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

[robocop (actually)]

We already knew that atheists were more moral than theists. Isn't that obvious from looking at the problems of the world.

Take, for example, the Mafia. The Mafia has existed for over 100 years. Mafia members think that as long as they can count rosary beads, they are forgiven for any of their heinous sins (including sins that they plan to do later). Atonement means that they will never do it again. Yet, the Mafia fully intends to do more lying, killing, stealing, and extorting. The Catholic church doesn't excommunicate them because they would lose any influence they have if they left the church. Yet, it should be the goal of the church to influence the Mafia to stop.

What causes atheists to be more moral than theists? Forgiveness causes it. Christians think that they will be forgiven, so they continue to sin.

My church believes it's always better to not sin in the first place than to sin and repent.

 

[Samael_Khan]

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

That shouldn't be surprising. Just like it shouldn't be surprising that all religions probably have moral values that overlap. "Morality" is driven by the society or group that we are apart of and evolves accordingly.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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."

Maybe that is the case because the quote doesn't at all support your insinuation.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Depends what is meant by "group" and who is included in it.

Because uniting against a common enemy is also good for "group cohesion", off course.

 

[PureX]

Is reverence for authority a moral value? Seems to me that even if respect is expected - where authority is legitimate - any reverence is likely to me detrimental - where such (the authority) can sometimes be abused.

I agree. However, when our fellow humans give someone the authority to represent them, it's right to revere them the honor of that responsibility. To respect the office, as they say, if not the individual.

 

[PureX]

Since when is consequentialism amoral? Whether ends justify means depends on the ends and means in question, from my perspective.

Apparently most atheists don't agree with you. They apply morality (ethics) only to the results of one's actions. Not to the intent of one's actions. According to the OP.

 

[PureX]

Why call it "amoral"?

In that it disregards the intent of one's actions. And applies ethical value only to the results.

 

[PureX]

interesting . What test for "morality" do you employ?

Do you, for example, not suffer a witch to live, because God said so?

The difference pointed out in the OP is one of intent. The atheist ignores the morality one's intent, and focuses only on the ethical value of the result. Overlooking the cause by focusing on the damage. I think it's why some theists perceive atheists as avoiding moral imperatives.

 

[Heyo]

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.

And that is the reason why communist governments are superior to democratic governments. They put priority on the group which gives them a moral and economic advantage. Wait ...

 

[Heyo]

Out of respect, please don't use the word "tranny." It's flippant and rude. Trans person/man/woman is just fine.

Most trannies (like most other minorities) don't care what you call them. They often use flippant words themselves. They care if you really respect them - which takes effort, linguistics is cheap.
(But yes, in an environment like a forum, where intention is hard to discern, the preferred moniker should be used. Just don't forget why.)

 

[Revoltingest]

In that it disregards the intent of one's actions. And applies ethical value only to the results.

I can clarify....
It's about the morality of the results.

An example.....
Some Christians say that sex is wrong unless it's for procreation,
so the act is immoral, but not the result, ie, feeling better.
Atheists have no problem with the act or the result, so it's moral.

Another....
Why do we believe assault is wrong?
Because it results in loss, injury, pain, & strife.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I agree. However, when our fellow humans give someone the authority to represent them, it's right to revere them the honor of that responsibility. To respect the office, as they say, if not the individual.

Well I was wondering if the bit as quoted was a true moral value, but I will accept it as such since love (and close to reverence) would be so regarded. And I can see why the believers and non-believers differ - in that when we tend to place any (including any gods, etc.) into such high esteem - and authority over us (including any intermediaries) - then we might lose some or all of that autonomy necessary to progress life here on Earth. Hence one of my dissatisfactions with religions - that they take away that which we might, and should have for some illusory claims - given that all religions cannot be true.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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

In general, yes, however, here are more than "1 or 2 differences":

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall make no idols.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Keep the Sabbath day holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
*You shall not murder.
You shall not commit adultery.
*You shall not steal.
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

I've asterisked the 2 places where theists and atheists tend to agree! That's 8 differences!

 

[Left Coast]

Apparently most atheists don't agree with you. They apply morality (ethics) only to the results of one's actions. Not to the intent of one's actions. According to the OP.

It says they tend to. Which I also do. And frankly, most humans I know do. You shouldn't punch an innocent person in the face because the consequence is that harms them.

How in the world is that "amoral?"

 

[Revoltingest]

In general, yes, however, here are more than "1 or 2 differences":

You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall make no idols.
You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.
Keep the Sabbath day holy.
Honor your father and your mother.
*You shall not murder.
+You shall not commit adultery.
*You shall not steal.
+You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
You shall not covet.

I've asterisked the 2 places where theists and atheists tend to agree! That's 8 differences!

Only 2?
I put a plus sign by 2 other common ones.

 

[Left Coast]

Most trannies (like most other minorities) don't care what you call them. They often use flippant words themselves. They care if you really respect them - which takes effort, linguistics is cheap.
(But yes, in an environment like a forum, where intention is hard to discern, the preferred moniker should be used. Just don't forget why.)

As a minority myself, I care what I'm called. And tranny is not a respectful term. Please don't use it, out of respect.

 

[Heyo]

As a minority myself, I care what I'm called. And tranny is not a respectful term. Please don't use it, out of respect.

OK. (And I usually don't use flippant monikers if I'm not sure that's OK with everyone. I just think that PC has been widely overdone. E.g.: I usually can't remember what people of African descent are allowed to be named this week.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

She was taught to believe she was the opposite gender.

I find that sort of difficult to believe. Try to imagine if you could have been taught to believe that you were the opposite gender. Really....try! I tell you for certain that even though I am gay, I have never doubted for the tiniest instant that I am also male. And I cannot imagine anybody ever being able to persuade me that I was anything else. But then, I was aware of the differing configurations of the genders that I did know about.

 

[Heyo]

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.

OK, after the flippant, short answer, now something a bit more elaborated.
1. There are no moral laws. Laws and customs are sometimes built on moral principles but they are not the morals.
2. Morals are essential for harmonious co-existence but they have evolved a lot from the tribal customs they derived from.
3. Modern morals are principles, ideally basic principles, on which ethics and laws rest. Many laws and customs have been discarded by people who have thought about moral principles. If a custom isn't supported by a principle, it is not moral.

Do you have basic moral principles?
What are they?
Can you defend your disdain for extramarital sex on the basis of your principles?

 

[PureX]

I can clarify....
It's about the morality of the results.

An example.....
Some Christians say that sex is wrong unless it's for procreation,
so the act is immoral, but not the result, ie, feeling better.
Atheists have no problem with the act or the result, so it's moral.

"No problem" does not equate to being "moral". This is what you're not understanding.

If I mean to do you harm, and for whatever reason I am not currently able to, this is still "a moral problem" in the theist's eyes. Morality, for most theists, is defined by intent, not by result. (Certainly this is true of most Christian theists.) The result is just the symptom, to the theist, the real moral problem (sin) is in the intent.

So that when atheists ignore this morality of intent, or otherwise disregard it, theists often perceive this as being morally (and willfully) defiant.