Difference in moral thought between atheists and believers

[Revoltingest]

Sounds like what the US did in WW2 doesn’t it?

USA killed many many people, but not all
as your Bible apparently requires. Would
you favor less killing, perhaps letting Hitler
remain with some power? Or let Japan
continue conquest of its environs?

 

[Tinkerpeach]

You may be familiar with the maths that went into dropping the atom bomb? The alternative to Japanese surrender was invasion of Japan. Estimates varied, but one pointed to more than a million US casualties if Japan was invaded.

Which decision would you make if you were in Truman's shoes? Use the bomb? Not use the bomb?

How many US casualties do you think would be acceptable before deciding to use the atom bomb?


Well, God was on both sides in the European sphere, both with WW1, and WW2 which then includes Russia.

God clearly decided to do nothing and to let the casualties be what they'll be.

Was that the correct decision on God's part, do you think?

No, invasion was an alternative but not the only one.

Blockading Japan until they surrendered was another option.

 

[stevecanuck]

He also says one day Hell will be empty.

We're still waiting for a link.

I have 3 verses that I can quote that explicitly say people stay in hell forever. Let's just consider this another one of your assertions that you can't back up.

 

[blü 2]

No, invasion was an alternative but not the only one.

Blockading Japan until they surrendered was another option.

They'd been doing that, not least with steadily improving submarine deployments, from the start, coming into sharp focus from 1943 on, and concentrating on the tankers and freighters in priority to the warships, though of course not ignoring them.

Invasion was thus the realistic alternative to the bomb.

Urgency was added by what was seen as the political necessity of not sharing the conquest of Japan with the Russians, and policy to that effect had been in place long before the Russian invasion of Manchuria.

 

[stevecanuck]

I think I'll just suggest you actually learn about Islam from real sources rather than whatever biased stuff you go from

Here's my "biased" source: Every bit of hate directed at non-Muslims and every call to kill that I quote comes from here: The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran

I've not been a Muslim, but I assume it's as equally wrong when an atheist tries to attack Christianity but ends up posting something that was obviously googled

Yet you have posted exactly zero 'corrrections'.

and not within proper context or reflecting how a passage is understood.

Do you not actually realize how utterly gratuitous, lazy, and void of content that your 'rebuttals' are?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Good thing all atheists have great morals huh?

Yo! I dig the sarcasm!

Atheists like to point out things like the Spanish Inquisition (which nobody expected) in order to portray theists as people who have been willing to raid Jewish villages, collect the unbelievers, and then burn them alive because THEIR theology wasn't quite right.

But they forget that atheists have also done the same thing numerous times. I can't think of a time off hand that atheists did anything like that. But I'm sure it happened.

Since I can't think of a time that atheists, en masse, committed any such atrocity, is it okay if I bring up Joseph Stalin? I mean, he happened to be an atheist. And he did horrible things. So it's pretty intellectually honest to assign any wrong Stalin even committed to the atheist community at large.

I long for the good old days when the Christians got to say what things were right and wrong... and nobody ever disagreed. If we, as Christians, want to invade a village and burn a bunch of people alive, we ought to be allowed to do so with impunity and without question.

You raised a mighty good point, my beloved sister in Christ.

Matthew 5:21-26

 

[Pogo]

No, invasion was an alternative but not the only one.

Blockading Japan until they surrendered was another option.

At what cost?
Can you actually present an argument as opposed to an assertion?

 

[Pogo]

We're still waiting for a link.

I have 3 verses that I can quote that explicitly say people stay in hell forever. Let's just consider this another one of your assertions that you can't back up.

Well Shakespeare disagrees with you.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

At what cost?
Can you actually present an argument as opposed to an assertion?

I did present an argument.

I said we could have blockaded Japan until they surrendered.

And what do you mean what cost?

We could have put out the word that no supplies go to Japan and kept a couple ships there.

It’s not like there was anyone to oppose us.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Quite true. Human morality has compassion on the sick, the weak, the old... Nature wants them dead.

Nature wants homeostasis. Organisms living or dying, as long as that state is achieved the state of the local ecology really couldn't care who lives amd who dies.
And even when it's not, individual organisms and entire species may become stressed, but Nature itself will likely carry on until the very end.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

At what cost?
Can you actually present an argument as opposed to an assertion?

