Amazon.com Widgets

Do religious people have more morals than atheists?

  • There is an incentive

    I'm not saying that there are necessarily more people with morals who are religious that non-religious. All I'm saying is that people who are religious have more of an incentive to maintain their morals than do atheists. He'll is a pretty scary place, and if that doesn't convince people to uphold moral standards, then I don't know what will

  • Religion is central to morality.

    Religious people have more morals than atheists. This is because all religions have core moral beliefs that followers are supposed to adhere to. Atheists do not have a standard collective morality they all follow. If they do, it is not common knowledge to everyone else. It could be said that obeying the law of the land means a person has morals, but everyone does not obey the law anyway.

  • Atheism is by definition a religion, and so the question is not correct.

    Atheists will try to tell you otherwise, i know, but atheism is a religion just as much as Shintoism. I do not know why, but members of most religions do not think they are religions. Buddhists think their religion is a way of life, Candomble (from what i know) see theirs as cultural heritage, and Presbyterians think of theirs as a relationship with God. Not all religions must be theist. Candomble is not, Hinduism is technically not, and Buddhism really isn't. Atheists should also stop thinking their dependence on logic is unique from other religions. Each religion was based off of logical thoughts and conclusions from people who we might call 'primitive' in culture and understanding. Atheism itself does not encompass the omega theory because it was created after the religion really started, and so does not go unscathed and is becoming less up to date just as other religions. This question would be asking something like this: "Do religious Christians have more morals than normal Christians?" Well clearly this is a terrible, incorrect question, because all Christians are religious. All religions have rules and morals used to uphold their values, and atheism should not be branded as heartless and against morals. I know many wonderful atheists and wish them success in life. Some of my best friends are atheists. Since this is all there is to it, i will conclude by saying all religions have morals, up to and including atheism.

  • An atheist agrees

    I am an atheist, and morals are what's right and wrong. Leviticus 19:27, and Leviticus 19:19 are some of the laws the Lord has set out, and I don't believe the agree with me. With the major stuff of murder and all of that, they can be roughly the same, but due to the more inane parts of the bible, I will give Christians a higher number of morals. Most Christians ignore these rules, despite the fact the God himself commanded them by dismissing them as 'old testament law'. I will end this with the words of Jesus:"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell. (No more lust people. Who needs eyes?)

  • The answer is overly religious people the miconception of athism is nothing but a fasade and masked dellussion

    Its obviously religious ppl they are países in Hugh moral grounds and can feel almost guilty of everything atheists people are confused when doing something inmoral they feel if its legal and not ilegal than I'ts probably ok! Atheist really don't cara about anything everything is meaningless an atheist can be moral out of guilt from their horrible perspective of humanity also religious ppl feel more guilty about inmoral decisions atheists would have confusion Not not know how to feel Not not caring or in between caring and not caring if an atheist were to murder someone who das an atheist probably would not feel as guilty and his major concern would be prison without going to prison they probably wouldnt have too much guilty and can most likley live with themself there have been alot of atheist murder for hires they feel how could I be guilty of I'm not "killing them" so the answer is overly religious people they valía Human life love everyone and everything and have security and do everything in their power to be morally correct at Times there people were overly religious 30's,40's,50's there wasn't as much crime in América there the mob of course and mentally ill and and ppl but violence is far worse in modern Times

  • We live in

    A continuously changing world with new kinds of moral problem being generated all the time and much harmful ignorance still to overcome. It's only through abandoning certain widespread religious ideas that progress towards a truly just and consistent morality is possible. There's an ongoing need to develop and refine our moral understanding. The problem is the false and morally corrupting idea that the lawmaker is perfect. It's corrupting because, in causing us to accept unjust laws, it leaves us defending the indefensible. We don't base morality on revelation from authority, that would render us merely obedient. Moral behaviour is doing what's right, not what we're told unless what we're told is also what's right. The worry that, without religion or gods, we've no basis on which to discuss morality, is without foundation. When classing harmless things as immoral results in persecution we've reason to condemn the misclassification. So often declared -'the territory of religion'- moral development is in fact something to which the scientific approach contributes far more and far more reliably due to its emphasis on reasoned logic and evidence, the tools that help us discern what's true and false and without which one can't even formulate a valid argument. To make informed moral choices and therefore moral progress religion needs science, but science does not need religion. We can be good without god.

  • No, not at all.

    Name one moral or ethical action committed or carried out by a believer that could not have been carried out by a non believer.

    Can't?

    Then perhaps try to think of something immoral committed or carried out due to religion.
    I think that's from Hitchens. It's very stupid to say the yes option...

  • No, not at all.

    Morality has nothing to do with religion. Morality predates any religious faith. Morality is an intrinsic development in social species. If you need a holy book to tell you not to kill someone, you're actually the less moral person. I think atheists have proven to be overall better people in general.

  • No, not at all.

    I have seen people who claim to be religious turn around and behave like they have no morals at all. I know there have been several religious leaders over the years who have made the newspapers for having extra-marital affairs. So I certainly don't think religious people have more morals than any one else, including atheists.

  • No More Stereotypes

    This question eludes to a stereotype that religious people are somehow superior to atheists. This is not true and it is not a debatable matter. Proliferating stereotypes is bad for society and bad for people who learn that stereotyping is accepted by other people. Do not make moral assumptions based on affiliations, make them based on the individuals actions and speech.

  • Nope we are not

    Athiests are good because they want to be. I am shocked at the amount of people that think Athiests are evil because they are godless. Religious people (the majority) believe and do good in fear and some of them think they're going to heaven despite being good or bad. One boy I went to university with said I would go to hell and was the antichrist and although he did drugs had affairs he would go to heaven because he was a believer and that God would forgive him cps of his bad deeds because he was just weak despite knowing what was right and wrong and choosing to do wrong safe to say I'll was incredulous. Religion is a divider an evil thing.

  • No, not necessarily.

    Have you read the Bible? You know, the book that encourages misogyny, sexism, rape, slavery, murder, infanticide, genocide, homophobia, human sacrifice, etc? If that's where you derive your morality from, I'm sorry, you are NOT a good person in ANY sense. An atheist doesn't need such a horrific scripture to be a good person or to keep from being a bad person, because they think for themselves and aren't led on by religious dogma.

  • Not really, no.

    If they only act moral for the sake of getting into heaven or staying out of hell, then they aren't moral. As Ray Comfort once said, "If I was an atheist, I'd be doing whatever I want because there is no judgement." That means that he doesn't have morals. He's garbage.

  • Pointless question lol

    Not just no... But hell no. You have got to be off your rocker if you think the average religious person who bases their morals on a book written more than a thousand years ago by desert dwelling sheep herders who said thought crimes were bad bad slavery was good has better morals than the average atheist who bases their morals on an ever changing learning from our past mistakes.

  • The Afterlife Escape Route

    One thing I have not seen mentioned in these arguments is that a religious person might be more inclined to kill another person because they believe that person has an immortal soul. If killing is not actual the final true death then the act of murder could be seen as less immoral than terminating another life absolutely.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.