Musings, Atheist's more moral?

[Darkevilme]

This is an odd idea i thought up as a response to the 'atheists are immoral babyeaters' thing that religionists apparently bring up.

We have two people, we must choose which is the more moral, neither of which have committed any crime, person A has not committed any crime because he feels compassion and empathy for his fellow man and for no other reason. Person B has not committed any crime because he believes some allseeing big brother figure will set him on fire if he does.

Thoughts? Criticism? Thrown objects?

[Molyneux]

Though it's hard to find data that's not anecdotal or unsourced, I have heard several times that atheists are underrepresented in the prison population, for whatever reason.

[salm]

This is an odd idea i thought up as a response to the 'atheists are immoral babyeaters' thing that religionists apparently bring up.

We have two people, we must choose which is the more moral, neither of which have committed any crime, person A has not committed any crime because he feels compassion and empathy for his fellow man and for no other reason. Person B has not committed any crime because he believes some allseeing big brother figure will set him on fire if he does.

Thoughts? Criticism? Thrown objects?

This is pretty much a standard answer for atheists responding to the claim that they´re less moral than religious types.
You must note though that it doesn´t actually answer the question.

The claim of the religious person would be "atheists are not moral".
Now you have to show that there are moral atheists. This shouldn´t be too hard by showing that there are atheists who don´t commit crimes, help others and things like that.

Now you can bring up your statement to show that atheists are even more moral because they´re moral by their own intention and not because they fear to get hit over the head with a bit smiting stick.

[General Soontir Fel]

There's just one problem with that: according to religious fundamentalists, atheists are immoral because they're atheists. To them, faith and morality are synonymous. Two incompatible definitions of morality means you'll be talking to a brick wall.

[Kanastrous]

Though it's hard to find data that's not anecdotal or unsourced, I have heard several times that atheists are underrepresented in the prison population, for whatever reason.

Possibly for the same reason that atheists are famously under-represented, in foxholes.

[Rye]

Though it's hard to find data that's not anecdotal or unsourced, I have heard several times that atheists are underrepresented in the prison population, for whatever reason.

Possibly for the same reason that atheists are famously under-represented, in foxholes.

Not really, since one is a lie from a ww2 priest and the other is an actual matter of statistics.

[Kanastrous]

Not really, since one is a lie from a ww2 priest and the other is an actual matter of statistics.

Well, one is a flippant comment, from a WWII priest - and a pretty simple sentiment to grasp - and the other is an actual matter of statistical data gathered from people who are where they are, because they are demonstrably dishonest and/or unethical...

[General Zod]

Not really, since one is a lie from a ww2 priest and the other is an actual matter of statistics.

Well, one is a flippant comment, from a WWII priest - and a pretty simple sentiment to grasp - and the other is an actual matter of statistical data gathered from people who are where they are, because they are demonstrably dishonest and/or unethical...

Why would they lie about their faith? Most people, even prisoners, tend to proudly boast about whether they're Christian when asked.

Frankly though, if you have to depend on some higher power telling you what's right or wrong, then you've already proven that you're on the losing end as far as who is morally superior because you can't figure it out without someone else telling you that what you're doing is bad.

[Kanastrous]

Why would they lie about their faith? Most people, even prisoners, tend to proudly boast about whether they're Christian when asked.

There's evidence that people tend to fib and make themselves out to be more devout/ethical/better hung/whatever, when surveyed. Even knowing that no one but the data-collectors, will see the answers. I'll look around and eventually post a link, to some of that evidence, if and when I find it.

Frankly though, if you have to depend on some higher power telling you what's right or wrong, then you've already proven that you're on the losing end as far as who is morally superior because you can't figure it out without someone else telling you that what you're doing is bad.

Well...if you are acting in the interests of what most of us would baseline-agree is "right," I'm not sure it's a badge of moral superiority to be acting from one set of motivations, versus another.

[General Zod]

There's evidence that people tend to fib and make themselves out to be more devout/ethical/better hung/whatever, when surveyed. Even knowing that no one but the data-collectors, will see the answers. I'll look around and eventually post a link, to some of that evidence, if and when I find it.

Unless you can read their minds to tell for sure whether they believe otherwise, you're full of shit.

