Are atheists equally moral?

[_Calculus Crusader]

I have too much disdain for you to be pissed off. You are simply one more noxious mediocrity on the internet.

Well, given that you excel at noxious mediocrity, it's a wonder you'd have disdain for that which you perceive to be just like you.

Of course, given that you're an idiot as well, it's likely you don't even recognize your own noxious mediocrity.

LMAO

Shorter Schmo: I know you are but what am I?!

I definitely will not hold my breath waiting for you graduate to post-secondary insults.

[_Some Schmo]

I have too much disdain for you to be pissed off. You are simply one more noxious mediocrity on the internet.

Well, given that you excel at noxious mediocrity, it's a wonder you'd have disdain for that which you perceive to be just like you.

Of course, given that you're an idiot as well, it's likely you don't even recognize your own noxious mediocrity.

LMAO

Shorter Schmo: I know you are but what am I?!

I definitely will not hold my breath waiting for you graduate to post-secondary insults.

Are you trying to intimate that your insults are better? Holy Christ, you're even dumber than I thought. I suppose calling someone "shorter" is your idea of a real zinger? ROTFLMAO Please, oh please, insult me no further! I can't take it any more!

If this is the best you can do, maybe you should start holding your breath... it's not like your brain is getting much oxygen now. Who knows? For you, it might be an improvement.

Keep 'em coming, genius.

(I will say, you're damn funny. If only it were intentional).

[_Bond...James Bond]

(I am Teflon, you are glue......uh....I'm used to coat skillets and you're used in crappy mararoni art Pastacasso)

;P

[_dartagnan]

I probably should have started this thread when i had more time to respond to everyone.

E Allusion, good to see you around again.

Kevin G. asks how atheists can be moral if they lack religion to teach them morality - a code of conduct to harness their empathetic impulses. I think the answer to this is fairly obvious. They are taught it from other non-religious cultural sources, such as their parents, teachers, peers, and literature.

Such as their parents? And where di their parents receive their guidance? You see the article in question doesn't narrow it to children. It assumes all humans, children and adults, need some kind of teaching system in order for them to apply their morals in any meaningful way. If your parents are atheists, then who taught them moral values?

This, I would add, is not too different from how children raised in religious environments pick up on right and wrong. It just doesn't include specific things like "Their Sunday School Teacher" or "Scriptures." Notions of proper and improper conduct exist regardless of religion.

So what does it include?

Why? In the US, atheists are better educated and wealthier than their nontheist counterparts.

Well most people are not atheists, but I fail to see how education and wealth has any connection to morality.

Those traits happen to correlate reasonably well with what we think of as moral behavior

In what way?

So atheists are measured as having lower incarceration rates, etc. which may serve as an indirect means to measure moral behavior

This is a poor standard to use and I simply don't see the connection here. So the rich and wealthy are less likely to be in prison, therefore they aren't really commiting any crimes? Come on.

So I wouldn't go so far as to call such an assertion "nonsense."

It is nonsense because it is not only arrogant, but based on nothing concrete.

Keep in mind that I do not believe all theists are moral and all atheists are immoral. Being taught morality doesn't guarantee moral behavior anymore than a lack of teaching guarantees immorality. I am simply following the logic expressed on this forum in the past, and following up on an article I just read in TIME that seems to argue along the same lines as beastie and others have in the past (i.e. we are just moral animals who have progressed further than our monkey cousins). This, along with sethbag's recent thread smacking down religion as dangerous, I felt to serve as an appropriate rejoinder.

Comparing the level of morality of atheists and theists might be too complex to be within our grasp, but to assert that atheism coming out on top (presumably because one needs religion to be moral) is nonsensical betrays some serious misunderstanding of human behavior.

I don't believe religion is required for morality. I am simply noting that religion serves a good purpose in providing the means by which moral conduct and ethical standards are taught and enforced. Without some kind of vehicle like this, the article suggested that our innate sense of morality becomes essentially worthless. So my main point is that religion is not all bad. It is difficult to say the world would be more advanced right now without religion because we have no atheistic societies to compare to. It is just bald assertion.

