Tinkerpeach
Active Member
Maybe they are all correct.
Maybe God is speaking to different groups of people in their own way.
And someone who won’t believe in God will never believe in faith which is where your “proof” lies.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Difference in moral thought between atheists and believers
- Thread starter IndigoChild5559
- Start date
Maybe God is speaking to different groups of people in their own way.
And someone who won’t believe in God will never believe in faith which is where your “proof” lies.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
That cannot possibly be the case since they make competing truth claims. For example, if one says that the man Jesus is God, and another says that God is not a man, that's a contradiction that cannot be resolved.
Now, if you want to have a less lofty view of religious texts, believing they all make mistakes, and that you have to pick and choose what you find inspirational, THAT can work.
Tinkerpeach
Active Member
I choose to understand that God knows what He is doing.
I will be referencing the points of the following article:
Atheists and believers have different moral compasses
Atheists and believers have a moral compass, just not the same one.www.livescience.com
Research indicates that when it comes to morality, Atheists and the devoutly religion all tend to be very moral people. (It seems to be the nominally religious that tend to make excuses why something isn't wrong in their unique case). In both cases, fairness and helping the vulnerable play a dominant role.
However, the researchers found "differences between believers and disbelievers on the other three values: authority (respecting authority figures, such as police, parents and teachers), loyalty (being loyal to one's group, such as a country — not burning a country's flag, for instance) and sanctity (not doing anything perceived as degrading, usually in a sexual sense, such as being promiscuous)."
This seems to be related to the fact that believers are more concerned with group cohesion -- ethics that bind a community together. This is not the first time I have come across a study documenting this.
Another difference that has come up both in this study, and previous studies I have read is that Atheist morality tends to be more outcome based than rule based. Basically, atheists were more likely than believers to base their judgments about what is or isn't moral based on the consequences of their actions.
An example of this is the statistical differences in the two groups in their response to the classic trolley car problem.
For those who don't know what that is, imagine a trolley car going down the track, approaching a division in the track. If left to follow how the track is currently configured, the trolley car will hit and kill 5 people. However, if you pull a switch, it will switch tracks, and kill only one person. Do you pull the switch or do you just allow things to happen without intervention?
"In that situation, the disbelievers are more inclined to say 'flip [the] switch and kill the one person rather than five,' because they are assessing the relative harm," Ståhl told Live Science. "Whereas believers are more icky about that because they feel like they're actively killing someone, and they shouldn't kill. So, they are less comfortable with those calculations."
Now, just for fun, I am including the following video simply for levity. It shows a two year old's solution to the trolley car dilemma.
In Christianity, it no longer matters and it's almost irrelevant.
Whether you choose to kill or not, you are dead. You are going no where except for believing in Jesus. That said. We might try to think in a more godly way. God is to save souls. So we count how many souls are saved in the two cases. It's a blink of an eye and we can't tell who is a Christian. We have to assume the worst case, that is, none of them is a Christian. Killing one would deprive one's right in choosing Jesus. Killing all would deprive the right of all. Needless to say, we press the switch.
Last edited:
joelr
Well-Known Member
Not really. It's incredibly more likely that they are all works made up by people. From their mind. No supernatural deity involved.
The Bible, Quran and some Hindu Scripture actually say the others are wrong. So in that sense , yes they could all be correct.
So the Israelites "way" is to rewrite Mesopotamian and Egyptian stories. Then incorporate Persian theology during the 2nd Temple Period and in the NT borrow Hellenistic theology?
Again, much more likely these are just another of the thousands of fictional mythologies, except this was one that made it to a nation that ruled the world and was extremely good at evangelizing through stories, law, forced conversion and any other way.
I don't know who you are talking about? I believe things that have good evidence, as you probably also do (mostly).
You also don't believe in Hindu deities, Zeus, Inanna, and so on. For good reason. Here you admit you have no good reason to believe any of them.
"Faith" is also the main tenant of Jehova's Witness, Mormons and many others who know from their personal relationship that they are saved and you will go to hell.
So I'll ask again, by what methodology to do tell which version of faith is correct? Or is it a random dice throw. Which makes it not worthy of belief.
