has none. Christianity does. I am not the one commanding all Christians to love one another. If I were the only one doing do without Biblical support, then it would be entirely useless. No. The Bible commands Christians to love one another. THAT is from where all Christian teaching originates.

Atheism has no moral standard. It leaves morality up to the individual to decide.
Christianity provides an ultimate guide for morality.
One is anarchy and chaos, the other is order.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

This doesn't work because they have no reason to consider you a moral authority.

I have no reason to consider "God" a moral authority.

Esquire Bert, on the other hand, is the first badger (or meerkat?) I have ever seen, who can read, write, and speak English. This apparent miracle is making me consider following his commandments.

So then, you are creating a cult around Bert, making him your moral authority. No longer is that Atheism.

Jamie can choose a dapper AI-generated hedgehog as a source of moral guidance and still be an atheist. He's not claiming that this lil' mammal is the wellspring of all being. Maybe he just likes the cut of his jib, respects the legal expertise it takes to become an Esquire, and thinks this prickly creature might have better moral insights than some of the great apes around him who claim to get their morality straight from a God who has never bothered to reveal itself to him.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

This is a debate about the inherent principles of two worldviews. Christianity's inherent principle is the Bible. If a Christian violates one of those principles, they are violating the inherent principles of Christianity. Thus, that cannot be used as an example of Christian principles. Atheism's inherent principle is that there is no inherent principles, but that each individual is free to determine their own morality. Thus, the moral code of each individual is an example of Atheism's inherent principles. And no, I would not agree that the record is mixed. Name 5 examples in which Christianity has made people worse than they were before. Not examples in which Christians did bad things, examples in which they were made worse than before.

Okay, there is no objective way to reach an agreement about what the inherent principles of the Bible are. It has been the subject of sometimes-violent disagreement between Christians forever.

An atheist just doesn't believe in God. Atheism doesn't require that they hold no moral principles. I prefer the term agnostic, and I think that the Golden Rule is a discoverable fact informed by our evolved nature - this gives me some pretty clear beliefs about the wrongness of things like abuse, slavery, etc.

"Name 5 examples in which Christianity has made people worse than they were before" is a weird way to frame this. Surely this is a dodge to avoid talking about the many evil people in history who were Christian and the many evil things done in the name of Christianity?

Christians caused the foundational rights and principles of modern western governments. They based these off of their Christian beliefs. As an example, the Founding Fathers of the U.S., from which most modern western thought is derived, quoted the Bible more than all other sources combined. Christian principles caused the societal reform of America. Abolitionists, both in the British Empire and America, were almost exclusively Christians. Those who advocated for rights for women did so under the premise that women have just as much value as men, which is a principle found solely in the Bible.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by referring to my social group, but whatever you intend to say there, it is a red herring. Even if everyone who I am surrounded by has lied to me all my life, that doesn't make a difference whether my logic is sound or not. Please, Bert, don't stoop to fallacies. I know you can do better than that.

You can't know whether Christian belief informed Western thought, or whether Western belief informed Christian thought. That huge majorities in the West were Christian for centuries doesn't mean that all good things from the West are inherently Christian and, if it does, then it means an awful lot of the bad things are inherently Christian too.

The slave owners and abolitionists were both Christians. Many of the slaves themselves became Christian. That you feel comfortable saying only the abolitionists were true Christians revealed to me that you're probably almost never encountering that many people or arguments from outside your faith community (hence my reference to your social group).

A great majority of Christians did not permit and encourage slavery. Abolitionists, both in the North and South U.S., as well as the British Empire, were primarily Christians. Even in the Confederacy, there were Christians who fled from the South, because they saw that others in the South were willing to die for slavery. Sure, some Christians did permit slavery. That isn't a Biblical principle, and since we are talking about inherent principles, those Christians who claimed that slavery is moral ought to be condemned as much as anyone else. But do you know why we condemn them? Oh yeah, because Christians abolished slavery, and the Bible condemns it. Some Christians do hold and have held false views on women's rights. And? Once again, it was Christians that caused those rights to exist in the first place. You did not refute that. I can't say that everyone who advocated for civil rights was a Christian, nor vice versa. But I can say that the Bible encourages civil rights, and that the leaders of and loudest voices for civil rights were Christians.

