Are Atheists and Theists Morally Equivalent?

I think there are moral and immoral people on either side. That being said I believe that one can be moral if he/she really wants to be. He/She doesn't need religion to live a moral life.

I don't care what the statistics show Lans, especially when they are talking about the "likelyhood" of one acting immoral depending if he/she is an atheist or a theist. Every new generation is here to prove the previous positively wrong, both in the side of theists and atheists, and that's because I believe we are all potentially equal in morality.

I think there are moral and immoral people on either side. That being said I believe that one can be moral if he/she really wants to be. He/She doesn't need religion to live a moral life.

I don't care what the statistics show Lans, especially when they are talking about the "likelyhood" of one acting immoral depending if he/she is an atheist or a theist. Every new generation is here to prove the previous positively wrong, both in the side of theists and atheists, and that's because I believe we are all potentially equal in morality.

Teenaged

I'm not going to be discussing statistics, I'm just looking for people's opinions. :) 

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]

I think there are moral and immoral people on either side. That being said I believe that one can be moral if he/she really wants to be. He/She doesn't need religion to live a moral life.

I don't care what the statistics show Lans, especially when they are talking about the "likelyhood" of one acting immoral depending if he/she is an atheist or a theist. Every new generation is here to prove the previous positively wrong, both in the side of theists and atheists, and that's because I believe we are all potentially equal in morality.

Lansdowne5

I'm not going to be discussing statistics, I'm just looking for people's opinions. :) 

I would say they have different morals.aliblabla2007

Atheists and Theists have different moral standards. Many theists think of moral as something absolute like yourself but majority of atheists here think of moral as relative. I can cite an example from the recent "sex and marriage" thread where you mentioned premarital marriage is immoral in every cases, which most of us disagree with. While on the other hand Genetic_Code agrees with you but still hold true to a set of beliefs, a lot of which can be different than yours.

I have voted "NO" because I don't think atheists and theists are morally equivalent (identical). But that doesn't mean that I'm claiming to know who is more moral. I don't even think there can be a comparison, because for that to happen there has to be a definition of morality which we all agree upon.

Depends on what you mean by the question. A little clarification is in order.Funky_Llama

Do atheists and theists generally do the same amount of right and wrong?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Depends on what you mean by the question. A little clarification is in order.Lansdowne5

Do atheists and theists generally do the same amount of right and wrong?

The answer to that question, IMO, would be they equally do the same amount of right and wrong, as it is in all populations.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Depends on what you mean by the question. A little clarification is in order.Lansdowne5

Do atheists and theists generally do the same amount of right and wrong?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Depends on what you mean by the question. A little clarification is in order.Lansdowne5

Do atheists and theists generally do the same amount of right and wrong?

Now.... how the heck do I calculate that?:roll: (those damned eyes again!). In my case an approximation is as close as I can get. Even if the answer is yes, the list of moral and immoral things on both sides will not be identical! I find it impossible to compare...

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Depends on what you mean by the question. A little clarification is in order.Lansdowne5

Do atheists and theists generally do the same amount of right and wrong?

Grr, I shoulda read the rest of the thread before voting (since I was slightly confused by the question). I voted "Yes", but after this clarification, I'd have to agree with F_L and AnObscureName:

Ah. My answer is... I don't know. :PFunky_Llama

I think that depends on what you consider right or wrong.AnObscureName

What do you think?

Please vote. :DLansdowne5

No christian morals are counterbalanced by an extra group that has nothing to do with reality or actual consequence. 

There is an excellent TED speech I wanted to link talking about this in greater detail but when looking to quote myself from a conservative christian union, I see that my post and link is now deleted.  :evil::evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Depends on your upbringing.  Most Atheists that I know were brought up as Christians, and therefore hold many morals that most Christians have.  Of course, I also believe that humans are born with some basic morals, such as not to kill and some others.

The only way we can tell if morals are the same is if somehow we put many many atheists together, and have them raise children and reproduce over a few generations and compare them to the theists.

Depends on your upbringing.  Most Atheists that I know were brought up as Christians, and therefore hold many morals that most Christians have.  Of course, I also believe that humans are born with some basic morals, such as not to kill and some others.

The only way we can tell if morals are the same is if somehow we put many many atheists together, and have them raise children and reproduce over a few generations and compare them to the theists.

helium_flash

Where do you suppose the "basic morals" come from? 