Well...if you are acting in the interests of what most of us would baseline-agree is "right," I'm not sure it's a badge of moral superiority to be acting from one set of motivations, versus another.

Many Christians will flat out state that morality comes from God and nothing else, which means they cannot tell right from wrong without someone else telling them what is bad. Most people consider that the standard definition of a psychopath, so they're hardly in the position of being able to claim moral superiority.

[salm]

There's evidence that people tend to fib and make themselves out to be more devout/ethical/better hung/whatever, when surveyed. Even knowing that no one but the data-collectors, will see the answers. I'll look around and eventually post a link, to some of that evidence, if and when I find it.

Unless you can read their minds to tell for sure whether they believe otherwise, you're full of shit.

He might not be so wrong. Here´s a link to a Project at Harvard that deals with that type of stuff:
Link

I was quite surprised myself when i did the test. I also was quite surprised what happened when i did it again and the order was reversed.
However it should be noted that this test is relatively new and should probably be examined longer before coming to a conclusion on it´s validity.

[Kanastrous]

There's evidence that people tend to fib and make themselves out to be more devout/ethical/better hung/whatever, when surveyed. Even knowing that no one but the data-collectors, will see the answers. I'll look around and eventually post a link, to some of that evidence, if and when I find it.

Unless you can read their minds to tell for sure whether they believe otherwise, you're full of shit.

Okay; unless you can read their minds to tell for sure whether they don't believe otherwise, you're full of shit.

Got a better response than cheapass personal attack? Or do you normally assume that interview data supporting your position, is automatically beyond question?

Well...if you are acting in the interests of what most of us would baseline-agree is "right," I'm not sure it's a badge of moral superiority to be acting from one set of motivations, versus another.

Many Christians will flat out state that morality comes from God and nothing else, which means they cannot tell right from wrong without someone else telling them what is bad. Most people consider that the standard definition of a psychopath, so they're hardly in the position of being able to claim moral superiority.

Psychopathy is properly defined as a condition characterized by lack of empathy, lack of conscience, and poor or absent impulse control. 'Most people' who consider something else to be the 'standard definition' of psychopathy, are merely ignorant.

Psychosis is the classic disconnect-from-reality, that I imagine you mean to describe.

If someone does good because they believe in a fairy-tale that impels them to do good, while someone else does good having arrived via rational means at their conclusions regarding what is good, the net result is that good has been done. It's possible to act in a morally positive manner, even if you're motivation is basically delusional.

[General Zod]

Okay; unless you can read their minds to tell for sure whether they don't believe otherwise, you're full of shit.

Got a better response than cheapass personal attack? Or do you normally assume that interview data supporting your position, is automatically beyond question?

How the fuck are you supposed to tell what they beleive if they don't tell you? If they secretly believe otherwise but don't say as much, then trying to claim that they don't really believe it is useless. So again, unless you can read their minds to know for sure you've got shit.

Psychopathy is properly defined as a condition characterized by lack of empathy, lack of conscience, and poor or absent impulse control. 'Most people' who consider something else to be the 'standard definition' of psychopathy, are merely ignorant.

Psychosis is the classic disconnect-from-reality, that I imagine you mean to describe.

If someone does good because they believe in a fairy-tale that impels them to do good, while someone else does good having arrived via rational means at their conclusions regarding what is good, the net result is that good has been done. It's possible to act in a morally positive manner, even if you're motivation is basically delusional.

Except that's not the point. If they can't distinguish right from wrong without someone telling them what they're doing is wrong, then their claim of moral superiority is bullshit.

[Kanastrous]

How the fuck are you supposed to tell what they beleive if they don't tell you? If they secretly believe otherwise but don't say as much, then trying to claim that they don't really believe it is useless. So again, unless you can read their minds to know for sure you've got shit.

The only observation made, was that interview data regarding matters of faith and religious observance and moral behavior is suspect. I don't think I can simplify that for you, any further. If you insist that the only response to the data is to unquestioningly accept it at face value...then I guess we've discovered where *you* have chosen to invest your faith...

If they can't distinguish right from wrong without someone telling them what they're doing is wrong, then their claim of moral superiority is bullshit.

This presupposes that the sole derivation of taught moral conduct, is from religious instruction and/or scripture.

