Christians Societies versus Non-Christian

[liamconnor]

A comparison was brought up in another thread between Christian morals and atheist morals, with the implication that atheists can be just as moral as Christians, if not more so.

I propose the contrast is spoiled unless it is being made between atheists who grew up in a fully integrated atheist environment, without Christian influences, and Christians from Christian societies. For Christendom has not completely died, and whatever morals atheists retain (and there are many) they can never refute the notion that these are but the vestiges of Christian influence, soon to wither away once completely removed from the root. (I suppose an atheist could attempt to say that the Christian virtues owe themselves to atheism, but the historical burden of proof is almost insuperable).

Perhaps a better contrast would be this: are there non-Christian societies, past or present, that one would rather live in than live in Christian societies, past or present? Would Augustus' Rome be better than Washington's America; or Louis IX's France better than Kim Jong-un's N. Korea?

[Divine Insight]

A comparison was brought up in another thread between Christian morals and atheist morals, with the implication that atheists can be just as moral as Christians, if not more so.

Not all non-Christians are atheists. Why compare Christianity with atheists? That's a false dichotomy. In fact, atheism isn't even a structured philosophy at all. Atheism is nothing other than a disbelief in any gods. So it's not even a philosophy any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Secularism could be a philosophy, but there isn't any strong secular examples to point to in human history since most humans tended to believe in imaginary Gods.

Perhaps a better contrast would be this: are there non-Christian societies, past or present, that one would rather live in than live in Christian societies, past or present? Would Augustus' Rome be better than Washington's America; or Louis IX's France better than Kim Jong-un's N. Korea?

Any societies that may have existed that simply didn't believe in any Gods is not a good example of "secularism". The reason being that those societies were not based on a philosophy of natural secularism. Instead they were often based upon human greed and power to of a dictator regime to control the masses.

So this entire approach to try to compare any religion with naturalism cannot be made to work. We simply don't have an intelligent example of any society that was actually based on natural humanitarianism.

And by the way, much of Christianity was actually a quite ruthless dictatorship throughout history. So it's not a very good example of moral behavior in any case. Christians have often killed Christians in large masses simply because they didn't agree on how to view Jesus, their God, or their religion.

So Christianity is hardly a model of morality to be held up on a pedestal.

In some eras of history Christianity was as militant and violent as some Islamic Extremists are today. We would have certainly called the burning and killing of pagans "terrorism". Yet throughout history Christians are guilty of having done that to a quite large degree.

In fact, religious "freedom" is actually a quite modern secular aspect of society today. Today we are not only free to not attend Christian Churches, but we can even speak out against them and debate the validity of their theology. This was not always the case by far.

And in the case of Islam it is still quite dangerous to speak out against Islam or challenge Islam in many Islamic countries.

The reason the Christianity became "civil" is because of secular enlightenment. NOT because of the religion itself. History is proof of this.

So secular values may actually be what caused Christianity to become civil in our day and age.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

D.I. Please read the entire OP.

In fact, religious "freedom" is actually a quite modern secular aspect of society today.

Really?! I did not realize that Zero Christians were behind religious freedom. Can you support this with scholarship?

Any societies that may have existed that simply didn't believe in any Gods is not a good example of "secularism". The reason being that those societies were not based on a philosophy of natural secularism. Instead they were often based upon human greed and power to of a dictator regime to control the masses.

Well, assuming there have been no examples of 'natural secularism' is it mere coincidence that all societies so far that are or have been atheistic are also not based on 'natural secularism'? Wouldn't the two go hand in hand? One would think that 'get rid of this nonsense of god or gods' and we would be on track? But we aren't. Why not? So far it seems you have come to the conclusion that all the Christian societies, while acknowledging all their injustices, are still the most just when contrasted to non-Christian societies.

The fact that your hypothetical "atheistic" society has not produced a just society will appear to many to be really against your philosophy, not my OP.

How do you respond?

[Justin108]

A comparison was brought up in another thread between Christian morals and atheist morals, with the implication that atheists can be just as moral as Christians, if not more so.

I propose the contrast is spoiled unless it is being made between atheists who grew up in a fully integrated atheist environment, without Christian influences, and Christians from Christian societies. For Christendom has not completely died, and whatever morals atheists retain (and there are many) they can never refute the notion that these are but the vestiges of Christian influence

I am an atheist. I believe homophobia to be immoral and I am against slavery. How are these two morals "vestiges of Christian influence"?

Overall, your OP seems to be one big post hoc ergo propter hoc

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

D.I. Please read the entire OP.

In fact, religious "freedom" is actually a quite modern secular aspect of society today.

Really?! I did not realize that Zero Christians were behind religious freedom. Can you support this with scholarship?

Any societies that may have existed that simply didn't believe in any Gods is not a good example of "secularism". The reason being that those societies were not based on a philosophy of natural secularism. Instead they were often based upon human greed and power to of a dictator regime to control the masses.

Well, assuming there have been no examples of 'natural secularism' is it mere coincidence that all societies so far that are or have been atheistic are also not based on 'natural secularism'? Wouldn't the two go hand in hand? One would think that 'get rid of this nonsense of god or gods' and we would be on track? But we aren't. Why not? So far it seems you have come to the conclusion that all the Christian societies, while acknowledging all their injustices, are still the most just when contrasted to non-Christian societies.