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]

Depends on your upbringing.  Most Atheists that I know were brought up as Christians, and therefore hold many morals that most Christians have.  Of course, I also believe that humans are born with some basic morals, such as not to kill and some others.

The only way we can tell if morals are the same is if somehow we put many many atheists together, and have them raise children and reproduce over a few generations and compare them to the theists.

Lansdowne5

Where do you suppose the "basic morals" come from? 

[QUOTE="helium_flash"]

Depends on your upbringing.  Most Atheists that I know were brought up as Christians, and therefore hold many morals that most Christians have.  Of course, I also believe that humans are born with some basic morals, such as not to kill and some others.

The only way we can tell if morals are the same is if somehow we put many many atheists together, and have them raise children and reproduce over a few generations and compare them to the theists.

Lansdowne5

Where do you suppose the "basic morals" come from? 

I think morality comes from the cumulative experiences if a civilization that has existed for a sufficiently long period of time. This means that the moral standards of people who lived about thousand of years ago was very different in comparision to the standards of today.

When you grow up in a society you do so by co-existing. You learn what's acceptable and what's not and act accordingly, and so does everyone else in the society. I think this is how we develop our morals. 

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="helium_flash"]

Depends on your upbringing.  Most Atheists that I know were brought up as Christians, and therefore hold many morals that most Christians have.  Of course, I also believe that humans are born with some basic morals, such as not to kill and some others.

The only way we can tell if morals are the same is if somehow we put many many atheists together, and have them raise children and reproduce over a few generations and compare them to the theists.

7guns

Where do you suppose the "basic morals" come from? 

I think morality comes from the cumulative experiences if a civilization that has existed for a sufficiently long period of time. This means that the moral standards of people who lived about thousand of years ago was very different in comparision to the standards of today.

When you grow up in a society you do so by co-existing. You learn what's acceptable and what's not and act accordingly, and so does everyone else in the society. I think this is how we develop our morals. 

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="helium_flash"]

Depends on your upbringing.  Most Atheists that I know were brought up as Christians, and therefore hold many morals that most Christians have.  Of course, I also believe that humans are born with some basic morals, such as not to kill and some others.

The only way we can tell if morals are the same is if somehow we put many many atheists together, and have them raise children and reproduce over a few generations and compare them to the theists.

7guns

Where do you suppose the "basic morals" come from? 

I think morality comes from the cumulative experiences if a civilization that has existed for a sufficiently long period of time. This means that the moral standards of people who lived about thousand of years ago was very different in comparision to the standards of today.

When you grow up in a society you do so by co-existing. You learn what's acceptable and what's not and act accordingly, and so does everyone else in the society. I think this is how we develop our morals. 

So you don't believe morality is absolute? 

[QUOTE="7guns"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="helium_flash"]

Depends on your upbringing.  Most Atheists that I know were brought up as Christians, and therefore hold many morals that most Christians have.  Of course, I also believe that humans are born with some basic morals, such as not to kill and some others.

The only way we can tell if morals are the same is if somehow we put many many atheists together, and have them raise children and reproduce over a few generations and compare them to the theists.

Lansdowne5

Where do you suppose the "basic morals" come from? 

I think morality comes from the cumulative experiences if a civilization that has existed for a sufficiently long period of time. This means that the moral standards of people who lived about thousand of years ago was very different in comparision to the standards of today.

When you grow up in a society you do so by co-existing. You learn what's acceptable and what's not and act accordingly, and so does everyone else in the society. I think this is how we develop our morals. 

So you don't believe morality is absolute? 

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="7guns"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"][QUOTE="helium_flash"]

Depends on your upbringing.  Most Atheists that I know were brought up as Christians, and therefore hold many morals that most Christians have.  Of course, I also believe that humans are born with some basic morals, such as not to kill and some others.

The only way we can tell if morals are the same is if somehow we put many many atheists together, and have them raise children and reproduce over a few generations and compare them to the theists.

Funky_Llama

Where do you suppose the "basic morals" come from? 

I think morality comes from the cumulative experiences if a civilization that has existed for a sufficiently long period of time. This means that the moral standards of people who lived about thousand of years ago was very different in comparision to the standards of today.

When you grow up in a society you do so by co-existing. You learn what's acceptable and what's not and act accordingly, and so does everyone else in the society. I think this is how we develop our morals. 

So you don't believe morality is absolute? 

