Are atheists morally unaccountable?

[Jason Harris 31]

I have a question for all the atheist who have posted in this thread. What is it the compels you to be a moral person? It seems that if there is no "supreme being" then it really doesn't matter if you live a moral life or not. If you don't have to worry about pleasing God, then why not live your life any way you choose? Why worry about morality? Why worry about whether or not other people think that your are moral? Any insight that can be provided would be greatly appreciated.

This is just a guess but, based on the experience of my family and friends, many atheists/agnostics/etc were probably raised in religious homes. Out of six kids and my mother, three went atheist/agnostic, while the rest became fairly unreligous, although I think they still believe. However, our parents taught us right and wrong. As my wife says, "Jason believes in the Ten Commandmants. Well, eight of them, at least...."

Also, as I mentioned in the opening post, moral is not a religious word. It comes from the Latin word mores, which means "customs, manners, morals" Thus, it's apparent that morality is referring more to societally accepted behavior than religiously accepted behavior.

One last thing regarding how an atheist could live a moral life, you have to understand that our beliefs are our beliefs, whereas there are some who profess to be religious yet can't seem to fully accept the doctrine. As an example, I once read a poll that said 70% of husbands and 50% of wives have admitted to being unfaithful. Now, if we were to assume that every atheist/agnostic cheated on their spouse, that still means 50% of husbands and 30% of wives claim to be religious yet still cheated. To me, that means that deep down they aren't really accepting the teachings -- and I'm not making aspersations about any particular religion!

The Bible is a mystery to millions of people, and there is a reason for that. I don't even understand everything in it, probably never will, but that's the way it's supposed to be.

I'm sorry, I really don't mean to single you out, but you are repeating what I consider to be the company line. Whenever something bad happens, He works in mysterious ways.

What, we can't understand that a two-year-old shouldn't be raped and murdered by her parent -- or any other heinous act that has occurred in history?

[acollette49 0]

I have a question for all the atheist who have posted in this thread. What is it the compels you to be a moral person? It seems that if there is no "supreme being" then it really doesn't matter if you live a moral life or not. If you don't have to worry about pleasing God, then why not live your life any way you choose? Why worry about morality? Why worry about whether or not other people think that your are moral? Any insight that can be provided would be greatly appreciated.

i dont have to worry about pleasing god, but i do have to live with other people. we do have earthly punishments to deal with if we wrong other people.

[Guy Incognito 0]

When I consider the Church, as a descriptive, it means to me the principles of that belief and the community who supports and lives that particular lifestyle; ethics and morals in a sense no matter the religion. Webster defines Church as "a body or organization of religious believers." However, from an interpretive stance individual views can and will vary. Webster also defines Church as "the clergy or officialdom of a religious body," which is obviously your derivative for discussion. In order to properly discuss, quite possibly the best approach would be to define the term as you perceive in order for clarity to evolve.

usahockey22, you said

I'm the one that used the word "santa", and I wasn't referring to *your* God when I said it. I just was trying to imply that I think it would be helpful if all people questioned their religious beliefs, and actually put some effort into analyzing those beliefs, rather than simply following whatever Jesus/Muhammad/Your Priest says.

I've actually done that (questioned faith), and appreciate this particular comment. I was not defending the Catholic church for personal motives (remember, you don't know my faith if I have a faith at all); rather, I was defending religion as a whole. Religion is a personal belief and includes agnostics and atheists. That is your religion if you so choose. The entire embodiment of my approach to this conversation is about individual choice. No one has a right to call someone ridiculous because they don't believe the same. In fact, I am most attracted to the approach of Gandhi. He believed religion was a positive for humanity and actually claimed to be of every religion- Muslim, Hindu, Judaism, Christianity, etc. Why not live and let live? How can Gandhi claim he's Jewish and Christian when Jews do not believe in Christ as Savior? It doesn't matter- it's his choice and he can mix and match as he pleases in order to live a moral and ethical life. The approach should not be Us v. Them, it should be Us walking alongside Us. The thing that is so frustrating is people who look at scripture, be it the Koran or the Bible, as simple. It is not that easy.

