Is Atheism a more Moral Position than Theism

Christopher Hitchens, freelance journalist and writer for magazines like Slate and Vanity Fair and author of the book, 'God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' - made the point that: 'children do not have to be taught the Golden Rule' (treat others as you want to be treated). Now, children may need a friendly reminder, now and again, but for the most part, the Golden Rule is innate in us.

Hitchens went on to say, 'why do many of us voluntarily give blood, religious or not, not only that, we positively enjoy knowing we are helping out a fellow human being.

Most atheists tend to hold that a baby is born innocent and if treated with love and respect will naturally grow up, to love and respect others. Religion and most positively the three major monotheism's start from the opposite premise, we are born innately wicked and thus, a set of religious dogmas has to be followed, to hold that 'innate' evil in check. It is not surprising that many children who grew up in strict Catholic households, have had their minds poisoned with this vile nonsense and it had a devastating effect on their entire lives, to the point where many of them, were so inculcated with the belief in sin on a deep subconscious level, that they grew up, with the incapacity to hold on to a loving relationship. Much the same can be said, for many Muslims today.

But what is important to understand, is that morality has nothing to do with religion or atheism, morality is not a synonym for either atheism or religion. Our morality comes out of our humanity as first cause. This is why the majority of moderate theists, are good and by the same token, so are atheists. Note, I didn't say 'moderate' atheists, the reason for that, is that I see no evidence for atheist extremism and thus the term moderate atheist would be 'null and void' ...The same cannot be said for religion of course. there is plenty of ordinary and extra ordinary violence, created in the name of religion. That is why I used the qualifier, moderate religion, as apposed to extreme.

It seems to be the case, that as long as one is bought up in a loving household, or at the very least, a relatively loving one, as compared to the majority, then that in itself, is enough for one to grow up, with an innate sense of responsibility, in being a reasonable and moral human being... That is all it takes.

Now atheists can of course do criminal things. But what one cannot do of course, is find a causal link between atheism and the criminal act perpetrated. How often have you heard stories in the media of people being convicted of crimes, which they perpetrated, directly because of their atheism, I cannot personally think of even one of the top of my head. Now, there may well be the occasional exception of someone committing a crime, directly because of their atheism, but the point is that such incidence, if they do occur, must be very rare and I challenge anyone to point to any modern or past crime that was directly caused by atheism...

I'm sure many theists will now be shouting at the computer screen, and saying 'Stalin' and 'Hitler' ...This of course is a 'straw man'. No historian is seriously blaming atheism for Hitler or Stalin. Indeed, at the Nuremberg trial, after the Second World War, nobody in the court room, mentioned atheism as a cause for the Nazis behavior... The same cannot be said for religion of course. You can find stories of crimes in the media, that are only caused because of religion and without religion as a direct link, such crimes would never have happened.

It should also be noted, that there are statistically, far more religious people in prison than there are atheists, this is a statistical fact. But even here, a point is being missed. One could of course say that most of the religious people in prison, did not commit their crimes, because of the religion, but of course the same applies to the atheist inmates too. But one can say one thing for certain, the meta analysis, between the statistical numbers, suggests that the only reason that there are statistically more theist prisoners than atheist is exactly because of religion.

I said earlier, that morality really has nothing to do with religion or atheism. Well I now want to add a qualifier so this makes a little more sense. Now, although atheism does not directly make someone a more moral person than 'some' theists, there does seem to be an indirect reason why 'most' atheists are more moral than 'some' theists. The reason quite simply seems to be, that an atheist naturally, has not got the excess 'baggage' of mysticism beclouding their mind, which could possibly lead them into committing acts, which most individuals would consider to be less than human. In many such cases, such acts of violence are committed only because of a literal interpretation of scripture or they were, indirectly advised to commit such acts by priests of the Church.

So, the final point is that, humanity is naturally moral and when someone is behaving immorally, our human nature leads us to look for reasons. The simple fact is and I am absolutely convinced of this, if religion was taken out of the World, it would be a safer and more moral place to live in. It is only the excuse of religious dictates, that leads to crimes against humanity, that otherwise would not occur. Religion is often the catalyst, that allows for the most heinous crimes, including, suicide bombing, beheading, the severing of limbs and all kinds of torture. Now, most of these atrocities today, are of course done in the name of Islam and not Christianity or Judaism.... But, as long as religion remains a force in the world, then it always has the potential to lead to the worst in us and cut us of from our innate humanity.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Ultimate Registry Cleaner
o Put an end to slow bootups & computer problems, with the world's leading registry cleaner!

Thoughts on the Golden Rule

The 'Golden Rule' basically says, "treat others as you yourself, would wish to be treated". Here are two examples of the Golden Rule; from the New Testament:

1) Luke 6:31 - Do to others as you would have them do to you.

2) Matthew 7:12 - So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Notice an interesting difference between the two quotes above. The first one from Luke, is simply advisory, it is a rule rather than a law. Luke is basically saying, "I think this is a moral way to behave and he is simply passing this advice on". This natural moral teaching is innate in parents and they do it with their children all the time.

The second quote from Matthew, is more demanding and authoritative than the first - Re: "for this sums up the Law and the Prophets". ...Instead of just presenting a rule, it is presenting a rule in the form of a law to be followed. The assumption that seems to be being made, is that one cannot apply the Golden Rule, as an innate sense of one's own internal justice to others, without some form of demand.

The claim made by many theists, is that one cannot be good without religion. To back up their claim, they will often quote passages that relay the Golden Rule. Although I think the Golden Rule as formed in the second quote above from Matthew is a little suspect. It seems to making the assumption that one cannot be good for 'goodness sake', rather it is presenting a law, that one should follow. I can only presume it is making the assumption, that individuals are innately bad and thus, need a law to keep them on the 'straight and narrow'... Why would a 'loving' God, create men and women, who had to have demands placed on them, to prevent them from being bad? - Why not just make them innately good in the first place?

