Atheists are the moral ones

[Synthaholic]

 

[theHawk]

Ya, you Atheists can't stand it if a terrorist or thug gets his due, but an unborn baby being cut to pieces doesn't bother you.

Atheist morality =)

 

[S.J.]

Oh yeah, you're real moral, aren't you? Your morality shines through as you're butchering babies.

 

[hipeter924]

Having a belief in a religion, or lack thereof is not mutually exclusive to agreeing with abortion.

As for torture, if you look at the graph, it shows non religious are more evenly divided on the issue of torture i.e. roughly 46% vs 54%, hardly a big push either way.

 

[cnm]

Enough, apparently, to drop the overall support for torture from 70% to 59% and to raise the opposition to torture from 22% to 30%. Seems significant to me. Imagine if the Christians were let loose to follow their inclinations without restraint, it'd be like Purgatory on Earth.

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

I don't necessarily agree with torture under all circumstances...except for democrats. Torture against them is OK even if you're just doing it for fun. Restrain them then cut up their welfare checks, their SSI checks, and their food stamp debit card if really want to make them scream. If you want to hear the absolute nadir of blood-curdling screams however, wave a job application form under their noses. Even the UN considers that one torture most egregious.

 

[theHawk]

I don't necessarily agree with torture under all circumstances...except for democrats. Torture against them is OK even if you're just doing it for fun. Restrain them then cut up their welfare checks, their SSI checks, and their food stamp debit card if really want to make them scream. If you want to hear the absolute nadir of blood-curdling screams however, wave a job application form under their noses. Even the UN considers that torture most egregious.

LMAO

 

[DriftingSand]

1) I'm Christian and fully opposed to torture.
2) Atheists don't believe in God so they aren't bound by a moral standard. Without a moral standard they feel free to so as they will. As a consequence we have the historical record of men like Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Pol Pot, and many others. Between those three alone are attributed the deaths of more than 100 million people (many of whom were tortured prior to their untimely death).
3) Unborn babies feel pain. That's a proven fact. Is it not torture to grab a baby by the head with a pair of forceps then rip the head off? Is it not torture to burn that child with a saline solution? Articles The Real Torture Scandal in America & Unborn babies can feel pain during abortion

To the OP: Stop with your sickening hypocrisy.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, I believe atheists are more moral.

On a fundamental level, they do what is right because it is right. When an atheist does charity work or gives to a charity, there is no ulterior motive. Religious people do it because of the reward promised or the threat of burning in hell.

 

[cnm]

1) I'm Christian and fully opposed to torture.

Which category, as a matter of curiosity?

2) Atheists don't believe in God so they aren't bound by a moral standard. Without a moral standard they feel free to so as they will.

And yet the data from the survey would appear to imply that what they feel free to do is not support torture to the same extent as the various sects of Christians.

 

[DriftingSand]

Yes, I believe atheists are more moral.

On a fundamental level, they do what is right because it is right. When an atheist does charity work or gives to a charity, there is no ulterior motive. Religious people do it because of the reward promised or the threat of burning in hell.

1) I can name a LOT more Christian charities than I can atheist charities.
2) How do you know what another person's "ulterior motive" is? Are atheists mind-readers?
3) On a fundamental level I became a lot more moral and charitable when I recognized my position and status under my Creator God. That's a fact!!
4) Giving to charities isn't going to keep a person from going to hell so that isn't my motive for giving. I give because I care. However, I do have an ulterior motive when I give: it makes me feel good.

 

[DriftingSand]

1) I'm Christian and fully opposed to torture.

Which category, as a matter of curiosity?

2) Atheists don't believe in God so they aren't bound by a moral standard. Without a moral standard they feel free to so as they will.

And yet the data from the survey would appear to imply that what they feel free to do is not support torture to the same extent as the various sects of Christians.

1) The New Testament "category."
2) I don't know even one Christian who supports torture of any sort and most of my Christian friends (and family members) belong to different denominations.

 

[cnm]

1) The New Testament "category."

Is that 'White Evangelical Protestant'?

2) I don't know even one Christian who supports torture of any sort and most of my Christian friends (and family members) belong to different denominations.

I interact with a few (self declared) on forums. There's a small crossover, but Republican Christians appear to support torture far more than atheists or Democrats. In fact they're really for it. Some atheists and Democrats support torture.

Do you accept the data shown in the OP? Admittedly all the Christian categories included 'white'.

 

[DriftingSand]

1) The New Testament "category."

Is that 'White Evangelical Protestant'?

2) I don't know even one Christian who supports torture of any sort and most of my Christian friends (and family members) belong to different denominations.

I interact with a few (self declared) on forums. There's a small crossover, but Republican Christians appear to support torture far more than atheists or Democrats. In fact they're really for it. Some atheists and Democrats support torture.

Do you accept the data shown in the OP? Admittedly all the Christian categories included 'white'.

No. That's simply "Christian." No other qualifiers are necessary. Not all Christians are white. Some are even of Arabic ethnicity. Sorry to burst you itty bitty bubble.

 

[cnm]

I don't know that anyone said a qualifier was necessary. One may be useful to correlate with other data. Nor do I know which bubble you've popped. One of your own invention I'm guessing.

 

[DriftingSand]

I don't know that anyone said a qualifier was necessary. One may be useful to correlate with other data. Nor do I know which bubble you've popped. One of your own invention I'm guessing.

No ... just that bubble that's blinded your sense of good judgment.

You clearly have a problem with "white evangelical Protestants." In one sentence you use three qualifiers: a) white Christian, b) evangelical Christian, c) Protestant Christian. However, one needs not be white, evangelical, or Protestant to be a Christian.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Neither extremist side is acting morally with the condemnations.

 

[cnm]

No ... just that bubble that's blinded your sense of good judgment.

You clearly have a problem with "white evangelical Protestants." In one sentence you use three qualifiers: a) white Christian, b) evangelical Christian, c) Protestant Christian. However, one needs not be white, evangelical, or Protestant to be a Christian.

Are you blind? Those were category labels in the graph in the OP under discussion. Did you not bother reading it?

 

[cnm]

Neither extremist side is acting morally with the condemnations.

I don't understand. What are the extremist sides and to what condemnations do you refer?

 

[guno]

Not only can you have morals (Ethics)without religion, but any religious source for morality is demonstrably amoral at best, and frequently completely immoral.

Most religion-based moral codes have completely inconsistent definitions of "good" and "bad", which in practice amount to little more than lists of things which are considered "good" or "bad", with little respect for whether any of these things can actually be demonstrated to be "good" or "bad". In religious context, something is "good" if the religion says it's good (even if it's demonstrably bad by any other standard, like demonizing or killing those with different beliefs or ritually mutilating infants), and something is "bad" if the religion says it's bad (again, even if it's demonstrably good by other standards, like questioning authority or equality between the sexes). This is not morality. It's just a dictated set of entirely arbitrary rules intended to control a population and glorify religion. That religions frequently claim that this *is* morality is nothing other than a deliberate corruption of the very concept, and worse, that many religions claim to be the only acceptable source of morality while preaching a deliberate perversion of natural morality is itself *deeply* immoral. But just in case that wasn't bad enough, many religions then exempt their followers from taking responsibility for their own actions, blaming some "evil spirit" or another (Satan) for anything "bad" they might do within the religious culture, giving them ample justifications for committing all manner of demonstrably bad acts outwith the culture without risk of censure, and finally saying that all "sins" will be forgiven if they devoutly follow the religion.

Religion distorts and cheapens morality for its own ends