It probably depends on the particular atheist and whatever philosophy/ moral code the atheist holds.

IMO it can go both ways but the scales are tipped in favour of immoral behaviour based on the degree an individual believe they can get away with something, especially when the only roadblock is fellow man. The wealthier a person is, the more they will try and get away with, from fetishes to financial empire, first thinking that money can buy their way out of any situation and that the power gives them an upper hand. We see this time and time again and the ones who do fall are usually fed to the lions by their own kind in either a power play or as a token sacrifice.

These play by the manmade rules of the god of this world which promote  this modern day jungle behaviour of survival of the fittest and those with the most toys wins, doing the exact opposite of what Jesus promoted with loving neighbour as self and servitude over oppression. Those who consider judgement or karma or what have you as nonexistent, see life as finite and go for the gusto seeing life as their only chance. Jesus agreed when he said they shall have their reward  of what they accumulate here but nothing more.

Hi Happy Genius,

Debateable.

There are a lot of variables that come into play.  For example, if your religious perspective involves the notion of God as a scorekeeper then there is a moral importance to our actions here on earth because it is by those actions we will be judged.  If our theology doesn't involve a scorekeeper then a present (here and now as opposed to there and then) morality is not out of place.

If there is no possibility of being held accountable then I think our life on earth holding a greater moral importance is a toss of the coin.  I expect how we have been socialized to think of or value good and evil informs at this point.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Well that depends, would you say "truth" is subjective or objective? Would atheism then have to say that a perfect altruistic love does not exist? Remember for an atheist this answer must correspond to reality for it to be true so for atheism perfect love does not exist.

Quite frankly I would rather live in a society that aims for this kind of love that is beyond this worlds understanding. It makes us try harder when we have God's vision for us. (IMO)

One of our Aussie athiest radio guys is fond of saying, "Being an athiest, is the greatest aphrodisiac for life".

(I must admit, it has a certain ring of truth about it!)

Is it true? Are believers lax because we have all the time in the world?

I think our conscious religious or philosophical beliefs are mostly a post-hoc justification for the values we already hold, so (a)theism isn't likely to create much of a difference there.

I never much associate trust in God with morality. 

I guess I have seen too many 'church' people supporting things I consider morally wrong  (like investing in gold mines in the Philipines; using water as a commody; buying clothing made in sweat shops; owning shares in sweat shops); and I have seen people who do not claim any religion who do justice and love mercy and walk humbly in the world. 

To me religion has to do with relationship - my relationship with God and the world I live in.   I trust in God's love.  I love God.  I love the world I live in. 

I think that many atheists do much the same in relation to the world and to their fellow travellers.

I tend to agree with Azdgari.

Some Eastern religions are so-called "atheistic" religions. They are atheistic inasmuch as they don't believe in a separate, supernatural God. They certainly are no less moral than Westerners who believe in God as the supernatural cosmic creator and judge. Whether atheists value life more than theists is debatable. There seem to be as many suicides among atheists as there are among theists.

Not worrying in an afterlife has some ups and downs to wit ...

What if in the afterlife you know all the things you did wrong in the present ... and you still hate thinking ... is that hell?

Then there is the Golden Rule about caring about the stranger ... are your offspring basically unknown to you ... like history ... something to be forgotten about so you won't have to think of the larger all-encompassing image ... GOD? There's the lost soul syndrome ... doesn't think about nothing little more strange things ... perhaps not lost but a icon of a soul on the shelf ... unused ... might as well be gone ...

There'as another worry ... in accrude sense ... somewhat integral if you ask me ... it all adds up to a chimerii mind state ... Gnoen ... or the chilly state of Nome ... spring time hoped for in Alaska ... the dreamed of thaw ... of emotions that are generally cool in an aggressive state of mind close to all-out war that some businessmen appreciate ... time for making bucks on lives lost ... a grand undertaking ...

Exegetes can lead the unthinking in such dead end paths ... exegetes being leaders of mostly blind folk if you listen to what they demand from yah ... into the dark pool now forget everything! There are exceptions to all rules ... provided for my imaginary processes ... out of the box, or just outlander things ... literate wonderers in the dark squigglies!