It seems that way indeed. :)

It seems that way indeed. :)

Lansdowne5

[QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

It seems that way indeed. :)

Funky_Llama

We should construt a cage for you and lans, so we can push sticks through the bars and prod you with them. :P

Stupid objies! :x:P

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Lansdowne5"]

It seems that way indeed. :)

MetalGear_Ninty

We should construt a cage for you and lans, so we can push sticks through the bars and prod you with them. :P

Stupid objies! :x:P

I'm not exactly sure what "morally equivalent" means, but on the assumption that it means "equally good," I'd say religion can inject a healthy dose of moral constraint into people who might otherwise play fast and loose with right and wrong. On the other hand, some people manage to live morally upright lives without any direct help from religion. We don't NEED religion to be moral, and so maybe this dynamic will change in the future. Right now I'd guess religious people have a better chance of avoiding the generic "evils" due to their fear of God's wrath and their hope for God's approval. Elraptor

Generally, note the generally, I'd agree with Elraptor here.  But two phrases in his very good post stuck out: "We don't NEED religion to be moral" and "religious people have a better chance of avoiding the generic "evils" due to their fear of God's wrath & hope for God's approval".  On the Atheism side I agree.  On the Christian/religious side I see this as a crutch or something holding some people back.  Why do something right out of fear that God will punish you?  Why not do the right thing to begin with?  When the plane crashed into the Hudson River in NY last week my mom and I were discussing it.  She went the miracle route, while I informed her of the pilots expertise, and other factors, which was it?  Why must we have some divine being to explain when good or bad things happen?  Can't they be good or bad choices that led to these events?

I'm not exactly sure what "morally equivalent" means, but on the assumption that it means "equally good," I'd say religion can inject a healthy dose of moral constraint into people who might otherwise play fast and loose with right and wrong. On the other hand, some people manage to live morally upright lives without any direct help from religion. We don't NEED religion to be moral, and so maybe this dynamic will change in the future. Right now I'd guess religious people have a better chance of avoiding the generic "evils" due to their fear of God's wrath and their hope for God's approval. Elraptor

[QUOTE="Elraptor"]I'm not exactly sure what "morally equivalent" means, but on the assumption that it means "equally good," I'd say religion can inject a healthy dose of moral constraint into people who might otherwise play fast and loose with right and wrong. On the other hand, some people manage to live morally upright lives without any direct help from religion. We don't NEED religion to be moral, and so maybe this dynamic will change in the future. Right now I'd guess religious people have a better chance of avoiding the generic "evils" due to their fear of God's wrath and their hope for God's approval. Funky_Llama

Me thinks you said the same thing as I meant, only hundreds of words less. :)

I'm not exactly sure what "morally equivalent" means, but on the assumption that it means "equally good," I'd say religion can inject a healthy dose of moral constraint into people who might otherwise play fast and loose with right and wrong. On the other hand, some people manage to live morally upright lives without any direct help from religion. We don't NEED religion to be moral, and so maybe this dynamic will change in the future. Right now I'd guess religious people have a better chance of avoiding the generic "evils" due to their fear of God's wrath and their hope for God's approval. Elraptor

[QUOTE="Elraptor"]I'm not exactly sure what "morally equivalent" means, but on the assumption that it means "equally good," I'd say religion can inject a healthy dose of moral constraint into people who might otherwise play fast and loose with right and wrong. On the other hand, some people manage to live morally upright lives without any direct help from religion. We don't NEED religion to be moral, and so maybe this dynamic will change in the future. Right now I'd guess religious people have a better chance of avoiding the generic "evils" due to their fear of God's wrath and their hope for God's approval. Funky_Llama

[QUOTE="Elraptor"]I'm not exactly sure what "morally equivalent" means, but on the assumption that it means "equally good," I'd say religion can inject a healthy dose of moral constraint into people who might otherwise play fast and loose with right and wrong. On the other hand, some people manage to live morally upright lives without any direct help from religion. We don't NEED religion to be moral, and so maybe this dynamic will change in the future. Right now I'd guess religious people have a better chance of avoiding the generic "evils" due to their fear of God's wrath and their hope for God's approval. CptJSparrow

On a related note, I think the latter incentive has become more important as time goes by. Compare today's evangelical churches to the churches one would find during America's Great Awakenings and you'll see the difference. "Christ the Redeemer" has caught up a bit with "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Elraptor"]I'm not exactly sure what "morally equivalent" means, but on the assumption that it means "equally good," I'd say religion can inject a healthy dose of moral constraint into people who might otherwise play fast and loose with right and wrong. On the other hand, some people manage to live morally upright lives without any direct help from religion. We don't NEED religion to be moral, and so maybe this dynamic will change in the future. Right now I'd guess religious people have a better chance of avoiding the generic "evils" due to their fear of God's wrath and their hope for God's approval. Elraptor

