Because the recent topic 'Atheism Examined' seems to be veering into yet another 'who's more moral' debate, rather than a foray into the definition of atheism, I am proposing that the conversation be moved to a new thread.
I don't know how much personal lead-in is required here. But over-all the 'atheist' side was defending itself as equally moral, and there is now a smattering of 'more moral' coming up as well, from both sides?
Maybe we could just list some of the things which both parties feel are the common ground items, and the areas of disagreement. What are the different morals of the two groups, if any?
For myself the main difference is that I include love of God in my morality, which governs things like church attendance, blasphemy, attachment to creation and creatures, fasting and abstinance, and the requirements of the internal life via prayer. To me, if I lapsed in these areas, I would be 'less moral' than I could be, but not 'more moral' than a person without these constraints.
For others, love of others is key and/or sole basis of moral objectives. What I perceive as the main problem in 'religious morality' is that love of God has often surpassed love of neighbor. The Inquisition would be an example of so much 'loyalty' to God, that others were harmed. This seems to be an hypocrisy, as loving others should spring from loving God, in Christendom at least.
Also, since no one seems to believe in any 'real' or true morality, what is this yardstick which is used to determine whether another is weak or strong? Aren't we just saying stagnate or modern? Or are we talking about who has more pure motives?
Edited by anastasia, : title change
Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2