If someone leads a "moral" life without having absorbed their moral code from some "good book," that just means they absorbed it from their parents, or siblings, or teachers, or friends, or reading, or society...etc, etc, etc.

To some degree, everyone's moral code is predicated upon what they have absorbed from sources outside themselves. No one operates according to a standard of conduct that is 100% free of influence - "being told what is wrong."

You simply want to paint people's good behavior based upon religious instruction, as being inferior to people's good behavior based upon non-religious instruction.

Or that people motivated toward good by religious impulses, are intrinsically inferior to people motivated toward good by non-religious impulses.

Whichever.

[General Zod]

The only observation made, was that interview data regarding matters of faith and religious observance and moral behavior is suspect. I don't think I can simplify that for you, any further. If you insist that the only response to the data is to unquestioningly accept it at face value...then I guess we've discovered where *you* have chosen to invest your faith...

I never said any such thing. What I did say is that it's impossible to tell what the fuck they believe without either them saying so or being a mind-reader. They could believe that the moon is made of cheese or that the Earth really is flat but if they don't say so then there's no fucking way to tell. Beliefs are nebulous that way in there's no way to objectively prove them.

>snip<

Or that people motivated toward good by religious impulses, are intrinsically inferior to people motivated toward good by non-religious impulses.

Whichever.

Try none of the above. Someone who believes morality comes from God would believe that God commanding them to kill homosexuals and adulterers by stoning them is just as moral as loving thy neighbor without so much as bothering to think whether it is wrong.

In contrast, someone whose ethics does not stem from being told what is bad but by actually analyzing things would be capable of realizing there are more systems of ethics besides "do what my magic sky pixie commands". Humanism typically defines ethics with the principle of causing the least amount of harm. Most other non-religious ethical systems do the same.

So again, those who depend on a magic sky pixie for their beliefs are full of shit at claims of moral superiority as they see no moral distinction between stoning someone to death for being homosexual and aiding the homeless. In their mind, both is their God's commandment, and therefore good.

[Darth Wong]

I wonder how well the following sequence of questions would work:

"Do you believe that it is wrong to rape and murder a baby?" (presumably, the answer will be "yes").

"If you lost your faith for some reason, would you suddenly be OK with the idea of raping and murdering a baby?"

It seems to me that if the answer to the second question is "sure", then you've confirmed that the guy is a sociopath and probably destroyed his moral credibility in the eyes of any observers. If the answer to the question is "no", then the guy just admitted that you don't need to be religious in order to have a concept of morality. Of course, he might argue that it's upbringing, but at least you've gotten him over the "religion = morality" hurdle, and you can start arguing about the logical and historical origins of morality in earnest.

[Kanastrous]

In my experience the prospect of losing their faith, is something that most people of faith won't attempt to wrap their heads around (maybe because admitting that it could happen, makes it more likely that it will happen...or because it threatens to take them to the hidden terrifying part of their psyche where the Bene Gesserit dare not tread...)

YMMV.

[Kanastrous]

I never said any such thing. What I did say is that it's impossible to tell what the fuck they believe without either them saying so or being a mind-reader.

And then you proceeded to indicate that questioning the accuracy of their say-so, means that the questioner is

full of shit

Beliefs are nebulous that way in there's no way to objectively prove them.

Uh-oh...sounds like you're open to questioning the accuracy of the data. Careful; that way lies being

full of shit

Someone who believes morality comes from God would believe that God commanding them to kill homosexuals and adulterers by stoning them is just as moral as loving thy neighbor without so much as bothering to think whether it is wrong.

Weirdly enough, one encounters an awful lot of self-professed Abrahamic believers who weasel, and insist that while God really *does* want us to do the nice love-yer-neighbor stuff, He actually *doesn't* (despite clear scripture) want us to do the nasty stuff like the stonings and burnings. It's buffet-style morality, and inconsistent. But it does seem to represent a lot of people's beliefs on the matter.

In contrast, someone whose ethics does not stem from being told what is bad but by actually analyzing things would be capable of realizing there are more systems of ethics besides "do what my magic sky pixie commands".

There's no reason to suppose that 'analyzing things' will inevitably lead to a better set of moral codes. The Nazis dumped as much of Christian morality as they could get away with and co-opted the rest, and the shoddy quasi-Darwinist neo-Pagan mess they came up with (based upon *their* 'analysis of things', wasn't a shining example of rational love, peace, and social justice.

