Question for Everyone: What differentiates Christian Morality from Atheist?

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Question for Everyone: What differentiates Christian Morality from Atheist?

 I just stunned myself with a rather interesting thought.  I was thinking about how Francis Collins' evangelical Christian beliefs might get in the way of his objectivity as director of the NIH.  When it came down to brass tacks, I could only think of a few areas where Christians typically differ from atheists in their assessment of what is good or bad morally:

1) Sex.  Most Christians have some kind of non-scientific view of sex.  Abstinence before marriage, masturbation is bad, etc, etc.  

2) Abortion.  The overwhelming majority of people who support banning abortion are Christians.  It's damn hard to find a non-theist who favors banning abortion.

3) Marriage, childbearing, childrearing.  Christians think of marriage as a magic pact between god and two people.  Atheists don't.  Some Christians think of children as the manifestation of God's will.  Atheists tend to view them as the result of sexual intercourse.

4) Homosexuality.  Many Christians believe homosexuality is immoral.  Most atheists do not.

Can anyone think of any common Christian moral beliefs that differ substantially from a naturalist morality?

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I can't really think of any

I can't really think of any important distinctions.

You covered most of the big ones. It's all related to sex somehow.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Sex and god are the big

Sex and god are the big ones. But smaller conflicts can arise. Example: I don't think theft is inherrantly wrong, but according to the bible a christian must.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh, what about euthanasia

Oh, what about euthanasia used on terminally ill patients, in a vegetative state, etc.?

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
The concept of morality is

The concept of morality is BS to me. I was think of reasons why Christian morality is an inferior system for mankind to live under here are some reasons:

1. Christians can't have unconditional love. There love and morality is conditional upon God existing. If they had proof God did not exist, they would stop loving people(because this must come from God) and stop treating people with any respect. An atheist can love unconditionally, we don't have to change our values because of some new scientific discovery. A theist is threatened by scientific facts that contradict the Bible.

2. For Christians, how you treat other people doesn't really matter if you think you are doing God's will. This makes a truly cooperative society impossible. All one must do to justify any act is say "It's God's will". The impact on others is secondary.

3. Christians don't need to be much concerned with the environment.

4. Christians can't oppose the authority of those that are more powerful, one should cede to the will of the powerful. This not only applies to God and pastors, but also husbands over wives, and politicians over citizens.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:3. Christians

EXC wrote:
3. Christians don't need to be much concerned with the environment.

Atheist do? Most people aren't concerned with the environment, China and India sure don't. Most individuals don't, the notion of the effects on generations long after their gone, is given as much affection as a stranger's fetus, for atheist.

Do you have some sort of magical argument for the many irreligious folk I know just like this? There's nothing irrational, or even unscientific, or religious, about saying I choose to live my life for the here and now, to tend to my immediate concerns, not to sacrifice my life in better for a world I'm no longer going to be a part of. 

Secular Indians walked by impoverished children all the time, and do nothing about it, unconcerned about their welfare, and being, and atheism has some fairy does "concern" quality does it? A woman holding her six month old child, was molested for 45 minutes on septa train the other day, in broad daylight, while everyone else around her, were in their own worlds, self-absorbed, and detached from the people around them. 

Quote:
4. Christians can't oppose the authority of those that are more powerful, one should cede to the will of the powerful. This not only applies to God and pastors, but also husbands over wives, and politicians over citizens.

Really? The early christians weren't slaughtered in mass for defying, and opposing authority? The Sermon on the Mount is all about defying authority. 

To quote Paul:

"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Eph 6:12)."

The difference between most notions of defiance, and the christian notion, is that it is to be an act of love, to bring both oppressors and oppressed into the fold of Gods love. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I agree with you on 4,

I agree with you on 4, religions only valuable trait is its capability to overthrow tyranny's. But you're way off on 3. Theists believe their god controls everything, and that they are incapable of altering the Earth. As a result, they have less than no motivation in general. Simply by not having that handicap, an atheist is infinitely more likely to care about the environment. The only people I've ever encountered who cared about the environment to the point of altering activities were atheist or agnostic. Which is not to say we all do, simply that we're a lot more likely to.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:. Theists

Vastet wrote:
. Theists believe their god controls everything, and that they are incapable of altering the Earth.

And this is blatantly false, all the major branches, from evangelicals, to Catholics, to mainline Christianity, have explicitly advocated care for the environment. 