But a bigger problem is the lie that "faith" is a good thing. You never use faith, you use evidence. Anything you believe or do has some amount of evidence attached.
If someone said they prayed to God and an angel came down and gave them revelations about how to build a new type of airplane, never been flown, all new ideas and construction. But their special relationship with Jesus would never let them down, are you going to fly in it or are you going to wonder if they just have a delusion and take a pass.
Mormons, JW and many others also have faith. But they are not correct. I can say I have faith men are better than women. I can have faith in race superiority. I don't need proof or evidence, the proof is I have faith. How circular is that? It's 100% circular.
So why is it used for a belief in a supernatural deity? Who never actually speaks to anyone. Who will NEVER give you actual information you could verify.
I have a 14 digit number from pi. Ask God to tell you the digits and write them down.
Doesn't work that way? It's just "feelings". You mean the things already in your mind that are easily manipulated, especially if you believe there is an invisible magic being you communicate with.
Christianity is 1/3 of all religious believers. So 2/3 of religious believers have faith but they are wrong? So faith is a terrible path to truth.
"Faith plays a crucial role within Hinduism, underpinning all assumptions, beliefs, and inferences. Within Hinduism, having faith means one maintains trust in god, scriptures, dharma, and the path of liberation (moksha).[2] The Brihadranyaka Upanishad (3.9.21) states that "the resting ground of faith is the heart", emphasising that to have faith is to follow ones heart and intuition."
Humans followed heart and intuition for about 200,000 years. Turns out they were wrong about almost everything external.
Tinkerpeach
Active Member
I have no dispute with other religions, I don’t say they are wrong. I have absolute confidence that God is real and I am following the correct one.
The problem you are describing is not mine to worry about, I know that God has it worked out and that’s as much as I need to know.
Someone following a different belief deserves as much respect as I would hope they show me.
A reason I think they may all be orchestrated by God is because many of them share common aspects. Non-believers will say they are just rewriting other ones, like you did, but perhaps it’s because they all may have experienced the same events.
When religions say that only theirs is the correct one that probably is true for them wherein different groups have a religion tailored to them.
As I said, I don’t know.
Morality, ethics, and values exist in the world because society exists. Do you live in a world of two? Of course not. Atheists routinely demonstrate greater morals than theists. And it’s actually the theists who “make it up” as god isn’t real.
Your understanding of atheists is grossly flawed.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Every believer says that , Mormon, Muslim, JW,....Heavens Gate all drank poison so their soul could get on a ufo. People will buy into beliefs.
What you need is evidence. If you care about what is actually true.
Doesn't seem he does because there are billions of Muslims, billions of Christians (many opposing sects) and billions of Hindu. All who think each other are completely wrong.
It sounds like you do not care about what is actually true.
When you hear a Mormon say they know they are in the one true religion from God because of faith and a personal relationship with Jesus and God made it so and I have no problem.....you know there is a bit of a problem because they are following a made up thing.
It sounds like the thing you are not worried about is what is actually true. Not what you want to be true.
So you respect Heavens Gate? You respect the KKK?
The OT had a theology. Then the Persians occupied them and they adopted all new radical ideas.
Then they were occupied by the Greeks and out comes a Greek Hellenistic mystery religion.
A soul, heaven, salvation, savior demigod, fallen world, eucharist, spirit resurrection, salvation from the passion of a savior figure, a son/daughter of the supreme God. All in Greek mystery religions and then we get a Jewish version.
The evidence of borrowing is very clear. The biggest tell here is you have no idea what you are talking about, you are making assumptions.
I do, the historical evidence is very clear. The Bible changed theology as different nations occupied Israel. The Persians were well liked and Cyrus, the Persian leader is written about in the Bible. The OT didn't have anything like it, then it did, hmmm, wonder why?
During the period of the Second Temple (c.515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire.[47] Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them.[47] Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans.[48][49] The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy[49] and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology.[49] By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.[49] The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there.[47] The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC).[40] Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.
This is a basic overview, different scholars work on specific aspects. The OT has originally Mesopotamian influence as well as Ugarit and others.