So again, those who depend on a magic sky pixie for their beliefs are full of shit at claims of moral superiority as they see no moral distinction between stoning someone to death for being homosexual and aiding the homeless.

There is likewise no moral distinction to be made, between the person who aids the homeless because he thinks the magic sky pixie commands it, and the person who aids the homeless because he has concluded without recourse to faith, that it's the proper thing to do.

[General Zod]

>snip bullshit<

Remind me again how the fuck we're supposed to objectively prove what someone believes?

Weirdly enough, one encounters an awful lot of self-professed Abrahamic believers who weasel, and insist that while God really *does* want us to do the nice love-yer-neighbor stuff, He actually *doesn't* (despite clear scripture) want us to do the nasty stuff like the stonings and burnings. It's buffet-style morality, and inconsistent. But it does seem to represent a lot of people's beliefs on the matter.

If it's inconsistent then how the fuck is it morally superior?

There's no reason to suppose that 'analyzing things' will inevitably lead to a better set of moral codes. The Nazis dumped as much of Christian morality as they could get away with and co-opted the rest, and the shoddy quasi-Darwinist neo-Pagan mess they came up with (based upon *their* 'analysis of things', wasn't a shining example of rational love, peace, and social justice.

How about not strawmanning me asshole? I said that analyzing things will lead someone to conclude that there are more ethical systems out there, not that necessarily one is better. That comes from having a sound premise, which systems like humanism have.

There is likewise no moral distinction to be made, between the person who aids the homeless because he thinks the magic sky pixie commands it, and the person who aids the homeless because he has concluded without recourse to faith, that it's the proper thing to do.

Are you fucking retarded? I provided a specific example of why doing something based exclusively on what someone else command is bad because the only distinction they make is whether or not their sky pixie says it's okay.

[Kanastrous]

Yep, I'm fucking retarded.

Off to take my meds now.

Good day.

[ArmorPierce]

Actually I believe the way many surveys ascertained that people were lying when they answered a survey was to present them with a next question asking just that and many admitted to it. Yes, many people will make themselves out to be more religious than they are on surveys, but this is o nly if they care about how religious that they should be meaning that they have to belive that being religous is a good thing. You find the same thing at churches were some old guys will be talking about how the youth today are so sinful and they should be more like them but then you find them staring down the blouse of a teenage girl outside of church.

[Junghalli]

There's just one problem with that: according to religious fundamentalists, atheists are immoral because they're atheists. To them, faith and morality are synonymous. Two incompatible definitions of morality means you'll be talking to a brick wall.

It's a pretty good comeback to anti-atheist arguments like the one in Thomas Moore's Utopia though.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Okay; unless you can read their minds to tell for sure whether they don't believe otherwise, you're full of shit.

Ah, the Negative Proof Fallacy.


Anyhow, does anyone remember the study that was done that said atheist doctors were more likely to practice for free on those who couldn't pay than the theistic ones?

[Napoleon the Clown]

There's evidence that people tend to fib and make themselves out to be more devout/ethical/better hung/whatever, when surveyed. Even knowing that no one but the data-collectors, will see the answers. I'll look around and eventually post a link, to some of that evidence, if and when I find it.

Would you be opposed to providing it soonish? I've heard of these studies but never actually seen one.

Unless you can read their minds to tell for sure whether they believe otherwise, you're full of shit.

Okay; unless you can read their minds to tell for sure whether they don't believe otherwise, you're full of shit.

Burden of proof, bitch. There's no reason to assume that the person is speaking a falsehood, in most cases. If I were to claim to believe that leprechauns once existed, would you disbelieve it? A person stating their beliefs doesn't require any great proof. Someone saying they believe in Jesus Christ as their personal Savior requires no more proof than if they said that they like cola. It's up to you to prove that the person doesn't speak the truth. It's not like the person is claiming the ability to dodge bullets or anything of that nature.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Anyhow, does anyone remember the study that was done that said atheist doctors were more likely to practice for free on those who couldn't pay than the theistic ones?

No, but every time ( the few times ) I've heard of a study attempting to compare people's morality according to religion, the atheists came out ahead. I doubt it's a coincidence that you don't see people making those kinds of studies very often, or hear much of them when they do.