Most of you have heard Jesus' plea for Christians to "turn the other cheek" when struck. Do you understand the necessary background behind this, Vapor? Do you understand that it is not an act of weakness rather an act of symbolism. In those days, a slave master would backhand a peasant/servant in order to humiliate. The right hand was the only hand one could strike another with, as the left hand was used for only unclean acts such as wiping oneself after defecating. To strike with the forehand was only done to an equal, one who was threatening to the assaulter. There wasn't any way a master would lower himself to such standard as an untouchable by striking him with a forehand. Turning the other cheek was a way to prevent that from happening again.

Military in those days would stumble across a village and pull people to carry their heavy packs. Law forbid that anyone make another carry the pack more than one mile. So these people, under the directive of Jesus, walked past the one mile mark to continue and carry the pack much further. Soldiers were placed immediately in a predicament that accomplished to invoke several questions, here are only a couple:

Why is this peasant carrying my pack further?

Is he up to something, will he try to hurt me with my weapons?

Will I get in trouble when he carries this pack more than one mile? Certainly the law enforced the limitation.

So what did this accomplish? It made the soldiers cease such practices because it was clearly easier than facing sanctions and potential conflict. This creative strategy gave alternatives to fight or flight mechanisms.

Full circle now back to Gandhi. He simply wanted people to view one another as equals and stood ground by faith alone. He faced the British in South Africa for these efforts, and all with a simple strategy- I will stand for my beliefs and will be struck (ultimately assassinated in 1948), but I will not strike back. It is not what I believe in. He built a community demanding each citizen clean the latrines, not only the untouchables. He even demanded this of his wife. He explained to the people he led that he was willing to die for this cause and after being imprisoned, tortured and killed they would only be left with his spirit. They could take his possessions but could not take his obedience and pride.

The Bible, or other religious books, aren't merely surface objects. They are a path or means to live for the greater good, not selfish motivation.

One last thing regarding how an atheist could live a moral life, you have to understand that our beliefs are our beliefs, whereas there are some who profess to be religious yet can't seem to fully accept the doctrine. As an example, I once read a poll that said 70% of husbands and 50% of wives have admitted to being unfaithful. Now, if we were to assume that every atheist/agnostic cheated on their spouse, that still means 50% of husbands and 30% of wives claim to be religious yet still cheated. To me, that means that deep down they aren't really accepting the teachings -- and I'm not making aspersations about any particular religion! What, we can't understand that a two-year-old shouldn't be raped and murdered by her parent -- or any other heinous act that has occurred in history?

Salming, atheists make up a very small part of the prison population. Less than 1%. Some would argue that numbers played a factor in that, but atheism is a very prevalent (and growing) religion. There is no correlation between atheism and criminals. One could assume that principle overflows into other aspects in life/morality as well (outside of worship, of course).

But thats my point, you think christianity/catholicism is being unfairly criticized, but you admit the wards of the church are human, and prone to fault.

However, people who criticize the church often only have the face of the church, and the messages they send by covering up abuse.

It you see flaws with the people delivering the message, then the message itself become obfuscated. I know people say don't shoot the messenger, but if the messenger has proven to be untrustworthy in the past, on a global scale, it's hard to "get" the message

As for Vapor, he represents athiests who are more interest in picking fights with people of faith because he thinks they are wrong. I have no beef with anyones faith, I don't pick fights with people or tell them to justify their faith or religion.

I've just been outlining why I think criticizing facets of religion isn't the same as indicting the entire religion or their believers.

Understood. However, I believe criticism should be kept to the offending clergy. I understand that was your intent, and also understand that your belief in the system has been tarnished because of particular acts. However, that should not obstruct your view of faith in a supreme power if that is what you choose to believe. These sick people are just that- people- and it is widespread among all, not prevalent in only one faith. Who knows how many times this has been covered up by other religions?

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

Understood. However, I believe criticism should be kept to the offending clergy. I understand that was your intent, and also understand that your belief in the system has been tarnished because of particular acts. However, that should not obstruct your view of faith in a supreme power if that is what you choose to believe. These sick people are just that- people- and it is widespread among all, not prevalent in only one faith. Who knows how many times this has been covered up by other religions?

My problem is, that it's not just the offending clergy, its a systematic problem.

