Atheists thought immoral, even by fellow atheists: study

August 7, 2017
The study revealed that people who identify as atheist are more likely to be viewed as morally corrupt

A unusual social study has revealed that atheists are more easily suspected of vile deeds than Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists—strikingly, even by fellow atheists, researchers said Monday.

This suggests that in an increasingly secular world, many—including some atheists—still hold the view that people will do bad things unless they fear punishment from all-seeing gods.

The results of the study "show that across the world, religious belief is intuitively viewed as a necessary safeguard against the temptations of grossly immoral conduct," an international team wrote in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.

And it revealed that "atheists are broadly perceived as potentially morally depraved and dangerous."

The study measured the attitudes of more than 3,000 people in 13 countries on five continents.

They ranged from "very secular" countries such as China and the Netherlands, to countries with high numbers of believers such as the United Arab Emirates, United States, and India.

The countries had populations that were either predominantly Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Muslim or non-religious.

Participants were given a description of a fictional evildoer who tortured animals as a child, then grows up to become a teacher who murders and mutilates five homeless people.

Half of the group were asked how likely it was that the perpetrator was a religious believer, and the other half how likely that he was an .

Dangerous bias

The team found that people were about twice as likely to assume that the serial killer was an atheist.

"It is striking that even atheists appear to hold the same intuitive anti-atheist bias," study co-author Will Gervais, a psychology professor at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, told AFP.

"I suspect that this stems from the prevalence of deeply entrenched pro-religious norms. Even in places that are currently quite overtly secular, people still seem to intuitively hold on to the believe that religion is a moral safeguard."

Only in Finland and New Zealand, two secular countries, did the experiment not yield conclusive evidence of anti-atheist prejudice, said the team.

Distrust of atheists was "very strong in the most highly religious states like the United States, United Arab Emirates and India," said Gervais, and lower in more secular countries.

Such research was about more than stigma alone, he added.

"In many places, atheism can be dangerous, if not fatal."

In a comment carried by the journal, Adam Cohen and Jordan Moon of the Arizona State University's psychology department, said the study marked "an important advance in explaining the prevalence of anti-atheist attitudes."

Explore further: Reminders of secular authority reduce believers' distrust of atheists

More information: Global evidence of extreme intuitive moral prejudice against atheists, Nature Human Behaviour (2017). DOI: 10.1038/s41562-017-0151

Related Stories

Researchers study how humor matters in social movements

August 18, 2014

For social movements whose members believe they are maligned and misunderstood in the broader culture, marginalization is no laughing matter. But as the New Atheist Movement demonstrates, humor can be an effective tool to ...

Recommended for you

200 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Spaced out Engineer
2 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2017
More theists and atheists alike should read.
"The Great Unknown: Seven Journeys to the Frontiers of Science" has great definition of atheist God.
Though our paths may vary up the mountain trail, the summit is to be shared.
There are atheists that teach Sunday school, due to the moral lessons within. And there are theists with more discipline and intuition of the science than any of us (Georges Lemaître).
sirdumpalot
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2017
"This suggests that in an increasingly secular world, many—including some atheists—still hold the view that people will do bad things unless they fear punishment from all-seeing gods."

No, it suggests that people perceive that people following the atheist ideology can still find themselves outside of reasonable moral rulesets. And this makes sense, because Atheism, is a philosophy of denial, it does not easily offer a competing philosophy for human interaction.
CubicAdjunct747
Aug 07, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
CubicAdjunct747
Aug 07, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
dogbert
1 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2017
There are at least two things to consider apart from fear of a god:

1) Atheists, by definition lack a moral standard.

2) If there were no god, then nothing anyone does or fails to do has any lasting effect. Without a viewpoint or belief that what we do matters, we can do anything at all without feeling bad since whatever we did does not really matter.
CubicAdjunct747
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2017
There are at least two things to consider apart from fear of a god:

1) Atheists, by definition lack a moral standard.[\q]

they know exactly what is right and wrong, and you are wrong. ONe doesnt need a god for a moral standard, and definately not the christian god, who is as about as moral as murderous child

2) If there were no god, then nothing anyone does or fails to do has any lasting effect. Without a viewpoint or belief that what we do matters, we can do anything at all without feeling bad since whatever we did does not really matter.

what a terrible view of the world, seems your religion has brainwashed you that nothing matters. if nothing what we did matters, then forget trying to cure cancer in children, it just doesnt matter i guess. Your god put the cancer there to test you because he knows the outcome already, but just wants a good laugh to see what you will do or not do.
barakn
Aug 07, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
CubicAdjunct747
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2017
Athiests know the right things to do not because of some fear of a fictitious god, but from fear of going to prison! And by the way, the christian god is the more immoral entity ever, especially by cheating on Joseph with Mary! Why couldnt he pick a single girl to impregnate? Didnt God also say you should own slaves? Didnt he wipe out huge populations? Seems this god should take a class in morality.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2017
Only atheists have the ability to destroy religion. They laugh at the notion of any god, and they can back up their universal disdain and disgust with evidence.

This is why religionists universally loathe and fear them.

Gods who claim to be perfect and yet write books full of lies about the world and the past, cannot by definition exist.

And so they dont.

Done.

But we can see that passive atheism is not sufficient when religionists routinely depict atheists as "morally depraved and dangerous". Evidence also tells us that religionists themselves are far more apt to be "morally depraved and dangerous" in their regard for heathens and heretics.

And so it behooves unbelievers everywhere to go one step further, and begin considering themselves ANITRELIGIONISTS.
https://en.wikipe...religion

Speak up and speak out whenever you get the chance. Learn the evidence and learn how to use it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2017
Atheists, by definition lack a moral standard
Religionist moral standards usually begin with 'no other gods before me' and end with 'unbelievers cant be good or decent or honest or trustworthy'.

These are the only 2 things they ever have to believe in in order to get everything they ever wanted including retribution, freedom from guilt, and eternity in heaven.

Every religion is identical in this respect. "No one comes to the Father except through me..."

Only atheists have the potential to reveal this god-busting truth to the world, that religion is all one thing and its all BAD.

This is why religionists have spent centuries honing this central message to perfection, so much so that even atheists begin to believe it.

Even atheists want to live forever you know?
Captain Stumpy
4.7 / 5 (12) Aug 07, 2017
Athiests know the right things to do not because of some fear of a fictitious god, but from fear of going to prison!
@CubicAdjunct747
i disagree: that would mean that if they had the opportunity to, say, rape, they would do it if there was little to no chance of being caught and going to prison
however, they don't rape because it's wrong (or immoral)

morality is most often defined in religious terms, as Otto noted above, which is where the problem arises

morality cannot be religious in nature because that would mean there would be no religious immoral people, like pedophile priests, or greedy televangelists

if morality was religious then why did their god -as @CA747 points out in the above post- impregnate another mans wife, wipe out whole people, advocate for slavery and selling daughters, etc?

religious idiots can't answer that one

religion, by definition, is designed to establish hate, prejudice and control over large groups of idiot followers
rderkis
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2017
Since you NONE of you can prove God does not exist anymore than any of you can prove God does exist. You are all going on faith, atheist and godly alike. No difference at all.
bluesmoke
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 07, 2017
I suspect within 30 years our technology will create a Artificial Intelligence that will settle this argument. Given the pace of advancements in genetic engineering, in 100 years the current Homo sapien species will be on the road to extinction, replaced by something far superior.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 07, 2017
Since you NONE of you can prove God does not exist anymore than any of you can prove God does exist. You are all going on faith, atheist and godly alike. No difference at all
I just did rdertard. You are confusing deistic and theistic gods. The existence of theistic gods depends on their claims of perfection. If they write books full of lies and ignorance about the past and the natural world then they cannot and do not exist.

You're thinking of deistic gods which were designed specifically to be unassailable. This was done by philos as a favor to religionists who were drowning in a flood of incontrovertible evidence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2017
You're also thinking that negatives can't be disproven. More bankruptcy.

"As Steven D. Hales points in his paper "You Can Prove a Negative," "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic.

"Notice, for a start, that "You cannot prove a negative" is itself a negative. So, if it were true, it would itself be unprovable. Notice that any claim can be transformed into a negative by a little rephrasing—most obviously, by negating the claim and then negating it again. "I exist" is logically equivalent to "I do not not exist," which is a negative. Yet here is a negative it seems I might perhaps be able to prove (in the style of Descartes—I think, therefore I do not not exist!)"

-Instead of repeating things you think you know by rote, you may want to try learning something new.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2017
CubicAdjunct747,
1) Atheists, by definition lack a moral standard.


they know exactly what is right and wrong, and you are wrong. ONe doesnt need a god for a moral standard, and definately not the christian god, who is as about as moral as murderous child


You do need a moral standard. Otherwise, everyone sets their own or no standard.

2) If there were no god, then nothing anyone does or fails to do has any lasting effect. Without a viewpoint or belief that what we do matters, we can do anything at all without feeling bad since whatever we did does not really matter.


what a terrible view of the world, seems your religion has brainwashed you that nothing matters.


Not my view. There is a god and what we do does matter. But if there were no god, nothing we would do would have lasting meaning. It is your world which is terrible. It places no constraints on human behavior.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2017
Dogbert
It places no constraints on human behavior.
Then please explain how - I am an atheist, and I have constraints on my behavior.
howhot3
5 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2017
Jeez, you *believers* remind me of the Saturday Night skit... you know church-lady ... with the way you think, you have to ask ... Is it Satan?!?!?

dogbert
1 / 5 (7) Aug 07, 2017
greenonions1,
You doubtless have legal constraints.

God defines moral behavior. Without god, where does your morality (if any) derive and how is your morality (if any) better than the morality of any other atheist who also has no moral standard.

Different atheists who claim to be moral define morality in many contradictory ways. That is to be expected of a morality which is chosen by each individual.
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2017


A quick cut'n'paste and context adjustment provides this observation:

Distrust of atheists was "very strong in the most highly religious states like the United States, United Arab Emirates and India," said Gervais, and lower in more secular countries.


Followed by this interpretation:

"I suspect that this stems from the prevalence of deeply entrenched pro-religious norms. Even in places that are currently quite overtly secular, people still seem to intuitively hold on to the believe that religion is a moral safeguard."


Which pretty much spells out the problem.

While I can't speak authoritatively about how this dynamic may or may not affect Hindu or Buddhist believers, it is manifestly part of the Abrahamic belief systems, which encourage blind belief and distrust of the followers any other faith.

contd.
ddaye
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2017
There's no frame of reference to conduct a debate about this. Many of the religions define rational thinking that's not checked by authority as being amoral, so they won't accept it. As of this comment time, nobody has thought to mention evolution in the article or comments. There are all sorts of behaviors that are beneficial or harmful in social species, which allows natural selection to develop a prime source of constraints on behavior of those people and other animals that don't worship an authority. Of course evolution is an authority-free explanation that many religions reject as having even occurred.So it too can't be part of framework for debate.
tblakely1357
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2017
"A unusual social study has revealed that atheists are more easily suspected of vile deeds than Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists—strikingly, even by fellow atheists, researchers said Monday."

Well duh. Look at the record of Pol Pot, Stalin and the greatest mass murderer of all time, Mao..... all atheists. And before some moron chimes in that Hitler was a Christian, he wasn't. He despised Christianity as a religion for the weak. He wanted to bring Germans back to their pagan roots.... in his opinion a more 'vigorous' religion suitable for Germans. While Hitler was into the occult it's unlikely he actually believed in any supreme being.
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2017
At the same time, religion generally pays lip service to self-examination and self-knowledge, but for the most part --at least in my personal experience and long observation-- does not require it of the bulk of its adherents. This, of course, leads to claims of belief that aren't backed by any actual moral system beyond mere membership in a club --or tribe-- as @otto usually states it.

Which means that most people are walking about without any real moral compass at all, whether they claim religious affiliation or no.

In terms of Atheism, one has to apply the same rule- those who claim it without sufficient self reflection are just bandwagoneers, whose claim can't be expected to provide any real guide to the moral composition of their character.

Contd.
rderkis
1 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2017
Like I said everyone of you are going by faith. If you don't want to be standing on faith then you can call yourself an agnostic. The ones that cry FOUL the loudest are the most true to their faith, believer or nonbeliever.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 07, 2017
God defines moral behavior. Without god, where does your morality (if any) derive
From the tribal dynamic. Internal altruism in conjunction with external animosity. It's how you religionists can feel so magnanimous toward your fellow believers while at the same time persecuting heathens and heretics 'with extreme prejudice'.