The argument I have seen is that there is more merit in doing something that is good or morally right because it is the good, morally right thing to do than there is in doing that thing because one either a) feels a religious obligation to do it or b) one anticipates some eternal reward for doing it.

Atheists don't seem to have a monopoly on prison spaces.

Faith in God has never seemed to be much of a deterrent to immoral behaviour.

Born-again Christians get divorced at the same rate as non-Christians

The Evangelical churches who began the whole "Abstinence promise" thing in it's various forms are finding their teenage pregnancy rate is higher than the national median.

And then ther's the whole history of the church thing, not very "holy" at the best of times.

Even here we see many of those most adamant about being "true" Christians are the most dishonest when it comes to comporting themselves in a discussion.

What's a "true Christian" look like, witch?

That is one of those questions that really makes me feel like I ought to be checking for bear traps as it were. But I'll have a go. 

To me 'true Christians" are quiet about their faith. They live their beliefs and are secure in those beliefs and so do not feel the need to loudly proclaim them or shove them into other's faces.  They tend to embody certain traits - they tend to be generous, kind, forgiving, willing to listen, willing to share. And there is a centredness about them that is really quite difficult to describe, but you know it when you see it. 

Actually I have found that "true" Pagans, or Buddhists or Muslims (that is to say members many other faiths) share a lot of those traits. They don't need to bluster about their faith because they live in such a way that people can see them living their beliefs.

There is a hymn (unfortunately not in VU) that says, "You'll know that wee are Christians by our love".  I'm sure it it based on a Bible verse, probaby one of the epistles of John. 

Followers of Jesus' Way can be recognized by the love they show to others, whether they claim the title Christian or not.

On the other hand, many of those who claim to be 'true' Christians (as opposed to false Christians, I guess) are often in your face about it, but do not show much love. 

Religion, regardless of it's basis, is a gathering place for all kinds seeking personal platforms. There are those who see it as a platform for doing good, those who seek a cover for their less than godly ways, those who are looking for an identity or self esteem, whether it matches their real selves or not, and so on. Being part of a religion is no guarantee of anything when it comes to morals and ideals. Even belief in God is no guarantee for there are those who follow His will and those who use God to justify their own wills. We all are known by our fruit.

I think this is the key. If you are confident in your faith (a "true follower" of whatever faith you may follow, if you must use that term) then there should be no need to impose it on others or aggressively attack the faith of others. The fact that not everyone agrees with your concept of reality shouldn't be an affront to you, just a reality that you live with. Living it faithfully and speaking it gently and confidently should be enough to let others know what you believe and why you believe it.

Unfortunately, Christianity has a long history of being an aggressively missionary religion that spreads itself through the exercise of power rather than simply by being a shining example of God's grace (Islam suffers from this, too, to some extent).  Worse, there are Biblical verses that can be used to justify it, making it possible to argue that this is the "true" Christianity regardless of whether it fits the example of Christ or not. Therefore, some Christians still pursue it in that way. Some who follow other belief systems, such as the hard atheists who aggressively attack religious belief, have chosen to follow this example which really only perpetuates the problem rather than solving it.

BTW, I think that this applies to other belief systems, such as politics and secular philosophies, as well.

Mendalla

Jesus said to spread the good news (gospel) of the Kingdom. Man spreads the news of their own kingdom called religion.

Back to the opening. What one believes about God is insignifican.  What matters is what one believes about self.  If we see ourselves as disconnected spectators and participants on our terms in the world, then our inclination to care about or respect the rest of the world will be minimal.  If we see ourselves as part of the world with a stake in the well-being of the world, then we will be more inclined to behave in caring and respectful ways.  I am guessing that moral behaviour is behaviour that shows concern for the well-being of others.

A number of the comments above are evidence of how immoral many religious institutions and individuals have been, and continue to be, sort of like many corporations and governments.  This reflects on how fractured our dominants societies are as their institutions seem to select for immoral leaders.