Take an American case, Cardinal Law, he was caught covering up sex scandals in Boston, about 50 priests send a letter asking him to resign. The pope accepts his resignation, THEN appoints him archpriest of the Basilica di Santa Maria, he is also on the Pontifical Council for the Family for gods sake.

A man who covered up abuses of children, destroying families and lives, gets appointed to a position in rome, away from the bad headlines in america, BY THE POPE!!!

As for how many times it's been covered up by other religions, I was raised catholic, my family is still catholic, and I am familiar with catholicism, so I will leave the criticism of other faiths to those of that (or formerly of that) faith, who are more familiar with them

[Guy Incognito 0]

I am not proud of the happenings of that situation, but it does not tarnish my faith. I do see how it can appear to both external and internal parties. I am not asking for judgement of other religious communities. I do, however, refer to Amos- the Sheppard who spoke about the evils of Damascus (the Las Vegas of those days through Christian view) and was responded to with cheers. When he named several other rival cities and countries, the same acceptance by the audience. But when he named Israel, he was not nearly well received. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone," Jesus said when a group of men were preparing to stone an adulterer. Where was her counterpart? It takes two to dance. Does the sphere of evil not exist in some part in every heart?

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

I am not proud of the happenings of that situation, but it does not tarnish my faith. I do see how it can appear to both external and internal parties. I am not asking for judgement of other religious communities. I do, however, refer to Amos- the Sheppard who spoke about the evils of Damascus (the Las Vegas of those days through Christian view) and was responded to with cheers. When he named several other rival cities and countries, the same acceptance by the audience. But when he named Israel, he was not nearly well received. "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone," Jesus said when a group of men were preparing to stone an adulterer. Where was her counterpart? It takes two to dance. Does the sphere of evil not exist in some part in every heart?

It absolutely does, which is why I welcome criticism of anything I do, if you feel it is worthy of criticism.

You entered the thread because you felt criticism of religion was harsh.

However, with the exception of a few poorly phrased comments, the criticism has not been unwarranted.

You are arguing from a defensive position, because you feel the need to defend. Thats fine, I am not on the defensive. I can take criticism of my beliefs, and feel having been raised in an extremely catholic home, I have enough personal experience and wisdom to make my criticisms and feel they are not unfair

[Guy Incognito 0]

Keeping with the theme, I am not characterizing the whole. Those few disparaging remarks are the targets of origin. A few of us just happen to be communicating in a civilized manner. My discussion with you is focused around encouragement of maintaining your independence despite the acts of the vulgar; that is truly a sacred right.

[Chadd 916]

Chadd says, "those who are agnostic, deist or atheist tend to have a better grasp of the opposing side of this debate."

Then:

I would also like an explanation from the christians out there: Why in the old testament is god vengeful and full of wrath and then magically in the new testament he is all kind and forgiving? The Bible is the word of God, why did it magically change when it had new authors?

Ignorant irony...LOL

First of all, Vapor doesn't count. ;)

Second of all, there is a major shift in the tone of the new testament when compared to the old testament. The god of the old testament is a vengeful, wrathful being and very much unlike the god described in the new testament.

[usahockey22 0]

There seem to be 2-3 separate Gods within the bible...in the old testament, Elohim and Iehova...then in the new testament, it is Jesus/the father. And yes, the tone takes a complete 180, going from "an eye for an eye" philosophy to "if you are struck on the cheek, turn to your other cheek" mentality.

These inherent contradictions also make it conveniently easy for the clergy/powers of the church to interpret the different scriptures any which way they please. Beliefs or spirituality found by reading these texts are all good things...but religion itself, including its message, can be manipulated as a tool for control. Throughout history, this has occurred time and time again.

[akhockeyplaya 0]

There seem to be 2-3 separate Gods within the bible...in the old testament, Elohim and Iehova...then in the new testament, it is Jesus/the father. And yes, the tone takes a complete 180, going from "an eye for an eye" philosophy to "if you are struck on the cheek, turn to your other cheek" mentality.

While there certainly was a more...mmmm, I'm searching for the right word...forceful...tone to the OT, it's still given by the same consistent, loving God. God chose Israel as His own people to make an example of them, so that others around them would see how much better off the Israelites were, and come to Him.

