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

[ChristineM]

Yeah, I don't know. Marx/Stalin and Lenin killed 100 million and Marx was probably Satanic. Hitler was fake Christian. I don't know about nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those were the 3 worst IMO.

Hitler was not a fake christian, he was a typical catholic and had Vatican backing, Stalin was raised christian with christian values but in both Russia and Germany the fighting was not in the name of god or lack of god but nationalism.

Unlike the the numerous wars of religion... You want a list?

 

[ChristineM]

Also, the group often wants everyone else to join them, so they don't attack them.

Really? I have worked out that up to 800 million people throughout history have been killed in wars of religion when either one side or both were fighting in the name of their belief

 

[robocop (actually)]

Hitler was not a fake christian, he was a typical catholic and had Vatican backing, Stalin was raised christian with christian values but in both Russia and Germany the fighting was not in the name of god or lack of god but nationalism.

Unlike the the numerous wars of religion... You want a list?

I have read the rise and fall of the third reich and believe Hitler was a fake Christian. I have watched the spectre of communism on the epoch times and believe Marx was Satanic. Still, there was lots of religious fighting including Christians.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Really? I have worked out that up to 800 million people throughout history have been killed in wars of religion when either one side or both were fighting in the name of their belief

800 million! I guess that tops it! Ok, they often want cohesion only in their group.

 

[ChristineM]

I have read the rise and fall of the third reich and believe Hitler was a fake Christian. I have watched the spectre of communism on the epoch times and believe Marx was Satanic. Still, there was lots of religious fighting including Christians.

You can believe whatever you want, it doesn't make it fact

 

[ChristineM]

800 million! I guess that tops it! Ok, they often want cohesion only in their group.

Up to 800 million, worst case through recorded history.

What i have found among such groups they only really want those who agree with them in their group

 

[Revoltingest]

 

[ChristineM]

It wasn't just belt buckles either, most military equipment was marked with that motto

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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).

It does seem to me, when I look at those two supposed differences, that theists are thus more likely to place happiness (especially the happiness of other people) lower than adherence to authority, while non-theists are more concerned with the happiness of everyone so long as nobody gets hurt.

I certainly know on which side of that dichotomy I come down. Don't worry -- be happy!

 

[wellwisher]

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).

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[ChristineM]

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.

What a load of ignorant bs

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Interesting that none of the atheists here cared to comment on their apparently amoral belief that 'the end justifies or condemns the means'.

"Atheists tend to decide whether or not something is moral by the consequences of a behavior, rather than the morality (intent) of the action that caused it."

By definition, that's not amoral, whether or not you subscribe to that method of determining morality.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

Not related to theists particularly, but group cohesion commonly causes war.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You should read the OP more carefully. You appear to be defining moral and immoral as it suits you.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hitler was not a fake christian, he was a typical catholic and had Vatican backing, Stalin was raised christian with christian values but in both Russia and Germany the fighting was not in the name of god or lack of god but nationalism.

Unlike the the numerous wars of religion... You want a list?

In any case it doesn't matter. The point was about group cohesion, not religion.
Hitler is a case study on how to create group cohesion and then use it in a destructive fashion.

 

[stvdv]

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).

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.

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

Good point in my opinion; this clearly shows the good thing of morals to guide people in the right direction. It's very difficult to see the consequences of one's actions in the long term. And it's not only the money thing (risking divorce) when people cheat; so much emotional damage is done.

Hence in the OP definition they said "Atheists tend to decide and fairness and no one gets hurt". No loving person would do such a thing (cheating)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

Apart from religosity, my concern here is that you're comparing relatively small cultural footprints.

In my experience, Swedes have lower rates of religiousness, but quite high rates of shared responsibility, and a somewhat socialist culture.

The US is much more individual. I wonder if a broader mix of countries would show the same.

 

[robocop (actually)]

It does seem to me, when I look at those two supposed differences, that theists are thus more likely to place happiness (especially the happiness of other people) lower than adherence to authority, while non-theists are more concerned with the happiness of everyone so long as nobody gets hurt.

I certainly know on which side of that dichotomy I come down. Don't worry -- be happy!

I suppose it matters which religion you're comparing atheism to.

 

[lukethethird]

Actually it is humans that are morally driven so the biggest surprise here is that atheists are human.

 

[robocop (actually)]

It does seem to me, when I look at those two supposed differences, that theists are thus more likely to place happiness (especially the happiness of other people) lower than adherence to authority, while non-theists are more concerned with the happiness of everyone so long as nobody gets hurt.

I certainly know on which side of that dichotomy I come down. Don't worry -- be happy!

Also, I was studying scripture with my family today, and we came across something that says God helps people to be good regardless of their beliefs, especially if they simply try to be good.