Tribalism was around for hundreds of thousands of years before the god of Abraham decided to grace us with his presence. The difference is, someone had the brilliant idea of recording this dynamic in convenient book form, suitable for waving at atheists and apostates with righteous indignation.

"Love thine enemies" it says. But it makes sure to remind you frequently that they are still your enemies, and as you say they are incapable of trustworthiness or common decency.

And if you had your way you would be rounding them all up and processing them per chapter and verse.

You always have.
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Aug 07, 2017
Having said that, anyone that has given enough thought to this issue --or at least enough to conclude for themselves that there is no god or gods, has probably already worked out for themselves that this leaves themselves and themselves alone responsible for their own conduct and its consequences.

From there, it's a quick trip to the sort of amoral, "enlightened self interest" of "I've got mine, so f**k you!"

Or, perhaps after a bit more reflection, discovering the truth of that oldest of codes of conduct, and one which doesn't --incidentally-- derive from some god's or gods' authority, which we all already know, and whose name we will instantly recognize:

The Golden Rule.

All of this, of course, is said with the understanding that people are ultimately just going to do what they are predisposed to do, regardless of their religious belief or its absence.

The real advantage of Atheism is that it allows one to dispense with the often hypocritical crutch of Religion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.2 / 5 (10) Aug 07, 2017
This is how we know this country was founded by atheists. No committed believer would ever consider accepting the outrageous notion that all religions were equal. No, he and his bretheren would insist on the unity of church and state.

The best way to begin the dissolution of religion is to make them all equal.

This country was founded as a melting pot which entails bringing people of many different tribes from all over the world together and enabling them to comingle so that eventually tribalism would be bred out of the species.

Religion is the anthesis of this process. Religions polarize, separate, antagonize, for the purpose of outgrowing and overrunning; not tolerating and ecumenicising.

How many sunni Muslims do you think wondered why the hell allah had ever allowed shiites to be created?
greenonions1
5 / 5 (8) Aug 07, 2017
Dogbert
God defines moral behavior
I do not believe in god - therefore your statement has no relevance to me. I define moral behavior. Sure legal structure may have constraints. But legal structure is not morality. If I only behave a certain way because of legality - then remove the legal structure - and the constraints are removed. I never beat my kids. It is not illegal to beat your kids. I chose that constraint - based on my own moral evaluation. Explain that please Dogbert.
PTTG
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2017
The statement:
"When a man was young, he began inflicting harm on animals. It started
with just pulling the wings off flies, but eventually progressed to torturing
stray cats and other animals in his neighborhood.
As an adult, the man found that he did not get much thrill from harming
animals, so he began hurting people instead. He has killed 5 homeless
people that he abducted from poor neighborhoods in his home city. Their
dismembered bodies are currently buried in his basement."

Because no religious activity is mentioned or implied, and the reason for the murders is explicitly secular, the story implies he is atheist.
greenonions1
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2017
the story implies he is atheist.
He very possibly could be. Has anyone suggested that there are no atheists out there who have done terrible things? Are there no religionists who have done terrible things? You seem very logic impaired PTTG. Just because an atheist did something terrible - does not mean that all atheists do terrible things. Or would you have us tar every religionists - with the crimes of ISIS (making video tapes of beheadings while announcing that god is great - just for example).
howhot3
3 / 5 (4) Aug 07, 2017
Logically there may or may not be a god. What is certain is what you think is god is certainly not.
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Aug 07, 2017
greenonions1,
I never beat my kids. It is not illegal to beat your kids. I chose that constraint - based on my own moral evaluation. Explain that please Dogbert.


I never said you had no morality and even most evil people care for their children.

And in some jurisdictions, beating your children can get them placed in foster care.

I asked where your morality, if you have it, derives? Every atheist who claims to have morality, when questioned about that morality, differs greatly from another atheist who claims to have morality. There is a lack of agreement in atheists' morality.

A morality which is convenient to me now and may be something else to me some other time is nothing more than rationalization. The morality defined by God remains even when it is not convenient, now and at any other time.

The morality of God remains when the morality of convenience is discarded.
TechnoCreed
5 / 5 (2) Aug 07, 2017
Please click on the DOI link and read the acknowledgment. Then if you still think this study is not biased you are naive to the bone.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2017
But if there were no god, nothing we would do would have lasting meaning
@dogbert
you have a sad little world you live in
God defines moral behavior
http://strangenot...rus1.jpg

also note: animals display morals

so if your god is required, why isn't there just one religion with one set of morals?
kinda real f*cking stupid from an all powerful god, eh?
I asked where your morality, if you have it, derives?
this can be answered without a deity
it derives from the tribal dynamic (as otto puts it)
and the socialization of the species: we're a cooperative social species that requires others

this means that the behaviour that is best is "moral", or rewarded, whereas that which is worst for the species and cooperation (like homicide, rape, incest, etc) is frowned upon

this is also seen in the animal kingdom, none of which are able to read your holy comic, and none of which worship your deity in any way
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2017
@tblakely1357
Well duh. Look at the record of Pol Pot, Stalin and the greatest mass murderer of all time, Mao..... all atheists
ok
now lets compare them with the religious leadership and religion in general

-the spanish inquisition
-witch burning
-holy wars (too many to count)
-the papal bull which called native tribal members of the US "heathens" and "less than human"
-ditto the papal bull for aussie aborigines
-the druidic sacrificial ceremonies
-almost all historical human sacrifice
-current xtian re-education camps to make homosexuals "straight"

(this can go on for far, far, far longer than you can with your argument about atheists, so i hope you get the point with the above short list)

religion is directly responsible for far greater atrocities in our history on earth than any atheist to date, ever
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2017
@dogbert cont'd
...differs greatly from another atheist who claims to have morality. There is a lack of agreement in atheists' morality
and every religious person has a different idea of what morality is, let alone how to be moral

so that argument is invalidated simply because if morality is derived from a deity then everyone should have the exact same morality without deviation

this is best demonstrated in the human fight or flight reaction: every single human on the planet has this excepting only those who have damaged brains

therefore, using your argument of deity based morality, if there is a deity of any kind anywhere, and it is the source of morality, then all people will share the same morality and point to a singular source (or deity)

not only do we not see this, but we don't even see this in the same church, let alone sect and denomination

this doesn't even address the lack of commonality between religious beliefs...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2017
"This suggests that in an increasingly secular world, many—including some atheists—still hold the view that people will do bad things unless they fear punishment from all-seeing gods."

No, it suggests that people perceive that people following the atheist ideology can still find themselves outside of reasonable moral rulesets. And this makes sense, because Atheism, is a philosophy of denial, it does not easily offer a competing philosophy for human interaction.

No, it is a philosophy of common sense. Survival, if you want... No such thing as "atheist ideology". That would make it a religion.
The one property needed in any human interaction is respect for other individuals. (Which often requires deep introspection into ones OWN "moral compasses"...)
tblakely1357
1 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2017
"now lets compare them [atheists] with the religious leadership and religion in general"

Phtt, not even close. Atheists just in the 20th century slaughtered more people than in all the religious atrocities in history and they did it in less than 50 years. Plus, most religious atrocities were actually 'secular' atrocities. In other words, some @ssholes who wanted other people's property or engage in some good old fashioned slaughter used religion as the excuse.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2017
Dogbert
I never said you had no morality
Yes you did - right here
any other atheist who also has no moral standard.
Saying that we atheists have "no moral standard." - is of course saying we have no morality. Your whole argument is that morality derives from god - and therefore without god - there is no morality.
I asked where your morality, if you have it, derives?
You are now of course confusing yourself - but I can tell you where morality can be derived - even without the notion of god. It can derive from human reflection. I did not beat my children - because I thought about it - and made that choice. We are thinking beings - capable of drawing conclusions. You believe that god is the only being capable of reflection. Yet I do not own slaves - and would not own slaves - due to my own ability to reason - and yet the Christian god advocates the owning, and beating of slaves.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2017
tblakely
Atheists just in the 20th century slaughtered more people than in all the religious atrocities in history and they did it in less than 50 years
That is a questionable conclusion. Here is a discussion that will show you how it is questionable - https://skeptoid....des/4076 I disagree with his conclusion that religion does not cause you to kill people - but you can none the less get the point. Was Hitler an atheist? That is debatable. https://mosaicmag...atheist/ Can we blame atheism for the Genocide? I don't believe you can make that argument - but anyway - it misses the point. Atheism is not a religion. Each atheist is an independent agent. Religious texts do form the basis of a world view - and often do compel believers to violence.

c0y0te
5 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2017
"Participants were given a description of a fictional evildoer who tortured animals as a child, then grows up to become a teacher who murders and mutilates five homeless people.
Half of the group were asked how likely it was that the perpetrator was a religious believer, and the other half how likely that he was an atheist."

From the description I can't say the evildoer is or isn't an atheist. But I can with a high degree of certainty say he/she is a psychopath!
drrobodog
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2017

1) Atheists, by definition lack a moral standard.

Religionist by definition lack a moral standard, both in terms of the different religions as well as different sects within each religion, and through the changing moral standards recorded in their various religious texts.


2) If there were no god, then nothing anyone does or fails to do has any lasting effect.

non sequitur
Until such time as the human race becomes extinct, your statement is absurd.


Without a viewpoint or belief that what we do matters, we can do anything at all without feeling bad since whatever we did does not really matter.

From this we can see how forced morality doesn't make a person good. If dogbert were to lose belief in his God, by his own reason, he would actually do evil things because he 'doesn't feel bad' about them. Essentially dogbert asserts that all humans are Psychopaths held in check by fear of punishment, or promise of great reward.
drrobodog
4.3 / 5 (11) Aug 08, 2017

God defines moral behavior.

Then why does he not adhere to his morals? Why does God let hungry children starve to death? Why does he let trapped miners suffocate for hours before dying? Why does he, in the bible, tell his followers to slaughter innocent children? Your God is amoral.

Without god, where does your morality (if any) derive

A complicated bunch of traits. Empathy, sympathy, self preservation, knowledge and higher reasoning, etc.

and how is your morality (if any) better than the morality of any other atheist

how is your morality (if any) better than the morality of any other religion's, or religious sect, who also has no moral standard?

Different atheists who claim to be moral define morality in many contradictory ways. That is to be expected of a morality which is chosen by each individual.

Same as above. To many religions/sects for there to be a standard.
drrobodog
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2017
The morality defined by God remains even when it is not convenient, now and at any other time.

This is an interesting point, I'm glad you have brought it up.
Atheistic morality is often said to not be absolute (perfect/non-changing), and then the argument goes, if your morals can change in the future, what makes them moral today? To contrast this, Godly morality is said to be absolute and therefor they are the perfection we should strive for.

I would argue that; currently not having an absolute does not mean there isn't one, and it doesn't mean our current morality is wrong, only that we can do better and learn from our mistakes as we strive for perfection. Sure morality might change as we go along, but what is wrong with that? Persecuting homosexuals, owning slaves, oppressing woman, etc used to be considered morally fine. Now we know it's not.
Religious folk however still persecute homosexuals and oppress woman using their infallible morals as justification.
Crazy.
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2017
drrobodog,

Without a viewpoint or belief that what we do matters, we can do anything at all without feeling bad since whatever we did does not really matter.


From this we can see how forced morality doesn't make a person good. If dogbert were to lose belief in his God, by his own reason, he would actually do evil things because he 'doesn't feel bad' about them. Essentially dogbert asserts that all humans are Psychopaths held in check by fear of punishment, or promise of great reward.


Why do you feel the need to say I am evil? I have not said that you are evil.

Atheists lack a moral standard, therefore their morality, when they admit to a morality, is based on anything they individually choose to base it on.

Atheists can be good and can have good morals.

continued ...
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2017
drrobodog continued ...

The article notes that atheists are considered to be less moral even by other atheists. This attitude is expected since atheists do not admit to the existence of a moral standard.