That being said, the Israelites were a small minority in a land full of pagans and the like. Whenever a small minority is surrounded by a majority, it's almost impossible to keep the cultural majority from influencing the minority. That being said, God enacted stricter punishments to ensure that the Israelites would follow His commands (which were given to improve the lives of His people) rather than fall into the ways of the locals.

Back to the "atheists being morally unaccountable" part of this thread, I would say that the main point most people point out when they ask this question, is not that atheists are immoral, but that their morals are sort of relative. People usually aren't (or shouldn't be) saying that because atheists don't have an Ultimate Moral Standard, they can and do do whatever they want, they're usually just looking for justification from atheists as to why they act the way they do. I think...

Also, I'd just like to say good job overall keeping this worth reading (not that my opinion is the standard to which threads should be held :) ), it's always great when people with different viewpoints can spitball without it spiraling out of control.

[D aka speck 0]

My mistake...

I thought I was reading a topic about morality, as far as athiests and possibly agnostics were concerned.

Let me just say, as an agnostic, that morality does not, in any way, come from a book.

Morality comes from a community or society. Case in point: Does your hockey team tolerate a goalie that stands still? Do your friends and neighbors let you play grab-ass with thier wives?

"The Book" (bible) teaches common sence. Religion is a fundamental society based on the lessons within the text of the bible.

This is no different (fundamentally) than Nazism, Girl Scouts, Anton LaVey's Church of Satan, the Free Masons, Alcoholics Annonymous, military institutions of the world or the KOA Campgrounds Good Sam Club (just to name a few).

Everybody has some degree of belief. Even thieves have a certain degree of "honor" and they are the worst practitioners of morality.

In answer to the question at hand:

EVERYBODY is morally accountable. What the courts don't settle, the kin will!

There's not simply one side of the fence or the other and no system is a true failsafe.

Morality comes from within.

People can choose to do the right thing just as easily as they can choose to, or not to worship any deity.

[lawryde 0]

I wanted to add something intelligent to the discussion, not that everything up to this point hasn't been, but I think we tend to put our own definitions on morality, ethics, and religion that may or may not be true.

I found this bit of info on Wikipedia's entry on Morality:

For example, on any given night for vampire bats, some individuals fail to feed on prey while others consume a surplus of blood. Bats that have successfully fed then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984).

It brings up an interesting point. Animals will often show a form of morality in their social groups. They've never read a religious text or been revealed any sort of religion. They just do what's right because it's natural and feels like it's what they're supposed to do.

They're the original moral Atheists. (not knocking Atheists calling them animals)

[ag12 0]

I'm sorry, I really don't mean to single you out, but you are repeating what I consider to be the company line. Whenever something bad happens, He works in mysterious ways.

What, we can't understand that a two-year-old shouldn't be raped and murdered by her parent -- or any other heinous act that has occurred in history?

I don't have a problem with you singling me out, but bad things happen in this world for a reason and that's unfortunate, but let me ask you this what right do you or I have to life? Neither you nor I have any control over the day we were born nor the day we shall die, we like to think we are in control which is why we have been given the ability to reason, think and make choices, but that's about it.

For example it was mentioned in another post that the world couldn't have been created in 6 days. The reason we struggle with that notion is that a day to us is 24 hours, in the Bible it states that a day a is a thousand years to God, so now what is your frame of reference? We can only relate to the things we see around us and compare it to that which is why we are so limited even though man has done some great and terrible things in history. Just think of how quickly it takes a tornado or hurricane to wipe out everything we know.....

As for the heinous acts committed by others, that's due to our own ugly human nature that God has given us and we all have a dark side....

[hockeydoc 0]

Chadd says, "those who are agnostic, deist or atheist tend to have a better grasp of the opposing side of this debate."

Then:

I would also like an explanation from the christians out there: Why in the old testament is god vengeful and full of wrath and then magically in the new testament he is all kind and forgiving? The Bible is the word of God, why did it magically change when it had new authors?

Ignorant irony...LOL

First of all, Vapor doesn't count. ;)

Second of all, there is a major shift in the tone of the new testament when compared to the old testament. The god of the old testament is a vengeful, wrathful being and very much unlike the god described in the new testament.