The 2nd Temple Period saw the Persian theology borrowed and blended into Judaism and eventually into the NT,,
Doctrines taken from Persia into Judiasm.
fundamental doctrines became disseminated throughout the region, from Egypt to the Black Sea: namely that there is a supreme God who is the Creator; that an evil power exists which is opposed to him, and not under his control; that he has emanated many lesser divinities to help combat this power; that he has created this world for a purpose, and that in its present state it will have an end; that this end will be heralded by the coming of a cosmic Saviour, who will help to bring it about; that meantime heaven and hell exist, with an individual judgment to decide the fate of each soul at death; that at the end of time there will be a resurrection of the dead and a Last Judgment, with annihilation of the wicked; and that thereafter the kingdom of God will come upon earth, and the righteous will enter into it as into a garden (a Persian word for which is 'paradise'), and be happy there in the presence of God for ever, immortal themselves in body as well as soul. These doctrines all came to be adopted by various Jewish schools in the post-Exilic period, for the Jews were one of the peoples, it seems, most open to Zoroastrian influences - a tiny minority, holding staunchly to their own beliefs, but evidently admiring their Persian benefactors, and finding congenial elements in their faith. Worship of the one supreme God, and belief in the coming of a Messiah or Saviour, together with adherence to a way of life which combined moral and spiritual aspirations with a strict code of behaviour (including purity laws) were all matters in which Judaism and Zoroastrianism were in harmony; and it was this harmony, it seems, reinforced by the respect of a subject people for a great protective power, which allowed Zoroastrian doctrines to exert their influence. The extent of this influence is best attested, however, by Jewish writings of the Parthian period, when Christianity and the Gnostic faiths, as well as northern Buddhism, all likewise bore witness to the profound effect: which Zoroaster's teachings had had throughout the lands of the Achaernenian empire.
Mary Boyce
The Iranian Impact on Judaism
excerpted from N. F. Gier, Theology Bluebook, Chapter 12
It was not so much monotheism that the exilic Jews learned from the Persians as it was universalism, the belief that one God rules universally and will save not only the Jews but all those who turn to God. This universalism does not appear explicitly until Second Isaiah, which by all scholarly accounts except some fundamentalists, was written during and after the Babylonian exile. The Babylonian captivity was a great blow to many Jews, because they were taken out of Yahweh's divine jurisdiction. Early Hebrews believed that their prayers could not be answered in a foreign land. The sophisticated angelology of late books like Daniel has its source in Zoroastrianism.3 The angels of the early Hebrew books were disguises of Yahweh or one of his subordinate deities. The idea of separate angels appears only after contact with Zoroastrianism.
The central ideas of heaven and a fiery hell appear to come directly from the Israelite contact with Iranian religion. Pre-exilic books are explicit in their notions the afterlife: there is none to speak of. The early Hebrew concept is that all of us are made from the dust and all of us return to the dust. There is a shadowy existence in Sheol, but the beings there are so insignificant that Yahweh does not know them. The evangelical writer John Pelt reminds us that “the inhabitants of Sheol are never called souls (nephesh).”4
Saosyant, a savior born from Zoroaster's seed, will come and the dead shall be resurrected, body and soul. As the final accounting is made, husband is set against wife and brother against brother as the righteous and the damned are pointed out by the divine judge Saosyant. Personal and individual immortality is offered to the righteous; and, as a final fire melts away the world and the damned, a kingdom of God is established for a thousand years.7 The word paradis is Persian in origin and the concept spread to all Near Eastern religions in that form. “Eden” not “Paradise” is mentioned in Genesis, and paradise as an abode of light does not appear in Jewish literature until late books such as Enoch and the Psalm of Solomon.
Satan as the adversary or Evil One does not appear in the pre-exilic Hebrew books. In Job, one of the very oldest books, Satan is one of the subordinate deities in God's pantheon. Here Satan is God's agent, and God gives him permission to persecute Job. The Zoroastrian Angra Mainyu, the Evil One, the eternal enemy of God, is the prototype for late Jewish and Christian ideas of Satan. One scholar claims that the Jews acquired their aversion to homosexuality, not present in pre-exilic times, to the Iranian definition of the devil as a Sodomite.8...............
