Atheists and believers surprisingly share moral values, except for these 2 key differences

[Valjean]

No one said hope is "uninformed" but you?

If the hope is informed, ie: evidence-based, is it still properly called faith?

There is no such thing as hope without knowledge. You're trying to impose irrational extremism as an excuse to dismiss. Why are you doing that?

Ignorant people hope for all sorts of things, all the time. In the absence of any evidence to assess the likelihood of a desired outcome, people will still hope for or gamble on a hoped for outcome.

We all act on our hopes all the time without knowing that they will be fulfilled. We have to, because we are not omniscient.

Didn't you just say people did not hope without knowledge?

And also because we understand that sometimes we can actually bring about the thing we were hoping for by trusting in the possibility of it, and acting accordingly.

How does one know how to act accordingly if she lacks the knowledge to properly assess the problem and variables?

We all engage in acts of faith all the time. We really have no choice.

Agreed.

I agree. But logically, conscious intent is not necessary. Design can and does occur without it.

Quite so.

People love to presume that understanding how a design functions "explains" why it exists. But it doesn't. It only explains how it works.

Good point. Understanding why something exists would be better achieved by understanding how it came to be, eg: the steps involved; the physics, chemistry, selective pressures, &c.

But for those who are looking to prop up a bias, this phony "explanation" provides them with an excuse not to look any further. Because they don't want see anything beyond their bias.

I see this all the time when theists claim God as an 'explanation'.

Explaining a design process is not an explanation of anything but the process. The question of design intent requires that we explain the existence of the process. Ignoring this question does not make it go away.

Not following.
Intent would precede any process, I should think. The existence of a process is not evidence of any intent or conscious designer -- as you said above.

 

[PureX]

If the hope is informed, ie: evidence-based, is it still properly called faith?

Evidence, experience, reason, necessity, desire; these all play a hole on what we choose as the focus of our faith Action.

Ignorant people hope for all sorts of things, all the time. In the absence of any evidence to assess the likelihood of a desired outcome, people will still hope for or gamble on a hoped for outcome.

Ignorant people also don’t hope, but wallow in pessimism and failure so they can pretend they’re smarter than everyone else.

Didn't you just say people did not hope without knowledge?

Everyone knows lots of things yet none of us knows the future. So let’s stop trying to pretend that hope equates to ignorance. We all hope for things all the time, and we are all ignorant of the future.

How does one know how to act accordingly if she lacks the knowledge to properly assess the problem and variables?

Agreed.

Quite so.

Good point. Understanding why something exists would be better achieved by understanding how it came to be, eg: the steps involved; the physics, chemistry, selective pressures, &c.

I see this all the time when theists claim God as an 'explanation'.

God is really just a label for the mystery.

Not following.
Intent would precede any process, I should think. The existence of a process is not evidence of any intent or conscious designer -- as you said above.

Once we let go of this weird worship of “evidence” and we can think in terms of logic and reason we can see that design can be the result of conscious intent, or it may not be. Because design is design and intent is intent. That can be directly related or they can be completely unrelated.

 

[firedragon]

Atheists, it turns out, are a rather morally driven bunch. This is news to many, including Tomas Ståhl, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who this week published a fascinating study in Plos One comparing the deepest beliefs of theists and atheists.

By analyzing the beliefs of nearly 5,000 people in the United States and Sweden, he found that atheists and theists share a number of moral values: Both groups fervently believe in fairness, liberty (including freedom of belief), and the importance of protecting the vulnerable, and both groups hold surprisingly strong bents toward rationality and evidence-based knowledge.

Where they differ is revealing:

• Theists are likely to support morals such as reverence for authority, loyalty, and sanctity, which all fuel group cohesion (versus individuality).
• Atheists tend to decide whether or not something is moral by the consequences of a behavior, rather than the morality of the action that caused it (for instance, the common atheist bent that sex acts are fine as long as they’re consensual and no one gets hurt).
  
  Atheists and believers surprisingly share moral values, except for these 2 key differences

Thanks for sharing the study.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Moral law was created with the group in mind. It was never about the individual. The reason is the team can become more than the sum of its parts. Immorally which is a word for the opposite behavior, places the individual ahead of the team, making harder for the multiplier effect associated with the team. Leftist blame free market selfishness and greed for social problems; immoral, even though this is not against the law; harms no one according to the law.

I wonder why I never read this post before. I mean, it's so full of rubbish, I should have been all over it.

You cannot seem to understand the very simple fact that from moment to moment, humans can be part of a team, part of another team, or an individual on his own. When I work as a team member, that's what I do. If I'm in a sunny glade in the forest by myself, what difference if I decide to smell the daisies, masturbate or read a book?

