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

[PureX]

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.

"Progress" toward what? This is where the atheist appears quite ignorant and unsubstantiated, to the theist. They want the freedom to progress toward what, exactly, ... in a random, meaningless, pointless (Godless) existence? Individual self-fulfillment? That's just means more chaos and strife for the species; and to what ultimate end but our collective annihilation? Where does all that freedom and individuality ultimately end us up?

This is why theists so often see atheists as being rudderless, and pointless, in their constant negation of any sort of moral authority.

 

[PureX]

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?"

People assault other people for all kinds of reasons having nothing to do with the victims guilt or innocence. Theists see morality as an issue of INTENT, not an issue of CONSEQUENCE. They see my WANTING to harm someone else as my immorality. Whether I actually do so, or not.

This is what atheists rarely understand. And what they tend to reject, if it's put to them. Because they view our WANTING to harm someone as just biological/circumstantial happenstance: that they do not need to feel responsible for. They are only responsible (they believe) for the resultant harm, done, if there is any.

 

[Augustus]

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

It is fair to point out that that number is so completely made up it is delusional to believe it has any connection to historical reality.

800 million is almost certainly far more than have died in all wars fought for any reason throughout history. While this real number is unknowable, it is likely less than half of that (and possibly much less than half). Numbers of deaths in ancient wars are vastly overstated for numerous reasons.

Scholars estimate around 6-9% of all wars have been religious, and, given the majority of the most deadly wars were non-religious it's likely that fewer than 5% of all war casualties came from these religious wars.

Even saying 50 million is likely too high, never mind 800 million.

 

[Left Coast]

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.)

I understand. Not trying to be the PC police, I try not to harp on that kind of stuff. Appreciate you understanding.

 

[Left Coast]

People assault other people for all kinds of reasons having nothing to do with the victims guilt or innocence. Theists see morality as an issue of INTENT, not an issue of CONSEQUENCE. They see my WANTING to harm someone else as my immorality. Whether I actually do so, or not.

I have never, ever met an atheist who claims that intent is irrelevant to moral evaluations. Please find me this person.

Intent is obviously relevant. However, at the end of the day, the actual consequences of a behavior, ie whether they ultimately harm or help someone, is the basic starting moral criteria. It's why we still hold people accountable for manslaughter, even though we recognize it's not murder.

This is what atheists rarely understand. And what they tend to reject, if it's put to them. Because they view our WANTING to harm someone as just biological/circumstantial happenstance: that they do not need to feel responsible for. They are only responsible (they believe) for the resultant harm, done, if there is any.

Why should people be morally culpable for urges or desires they have if they harm no one? That's literally thought crime.

 

[robocop (actually)]

So if the number of kills is indeed under 50000, religious cohesion and wanting to help/convert others could lead to fewer, not more, death.

 

[Koldo]

People assault other people for all kinds of reasons having nothing to do with the victims guilt or innocence. Theists see morality as an issue of INTENT, not an issue of CONSEQUENCE. They see my WANTING to harm someone else as my immorality. Whether I actually do so, or not.

This is what atheists rarely understand. And what they tend to reject, if it's put to them. Because they view our WANTING to harm someone as just biological/circumstantial happenstance: that they do not need to feel responsible for. They are only responsible (they believe) for the resultant harm, done, if there is any.

Honestly, I can't speak for every other atheist but I don't see atheists being particularly inclined to hard core consequentialism.
The intent is generally regarded as an important factor to both groups, the main distinction doesn't seem to have anything to do 'intent', but rather with what's regarded as the source of morality. I dare say the main distinction has to do with tradition and religious authority not playing as much of a role to atheists.

 

[PureX]

I have never, ever met an atheist who claims that intent is irrelevant to moral evaluations. Please find me this person.

I'm simply discussing the information given by the study in the OP. And I think it's accurate. You just don't like the implications now that I've spelled them out.

Intent is obviously relevant. However, at the end of the day, the actual consequences of a behavior, ie whether they ultimately harm or help someone, is the basic starting moral criteria. It's why we still hold people accountable for manslaughter, even though we recognize it's not murder.

See ... atheists view morality as ONLY being an externalized, civil issue. You just did it, yourself. The theist does not. The theist sees morality as being primarily an internal state of being, or condition; that then often results in external civil harm.

Why should people be morally culpable for urges or desires they have if they harm no one? That's literally thought crime.

Because they are toxic desires, both for the self, and for others. They are what drives we humans to harm each other. They are CAUSE, while the harm is the SYMPTOM. How can we ever hope to eliminate the symptoms if we are not willing to eliminate the cause of them?

 

[PureX]

Honestly, I can't speak for every other atheist but I don't see atheists being particularly inclined to hard core consequentialism.
The intent is generally regarded as an important factor to both groups, the main distinction doesn't seem to have anything to do 'intent', but rather with what's regarded as the source of morality. I dare say the main distinction has to do with tradition and religious authority not playing as much of a role to atheists.