You are taking Christianity and applying Atheistic principles to it. Christianity CAN take credit for the good stuff, because the good stuff is based in the principles found in the Bible, and the bad is condemned by the same. Atheism cannot condemn slavery, nor the persecution of women, nor racism. Atheists can, but Atheism inherently does not have any standard that says that they are wrong. Christianity does. THAT is the difference here.

Again you choose to focus only on the Christians whose moral you disagree with and use a slight-of-hand to define all other believing Christians as non-Christian based solely on your particular version of Christianity. You don't get to define it, no one can, and those Christians doing bad things also had scriptural arguments to justify their horribleness.

Ah, yes - I'm sure the Atheist knows far more about Christian history and theology than the Christian who has researched it in depth.
No. You are incredibly wrong here. Christianity is based on the teachings of the Bible. Anything contrary to the Bible is a heresy. The Catholic Church is heretical because it contradicts Ephesians 2:8-9, John 14:6, James 1, and a plethora of other passages like them. Have you read the Bible, Bert? The whole thing? If not, don't consider yourself a moral authority on its teachings. Jesus states that the greatest commandment, on which rest all the law, is to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself. (Mark 12:30-31, Luke 10:27, Matthew 22:37-40)

"Do as Jesus would do" is precisely what Christianity is based on. How do we know what Jesus would do? The Bible. Interpretations mean nothing when the Bible is very straightforward about morality.

Frankly CF, you don't really know who you're talking to. I know you're a high schooler and I can tell from this conversation that you're not an avid reader of ideas that don't conform to your faith tradition. At a minimum, you might want to consider that I'm a little older, I wasn't always agnostic, and I've had plenty of engagement with Christians and Christian ideas (not least from my childhood Lutheran church). That I didn't find all of these ideas eternally convincing doesn't mean I'm not aware of them. It's very possible to understand Christian theology and also disagree with it.

Christianity includes an ultimate moral standard, upon which it is based in its entirety. The Bible is an unchanging standard of moral truth. Atheism has no such standard. The best Atheism can do is appeal to the natural law of the strong holds power over the weak. Atheists have no obligation whatsoever to follow your commands, because you are not Atheism's ultimate moral standard. It has none. Christianity does. I am not the one commanding all Christians to love one another. If I were the only one doing do without Biblical support, then it would be entirely useless. No. The Bible commands Christians to love one another. THAT is from where all Christian teaching originates.
Christianity provides an ultimate guide for morality.

The Bible is subject to multiple interpretations and contains within it all sorts of contradictions on moral issues. For many modern moral issues it gives almost no real directives, which puts the burden even more on subjective interpretation. Christianity has no standard other than what a particular Church or Pastor grafts onto their particular reading of scripture. Just because they claim to be aiming towards a Godly and objective morality doesn't mean they're hitting the mark.

There are many ways to have a morality without falsely equating morality to "what God wants". And since in practice it's impossible to actually know what God wants, the answers that atheists come up with are not necessarily better or worse than were Christians end up.

[CaptainFritz28]

I have no reason to consider "God" a moral authority.

Esquire Bert, on the other hand, is the first badger (or meerkat?) I have ever seen, who can read, write, and speak English. This apparent miracle is making me consider following his commandments.

So then, you are creating a cult around Bert, making him your moral authority. No longer is that Atheism.

Jamie can choose a dapper AI-generated hedgehog as a source of moral guidance and still be an atheist. He's not claiming that this lil' mammal is the wellspring of all being. Maybe he just likes the cut of his jib, respects the legal expertise it takes to become an Esquire, and thinks this prickly creature might have better moral insights than some of the great apes around him who claim to get their morality straight from a God who has never bothered to reveal itself to him.