This is statement from the National Association of Evangelicals, which encompasses 30 millions members, and 50,000 Evangelical Churches in the US alone:

"We affirm that God-given dominion is a sacred responsibility to steward the earth and not a license to abuse the creation of which we are a part," said the statement, which has been distributed to 50,000 member churches. "Because clean air, pure water, and adequate resources are crucial to public health and civic order, government has an obligation to protect its citizens from the effects of environmental degradation."

This statement has been signed by the likes of James Dobson, Ted Haggard (prior to his fall), Chuck Holson and etc. Even the Evangelical publication Christianity Today declared: ""Christians should make it clear to governments and businesses that we are willing to adapt our lifestyles and support steps towards changes that protect our environment."

I could continue on, quoting from the Pope, Charity in Truth, that painted the crucial concern of the catholic church and the environment, the Lutheran church and etc... But the fact is all the majors branches of Christianity have adopted similar statements. 

So what was that again, about theist believing they are incapable of altering the earth? Pure bull shit.

Secondly, atheism/disbelief doesn't holds some magic, it's not a worldview, it's not a religion, it doesn't have any magical concerns attached to it, or that appear once one becomes a disbeliever, though individuals such as yourself may believe superstitiously that it does. 

The wide majority of non-religious individuals I know, don't care too much about the environment. Their concerns are about their everyday living, making ends meet, tending to their family, not the issues concerning generations far apart from them, this is not to say their lack of religion, or belief is the cause of this at all. China's and India's disregard for environmental concerns, are not so because of religiosity, but rather the concerns of their everyday living in the here and now. Being unconcerned, having a lack of empathy in regards to the future generations, is not the result of being irrational, or even unscientific, and you don't get individuals magically concerned by such arguments either. It's a dilemma with very few solutions available, and if someone is to find it, it's not going to be scientist, artists perhaps, but not scientist. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Guys, let's not get too off

Guys, let's not get too off track here.  I'm specifically talking about Christians, not theists in general.  I'm not interested in the fringes of Christianity, like Jehovah's Witness, Mormons, or Westboro Baptist.  I'm talking about mainstream Christianity, from fundamentalists like Southern Baptists and Evangelicals to Liberals like Episcopalians.

I want to know things that an average Christian, picked at random from a bunch of Christians would be likely to believe.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Since we're throwing around

Since we're throwing around anecdotes, I might as well interject that it has been my experience that the only thing Christians have in common is a belief in God and Jesus.

 

 

Their views on abortion, sex, marriage, homosexuality are rather diverse.

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Bullshit alert. The

Bullshit alert. The religious right has been the cornerstone of such environmentally unfriendly activities as ignoring global warming and perpetrating lies to cloud the issue. That's just one.
Sorry Hamby, can't let bs slide by.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:1) Sex.

Hambydammit wrote:

1) Sex.  Most Christians have some kind of non-scientific view of sex.  Abstinence before marriage, masturbation is bad, etc, etc.  

Most Christians, just like most individuals, attach some sense of "sacredness" or "specialness" to sex, most woman desire for their first time to be special, to be lost to someone they care for or love, and not to a random dude they met at a bar. Husbands and wives, desire for sex to be something "special" or "sacred" between each other, and not shared with others as hand shakes are. Most parents do not desire their daughters to be promiscuous, they want her to have some value over her body and sexuality, they desire for her to have some sense of "sacredness" for it. We have pragmatic reasons for this, such as we don't desire for men to see woman as mere sexual objects, or woman to see themselves as merely sexual objects for men, and sexual lust can be disastrous to families, communities, etc.. as the love of money can be. 

We attach sacredness to all sorts of things, such as "human life", compared to the life of roaches. And even though most of us have some sense of "sacredness" attached to the lives of some other animals other than ourselves, such as dogs, PETA members often extend this sense of sacredness to flies. There's no fixed point of "sacredness", such as the abortion debate, where most individuals, theist and atheist alike don't support late term abortions, other than in extreme circumstances. Most of us attach some sacredness to a level of the child's development before it's actually conceived, but we just differ on where that level begins. 

We all desire to cultivate some sense of sacredness attached to sexuality, but we disagree on exactly where that level begins. 

Quote:
2) Abortion.  The overwhelming majority of people who support banning abortion are Christians.  It's damn hard to find a non-theist who favors banning abortion.

Refer to the above. 

But the reason, why individuals attach sacredness to fetuses, can be easily seen if you ever watched a an expectant mother, or father, fawning over sonograms, moved by the first trace of life appearing in a womb. It's not just a mere lump of cells to the expecting mothers, and fathers, but something deeply sacred, something meaningful, and valued. Such individuals who attach a sense of sacredness more heavily than others do, turn to communities that share in that sense of sacredness, and this primarily being "religious communities", while individuals who attach a sense of sacredness more heavily to animal life than most of us do, turn to groups such as PETA.

