Differences Between Atheists And Atheists

Therefore, the only reason one has to behave ‘morally’ is because god, the bible or Jesus says you should. Moreover, the consequences of behaving in contradiction to Christian values or behaving ‘immorally’ involve punishment by god whether it be in this life or the after-life. This philosophy sheds some light on why atheism is feared, despised and misunderstood as well as why atheists are persecuted in America. If there is no god to answer to or no consequences for ‘bad behavior’, why then, would anyone behave in a good moral fashion? What is to prevent deviant behavior, if there is no god? These questions are the main basis for the Christian argument which maintains that atheists are untrustworthy, immoral or amoral, social deviants and therefore lesser human beings. Some have gone as far to say that atheists are unpatriotic, un-American and do not even have the right to be acknowledged as citizens of the United States.

In B.C Johnson’s “Why Doesn’t God Intervene to Prevent Evil?”, Johnson uses the situation of a baby being trapped in a burning building in order to show that the excuses theists give for Gods inaction are invalid. He argues that if there is in fact a god, that he is either evil, or both good and evil. Johnson begins with the theistic argument that the baby would go to heaven, but he claims that this will not suffice. The suffering that the baby felt was necessary or not necessary, and this fact determines if it was right or wrong to allow such suffering. But Johnson argues that the necessity of the suffering of the child carries no importance when examining God’s inaction.

Someone who would believe a statement such as this one would most likely be in agreement with the Divine Command Theory---the reason being that the main claim in this theory is, all that is morally right, is right because God commands it so. Therefore in order to believe in the Divine Command Theory, one would need to be a strong believer in God---and would truly believe that if there were no God, morality would be absent. With this in mind, if God is the creator of all that is morally right, and there turns out to be no god at all, then nothing is morally wrong or can be capable of being morally wrong---would be a statement that non-believers of the Divine Command Theory would believe, and believe that morality can exist on its own, with or without a God. In this paper I will focus on the Divine Command Theory in relation to the statement above, and those who would oppose this statement. In doing so, I will attempt to show why I believe that those opposing this statement have a more plausible view.

Atheism and Christianity has different viewpoints in regards to the origin of the universe, but both share alikeness as well. Christians believe in God, but Atheist does not. Christians believed and that the universe and earth was created by God in six days and on the seventh day he rested. The atheist on the other hand believe that the universe was made of an atom, expanded to what we know now, energy and matter. According to Jack Wellman, Christians and atheists can agree upon is that the universe had a finite, singular, beginning point called “Big Bang Theory.” That the expanded universe came from nothing if we reverse it.

The belief that morality requires God remains a widely held moral maxim. In particular, it serves as the basic assumption of the Christian fundamentalist's social theory. Fundamentalists claim that all of society's troubles - everything from AIDS to out-of-wedlock pregnancies - are the result of a breakdown in morality and that this breakdown is due to a decline in the belief of God. This paper will look at different examples of how a god could be a bad thing and show that humans can create rules and morals all on their own. It will also touch upon the fact that doing good for the wrong reasons can also be a bad thing for the person.

On the other hand, rejecting the divine command theory, and accepting that moral principles exist independently of divine

Having completed the unit of philosophy of religion, you are now ready to respond to an article written by an actual atheist.  This article, titled “On Being an Atheist,” was written by H. J. McCloskey in 1968 for the journal Question.  McCloskey is an Australian philosopher who wrote a number of atheistic works in the 1960s and 70s including the book God and Evil (Nijhoff, 1974). In this article, McCloskey is both critical of the classical arguments for God’s existence and offers the problem of evil as a reason why one should not believe in God.

As aforementioned, God is the foundation of values in Christian theism, but for naturalists, values are created by human beings. The problem is, without any transcendent standard of good or bad, how does one derive what “ought” to be from what “is”? Naturalists believe that all people have a sense of moral values acquired by intuition and authority or picked up from their environment. For them, good action is the action that promotes harmony and survival within the community. This is the view held by postmodernists as well, where society determines what social good ought to be. Ethics thus becomes autonomous and situational rejecting the need for any theological sanction.

The Rachels and Vuletic all conclude that morality is independent of religion. From the Vuletic article it stated, “The only reason I can fathom for why believers might think transcendental moral facts are better explained by theism than by atheism is because--speaking from personal experience as a former Christian--believers have been psychologically conditioned to feel that a complete explanation has been offered for anything and everything whenever someone says the word "God.” I agree with this statement. I do not believe that morality is dependent on religion. I believe that the only reason why people believe this is because believing in God allows them to follow what he stands for. I do not believe that God or even “God’s laws” can be followed by everyone and demonstrate what is right from wrong. Even though I am not a religious person, I can see why this would make life easier. Your views are justified by God, because you are follows the beliefs of God.

We can argue and take the first side that humans have a moral compass and possess the ability to differentiate what is right or wrong without religion governing them. It can be interpreted that we can be morally good, so therefore being morally good can be independent of God. God recognizes the deed as morally good and then approves

Recently, a commentor recommended a book. I looked at the book on amazon, and the book's premise was that even atheists use Christian morals. I have heard this argument before. The premise is usually a variant on the idea that people, here anyways, grow up in a largely Christian society, and this is where atheists get their morals. Thus, an atheist's moral values originate from Christianity.

Also, most theists would admit that it would be hard to accept this kind of moral foundation, as it gives things like murder and charity no moral value. If these values have no reasonable basis, why should we follow them in the first place? It seems quite fair to not follow these morals, and seems unfair to punish people for not following them, especially in a world where rape and murder were promoted. The next problem is the difficulty in knowing God’s commands.

Christian morality is centered on assessing the ethical implications of us as people. Who we ought and be, and what actions we ought to take or avoid based on an understanding of the scripture and relevant human experiences. I do not subscribe to the divine command theory (DCT) of ethics, as I believe you can have ethics without God. The DCT proposes that what is morally right is what God has commanded (for example, love thy neighbor), and what is forbidden by God is morally wrong (i.e. murder), yet there are many who agree that murder is wrong without reading the bible to recognize this. As such, I argue that the churches moral teachings are of

Morality only exists if we believe in God; therefore if God doesn’t exist there is no morality. There have been so many evil acts committed in the name of God that it is difficult to maintain that a belief in God equates to morality. There are situations that happen every day where decisions are made based off of human rights that contradict the word of God. Morality comes from within, it is an understanding of right versus wrong and the ability to choose what is right. Knowing all this a belief in God is not a requirement for a person to be moral. (Mosser, 2011)

Theist: A negative theodicy is a form of answer which explains why God allows evil and