For one to be able to determine morality, they must be able to determine good and bad. If you can determine good and bad, then you hold supreme authority over all else, because you now determine whether someone or something's actions are moral or not. Having supreme authority is the definition of a god. To make someone a moral authority is to make them your god. Not a god like the Biblical God, no. But a god nonetheless.

[CaptainFritz28]

Okay, there is no objective way to reach an agreement about what the inherent principles of the Bible are. It has been the subject of sometimes-violent disagreement between Christians forever.

How about, oh, I don't know, reading the Bible?

An atheist just doesn't believe in God. Atheism doesn't require that they hold no moral principles. I prefer the term agnostic, and I think that the Golden Rule is a discoverable fact informed by our evolved nature - this gives me some pretty clear beliefs about the wrongness of things like abuse, slavery, etc.

Agnosticism is a separate matter. Agnosticism holds that it is impossible to know if there is a God, not that there is no God. Atheism does not eliminate morality. All that it does is require morality to be sourced from the individual, which is anarchy. Perhaps I have not been clear on that, and I apologize.

You cite the Golden Rule. Do you, ah... know where that comes from? Because it is quite literally quoting the Bible.

"Name 5 examples in which Christianity has made people worse than they were before" is a weird way to frame this. Surely this is a dodge to avoid talking about the many evil people in history who were Christian and the many evil things done in the name of Christianity?

You did not refute nor answer anything of this argument. As I have said, Christians commit evils. But when people become Christians, they become better. I am making a relative comparison of the before and after of a conversion to Christianity, and I am claiming that the after is better, though not perfect, than the before. You have not refuted this, instead circling back to what you have said and what I have responded to multiple times.

You can't know whether Christian belief informed Western thought, or whether Western belief informed Christian thought. That huge majorities in the West were Christian for centuries doesn't mean that all good things from the West are inherently Christian and, if it does, then it means an awful lot of the bad things are inherently Christian too.

How about, oh, I don't know... reading what they wrote? Because what they wrote is clearly in favor of Christianity. As I mentioned, the American Founding Fathers, which provide the basis for most of western thought nowadays, cited the Bible more than all other sources combined.

I'm not saying that just because a majority claimed Christianity they were based on Christian principles. While that is a suspicious indicator, it is not proof on its own. Rather, the philosophers, lawmakers, and people who actually formed western philosophy and ideas of justice is who I am referring to.

The slave owners and abolitionists were both Christians. Many of the slaves themselves became Christian. That you feel comfortable saying only the abolitionists were true Christians revealed to me that you're probably almost never encountering that many people or arguments from outside your faith community (hence my reference to your social group).

I'm not saying they weren't true Christians. What I'm saying is that they did evil things, which are only evil by Christian standards.

The difference between Christians and every other culture is not that they had slavery. Every worldview, including Christians, has allowed slavery. The difference is that Christianity got rid of slavery. Again, this is a matter of relative comparison. Christians are not perfect, but they are better.

And yes, I do encounter people that believe different things, including those who are Christians and believe different doctrine. Only because I have encountered them can I speak so strongly on what I believe. If I hadn't debated others before, then my faith would be untested, which would be a silly faith to have. Your assumption that because I believe this I must not have met anyone else is a narrow-minded assumption to make, and proves to me that you have never actually considered Christianity as anything more than a group of people to be mocked for being hypocrites (and I'll join you in mocking the hypocrites).

Again you choose to focus only on the Christians whose moral you disagree with and use a slight-of-hand to define all other believing Christians as non-Christian based solely on your particular version of Christianity. You don't get to define it, no one can, and those Christians doing bad things also had scriptural arguments to justify their horribleness.