You also seem to forget that "do no harm" also means "risk no harm." It's not a moral pass if you took the risk of harming someone else, but your action failed to do it.

Sex outside of marriage, can be fine in the context of the individual. If I have an affair with your wife and you never find out to be hurt, this is OK to the atheist.

As mentioned, risk no harm. You risk alienating the wife's affections, you risk impregnating her with your offspring, for another man to raise -- making you something of a cuckoo. You risk giving her, and thus her husband, an STD. That none of these happen this time doesn't make your action moral -- far from it. Now, there may be atheists who do that sort of thing, but let me assure you, there are theists -- and some of them in the clergy -- who bang happily away until they're discovered and disgraced.

A moral person, whether theist, atheist or agnostic knows better, and keeps it in his pants.

When this is extrapolated to the entire team doing it, you cannot protect all from the pain. It leads to higher social costs due to divorce, illegitimacy and the harming of the unborn via abortion. The team suffers. Immorality does not scale very well to the team. It might work on a smaller scale.

You are writing as if atheists default from the team while theists never do. You really ought to be old enough to know better by now. You might perhaps remember Ted Haggard, Jim Bakker, Bill Gothard, Shoko Asahara, Tony Alamo, Bob Coy, Fred Phelps, Dave Reynolds, Doug Phillips, tearful Jimmy Swaggart, Mike Hintz, Robert Tilton and I cannot count the number of Catholic and Anglican priests. If you don't remember, look them up.

Moral law was based on 3D or integral thinking; team thinking, while immorality is more 2-D or differential thinking; for yourself. It is easier to reason for just yourself. It is harder to integrate everyone so all can rise. The dumb down to immorally was expected and has destroyed cultures; bad teams that lose their place in the league cultures.

Please, name us one of your "cultures" that was destroyed by immoral "2-D" thinking.

The theist respect for authority, loyalty and sanctity is designed to build team cohesion. They are looking to get everyone on the same page, so the team can become more than the sum of its parts.

No they're not. They only do that on Sundays, for about an hour. The rest of the time they're stabbing each other in the back and sneaking in and out of suburban back doors.

It would nice if we could run two experiments, side by side. One will use morality and the other immorally, with each team having to pay for any added expenses their orientation creates. Right now the moral have to carry the water for the immoral, via taxes, which clouds the results. In this experiment, no moral person would have to pay for any expense due to abortion, while all such expenses would need to come from the immoral side. Then we see which team rise higher.

Yes, you go ahead and set up that experiment. Research has consistently shown that the majority of people who obtain an abortion have a religious affiliation. According to the most recent Guttmacher Institute data

If you look at the Corona Virus bill in the USA House, the Democrats are trying to bail out mismanaged Democrat run states, at the expense of the more efficient Conservation states, who work better as a team. This creates injustice, since immorality created the harm and need and should only be a Democrat team expense. As long as they can steal from moral teams, they never learn, but mismanage even more, due to immoral choices that only benefit their leaders.

Here are the Covid death rates in 2021, by state, sorted from the highest death rate (per 100,000 people) to the lowest. Scan down that and tell us -- were red or blue states having the better results?

STATE	RATE
OK	158.8
AL	152.8
TX	151.4
WV	146.8
MS	146.3
WY	143.4
TN	142.5
NV	141.6
AZ	139.5
SC	139.2
KY	136.7
NM	136.3
GA	135.9
AR	127.7
OH	122.8
LA	116.9
ID	112.3
FL	111.7
AK	109.5
MT	108.8
NC	107.5
MI	107.1
IN	106.8
KS	103.1
PA	102.5
MO	100.5
CA	99.9
VA	88.5
CO	84.2
NY	83.9
DE	83.2
UT	78.2
IA	75.9
IL	73.4
NJ	71.9
MD	71.2
SD	71.2
WI	71.1
ND	70.9
OR	69.2
NE	69.0
RI	66.4
ME	66.2
MN	64.1
WA	61.5
NH	60.2
CT	56.7
MA	54.6
HI	36.5
VT	29.5

 

[Yerda]

Design is a process of enforced order intended to achieve a specific result.

This is good phrasing.

The function of DNA is to impose a design process that intends to achieve specific results. That you refuse to acknowledge this is not my responsibility to overcome for you.

There is a specific result that has been predetermined by a specific design process. This is not an assumption. It is an observed fact. That you refuse to connect the process and the result of the process to infer intent is not my problem to deal with.