The major shift is an appearant contradiction, possibly...but if you read all of the old and new testaments and do word studies on both you will find that the shift does not exsist. I agree that most of the church does not teach this, as most christians still refer to the "old covenant", and the "new covenant", but let me submit that they are off base. It is "the covenant" and "the fulfillment of the covenant".

Athiest can have morals. They are just based on different things. Religous morals, and inability to keep to them are not because of a lack of truth, but a lack of self control. Athiest morals being based on socialogical morays implies that the Third Riech was acting morally... A lack of a consistant standard to measure ones moral against leads to anything. The lack of religious persons following their stated standard does not indict the standard, but the person.

[acollette49 0]

Athiest can have morals. They are just based on different things. Religous morals, and inability to keep to them are not because of a lack of truth, but a lack of self control. Athiest morals being based on socialogical morays implies that the Third Riech was acting morally... A lack of a consistant standard to measure ones moral against leads to anything. The lack of religious persons following their stated standard does not indict the standard, but the person.

this would imply that an athiest cant base their moral values on the christian(or any other religious) tradition.

[Guy Incognito 0]

So is the majority deriving thus far that atheists are morally accountable, but only to themselves (neither good or bad) or to society as a whole? If an evil-spirited atheist decided he would do whatever he wanted, didn't care what others thought, and felt no responsibility towards fellow human life- who is he/she accountable to?

And why can't atheist base their morals on religious principles? I think they can have respect for the standards without believing in God (or some diety).

[acollette49 0]

So is the majority deriving thus far that atheists are morally accountable, but only to themselves (neither good or bad) or to society as a whole? If an evil-spirited atheist decided he would do whatever he wanted, didn't care what others thought, and felt no responsibility towards fellow human life- who is he/she accountable to?

in that case, society has the option/duty to hand out punnishment according to its laws. so, regardless of that individual's moral compass, they are accountable to the people they live with.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

So is the majority deriving thus far that atheists are morally accountable, but only to themselves (neither good or bad) or to society as a whole? If an evil-spirited atheist decided he would do whatever he wanted, didn't care what others thought, and felt no responsibility towards fellow human life- who is he/she accountable to?

And why can't atheist base their morals on religious principles? I think they can have respect for the standards without believing in God (or some diety).

I think athiests are every bit as morally accountable as followers of religion are. They are morally responsible to themselves, and to society and it's laws.

Regarding the evil-spirited atheist, the same goes for an evil spirited christian, muslim, jew etc.

I think Ian Paisley, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Phelps, Osama Bin Laden etc are all evil spirited people of faith.

With regard to why an athiest can't base their morals on religious principles, I offer this....

Christianity is a relatively new religion, most religions have roots in the past longer than christianity. Hinduism, Judaeism, etc have roots almost twice as long as christianity.

But even before them, the earth has been around for millions of years (or 14,000 depending on your beliefs). There are indications that humans lived in communities long before religions became established, and one can only assume they had to abide by a moral code to live like that.

Athiests can say that their moral structure has been around long before religion, however, people often characterize todays society as being founded on religious principles.

Thats simply because the people who crafted recent society were religious, or appeared so, so people assumed the laws created were based on these beliefs.

There is nothing wrong with an athiest basing their morals on religious principles, but religious principles were based on mans transcription of the word of god, so essentially, its mans morals that man lives by

[ag12 0]

The Old Testament is about the Creation, the Children of Israel and kings of the time along with prophets teachings. Throughout the Old Testament is the prophecy of Jesus’ coming and covers approximately 4000 years. The New Testament is about Jesus’ life and example and the fulfilling of what was prophesied in the Old and covers approximately 2000 years. The Old law only applies to those before the coming of Jesus, the rest of us are subject to the words and teachings of Jesus. This is all wrapped up in the very difficult to understand and comprehend book of Revelations which ties together the Old and the New Testament.

[hockeydoc 0]

Athiest can have morals. They are just based on different things. Religous morals, and inability to keep to them are not because of a lack of truth, but a lack of self control. Athiest morals being based on socialogical morays implies that the Third Riech was acting morally... A lack of a consistant standard to measure ones moral against leads to anything. The lack of religious persons following their stated standard does not indict the standard, but the person.

this would imply that an athiest cant base their moral values on the christian(or any other religious) tradition.