I don't get to define it, no. But what I do get to do is go to the Bible and read it, and realize that it says "God created man in His own image" (Genesis 1:27), and then draw the conclusion that if we are created in God's image, we have value.
Really what you are arguing against here is not the Bible, but false interpretations of it, which I can agree with it. So I recommend that you go read it and actually see what it says, and then you'll see that oh, it doesn't justify slavery, and oh, it does command us to love others, and oh, it does support civil rights.

Frankly CF, you don't really know who you're talking to. I know you're a high schooler and I can tell from this conversation that you're not an avid reader of ideas that don't conform to your faith tradition. At a minimum, you might want to consider that I'm a little older, I wasn't always agnostic, and I've had plenty of engagement with Christians and Christian ideas (not least from my childhood Lutheran church). That I didn't find all of these ideas eternally convincing doesn't mean I'm not aware of them. It's very possible to understand Christian theology and also disagree with it.

Neither of us do. I may be a high schooler, and I may be younger, but at a minimum you may want to consider that I have read plenty of other ideas, and have discussed plenty with people who believe those ideas. That I didn't find those ideas eternally convincing doesn't mean I'm not aware of them. It's very possible to understand the theology of other worldviews and also disagree with them.

My contention here is not that you cannot have come from a background in which you were not taught Christian theology, but that you either forgot it, didn't understand it, or were taught poorly. You seem to be equating what Christians do individually with Biblical truth, which indicated to me a lack of understanding of Christian theology. You asked from where did God come from, which indicated to me a lack of understanding of Biblical views on God. You claimed that appealing to authority is not morality, which indicated to me a lack of understanding of the Christian view of morality. You implied that as soon as one learns of other worldviews such as Atheism, they must be convinced that Christianity is false, indicating to me that your teaching on Christianity, if it existed, was shallow and incomplete at best.

The Bible is subject to multiple interpretations and contains within it all sorts of contradictions on moral issues. For many modern moral issues it gives almost no real directives, which puts the burden even more on subjective interpretation. Christianity has no standard other than what a particular Church or Pastor grafts onto their particular reading of scripture. Just because they claim to be aiming towards a Godly and objective morality doesn't mean they're hitting the mark.

There is plenty in the Bible with regards to modern moral issues, what specifically are you referring to?
If you take the Bible at face value, not as some obscure non-understandable document, but as saying what it says, simply as it says it, then it's rather simple.
Again, you are providing an argument against false interpretations of the Bible, not the Bible itself. Again, I can agree.

"Christianity has no standard other than what a particular Church or Pastor grafts onto their particular reading of scripture."
If that is what you were taught in your Lutheran church growing up, then no wonder you got a skewed view of Christianity. Christianity's standard is not what pastors or churches say, no. What pastors and churches say should not be taken immediately as truth, but should be tested against the Bible. If the teaching contradicts what the Bible says, then the teaching is false.
Sola Scriptura!

"Just because they claim to be aiming towards a Godly and objective morality doesn't mean they're hitting the mark."
I couldn't agree more. False teaching in the Church is a big issue, and was also at the time of the Bible's writing. There is much instruction on how to determine if a pastor's teaching is in line with the Bible. Would you like me to go over it?

There are many ways to have a morality without falsely equating morality to "what God wants". And since in practice it's impossible to actually know what God wants, the answers that atheists come up with are not necessarily better or worse than were Christians end up.

What you are saying here is essentially that "you can have morality without a moral standard" which is contradictory to the very nature of morality. Morality is the guide for what is good and evil, and the only way to have laws is to have a giver of laws, or a standard. If you claim that anything that anyone says can be a moral truth, then you've thrown morality out the window entirely, and you just have anarchy. You say it is impossible to know what God wants. Again, this is where I become speculative of whether you have ever read the Bible. If you had, you would know that it is really quite easy. The Bible says as much. It's not some mysterious book of archaic and strange vague writings. It is specific, applicable to the modern day, and fairly clear.
The answers that Atheists come up with are often contradictory to the Bible, so they are far from the truth. Again, Christianity is based on the basic premise that:
What the Bible says is true and good.
Anything contrary to it is false and evil.