If I don't know what your morality is or how likely you are to retain that morality when tempted to do something amoral, I will consider that you may not be as moral as someone who does have an unchanging moral standard.

greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2017
dogbert - I demolished your argument. You said 'I never said you had no morality.' I quoted you as saying 'any other atheist who also has no moral standard' You directly contradicted yourself. I made that direct contradiction clear. I deconstructed your nonsense. You then go on to ignore this very clear refutation of your argument - and to continue to make exactly the same argument with another poster. I wish you could see that you are not capable of holding a reasoned dialogue - as you simply ignore the fact that you are wrong - when it is pointed out to you - and a clear argument is made supporting the reality that you are wrong. Look up Duning Kruger.
Nagarjuna
2.5 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2017
1. Keep in mind that the main funding organization is "John Templeton Foundation", whose objectives you ought to figure out from their list of grants from their website
2. "Participants were given a description of a fictional evildoer who tortured animals as a child, then grows up to become a teacher who murders and mutilates five homeless people. Half of the group were asked how likely it was that the perpetrator was a religious believer, and the other half how likely that he was an atheist."
Only one (complex and convoluted) question was asked and only this specific wording of the question was chosen. Did they also ask other questions, the results of which were uninteresting?
3. I personally think atheists, being relatively more freethinking, are more prone to extreme behavior (both good and bad) than sticking to the norms.
4. I am not surprised most people ignored the Bayesian "more religious people out there->criminal more likely to be religious"
sirdumpalot
1 / 5 (1) Aug 08, 2017
All in all, whatever your 'ism', you can choose to embrace or shun the ideology of violence. Apart from the Pali canon and a few cool societies such as the Bishnoi, most accept the ideology of violence to some degree.

'isms' accept either the extreme of Essentialism (God, Form, properties exist independent of observation), and Annihalationism (Nihilism and its many spinoffs, with Atheism not sufficiently well defined to not be in here). https://arxiv.org...9002.pdf and https://ia800400....0Way.pdf is much better!!
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2017
greenonions1,

dogbert - I demolished your argument. You said 'I never said you had no morality.' I quoted you as saying 'any other atheist who also has no moral standard' You directly contradicted yourself. I made that direct contradiction clear.


Obviously you need help understanding language. I said "atheists have no moral standard". That statement is not at all equivalent to "atheists have no morality".

But of course, it is far more important to you to engage in personal attack than to actually act morally or even engage in rational discussion.
drrobodog
4 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2017

Why do you feel the need to say I am evil? I have not said that you are evil.

I never said you were evil.
I said you weren't a good person, because you said you weren't.

"Without a viewpoint or belief that what we do matters [If I don't matter], we can do anything at all without feeling bad [I can do bad stuff and not feel bad]".

This was your logic was it not? Maybe I misunderstand it. I guess 'evil' was a bit excessive, maybe by 'do anything at all' you excluded all the evil stuff like murder, rape, etc and only meant bad stuff like steal, lie, etc
drrobodog
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2017
I said "atheists have no moral standard". That statement is not at all equivalent to "atheists have no morality".

I think it is more equivalent than you realise.

The problem is two fold. First you are assigning the trait to the individuals who hold the philosophy of atheism rather than to the philosophy itself. If you had said "atheism has no moral standards", who could argue with that? But then it's as pointless as saying "Logicism has no moral standards", or "this glass I'm holding has no moral standards".

The second problem is that once the individual has been assigned no moral standard, it is implied that they cannot be moral, because you need a standard to determine morality.

Additionally religionists lack a moral standard just as much as atheists lack one. In fact I would think (my opinion) moral standards among religionists vary more than atheist!
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2017
drrobodog,
You also misread or misunderstand plain language.

I said atheists have no moral standard. I did not say they are necessarily immoral or that they have no morality.

You can choose your morality and you can modify or dispense with your morality at any time because it is not basis on a standard.
dogbert
1 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2017
drrobodog cont...

God provides a moral standard which does not depend on anyone's agreement. Individuals cannot change that standard or eliminate it.

As an atheist you do lack such a standard.
CubicAdjunct747
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2017
again, that moral standard then must include cheating(joseph and mary), owning slaves, wiping out whole populations because all of this is in your christian bible. AS an athiest, we definately need to get rid of this standard.
Guy_Underbridge
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2017
Completely click-bait article.
The atheist and the religious will never understand one another. They are intellectually different races or species.
The religious feel threatened by the growth of the atheist especially, now that there are laws so they can't kill them.
SkyLy
1 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2017
From a pure satistical point of view, this bias is probably correct. Atheist may be more morally corrupt on average than practicing Christians, depending on what you consider moral.

Christians have a more narrow view of what a morally correct person is, thus an authentic christian who wants to live with no feelings of guilt has to be morally correct.

On the other side, an atheist who has been in touch with nihilism has a way weaker gravity toward morality. He has a morality which is not constrained by outside forces but only by inner convictions and discipline, two unreliable forces because they vary extremely between individuals.

This said, morality has yet to be defined. You can find a lot of people who will say today that cheating on our wife/gf is legit (50% of U.S. college undergraduates), pedophilia was legit just 20 years ago in western societies, knifing your colleague in the back is part of the sportsmanship in politics or competitive working environments...
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2017
dogbert
I said "atheists have no moral standard"
And how exactly does this differ from saying that atheists have no morality? logically - saying that you have no moral standard - is exactly the same as saying you have no morality - but we await your elaboration. Now - the wider point is that your whole argument - is that atheists have no morality - and therefore their behavior has no constraints. You said this very explicitly. Here is a quote ' It places no constraints on human behavior'
So to summarize - you are saying that religionists can have morality - because god sets a moral standard - from which morality is derived - and without this moral standard - and therefore morality - there is no constraints on human behavior.
But I showed you that atheists can have morality - and constraints on their behavior - and that your argument is rubbish. Hence my reference to duning kruger - as you seem unable to follow a logical argument.
rderkis
1 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2017
The atheist and the religious will never understand one another. They are intellectually different races or species.


That is silly. Some believers become atheists and some atheists become believers everyday. Since both beliefs are a matter of faith, the change from one belief to the other is not that great.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2017
rderkis
Since both beliefs are a matter of faith, the change from one belief to the other is not that great.
Define faith. I am an atheist - which means that I do not believe in god. I also do not believe in big foot. Lack of belief in big foot - does not require faith - it is more related to a lack of evidence. The fact that I require evidence in order to 'believe' in something - has nothing to do with 'faith' - based on my understanding of the word faith - http://www.dictio...se/faith I think definition 2 on that site is the one I am generally referencing - but they are all good definitions - that are what I do NOT have in regards to a supreme being.
drrobodog
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 08, 2017

I said atheists have no moral standard.

You did say this. You are wrong about this. See below.


I did not say they are necessarily immoral or that they have no morality.

You cannot have morality without a standard with which to base it on.

The problem we have is that you are defining "moral standards" as "absolute theistic moral standards", which is a subset of the former. Moral standards need not be absolute nor theistic.
Zzzzzzzz
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2017
"Participants were given a description of a fictional evildoer who tortured animals as a child, then grows up to become a teacher who murders and mutilates five homeless people.
Half of the group were asked how likely it was that the perpetrator was a religious believer, and the other half how likely that he was an atheist."

From the description I can't say the evildoer is or isn't an atheist. But I can with a high degree of certainty say he/she is a psychopath!


And psychotic people are at the extreme of self delusion. Religious believers are a good ways down that road as well. Atheists are humans, and as such has some capacity for self delusion, but as generally less afflicted by this than the rest of the human population.
rderkis
1 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2017
it is more related to a lack of evidence.


Since we know about less than 5% of the universe. I am a agnostic in just about everything. It's like Big Foot. Till I/we know more than 50% of the universe How can I say "There is no evidence"? Perhaps we will find a bigfoot on the first exoplanet planet where we find with life.
As far as God there is plenty of evidence. Just for example how many witness does it take to put a man to death, if there is no other evidence for or against him? I would guess 3 or 4.
As far as God a whole nation saw the plagues and the parting of the red sea. That is why no scholar will say it did not happen but they will try to explain it as natural occurrences.
Nik_2213
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2017
Given our math covers all but the first moments in 14 billion years, that still requires atheists to make a 'leap of faith' about the very, very start, never mind what came before. Surely, the logical position is 'Militant Agnostic' ??
rderkis
1 / 5 (2) Aug 08, 2017
Given our math covers all but the first moments in 14 billion years, that still requires atheists to make a 'leap of faith' about the very, very start, never mind what came before. Surely, the logical position is 'Militant Agnostic' ??


Key words "Our Math". If we only know this universe and only 5 % of it, I sometimes wonder how universal "Our Math" is.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2017
Just spent a few hours watching hitchens, renewing the faith
https://www.youtu...mei1b9K0

-Essential viewing for any antireligionist-

Hitchens destroys religious morality (oxymoron):
https://www.youtu...cw2pb0ok
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2017
As far as God a whole nation saw the plagues and the parting of the red sea
Ahaahaaaa even the catholic bible will tell you that its not the red sea but the sea of reeds, and no one knows what that is. They do know however that its definitely not the red sea.

So I guess this means you know even less than that 5%

Ahaahaaaaaa hehee
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2017
drrodobog,

You should look up the word standard. Then tell us by what standard you set your morality.

Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 08, 2017
You also misread or misunderstand
@dog
you're backpedaling and attempting to redirect into a personal attack: it's been fully explained by drrobodog (twice)

more to the point: there is a "standard" for atheist morality and that is the rule of law
You should look up the word standard
so should you
especially considering you're making a claim of moral superiority for the religious when it's the religious standard to sell daughters, rape combatant wives/daughters, kill anyone who disbelieves, stone people who think differently (not just against your religion, but in your religion, like homosexuals or heretics of the local leadership)... i can go on for days

otto has it right: religious morality = oxymoron
.

blah blah How can I say "There is no evidence"? blah blah
rderkis
russell's teapot
Guy_Underbridge
3 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2017
how many witness does it take to put a man to death, if there is no other evidence for or against him? I would guess 3 or 4.
Less if you pay the judge, too.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2017
Nik
'leap of faith
You guys keep peddling the same rubbish. Define faith for us. I already asked derkis - and crickets chirping. It does not take any 'faith' to say that there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being - so just like with big foot - I do not 'believe' in the existence of something for which there is no evidence. I understand that you guys think you have come up with some amazing argument - each time you claim that atheists cannot have morality, or must have 'faith' - but the reality is that we put these arguments down repeatedly - and you keep thinking you have just hit the jack pot - by saying the same thing over and over. Just for the record - I push back hard against theists - because I am tired of seeing the mess our world is in. Each time I see people put suicide vests on - shout 'god is great' and then kill more innocent by standers - I want to scream. Seeing you religionists pedaling the same rubbish over and over is annoying.....
rderkis
1 / 5 (4) Aug 08, 2017
Seeing you religionists pedaling the same rubbish over and over is annoying...


Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Then why do you keep reading it? Are you insane or just like being annoyed?

Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2017
Then why do you keep reading it?
@rderkis
perhaps because you keep regurgitating it on a science related news aggregate targeting logical and critical thinkers who seek the latest news and feedback around the science?

you do know that your repetitious regurgitation of your beliefs only serves to solidify the belief in your own personal mind, right?

it does nothing to make it factual for anyone else...

it's something often seen in cults with no rational arguments or facts with which to base an argument

oh, and religion
and pseudoscience
and the clinically insane
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2017
This is really simple. Religion is a bunch of irrational beliefs invoked to support "morals." Morals aren't rules you figure out for yourself; they're rules handed down to you from some authority (and that's true of morals accepted outside a religious context as well, but most prevalent in religious contexts). Rules you figure out for yourself are "ethics." Ethics are determined from your values. For example if you have values that place a human life above any amount of money, then you will not kill someone no matter how much you are offered. If you place the value of a human life above any law or rule, then you will not accede to the death penalty for any crime. Note, however, that if you place the value of a human life above some concept of "freedom of action," if you see someone try to kill someone, or yourself, then you are justified in killing them to stop them.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2017
[contd]
Morals are for children and animals. Adult humans use ethics, and value human life above most if not all other values, because they value their own life that way, and admit that everyone else is pretty much like them.

It starts there; but in the mind of an adult human, other values also take on high values, or lower values. Ethics aren't taught in schools; this is because the unethical and immoral fear the judgment that would threaten their social/economic/political power and take it away. This makes our societies unethical.

Set aside your fears. Sit down and write down your values, and arrange them by priority. Then see what your ethics are, and decide whether you want to live by them or not. And if you don't, then know that you are a problem, not a solution. Sorry about that, that's just how it is. Get over it.

After that, we can talk about religion. But religion is the source of morals, not ethics.
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2017
@SkyLy,

Your words:

On the other side, an atheist who has been in touch with nihilism has a way weaker gravity toward morality. He has a morality which is not constrained by outside forces but only by inner convictions and discipline, two unreliable forces because they vary extremely between individuals.


