Do non-Christians have morals? Why or why not?
551548
ABSOLUTELY.  Christians do not have a monopoly on morals.  There are Christians with and without them.  There are Atheists with and without them.\n\nNon-Christians includes Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and well......everyone not Christian!  Absolutely every human is capable of morality.
513261
I'm a Christian but those who are not Christian do not base there beliefs onthe Bible.
1117989
What a sorry way to live life.  If god is so forgiving, he would applaud my free thinking attitude.  My actions in life define myself more than believing is something as ridiculous as a god that kills his own people and then says "thou shall not kill".  There's no reason not to have good morals, regardless of religious faith.  In fact, it seems that religion is inspiring more and more hatred and greed every day!  Those aren't Atheists strapping bombs around their waists and running into a crowd of people.
1050618
Is it okay to kill if one is not a Christian?  Is it okay to steal or lie if one is not a Christian?
378594
YEA to you!!!! I do not adhere to any religion, and feel I have a very solid moral base!!! I do not need the fear of heaven and hell, to know how to treat others and live a good caring, decent life!!!
415460
Christians in my opinion and experience are probably a bit less moral.  Look at the history.  Crusades.  Spanish Inquisition.....   Religion is just a method of controlling people.  Then once the ones that started it died and only the belivers survive to run it it becomes a boat with no captain.  A big scarry supertanker that will take out anyone in it's path.\n\nRemember anyone elses religion is just a superstition.  And the followers look like children trying to not step on cracks in the sidewalk to outsiders.  Think for yourself and live a good life.
741345
My source of morality growing up (and up until Pangel helped me to see things differently) has been what was drilled into my head by very conservative Christianity, as it relates to the Bible.  I'd probably consider it my church teachings first, ego second, Bible third, and fear of damnation fourth.\n\nNow, however, I still consider myself a Christian, but I would call human decency first, and the Bible second (interpretted very differently than before).  They practically go hand in hand.  I now interpret the Bible based on the world I see around me.  How do the teachings of the Bible fit with the observations I see in my day-to-day life?\n\nGod bless!
609320
Yep! Thats the way it is! \n\nThese people claim to have all knowledge and morals.\n\nI never did figure out where they got their moral standards from seeing as they don't believe.\n\nLike Ikemann, Hitler, Stalin, they just invent them.\n\nREMEMBER- WE ARE NOT OF THIS WORLD- JUST PASSING THROUGH.
93923
Well...  What religion does is make morality an objective idea instead of a subjective one; people obey the tenets that a certain religion sets forth.  Morality without religion is subjective; it is every individual's own perception of right and wrong -- which often differs.  Very similar is the difference between Christianity and humanism; one sets God as the absolute of all reality, and the other sets humankind as the absolute of all reality.  \nSo, do people need "god" to be morally "responsible" to their own concept of morality?  No.  Whether their idea of morality is correct, on the other hand -- take Hitler's morality for instance; he may very well have been responsible to his idea of morality -- is a totally different question.
1085413
No Gods\nOnce, flipping through a book on child psychology, I came across a chapter about adolescent rebellion. It suggested that in the first phase of a child's youthful rebellion against her parents, she may attempt to distinguish herself from them by accusing them of not living up to their own values. For example, if they taught her that kindness and consideration are important, she will accuse them of not being compassionate enough. In this case the child has not yet defined herself or her own values; she still accepts the values and ideas that her parents passed on to her, and she is only able to assert her identity inside of that framework. It is only later, when she questions the very beliefs and morals that were presented to her as gospel, that she can become a free-standing individual. \n\nI often think that we have not gotten beyond that first stage of rebellion. We criticize the actions of those in the mainstream and the effects of their society upon people and animals, we attack the ignorance and cruelty of their system, but we rarely stop to question the nature of what we all accept as "morality." Could it be that this "morality," by which we think we can judge their actions, is itself something that should be criticized? When we claim that the exploitation of animals is "morally wrong," what does that mean? Are we perhaps just accepting their values and turning these values against them, rather than creating moral standards of our own? Maybe right now you're saying to yourself "what do you mean, create moral standards of our own? Something is either morally right or it isn't-morality isn't something you can make up, it's not a matter of mere opinion." Right there, you're accepting one of the most basic tenets of the society that raised you: that right and wrong are not individual valuations, but fundamental laws of the world. This idea, a holdover from a deceased Christianity, is at the center of our civilization. If you are going to question the establishment, you should question it first! There is no such thing as good or evil. There is no universal right or wrong. There is only you... and the values you choose for yourself. \n\nWHERE DOES THE IDEA OF "MORAL LAW" COME FROM? \n\nOnce upon a time, almost everyone believed in the existence of God. This God ruled over the world, He had absolute power over everything in it; and He had set down laws which all human beings had to obey. If they did not, they would suffer the most terrible of punishments at His hands. Naturally, most people obeyed the laws as well as they could, their fear of eternal suffering being stronger than their desire for anything forbidden. Because everyone lived according to the same laws, they could agree upon what "morality" was: it was the set of values decreed by God's laws. Thus, good and evil, right and wrong, were decided by the authority of God, which everyone accepted out of fear. One day, people began to wake up and realize that there was no such thing as God after all. There was no scientific evidence to demonstrate his existence, and few people could see any point in having faith in the irrational any longer. God pretty much disappeared from the world; nobody feared him or his punishments anymore. But a strange thing happened. Though these people had the courage to question God's existence, and even deny it to the ones who still believed in it, they didn't dare to question the morality that His laws had mandated. Perhaps it just didn't occur to them; everyone had been raised to hold the same beliefs about what was moral, and had come to speak about right and wrong in the same way, so maybe they just assumed it was obvious what was good and what was evil whether God was there to enforce it or not. Or perhaps people had become to used to living under these laws that they were afraid to even consider the possibility that the laws didn&#
712885
Why is that a liberal can't be moral? Everybody has different sets of morals and beliefs, that doesn't make anyone morally inferior. Conservatives do care about the people and that is why they use churchs to create programs to help the poor. I'm not a liberal or conservative but don't like the political stereotypes people give to liberals and conservatives.
