Difference in moral thought between atheists and believers

[Watchmen]

I’ve learned it’s pointless to argue with non-believers.

There was no debate there.

Pointless? I literally cited an academic study by experts and your response is “it’s pointless to argue with non-believers”???

Game. Set. Match.

 

[McBell]

and you used a definition that is not typical.
So i was wondering where you got your off the wall definition.

Am I to to take it you are not going to provide your definition of theist?

Cause the definition I am familiar with is "belief in one or more deities."

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm not sure what you mean by "true" theists. A person is either a theist or an atheist.

You could call it closeted atheism, perhaps. Many people in Brazil won't accept or even believe that atheists exist.

I realize that there is a concept in Catholicism that once baptized, a person is a Catholic for life, whether they lose faith or not, whether they are serious sinners who will end up in hell or not. In the US, people who are no longer practicing Catholics are called "lapsed Catholics." Culturally, they are still Catholic, but they are no longer in line with Catholic teaching. Most of these are folks that the church considers to be in sin but they still believe, but there are also those who have given up belief.

Perhaps in Brazil, such people who no longer believe still identify as Catholic. Here in the US, they generally prefer the term ex-Catholic, meaning that while the CC may still count them as Catholic, they believe they have left the church and the label Catholic no longer applies to them.

If this is the case with Banach's wife, and she's actually an atheist but from a country that is Catholic and sees being Catholic as a cultural thing rather than a belief based identity, then yes, I can see what you are saying, and I really do appreciate your input on this. I can see how Brazilian culture may simply be different on this than American culture.

Nevertheless, Catholicism, as in the religion not the individuals, is a branch of Christianity, which is itself a branch of monotheism, which is a branch of theism. Can we agree on this?

To a point. Politically as well as socially it doesn't really work that way here in Brazil.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Hi there. Could you be kind enough to make the research so that I could buy it or view it? Well appreciated and thank you very much.

 

[firedragon]

Pointless? I literally cited an academic study by experts and your response is “it’s pointless to argue with non-believers”???

Game. Set. Match.

Hi. I was looking through the thread I cannot find your research paper. Could you please be kind enough to share the details again? This seems like an interesting study I would love to read.

 

[firedragon]

Am I to to take it you are not going to provide your definition of theist?

A theist is a human being who believes in anything that's divine or supernatural. It could be deities or one deity or as some would call it "higher power".

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Pointless? I literally cited an academic study by experts and your response is “it’s pointless to argue with non-believers”???

Game. Set. Match.

I never even saw your post, I was having a discussion with someone else but thanks for chiming in.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hi. I was looking through the thread I cannot find your research paper. Could you please be kind enough to share the details again? This seems like an interesting study I would love to read.

I wish I could -- I read this specific study YEARS ago, and unfortunately Google tends to focus on more recent studies. My search brought up a whole shlew of articles on the differences between the morality of atheists and the morality of religious people. And there were a few articles giving the atheist arguments for morality. But the specific study I was referring to is no longer linked to. I'm like, DRAT! Because I would have also liked to reread the article.

The closest I could come up with for you, using multiple search engines, were articles like this one that do affirm that people are equally moral regardless of whether they are atheist or religious. The part that it lacks is my reference to the nominally religious being more inclined to rationalize unethical behaviors in themselves. Sorry, its not quite what you wanted. But it's still a good read!

Are religious people more moral?

All the world’s major religions are concerned with moral behavior. But research shows little evidence that religious people are more ethical than atheists.

theconversation.com

I questioned ChatGPT. IA sources are not the most reliable -- they have been known to "hallucinate" meaning that they fill in gaps by making stuff up. So you can take this with a grain of salt. But at any rate, this is what came up, quoting:

1. Nominally Religious Individuals: Nominally religious individuals may identify with a religious tradition but may not actively practice or deeply internalize its teachings. They might be more inclined to rationalize unethical behavior as wrong but acceptable in their particular case because they may not feel as bound by the strict moral codes of their religion. They might selectively apply religious principles to justify their actions when it benefits them but may not feel as accountable to those principles in all situations.
2. Devoutly Religious Individuals: Devoutly religious individuals are typically deeply committed to their religious beliefs and practices. They may adhere more closely to the moral teachings of their faith and feel a stronger sense of accountability to their religious community and higher power. While they are not immune to ethical lapses, they might be less likely to rationalize unethical behavior as permissible, as it could conflict with their deeply held religious convictions and moral values.
3. Atheists: Atheists, who do not believe in a higher power or religious doctrines, may base their ethical framework on secular humanism, rationality, or other philosophical principles. Research suggests that atheists often derive their moral values from empathy, reciprocity, and societal norms rather than divine commandments. Atheists may be less likely to rationalize unethical behavior by appealing to religious justifications, but like any group, there can be individual variation in moral behavior and decision-making.

Well, this is problematic, because I've made a claim, and cannot provide a link to the study that supports it. I realize that I am just a random person in an internet forum, and you don't know me from diddly squat. The choice of whether to trust me about the existence of this study or not is entirely yours. If you choose not to trust, I completely understand -- I'm a bit exacting myself.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Many people in Brazil won't accept or even believe that atheists exist.