Attaching sacredness to things, may all be "unscientific", in the same sense the value of a gift is "unscientific" to the receiver. An economist would say the value of the dress is merely it's price, the wife whose received it, attaches a sense of value to it much more so than that. 

Quote:
3) Marriage, childbearing, childrearing.  Christians think of marriage as a magic pact between god and two people.  Atheists don't.  Some Christians think of children as the manifestation of God's will.  Atheists tend to view them as the result of sexual intercourse.

All these terms, such "a pact between god and two people", or the "manifestation of God's will", are for the sake of claiming the sacredness of something, it's attaching a value to something more so than it scientific or economic price. We all do this. Believers may use religious language to express this sense of value, and atheist would resort to some other sort of aesthetic language. 

 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Bullshit alert.

Vastet wrote:
Bullshit alert. The religious right has been the cornerstone of such environmentally unfriendly activities as ignoring global warming and perpetrating lies to cloud the issue. That's just one. Sorry Hamby, can't let bs slide by.

This is what you said: "Theists believe their god controls everything, and that they are incapable of altering the Earth."

This is your strawmen, that you need to now confront. There is no major theist denomination that claims this (including the religious right), in fact they all claim the exact opposite. What ever reason, certain theist groups are unfriendly towards certain environmentalist pursuits, it's definitely not because of a religious belief that they are incapable of altering the environment. 

Are you going to concede this point? Or do you prefer to continue peddling your delusion.

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
All I may be guilty of is

All I may be guilty of is generalising. If you don't think theists, and christians in particular, believe this en masse, then you don't know many of them. Do a google search and learn something for once.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:1) Sex.

Hambydammit wrote:

1) Sex.  Most Christians have some kind of non-scientific view of sex.  Abstinence before marriage, masturbation is bad, etc, etc.

Most of the Christians I know are fine with premaritial sex. I would say that this is because everyone I know lives in Southern California, but since the Bible Belt has higher rates of teen pregnancy, they apparently are more comfortable with premaritial sex that we are in California. Unless Christians elsewhere in the US are very different than the ones I know, I'm going to say that this is just wrong.

The other three points seem correct, but that first one contradicts my experiences with Christian friends and family members that I know are engaged or were engaged in premaritial sex.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:All I may be

Vastet wrote:
All I may be guilty of is generalizing. If you don't think theists, and Christians in particular, believe this en masse, then you don't know many of them. Do a google search and learn something for once.

wow, the mighty google search? You ever heard of selection bias? I might as well say, upon discovering MattShizzle, I know all about atheist. You're in serous need of developing your critical thinking faculties.

You will not find any major christian denomination, including the christian right, that claims that man "is incapable of altering the earth", what you will find is statements saying the exact opposite, that's a fact. 

So give it up, intellectual honesty demands that you concede the point, your delusions on the other hand, beg otherwise. Keep denying reality, and I'm going to continue amusing myself, at your expense.

Your choice buddy. 

 

 

 

 

 


Subdi Visions
Bronze Member
Subdi Visions's picture
Posts: 278
Joined: 2007-10-29
User is offlineOffline
Environment

christians giving a fuck about the environment is a rather recent development. Probably as a means to lessen the damage done by many years of publicly and profusely not giving a fuck. Why should they? The raptures right around the corner after all. But then again maybe not and all that mocking of scientific proof that we, humans, are fucking up the planet causing global warming isn't helping the GOP retain their sheep.

The primary reason theists care about the unborn is because the more people there are the more of them there will be to help refill the coffers. Its all about filling the coffers.

Hambydammit wrote:
"What differentiates Christian Morality from Atheist?"

We don't need a make believe deity to do the right thing by our fellow man/woman. Not that we're all perfect in applying the Golden Rule but in general...

 

Respectfully,
Lenny

"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Subdi Visions

Subdi Visions wrote:

Christians giving a fuck about the environment is a rather recent development.

Environmentalism is a recent development, anyone giving a fuck about the environment is a rather recent development. 

Quote:
The primary reason theists care about the unborn is because the more people there are the more of them there will be to help refill the coffers. 

This isn't even worthy of an argument, but it's spoken like the dribble and delusional nonsense of those particular theist you deride. 


Di66en6ion
Di66en6ion's picture
Posts: 106
Joined: 2009-01-03
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Vastet

theTwelve wrote:

Vastet wrote:
All I may be guilty of is generalizing. If you don't think theists, and Christians in particular, believe this en masse, then you don't know many of them. Do a google search and learn something for once.

wow, the mighty google search? You ever heard of selection bias? I might as well say, upon discovering MattShizzle, I know all about atheist. You're in serous need of developing your critical thinking faculties.