Not really, just that their morals are and will be relative to the society they are in, w/ nothing concrete to measure them back against.

I agree that most religions are represented by goups that seem to have no more of a concrete standard than this, but not by design, but by the fallacy of those acting.

Athiesm being the first religion is a funny concept. The Bible claims that the God of the Bible put a moral compass in the hearts of all mankind, thereby claiming to be the first and only true faith. Followed by many false faiths, including the regection of a creator.

Edit: BTW I don't believe athiest morals are based on society. I believe they are based on their own conscience. Which the Bible claims is God. I hear a lot of athiest and agnostics claim their moral standard is sociological, but as I said that would mean that the people of Hitler's Germany was acting morally (as they claimed), but no athiest nor agnostic I have ever met feels this way. Thereby making it clear that society does not dictate their morals. I do believe it was as some have stated that athiest just do what they feel is right.

Again don't think that because religious people act in contraty to their standard that their standard is invalid.

[usahockey22 0]

The Old Testament is about the Creation, the Children of Israel and kings of the time along with prophets teachings. Throughout the Old Testament is the prophecy of Jesus’ coming and covers approximately 4000 years. The New Testament is about Jesus’ life and example and the fulfilling of what was prophesied in the Old and covers approximately 2000 years. The Old law only applies to those before the coming of Jesus, the rest of us are subject to the words and teachings of Jesus. This is all wrapped up in the very difficult to understand and comprehend book of Revelations which ties together the Old and the New Testament.

I love how you say "the rest of us are subject to the words and teachings of Jesus"...as if this belief system austomatically applies to everyone else in the world, only for the reason that you believe it. What about the Jews who don't follow Jesus? Or the billions who follow hinduism, buddhism, islam, etc. This is like the bumper sticker I see sometimes that says "Jesus died for your sins", as if we all owe something to Jesus or to Christianity for bringing us this great message.

Religion gives something to believe in, and when they really believe it, there's no changing their minds in many cases. So you've got all these different groups of people who believe that they are absolutely and totally right in their views on God...and what happens? Well, turn to the history books. All religions were spread by force. As in, "You have 2 choices right now, convert to christianity, or lose your head."

This attitude still exists...only now they threaten you with God's consequences in the afterlife if you don't convert. It was great driving through town last summer and seeing a big sign out in front of a local christian church, that said something to the effect of "Think it's hot out now? If you don't walk with Jesus, you haven't seen the half of it."

These kind of scare tactics seem to contradict the entire purpose or message of most religions...yet it has consistently been the one driving force for bringing in new converts throughout history. Once people were no longer able to threaten you with being maimed/killed if you didn't convert, they put the burden of punishment on their almighty God. I always think that people who believe they speak for God are incredibly audacious; You believe in a supreme, perfect being...yet you also believe you have the power to tell people how it is, and to say how this supreme God will handle things.

[hockeysew 0]

So is the majority deriving thus far that atheists are morally accountable, but only to themselves (neither good or bad) or to society as a whole? If an evil-spirited atheist decided he would do whatever he wanted, didn't care what others thought, and felt no responsibility towards fellow human life- who is he/she accountable to?

And why can't atheist base their morals on religious principles? I think they can have respect for the standards without believing in God (or some diety).

I think athiests are every bit as morally accountable as followers of religion are. They are morally responsible to themselves, and to society and it's laws.

Regarding the evil-spirited atheist, the same goes for an evil spirited christian, muslim, jew etc.

I think Ian Paisley, Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Phelps, Osama Bin Laden etc are all evil spirited people of faith.

With regard to why an athiest can't base their morals on religious principles, I offer this....

Christianity is a relatively new religion, most religions have roots in the past longer than christianity. Hinduism, Judaeism, etc have roots almost twice as long as christianity.

But even before them, the earth has been around for millions of years (or 14,000 depending on your beliefs). There are indications that humans lived in communities long before religions became established, and one can only assume they had to abide by a moral code to live like that.

Athiests can say that their moral structure has been around long before religion, however, people often characterize todays society as being founded on religious principles.

