Who is the most moral upstanding person?

And just to really make the point here, and demonstrate the fundamental hypocrisy at play here.

Question: Who is the more moral person.

A. A Christian who does not steal because he knows it is wrong.

B. An atheist who DOES steal, because he has rationalized it and inconsequential, and knows there will be no 'real' consequences of him taking some small thing. And since there is nothing after death, to each his own - getting while the getting is good!

Who is more moral?

Oh, I am quite sure that atheists would think such a think was merely a hypothetical, and none of them would try to correct that egregious testimony to atheism woud they?

In fact, based on Evil's approach, to correct that question would be an act of pure contrition. Pointless and stupid.

Again, atheism is taking a spin on any situatin in order to crap on oter people. And we know this, because whenever we apply your standard to yoru positions, you guys get pissed.

Of course, it doesn't seem to take much to get atheists pissed. Merely stating, "That is not what my faith teaches," results in atheists aplenty assuring us that we are lying and reminding us how much better they know our faith than we do.

 

What about the Christian who steals, tortures, murders, creates war, and persecutes others in the name of God ?

A Christian use the threat of eternal punishment and tormentin to dissuade folks from stealing.

A person who does not need to be threated in order not to steal is the more moral person.

 

Thank you gifted for proving the point.

Evil/Cass - I hope you enjoy the Crow.

I will expect both of you to be lectring said dolt on the need to read a thread before jumping in, and encourage him jerkishly to take reading comprehension classes.

Your father is going to be pissed G.

 

The Christian, obviously.

 

It must have been very difficult to bite your tounge on that one. The fact that you would tolerate a known lie about the average atheist to avoid having to acknowledge the reality of poor behavior? Sad.

 

Bite my tongue on what?

It was a simple enough question with a straightforward answer.

 

Sure it is.

There is no way that I was making a point behind the question, just as there was no agenda behind OP's framing of the issue.

Except ...

The author of the OP's clarification.

But don;t worry, whenever you correct anything said about atheists from her on out, just remember, its only a hypothetical .... jeez, moron. Right.

Different context, different standard for atheism.

 

Keep in mind this whole thing started when you attacked LibertarianFTW's post, in which he was clearly referring only to the poll options. Either you didnt read his post properly, or you were looking for a fight.

 

The thread is about the morality of Christians vs Athiest.

Folks that make good choices based on reasoning is a better moral position than making moral choices on the basis of threats.

 

This poll dodn't offer enough choices. For one thing, Christianity isn't the only religion.

My answer to the poll would be neither, since morality doesn't depend on religion or atheism. Some Christians are moral and some aren't; some atheists are moral and some aren't.

 

Keep in mind this entire thing started with the OP, and several other atheists engaging in the hypothetical that is wildly inaccurate.

Firthermore it was exacerbated by your insistance that my desire to correct said faulty premise was the result of a reading comprehension issue and nuch of other childish accusations.

Fortunately, several atheists have jumped on the faulty premise of the OP, confirming the need to correct it - and I notice that you have not corrected a single one of them.

Oh yeah, your atheism on this one has been nothing but honorable

 

You see what I mean Evil?

How many more times do I have to correct the fat headed, ignorance, and blind stupidity of bigoted atheists?

Perhaps you should lecture him about the need to read a thread before jumping in? Perhaps correct the known falsehood in his premise? Nah.

Because when an atheist does it, its fine. When a Christian does it, its a threat to liberty itself. Most people just call it raving hypocrisy.

You both dropped your capes again.

 

I'm only defending the viewpoints of myself, Cass and LibertarianFTW, who you so grossly misrepresented. He said:

"In the examples you give, the atheist has more morals because he's not doing something due to his morals while the Christian in that case is not doing something because of the punishment he may face."

Which prompted you to go on to your crazy rants. Do you honestly think its reasonable? Does LibertarianFTW not answer the question honestly?

Then act like a big boy and talk to him, not me.