Every argument I have seen that you've given is against false interpretations of it, not the Bible itself.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

How about, oh, I don't know, reading the Bible?

Many smart Christians read the same Bible and come to different conclusions about moral issues. There is no objective way to know what lessons to take from the parables, what parts to prioritize over others, etc.

Atheism does not eliminate morality. All that it does is require morality to be sourced from the individual, which is anarchy. Perhaps I have not been clear on that, and I apologize.
You cite the Golden Rule. Do you, ah... know where that comes from? Because it is quite literally quoting the Bible.

The Golden Rule is a basic moral framework discovered many times independently, before and after Christianity. There are many pre-Jesus religious teachings that put forward the Golden Rule. Jesus and his followers were almost certainly influenced by Golden Rule-style morality in their own time, which was by definition pre-Christian.

You did not refute nor answer anything of this argument. As I have said, Christians commit evils. But when people become Christians, they become better. I am making a relative comparison of the before and after of a conversion to Christianity, and I am claiming that the after is better, though not perfect, than the before. You have not refuted this, instead circling back to what you have said and what I have responded to multiple times.

I'm not trying to refute you bud, we're chatting. I agree that some people use Christianity as a tool to improve their morality. Some people misuse Christianity as a tool, and use it to support their bigotry, to claim moral superiority to others without justification, in an attempt to imbue their own moral intuitions with a false semblance of objectivity, etc.

If an atheist has a religious experience and becomes a Christian, but gets caught up in a Christian sub-culture that's obsessed with anti-gay bigotry, policing young women's sexuality, obsessing about how non-believers are going to hell, etc., then that person is probably less moral. You can call these Christians non-Christians, but they self-identify as Christians, they're perceived as Christians, and they believe just as much as you do that their approach is the correct way to interpret the Bible and there's no living God to come back and tell them otherwise.

How about, oh, I don't know... reading what they wrote? Because what they wrote is clearly in favor of Christianity. As I mentioned, the American Founding Fathers, which provide the basis for most of western thought nowadays, cited the Bible more than all other sources combined.

I'm not saying that just because a majority claimed Christianity they were based on Christian principles. While that is a suspicious indicator, it is not proof on its own. Rather, the philosophers, lawmakers, and people who actually formed western philosophy and ideas of justice is who I am referring to.

The founding fathers were Christians who, unsurprisingly, had a worldview inspired by the Christian bible. But not every country with Christian leaders in t heir time or before came to the same conclusion as them about upholding the dignity and freedom of every human in law, allowing religious freedom, etc. It took a very specific interpretation of Christianity to get there, one not shared by many of their Christian contemporaries. Their views were informed by many other things besides Christian theology (especially the French Revolution, which was in some way explicitly anti-religious). And because Christianity is the culture at the time, all new ideas get filtered through it, but that doesn't make them Christian ideas in particular.

These same Christian lawmakers and, subsequently, a predominantly Christian ruling class, didn't let women vote until the 1920s and didn't fully enfranchise African Americans until the 1960s. If only they had interpreted the Bible correctly, I've heard it's very easy to do :)

I don't get to define it, no. But what I do get to do is go to the Bible and read it, and realize that it says "God created man in His own image" (Genesis 1:27), and then draw the conclusion that if we are created in God's image, we have value.

And if another Christian takes that to mean something else, they're wrong and you're right? How can you know the Truth of your interpretation and the falseness of others'?

The rest of this really just boils down to the point above. You insist the Bible has an objective interpretation, which it doesn't. You insist that you know this right interpretation, and can find everyone else's to be wholly false, which you can't. You claim the Bible can be used to test the veracity of moral truths - but it cannot, no two Christians will come to the exact same conclusion.