I'm not doubting you. But I find this absolutely amazing. If someone insists "I am an atheist. I don't believe in God" what possible reason would we have to doubt them, especially given the negative social consequences of such a claim?

I'm not there in Brazil to be able to accurately assess this, but I know if someone here in the US went around saying, "Everyone believes in God, including those who say they don't" I would classify that as highly manipulative, a form of gaslighting. There is even a colloquial term for it that I can't type here because it would violate the TOS. It's just abusive to say to someone "You don't really feel/think what you say. You really feel/think this other thing," unless one has direct evidence that they are lying.

 

[Watchmen]

Hi. I was looking through the thread I cannot find your research paper. Could you please be kind enough to share the details again? This seems like an interesting study I would love to read.

Post 193.

 

[Watchmen]

I never even saw your post, I was having a discussion with someone else but thanks for chiming in.

Actually, we were going back and forth. See post 193.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

No surprise whatsoever there.

 

[firedragon]

I wish I could -- I read this specific study YEARS ago, and unfortunately Google tends to focus on more recent studies. My search brought up a whole shlew of articles on the differences between the morality of atheists and the morality of religious people. And there were a few articles giving the atheist arguments for morality. But the specific study I was referring to is no longer linked to. I'm like, DRAT! Because I would have also liked to reread the article.

The closest I could come up with for you, using multiple search engines, were articles like this one that do affirm that people are equally moral regardless of whether they are atheist or religious. The part that it lacks is my reference to the nominally religious being more inclined to rationalize unethical behaviors in themselves. Sorry, its not quite what you wanted. But it's still a good read!

Are religious people more moral?

All the world’s major religions are concerned with moral behavior. But research shows little evidence that religious people are more ethical than atheists.

theconversation.com

I questioned ChatGPT. IA sources are not the most reliable -- they have been known to "hallucinate" meaning that they fill in gaps by making stuff up. So you can take this with a grain of salt. But at any rate, this is what came up, quoting:

1. Nominally Religious Individuals: Nominally religious individuals may identify with a religious tradition but may not actively practice or deeply internalize its teachings. They might be more inclined to rationalize unethical behavior as wrong but acceptable in their particular case because they may not feel as bound by the strict moral codes of their religion. They might selectively apply religious principles to justify their actions when it benefits them but may not feel as accountable to those principles in all situations.
2. Devoutly Religious Individuals: Devoutly religious individuals are typically deeply committed to their religious beliefs and practices. They may adhere more closely to the moral teachings of their faith and feel a stronger sense of accountability to their religious community and higher power. While they are not immune to ethical lapses, they might be less likely to rationalize unethical behavior as permissible, as it could conflict with their deeply held religious convictions and moral values.
3. Atheists: Atheists, who do not believe in a higher power or religious doctrines, may base their ethical framework on secular humanism, rationality, or other philosophical principles. Research suggests that atheists often derive their moral values from empathy, reciprocity, and societal norms rather than divine commandments. Atheists may be less likely to rationalize unethical behavior by appealing to religious justifications, but like any group, there can be individual variation in moral behavior and decision-making.

Well, this is problematic, because I've made a claim, and cannot provide a link to the study that supports it. I realize that I am just a random person in an internet forum, and you don't know me from diddly squat. The choice of whether to trust me about the existence of this study or not is entirely yours. If you choose not to trust, I completely understand -- I'm a bit exacting myself.

Hmm.
Sorry to say this but if you don't have the study, your claim cannot be substantiated. And Chat GPT is not a study.

But thanks for the effort. Now I know your theory of knowledge.

 

[firedragon]

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.

Ah. Thank you very much.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Hmm.
Sorry to say this but if you don't have the study, your claim cannot be substantiated. And Chat GPT is not a study.

But thanks for the effort. Now I know your theory of knowledge.

It's cool

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

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.

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?

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.

No they "believe" it comes from god
But they do what they are taught
Which can be quite different

 

[Ignatius A]

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.

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?

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.

It's based on a desire to remain alive. Society doesn't instill that desire into people.

 

[Ignatius A]

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.

I don't know who those believers are that were "icky" about pulling the switch but their moral development is severely lacking. Failing to act to save 4 lives is a moral failure. The trolley will cause death either way but inaction to save 4 is immoral.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

I don't know who those believers are that were "icky" about pulling the switch but their moral development is severely lacking. Failing to act to save 4 lives is a moral failure. The trolley will cause death either way but inaction to save 4 is immoral.

At my weight, I don’t want to do anything to help normalize pushing fat men off of bridges to stop runaway trollies.

You can call those folks immoral if you want, but I thank them for helping to make the world a less dangerous place for people like me.

Remember, it’s my body, not yours, even if you think you have a use for it.

 

[Ignatius A]

At my weight, I don’t want to do anything to help normalize pushing fat men off of bridges to stop runaway trollies.

You can call those folks immoral if you want, but I thank them for not making the world a more dangerous place for people like me.

Ok