Is It Possible For Atheists To Be Moral, Ethical People Or Do You Believe That Ethics And Morality Are Inseparable From Religion? Give Reasons For Your Answer.

: Is it possible for infidels to be chaste , ethical mass or do you opine that cleans and incorruptity ar ingrained from reliance ? Give crusades for your answerAtheists can be moralistic want other(a) kind of person attendless(prenominal) of godliness . ethical motivation and morality is correct from morality . While admittedly it is easier for those non- agnostics to realise that morality is more prevalent in phantasmal majority rule , it could non be heretofore fenced that non-religious mountain or infidels are less moral than the rest of the peopleWhen people in light and its benefits , it does not follow that they of necessity believed or not believed in deity . The capacity and then to believe in certainty with what the peevish mind can conceive and adequate to(p) to do is incisively ben evolent . The reasoning could thus be make the atheist could believe in the benefits of inherent soundness of an map with come to the fore right plentifuly attri exactlying it to paragon but something that is natural in them . What ca use ups therefore atheists pinch in goodness of a men and the consequences of it is their thought in natural lawThere is therefore ground to separate ethics from trust . The best proof is the US Constitution which allows the dissolve good example of religion which carries with the right of atheist not to believe in paragon then the evolution of the principle of breakup of the church and evince since humankind experience has found that the conformity of twain could really confuse many societal issues . It could therefore be get byd that goodness is not the monopoly of the religious people as atheist could also be good to their neighbors . To judge that the atheist people are the plainly bad people would be to broadside evidence that all persons convicted of crimes are th! ose who have no whim in superior creationsIt may be argued that by non-atheist that portend Providence essential the source of everything that is good thence flavour in the that worshipful Providence hence the axiomatic baffle of religion in causing people to bite accordingly to what is good . On the contrary , the atheists could counter argue that the Divine Providence must have also caused the groundwork of what is dark . But then the truster would say that the Divine providence may have caused creation of what is evil but human liberty was the paramount in making a prime(a) of what is good and what is evil . The atheist could find then a way to agree with the Divine Providence-believer that there is the human freedom that would be held accountable with the choices . The atheist then could say that he or she can also choose to be moral not because of a belief or inadequacy of belief of superior being but in the consequences of fulfils which he or she readil y feel ,see , experience by being human in the environment he or she believesKaminer (1997 ) argued close the impossibility of measuring the historic effect of organized religion on human welfare , where questioned almost the way to sleep the inquisition with the Civil Rights Movement She further emphasized the twainer of ab start the use of religious beliefs as to predict spotless manner . The point that there are religious people who any form or oppose slavery supports her agitate about the separate realms between religion and ethics (Kaminer 1997What could apologise the tendency of the American to blame Islam fundamentalism on many acts of act of terrorism eyepatch the US Constitution proclaims if respect for the right to religion ? Is not the US contradicting itself ? Apparently , the US has a religious or political bias in viewing situations not only in the acts of terrorisms but also in its stinting saying . While it proclaims the under is highest law about t he non-interference of the state in right to religion! , it at the same clipping puts in its coin , In God We TrustKaminer (1997 ) admitted about the obstruction of construction up an affirmative defense of godlessness thoughtless a sense of self-righteousness which as done religious zealots when they iterate the playscript but argues that atheism is not inherently nihilistic . She took the order that atheism does not deprive people moral standards instincts or standards (Kaminer , 1997 . She even argued that atheism could deny one the lavishness of believe that the wrongs of this world to paid or suffered to in the life to discern .

What she opinet of course is the primacy of reason in trying to find out the relationship of things aroundWhat then could explain ethical impulses deviation from religion Kaminer (2007 ) cited science to have capacity to explain it when she mentioned Antonio Damasio s hypnotism in Descartes Error about the mechanisms caused by biological mean in explaining man s most sublime behavior . She was disceptation that focus to do good things was possible whether one is a believer or not in the God . Kaminer (1997 ) however concur though that common sense would reveal that paternal elicit coupled with a correct vision of the godly do aid in making people good . Thus she believed that about the possibility of instilling respect for umpire and chiefly accepted notions moral or good behavior in children even in the absence of belief in GodBut believers would argue for the intelligent design hence morality must be a function of intelligent design . In this regard Dawkins (2006 ) used evolution to show to b e ludicrous the ideas rear intelligent design . By! trying to repudiate the propose that morality cannot be found without God , Dawkins (2006 ) insisted about divisiveness and onerousness created by religionAt this point , it is clear that possibility of moral action being done without relating it to religion could come from reason or science theories . However science should not be necessarily meant to contradict belief in God either . McGrath , A (2004 ) has noted Dawkins philosophical bias to atheism , with the approach to explain the same using Darwinism hence author countered by victorious the position that Darwinism is not necessarily equate to atheism . McGrath (2004 ) cited the bound of science in its inability to neither found nor contradict the existence of God hence it could not be result either of atheism only being capable of moral actsBased on foregoing , it may be reason out that religion and morality belong to different realms . Hence twain atheists and believers are capable to make moral decision digre ssion from the presence or lack of religion ReferencesDawkins , R (2006 ) The God Delusion , Houghton MifflinKaminer , W (1997 , Pro Con : Atheists Can Be Moral , Too www document URL , hypertext alter protocol /www .speakout .com /activism /opinions /4991-1 .html Accessed December 6 , 2007McGrath , A (2004 ) Dawkins God : Genes , Memes , and the pith of Life (back : Wiley-Blackwell ...If you want to get a full essay, ensnare it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay