Difference in moral thought between atheists and believers

[IndigoChild5559]

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.

She probably isn't an intellectual, and doesn't know what "Theism" means, so doesn't use the term. There are many wonderful and devout Catholics who have a simple faith uncomplicated by discussions in religion and theology.

A theist is ANYONE who believes in a God or gods. It doesn't matter if this belief is part of a given religion, such as Catholicism, or simply a "spiritual but not religious" person who has their own belief in God apart from a religion.

Basically, everyone on the planet either believes in God/gods (theists) or they do not (atheists).

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

She probably isn't an intellectual, and doesn't know what "Theism" means, so doesn't use the term. There are many wonderful and devout Catholics who have a simple faith uncomplicated by discussions in religion and theology.

A theist is ANYONE who believes in a God or gods. It doesn't matter if this belief is part of a given religion, such as Catholicism, or simply a "spiritual but not religious" person who has their own belief in God apart from a religion.

Basically, everyone on the planet either believes in God/gods (theists) or they do not (atheists).

When Historians and Anthropologists talk about her religion, culture and history, they never use the term "theist".

Issues of morality, law, freedom, liberty, and welcoming the stranger do get mentioned.

 

[Alien826]

As for why some [psychopaths] achieve extreme success, it's because they are unscrupulous and have no sense of guilt or compassion.
They are manipulative and toxic. When they get away with their behavior, they rise to the top or destroy competition. This is how the Italian mafia became so succesful. Many CEO's who build mega multi-nationals have psychopathic tendencies also. Because they care not for other people or feelings. They have no problem at all with walking over proverbial (or real) corpses. And as they have no sense of guilt and are experts at being manipulative, they also tend to be charismatic.

If a society would be populated with psychopaths, it would not function.

Indeed.

I've read a bit about this, and it seems that what motivates a sociopath/psychopath, who lacks the social rewards that motivate "normal" people, is the urge to win. It's not hard to find examples of this in real life.

Another question is why do they survive and not get weeded out of humanity? One explanation is that society can survive a certain proportion of them, albeit less well than it would without them. Another possible explanation is that they are very useful in wartime. Most people don't want to kill others, even the current "enemy", and will deliberately miss them when an officer is not present. A psychopath has no such compunction.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

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.

Being dunked in water doesn’t make someone a theist, their actions do.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

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.

I wasn’t the one who brought up the word theist.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

When Historians and Anthropologists talk about her religion, culture and history, they never use the term "theist".

I'm not sure what your difficulty is here. The definition of a theist is ANYONE who believes in a God or gods. That includes, Catholics, Protestants, sundry other Christians, as well as Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc etc etc. When people identify her religion, they say "Catholic" because that's simply more specific than "Theist." It's no different than saying "orange" rather than "fruit."

I'm being very obvious, clear, and simple here. If you still don't understand the point, I don't think I can help you.

Issues of morality, law, freedom, liberty, and welcoming the stranger do get mentioned.

I don't see how any of that relates to the conversation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Being dunked in water doesn’t make someone a theist, their actions do.

He believed in God and Jesus. His belief set was Christian. Yet he was a monster.

 

[Alien826]

@Tinkerpeach, I'd like to address your previous posts on what I would call Divine Command theory. That's the idea that God can't be wrong in any way because he defines what is good or correct.

I have a a few thoughts on that, which you can address or not as you wish.

1. That suggests that we are at the mercy of a being that has no moral rules as we understand them, and the power to do to us whatever it wishes. That may not disprove the existence of such a being, but it does raise the question of why anyone would worship such a creature, other than pure fear of course.

2. If God tells us what is good then goes ahead and behaves in ways that go against those definitions of "good", or tells us to do things that go against what it has told us is good, how can we know what is good and what is not? In short it removes any meaning the words "good" and "bad" might have.

3. If that being also describes itself as loving, or truthful, then confuses us by actions that contradict what we understand those words to mean, how can we make any sense of anything it says?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

@Tinkerpeach, I'd like to address your previous posts on what I would call Divine Command theory. That's the idea that God can't be wrong in any way because he defines what is good or correct.

I have a a few thoughts on that, which you can address or not as you wish.

1. That suggests that we are at the mercy of a being that has no moral rules as we understand them, and the power to do to us whatever it wishes. That may not disprove the existence of such a being, but it does raise the question of why anyone would worship such a creature, other than pure fear of course.

2. If God tells us what is good then goes ahead and behaves in ways that go against those definitions of "good", or tells us to do things that go against what it has told us is good, how can we know what is good and what is not? In short it removes any meaning the words "good" and "bad" might have.

3. If that being also describes itself as loving, or truthful, then confuses us by actions that contradict what we understand those words to mean, how can we make any sense of anything it says?

We are not God, the rules only apply to us.

You have different rules than you make your children follow don’t you?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

He believed in God and Jesus. His belief set was Christian. Yet he was a monster.

He can believe but he certainly wasn’t a Christian.

 

[Heyo]

I wasn’t the one who brought up the word theist.

You were the one who was mistaken about its meaning.

 

[Heyo]

He can believe but he certainly wasn’t a Christian.