History. Many actually did want to blockade Japan because at that point they were already beaten and talks of surrender starting to gain traction. Even before the bombs were dropped therd were people protesting and strongly against it.
It's also very damning that Nagasaki was a warcrime chosen for no other reason than it was a previously unattacked city to test the power of the bomb on.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yet you have posted exactly zero 'corrrections'.

I did when I brought up the bit that states one day Hell will be empty.

Here's my "biased" source: Every bit of hate directed at non-Muslims and every call to kill that I quote comes from here: The Quranic Arabic Corpus - Word by Word Grammar, Syntax and Morphology of the Holy Quran

I'm pretty sure you're using another one to tell you where to look (as long as you ignore context).

 

[stevecanuck]

I did when I brought up the bit that states one day Hell will be empty.

No you didn't. I asked for a verse (I'll take a hadith) number and I'm still waiting.

All you did was issue a bunch of gratuitous denials and ad hom claims.

The one thing you have in common with all the other reflexive defenders of islam is that you can't point to a single quote that I've taken wrong.

I'm pretty sure you're using another one to tell you where to look (as long as you ignore context).

YYYYAAAWWWWWWNNNNNNNNNNNN.

Wake me up when you've got something real to contribute (not holding my breath).

So, go ahead and flame away with your repetoire of different ways of saying, "IS NOT!!!!"

 

[Shadow Wolf]

No you didn't. I asked for a verse (I'll take a hadith) number and I'm still waiting.

This is why I really doubt your source is the Quran and Hadith themselves. But those of us who have it gave it an honest effort can spot the errors like a Christian or former Christian being able to spot the errors in an arguement that have entirely missed the context and larger picture.
It is taught Allah is merciful and that one day Hell will be empty.

 

[stevecanuck]

It is taught Allah is merciful and that one day Hell will be empty.

LOL!!!!

You just keep demonstrating that you can't provide proof. We both know you would if you could.

Sahih International: And those who disbelieve and deny Our signs - those will be companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally." 2:39

Sahih International: Yes, whoever earns evil and his sin has encompassed him - those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally. 2.81

Sahih International: Indeed, those who disbelieve and die while they are disbelievers - upon them will be the curse of Allah and of the angels and the people, all together,Abiding eternally therein. The punishment will not be lightened for them, nor will they be reprieved. 2:261-262

Sahih International: And whoever of you reverts from his religion [to disbelief] and dies while he is a disbeliever - for those, their deeds have become worthless in this world and the Hereafter, and those are the companions of the Fire, they will abide therein eternally. 217:7

Sahih International: And those who disbelieve .... Those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide eternally therein. 2:257


Another thing we both know is that there are many more examples. This is were you pretend to rebut with all the usual diversions and lies.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

This is a misapprehension of the functionality of morality. You call it "society". I call it "any group".
Humans are social animals. Our very survival depends on cooperation with others. We do very badly in terms of survival when left to ourselves.

At bottom, morality is like "rules of conduct" in a social setting, meant to facilitate order and cooperation within the group, for the benefit of the group (and by extension the individual). In other words, in a social setting, one actually has selfish reasons to be moral and impose it on others to have them do the same.

A group, a tribe, a village, a society, an empire... can not survive without it.

Imagine the country you live in now. Imagine how it would be if literally all of morals and ethics would be thrown out.
Now, you can not trust ANYONE anymore. You can't even go and buy a sandwich because it could be poisoned. You can't start your car because it could be rigged to explode. You can't go outside because you could be kidnapped, raped, killed,...
Literally EVERYTHING you take for granted today would fall apart.

Morals are thus a necessity for a thriving as a human dependend on a group / community / society.

And we see pretty much the same thing in EVERY social species. There are general "rules of conduct" in a pack of wolves also. And "immoral" wolves will literally be chased out of the pack. They will be "punished" for immoral behavior.

In social species, such social systems are inevitable and vital.

Atheists inherently have nothing to follow until they make it up. This is why we see their morality fluctuate all the time.

This is ridiculous. What I said above is true always. Regardless of gods existing or not. Regardless of having theistic beliefs or not.
No matter, social cohesion and cooperation is vital for our survival. And without morals (rules of conduct), there can be no social cohesion or cooperation. And then we will die. There would be no society. It would fall apart and disappear.