This argument holds no water, since you've implied that all religions enforce a single moral standard, which is patently false; most believers develop some patchwork of morality based(at best) upon some of the moral precepts of their particular sect.

IOW, most believers develop an individual moral understanding, which makes them EXACTLY no better in terms of "moral standards" than any other person -believer or non-believer- while at the same time being subject to whatever arbitrary moral boundaries their sect seeks to impose.

I always enjoy it when people invoke Nihilism as the bogeyman, since religion seeks to thwart this sort of unauthorised self-knowledge
Caliban
5 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2017
That is silly. Some believers become atheists and some atheists become believers everyday. Since both beliefs are a matter of faith, the change from one belief to the other is not that great.


No, derka derka -it is you who are silly.

Atheism isn't a belief.

Many apologists will define it as such and would have YOU believe so, however, since this mires the whole issue in circular reasoning.

To wit: Given that there is no empirical evidence for god/s IN ALL OF THE OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE, god/s are a construct of human thought, and as such, inherently, also of belief.

Many Atheists accept the facts of the state of nature, which do not require god/s presence or existence, and accept that the observable universe is real, and accepts this reality, in the full knowledge that no invented entity is required to explain it in the first place, and do not labor under the yoke of faith, since the construct of god/s is irrelevant and therefore not even an object of belief.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2017
rderkis
Then why do you keep reading it?
Well - I read lots of things. I spend a lot of time on politics - and also gravitate to science and technology. As pointed out above - I find the mayhem of the world I live in very disturbing. Here in the U.S. - we have a political class that for the most part - despises science. It is an odd thing that - as it is science that may bring folks like McCain new immuno therapies - that may save his life. It seems there is a willingness to accept the benefits of our science - at the same time as disparaging science and education. So - I see the world changing - and the religionists loosing their grip of the culture (slowly slowly) - so I take a few minutes on Physorg - when I see some low hanging fruit - like a religionist pushing the old meme about atheists and faith. Notice you never really addressed the questions posed. Others will also notice - so maybe some good is done.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2017
You can choose your morality and you can modify or dispense with your morality at any time because it is not basis on a standard
Like it or not, unbelievers are bound by the same source of morality as religionists are - tribal law, The tribal dynamic. This says that crimes which are punished most severely if committed against fellow members of ones own tribe, are nevertheless encouraged and rewarded if committed against outsiders.

Most people in western society wont want to admit this but if they look rationally at people just as honest as them who have nevertheless committed horrendous crimes against enemies and outsiders, then they will have to admit that this is indeed the case.

The main difference between the common tribalist and the avowed religionist is that someone in the past chose to record this dynamic in a book, and then claim it was written by a perfect being who demands compliance.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2017
If you read these books with an open mind you can see that they all require the same sort of bigotry and horrific violence against unbelievers, as they do compassion and mercy against their own.

Religionists may choose to ignore what the books tell them to do but they cannot change what the books all say. They can also accept the laws of the secular society in which they live that forbids them to do what their gods insist they do, because they are forced to comply.

Conversely, unbelievers are not bound by books written by non-existent gods. They can learn to accept outsiders as members of a greater, universal tribe; something that religionists can never do. They can learn to show strangers compassion and feel empathy for them because they are not locked into the 'us vs them' mindset that all religionists are.

Religionists are forever tribalists and are thus forever bigots and forever a danger to society.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2017
The only hope for a religionist is if their religion becomes the universal one. But I bet even they know that that will never happen, except during the end times when the horsemen come to destroy everyone but them. Or so they hope and pray.

In the meantime we are left to deal with their ignorance and their persecution and their threats.
https://www.youtu...TVUulGwc
Given our math covers all but the first moments in 14 billion years, that still requires atheists to make a 'leap of faith' about the very, very start, never mind what came before. Surely, the logical position is 'Militant Agnostic' ??
Science says they dont (yet) know because they lack evidence. Religionists say they are certain they know and they dont need evidence.

Just who is making a leap of faith?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (8) Aug 08, 2017
I find the idea of a 'fellow atheist' a bit ludicrous. it's like saying someone is a fellow person by nature of also never having eaten kumquats.
rderkis
1 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2017
I find the mayhem of the world I live in very disturbing.

Why, it is the way of the universe? Every man is a predator. To deny that is deny your humanity.

Here in the U.S. - we have a political class that for the most part - despises science.


Sure politicians that follow somthing that is counter to the voters wishes. You have been intellectually corrupted/brainwashed by the media.
Caliban
5 / 5 (7) Aug 08, 2017
I find the mayhem of the world I live in very disturbing.

Why, it is the way of the universe? Every man is a predator. To deny that is deny your humanity.

Here in the U.S. - we have a political class that for the most part - despises science.


Sure politicians that follow somthing that is counter to the voters wishes. You have been intellectually corrupted/brainwashed by the media.


Gotta hand it to you, derka derka- no one else here has your talent for posting Incoherent and irrelevant platitudes and generalities.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Aug 08, 2017
rderkis
Why, it is the way of the universe? Every man is a predator. To deny that is deny your humanity.
I disagree with you. I think maybe it is the nature of stupid people. People who are not good at self reflection - or at understanding how short life is. Religionists often seem that way to me. I think we will transcend that child like nature - it is just going to take a long long time.
rderkis
2 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
rderkis
Every man is a predator. To deny that is deny your humanity.
I disagree with you.


You misunderstand. I was stating facts not a point of view. Your disagreeing with me just shows your uncooperative predatory nature. :-)
I am fairly sure you eat somthing that was alive at some point. That makes you a predator. Now don't get me wrong,you could be just a scavenger but most scavengers will kill somthing to eat sooner or later.

Besides why do you have the OPINION that violence is a bad thing? Probably just so you can feel superior to those that worship violence. But there is no good or bad unless you believe in God.
rderkis
Aug 09, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2017
@herp-a-derkis
I am fairly sure you eat somthing that was alive at some point. That makes you a predator
erm, by this definition then cows and horses are predators because they eat live grasses (and goats, and sheep, and....)

But there is no good or bad unless you believe in God.
absolute unadulterated bullsh*t on a shingle with flaming candles and crack-addled butterflies

good or bad require no deity for definition under the rule of law

as you can see by simple observation and the multiple cultures and cultural definitions of the words, good and bad are also not defined by all the same way
it's a culturally accepted definition based upon your interactions with society (the tribal dynamic, a la Otto)

that is why you can have bacon labeled as "bad" by abrahamic religions, while their offshoot nooB's call it "good" and tasty

the terms are completely subjective and require cultural, societal and other context when being defined
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2017
Dogbert
...I said "atheists have no moral standard". That statement is not at all equivalent to "atheists have no morality".
...
Which is a true "qualification".
However, having a "moral standard" provided by someone ELSE and conducting yourself in that paradigm, just might be antithetical to the true moral standard of "do no harm"...
I think I can safely postulate that a majority of atheistic leaning people were at one time members of a religious sect of some sort and have rejected (for whatever reason) THAT moral standard, finding it to be inadequate or just not all that moral, in the first place...
We have constructed our own standard in place of one that has done more harm than good.
And an aside - some other apes seem to have a better "moral code" than humans...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2017
When I see someone say things like "every man is a predator," I take it as obvious that such a person has emotional problems they work out by telling themselves everyone else is just as nasty as they are. I tend to try to avoid people like that. They make bad friends, bad lovers, and bad business and social associates.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Aug 09, 2017
rderkis
Every man is a predator. To deny that is deny your humanity.
I disagree with you.


You misunderstand. I was stating facts not a point of view. Your disagreeing with me just shows your uncooperative predatory nature. :-)
I am fairly sure you eat somthing that was alive at some point. That makes you a predator. Now don't get me wrong,you could be just a scavenger but most scavengers will kill somthing to eat sooner or later.

Two vultures on a cactus. One says to the other, "Patience my ass. I wanna kill somethin'...)
greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Aug 09, 2017
rderkis - I imagine DaSchneib is correct about the emotional problems - but I will expand for you anyway. I made a comment about the mayhem that I see in the world - and how it is disturbing to me. I had already explained that I was referring to things like suicide bombers. Here in the U.S. we have a staggering problem with violence. Other countries around the world have similar problems - to a greater or lesser extent. In Chicago over the July 4th weekend - there were 100 incidents of gun violence - with 14 deaths. That is the kind of Mayhem I talk about. Dismissing such insanity - by saying we are all 'predators' - makes you an idiot. Needing to eat in order to survive - is a totally different issue than putting on a suicide vest and killing people in the name of some imaginary god.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (9) Aug 09, 2017
I tend to try to avoid people like that. They make bad friends, bad lovers, and bad business and social associates.

They just make bad people. Period.
jimboz
4 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2017
the world is all about believing in non-existent supernatural beings, none of which has ever been proven, none of which will never be proven because they don't exist. Also, the last time I pushed back about this god nonsense, I was censored from this post. That helps define the sickness being perpetrated by the jesus people, that I can't tell the truth without being censored. If it is true that atheists are frowned upon because they tell the truth about no gods, it is because of the sickness spread by the god people.
rderkis
1 / 5 (4) Aug 09, 2017
the world is all about believing in non-existent supernatural beings, none of which has ever been proven, none of which will never be proven because they don't exist.


It is funny that you condemn them because they can't prove God exists. But your perfectly content with your view God does not exist without it being proven.
Why are you so unobjective when it comes to your beliefs?

A truly intelligent/enlightened stand given your intelligence would be agnostic, not somthing that can't be proven one way or the other.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2017
But your perfectly content with your view God does not exist without it being proven.
Why are you so unobjective when it comes to your beliefs?
@herp-a-derpkis
lets examine that another way: you're perfectly content with the fact that unicorn farts don't exist, so why are you so "unobjective" [sic] about those?

if you have the perspective that something doesn't exist because there is no evidence proving it exists it's just a point of fact that something doesn't exist

period

full stop

it really is that simple

it also means that something can possibly exist if there is evidence to support it's existence
it doesn't mean that the lack of evidence for your deity is somehow a faith based belief in it's nonexistence

in point of fact, it's totally objective as it allows you to present evidence that can be validated because it simply points to the fact that there is no evidence for the existence of deities
TheGhostofOtto1923
4.4 / 5 (8) Aug 09, 2017
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Insanity: praying to the same god over and over again for the things you want and thinking that his lack of response is 1) proof of his existence and 2) evidence that you faith isnt strong enough.

"God answers all prayers but sometimes the answer is no." -with about the same frequency I might add as random chance.
Zzzzzzzz
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2017
These delusions are of supreme importance to the psychotic person who requires them. The fragile semblance of sanity that the psychotic person maintains depends on it. I have in the past engaged in the destruction of delusion, thinking that I was helping someone see logic. If the delusion is successfully destroyed, the naked insanity that replaces it in the psychotic person is not a desired result.
So I stopped trying to push logic into psychotic people, and put many of the posters on this thread on my ignore list.
While there may be value in publicly debunking these delusions, there is no help in the effort for the psycho who is desperately validating and shoring up his/her fragile facade of sanity. That person will defend the delusion to the point of death or surrender to complete insanity, whichever comes first.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2017
Zzzzzzzz you may be correct. I look at the collective problem. If an individuals delusion spreads - we get religion. I was raised in a pretty fundamentalist religious home. Spent half my life sitting in church. Kids have very little defense against that level of brainwashing. Despite being 'saved' - I was still frequently terrified that I was not good enough - and would spend eternity in hell. You don't learn independent thought, or critical thinking skills. It is all about conformity. Here is the U.S. - we are left with a collective - that is heavily affected by this kind of group think. Look at the staggering embrace by the religious right - of a president who is so opposite all of their professed values. We are seriously in danger of going down the route of fascism. Atheism is not a religion - it is about independent thinking. We need challenge the group think.
drrobodog
4 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2017

You should look up the word standard.

I did. If you'd like I can share the results.
by what standard you set your morality.

The perfect moral standard. One where no rational, functioning human could disagree, no matter the reference frame, on what the morally correct course of action should be. Of course that is the standard I believe we all strive for, there are many points that are currently in disagreement, some that just don't have satisfactory answers for, and some we haven't even thought of! Maybe we will never get to it 100%, but it's still our obligation to get as close as we can.

One of the benefits of acknowledging we don't have a perfect standard yet vs following an absolute standard is that we can fix our mistakes, which as human we inevitably make.