Also, even consequentialist morality doesn't necessarily assert that people's goodness is to be measured by their actions' consequences; only that actions' goodness is to be measured by their consequences. So even from a utilitarian perspective, if I try to kill you but end up somehow benefiting you instead, I'm still a bad person.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="Elraptor"]I'm not exactly sure what "morally equivalent" means, but on the assumption that it means "equally good," I'd say religion can inject a healthy dose of moral constraint into people who might otherwise play fast and loose with right and wrong. On the other hand, some people manage to live morally upright lives without any direct help from religion. We don't NEED religion to be moral, and so maybe this dynamic will change in the future. Right now I'd guess religious people have a better chance of avoiding the generic "evils" due to their fear of God's wrath and their hope for God's approval. Elraptor

That's the thing though, I would assume a lot of people in this union would view morality from a purely consequentialist perspective.

To some extent that may be true, but speaking from a (former) fundamentalist perspective, I can say with confidence that at least SOME Christians' fear of God and desire for his approval are not mere manifestations of purely social constraints. I was a sociology major; I'll always recognize the role of social constraints backed by internal and external sanctions. However, that does not replace the unalloyed spiritual fear and intimidation you'll find in (at least some) orthodox Christian dogma, coupled with, on the brighter side, the genuine desire to please an almighty and (confusingly) beneficent God.

On a related note, I think the latter incentive has become more important as time goes by. Compare today's evangelical churches to the churches one would find during America's Great Awakenings and you'll see the difference. "Christ the Redeemer" has caught up a bit with "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."

Elraptor

[QUOTE="Elraptor"]To some extent that may be true, but speaking from a (former) fundamentalist perspective, I can say with confidence that at least SOME Christians' fear of God and desire for his approval are not mere manifestations of purely social constraints. I was a sociology major; I'll always recognize the role of social constraints backed by internal and external sanctions. However, that does not replace the unalloyed spiritual fear and intimidation you'll find in (at least some) orthodox Christian dogma, coupled with, on the brighter side, the genuine desire to please an almighty and (confusingly) beneficent God.

On a related note, I think the latter incentive has become more important as time goes by. Compare today's evangelical churches to the churches one would find during America's Great Awakenings and you'll see the difference. "Christ the Redeemer" has caught up a bit with "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God."

CptJSparrow

Functionally, yes, it is undoutedly better. But still, that doesn't imply that being good for selfish reasons makes you a good person.

Also, even consequentialist morality doesn't necessarily assert that people's goodness is to be measured by their actions' consequences; only that actions' goodness is to be measured by their consequences. So even from a utilitarian perspective, if I try to kill you but end up somehow benefiting you instead, I'm still a bad person.Funky_Llama

Interestingly, I think you could do that with rule consequentialism, which relies on generalities. So, assume that unjustified homicide generally has undesirable consequences (i.e. it increases the sum total of unhappiness). If that's true, the oddball "benefit" that you somehow bestowed on me by trying to kill me is irrelevant when we assess your behavior. 

Spiritual fear isn't supposed to be a term of art; it was just my way of describing the fear of damnation, the fear of God's disapproval, the fear of judgment from heaven.Elraptor

No christian morals are counterbalanced by an extra group that has nothing to do with reality or actual consequence. 

There is an excellent TED speech I wanted to link talking about this in greater detail but when looking to quote myself from a conservative christian union, I see that my post and link is now deleted.  :evil::evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Sitri_

Not exactly theists/atheist but this is an excellent conservative/liberal speech.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Functionally, yes, it is undoutedly better. But still, that doesn't imply that being good for selfish reasons makes you a good person.

Also, even consequentialist morality doesn't necessarily assert that people's goodness is to be measured by their actions' consequences; only that actions' goodness is to be measured by their consequences. So even from a utilitarian perspective, if I try to kill you but end up somehow benefiting you instead, I'm still a bad person.Elraptor

Interestingly, I think you could do that with rule consequentialism, which relies on generalities. So, assume that unjustified homicide generally has undesirable consequences (i.e. it increases the sum total of unhappiness). If that's true, the oddball "benefit" that you somehow bestowed on me by trying to kill me is irrelevant when we assess your behavior.