The fact that your hypothetical "atheistic" society has not produced a just society will appear to many to be really against your philosophy, not my OP.

How do you respond?

You must have missed the part where DI pointed out that atheism isn't a philosophy in the first place, anymore than not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Regardless, some of the Nordic countries are as close to a secular society as we have had in history, and they see pretty just to me...

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

Christian and Islamic countries have the highest murder rates in the world. If that's not an indicator of Abrhamic moral values I don't know what is.

[KenRU]

A comparison was brought up in another thread between Christian morals and atheist morals, with the implication that atheists can be just as moral as Christians, if not more so.

I propose the contrast is spoiled unless it is being made between atheists who grew up in a fully integrated atheist environment, without Christian influences, and Christians from Christian societies. For Christendom has not completely died, and whatever morals atheists retain (and there are many) they can never refute the notion that these are but the vestiges of Christian influence, soon to wither away once completely removed from the root. (I suppose an atheist could attempt to say that the Christian virtues owe themselves to atheism, but the historical burden of proof is almost insuperable).

Perhaps a better contrast would be this: are there non-Christian societies, past or present, that one would rather live in than live in Christian societies, past or present? Would Augustus' Rome be better than Washington's America; or Louis IX's France better than Kim Jong-un's N. Korea?

Well, if your assertion is true, then you have some difficult justifications to do. For example, according to statistics, violent crime is higher in religious states and countries than in secular states and countries.

If your argument that this is a result of a Christian influence, you then are still left with explaining why those statistics change favorably when one stops practicing Christianity. Justifying that Christianity still impacts one’s moral center does not explain the difference.

One certainly can’t say that if the non-religious hadn’t left their religion than those stats would be even more favorable, we know they aren’t – the statistics show us that.

Link: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ou ... d-religion

“Citing four different studies, Zuckerman states: "Murder rates are actually lower in more secular nations and higher in more religious nations where belief in God is widespread." He also states: "Of the top 50 safest cities in the world, nearly all are in relatively non-religious countries."

Within the United States, we see the same pattern. Citing census data, he writes: "And within America, the states with the highest murder rates tend to be the highly religious, such as Louisiana and Alabama, but the states with the lowest murder rates tend to be the among the least religious in the country, such as Vermont and Oregon."

And these findings are not limited to murder rates, as rates of all violent crime tend to be higher in "religious" states. Zuckerman also points out that atheists are very much under-represented in the American prison population (only 0.2%).�


The idea or argument that the contrast is spoiled because a fair comparison isn’t made seems a bit desperate. The stats are quite plain. Religious societies are not more moral or law abiding than secular ones.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 1 by liamconnor]

I propose the contrast is spoiled unless it is being made between atheists who grew up in a fully integrated atheist environment, without Christian influences, and Christians from Christian societies. For Christendom has not completely died, and whatever morals atheists retain (and there are many) they can never refute the notion that these are but the vestiges of Christian influence, soon to wither away once completely removed from the root. (I suppose an atheist could attempt to say that the Christian virtues owe themselves to atheism, but the historical burden of proof is almost insuperable).

Perhaps a better contrast would be this: are there non-Christian societies, past or present, that one would rather live in than live in Christian societies, past or present? Would Augustus' Rome be better than Washington's America; or Louis IX's France better than Kim Jong-un's N. Korea?

I find it curious that you don't look at it the other way, that there might be some virtues that Christians got from atheism. Oh you say up there that the burden of proof is extremely high...but why is that? How come there isn't a similar burden of proof for "Atheists got virtues from Christianity"? (or however you would word that statement).

I also like to point out that you say "whatever morals atheists retain"...as if once one becomes an atheist, they lose morals, they don't have the same quality or quantity of morals as good ol' God fearin' Christians do!

You point out that the contrast is spoiled because (to condense what you say above)...we don't have a control group, of a group of atheists who grew up in a strictly atheist environment.
Well...on the flip side, we don't have that for the Christians either. We don't have Christians growing up in an entirely Christian society (and which Christianity? Jehovah's Witnesses? Mormonism? Catholicism? etc).

[Bust Nak]

I propose the contrast is spoiled unless it is being made between atheists who grew up in a fully integrated atheist environment, without Christian influences, and Christians from Christian societies.

Wait a minute here, society has influence Christianity in the other direction too, so called Christian virtues owe themselves to humanism.

I suppose an atheist could attempt to say that the Christian virtues owe themselves to atheism, but the historical burden of proof is almost insuperable.

Note the difference between humanism and atheism, but as to your point, don't know why you'd think that it would be hard - given that a) human society predates Christianity, and b) there are modern "Christian" virtues that are not Biblically based, like religious tolerance.

Perhaps a better contrast would be this: are there non-Christian societies, past or present, that one would rather live in than live in Christian societies, past or present? Would Augustus' Rome be better than Washington's America; or Louis IX's France better than Kim Jong-un's N. Korea?

UK is pretty good non-Christian society to live in, made all the more ironic given it has a state religion. Japan is pretty nice too.