I'm curious, is there a point at which your moral standards deviate from your Gods? Are there things you do because God says they are right/wrong that you honestly feel opposite/neutral about?
Zzzzzzzz
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 10, 2017
Greenonions, my developed perception these days is that while environment and upbringing can have an effect, it cannot replace how we are made. I come from a large religious family, and I believe that I am the one with the least capacity for self delusion. To this point I am the only one who does not maintain some kind of religious belief system
The ability to construct a vision of the future requires some level of self delusional capacity. This ability, along with the ability to persuade others to invest in our delusion, forms the basis of human co-operation, which we have always depended on for species survival. The human default condition is biased toward some level of psychosis.
As humans, this is extremely difficult for us to see.
greenonions1
5 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
Zzzzzzzz
The human default condition is biased toward some level of psychosis.
I think you are correct. But don't you think that science, and critical thinking - can mitigate the extremes of that issue. Science being the process of exploring the universe we find ourselves in. For me - one of the main points of science - is the improvement of the condition of our world - of course specifically of humans. Curing cancer - is a desirable outcome. The development of understanding - can parallel the use of that understanding for 'advancement' of the human condition. Religion often seems a collective behavior - to actually counter that 'advancement.' That is where my problem lies.
Zzzzzzzz
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 10, 2017
Greenonions, I hope you are right. The 2016 election damaged my optimism - I used to honestly think that deep down most humans are decent and upright. I am a little more cynical now, and see humans more as slaves to their own particular version of psychosis. At this point my hope for the continuance of intelligent life from this planet is pinned on AI's, which will have the ability to escape dependence on benign environments, as well as delusion, to continue beyond the boundaries of this planet and/or solar system - boundaries of both time and distance.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2017
Greenonions, I hope you are right. The 2016 election damaged my optimism - I used to honestly think that deep down most humans are decent and upright.


Maybe they are, but 'decent and upright' is not the same thing as 'smart'*. One intelligent/selfish person can make millions join the military and let all those 'decent and upright' fight and die to increase his bank account.

It's basically how capitalism works. Get a lot of thugs and make then 'proud', imbue them with 'honor' and give 'em a shiny dress uniforms to impress the girls, little pieces of metal and an emotionally keyed song. Then send them off to grab for you whatever they can.

Only the terminally naive think capitalism is "let's all compete fairly by making the best product". Control the information and you can make decent (but stupid) people do whatever you want.

*or maybe the election was just rigged.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Aug 10, 2017
I used to honestly think that deep down most humans are decent and upright
@Zzzz
and therein lies a big part of the problem: every religious person thinks they're decent and upright simply because they follow the rules of their religion - at least, they *assume* they follow them, whereas they simply follow the rules that they want to follow while ignoring the elephant in the corner eating their neighbors

the one thing you are absolutely correct about is that "The ability to construct a vision of the future requires some level of self delusional capacity"

without at least some level of delusion, we would not survive

.

.

One of the benefits of acknowledging we don't have a perfect standard yet
@drrobodog
not even sure this will ever be possible

cultures and society are heavily influential to our thought process, as is location and time
all of that is malleable and subjective
therefore our standard must change influenced by the times
greenonions1
5 / 5 (5) Aug 10, 2017
I used to honestly think that deep down most humans are decent and upright
A very complex question. Nature or nurture? Twin studies would suggest - that while there may be some level of innate personality, it is mostly a question of programming. Think about the Holocaust. German babies were neither saints nor monsters - just like all other babies. But put them in a brown uniform - and teach them that they are a member of a superior race - and the 'other' are sub humans - and you get monsters. Children can be brainwashed - and as Otto points out - tribalism is one of the greatest means to that end. But surely the great hope there - is that if we can study that issue of programming, and change the culture - we could almost eliminate war, violence, crime etc.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 10, 2017
@Zz and @greenos, your conversation is interesting and I'll horn in with a couple comments pretty soon. I will bring a different set of ingrained biases than yours, since I am the son and grandson of atheists. Interestingly many of my conclusions are similar or identical to yours, and when I was a late adolescent I tried religion and have a story to tell about it.

I joined a fairly staid Protestant congregation (Episcopalian), and was baptized; it was the time in my life to rebel. I joined Bible Study with the pastor. Even in this very (religiously, not politically) conservative community, I found that there were obvious questions in theology that had no answers, and obvious explanations for features of reality based on physics and astrophysics that were better in multiple ways than "goddidit." When I discussed it frankly with the pastor, he wouldn't discuss this and was probably wise since he didn't have the scientific sophistication to do so. That was the end of that.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Aug 10, 2017
These delusions are of supreme importance to the psychotic person who requires them. The fragile semblance of sanity that the psychotic person maintains depends on it. I have in the past engaged in the destruction of delusion, thinking that I was helping someone see logic. If the delusion is successfully destroyed, the naked insanity that replaces it in the psychotic person is not a desired result.
So I stopped trying to push logic into psychotic people, and put many of the posters on this thread on my ignore list.
While there may be value in publicly debunking these delusions, there is no help in the effort for the psycho who is desperately validating and shoring up his/her fragile facade of sanity. That person will defend the delusion to the point of death or surrender to complete insanity, whichever comes first.

Wow.. you just described RC...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2017
@Zz and @greenos, your first exchange highlights a major problem with US public education: children are not taught critical thinking. They come out with this idea that all viewpoints are equal. They are not. Some viewpoints emphasize evidence; some emphasize authority. The latter lead to mass psychosis as it becomes clearer and clearer that the supposed authority is just plain flat wrong. This causes cognitive dissonance, and cognitive dissonance has been shown to be very unpleasant for humans.

The tendency for this type of psychosis is inherent in minds whose physical basis was formed upon the evolution of pattern recognition. For example, it's evolutionary advantageous to note that Oog hasn't been around lately, he went to the water hole at night, and there was blood in the sand and leopard prints too. One rather persuasively concludes that Oog is now leopard sxxt and perhaps going to the water hole at night isn't a great idea.

[contd]
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2017
[contd]
Much the same process leads to concluding that scary bright lights and loud noises from the sky are made by giant people in the sky. The former works well; the latter, not so much. But they both stem from the same source: pattern recognition. It's a weakness in human thought, and perhaps in all evolved intelligence.

This conundrum lies at the heart of the effectiveness of religious memetics. You can see it pretty clearly if you read Dr. Susan Blackmore's The Meme Machine (and its progenitor, Dr. Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene).
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (7) Aug 11, 2017
[contd]
Much the same process leads to concluding that scary bright lights and loud noises from the sky are made by giant people in the sky. The former works well; the latter, not so much. But they both stem from the same source: pattern recognition. It's a weakness in human thought, and perhaps in all evolved intelligence.
...
Perhaps not so much "pattern recognition", as "pattern Interpretation"...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (4) Aug 11, 2017
@Zz, I think AIs will have different values, inherently, than naturally evolved intelligences like humans. Unless, of course, we build our biased memetic mechanisms, like pattern recognition, into them. I'm not sure I can imagine an intelligence incapable of pattern recognition, and along with that comes the peculiar type of psychosis you refer to.

That's what I got guys.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2017
@Whyde,
Perhaps not so much "pattern recognition", as "pattern Interpretation"...
I use the popular phrase for this type of cognition. William Gibson used it as the title of a book, quite an interesting one as it happens.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Aug 11, 2017
William Gibson used it as the title of a book, quite an interesting one as it happens.

It's good (but, I think, the weakest one in the trilogy, because it's basically a rehash of the Marly Kruskova story arc in Count Zero)

As for values: I don't think there's a definitive set. There's a lot that depends on the circumstances.
As an extreme example: Altruism might be totally detrimental to the species in a completely overpopulated world.
It basically boils down to this: You can always construct a situation where any static moral/ethical system will result in the destruction of humanity (thus leading the point of why we even have a moral/ethical system at absurdum).

Another extreme example would be: What would be a sensible ethical system for the last human?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 11, 2017
William Gibson used it as the title of a book, quite an interesting one as it happens.

It's good (but, I think, the weakest one in the trilogy, because it's basically a rehash of the Marly Kruskova story arc in Count Zero)

As for values: I don't think there's a definitive set. There's a lot that depends on the circumstances.
As an extreme example: Altruism might be totally detrimental to the species in a completely overpopulated world.
It basically boils down to this: You can always construct a situation where any static moral/ethical system will result in the destruction of humanity (thus leading the point of why we even have a moral/ethical system at absurdum).

Another extreme example would be: What would be a sensible ethical system for the last human?

Live at peace with the remaining world?
Do no more harm?
To die with a little dignity...?
Da Schneib
not rated yet Aug 12, 2017
@Anti, I don't think there's a *definitive* set but I think there's definitely an *operative* set that are pretty much common among most people most of the time. High on the list is the preservation of human life. People who lack this ethic are generally considered homicidally insane by everyone else. Both ethics and morals encounter trouble in extreme examples; but ethics encounters less, because it allows a more flexible response. That's my point, not a bunch of footless wondering about the last living human.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 12, 2017
Live at peace with the remaining world?
Do no more harm?
@Whyde
this is a great example of what AAP is saying about there not being able to have a definitive set and circumstance being part of the equation

take your top two:
it would mean you can't eat anything

because to eat means to not be at peace with at the very least the plant world (or your prey)
and for most people, eating means not being at peace with the animal kingdom as well (or some of them in said animal kingdom, LOL)

That also violates the "do no harm" rule too... killing a living thing definitely does harm to it!
o die with a little dignity...?
which brings us to this and perhaps the Hitchhikers Guide?
(Milliway's restaurant and the Ameglion Major Cow dish of the day)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Aug 12, 2017
@Anti, I don't think there's a *definitive* set but I think there's definitely an *operative* set that are pretty much common among most people most of the time.

That's because most people live under roughly similar circumstances.

High on the list is the preservation of human life. People who lack this ethic are generally considered homicidally insane by everyone else.

Only by people who have this high on their list. See the problem?
(Not saying that I think having this high on one's list is wrong...but the thing of judging people who do not agree to a ethical standard by that ethical standard is tricky. At some point we just have to admit that it devolves into 'rule of majority'...or 'might makes right' if you prefer.)

Preservation of human life is debatable in many circumstances. And there's large gray areas from the terminally sick to those with a wish for suicide.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Aug 12, 2017
Preservation of human life is debatable in many circumstances. And there's large gray areas from the terminally sick to those with a wish for suicide.
Well, the only moral that works there is much more restrictive than the ethics that flow from putting a high value on human life; the moral is "thou shalt not kill," and our ridiculous laws based on morals instead of ethics value the life of a human above that same human's value of lack of pain. And this follows from that person's own values: they value surcease from suffering above their own life. See how that works?

A hunter who has shot a deer without killing it is ethically obligated to track that deer and make sure it is put out of all suffering. Hunters treat this as a moral, but it is actually an ethic. There is great confusion on the difference, you see.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2017
...
take your top two:
it would mean you can't eat anything
...
That also violates the "do no harm" rule too... killing a living thing definitely does harm to it!

Let me rephrase - live symbiotically with...
Do no more harm, within that symbiotic context.
to die with a little dignity...?
which brings us to this and perhaps the Hitchhikers Guide?
(Milliway's restaurant and the Ameglion Major Cow dish of the day)

Wasn't that the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?
Since you're the last, you're definitely gonna die. Be dignified about it - no whining.
(Dignity, of course, beings dependent on the set of rules you've developed over the years prior...)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2017
@whyde
Wasn't that the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?
Absolutely
the BEST
trilogy
ever

Since you're the last, you're definitely gonna die. Be dignified about it - no whining.
(Dignity, of course, beings dependent on the set of rules you've developed over the years prior...)
if you're the last then make sure they remember

f*ck it & go down swinging
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Aug 12, 2017
Well, the only moral that works there is much more restrictive than the ethics that flow from putting a high value on human life

That doesn't really help, as 'high' is a fuzzy concept. Is there anything higher? If so, what#s the point of that value?

We can always come up with a higher value:

Is it worth preserving a life if it means destroying a million others?
Is it worth preserving a million now if it means that humanity will be destroyed - with a certainty - in 1000 years by that action?
Is it worth preserving humanity now if it means - with a certainty - the destruction of all other sentient life/the universe?

I know these are contrived examples but not impossibly so. Ethics are very relative. This does NOT mean they are arbitrary or random, but that we shouldn't make them out as more than they are: Fast rules for society to function without much overhead.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Aug 12, 2017
What's higher? The value a human puts on their own life. I think this should be obvious. You apparently disagree.