[_EAllusion]

Such as their parents? And where di their parents receive their guidance? You see the article in question doesn't narrow it to children. It assumes all humans, children and adults, need some kind of teaching system in order for them to apply their morals in any meaningful way. If your parents are atheists, then who taught them moral values?

Their parents, teachers, peers, literature, personal reflection, etc. And on back down until you hit a period where it arose organically. Religion is a part of this, not the genesis of it.

So what does it include?

I'm baffled as to why you find this so baffling. You don't teach your children ideas about right or wrong behavior divorced form a religious context? Ever? It includes parents telling their kids what is right, what is wrong, and why. It includes stories that have morals to them. It includes teachers teaching students about right and wrong. In includes a complex system of laws wrapped up in proper behavior. In other words, it includes a vast cultural apparatus that imparts upon the younger generation codes of conduct. Going to Sunday School is only one optional aspect of this. I doubt religion figures as a major role in the moral training a a significant % of our population. Remember, we live in a society where a substantial portion of Christians never read their scriptures, know almost nothing about them, and rarely if ever attend Church.

Why? In the US, atheists are better educated and wealthier than their nontheist counterparts.

Well most people are not atheists, but I fail to see how education and wealth has any connection to morality.

People who are wealthier and more educated tend to behave in ways we are likely to describe as more moral. As for why, that's an interesting question. But if you are in a lower income bracket, you are more likely to do things like commit crime. This likely has to do with the fact that having less income tends to involve more stessors and people who function poorly within society are more likely to have lower incomes. You'd expect more socially risky behavior among the set if only because it is more worth it because there is less to lose. Education might be important simply because moral behavior requires knowledge and forethought which the better educated might statistically have a greater propensity for. The wealthy/educated tend to perform better on almost every single social measure we have that is regarded as desirable. They divorce less, cheat less, commit crime less, give more to charity, are less apt to have drug dependencies, etc.

This, of course, says nothing of moral issues where religion seems to on balance have a negative influence, such as on topics like birth control or homosexuality. But that depends on your stance on those issues, so I felt it best to leave that out.

This is a poor standard to use and I simply don't see the connection here. So the rich and wealthy are less likely to be in prison, therefore they aren't really commiting any crimes? Come on.

I think incarceration rates are a good measure of criminality. It's not perfect. Presumably, you aren't seriously suggesting I said that the wealthy aren't committing any crimes.

This, along with sethbag's recent thread smacking down religion as dangerous, I felt to serve as an appropriate rejoinder.

Your appropriate rejoinder is the argument that religion is what provides the cultural apparatus to harness innate moral impulses and to rhetorically ask how atheists deal with this. This, unfortunately, is baseless.

[_dartagnan]

I'm baffled as to why you find this so baffling. You don't teach your children ideas about right or wrong behavior divorced form a religious context? Ever?

I guess I'm not making myself clear, and I am keeping in mind the article which apparently no one else has read. The article seemed to be saying that humans are naturally moral in the sense that they have the basics, but it went on to say that we naturally empathize only with what we see in our immediate vicinity, and even then, only the stuff we empathize with.

It used an example of some kids who said they would never mug and old lady; apparently because they can empathize on some level with her. She could be their grandmother, after all. However the same group of kids agreed that they might be capable to mug a Chinese delivery man. Why? Because a chinese man is foreign to them in every way that matters.

It said humans are naturally designed to give to the needy but only in their immediate vicinity - people they actually come across in day to day life - but are not designed to take into consideration the needs of those distant to them. The distance and the difference (social, racial, etc) between the two determines the level of empathy involved. What I am saying is that religion seems to break down that barrier which seems to limit a human's "natural" tendency towards moral behavior.