The hope is that our embodying those gifts of the spirit as we live our lives will fulfill an existential purpose that remains hidden from us.

I suspect that your 'intuiter' is broken.

Intuition is like any other metaphysical tool available to we humans. The more we engage with it, the better we get at it.

I think this is wide of the mark but a good post all the same.

 

[PureX]

This is good phrasing.


I think this is wide of the mark but a good post all the same.

Thanks. The difficulty is that design clearly implies intent, i.e., the intent to achieve that specific result. But was it a "conscious" intent? Was some form of consciousness aware of imposing it and doing so for a specific reason? And how could we even know this?

When we see and recognize a design that's been chosen and enforced by humans, or by some other conscious life forms (birds making nests, for example) we can easily recognize the conscious intent within it as a reflection of our own. But beyond and apart from that, it's basically impossible.

Gravity and topography and geology and weather design the courses of our rivers. But we don't tend to recognize any conscious intent behind this. And yet these are very complex set of parameters generating a very complex and specific result. So it's a bit difficult for most people to blindly presume there was none. And yet, we would be just as blind in presuming there was.

It's quandary that we cannot resolve.

 

[Valjean]

Ignorant people also don’t hope, but wallow in pessimism and failure so they can pretend they’re smarter than everyone else.

Aren't pessimists more likely than optimists to lead happy, lucky lives?
Pessimists expect and anticipate negative outcomes, and likely prepare for it. Their lives are a series of unexpectedly happy outcomes. Any negative outcomes are expected and prepared for.

Optimists', anticipating positive outcomes, and less likely to prepare for failure, and experience a series of unanticipated and un-prepared for disappointments -- a sad life.

God is really just a label for the mystery.

So not an intentional personage?

Once we let go of this weird worship of “evidence” and we can think in terms of logic and reason we can see that design can be the result of conscious intent, or it may not be. Because design is design and intent is intent. That can be directly related or they can be completely unrelated.

And until there is actual evidence of intent, the reasonable assessment is to defer to the known, observable, natural processes we're familiar with. Inventing an invisible, unevidenced magician is a special pleading.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Aren't pessimists more likely than optimists to lead happy, lucky lives?
Pessimists expect and anticipate negative outcomes, and likely prepare for it. Their lives are a series of unexpectedly happy outcomes. Any negative outcomes are expected and prepared for.

Optimists', anticipating positive outcomes, and less likely to prepare for failure, and experience a series of unanticipated and un-prepared for disappointments -- a sad life.

So not an intentional personage?

And until there is actual evidence of intent, the reasonable assessment is to defer to the known, observable, natural processes we're familiar with. Inventing an invisible, unevidenced magician is a special pleading.

That's why im a pessimistic person. It's always a thrill when outcomes go well because I like to be prepared for the worse.

Maybe I might enjoy being miserable? *grin*

 

[Valjean]

Ignorant people also don’t hope, but wallow in pessimism and failure so they can pretend they’re smarter than everyone else.

Balderdash. Ignorant people invent happy fantasies or turn to their culture's mythology for comfort.
As for pessimism; pessimists expect negative results, and are likely to prepare for them. Their lives are a series of unexpectedly happy events, and those that turn out as expected are minimized by preparation.
Optimist lives, by contrast, are a peppered with unexpected and un-prepared for negative outcomes. Very sad.

God is really just a label for the mystery.

So not an intentional personage.

Once we let go of this weird worship of “evidence” and we can think in terms of logic and reason we can see that design can be the result of conscious intent, or it may not be.

But all the evidence points to the natural, observable, unplanned workings of chemistry and physics we're familiar with.
An invisible magician, while possible, is an unevidenced special leading.

 

[PureX]

Aren't pessimists more likely than optimists to lead happy, lucky lives?

No, why would they be? They have no reason to even try.

So not an intentional personage?

No one knows.

But all the evidence points to the natural, observable, unplanned workings of chemistry and physics we're familiar with.

Actually, it does not. Because we have no idea what the source of the organization of existence is. What we do know is that it is very organized, and very complex. And that it's absurdly unlikely that this occurred "by accident".

An invisible magician, while possible, is an unevidenced special leading.

Evidence is an irrelevant issue in this instance. You should stop worshipping it as if it confers some srt of unassailable righteousness upon you. It doesn't.

 

[shunyadragon]

If theists want "group cohesion" they probably don't want war.

Ancient religions are extremely tribal by scripture and the cohesion is limited to the tribe, War is their way to enforce their Divine manifest destiny The turf war in the Middle East reflects this. No compromise, no negotiation fight to last man standing by Old Testament rules.