You will not find any major christian denomination, including the christian right, that claims that man "is incapable of altering the earth", what you will find is statements saying the exact opposite, that's a fact. 

So give it up, intellectual honesty demands that you concede the point, your delusions on the other hand, beg otherwise. Keep denying reality, and I'm going to continue amusing myself, at your expense.

Your choice buddy. 

 

It's a little inbetween. I've heard a lot of Christians argue that oil was a gift from God and we should use it. Many may advocate care for the environment but when it comes down to it they're too fucking lazy to push anything through. I think this applies to everyone though. 

 

On a side note and what I think has been carried out in another thread was overpopulation vs. population control. Most religious people are against any kind of population control (especially abortion) and yet will ignore the glooming reality that overpopulation could starve out a large part of our population within a generation or two. Just saying we'll deal with it when we get there is a terrible philosophy. 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Di66en6ion wrote: I think

Di66en6ion wrote:

 I think this applies to everyone though.

I agree. But I don't call it laziness, but that most people's actual level of concern is finicky and weak, particularly when it involves significant sacrifices and expenses in their daily life..

Di66en6ion wrote:
Most religious people are against any kind of population control (especially abortion) and yet will ignore the glooming reality that overpopulation could starve out a large part of our population 

I doubt this as well, most religious people may oppose abortion, but I'd wager very few of them wouldn't support education, teaching individuals that having a harvest of children is not a good idea. And besides abortion, I don't know what other sort of "population control" most theist would oppose, that wouldn't also apply to most atheist.

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
How ironic that you mention

How ironic that you mention Matt, since you're so much like him. Also thanks for destroying whatever credibility you had. Google > You. Please do continue to amuse me by making a total moron of yourself here and in the other threads you are also being owned in. Gives me a reason to check the forum more often.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Kavis
atheist
Kavis's picture
Posts: 191
Joined: 2008-04-17
User is offlineOffline
Christian morality also

Christian morality also objects to such medical practices as dignified death and genetic engineering. There's been a lot of outrage over research involving inserting human genes into nonhuman chromosomes, apparently for fear that scientists are working on making the Island of Dr. Moreau into nonfiction.

Religion is a virus.
Fight the infection.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Yay! It's data time! The

Yay! It's data time!

 

The Abstience/sex education

http://naral-pca.wsm.ga0.org/assets/files/Sex-Ed-Responsible.pdf

 

Article wrote:

A 2004 poll revealed that only seven percent of Americans believe teachers should not
provide sex education in schools.

 

A 2002 study revealed that 90 percent of the “engaged” public supports age‐appropriate and
medically accurate sex education for all students beginning in the early grades and
continuing through high school.

 

Ninety‐nine percent of Americans believe it is
appropriate for young people to have information
about STDs, and 94 percent of Americans think it is
appropriate to teach young people about birth
control.

 

 

 

Abortion

http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/More-Americans-Pro-Life-Than-Pro-Choice-First-Time.aspx

 

 

 

 

 

Global warming*

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now you know and knowing is half the battle!

 

 

 

 

*Note that the survey said "overestimated" it did not specify what they think is over estimated and by how much

 

 

 


theTwelve
TheistTroll
theTwelve's picture
Posts: 227
Joined: 2009-07-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:How ironic that

Vastet wrote:
How ironic that you mention Matt, since you're so much like him. Also thanks for destroying whatever credibility you had. Google > You.

Haha, i never said google, but your particular and shoddy google search. And it's actually you're dimwitted google search < the actual statements by the various leaders, and councils of all the major christian denominations, in determining the views of most theist, in regards to if man is capable of altering the environment or not. I never said my opinion is greater than yours, but the opinions of the actual denominations in claims of their views are greater than yours.

But keep embarrassing yourself with such utter stupidity, and piss poor thinking. I'm rather enjoying it.

Quote:
Please do continue to amuse me by making a total moron of yourself here and in the other threads you are also being owned in.

Smiling

even more delusional arguments. Notice no one is coming in to support you views on theism and the enviroment. Instead the ones that have put their two sense on the topic have said things such as this:

"christians giving a fuck about the environment is a rather recent development. " and this "many may advocate care for the environment."

And if you feel that i've been owned in some thread let me know, tell me what view I hold or held, has been owned? Do other individuals here believe I was owned by you here? Or the other way around? What do the rest of you all think? Do other individuals here believe I was owned in the various other threads? If so, which ones, by who,  and how so.

