Do the religious have higher morals than the non-religious?

by digderidoo 30 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Forscher

  Some do, some don't

  It all depends on where they base their morality. If their morality is based on the needs of some religious institution, i.e. RCC or JWs, then they don't often have all that high a morality. If they are based directly of Jesus' teachings, or I might even add Buddha's from what I little I know of his teachings, then their morality will usually be higher. One poster already noted the high morality of an isolated Russian Christian group who only had a few examples of Jesus' sayings to go on for determining their morality.

  I've met non-religious folks with a much nobler sense of morality than most religious. But when I enquirer as to where that sense comes from I usually find that it goes back some sort of religious basis formed early on in life or in their parents life and passed on to them. Others noted how religiously based morals made some associates life better and simply emulated what they saw worked.

  Forscher
• 

  Elsewhere

  I believe that, deep down, the vast majority of people are atheist and conjure up their god only when it is convenient.

  I call it the Video Proposal. I call it this because of the fact that the vast majority of people will behave themselves when they believe they are being watched by other people, however they are have no problem misbehaving when they believe they are not being watched.

  If people really, truly, believed in an all powerful, ever watchful god who will judge their actions, then the presence of video cameras would have absolutely no affect on their behavior.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  video cameras or not, I still believe in God.
• 

  changeling

  Osama Bin Laden is very religious, is he "moral"?

  Bottom line, I don't think it's either or, like other posters said, morality varies by individual. But to view religious people as automatically more moral, would be a big mistake.

  changeling
• 

  WTWizard

  Hardly. They have more rules that have nothing to do with genuine morals, and often they are bad for self and/or society. Plus, they are more likely to kill in the name of God, or create laws to legislate science.

  Those who are atheists or that dislike (or hate) God often live to simpler moral standards. While there are fewer rules, they usually allow the adherents to actually do more good. And they get to actually enjoy the fruitages of their good acts, namely righteous pride and dignity.
• 

  Carlos_Helms

  If you define morality as a measurement from some religious benchmark then, yes, the religious are "more moral." Without the benchmarks, who's to say?
  
  Jesus set a different, higher standard for "morality." He equated the "hater" with the "murderer" and the "luster" with the "adulterer." In his "kingdom standard," it would be impossible to measure the moral character of another. One might consider, then, the morality of judging another.
  
  In truth, there is no measurable difference between the morality of the religious and non-religious populations. The religious can hate or lust as much or as little as the agnostic or atheist. According to Jesus, there are no measurements because there is no baseline. If person conquers hating and lusting, does he look any different than the person who represses his desires or hides his actions for the benefit of his reputation? Is it better to be externally-controlled...or not to need to be controlled?
  
  We see morality from the standpoint of perfect adherence to certain accepted precepts - and immorality as the relative distance from those standards. It's a measure from the bottom up. Jesus, in his wisdom, asked his followers to measure themselves from the top down. If he conquered the world, he conquered its desires. By fulfilling the ancient Law Covenant (his timely arrival and loyalty to the death eliminated further need for it), he opened the door for us to "rise above" the necessity for external standards of control.
  
  Carlos
• 

  shopaholic

  Nope.

  I really don't think following morals has anything to do with religion althougth its typically associated with religion. IMO, living a moral life is about accountability. For some its accountability to God and to others its accountability to mankind. Over the past year, I've met many non-religious folks that are more moral and purely upstanding than a lot of the holyrollers. No doubt, its because the holyrollers do it because they feel they must (punishment vs reward) and the non-religious simply because they believe its the right thing to do.
• 

  Junction-Guy

  As a christian I try to treat everyone the way I would like to be treated, sometimes it isn't easy when others are rude.
  
  About the only atheists I know are on this board, so perhaps this isn't a good representation of what atheists are really like.
• 

  CoonDawg

  In some respects, I think "moral" is a subjective term. What is moral for one person may be seen as immoral by others. Is "moral" merely observing social mores or is it greater than this? I think, as many others have stated, that there are plenty who are not religious who are "moral" by the loose definition that seems to be accepted in this thread. I think it's more a character issue. How much respect do you have for how your actions impact those around you? Is that impact positive or negative? Do your actons coincide with your personal beliefs and convictions? I think all these aspects play into what a person deems "moral" action and "immoral".
• 

  BurnTheShips

  I believe that, deep down, the vast majority of people are atheist and conjure up their god only when it is convenient.

  That is because, deep down, you don't understand the vast majority of people.

  BTS