500609
Don't know but they assume the same with anyone who is not in their faith.  I am Muslim and Christians always try to Teach me about Christianity even though I know the Bible better than many of them. \n\nMany see Christianity not as a religion but a state of being.  IE:  They think to be a moral person is to be a Christian person.  I even had a friend try to convert me and when I was explaining the basic differences between Islam and christianity.  I stated that Muslims do not believe Jesus(peace be upon him) is God but a prophet and she told me "Christians dont believe Jesus is God we beleive he is the son of God" \nI had a landlord who knew I was Muslim but kept saying "but you are such a good Christian girl"  in reference to my behavior not my religion.  \nWhen you think that way that morality is attached with being Christain it is hard to accept that somone who is moral would not choose Christianity.
1079502
Most religions have no heaven or hell.  They still have other stories and legends of ways to save yourself after death.  Those that believe in Karma believe that our actions in this life affect the next life.  What we do returns to us eventually.  Others believe in predestination (that what happens to us in the afterlife is already decided regardless of our actions).  Some Christian sects believe this as well.  Still others believe there is no afterlife or that we remain as spirits to watch over our loved ones.  \n\nAlmost every religion has "salvation" stories that are essentially guides to being a better person and living a better life.  Sadly, many Christians feel (and will say) that if there were no heaven or hell, there would be no morals.  You have to wonder what lives they would lead if they did not fear punsihment.  Millions of people accross the world live without fear of hell and are good and decent people with excellent morals.  So is heaven and hell really all that neccessary?
253213
Talk about stereotyping ! \n\nThere are bad Atheists out there and yes, believe it or not, there are good Christians, good Muslims, and good Hindus. Yea, even those of fundamentalist stripes can often be people of high morals.\n\nAnd BTW most fundamentalist Christians would say that good deeds never earned anyone salvation- faith in Jesus is what they base their salvation on.
445559
The one thing some Christians have against them (I am Christian as well) is how they treat others.  Our pastor recently said in a sermon,  " I'll tell you, if I was a non-believer and was thinking about becoming a Christian, the one thing that would stop me is how we treat others and ourselves."\n\nI have to agree.  The way you bring people to love Jesus is by love, prayer, and grace.  Not by bashing them for not being Christian.  Truth is:  we are all sinners and being Christian does NOT make us superior, yet we act as though it should.  We are ALL God's children.  EVERY sin is equal in God's eyes.\n\n\nWhy would anyone respect us if we approach them in an accusing, judgemental manner?!\n\nThere is hypocrisy in ALL faiths and ALL people because we are all sinners.  Please understand...no one is perfect except Jesus Christ.  Being a follower of Christ in no way makes our sins invisible.\n\nI am embarrassed and apologetic for the image some of us have portrayed.
195263
You know, this is actually an interesting question.\n\nMany religious people believe that it is religion that gives them morals and prevents them from Hell and such. But really, it's not that at all. You can have morals but no religion.\n\nI believe that there is a moral world order, a sort of universal code that must be adhered to in order to preserve order and good in the world. This is not my religious feeling, but instead my moral compass, if you will. \n\nI don't do good deeds for fear of hell, or as supplication so that I may enter heaven. I do good and fight evil because I feel that good must always prevail over evil, or we will have lost our humanity, and become beasts.\n\nMorality is very often a black and white issue. Rape is never grayscale. It's never justified, and the people who commit it need to be put in prison or in an electric chair. They have forfeited their humanity, and like dangerous animals they need to be locked up or destroyed.\n\nOther issues that are black and white to me are murder, arson, and terrorism. Terrorism is never justified, no matter what. I don't care if US Black Hawk helicopters shot up your village or somthing as a kiddie and killed your mujahdeen daddy. The fact of the matter is that you can NEVER EVER kill civilians in cold blood for political reasons. You can never treat humans as tools for political advancement. \n\nMurder is never justified because killing another human being is just wrong. I say only murder, not killing, because murder is cold and premeditated. Manslaughter is also included in this. That a person could plan and execute a deadly attack on another is shocking to me.\n\nArson is never right either. No one has a good reason to be burning some buildings down.\n\nI disagree with you about Stalin. That was not religiously motivated. Nor was the Holocaust. In fact, the years 1936 to 1945 were remarkably unreligious given Germany's usually strong Catholic base. Hitler disliked the Church and largely they went along with him. However, Hitler did not claim divine support. \n\nHowever, atrocities are often commited in the name of religion. How about the Crusades, or the Thirty Years War? Thousands of lives wasted, all in the name of God!\n\nSometimes I think my moral compass is better than your Bible. I have all the morals with none of the religious radicalism.
1033827
No...all humans inspire other humans...for better or worse. \n\nAn excuse is not the same thing as forgiveness.\n\nYou can't have "a completely moral existence" without having having a universal standard of that morality. That's what God is...the standard of perfect morality...something most humans never achieve. (e.g. Cannibalism is considered to be completely "moral" in some cultures!)\n\nSo, if Jesus isn't divine, He's not perfect...which leaves His teachings open to the question as to whether they're right or wrong.\n\nThe problem isn't that faithful Christians are threatened by the possibility that the Da Vinci Code is true. The real issue is that many non-Christians are afraid that Jesus' divinity is true.