Think about it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2017
What's higher? The value a human puts on their own life. I think this should be obvious.

Not really. A parent may value the life of a child more than their own. A lover may value the life of their partner more than their own.
People have put other things above their life - some of them things I would consider stupid (country, honor, god, you-name-it) ...but they obviously disagreed.

The example of 'country' is particularly interesting because they have put that above their own life while at the same time putting the lives of others they were shooting at obviously below the value of their own life.

Value systems are weird that way - everyone can (and usually does) have a different one. Or we'd never disagree on anything.
Da Schneib
not rated yet Aug 12, 2017
A suffering child? Really? Really?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2017
@whyde
Wasn't that the Restaurant at the End of the Universe?
Absolutely
the BEST
trilogy
ever

Yeah... all 4 books...:-)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 12, 2017
A suffering child? Really? Really?

DS,
Where did you read "suffering"?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 12, 2017
Yeah... all 4 books...:-)
@Whyde
actually, it is 5 books and a short story!
LMFAO

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Life, the Universe and Everything
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Mostly Harmless

the short story added to the Omnibus editions: "Young Zaphod Plays it Safe"
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Aug 13, 2017
Yeah... all 4 books...:-)
@Whyde
actually, it is 5 books and a short story!
LMFAO

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Life, the Universe and Everything
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Mostly Harmless

the short story added to the Omnibus editions: "Young Zaphod Plays it Safe"

Didn't know bout the last 2. Guess I'm still livin' in the 80s...
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 13, 2017
@Whyde, just dragging in another edge case.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2017
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Life, the Universe and Everything
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
Mostly Harmless

the short story added to the Omnibus editions: "Young Zaphod Plays it Safe"

To be fair, the series dropped off pretty steeply after the first two books. (The Zaphod story - though unfinished - was pretty fun again)
Dingbone
Aug 13, 2017
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Aug 13, 2017
I just realized what a biasing study this was...
FTA;
"Half of the group were asked how likely it was that the perpetrator was a religious believer, and the other half how likely that he was an atheist."
Were those questions 50/50 in each country questioned?
Why didn't they as EVERYone if it was a person raised atheist or religious...?
This was a prime example of statistical manipulation, in my book....

michael_frishberg
3 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2017
There are at least two things to consider apart from fear of a god:

1) Atheists, by definition lack a moral standard.
No, by definition, atheists don't believe in a deity, and, if like me, nature is all you need, for morality. Otherwise, how would those who don't share your god be moral? It's built into our genome, to act in a socially beneficial manner. No god needed for that.

2) If there were no god, then nothing anyone does or fails to do has any lasting effect. Without a viewpoint or belief that what we do matters, we can do anything at all without feeling bad since whatever we did does not really matter.

We are part of the inter-networked chemistry and radiation called life. Life is all about replicating itself. But that's is only an outcome, it isn't life's "purpose".

The purpose of Life is to digest the planet.
A species eats and poops, so that other things can live.
That's it, and anyone telling you otherwise is lying.
dogbert
1 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2017
michael_frishberg,
There are at least two things to consider apart from fear of a god:

1) Atheists, by definition lack a moral standard.

No, by definition, atheists don't believe in a deity, and, if like me, nature is all you need, for morality. Otherwise, how would those who don't share your god be moral? It's built into our genome, to act in a socially beneficial manner. No god needed for that.


You say "No, we don't need one." So, in fact, you don't have a moral standard.

2) If there were no god, then nothing anyone does or fails to do has any lasting effect. Without a viewpoint or belief that what we do matters, we can do anything at all without feeling bad since whatever we did does not really matter.

The purpose of Life is to digest the planet.
A species eats and poops, so that other things can live.
That's it, and anyone telling you otherwise is lying.


And you actually embrace the idea that nothing you do or fail to do matters.
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2017
michael_frishberg continued ...,

My point is that atheists are thought to be less moral than others even by other atheists is bacause when you lack a moral standard, your morals are whatever you want them to be whenever you find them convenient. You can change them and even discard them at will. Those who follow a moral standard cannot choose their morality and cannot change or dispense those morals at will. This is not to argue that people with a moral standard cannot act in an immoral manner, but that they recognize that their actions violate their own standard when they violate that standard. This provides a constraint on their actions which someone with no moral standard does not have.

We find that life does have a purpose and this also guides our behavior. With no purpose, as you clearly believe, there is no logical reason to constrain yourself other than the constraints put on you by society.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2017
My point is that atheists are thought to be less moral than others even by other atheists is bacause when you lack a moral standard, your morals are whatever you want them to be whenever you find them convenient
You only believe this lie because you've been taught this since you were a kid and your immortal soul is on the line.

Tribal law tells us what is moral and what is not. And since we've been selected for our affinity for tribal living for 1000s of gens, it is genetic.

Beyond that we are bound by the same moral imperative as every other kind of life: to protect our offspring and ensure that our genes get passed on to the next gen. Humans found that the best way to do this was by living in tribes.

What makes you think that humans got this far without your god, without being bound by this obvious truth?

Why your religion does, doesn't it?

The religion that demonizes unbelievers and apostates. Which is to say, all of them.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2017
The reason that even atheists fall for your religionist crap is because it is a distinctly tribal message; you cant trust outsiders.

As I've said before, unbelievers are able to resist this urge while believers are not. Religionists have books written by perfect gods that insist it's true, and that all believers must act accordingly if they want to live forever.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2017
We find that life does have a purpose and this also guides our behavior
The purpose of a religionists life is to prove he is worthy of eternal life in heaven. This often requires that he martyr himself and his family to prove the point.

"37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it." Matt10:37-39

Martyrdom and the surrender of reproductive rights is also tribal behavior. But martyrdom in order to secure a place in heaven is perhaps the most despicable and selfish of all violent acts.

That believers are willing to martyr themselves and their families without hesitation demonstrates just how immoral religion really is.
drrobodog
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 14, 2017

when you lack a moral standard, your morals are whatever you want them to be whenever you find them convenient. You can change them and even discard them at will.

This is what scares me about religionists.
Dogbert honestly believes atheists can change their empathy/sympathy at will, or more precisely, that we just don't have those feelings at all. He believes all atheists are psychopaths.

It is quite interesting from a psychological point of view though. One can understand some of the religionist biases based on the above mentality.

Like the persecution for same sex relationships; those individuals have "chosen" to feel attraction to the same sex so it is their fault.
dogbert
1 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2017
drrobodog,

Personal attack adds nothing to rational discourse and you are trying to put words in my mouth.

If you have no moral standard, you can change your morals. You can re-evaluate what you believe and make changes. Do you really mean to say your are unable to reassess your morals?

It you had a moral standard, you would be unable to change your morals because you could not change the standard.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2017
@dog
bacause when you lack a moral standard, your morals are whatever you want them to be whenever you find them convenient
[sic]
sigh
so why didn't you sell your daughters into slavery, then take the neighbors as slaves because they were not the same religion?

your own "moral standard" from the holy comic is:
1- not a standard (it's changed and still changes to a situational convenience)

2- not moral per your own claims! (it advocates for homicide, prejudice, misogyny, etc)

but you want *THAT* to be accepted as the standard?
Personal attack adds nothing to rational discourse
neither does delusional behaviour where you ignore facts because they're uncomfortable

you don't know your own tome, but you want to preach it's superiority or morality?

your own holy comic demonstrates your claim of "morals are whatever you want them to be whenever you find them convenient"

religion today exemplifies "You can change them and even discard them at will"
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2017
@dog cont'd
If you have no moral standard, you can change your morals
your own historical tome repeatedly changes it's standard

therefore you can state your own religion has no morals or a moral standard
It you had a moral standard, you would be unable to change your morals because you could not change the standard
1- no standard can remain 100% static as change is inevitable

2- the rule of law is the moral standard that doesn't change as it's the same for everyone
it is also changeable and adapts to conditions to allow for progress
yet it has some consistent unchanging rules: homicide comes to mind

therefore you have just made the absolute best argument for the removal of religion and acceptance of the rule of law over all else
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2017
Actually it would be far more correct to state that atheists don't blindly accept a moral standard just because someone says so. In most cases most atheists understand the values that underlie these moral standards far better than religionists, and incorporate them into their value system and thus into their ethics. I sure would rather deal with someone who's more interested in the value of a human life than in something someone in authority said hundreds or thousands of years ago.

Seems to me that's freedom. Seems to me anybody who thinks people should just blindly do what some authority figure says because they said so is a lot less free. Seems to me religionists whining about gummint laws are inconsistent if they follow all the laws some imaginary jebus handed down a thousand years ago.
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2017
Da Schneib,

I understand that you laud having no moral standard. That is no reason to be insulting to those who do. People do not have to blindly accept what some authority figure says. People generally assess whether the standard is a good standard before accepting it.

There are, of course, people who do blindly accept authority, but such people can be found among the religious as well as among atheists.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2017
@dogbert, as long as you keep lying about how atheists approach morals, I will keep pointing it out and making you look like an idiot.

You are not free, and you want everyone else not to be too because you're afraid of how they'll act. It seems to me that this is more about your own ethics than anyone else's, because you don't think that anyone who refuses to accept thousand year old argumentum ad vericundiam "has morals." Sorry, man, I think there are lots better reasons for not killing people than "jebus said so."

Failing any other standard, "you'll get arrested" works pretty well, I'd say. It's at least as good as your argument of "because jebus said so a couple thousand years ago" when we can't even actually prove such a person existed.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2017
I'll also say that "if people are allowed to kill people then someone might come and kill me" works pretty well too. Just sayin'.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 14, 2017
@dog
People do not have to blindly accept what some authority figure says. People generally assess whether the standard is a good standard before accepting it
and how does this assessment work?

*therein lies the entire problem*!

your implications are that the assessment comes from religious knowledge or a deity, however if that were true, then no non-religious person would ever be capable of altruistic behaviour, let alone any moral behaviour (like not just killing everyone they see)

therefore we can conclude that religion isn't the standard and there is no deity influence
(of course, you can also prove that by noting the changing standard in religion due to cultural influence and the demonstrable refusal of the masses to accept all stated historical morals)

so the source of morality must come from nature (as it's also seen in nature)
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2017
Da Schneib,

Again noted that you are proud of your lack of a moral standard.
When everything you say comes from hate, you cause people to question the morals you do have.

I hope you thoroughly enjoy your condescention and hatred.

But please stop attributing to me things I did not say.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Aug 14, 2017
@dogbert, my lack of acceptance of your argumentum ad verecundiam is not a "lack of morals," and pretending it is is a lie, plain and simple.

Apparently your "morals" tolerate lying. I'm glad I don't subscribe to such "morals."
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2017
But please stop attributing to me things I did not say.
But your book says it all for you, all you have to do is nod your head and smile condescendingly...

"17 Thou shalt not kill." deut5

-and:

"19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." rom12

-and

"Children are a gift from the Lord;
they are a reward from him." psm127

-but then:

"8Daughter Babylon, doomed to destruction,
happy is the one who repays you
according to what you have done to us.
9 Happy is the one who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks." psm137

-Of course offspring of the whore of babylon are a little less human than the common believer arent they?

This is called situational ethics by the grace of god.
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Aug 14, 2017
BTW the 10 Commandments appear in three places in the Bible: in Exodus, chapter 20, in Exodus, chapter 34 and in Deuteronomy, chapter 5. Is this evidence of holy waffling, or divine senility, or just the understanding that believers intrinsically know right from wrong so who needs a book anyway?

Maybe he is just trying to confuse the atheists? Hes doing a pretty good job of it then-

"Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom and the knowledge of the Holy One is understanding."

-but then:

"How great is God--beyond our understanding!" job36

-Im confused...
michael_frishberg
4 / 5 (4) Aug 14, 2017
drrobodog,

Personal attack adds nothing to rational discourse and you are trying to put words in my mouth.

If you have no moral standard, you can change your morals. You can re-evaluate what you believe and make changes. Do you really mean to say your are unable to reassess your morals?

It you had a moral standard, you would be unable to change your morals because you could not change the standard.

There is no such thing as a moral 'standard' and people are moral, all of us, since it is built into our nature (by nature).
Every religion claims the golden rule as the highest moral outcome, that's because the golden rule is part of us already, by recognizing ourselves in others, we can form groups, naturally, humans are SOCIAL primates.

Morality is RELATIVE, to the culture within which it operates, it can't be 'standard'.