 

 


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:I know all

theTwelve wrote:

I know all about atheist. You're in serous need of developing your critical thinking faculties.

 

Twelve, dude, just pick a side.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Screw this, I give

Screw this, I give up.

 

While I think Twelve is an arrogant prick, he may be on to something, but instead of the Shizzler, I'll use Mr. Brown as my standard as to what atheists are like.

 

Kevin's arrogance and sheer assholeness reflects lots of atheists I know, and since it's seemingly okay to rely on anecdotes for this, then I guess mine is just as valid as everybody elses.

 

Oh and I know not all atheists are like Kevin, but the exception doesn't disprove the rule does it?

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Pineapple, thank you for

 Pineapple, thank you for the charts.  A couple are good indicator of what I was looking for.  It's not a perfect indicator, since it doesn't separate Christians from non-theists, but it does give me something to work with.

I have questions that the charts don't answer:

What is the "engaged public"?

In the 2004 poll, how was the question phrased?  Was "Sex Education" defined as comprehensive, abstinence only, or anything else?  Or was it just asking people's general opinion about whether sex ed of any kind should be taught?  Supposing that 40% of Christians believe (just as an example) in abstinence only education, and 40% believe in comprehensive sex ed, and 20% believe in no sex ed, Christians wouldn't significantly alter that poll result if the question left the definition of sex ed open ended.  (In other words, without more information, that poll is useless for my purpose.)

Pro-Choice/Life

We need to know the breakdown of Christian/Non-Christian.  It's been my observation that the vast, vast majority of pro-lifers are Christian.  With a 75% Christian population, we could easily get a 51% number.  If my math is correct, that means about 68% of Christians would be pro-life assuming 75% of the population and 100% of the pro-lifers.  Granting a few percentage points for non-Christian pro-lifers, we are still going to be well over 50%.  If 1 in 2 Christians believe something nationwide, that's good enough for my purposes to count as a belief that's common to Christians.  If you have real numbers I can plug into this, that would help a lot.

Abortion Legality

I need to break this down further.  There are people who believe the only circumstances permissible for abortion are rape and incest.  Others believe before the third trimester is acceptable.  Both of these groups fall under "Permissible in some situations" unless it's clarified more.  This is basically worthless information since a large number of pro-choice people believe third trimester abortions should be illegal.

I'm still thinking about the Global Warming issue.  Neither side has convinced me yet.  That is, I can't decide if I think it's a particularly Christian deal.  I don't know enough about the rest of the world and how Christians/non-Christians break down on the subject.  America is peculiar because our political parties are so clearly divided religiously.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:What is

Hambydammit wrote:

What is the "engaged public"?

In the 2004 poll, how was the question phrased?  Was "Sex Education" defined as comprehensive, abstinence only, or anything else?  Or was it just asking people's general opinion about whether sex ed of any kind should be taught?  Supposing that 40% of Christians believe (just as an example) in abstinence only education, and 40% believe in comprehensive sex ed, and 20% believe in no sex ed, Christians wouldn't significantly alter that poll result if the question left the definition of sex ed open ended.  (In other words, without more information, that poll is useless for my purpose.)

 

This article explains it more

http://www.mtv.com/thinkmtv/about/pdfs/teens_on_sex_ed.pdf

 

Quote:

 

A major study on sex education conducted in the fall of 2003 by National Public Radio, Harvard University, and the Kaiser Family Foundation found that (of three programs described to respondents) the most popular was a middle-ground solution, stressing abstinence but also discussing condoms and contraception. Forty-six percent of respondents chose that option, while 15% chose an "abstinence-only" approach that does not dispense information on contraception, and 36% selected an approach that put less emphasis on teaching abstinence and more on teaching teens to make responsible decisions about sex.

 

 

Only 15% supported absitence only.

 

Hambydammit wrote:

Pro-Choice/Life

We need to know the breakdown of Christian/Non-Christian.  It's been my observation that the vast, vast majority of pro-lifers are Christian.  With a 75% Christian population, we could easily get a 51% number.  If my math is correct, that means about 68% of Christians would be pro-life assuming 75% of the population and 100% of the pro-lifers.  Granting a few percentage points for non-Christian pro-lifers, we are still going to be well over 50%.  If 1 in 2 Christians believe something nationwide, that's good enough for my purposes to count as a belief that's common to Christians.  If you have real numbers I can plug into this, that would help a lot.

 

I was hesitent to post the first chart, because I think the Pro life/choice debate is stupid, there are three position on abortion, not two.

 

The positions are indicated in the second chart, legal in all, legal in some, or not legal in any.