I mean love your neighbors and give to everyone unconditionally, is the epitome of chairty and morality I would think. It is foundational to Christian doctrine, whether most Christian abides by it or not. At least it is there. So what equivalent exists on the atheism side? Something that compells people to give to people unconditionally. This is what I am getting at. I don't know of any atheist organization that is interested in global issues, except perhaps the spread of atheism.

I'm not trying to say atheists are immoral or incapable of morality. That would be stupidity. I'm just following the logic of this article. If you don't agree with the article, then that's fine too. But it seems clear to me that it highlighted the necessity of something such as religion, that guides humans in their natural morality.

Saying "parents, teachers, peers, literature, personal reflection, etc" is not something concrete to compare with two thousand years of bedrock Christian principle. And I am not convinced that atheistic peers, literature and personal reflection is a proven apparatus for convincing atheists to give all their time and money to serving the poor and hungry. I know several Christians who have done this.

People who are wealthier and more educated tend to behave in ways we are likely to describe as more moral.

This might be true, but then correlation doesn't equal causation.There are also other factors that are being ignored. By obtaining wealth, you are unlikely to be incarcerated for crimes that a poor man would. This is the nature of the beast, and the treason people like wealth and educated folks like OJ Simpson get away with murder. Most people in prisons are dependant on sub-standard, public defenders. I am not saying they are innocent. I am simply saying you cannot use wealth and education as standard for determining morality. It is bizzare to suggest otherwise.

Your appropriate rejoinder is the argument that religion is what provides the cultural apparatus to harness innate moral impulses and to rhetorically ask how atheists deal with this. This, unfortunately, is baseless.

(emphasis mine)

No, what I am saying is that religion certainly provides a cultural apparatus by which our "natural" and "limited" morality can be guided to maturity. At the least, this speaks well of religion in this sense. Religion is not all about brain-dead apologetics, suicide bombers, phony angel visions and gold plates. There is much we can be grateful for, regarding Christian civilization.

[_Calculus Crusader]

I have too much disdain for you to be pissed off. You are simply one more noxious mediocrity on the internet.

Well, given that you excel at noxious mediocrity, it's a wonder you'd have disdain for that which you perceive to be just like you.

Of course, given that you're an idiot as well, it's likely you don't even recognize your own noxious mediocrity.

LMAO

Shorter Schmo: I know you are but what am I?!

I definitely will not hold my breath waiting for you graduate to post-secondary insults.

Are you trying to intimate that your insults are better? Holy Christ, you're even dumber than I thought. I suppose calling someone "shorter" is your idea of a real zinger? ROTFLMAO Please, oh please, insult me no further! I can't take it any more!

If this is the best you can do, maybe you should start holding your breath... it's not like your brain is getting much oxygen now. Who knows? For you, it might be an improvement.

Keep 'em coming, genius.

(I will say, you're damn funny. If only it were intentional).

My good dunce,

It is "shorter" as in condensed or paraphrased. Should I resort to Dick, Jane, and Spot next time?

[_Some Schmo]

It is "shorter" as in condensed or paraphrased.

Nice try, moron.

Should I resort to Dick, Jane, and Spot next time?

I suppose you should go with what's likely the most complex stuff on your bookshelf, yeah.

Got any more, retard?

[_EAllusion]

I guess I'm not making myself clear, and I am keeping in mind the article which apparently no one else has read. The article seemed to be saying that humans are naturally moral in the sense that they have the basics, but it went on to say that we naturally empathize only with what we see in our immediate vicinity, and even then, only the stuff we empathize with.

I get that. What I don't get is why you think religion is necessary to provide broader moral concern. I suppose Gadianton has a good point with the example he is using. Look at leftist atheists, for instance. BUt I don't know why we need to focus on morality in such narrow terms. Just look at all the moral thought not dependent on religion. You don't need religion to believe in universal rights or aggregate goods.

I don't know of any atheist organization that is interested in global issues, except perhaps the spread of atheism.

See my post on charities. Do you know any secular organizations that are concerned with global issues?