Religious Faith - "belief without evidence" has genetic components and environmental/experiential components. Enjoy them all. I have none.
drrobodog
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2017

Personal attack adds nothing to rational discourse and you are trying to put words in my mouth.

Apologies if it comes across that way. To be fair I feel you are doing the exact same to me.

If you have no moral standard, you can change your morals.

This is sort of like saying, "If you have no measurement standard, you can change your measurement." But without a standard that measurement is pretty useless.

It you had a moral standard, you would be unable to change your morals because you could not change the standard.

Do you have an education or safety standard where you live? Has either standard ever been updated/changed/amended?
drrobodog
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2017
People generally assess whether the standard is a good standard before accepting it.

Catch 22.
If you can assess whether the standard is a good standard without using the standard, then why do you need the standard to tell you what is good?
dogbert
1 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2017
drrobodog,

This thread is overly long with considerable discussion about what constitutes morality. Lets return to the article and its conclusion.

The study this article references finds that people, including atheists, perceive atheists as being less moral than non-atheists.

I restate my original observation that the lack of a moral standard is the reason for this perception. You can disagree with people's perceptions of atheists, but you can't really discount those perceptions, and those perceptions, to a large extent, are predicated on a lack of a moral standard.

This perception will not change because you don't like the perception.
drrobodog
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 15, 2017
The study this article references finds that people, including atheists, perceive atheists as being less moral than non-atheists.

As stated by Dingbone, that is incorrect. Immoral people are perceived as being atheists, not vice-versa.

I restate my original observation that the lack of a moral standard

At this point you have moved from observation to opinion. There is no requirement for an atheist to "lack a moral standard".

This perception will not change because you don't like the perception.

Straw man. We aren't debating the perception, we are debating your erroneous reasoning (see above) for the perception. You can't simply redefine "moral standard" as "absolute theistic moral standard".
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2017
I'll also say that "if people are allowed to kill people then someone might come and kill me" works pretty well too. Just sayin'.

Unfortunately some are so convinced of themselves that they thnk they can always kill their would-be-killer first.
These self righteous people are likely to be religious (because why else invent a higher power but to validate your own base desires that you *know* to be evil but you don't want to change them? Why, by making up a sky-daddy that says "You're special and anything you want to do is OK!")

Religious people need these laws written down for them. Otherwise they'd really go around killing people. (Sane people don't need these laws, because they can figure out this stuff for themselves).
This is pretty evident by the fact that the religious even come up with this scenario of "people would kill if we didn't have commandments".
How crazy do you have to be to even consider that people would act like that?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2017
@dog
This thread is overly long with considerable discussion about what constitutes morality. Lets return to the article and its conclusion
this is because you make a statement like the following with no comprehension
I restate my original observation that the lack of a moral standard is the reason for this perception
1- there is no moral standard in religion
2- the only true moral standard we have is the rule of law
3- all moral standards are malleable and subjective due to culture and societal beliefs (or norms)
This perception will not change because you don't like the perception
who cares what you believe?
it's your statement of personally believed "facts" based upon your religion that is nonsensical rote regurgitation of mantra because it's not based in fact at all, but rather misconceptions about the origin of morality itself
morality is natural - otherwise you would never see altruistic behaviour in animals
dogbert
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2017
drrobodog,
You can't simply redefine "moral standard" as "absolute theistic moral standard".

There again you try to say I said something I did not say. I noted that atheists have no moral standard. Now, if you choose to dispute that, instead of trying to change what I have said, tell us what moral standard atheists use, where that standard originated, and how you determined that atheists have decided to use that standard.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2017
@antialias
This is pretty evident by the fact that the religious even come up with this scenario of "people would kill if we didn't have commandments".
How crazy do you have to be to even consider that people would act like that?
rhetorical, right?
LMFAO

i don't care who you are: that sh*t right there is funny!
cogent, but funny!

but perhaps this is telling:

Religion = codified rules surrounding a faith, or a belief, that is held with strong conviction despite the lack of evidence, or in the face of refuting evidence, to the contrary

Delusion = a belief that is held with strong conviction despite superior evidence to the contrary

despite being segregated due to pathology for diagnosis, they're actually the same thing
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2017
@dog
There again you try to say I said something I did not say
not true: your very first post in this thread makes that very same argument that the only way to have a moral standard is theistic

the rewording by robo is accurate per your first post in this thread
tell us what moral standard atheists use, where that standard originated, and how you determined that atheists have decided to use that standard
i may not be robo, but this can be answered:
1- the rule of law

2- the ruling (governmental and judicial) documentation based upon the rule of law

3- it is applicable to everyone
TheGhostofOtto1923
5 / 5 (3) Aug 15, 2017
I restate my original observation that the lack of a moral standard is the reason for this perception
You can say it as often as you want dog, its still a lie.

Even dogs have a moral code which involves protecting their offspring to the next gen.

With godders, this involves producing more offspring than they can support and then sending them off to die on battlefields fighting other religionists who are doing the same thing.

Onward xian soldiers. Outgrowing and overrunning is what believers live and die for.

"Like arrows in the hands of a warrior
are children born in one's youth.
5 Blessed is the man
whose quiver is full of them.
They will not be put to shame
when they meet their opponents in the gate." psm127

-THIS is religious morality. Filling up the earth with more of them and fewer of everybody else.

I appreciate how theyve actually written down their moral code for convenient copy/pasting.

It will be their end.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2017
@dog
I noted that atheists have no moral standard
this will make things more clear, perhaps

morality *absolutely must* come from a biological and internal point
as we can see morals and altruistic behaviour in the animal kingdom then there must be a biological function that is common among animals
(common example: https://www.youtu...genqMlvQ ; there are more studies if you do a google scholar search)

so, we have evidence of morality and altruistic behaviour in animals
but there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of any religion in animals

moreover, there are far too many religions and different "morals" to make your claims - which is superior to another?
none, it's all about culture and place of birth - so religion is out for morality

it absolutely must be internal, otherwise anyone not religious would always rape, kill, etc

so there is no possible way that "morality" can be derived from religion at all
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2017
@dog
addendum to above:

religions have always tried to explain the morality they see in life
this is where most people get confused

religion is were the humans attempt to explain the world around them, including the human condition: some of them were more about divinity and intercession, while others were more naturalistic

the point is: morality had to exist before religion, otherwise no human would exist today
religion and morality stem from the same instinctual behaviour patterns that include the tribal dynamic Otto often posts about

essentially: religion is the attempt to remove personal responsibility and define nature with supernatural unobserved powers or anthropomorphized deities

this is why science has far exceeded religion in the progression of the species
postfuture
1 / 5 (2) Aug 15, 2017
Why on the science site the most commented article is about religion and atheism? 165 comments at the moment! From both sides! Who would read all of them!? That means that people REALLY CARE to make their view public on the matter. Very interesting, WHY? What is in our psychology that makes it a very important subject, again, for both sides, for everyone?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 15, 2017
What is in our psychology that makes it a very important subject, again, for both sides, for everyone?
@postfuture
the unknown is alluring

especially when the evidence takes us in so many directions at once
Who would read all of them!?
a psych major would

especially in light of the thought processes behind some of the posts
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Aug 16, 2017
Why on the science site the most commented article is about religion and atheism?

Because everyone thinks they're an expert..

It's a bit like in the industry where I work in: As soon as you have to design a graphical user interface for the software everyone is an 'expert' because they think they have used software in the past (though the total lack of theoretical knowledge in good GUI design - even on the part of our dedicated usability engineers - is shocking)
drrobodog
3 / 5 (4) Aug 16, 2017
You can't simply redefine "moral standard" as "absolute theistic moral standard"

dogbert
There again you try to say I said something I did not say.


dogbert
It you had a moral standard, you would be unable to change your morals because you could not change the standard.

Why can't the standard change? The definition holds no requirement. Have aviation/healthcare/etc standards ever changed? Are they still standards?

At this point you have redefined "standard" as "absolute standard".

dogbert
I noted that atheists have no moral standard

The definition for atheist only requires one disbelieve or lack belief in God or Gods, ie be non-theistic. You assert that being non-theistic means one lacks a moral standard. Therefore one must at least be theistic to have a moral standard. Moral standards are not required, by definition, to be theistic.

At this point you have further redefined "moral standard" as "absolute theistic moral standard".
dogbert
1 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2017
drrobodog,

Why do you insist I said something I did not say? You cannot quote me saying that a moral standard must be theistic. Neither did I say it needed to be absolute, but a standard, to be useful as a standard, should be relatively unchanging, otherwise, it is not a standard.

Abrahamic religions derive their moral standard from the bible, Torah, new testament, etc. and can be identified as theistic.

Hinduism is a polytheistic religion and I would suppose that their morality derives from a polytheistic base.

Buddhism is not a theistic religion. The morality of Buddhism would therefore not have a theistic base.

All those religions have moral standards.

You have yet to define a moral standard for atheists because atheists do not have a moral standard.
drrobodog
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2017
You have yet to define a moral standard for atheists because atheists do not have a moral standard


Should I also define a moral standard for blonde people? Fine.

They may or may not use a variety of the following standards:

Evolved moral standards
Nurtured moral standards
Social moral standards
Cultural moral standards
Logical moral standards
Legal moral standards
Spiritual moral standards
Philosophical moral standards
Theistic moral standards (this is the one set atheists don't use)

Maybe there are more I missed?

Can a Buddhist be an atheist?
dogbert
1 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2017
drrobodog,

Your analogy using blonds is not even cute, it's just meaningless.
And you still have not defined a moral standard for atheists because no such standard exists.
Therein lies the reason atheists are viewed as less moral even by other atheists.
drrobodog
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 16, 2017
Your analogy using blonds is not even cute, it's just meaningless.

Which is why it's a good analogy, because your argument is meaningless.

And you still have not defined a moral standard for atheists because no such standard exists.

Straw man.

Therein lies the reason atheists are viewed as less moral even by other atheists.

Incorrect. Less moral assumed atheist, not atheist assumed immoral.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2017
@dog
Why do you insist I said something I did not say?
you did say it - and i pointed it out to you above
You cannot quote me saying that a moral standard must be theistic
Erm... since you obviously missed it earlier in your own first post:
1) Atheists, by definition lack a moral standard.

2) If there were no god, then nothing anyone does or fails to do has any lasting effect. Without a viewpoint or belief that what we do matters, we can do anything at all without feeling bad since whatever we did does not really matter
the very first point designates those who are not theistic being, and i will quote, "by definition lack[ing] a moral standard"

this is specifically stating that "a moral standard must be theistic"

therefore, you must be either:
uncomfortable with english
illiterate
or a liar

you pick
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2017
@dog cont'd
You have yet to define a moral standard for atheists because atheists do not have a moral standard
moral = 1a. of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical
https://www.merri...ry/moral

standard = 3. something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example : criterion
https://www.merri...standard

the rule of law = a situation in which the laws of a country are obeyed by everyone
https://www.merri...of%20law

therefore the rule of law is moral (of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior)
it is a standard (something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example)

by definition it is the ONLY standard as it also applied to theistic and other organizations, regardless of belief, arbitrary custom or leadership, and more
dogbert
not rated yet Aug 16, 2017
Stumpy,

I generally ignore you and Ghosty because you bring little to any conversation, but you keep telling lies about me, so I will say this.

I never said that a moral standard had to be theistic. There are religions which are theistic, such as the Abrahamic religions. There are religions which are Deist. There are religions which are Polytheistic. And then there are people such as Buddhists who have a very well defined moral standard without any theistic associations.