Then there are the under dog christians ... those that are subliminal and do what they can with few resources because of the successful Christians absconded with those resources ...

These people work in the Shadow like Robin Hoo'd rather see things different ... in the church than orthodox ... this would allow people to grow and change ... a process that really be Piscine off those that beleived they're fixed for life ...

After that ... latency? The etude that follows emotional outbursts?

Sound familiar?

Big Bang ...

Those of us looking at it from the bottom side see it as a great potentiaal for learning from those who chit on the wee people: elves, gnomes, dwarfs ... ho buttes? They're legacy ... or la Gassy expansions on what wasn't to begin with or initialization of what you thought was just it ...

Bottom end or foundation stone of what we know is as far away as God in the sense of us loving the underdog!

Nos Hytes Ahab ... if you can't read throught the fog you can't deal with the complexity of life and settle for simplicity of superficial words ... its a lot deeper than that ... the accrude weeze hytes ... they can rise up---Marx! Eris as a icon of dissonance? Normal phoqah don't get it ... they accept things straight up form the leadership that doesn't know ... not a sliver of doubt ... they don't dare ...

me ;3

Are you asking about true Christians, or "true" Christians.

True Christians display the fruits of the spirit in all things, love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.

"True" Christians rarely display any fruits of the spirit, but will be more than happy to tell you how they really are the "true" Christians and everything they want to believe just happens to be what the holy spirit says, and their interpretation of the bible is the only right one, and the things they hate are the same as what God hates, and God............................................

True Christians look for holiness with a wideangle lens.

"True" Christians look for holiness with a mirror.

Get a dictionary

Okay lets try this. A person asks you if you belong to a paticular religion and you say no. Then the person asks if you believe in God and you say of course. So then the person asks well then what God do you believe in and you say the God Jesus believed in. So the person says then you are a Christian then and you say yes. Then isn't  Christianity one of the major religions of the world?  So the only aswer you are left with is yes or no and you decide to say something about Jesus being above religion. Ya makes sense.

Region is emotional ... sort of dark ... needs backlighting which allowes subliminal illumination from the tome ...

If a singular god is all there is, is that integral and many don't know integration, summation and other sorts of accounting?

It all adds up for when that day comes that you are aware of everything including those people you screwed off the list unconsciously ...

Puts the mind right into a swirl ... a icon of the Latin ethe ...ð ... perhaps just symbolic of something else again ...

Does that mass up the mind?

no more bizarre than any other belief here :3

i keep hearing aboot this one -- i think congratulations are in order for this BS being promoted; i think part of it is due to more believers realizing that whatever books they read, no matter how holy, were written by human beings and that the meaning they glean from them come from themselves interacting with the words and their culture etc.  so all they are left with is still the nebulous transcendent 'Deity'...they are forced to become mystics...:3

universe works in mysterious ways :3

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/01/09/the-spiritual-but-not-religious-likely-to-face-mental-health-issues-drug-use-study-says/

that's interesting :3

(personally noticing automatic connections to intentional brain changing potentially leading to negative results if one also doesn't have a rigorous epistemology/scientific attitude and an integral part of Judiasm of group religion so that 'bad' ideas don't spread too far...)

and the great writer Oliver Sacks did a simple test where he sent students with no history (or family history) of mental illness into a hospital claiming to be hearing voices...and every one, after taking their history and all, were classified as schizophrenics :3

(Oliver Sacks points out that for the majority of the world, 'hearing voices' is a part of their culture...)

so, at least sometimes, 'mental illness' is a cultural thing...our culture certainly is strange :3

for fun, check out Jan 7th's episode of "Enright files" of the CBC program Ideas.  A good talk with Andrew Solomon...you can hear it on the cbc website on CBC one...

Here's a link to get you started

(there's also a bit on Henri Nouwen there...)

Well, Inanna, if the definition of schizophrenia is not seeing reality for what it really is, or perceiving reality differently from everyone else, then we all are schizophrenics because everyone experiences reality differently and creates for him- or herself a unique conceptual reality. Then being a creator is being schizophrenic, and being an imitator is normal.