The reason morality changes over time (I guess that's what you mean by "fluctuate") is because the nature of society changes AND we also learn more about the world and about what works and what doesn't. Our "in groups" are expanding also due to ever-growing globalization. Wheter we like it or not.

Empathy plays a big role in this. Empathy is essentially the trait that made every society known to man come up with a variation of the golden rule (which, unlike what certain christians like to believe, is off course not at all exclusive nor original to christianity).

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

False. The morality of believers changes just like the morality of the rest of us. Because their world is also expanding. Their knowledge is also expanding.
It's just that in certain circles of believers, it changes more slowly because they are being "held back" by confusing moral reasoning with mere obedience to perceived authority. This is why, for example, many of them are still so homophobic. Because their perceived authority said it's wrong. That's why they believe it to be wrong. They have no actual reasonable moral argument to defend that position. Their "reasoning" is just limited to "god said it, i believe it, that settles it".

That is more the morality of psychopaths then anything else. Psychopaths have a mental disorder that makes it very hard for them to engage in proper moral reasoning. In severe cases it makes it even impossible. So they rely on perceived authorities to tell them what is and isn't moral.



Here's a little anecdote I like to share on this specific subject... It's actually an experimental test that allows to see which children have a tendency of psychopathy.

It concerns a classroom with children and the authority of the class teacher.
Scenario 1:
In general, children are not allowed to drink in the classroom during lessons. However this specific day is especially hot. The teacher says that by exception, the students are now allowed to drink as much water as they like during lessons. We then ask the students if in such a case, it is ok to drink in class. All children will say yes, it is okay.

Scenario 2:
In general, children are not allowed to fight. However this specific day there is a big epic boxing match, it's national news. The teacher says that by exception, on this special day the students are now allowed to punch their neighbour in the nose. We then ask the students if in such a case, it is ok to punch their neighbour in the nose. Virtually all children will immediatly recognize that there is something seriously wrong here. It is not okay - no matter what the teacher says. And most will in fact seriously question the sanity of the teacher. EXCEPT one specific type of kids. You can guess which. Those kids, will not see any problem. They will say "the teacher said it is okay, that settles it."

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

LOL It is a classic among ethicists. Once you know the scenario, you will find that it is not uncommon for it to come up in sundry books and shows and lectures.

Have you ever watched comedy show, The Good Place? There is one episode where Chidi, a human ethicist, is having a conversation about the Trolley dilemma with Michael, the demon in charge of The Good Place (which is hell disguised as heaven). Here is the clip:

Such an awesome show!

Both hilarious as well as very triggering on an intellectual ethics level.
I absolutely loved it.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

This is a misapprehension of the functionality of morality. You call it "society". I call it "any group".
Humans are social animals. Our very survival depends on cooperation with others. We do very badly in terms of survival when left to ourselves.

At bottom, morality is like "rules of conduct" in a social setting, meant to facilitate order and cooperation within the group, for the benefit of the group (and by extension the individual). In other words, in a social setting, one actually has selfish reasons to be moral and impose it on others to have them do the same.

A group, a tribe, a village, a society, an empire... can not survive without it.

Imagine the country you live in now. Imagine how it would be if literally all of morals and ethics would be thrown out.
Now, you can not trust ANYONE anymore. You can't even go and buy a sandwich because it could be poisoned. You can't start your car because it could be rigged to explode. You can't go outside because you could be kidnapped, raped, killed,...
Literally EVERYTHING you take for granted today would fall apart.

Morals are thus a necessity for a thriving as a human dependend on a group / community / society.

And we see pretty much the same thing in EVERY social species. There are general "rules of conduct" in a pack of wolves also. And "immoral" wolves will literally be chased out of the pack. They will be "punished" for immoral behavior.

In social species, such social systems are inevitable and vital.



This is ridiculous. What I said above is true always. Regardless of gods existing or not. Regardless of having theistic beliefs or not.
No matter, social cohesion and cooperation is vital for our survival. And without morals (rules of conduct), there can be no social cohesion or cooperation. And then we will die. There would be no society. It would fall apart and disappear.