[Jamiet99uk]

For one to be able to determine morality, they must be able to determine good and bad. If you can determine good and bad, then you hold supreme authority over all else, because you now determine whether someone or something's actions are moral or not.

How do you determine this?

[CaptainFritz28]

For one to be able to determine morality, they must be able to determine good and bad. If you can determine good and bad, then you hold supreme authority over all else, because you now determine whether someone or something's actions are moral or not.

How do you determine this?

I'm going to start a new thread on this, because at the core is the question of what morality is. If we cannot agree on a definition of that, then we were never going to agree in this thread about the morality or amorality of Atheism.

To put it simply, though, I define morality as the standard of good and evil, and the determinant of the consequences/rewards for acting good or evil.
If someone is given authority over this, then they can determine if something you have done is good or evil, and thus if you should be rewarded or punished for it. Essentially, they become judge, jury, and executioner. Thus, if you put Bert in charge of your moral code, then Bert is the only one who can say is what you have done is good or evil. He may say "Jamie asked a question in this thread. I determine that asking questions is immoral, and therefore Jamie has committed a moral wrong and should be punished for it." Then, Bert determines what punishment is due your egregious questioning, and it must be carried out, as it is what is morally correct.

[Johnny Big Horse]

The fact that atheism does not provide a moral code does not mean that atheists cannot have a moral code. I have morals, I just don't get them from the instructions of some purported deity.

You may have an exemplary moral code, but what about all the other people who are atheists? That is the problem. Some may believe that "life is a struggle, and do whatever you will to get ahead, to hell with the other guy."

That is the problem. Yes, there are plenty of amoral religious people. Tons of them. But I think with atheists, it is easier to be amoral, because there is nobody telling you to live good lives, no community reinforcing your good behaviors. There is no model to emulate.

Who do secular people emulate? Trump? Biden? Musk? Bezos? Kanye? Not great role models, when you compare them to the perfect ones that religions put up as our models. Even if these perfect people never existed or even were not perfect. They are still the models we strive to emulate. That is what I think is the basis of this argument.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The fact that atheism does not provide a moral code does not mean that atheists cannot have a moral code. I have morals, I just don't get them from the instructions of some purported deity.

You may have an exemplary moral code, but what about all the other people who are atheists? That is the problem. Some may believe that "life is a struggle, and do whatever you will to get ahead, to hell with the other guy."

That is the problem. Yes, there are plenty of amoral religious people. Tons of them. But I think with atheists, it is easier to be amoral, because there is nobody telling you to live good lives, no community reinforcing your good behaviors. There is no model to emulate.

Who do secular people emulate? Trump? Biden? Musk? Bezos? Kanye? Not great role models, when you compare them to the perfect ones that religions put up as our models. Even if these perfect people never existed or even were not perfect. They are still the models we strive to emulate. That is what I think is the basis of this argument.

Christians' moral code is necessarily based on a selective reading of a big, complex, and contradictory book. It's not exactly clear moral guidance, particularly for many modern ethical issues.

What do we do with the many Christians who believe themselves to be following scripture, while also being immoral?

Is the Christian God the only good moral role model? Was the Old Testament God even a good moral role model?

In practice, the moral role models with the most influence on us are not random famous people, but rather our parents, family, and friends. Even those who believe that God is the ultimate source on morality typically got this belief from their parents or social group.

Given your worldview, how would you explain Trump's popularity among believing Christians? He's more popular among Christians than among non-religious people.

Just because I don't believe that any one human knows the full truth about God doesn't mean I believe that anything goes morally. I have deep moral intuitions that I was born with just by being capable of empathy. I have personal life experiences that showed me the moral error of certain actions. I have moral guidance from friends and family, some of whom are wiser than me or can at least add useful perspectives I hadn't considered. Many thoughtful people who have come before me have discovered aspects of morality that I can learn from and be convinced by (including Christian moral philosophers). My experience with all these sources means I can identify "do whatever you want" as a faulty moral framework.