Right, "the source" of immorality ... the atheist does not want to be held, nor to hold himself morally responsible for anything but the damage he actually has done because of his ill intentions. He wants to be free, internally, from that judgment. And this is what the theist often sees as the atheist's deliberate rejection of God/morality. And in that sense, his perception is not wrong.

 

[Koldo]

Because they are toxic desires, both for the self, and for others. They are what drives we humans to harm each other.

You are effectively saying that something is bad/evil because of its' consequences.
That's what a consequentialist would say. I take it you meant to criticize consequentialists...

 

[Earthtank]

very informative and great post

for instance, the common atheist bent that sex acts are fine as long as they’re consensual and no one gets hurt

I would say that this is NOT always the case among most Atheists Take incest for example, all Atheists I have personally spoken to and almost all that I have seen here are against it. Same thing goes for sex and drugs in public. Even if everyone in all these situations are consenting adults and no harm is coming to them, the Atheists I know are still against it.

 

[Koldo]

Right, "the source" of immorality ... the atheist does not want to be held, nor to hold himself morally responsible for anything but the damage he actually has done because of his ill intentions. He wants to be free, internally, from that judgment. And this is what the theist often sees as the atheist's deliberate rejection of God/morality. And in that sense, his perception is not wrong.

I am not sure I understand you here, what would the other position be? To hold oneself morally responsible for what?

 

[PureX]

You are effectively saying that something is bad/evil because of its' consequences.
That's what a consequentialist would say. I take it you meant to criticize consequentialists...

Theists would say something is "bad/evil" that intends 'un-Godly' (selfish) consequences, whether that consequence occurs or not. The "sin" (immorality) is the ill intent. It is the desire to sacrifice the well-being of others to increase our own. Atheists cannot understand this because it requires faith in a higher plane of moral existence than that of actual consequence.

 

[PureX]

I am not sure I understand you here, what would the other position be? To hold oneself morally responsible for what?

For the innate selfishness, and the ill-intent that it so often inspires within us. For being less than 'divine'. But to understand this, one has to believe in the 'divine', and want to aspire to it.

 

[Koldo]

Theists would say something is "bad/evil" that intends 'un-Godly' (selfish) consequences, whether that consequence occurs or not. The "sin" (immorality) is the ill intent. It is the desire to sacrifice the well-being of others to increase our own. Atheists cannot understand this because it requires faith in a higher plane of moral existence than that of actual consequence.

Hmm, if it is already hard to speak for atheism, it is even harder to speak for theism, the latter is even more diverse.
However, I would like to mention one example called the divine command theory where the consequences and the intent behind it don't matter, like at all. All that matters is what God has stated about morality, as there is a duty to obey God.

 

[PureX]

Hmm, if it is already hard to speak for atheism, it is even harder to speak for theism, the latter is even more diverse.
However, I would like to mention one example called the divine command theory where the consequences and the intent behind it don't matter, like at all. All that matters is what God has stated about morality, as there is a duty to obey God.

That idea comes from the notion that we humans too often cannot see past our own blinding immorality. And so must grasp on to "God's laws" and obey them without question. Because when we question, we automatically become the servants of our own immorality.

It's a more extreme version of the common theist's ideal: that morality/immorality is fundamentally an INTERNAL condition, not an external consequence.

 

[Koldo]

For the innate selfishness, and the ill-intent that it so often inspires within us. For being less than 'divine'. But to understand this, one has to believe in the 'divine', and want to aspire to it.

What does it mean to hold oneself morally responsible for that? Trying to be more selfless? I don't see any particular distinction between theists and atheists on this regard.

 

[Koldo]

That idea comes from the notion that we humans too often cannot see past our own blinding immorality. And so must grasp on to "God's laws" and obey them without question. Because when we question, we automatically become the servants of our own immorality.

It's a more extreme version of the common theist's ideal: that morality/immorality is fundamentally an INTERNAL condition, not an external consequence.

Actually, I think the central part to divine command theory is simply: might makes right, therefore ultimate might makes ultimate right.

 

[PureX]

What does it mean to hold oneself morally responsible for that? Trying to be more selfless? I don't see any particular distinction between theists and atheists on this regard.

The theist is being held responsible for it through his God-ideal. The atheist has no God-ideal. So how does he hold himself responsible for himself, and to what ... to himself? Without that 'external divine ideal' to set the standard, it's just pointless navel-gazing that will almost surely result in blind self-justification.

This is WHY atheists have to rely on the ethical value or lack thereof of the actual consequences to others. They don't have that internalized 'divine criteria' (God) to hold their intentions accountable to.

 

[Koldo]

The theist is being held responsible for it through his God-ideal. The atheist has no God-ideal. So how does he hold himself responsible for himself, and to what ... to himself? Without that 'external divine ideal' to set the standard, it's just pointless navel-gazing that will almost surely result in blind self-justification.

Yes, to himself.

This is WHY atheists have to rely on the ethical value or lack thereof of the actual consequences to others. They don't have that internalized 'divine criteria' (God) to hold their intentions accountable to.

But we do have that internalized divine criteria, we just don't call it this way. We experience feeling guilty too. We have conscience too.