I would say you should learn to read, but you intentionally misread in order to disparage.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2017
@dog
but you keep telling lies about me
i stated no lie
i quoted you verbatim
but you intentionally misread in order to disparage
no, i am making a very specific point about your choice of words

Case in point, your quote
Atheists, by definition lack a moral standard
this specifically states that morality and moral standards must be theistic
your choice of words explicitly state you're either moral or atheist
you even choose to make this a matter of definition

whereas the point of fact is, as i repeatedly stated, there is a fundamental error in your statement in that all people have a moral standard called Law

this manifests itself in the natural world as laws of nature, and carries forth in our complex attempt to define said nature with our understanding

hence the rule of law is the current standard all equally subscribe to
this isn't based on anything other than the natural "golden rule"

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2017
@dog cont'd

as we have limitations of ability, we attempt to describe nature in the way that fits cultural and societal times

in history, religion was the powerhouse driving humanity, therefore it was usually a matter of theistic description

however, when the scientific principle took hold more firmly there was no need to invoke theistic argument to define nature
(it sporadically reared in attempted logical interpretations but always included theistic or supernatural influences: like Newton)

so what we have is the attempt to define a fundamental part of humans called: morality
this absolutely must be a biological and evolved function as this is apparent in the animal kingdom

then there is the argument of "standard" - and as you know, all standards are changeable, therefore the argument that [x] doesn't have a standard is stupendously stupid, especially worded as you have been so inclined to do

which leads to the basis of the argument

2Bcon't
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2017
@dog cont'd

what you consider morals are (so far) extensions of the golden rule, and as this basic belief transcends religions, cultures, societies and even species, it should be the focal point of the discussion
(the standard)

point of fact: it is also subjective to change and malleable as it's a situational argument

this is best demonstrated in the argument of homicide: it is morally wrong but it's also overlooked as being "wrong" under certain circumstance, which is situational and dependent upon multiple individual factors

in conclusion: i am not misreading anything, i am attempting to show you the error of considering morality a black or white perspective as it assuredly is no such thing

it's proven to be highly subjective and centers almost exclusively around our own instincts, be they survival, sustenance or reproduction

but your choice of rebuttal on all points to everyone has been semantics, strawman, ignoring points and distraction
dogbert
1 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2017
Stumpy,
Case in point, your quote

Atheists, by definition lack a moral standard


this specifically states that morality and moral standards must be theistic
your choice of words explicitly state you're either moral or atheist
you even choose to make this a matter of definition


You again conflate the term 'moral standard' with the term 'morality'. You do not do this unintentionally. Then you accuse me of saying that someone is either moral or atheist, which I have not said and which you know I have not said.

the point of fact is, as i repeatedly stated, there is a fundamental error in your statement in that all people have a moral standard called Law... the rule of law is the current standard all equally subscribe to...


The rule of law is not a moral standard. The law does not require you to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the homeless or even pull a stranger from a fire.

continued...

dogbert
1 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2017
Stumpy continued ...

Then you change your supposed moral standard to: 'the natural "golden rule"'.

So which moral standard do you have. The rule of law or the golden rule? Does whichever standard you claim apply to all atheists? Or does every atheist choose their own standard[s]?

As I have pointed out, when there is no moral standard, each person chooses whatever morality they want. You have claimed two completely different moral standards in a single paragraph, thus demonstrating that atheists do not have a moral standard.

Atheists can be moral, but that morality is not apparent because of the lack of a moral standard. Hence, the expected finding that people, including atheists, think that atheists are less moral than others.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2017
@dog
You again conflate the term 'moral standard' with the term 'morality'
this was already addressed above by robo at #cm_1497553 - Aug 08, 2017
it still stands as correct - try reading it
The rule of law is not a moral standard
tell that to the judge

the rule of law is defined by our current society and culture - it is a direct reflection of morals, and as such is the only standard you can actually claim as a "moral standard", especially using the word standard as you have

it is also applicable to all, whereas theistic "standards" are not only not applicable to all, but not even adhered to unless it conforms to the bias of the person interpreting the passage
The law does not require you to...
if this is where morality comes from then why do we have hungry, homeless, naked and deaths from fire or violence?

this is the absolute best example to demonstrate that morality cannot come from theism at all
so thanks for putting it up there

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2017
@dog vont'd
Then you change your supposed moral standard to: 'the natural "golden rule"'
no, actually i said "morals are (so far) extensions of the golden rule"
at least try to keep up, eh?
So which moral standard do you have
i see you didn't actually read what was written

the "golden rule" is the basis for morality and any "moral standard" you can have, be it law or theistic proclamations
this is biological and inherent in most of the species via evolution (it excludes certain mental afflictions and damaged people)

therefore it isn't separate, per your intimation
Does whichever standard you claim apply to all atheists? Or does every atheist choose their own standard[s]?
1- Law applies to all people - period

2- all "moral standards" for all people are subjective and therefore you have a choice to ignore any of it

2a- this is best demonstrated by theists who break all their holy commandments and or proclamations

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 16, 2017
@dog cont'd
You have claimed two completely different moral standards in a single paragraph
no, i didn't
you just can't read
thus demonstrating that atheists do not have a moral standard
except that i am not an atheist

so there goes that argument right out the window
when there is no moral standard, each person chooses whatever morality they want
but by your own argument then, that means that all theists who have a written standard are far less moral as they specifically refuse to comply with their own standard

this is best demonstrated by the refusal of modern xtians to comply with Moses laws, which (per their own holy comic) were not thrown out

that means by definition that all theists cannot be moral

this then is a demonstration that only atheists are actually capable of being moral as they abide by the Law (a written tome reflecting societal standards)

drrobodog
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2017
Dogbert
Buddhists [..] have a [..] moral standard without any theistic associations.

A Buddhist can also be an atheist, and would therefore have a moral standard.
Therefore,
Dogbert
Atheists, by definition lack a moral standard.

,is wrong. There is no such requirement in the definition.

Dogbert
Hence, the expected finding that people[..] think that atheists are less moral than others.

This is the fourth time it has been mentioned.
Please stop quoting the incorrect article heading, rather than the actuall findings.

Dogbert
You have claimed two completely different moral standards

So have you.
Dogbert
People do not have to blindly accept what some authority figure says. People generally assess whether the standard is a good standard before accepting it.

What standard did you use to assess your standard?
drrobodog
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 17, 2017
Dogbert
Atheists, by definition lack a moral standard.

you still have not defined a moral standard for atheists


The problem with your argument is you are giving us a false dilemma.

Either prove atheists have a moral standard,
or atheists have no moral standard.

Both are incorrect statements.

The set comprising atheists has no correlation, for or against, either the set comprising people with moral standards, or people without moral standards.
dogbert
1 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2017
drrobodog,

You just stated that atheists have no moral standard.
You should read what you just said.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2017
@dog
You just stated that atheists have no moral standard
try re-reading that again
in context

that means including the line
The problem with your argument is you are giving us a false dilemma
as well as
The set comprising atheists has no correlation, for or against, either the set comprising people with moral standards, or people without moral standards
this demonstrates one of your problems though

you cherry pick without context, then present a false statement or strawman based upon your cherrypicked data

of course, this is also how you approach other topics, like climate, so it isn't a surprise

dogbert
not rated yet Aug 17, 2017
Stumpy,
Not your statement. drrobodogs.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 17, 2017
@dog
Stumpy,
Not your statement. drrobodogs
erm: if you read what i quoted, it specifically quotes drrobodog, therefore your distracting from the point that you're wrong, and that you cherrypicked data out of context (again)

so it's irrelevant who's statement you're referring to
drrobodog
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 18, 2017
dogbert
atheists have no moral standard.


What you are doing is immoral dogbert.
You know there are two ways to interpreter that statement.

In one case each member of the group can be said to have no moral standard.
This is how people are interpreting it, and it's wrong.

The second is that the group as a whole can be said to have no moral standard.
This is how you are justifying it, but it's absurd.
We could also say theists have no moral standard, because, how would you put it

"Does whichever standard you claim apply to all [..]theists? Or does every [..]theist choose their own standard(s)?"

If I am wrong please point out my errors, or further explain your reasoning. Help me understand your point.
dogbert
1 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
drrobodog,

How many times do you require that a simple concept be explained to you.

Atheists do not have a moral standard. If they had a moral standard, instead of saying ad Infinitum that you don't understand, you would identify the moral standard atheists use.

The various religions can identify their moral standard but atheists cannot because of the simple fact that they have no moral standard.

Stop playing with words. Identify the moral standard atheists use our admit there is no moral standard for atheists.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
@dog
How many times do you require that a simple concept be explained to you
funny, i was going to ask you the same thing
Identify the moral standard atheists use our admit there is no moral standard for atheists
the law

this is "the" only moral standard as it's applied equally to everyone without prejudice, especially in a society where the rule of law is utilised

this is what you keep misunderstanding: religion does not have a moral standard
they have an attempt to codify the cultural beliefs of [x] time of "perfection", but even this changes drastically over time (hence the xtian refusal to sell daughters, etc)

so any standard must, by definition, be based upon a consensus belief about actions
where does this belief come from?
it's biological, inherent in the species

therefore theists derive their ignored standard from the same source, which is why they're required to abide by the atheist standard, which is the law

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
@dog cont'd
The various religions can identify their moral standard but atheists cannot
lets look at this realistically and with logic

an atheist is simply the non-belief of deities (fact)
a theist believes in a deity(s) (fact)

the law is:
- "a system of rules that are created and enforced through social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior" (fact)

- derived by consensus of acceptable behaviour (fact)

- the standard of conduct (fact)

- derived upon our constitution, which designates equality and a separation of church and state (fact)

there is no theistic necessity for law, nor is there a theistic governance of the law, as it's by consensus and consent (thus subjective and malleable over time)

your refusal to accept that the law is a standard demonstrates your inability to accept that there can be morals in anything other than theists

you also prove theists by demonstration do not abide by their own standard, thus are immoral
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
@dog
our admit there is no moral standard for atheists
[sic] i came back to this
until you can quit laboring under the false assumption that theists are the only ones with a "moral standard" then you cannot comprehend reality

three men, a, b, c respectively
a- never had a ticket, no criminal record, raises family, supports the indigent and gives to charity

b- has tickets, but no serious crime, never gives to the homeless or feeds the poor/children, gives tokens to charity on occasion or when it may benefit self (raffles, etc)

c- criminal record, spent time in jail (long periods)

all three have different morality per the law
however, man a is an atheist (Dr, educated, financially well off)
man b is a deacon
man c is a preacher

you would judge them differently based solely upon this latter knowledge, which in and of itself is immoral

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 18, 2017
@dog cont'd

which brings us to another point: recidivism
is it more or less immoral?

if you can show a "Moral standard" for the theist, and you can demonstrate where said theists abide only by the parts of the standard that they wish to abide by (for whatever reason or justification on their part), then this person cannot be moral by any definition as said theist doesn't comply with its own moral standard

This then suggests that morality isn't defined by any external deity because said deity would be able to force compliance

regardless of politics or justification, the refusal to abide by the standard is, by definition, immoral

now, the above (real) men were judged by two separate standards, and the latter moral standard (theistic) is what decided they're moral, yet when the facts remove all theistic comparison, it is only the first which is moral (the atheist)

judgement is all about segregation and separation, which is the curse of religion

dogbert
1 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
Stumpy,

You go on and on saying nothing of importance.

your refusal to accept that the law is a standard demonstrates your inability to accept that there can be morals in anything other than theists


I have already noted that human law is not a standard for morality. The law is not moral and to state that the law is the moral standard of atheists is to say that atheists have no morality.

Many atheists are very moral people and you should not denigrate them.

The fact is that atheists have no moral standard. But they can be very moral people.

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (1) Aug 19, 2017
@dog
I have already noted that human law is not a standard for morality
if that is the case then there should be no repercussions for breaking it

.

and again: the law is based upon morality, and as such it forms the boundaries of morality, therefore it is a definition that describes the current standard for morality in the society it exists in

this is in no way different than your own biblical "morality" which is exactly the same attempt to define the "then" current standard
Many atheists are very moral people and you should not denigrate them
you're the idiot stating they're not moral because of their lack of theistic belief, not i

i am stating (very specifically) that your "moral standard" argument is stupid

more to the point, i've just proven that having a theistic moral standard is definitely immoral by definition
dogbert
not rated yet Aug 20, 2017
Stumpy,
For most of the earth's history, laws everywhere allowed slavery. In many places today, slavery is legal. You call this a moral standard.

For most of the earth's history, women have been assigned to a dependent position and suffered a form of slavery. Even today, many societies have laws which allow women to be bought and sold. You call this a moral standard.

Within this century, we have had instances of laws allowing and demanding the elimination of people (genocide). You call this a moral standard.

Laws are varied, contradictory and often damaging to human beings. They often promote decidedly immoral behavior. Laws do not require love, kindness, consideration or assistance. No law requires you to feed the hungry, clothe the sick, shelter the homeless, save someone who is dying, etc. Laws are not moral and are definitely not consistent enough to be any type of standard moral or otherwise.

continued ...
dogbert
not rated yet Aug 20, 2017
Stumpy continued... ,
But you go ahead and promote the idea that laws constitute the moral standard of atheists.
Denigrate them all you want.
I can't convince you to act morally toward those who may choose to act morally without a moral standard.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.