[CaptainFritz28]

The difference here is that Bert begins with the assumption that there can be no unifying factor among Christians reading the Bible, and thus, because he does not understand every part of it, there can be no way to understand it, and therefore Christians base their morality not on the Bible but on their interpretation of the Bible.

So your trouble is not with the Bible. Your trouble is with sinful human nature. No matter how perfect something may be, people will always try to use that for evil and for their own ends. So of course there will be people who teach false things about the Bible. That isn't a fault of the Bible bit a fault of thoose people. But after actually reading it, reading the context around whatever is being claimed, and using a bit of logic, the only things perhaps not clear are those clearly meant to be poetic.

Yes, people come to different conclusions. I could say "well, some people believe that the first amendment doesn't actually protect free speech because of such and such wording" and that wouldn't discount the fact that the first amendment is incredibly important and a good thing to have as our standard.

You mentioned that the Bible is complex and contradictory. I claim that that is false. Give an example, and we'll discuss.

How do we know that the many Christians doing immoral things are immoral? Well, as a Christian, I know it because of the Bible. So we condemn them as anyone else doing something immoral.

You seem to be making the argument that because Christians are not all perfect, Christianity must be false. That is a silly argument to make. Christianity does not make people perfect. It convicts them of doing wrong, but that doesn't meant they will follow that conviction. What it does is give a singular moral standard that can condemn evil, no matter who does it. Atheism does not have that.

The best and only perfect role model is Jesus Christ. He fulfilled the entirety of God's law perfectly.

True, moral role models for all typically come from those around us. I don't particularly see why that matters here, but it is true. Often we must break away from them if they are teaching evil, whomever they may be. One's moral choices come down to themselves, so while you could blame them on their family, they are the individual's actions. If those actions don't adhere to the Bible, they are evil.

What does Trump have to do with this? Sure, he's popular among Christians. I don't like him very much, but it is what it is. That doesn't mean that Christians think he is perfect morally, nor that he is a good role model.

So now you are saying your moral intuitions come from your experience. Everyone has their own experience. Based on that, someone growing up under an Atheist serial killer believes that mass murder is good morally. Who are you to say they are wrong? Atheism has no standard.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

The fact that atheism does not provide a moral code does not mean that atheists cannot have a moral code. I have morals, I just don't get them from the instructions of some purported deity.

You may have an exemplary moral code, but what about all the other people who are atheists? That is the problem. Some may believe that "life is a struggle, and do whatever you will to get ahead, to hell with the other guy."

That is the problem. Yes, there are plenty of amoral religious people. Tons of them. But I think with atheists, it is easier to be amoral, because there is nobody telling you to live good lives, no community reinforcing your good behaviors. There is no model to emulate.

Who do secular people emulate? Trump? Biden? Musk? Bezos? Kanye? Not great role models, when you compare them to the perfect ones that religions put up as our models. Even if these perfect people never existed or even were not perfect. They are still the models we strive to emulate. That is what I think is the basis of this argument.

Christians' moral code is necessarily based on a selective reading of a big, complex, and contradictory book. It's not exactly clear moral guidance, particularly for many modern ethical issues.

What do we do with the many Christians who believe themselves to be following scripture, while also being immoral?

Is the Christian God the only good moral role model? Was the Old Testament God even a good moral role model?

In practice, the moral role models with the most influence on us are not random famous people, but rather our parents, family, and friends. Even those who believe that God is the ultimate source on morality typically got this belief from their parents or social group.

Given your worldview, how would you explain Trump's popularity among believing Christians? He's more popular among Christians than among non-religious people.