I could post the same about meaning of words, but then I would be wrong. Other than "theist", "Christian" isn't a word that has an agreed upon meaning, opinions vary widely, at least among people who identify as Christians. But they can roughly be subsumed by "I'm a Christian and those who don't agree with my interpretation are not."

 

[Alien826]

We are not God, the rules only apply to us.

You haven't really addressed the points I made.

You have different rules than you make your children follow don’t you?

Only as adjusted for age and experience. The principles are the same, essentially, or should be. "Don't do as I do, do as I tell you" is really not a good moral standard. I don't tell my children (I only have one and she grew up years ago) not to murder people then go and commit murder myself.

Here's a true story. My mother once buttered a piece of cake before eating it. I thought that would be tasty and did the same. She said "Don't do that!" I said "But you did it!" She laughed at me and said "Don't do as I do, do as I tell you". Yes, really. I thought it was a crappy thing to say then and I still do. We should set an good example for our children, even if that means not buttering cake.

 

[Valjean]

Well morality does not actually exist in the world, neither do ethics or values.

They are defined by society but remove society and you have nothing.

You have the hard-wired tribal values evolved over millions of years as social animals.

People judge the values and motivations of others by their own. Those who fear we'd run amuck without coercive, external rules worry me.

For instance, if there are only two people in the world and one says, “I am going to kill you”, and the other says, “ you can’t because it’s wrong”, what is he basing that off of? Believers have inherent morality which is consistent because it comes from God.

Could be 1: an internalized sense of fairness or justice, 2: an evolved need for tribal coöperation, or 3: social indoctrination.
What do you think?

There is no society with laws saying he cannot be killed, there is nothing written in the cosmos saying it’s wrong….nothing.

Atheists inherently have nothing to follow until they make it up. This is why we see their morality fluctuate all the time. Believers have inherent morality which is consistent because it comes from God.

Do we see their (internalized, consequentialist) morality fluctuating? Evidence, please.
Consistent?! Hardly. The murder and robbery of the Thuggees, the organized crime of the Mafia, the slavery of the Confererate states, and the depredations of the Crusaders were all believed to be divinely sanctioned.

The only inherent morality is the tribal cohesion, coöperation, and altruism naturally selected for over millions of years living as small-band hunter-gatherers.

Believers have inherent morality which is consistent because it comes from God.

You're presupposing God-given, deontological rules that define moral behavior; morality as necessarily external and imposed.
This Divine Command morality is common among the religious.

Atheists, or, more accurately, those without an external rule-book, develop an internalized, personal moral conscience, based on effects or consequences, and often exhibit a more robust moral conscience, on a higher Kohlberg Stage, than the religious or socially indifferent.

From the perspective of Haidt's Moral foundations. Conservatives and the religious tend to be motivated more by Loyalty, Authority and Purity. The Freethinkers and liberals are more motivated by care and fairness.

 

[Valjean]

Not sure what your point is.

They were devoutly religious, and believed they were sanctioned by God -- yet they killed many innocent people, destroyed property and disrupted innocent lives.
If believers all had an "inherent, consistent morality," all the believers, of all religions, would agree with the terrorist hijackers.

Is that all he tells them?
To go out and kill?

It's one of the things He tells them.

 

[McBell]

Being dunked in water doesn’t make someone a theist, their actions do.

Please define "theist"

I ask because you are making vlaims about what it is that I have not seen or heard and google got nothing to support this claim

 

[Valjean]

You are missing the point.

A believer has morals, values, and ethics dictated to them by their God, whoever that may be.

But different believers have different morals, values and ethics. There is no consistency.

Non-believers have nothing dictating morals to them until they get into a group and decide what the rules are.

Untrue.
Social animals have an inborn morality; a sense of fairness, coöperation and propriety evolved, by natural selection, to maximize group survival.

I don’t steal because God forbids it, non-believers don’t steal because they’ve decided there would be a punishment for it.

This sounds like the same carrot-and-stick motivation in both cases.
Q: How do you know God forbids it?

This Divine Command morality is a conventional, law-and-order motivated behavior at best; and at least a pre-conventional, punishment avoidance behavior.

It is not based on moral reasoning or personal ethics, as is higher order morality.

Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development | Definition & Framework | Britannica

Lawrence Kohlberg’s stages of moral development, comprehensive theory developed by Kohlberg in 1958 based on Jean Piaget’s theory of moral judgment for children. Kohlberg’s theory focuses on the thinking process that occurs when deciding whether a behaviour is right or wrong.

www.britannica.com

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

Everyone has their own personal code of ethics, politics, and stances on hot button issues. It's going to vary from person to person.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Please define "theist"

I ask because you are making vlaims about what it is that I have not seen or heard and google got nothing to support this claim

I was debating the guy who brought it up.

 

[Valjean]

Maybe they are all correct.

But they are all different and contradictory.

Maybe God is speaking to different groups of people in their own way.

So His ambiguity is just to stir up antagonism, for His own amusement?

And someone who won’t believe in God will never believe in faith which is where your “proof” lies.

You have a vary odd concept of "proof."