There is great pressure for normalcy in our society. That's why there are so many imitators and so few creators among us.

Anyone read "What is God" by Jacob Needleman?  Needleman is a philospher and former athiest who has studied under eastern as well as western teachers.  It was interesting to read that his idea of God is that which is within you, like a second self.  However, since man has not been developed  to the extent to which "God" intended, man may never get a true glimpse of God, and if he does, it will probably be for one brief fleeting moment.  It comes as a moment of light or seeing which one may, but does not normally experience.  The book was really too deep for me to grasp a lot of what he was saying, but I found it interesting, nevertheless,  -- a different concept.

When yer sober?

y'know, waterfalls question can be interpreted as" Is one who is a witch  a true Christian?"

Not quite, but rather it is a reflective question from an earlier time in my life.

When I was a young mother with three children underfoot, I would inevitibly be the one that would welcome all my family for Christmases and Thanksgiving dinners. I would invite my family and relatives which would include my father and stepmother and my husbands side of the family also (this more to avoid the added inconvenience of having two dinners for separate families)

After doing this for the several years, my stepmther announced that she and my father would no longer attend our celebrations and instead had chosen to celebrate with other families that were more "Christian".

For a long time I wondered what this mean't having thought of myself as "Christian" but probably not in the text that she had created as to what a "Christian" should look like. Did they want to be around people that could offer a more theological discussion at the table? Did they believe we were more pagen because Santa came to our house that morning? Did we appear shallow or barbaric with all of Christianity being undermined by three little kids behaving like kids during the celebration? I never knew what they meant. I  only knew it somewhat hurt. I had offered a meal and the chance to be together as family and from that time forward they chose to be somewhere else on these occasions.

Fast forward, my sister now holds a meal within her church every Christmas Day for the last 12 years. They have anywhere from 100-150 people every Christmas. Anyone can come. There is no evangelizing, just a meal and a chance for others to come together so no one is alone. This ministry takes great care to notice who needs to be comforted and how. (Widows, those homeless, those rejected, the lonely, etc...) Many leave with a smile rather than the sullen expression they came in with.

Both instances have made me realize that Christianity isn't about excluding others while a tight circle is being created amongst ourselves but rather widening the circle and embracing others. While we may ground ourselves in a faith it is not our place to say whose table has the better food or who can eat at the table.

IMO when we label ourselves "Christians" we should be careful that we don't cast or set that image in stone. It should be more organic. A living and breathing "thing" that gives life and shares it with others. N.T. Wright refers to the churches as "hospitals for the sick" and that churches represent a starting point from where we go out into the world, not the other way around.

Looking back on my life, I can see how my "Christianity" has wavered, strengthened and changed overtime. My proclaimation becomes less obvious as I live my life among everyone and anyone and I am challenged by those who insist that I should look different than everyone else. But in reality, we may think we are different but are we really? We are all strugglling within this creation to become human beings and it's ongoing and ever changing.

Is this the same as sitting on the wall like Rahab seeing the advantages to all customs ... that within and without the box ... so the wall could be torn out and put the two together?

Absolutely bewitching to the abstract degree ... could just blow a soul creating "c" out of nothing ... that's the zero integer in quantum process ... how we got to be just a speck in the universe! Dirt in Godsigh ...

Does seed work well on an open road or buried with some chit, wee bit from mortal m'n, a conceptual term for those that may learn ... if they choose! Many don't why this realm is so screwed up with emotional crap ...

Time for another arrest ... and the world became what? Is that like Zombei State .. revolving dead, or just somnolant stir ... creating a field for the quantum parts ... we-bits when shuttled cautiously?

Tell me again about the celestial weaver ... just ouda here ... hoo'meis? You probaly have mistaken me as a tinker ... one who works soles ... word plae ... spatial traveller? Leaves a person somewhat dizzy ... concepts of bo'sun condensates ... weird fluid like emotions that can become thoughts!

Right out of the box you say ... un confined? Thought never hurt anyone unless you impose them in physical form like some autocrats ... use some care yous ITs!