Atheism and morality vs. Christianity and morality

[Confused]

I have often heard that atheists are amoral and that Christianity offers the way to morality. This thread is quite simple then I guess.

1) Is there any evidence to link atheism and amorality? What?
2) Is there any evidence to link atheism and morality? What?
3) Is there any evidence to link Christianity and amorality? What?
4) Is there any evidence to link Christianity and morality? What?

[Artie]

A Chinese person, Jew, atheist, and Christian can meet and say "yes, love your neighbor."

Yes they can. Simply because people of that opinion have survived and those of other opinions have died. Nothing to do with any particular religion as you demonstrate.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

1) Is there any evidence to link atheism and amorality? What?

Yes. They do stuff of which I disapprove.

2) Is there any evidence to link atheism and morality? What?

Yes. They do stuff of which I approve.

3) Is there any evidence to link Christianity and amorality? What?

Yes. They do stuff of which I disapprove.

3) Is there any evidence to link Christianity and amorality? What?

Yes. They do stuff of which I approve.

What constitutes morality (beyond the mere concept) is subjective opinion. There is no one group with a lock on either amorality or morality. This is why I propose we continue seeking a better understanding, and not just confine ourselves to what is approved "morality" according to ancient people or texts.

[cholland]

What constitutes morality (beyond the mere concept) is subjective opinion. There is no one group with a lock on either amorality or morality. This is why I propose we continue seeking a better understanding, and not just confine ourselves to what is approved "morality" according to ancient people or texts.

Seek a better understanding of what? If morality is nothing more than subjective opinion, what exactly are we seeking?

[Artie]

What constitutes morality (beyond the mere concept) is subjective opinion. There is no one group with a lock on either amorality or morality. This is why I propose we continue seeking a better understanding, and not just confine ourselves to what is approved "morality" according to ancient people or texts.

Seek a better understanding of what? If morality is nothing more than subjective opinion, what exactly are we seeking?

We are using logic, reason and common sense to develop common morals for the betterment and continued development of mankind.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Given only atheism, a person is well within his rights to believe that there are moral facts, values that we ought to follow if we want to be or instantiate good. For the atheist these might be natural or non-natural facts, and they may or may not be brute, unexplainable facts.

How? How can there be moral facts in a material world? Morals are immaterial concepts.

I don't know about moral facts but there certainly can be morals. Morals are concepts, I wouldn't go so far as to say that they are immaterial because as with all concepts they do exist in the brain. If it can be thought, a concept cannot be immaterial.

If an atheist wants to be good, he must first determine what "good" is.

As does a theist. This is a human condition, not one determined by a theological stance.

Christianity allows us to go beyond our own, personal minds and say there is another immaterial person whose "being" these morals came from. These morals exist.

It certainly allow's you to say that but what you just said has little to no meaning and certainly doesn't effect your opinions on morality. Similar to an atheist, the theist has to actually form a moral opinion before calling something good or bad, associating with religion does not automatically give you a moral opinion, you have to understand the moral teachings you agree or disagree with. Your reasoning can be entirely different to the atheist but the formation of a moral opinion occurs for both and in a very similar manner.

Granted they don't have to be written in a book or scroll, but they exist in this world and they are beyond each of our own, individual minds. A Chinese person, Jew, atheist, and Christian can meet and say "yes, love your neighbor."

Given only atheism, there are no moral facts outside of your own mind. A Nazi, NAMBLA pedophile, Christian, and atheist are either good or bad depending on your perspective.

You are confusing two different debates, you are confusing subjective morality v. objective morality with theistic v. atheistic morality. There is a big difference. Theistic morality is still based on perspective and opinion. You are pretending that because you believe objective morality exists that it does, which is not necessarily true. The theist and the atheist have no real difference in their moral opinions or how they are formed, one simply attributes theirs to a supernatural entity while the other attributes theirs to their own life experience.

[Autodidact]

You just reiterated what I said, except for the stereotype. I've said now 4 times that atheists can exist with morals, but my question is how? A common atheist stereotype is anything immaterial must be seen with skepticism since it cannot be seen, touched or tasted. So a materialist who says "genocide is wrong" across all of humanity is inconsistent. Morals are immaterial and cannot exist outside of one person's head.

Well, a Christian, Jew or Muslim cannot say that genocide is wrong at all, unless they also believe that God commands us to do evil. Because God clearly commands His people to commit genocide--over and over.

[David 2.0]

A little throw the baby out with the bath water for my tastes but I can see your point.
If all moral propositions are nullified because of the slavery issue than so be it.

I will repeat this...
In my experience I have never met a christian that said christianity teaches that slavery is right? Nada-zero-zilch.
If I run into one I will post the results here.

I've met several right on this forum. They have to; their Bible says so. They will usually explain that it's a different kind of slavery, much nicer, almost like employment, and a kindness actually for the poor slave who would otherwise have starved to death, and needs the protection of his owner, but yes, they defend it. What choice to they have? Their god authorizes it.

That has been my experience. Interpretation and explanation.
Slavery lite...

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 73:

What constitutes morality (beyond the mere concept) is subjective opinion. There is no one group with a lock on either amorality or morality. This is why I propose we continue seeking a better understanding, and not just confine ourselves to what is approved "morality" according to ancient people or texts.

Seek a better understanding of what?

What best fits our standard or understanding of proper, right moral action or thought.

If morality is nothing more than subjective opinion, what exactly are we seeking?

To encourage others to accept our particular subjective opinion regarding what constitutes proper, right moral action or thought.

[Goat]

For the atheist these might be natural or non-natural facts, and they may or may not be brute, unexplainable facts.

Just as an aside, the recourse to brute facts is a tacit admission of failure.

How so? Can you back up this claim? How is it an admission of failure at all?

[Goat]

What constitutes morality (beyond the mere concept) is subjective opinion. There is no one group with a lock on either amorality or morality. This is why I propose we continue seeking a better understanding, and not just confine ourselves to what is approved "morality" according to ancient people or texts.

Seek a better understanding of what? If morality is nothing more than subjective opinion, what exactly are we seeking?

What we are seeking is a balance between the opinion of the individual and the consensus of the society. Morality is a culturally conditioned response