 

I disagree. The SCOPE was about morals. 'thou shalt not false witness' is one of them for any christian and common sense to any human, dont matter the religious beliefs.

screw the ethics of some job, screw the beliefs of some religion, the question was about who is upstanding with moral obligation and any human being that will lie to themselves (false witness fact) for a belief, a theology, is immorally choosing to go againt any god on the chart of any gods anyone wants to believe in.

but that aint the importance, the fact that someone will lie to themselves just to be 'accepted' and just to tell themselves that they are morally compliant is a not the kind of person that needs to be using up oxygen on this globe.

 

News flash, you are not the only atheists out there.

News flash number two, all of your were speculating about a hypothetical that each of you is acjnowledging as seriously in error - none of you is correcting any of atheist who continue to make the very same error that I have corrected.

In other words, its about finding some pretext for the chip on your shoulder, wrapping yourself in a cape of victimhood, and then crying hysterically.

If that is your idea of honor? If that is how you think you should respond to someone pointing out the error of your 'hypothetical', that, as with much of atheism, that is a problem for you.

Its still no excuse for being a wannbe internet bully. See how scared I am of your brazen double standards?

 

Enforce your 'standards'.

Being a jerk does not make double standards go away.

 

i know. But anyone can walk on water if they want.

yet all christians must lie to themselves to be a christian, in the religious sense.

You included.

i aint accusing, i am witnessing.

do you deny that i have witnessed you lying (on this forum)?

If you cant judge yourself, first, then you have no business judging another.

Again, i am witnessing.

if someone actually tells another that jesus is 'god' himself or the 'christ' then they are lying.

PERIOD!

you aint standing up. As you are using your time to sustain a lie that you accept as true but cannot verify it as a credible witness, who did, could or has witnessed the events claimed by the liars, literature or what you have come to accept.

quite the opposite.

Atheism is just a person who dont believe as you do, when coming from your point of view.

There is no one here on this forum that is an atheist as a religion (that i know of) (ie.... you keep calling me that, but it aint true. It is just i do not believe as YOU do.)

The lack of personal responsibility you exhibit within your posts is beyond rude.

ie..... Often the best example of an antichrist can be found by observing a christian.

(i wrote that with people like you in mind and not a person here could deny the integrity behind that claim)

 

I'm not sure of that.

you can use reason to weigh up the consequences, or the likelihood of being caught and choose not to act on this basis - that wouldn't make you moral.

also - a lot of christians (and other believers) do not act out of fear of punishment - they act - like the rest of us, based on what they believe to be right.

so it isn't really anything to do with christians vs atheists.

you could have had either a christian or atheist who acted morally because he believed it to be right, or a christian or atheist who acted immorally because he thought he could get away with it.

 

and for most people, how we act doesn't depend so much on morality, as a whole range of other things.

for example - what you did when you were fifteen may not be the same as what you do when you are thirty.

its experience and understanding that may have changed your outlook, rather than morality.

 

I agree that many Christians act morally, not out of fear, but out of a belief in what is right.

Such a discussion needs to define "what moral behaviour is" .. and this has not been done.

The Bible certainly is not the be all and end all to moral questions and contradicts itself.

 

Not nearly as much as atheists do.

But I do love it when people claim they are worried about contradictions .... always in others though?

Tell me, how moral is it to constantly compare yourself to others? To constantly find faults in others, real or imagined, and the rest on your laurels as if finding faults in other is the moral thing to do?

The big difference? The Bible states what is and is not moral, and atheists rarely look at anything ACTUALLY claimed as moral and find fault with it .... yet atheism has what for morality? What moral code?

But, like the evidence for no God, te non-existant moral code of atheism is somehow superior. Because we all know that having no standards, a total lack of accountability, is a moral and correct thing?

 

lols - on that we certainly can agree - and I think we should pay attention to the words of Hillel the Elder - who said:

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.

 

And many act out of the terror of going to Hell. They fear punishment and that fear is the only thing that gets them to do what they should do vs what they wish to do.

 

And many act out of the terror of going to Hell. They fear punishment and that fear is the only thing that gets them to do what they should do vs what they wish to do.

 

And many act out of the terror of going to Hell. They fear punishment and that fear is the only thing that gets them to do what they should do vs what they wish to do.