Nick Gier. Emeritus Professor of Philosophy University of Idaho Senior Fellow Martin Institute
Tinkerpeach
Active Member
Theists demonstrate far better morals.
It’s not even close.
Your problem is that you are calling some people theists who actually aren’t.
Part of being a theist is demonstrating good morals so if you aren’t doing that then you aren’t one.
Banach-Tarski Paradox
*Banned*
I have to admit that my first thought was, as somebody who believes that God does not exist, do I classify myself as an "atheist" or a "believer"? I guess that I qualify as both.
(As a skeptic, I doubt my own existence as well, of course, but that's another matter. Does an eddy in a stream exist? If so, in what sense does it exist?)
If my internal moral compasses are indeed confused and conflicted, as this study suggests, then perhaps it is because they are inconsistent with each other. (So, what else is new?)
My wife's culture is a non-western black catholic culture. Her ancestors (as cimarrones) ran away from their western masters starting some 500 years ago here in America.
In my mind, her culture virtually defines what it means to be Catholic.
Others may have a more western conception.
I think the facts speak for themselves.
Abrahamic belief is anathema to morality. Atheism may not necessarily be helpful, but it sure isn't a hindrance anywhere near as much as Abrahamic theism is.
More research is necessary to find out how religious adherence to non-Abrahamics factors into morality, if it does.
Abrahamic belief is anathema to morality. Atheism may not necessarily be helpful, but it sure isn't a hindrance anywhere near as much as Abrahamic theism is.
More research is necessary to find out how religious adherence to non-Abrahamics factors into morality, if it does.
False.
See “Are Religious People More Moral” by Dimitris Xygalatus, Univ. of Conn., which discussed a study led by psychologist Will Gervais. The study found widespread and extreme moral prejudice against atheists around the world even though numerous laboratory and field studies have confirmed that no matter how we define morality, religious people do not behave more morally than atheists, although they often say and believe that they do.
Heyo
Veteran Member
Nope. Words have meaning, meaning which is created by usage and frequently captured in dictionaries. A theist is a person who believes in a god or gods, especially personal and intervening gods, as opposed to Deists.
Morality is not a defining characteristic of a theist - or an atheist for that matter.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
This is simply not correct. Jeffrey Dahmer certainly was a theist (he was baptized on two occasions) yet no one would ever describe him as moral.
Banach-Tarski Paradox
*Banned*
People talk about "theists" a lot on the internet, but I've never meet a self-identifying "theist" in real life, so I don't know much about that particular culture/religion.
So the question of whether or not "theism" has to do with morality, freedom, liberty, welcoming the stranger and/or whatever doesn't make much sense to me.
So the question of whether or not "theism" has to do with morality, freedom, liberty, welcoming the stranger and/or whatever doesn't make much sense to me.
Last edited:
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I'm wondering where you live, that everyone seems to be an atheist. Surely you have met at least one Christian or Hindu or Muslim, etc.? I mean, even if you go to China, where religion is harassed, you will find theists of all various sorts.
I suspect that you simply haven't had conversations with a wide variety of people on this particular topic. It's not really something that comes up in casual conversation.
Last edited:
Banach-Tarski Paradox
*Banned*
Everybody isn't an atheist here. Hell, my wife comes from a catholic culture.
Her religion has quite a lot to do with morality. Things like freedom, liberty, welcoming the stranger, etc.
But then, she doesn't call herself a "theist".
She calls herself a "Catholic".
Her religion has quite a lot to do with morality. Things like freedom, liberty, welcoming the stranger, etc.
But then, she doesn't call herself a "theist".
She calls herself a "Catholic".
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
A Catholic BY DEFINITION is a kind of theist. The opening words to the Creed they profess at every Mass is "We believe in One God." So apparently you HAVE met a theist in real life.
Banach-Tarski Paradox
*Banned*
A Catholic BY DEFINITION is a kind of theist. The opening words to the Creed they profess at every Mass is "We believe in One God." So apparently you HAVE met a theist in real life.
That's not something that she calls herself, nor is it something that others call her in real life.
It's something that outsiders on the internet from the west sometimes refer to her and her religion on forums such as these, I suppose.
I'm not sure why.
And I'm not sure how it helps with understanding.