Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[Brian2]

Immoral behaviour is generally caused by the inability to govern oneself when one wants what one is not entitled to, or on achieving, would cause harm to anyone else. Believing or not believing in gods, fairies, spaghetti monsters or reincarnation has nothing to do with it.

There are things that spaghetti monsters say are wrong and that many people who don't believe in my spaghetti monsters say is fine to do.
I am right of course even if you disagree. So atheism leads to immorality

 

[Ella S.]

We repulse at evil, murder, rape, kidnapping, prostitution, drug dealing, etc....
Why do no other creatures have the same sentiments? They kill each other indiscriminately and lose no sleep overt it. They eat each other alive, and will even kill their own for extremely inhumane reasons. They don't protest when another animal steals their food, or cry when a family member dies - no eulogy or funeral

Other creatures do show the same sentiments. Elephants bury their dead, for instance. I've seen armadillos mourn their loved ones after they were turned into roadkill and rabbits cry over watching their spouses swept away in rivers. I've seen all sorts of animals wail when their young is killed or harmed, and it can cause them to go into lasting states of grief where they show signs of lethargy.

Domesticated animals like horses, cats, and dogs have also been shown in studies to have an innate sense of what you might call "fairness." For instance, when they live with other domestic animals who get more treats than they do for the same tasks, they tend to protest or try to "correct" the unfair treatment.

Drug dealing and prostitution are mostly human issues, so they don't really apply to animals. That said, you underestimate the emotional complexity of animals.

 

[Ella S.]

But yeah, some atheists are nihilist, and don't even find meaning behind their own meanings towards life, and have almost-permanent existential crises when you even mention the word meaning to them. My one friend has this problem, but my parents are also atheists and they have plenty of meaning and value in their lives. So the phenomenon of losing meaning without God isn't true for all atheists.

That all-pervasive fatalism and an innate sense of meaninglessness isn't actually nihilism. It's anhedonia. Nihilists generally don't struggle with that.

Most atheists don't struggle with this issue unless they have some sort of mental illness. However, this can happen when someone who wasn't raised atheist deconverts from a theistic religion, because they lose the major source of meaning in their lives without having anything else to replace it.

That is a problem, and it's often seen as a symptom of Religious Trauma Syndrome. That's not a problem with atheism, though. It's only an issue because religious communities and institutions are often extremely abusive, forcing people to turn every facet of their lives over to the religion until they can't really think for themselves any longer.

 

[ajay0]

Atheism does not lead to immoral behavior provided there is adherence to virtue and virtuous conduct. As per the enlightened sage Anandamayi Ma, even atheists are capable of enlightenment provided there is adherence to an ethical life...

Here is a discussion on the same by Anandamayi Ma and a disciple...

Question: Suppose an atheist lives an ethical and righteous life. Is he on a lower level than a faithful devotee?

Ma Anandamayi : An ethical life purifies the mind. Even though one may have no faith in God, if one believes in some Superior Power or pursues a high ideal, this also will serve one's purpose. By living an ethical life, one progresses towards the realization of the Divine.

Rajini Menon is a modern enlightened master who attained Self-realization solely through adherence to virtuous conduct and obedience to the voice of her inner conscience, in her own words.

Self realization of an ordinary householder became a jnani

So, this shows that belief in God is not a necessary accessory for spiritual development and enlightenment for that matter.

However, a challenge posed by modern materialistic philosophies like nihilism and existentialism in the west is that even ethics and virtuous conduct is negated as mere abstract contrivances , without understanding the possibility for Buddhahood or enlightenment through their adherence. This can lead to under-evaluation of ethical conduct and behavior for the materially inclined, and which can be a recipe for anarchy and chaos, as well as indulgence in vices.

 

[Revoltingest]

It matters which road ya take.
Not which religion is along for the ride.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

that just goes to show that their really is no such thing as an atheist.

Atheism is not the knowledge that God does not exist, but only the wish that He did not, in order that one could sin without reproach or exalt one's ego without challenge.

Some theists always say this while subscribing to beliefs that are supposedly going to shield them from the consequences of their actions.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

there are no real theocratic societies in the world. the closest the world got to sanity was king david and the kings that succeeded him but all that disintegrated and we're still, today, stuck with the aftermath.

If David is the epitome of good governance, you should set your bar higher.

 

[HonestJoe]

Nope, that part I got correct!

I love you too. Happy New Year.

 

[DNB]

Other creatures do show the same sentiments. Elephants bury their dead, for instance. I've seen armadillos mourn their loved ones after they were turned into roadkill and rabbits cry over watching their spouses swept away in rivers. I've seen all sorts of animals wail when their young is killed or harmed, and it can cause them to go into lasting states of grief where they show signs of lethargy.