 

[EDIT]

 

Messed up the calculations

 

[/EDIT]

 

 

 

Hambydammit wrote:

 

Abortion Legality

I need to break this down further.  There are people who believe the only circumstances permissible for abortion are rape and incest.  Others believe before the third trimester is acceptable.  Both of these groups fall under "Permissible in some situations" unless it's clarified more.  This is basically worthless information since a large number of pro-choice people believe third trimester abortions should be illegal.

 

 

The survey does not distinguish WHAT restrictions, I can't seem to find any data on it.

 

 

But, if we define "pro-Life" as legal in none, than only 22% of Americans are "pro-life"

 

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh, and another thing, even

Oh, and another thing, even if you show that more than 50% of Christians support X, you still can't say that "Person Y doesn't support X despite their Christianity", unless you show that Christianity is monolithic and non-subjective.

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Pineapple, for fuck's

 Pineapple, for fuck's sake... take that bunch out of your panties.

I asked for numbers because I wanted numbers.  I used hypothetical numbers, said they were hypothetical, and then asked for real numbers to put into the equations.

Trust me... you don't know where I'm going with this.

Your breakdown above doesn't make any sense to me, by the way.  How did you get the pro-choice, pro-life, undecided numbers for Christians/nonchristians?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

 Pineapple, for fuck's sake... take that bunch out of your panties.

 

 

Hambydammit wrote:

 Your breakdown above doesn't make any sense to me, by the way.

 

 

[EDIT]

 

Because I messed up

 

I was trying to get the numbers assuming that of the people in either category were 75% Christian and 25% not,

but I realized that it would have been too much of an assumption. I'll try to look for ones that include religion.

 

 

[/EDIT]

 


 

 

 

 

 

 


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
and she found

and she found it!

 

 http://www.gallup.com/poll/22222/religion-politics-inform-americans-views-abortion.aspx

 

Quote:

Abortion Views by Religious Preference

There is a stark difference in views on abortion between Americans who are Christians and those who are not Christians, i.e., those who identify with a non-Christian religion or no religion at all. While just 20% of Christians say abortion should be legal under any circumstances, a majority of non-Christians (54%) and a large segment of those with no religious preference (39%) agree.

 

 

 

 

So only 22% of Christians think that it should be completly illegal.

 

[I chuckled at "other religion" getting higher than "no religion" for legal in all]

 

 

 

 


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Theists believe

Vastet wrote:
Theists believe their god controls everything, and that they are incapable of altering the Earth.

 

Not necessarily. My gods certainly don't control everything, and I'm pretty sure humans have demonstrated that they are capable of altering the earth.

 

Quote:

As a result, they have less than no motivation in general. Simply by not having that handicap, an atheist is infinitely more likely to care about the environment. The only people I've ever encountered who cared about the environment to the point of altering activities were atheist or agnostic. Which is not to say we all do, simply that we're a lot more likely to.

 

I guess you've never met any pagans; most of them tend to be tree-hugging environmentalist hippies and there are plenty of vegetarians/vegans as well.


Ciarin
Theist
Ciarin's picture
Posts: 778
Joined: 2008-09-08
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Can anyone

Hambydammit wrote:

Can anyone think of any common Christian moral beliefs that differ substantially from a naturalist morality?

 

Christians think morality is objective and comes from their god. Atheists tend to think morality is subjective and doesn't come from a god or religion.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Really? The

theTwelve wrote:

Really? The early christians weren't slaughtered in mass for defying, and opposing authority? The Sermon on the Mount is all about defying authority. 

Well the official religion of the Roman empire was to worship the state/emperor. I think the early were mainly punished for trying to set up an illegal religion. Is there any record of the early Christians starting a revolution to overthrow Roman authority? I don't think they did much to oppose the state.

How is the sermon on the mount defying authority? It says turn the other check, so if the government fucks you over just take it right? Also, Jesus taught "render under Cesar what is Caesar's" to the people that oppose Roman authority over taxes.

 

theTwelve wrote:

To quote Paul:

"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Eph 6:12)."

The difference between most notions of defiance, and the christian notion, is that it is to be an act of love, to bring both oppressors and oppressed into the fold of Gods love. 

I thought this is teaching is about not to oppose the rulers of this world(i.e Rome). That the real enemy is these invisible demons and devils. Also, Paul writes that Christians should submit to those in authority(it's God's will that they have power) and pay whatever taxes they demand. Am I wrong in my interpretation of the Bible?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Since

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Since we're throwing around anecdotes, I might as well interject that it has been my experience that the only thing Christians have in common is a belief in God and Jesus.