Just because I don't believe that any one human knows the full truth about God doesn't mean I believe that anything goes morally. I have deep moral intuitions that I was born with just by being capable of empathy. I have personal life experiences that showed me the moral error of certain actions. I have moral guidance from friends and family, some of whom are wiser than me or can at least add useful perspectives I hadn't considered. Many thoughtful people who have come before me have discovered aspects of morality that I can learn from and be convinced by (including Christian moral philosophers). My experience with all these sources means I can identify "do whatever you want" as a faulty moral framework.

The Genesis creation story is subject to interpretation, with some Christians taking it literally as a seven-day creation, while others view it as metaphorical, symbolizing a longer, evolutionary process. This reflects the broader challenge of interpreting biblical narratives either historically or metaphorically. Only God itself could answer this question, but we don't get to talk to God directly.

Leviticus's prohibitions against eating shellfish and wearing mixed fabrics are often overlooked by most modern Christians, indicating selective adherence to biblical laws. This selective approach highlights how cultural and societal changes influence which parts of the Bible are emphasized or deemphasized.

The Bible's treatment of slavery, particularly in verses like Ephesians 6:5, poses ethical challenges when compared to modern standards that universally condemn slavery. This discrepancy underscores how historical and cultural contexts significantly affect the interpretation and application of biblical teachings.

The depiction of the Old Testament God commanding acts such as the destruction of entire cities raises questions about the consistency of divine morality and the applicability of such examples as moral guidance in a modern context.

The Bible has conflicting passages about the morality of Divorce. In Matthew 19:9, Jesus speaks against divorce except in cases of sexual immorality, suggesting a very restrictive view. However, 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, attributed to Paul, advises that if a married couple separates, they should either remain unmarried or reconcile, implying a more nuanced stance that acknowledges separation without directly endorsing remarriage.

The significant influence of empathy and personal experiences in shaping an individual's moral compass suggests that morality extends beyond religious texts, encompassing a broader range of human experiences and ethical reasoning.

The paradox of Christians supporting morally controversial figures like Trump, despite his actions and statements often clashing with Christian teachings, indicates that political and cultural affiliations can play a stronger role in moral judgment than religious doctrines alone even for true believers.

Atheism, while lacking a central religious text for moral guidance, does not equate to a lack of moral standards. Moral intuitions in atheism can stem from empathy, societal norms, and philosophical inquiry, which in essence is quite similar to how Christian individuals do their moral reasoning.

[brian146]

plus, Atheism is an answer to the question of if a god exist, not a religion.

[brian146]

So now you are saying your moral intuitions come from your experience. Everyone has their own experience. Based on that, someone growing up under an Atheist serial killer believes that mass murder is good morally. Who are you to say they are wrong? Atheism has no standard.

first all yes they might belive that its moral but they could relize there not thru non relgus means such as humanitarianism but they also might have there own ideas.
sorry for spelling have a writing disbity

[brian146]

plus, Atheism is an answer to the question of if a god exist, not a religion.

or philosophy

[Jamiet99uk]

The fact that atheism does not provide a moral code does not mean that atheists cannot have a moral code. I have morals, I just don't get them from the instructions of some purported deity.

You may have an exemplary moral code, but what about all the other people who are atheists? That is the problem. Some may believe that "life is a struggle, and do whatever you will to get ahead, to hell with the other guy."

That is the problem. Yes, there are plenty of amoral religious people. Tons of them. But I think with atheists, it is easier to be amoral, because there is nobody telling you to live good lives, no community reinforcing your good behaviors. There is no model to emulate.

Who do secular people emulate? Trump? Biden? Musk? Bezos? Kanye? Not great role models, when you compare them to the perfect ones that religions put up as our models. Even if these perfect people never existed or even were not perfect. They are still the models we strive to emulate. That is what I think is the basis of this argument.

I try to emulate some of the qualities of people who I am friends with or have met in real life, whose example has impressed or inspired me. Certainly none of the people you mention!

[brian146]

I wouldn't call trump secular he may not care about the bible, but he does want in in in the government if only because he gets votes.

[brian146]

anyone want to play diplomacy? the name of game is: game