The reason morality changes over time (I guess that's what you mean by "fluctuate") is because the nature of society changes AND we also learn more about the world and about what works and what doesn't. Our "in groups" are expanding also due to ever-growing globalization. Wheter we like it or not.

Empathy plays a big role in this. Empathy is essentially the trait that made every society known to man come up with a variation of the golden rule (which, unlike what certain christians like to believe, is off course not at all exclusive nor original to christianity).




False. The morality of believers changes just like the morality of the rest of us. Because their world is also expanding. Their knowledge is also expanding.
It's just that in certain circles of believers, it changes more slowly because they are being "held back" by confusing moral reasoning with mere obedience to perceived authority. This is why, for example, many of them are still so homophobic. Because their perceived authority said it's wrong. That's why they believe it to be wrong. They have no actual reasonable moral argument to defend that position. Their "reasoning" is just limited to "god said it, i believe it, that settles it".

That is more the morality of psychopaths then anything else. Psychopaths have a mental disorder that makes it very hard for them to engage in proper moral reasoning. In severe cases it makes it even impossible. So they rely on perceived authorities to tell them what is and isn't moral.



Here's a little anecdote I like to share on this specific subject... It's actually an experimental test that allows to see which children have a tendency of psychopathy.

It concerns a classroom with children and the authority of the class teacher.
Scenario 1:
In general, children are not allowed to drink in the classroom during lessons. However this specific day is especially hot. The teacher says that by exception, the students are now allowed to drink as much water as they like during lessons. We then ask the students if in such a case, it is ok to drink in class. All children will say yes, it is okay.

Scenario 2:
In general, children are not allowed to fight. However this specific day there is a big epic boxing match, it's national news. The teacher says that by exception, on this special day the students are now allowed to punch their neighbour in the nose. We then ask the students if in such a case, it is ok to punch their neighbour in the nose. Virtually all children will immediatly recognize that there is something seriously wrong here. It is not okay - no matter what the teacher says. And most will in fact seriously question the sanity of the teacher. EXCEPT one specific type of kids. You can guess which. Those kids, will not see any problem. They will say "the teacher said it is okay, that settles it."

Morality is neither good or bad it’s the process people use to make decisions based in a large part on the theories of Bentham.

So saying something like, “he is a moral person” is incorrect because everyone is moral.

So no, your explanation was completely wrong.

As an example we can look at psychopaths who do not use morality to make decisions.
The defining trait of a psychopath is their inability to distinguish between right or wrong yet they function perfectly well in society and in many cases become extremely successful.

Many business leaders, doctors and other high profile people lack morality so it is not required in a group of people.

My definition that decisions are based on fear is the correct one; people make rules to protect themselves, the don’t kill me and I won’t kill you mindset.

What you define as morality are merely social contracts. There is no such thing as natural law stating what is right or wrong, it’s ultimately based on utilitarianism which states that what is best for the majority is the correct choice.

 

[RamaRaksha]

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.

My thread on this issue of Morality between Atheists and Theists got deleted - quite depressing
I talked about the diff between the REAL world that we live in, the rules we live by
We work, we EARN, we do not beg, we do not live on Charity
Heaven seems to be the opposite - beg our way in, live on Charity for eternity
No one mentions any work being done, no one even asks
But Religious ideas and promises MUST be protected and so my thread got deleted

 

[RamaRaksha]

You are missing the point.

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

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

I don’t steal because God forbids it, non-believers don’t steal because they’ve decided there would be a punishment for it. My morals will never change but a non-believer’s could if society changes their view.

Ancient people living under Kings, Dictators used them as a template for God and created religions that made sense to them
They imagined an afterworld that was similar to the life they had - a King, Dictator like God sitting on his throne in the heavens, Heaven is his kingdom and only those who believe and support the "Dear Loving Leader" are rewarded, the rest are punished
In today's world that would be like living in Russia or North Korea
Saying believers follow morals, values dictated to them by God is like saying we follow the rules book written by Mao or Putin
We end up living in the past - blindly following ancient books - never moving forward
These books talk of slavery, how to treat slaves - but of course theists ignore those
.
Believers also say Heaven only if you believe in their God - "Good works won't get you into Heaven" that negates morals, values