Their views on abortion, sex, marriage, homosexuality are rather diverse.

 

You're right. I was basing what I wrote on what the bible actually teaches. But Christians all pick and choose what to believe and interpret. So basically their 'morality' is relative, they can make the bible say whatever they want to support doing what they would do anyways.

Convenience is their real god. But then that's true for all humanity.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Could Twelve make a bigger

Could Twelve make a bigger fool of himself than by insinuating that Google isn't a search engine, even though Google is the definition of search engine? Stay tuned! Same batty time, same batty channel!

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 

So the few christians that say abortion is OKAY, are the bad christians that don't go to church Sticking out tongue

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

 

Right wing = evangelical fundamentalist nutter correlation continues to hold true


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Thank you middle America.


cervello_marcio
Superfan
cervello_marcio's picture
Posts: 210
Joined: 2009-05-19
User is offlineOffline
theTwelve wrote:Quote:4.

theTwelve wrote:

Quote:
4. Christians can't oppose the authority of those that are more powerful, one should cede to the will of the powerful. This not only applies to God and pastors, but also husbands over wives, and politicians over citizens.

Really? The early christians weren't slaughtered in mass for defying, and opposing authority? The Sermon on the Mount is all about defying authority. 

To quote Paul:

"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world-rulers of this darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places (Eph 6:12)."

The difference between most notions of defiance, and the christian notion, is that it is to be an act of love, to bring both oppressors and oppressed into the fold of Gods love. 

The bold part is the important part. For example: (Taken from Romans 13:1-2)

"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."

And I have to agree with EXC on the sermon on the mount being about just the opposite...

"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:So only 22% of

 

Quote:
So only 22% of Christians think that it should be completly illegal.

 

[I chuckled at "other religion" getting higher than "no religion" for legal in all]

Well hell's bells.  I'll admit that surprises me, too.  I wonder what the other religions are.   Seriously... that really puzzles me.  It's not muslims, I don't think.  That basically leaves buddhists, new agers, and um... hmmm... 

Anyway, thank you again, Pineapple.  These numbers are definitely getting towards what I'm trying to find out.  I wish I had more time to do google searches, but I'm working too much.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


JeremyHenson
JeremyHenson's picture
Posts: 12
Joined: 2009-08-11
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit, you might be

Hambydammit, you might be interested in The Barna Group (www.barna.org). They do statistical and polling research on various Christian groups and demographics. I've found them very data-focused, and especially seem to work toward debunking misconceptions among Christians.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:1) Sex.

Hambydammit wrote:

1) Sex.  Most Christians have some kind of non-scientific view of sex.  Abstinence before marriage, masturbation is bad, etc, etc.  

Christians have a "non-scientific" moral perspective on sex? Huh. See, I thought science had nothing to say about ethics. I thought the purpose of science was to describe nature, not to prescribe moral rules. In fact, I'm absolutely certain of that. But that would mean that there aren't any "non-scientific" views of sex, wouldn't it?

Quote:
Some Christians think of children as the manifestation of God's will.  Atheists tend to view them as the result of sexual intercourse.

Wait, Christians don't think that children are the result of sexual intercourse?

Quote:
Can anyone think of any common Christian moral beliefs that differ substantially from a naturalist morality?

You've already established a substantial difference between the typical Christian and atheistic moral views. I grant that you didn't list very many differences, but the differences you listed give the typical Christian a moral code that diverges wildly from that of the typical atheist. Imagine a person who practices the Christian moral code you describe perfectly: he doesn't have premarital sex or masturbate, he opposes the use of (and if a woman, does not indulge in) abortion, he treats his marriage like a gift from the Divine (and the same for his children), and he opposes homosexuality (and refuses to practice it if a homosexual himself). That's a significant set of commitments.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


ClockCat
ClockCat's picture
Posts: 2265
Joined: 2009-03-26
User is offlineOffline
:3

Presuppositionalist wrote:
he opposes homosexuality (and refuses to practice it if a homosexual himself).

 

 

What do you have against gays?

Theism is why we can't have nice things.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:The concept of

EXC wrote:

The concept of morality is BS to me. I was think of reasons why Christian morality is an inferior system for mankind to live under here are some reasons:

1. Christians can't have unconditional love. There love and morality is conditional upon God existing. If they had proof God did not exist, they would stop loving people(because this must come from God) and stop treating people with any respect. An atheist can love unconditionally, we don't have to change our values because of some new scientific discovery. A theist is threatened by scientific facts that contradict the Bible.