Thats simply because the people who crafted recent society were religious, or appeared so, so people assumed the laws created were based on these beliefs.

There is nothing wrong with an athiest basing their morals on religious principles, but religious principles were based on mans transcription of the word of god, so essentially, its mans morals that man lives by

Outstanding reply!

Morals to me are the basic "Code" that our parents and mentors imply upon us.

These are things like knowing right from wrong, respecting others etc...

I have seen many instances of non religious people uphold morals with much more conviction than those people of "Faith" (Regardless of that faith)

This one reason of many that I dont have much regards for Religion, be it whatever branch or belief.

I am a firm believer of the fact that while you walk this earth, you and only you have have the major influence of which direction you go in life.

You are accountable for yourself.

What happens when you depart this earth?

That's the million dollar question.

Is there a "Supreme" being?

That's worth another million as far as questions go.

The one thing that is very well exampled in the qouted post is that regardless of the faith, it is within the individual that defines them as "Evil"

Hypocracy and Religion seem to go hand in hand.

[ag12 0]

The Old Testament is about the Creation, the Children of Israel and kings of the time along with prophets teachings. Throughout the Old Testament is the prophecy of Jesus’ coming and covers approximately 4000 years. The New Testament is about Jesus’ life and example and the fulfilling of what was prophesied in the Old and covers approximately 2000 years. The Old law only applies to those before the coming of Jesus, the rest of us are subject to the words and teachings of Jesus. This is all wrapped up in the very difficult to understand and comprehend book of Revelations which ties together the Old and the New Testament.

I love how you say "the rest of us are subject to the words and teachings of Jesus"...as if this belief system austomatically applies to everyone else in the world, only for the reason that you believe it. What about the Jews who don't follow Jesus? Or the billions who follow hinduism, buddhism, islam, etc. This is like the bumper sticker I see sometimes that says "Jesus died for your sins", as if we all owe something to Jesus or to Christianity for bringing us this great message.

Religion gives something to believe in, and when they really believe it, there's no changing their minds in many cases. So you've got all these different groups of people who believe that they are absolutely and totally right in their views on God...and what happens? Well, turn to the history books. All religions were spread by force. As in, "You have 2 choices right now, convert to christianity, or lose your head."

This attitude still exists...only now they threaten you with God's consequences in the afterlife if you don't convert. It was great driving through town last summer and seeing a big sign out in front of a local christian church, that said something to the effect of "Think it's hot out now? If you don't walk with Jesus, you haven't seen the half of it."

These kind of scare tactics seem to contradict the entire purpose or message of most religions...yet it has consistently been the one driving force for bringing in new converts throughout history. Once people were no longer able to threaten you with being maimed/killed if you didn't convert, they put the burden of punishment on their almighty God. I always think that people who believe they speak for God are incredibly audacious; You believe in a supreme, perfect being...yet you also believe you have the power to tell people how it is, and to say how this supreme God will handle things.

Sorry, let me correct myself.."those of us who believe".. I don't mean to come across with the attitude that I'm putting down other's belief systems. I was just trying to answer someone's question. I don't believe in scare tactics as a reasonable or successful method either. When I see signs like the one you mentioned I roll my eyes also. This whole topic is a tough one to tackle and it's far bigger than I even understand. Just trying to bring my side to the debate.

[Guy Incognito 0]

I'm getting bored... points are being emphasized over and over again. Anyway, ASNP- what I think the question, "Are atheists morally accountable?" is asking is "To whom or what are atheist morally accountable?" Or, "Why should atheists even worry about ethics/morals if there is supposedly no one to answer? Interpreting the question in that way might give you a tad of insight as to what my most recent post was pertaining to.

[Chadd 916]

I'm getting bored... points are being emphasized over and over again. Anyway, ASNP- what I think the question, "Are atheists morally accountable?" is asking is "To whom or what are atheist morally accountable?" Or, "Why should atheists even worry about ethics/morals if there is supposedly no one to answer? Interpreting the question in that way might give you a tad of insight as to what my most recent post was pertaining to.

You are accountable to yourself and your community regardless of what your beliefs might be. If you do the right thing only because you are afraid of punishment in the afterlife, you're doing the right thing for the wrong reason. You should be doing the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do.