...Indeed, it is my proposition, that individuals are innately good in the first place and whether they are good or not, has nothing to do with religion and the Golden Rule is an innate part of our nature. Of course people are often bad only because of religion, this quote sums up the point perfectly:

"With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg (US physicist), The New York Times, April 20, 1999

The Golden Rule as presented by Luke, can be seen as a natural rule, that is passed on from mother to child in every day communication. If a child hits another child, how often have you heard a mother spontaneously say to a child, "how would you like it". This is a perfect example of a parent instilling empathetic values in the child, without the need to apply demands in the form of laws. It is simply a natural and universal response and is instinctive, in every psychologically healthy person. The reason this lesson works so well on children, is because saying "how would you like it", naturally appeals to their already inbuilt, innate sense of justice (The Golden Rule). This is why, when a child is presented with the consequences of their actions, they immediately feel shame and guilt.

The Golden Rule then, is not particular to religion, it is incidental to it. The Golden Rule is a natural aspect of our human nature. That is why we can also find the Golden Rule in moral philosophy and not just within religion. Indeed, it has been pointed out by many philosophers before, that if we do get any moral values from religious text, to the degree that we do, we simply 'cherry pick'. That ability to identify moral teachings within scripture, is available to each and every one of us, whether we are religious or not.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Generate Business Name Software
o Brainstorm your next exciting business, product and domain name - instantly!

Is Society Becoming More Selfish?

Before getting on to answering whether 'we are becoming more selfish as a society' let us first look at defining the antonym of selfishness, that is - selflessness.

Selflessness is believed to be a moral virtue. But the full extend of the meaning of selflessness, is self-sacrifice. Thus, in reality to be selfless is to be unconcerned about one's own welfare. From this understanding of the real meaning of selflessness, one should realize that by the false identification of self-sacrifice or selflessness as a moral virtue, then by holding this definition as true, one has defined morality out of existence. If one is fully capable of self-sacrifice then by what means could one be moral.

Morality can only exist if we are capable of empathy and empathy is a reflection of our own inner self-worth. The very reason we can empathize with others is because we can put ourselves in their shoes.

When we empathize, what we are basically doing internally is applying the 'Golden Rule' - Which says: 'treat others as you want to be treated'. Now if an individual was a selfless person, by definition, he or she would have no concern of how they were treated and it would naturally follow on from this, that they could not empathize with others either. Such a person could not possibly be moral and would be incapable of applying the Golden Rule.

The definition of selflessness held up as a virtue by most moral philosophers, is exactly the definition held up as a moral virtue by the three major monotheistic religions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam. One is supposed to selflessly sacrifice one's self to a 'higher-cause' at the expense of one's own ego.

Now let us define a misunderstanding of what it means to be selfless. The often made claim is that, to save a loved one's life at the risk of one's own self, is an act of selfless, self-sacrifice. This is quite clearly false. The reason that one has an overwhelming desire to save a loved one, even at the expense of risking one's own life, is not because one has an overwhelming urge to sacrifice oneself, it is a selfish act; yes! - I will say that again, it is a selfish act. How can this be so?

...When an individual risks his or her own life to save a loved one, it is for the very reason that they love them. They are saving someone that they cherish and they cherish them so much, that they are willing to put their own life on the line. In other words they have put a value on a person in the 'currency' of love. This cannot be selflessness. A selfless act is the sacrifice of a higher value for a lower one, such as in the earlier example of giving up your ego to God (This is also a misrepresentation of love. Love itself is thought of as self-sacrificing, but it is not. We love something or someone, because it or they reflect our own inner values).

Let me give an example of a selfless act in its true definition: Imagine you are sat at home and a film is starting on the television. You have been waiting all week to watch this film. Just as it starts there's a knock at the door and it's your neighbor. They ask if you can go round to their garden and help put up their new shed. Now if you value watching the film more than you value helping your neighbor put up a shed, but out of politeness you decide to help the neighbor, that is an example of selflessness or self-sacrifice.

Now, imagine the same scenario as above, but with one small change. The neighbor offers you money to help them put up the shed and you put that at a higher value than watching the film. Now in this instance, if you sat down and carried on watching the film, this would also be an example of selflessness or self-sacrifice.

Now earlier I said: "to save a loved one is a selfish act and not a selfless one". This is not actually strictly correct. I should of substituted selfish with rational self-interest. This is because selfishness like selflessness is an irrational behavior. Selfishness really means gaining a value at the expense of someone else, thus selfishness can be just as immoral as selflessness.

Now, having defined definitions lets get onto the answer of the question: Is society becoming more selfish? - I would say; more selfish no... more self-interested yes. But self-interest unlike selfishness is a virtuous trait.

A self-interested person, is simply someone who cares enough about themselves to have pride in their own ego. And despite what religion has to say about pride being an immoral character trait, don't believe it. Pride is also a virtue. Pride itself is simply self love. To the degree that one has pride in oneself is the degree by which one loves oneself.

Look at the most civilized societies, they are run on self-interest. What is free market competition? ...It relies on self-interest of business owners. But this self-interest is not selfish, neither is it self-sacrificing. It is not selfish, because a successful business relies on happy consumers. If a business owner became selfish and greedily increased his prices above market value, not only would this be a selfish act, it would ultimately be a selfless one; as he or she would quickly go out of business by sacrificing his or her products to above market prices, that the consumer would be unwilling to pay.




How I make money from this article and how you can make money too. Please Click here to email me! Please do not remove 'permission' from body of email.

* Hypnosis-Scripts
o Browse over 250 instantly downloadable hypnosis scripts!