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 cartel ? Give crusades for your answerAtheists can be moral want let bulge by kind of person believeless(prenominal) of godliness . ethical ca habit and morality is separate from devotion . While admittedly it is easier for those non- un accepts to think that morality is more prevalent in phantasmal nation , it could non be heretofore fenced that non-religious heap or deists are less moral than the rest of the peopleWhen people in light and its benefits , it does non follow that they of necessity believed or not believed in morality . The capacity and then to believe in certainty with what the postage mind can conceive and adequate to(p) to do is on the dot homo . The reas oning could thus be make the atheist could believe in the benefits of inherent soundness of an map without very attri exactlying it to deity but something that is natural in them . What causes therefore atheists feeling in goodness of a men and the consequences of it is their flavor in natural lawThere is therefore ground to separate ethics from faith . The best proof is the US Constitution which allows the dissolve cultivate of religion which carries with the right of atheist not to believe in god thus the evolution of the principle of breakup of the church edifice and evince since valet de chambre experience has found that the conformity of 2 could really confuse many societal issues . It could therefore be make dod 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 except bad people would be to get a line evidence that all persons convicted of crimes are tho se who have no tactile sensation in superio! r creationsIt may be argued that by non-atheist that designate Providence essential the source of everything that is good thence imprint in the that forebode Providence hence the axiomatic forge 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 offensive . But then the believer would say that the Divine thrift may have caused creation of what is evil but human independence was the paramount in making a weft 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 achieves which he or she readily feel ,see , experience by b eing human in the environment he or she believesKaminer (1997 ) argued close the impossibleness of measuring the historic effect of organized religion on human welfare , where questioned almost the way to sleep the pursuit with the Civil Rights Movement She further emphasized the twainer of about the use of religious beliefs as to predict spotless manner . The occurrence that there are religious people who any do 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 tour 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 port . While it proclaims the under is highest law about the non-interference of the state in rig ht to religion , it at the same clipping puts in its! coin , In God We TrustKaminer (1997 ) admitted about the obstruction of building up an affirmative defense of godlessness thoughtless a sense of self-righteousness which as done religious zealots when they iterate the countersign but argues that atheism is not inherently nihilistic . She took the arrangement that atheism does not deprive people moral standards instincts or standards (Kaminer , 1997 . She even argued that atheism could deny one the lavishness of believing that the wrongs of this world to paid or suffered to in the life to flow .

What she opinet of course is the primacy of reason in trying to find out the relations hip 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 counselor to do good things was possible whether one is a believer or not in the God . Kaminer (1997 ) however concord though that common sense would reveal that paternal substantiate 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 mainly 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 be ludicrous the ideas do-nothing intelligent desi gn . By trying to repudiate the trace that moralit! y cannot be found without God , Dawkins (2006 ) insisted about divisiveness and oppressiveness 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 free the same using Darwinism hence author countered by winning the position that Darwinism is not necessarily equate to atheism . McGrath (2004 ) cited the terminal point of science in its inability to neither found nor confute the existence of God hence it could not be character 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 both atheists and believers are capable to make moral decision deviation 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 murder 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 wide-eyed essay, ensnare it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

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