I'm not trying to say atheists are immoral or incapable of morality. That would be stupidity. I'm just following the logic of this article. If you don't agree with the article, then that's fine too. But it seems clear to me that it highlighted the necessity of something such as religion, that guides humans in their natural morality.

As best I can tell, I'm not disagreeing with the article. I'm disagreeing with a leap you are making from it that doesn't follow.

Saying "parents, teachers, peers, literature, personal reflection, etc" is not something concrete to compare with two thousand years of bedrock Christian principle.

All of the things I mentioned predate Christian principle by thousands of years. They are the cultural apparatus by which moral ideas are passed on. "Christian principles," like slavery, are part of this. Locales not impacted by Christianity were not bereft of broad altruistic thinking in particular or moral ideas in general. "Love your neighbor" isn't something unique to the Christian religion and scripture isn't the only way this idea gets systematically passed on. Further, I don't know how what I listed isn't "concrete" in comparison to bedrock Christian principle when they are how Christian principles are passed on. Scripture, after all, is just a subset of literature.

And I am not convinced that atheistic peers, literature and personal reflection is a proven apparatus for convincing atheists to give all their time and money to serving the poor and hungry. I know several Christians who have done this.

Uh, I have known atheists who have done this via joining Peace Corps like organizations.

This might be true, but then correlation doesn't equal causation.

It doesn't need to. I wasn't arguing that being atheist, wealthy, or educated makes one more apt to be moral per se. I was merely responding to the notion that atheists, on average, being more moral than theists is a nonsensical. All that requires is a correlation.

There are also other factors that are being ignored.

I'm not ignoring, them. I don't think they account for all the differences in incarceration rates. In short, I think actual differences in criminality account for the variance to enough of a degree that you can glean information about the criminality of a demographic by looking at its incarceration rate. It is quite conventional to think that lower levels of wealth are tied into propensity to commit crime, if only because of how less income shifts a personal risk/benefit analysis.

I am simply saying you cannot use wealth and education as standard for determining morality.

I'm not doing that.

No, what I am saying is that religion certainly provides a cultural apparatus by which our "natural" and "limited" morality can be guided to maturity. At the least, this speaks well of religion in this sense.

Religion helps people learn to read. This is good. But that's a tepid point when you realize that literacy isn't joined at the hip with religion. What you are suggesting here also belies what you are arguing consistently above, like when you talk about the necessity of religion.

[_MishMagnet]

1) From my own personal experience my religious training was sexual in nature and how I should avoid it at all costs. I was taught was God (allegedly) expected from us as individuals. I do not feel the main precept of my religious training was to help others. It was to spread the Gospel in word and deed.

2) I don't know how familiar you are with Unitarian Universalism. This is a non-religious religion. This is where atheists go when they want community without dogma. I've attended several UU congregations. Here are the most recent "sermons" - How the UN functions. Global warming - fact or fiction? Is it possible to have morals without religion? (sounds like you would have found this interesting.) They also had a whole month dedicated to gay issues which involved having several gay people speak about their experiences plus going over the legislation with both protects and denys gay rights. The children in this UU congregation did Trick-or-Treat for Unicef. They spent the month in the Sunday School discussing UNICEF and how it works. Their regular Sunday School program focuses on the races and religions of the world. IF you care to include this as a religion that teaches empathy I would agree. It is not Christian, though.

3) 2000 years of Christianity. Society managed to figure out "The Golden Rule" before Jesus came along. Bhuddism has had the concept of karma 500 years before Christ. Anything that causes another pain will be brought back upon you in your next life.

4) I guess I'm generally unconvinced that the main message in Christianity is to help others or emathize with others. Not to say this isn't how it SHOULD be. Since leaving the Mormon church I've looked into many Christian religions. Although helping others is definitely a part what I hear the most of is 'accept Jesus and go to heaven.' Even someone who behaves like a total bastard can go to heaven. The Dalai Lama, not so much.