This rests on a bizarre view of love. Christians do not begin with the axiom "God exists" and deduce their love for relatives and spouses from it. Love for other people arises from what we know about them and from the interactions we have had with them, and so is able to survive a change in worldview. This is why people do not go on killing sprees upon deconverting from Christianity.

That said, any moral code, except perhaps a code accepted at random and without justification, is in principle vulnerable to a new discovery. At the least, any moral code is vulnerable to the discovery, in philosophy, of a new conceptual truth that overturns it.

Quote:
2. For Christians, how you treat other people doesn't really matter if you think you are doing God's will. This makes a truly cooperative society impossible. All one must do to justify any act is say "It's God's will". The impact on others is secondary.

Again, you could say the same thing about any moral code. To justify an action under moral code x, you need only believe that you fulfill x's requirements for acting morally. Christians have the distinct advantage of having a list of concrete rules to obey, as well as an abstract framework within which to understand those rules and adapt to novel situations.

Quote:
3. Christians don't need to be much concerned with the environment.

What obligation does the atheist have to protect the environment? And why wouldn't the same reasoning apply to the Christian?

Even if there were no moral obligation for the Christian to protect the environment, doesn't he have a pretty obvious pragmatic reason to do so?

Quote:
4. Christians can't oppose the authority of those that are more powerful, one should cede to the will of the powerful. This not only applies to God and pastors, but also husbands over wives, and politicians over citizens.

To God, granted, but I don't know where you get pastors or husbands. And Christians see a number of people who stood up to politicians as heroes - just look at either of the Martin Luthers.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat

ClockCat wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:
he opposes homosexuality (and refuses to practice it if a homosexual himself).

What do you have against gays?

I was describing how a hypothetical Christian who obeyed Hamby's idea of the Christian moral code would act. Part of Hamby's idea of the Christian moral code is opposing homosexuality, so part of my description of my hypothetical Christian was that he opposes homosexuality.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


MichaelMcF
Science Freak
MichaelMcF's picture
Posts: 525
Joined: 2008-01-22
User is offlineOffline
ClockCat

ClockCat wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:
he opposes homosexuality (and refuses to practice it if a homosexual himself).

 

 

What do you have against gays?

 

Well God is this fire and brimstone kinda guy right?  Genocide, sacrifice, pillars of salt, raining sulfur?  Right?  So the one time he finds a girl he likes (some chick called Mary) and sleeps with her he has a son.  BAM - he's mister responsibility now.  No more laying waste to the holy land, no more drowining everyone he doesn't like.  He's got to set a good example.  What happens?  His son ends up a peace loving liberal that hangs around dudes all the time instead of smiting the wicked.

Gays just remind god of the son that chained him to a mild-mannered life.  I reckon that's it 

Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
"Christians have a

"Christians have a "non-scientific" moral perspective on sex? Huh. See, I thought science had nothing to say about ethics. I thought the purpose of science was to describe nature, not to prescribe moral rules. In fact, I'm absolutely certain of that. But that would mean that there aren't any "non-scientific" views of sex, wouldn't it?"

Oh no you don't. Hamby didn't say that. You're putting words in his mouth. Look again.

"Most Christians have some kind of non-scientific view of sex."

I don't see the words "moral perspective" anywhere.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:"Christians

Vastet wrote:
"Christians have a "non-scientific" moral perspective on sex? Huh. See, I thought science had nothing to say about ethics. I thought the purpose of science was to describe nature, not to prescribe moral rules. In fact, I'm absolutely certain of that. But that would mean that there aren't any "non-scientific" views of sex, wouldn't it?" Oh no you don't. Hamby didn't say that. You're putting words in his mouth. Look again. "Most Christians have some kind of non-scientific view of sex." I don't see the words "moral perspective" anywhere.

...which is why I didn't quote him as saying "moral perspective." If you actually read his post, it's obvious from the context that he could only have meant "moral view." He goes on to talk about moral prohibitions against abortions and masturbation, after all.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Vastet wrote:
"Christians have a "non-scientific" moral perspective on sex? Huh. See, I thought science had nothing to say about ethics. I thought the purpose of science was to describe nature, not to prescribe moral rules. In fact, I'm absolutely certain of that. But that would mean that there aren't any "non-scientific" views of sex, wouldn't it?" Oh no you don't. Hamby didn't say that. You're putting words in his mouth. Look again. "Most Christians have some kind of non-scientific view of sex." I don't see the words "moral perspective" anywhere.

...which is why I didn't quote him as saying "moral perspective." If you actually read his post, it's obvious from the context that he could only have meant "moral view." He goes on to talk about moral prohibitions against abortions and masturbation, after all.


Which are theistic, not scientific.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.