Domesticated animals like horses, cats, and dogs have also been shown in studies to have an innate sense of what you might call "fairness." For instance, when they live with other domestic animals who get more treats than they do for the same tasks, they tend to protest or try to "correct" the unfair treatment.

Drug dealing and prostitution are mostly human issues, so they don't really apply to animals. That said, you underestimate the emotional complexity of animals.

The kill and eat each other alive.
They are sentient beings, so there's bound to be some symptoms of feelings and emotions - you mistake instinct, and social and familial preservation for a moral cognizance.

 

[Ella S.]

The kill and eat each other alive.
They are sentient beings, so there's bound to be some symptoms of feelings and emotions - you mistake instinct, and social and familial preservation for a moral cognizance.

I must not be communicating my argument clearly, sorry about that. I think you're the one mistaking instinct for moral cognizance in humans.

Our "moral intuition" or our "conscience" is really just a bundle of the same prosocial emotions that we see in animals. We have a unique intellect so we can abstract our intuitions to more general cases and we have a better understanding of the long-term consequences of our actions, but beyond that there is no such thing as "moral cognizance." We merely moralize our individual preferences informed by our emotional reactions, such as empathy, disgust, anger, shame, and guilt, all of which are seen in animals.

We don't have some sort of "moral sense" in the same way that we can sense light or changes in temperature. Case and point, if you ask different Christians to interpret the morality of the same verse of scripture, they will give different answers depending on what they subjectively feel is the more moral interpretation.

 

[DNB]

I must not be communicating my argument clearly, sorry about that. I think you're the one mistaking instinct for moral cognizance in humans.

Our "moral intuition" or our "conscience" is really just a bundle of the same prosocial emotions that we see in animals. We have a unique intellect so we can abstract our intuitions to more general cases and we have a better understanding of the long-term consequences of our actions, but beyond that there is no such thing as "moral cognizance." We merely moralize our individual preferences informed by our emotional reactions, such as empathy, disgust, anger, shame, and guilt, all of which are seen in animals.

We don't have some sort of "moral sense" in the same way that we can sense light or changes in temperature. Case and point, if you ask different Christians to interpret the morality of the same verse of scripture, they will give different answers depending on what they subjectively feel is the more moral interpretation.

There has been thousands of academic literature on the philosophy of righteousness - its benefits, edification, inconsequential results, unreproachable behaviour, character building, peaceful invocation, etc..And, of the depravity, hedonism, hypocrisy, insanity, self-annihilating, inciting, destructive, factious, results of wicked behaviour.
These are absolutes, actions and intent have an intrinsic quality to them that is not subjective. The majority of the consequences cited above affect character, this is the profundity of morality - eg: two consenting adults do not make something right or inconsequential - our thoughts and behaviour, and what we approve of invariably affects our character, for better or for worse.
This is the wisdom of morality - it's not a science for psychiatrists, which is how you sound..

 

[Ella S.]

There has been thousands of academic literature on the philosophy of righteousness - its benefits, edification, inconsequential results, unreproachable behaviour, character building, peaceful invocation, etc..And, of the depravity, hedonism, hypocrisy, insanity, self-annihilating, inciting, destructive, factious, results of wicked behaviour.

Hedonism is a philosophy about righteousness, so that's a contradiction. I also think it's worth noting that the majority of ethical philosophies are founded on a self-coherentist approach to moral intuition. That is, they take our feelings about certain issues, abstract and generalize them, and then correct any contradictions that arise.

Ethical philosophy is actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about in that sense.

These are absolutes, actions and intent have an intrinsic quality to them that is not subjective. The majority of the consequences cited above affect character, this is the profundity of morality - eg: two consenting adults do not make something right or inconsequential - our thoughts and behaviour, and what we approve of invariably affects our character, for better or for worse.
This is the wisdom of morality - it's not a science for psychiatrists, which is how you sound..

I disagree completely for the reasons I've already given

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'd suppose this depends on what you view as moral behavior but I thought I'd ask the question to see what people would say.

It indeed depends on what ones standards are and what parameters would be acceptable.

Also, and I don't think this is an unimportant factor, one would also have to consider what the motivation of the actions are which are going to inform the moral judgement.

For example, if a certain immoral action wasn't motivated (or obstructed) by either theism or atheism... then did one of them "lead" to that behavior?

Your question, after all, asks about direct relationships. Causal relationships between (non)beliefs and behavior. So I don't think it would be fair in that case to take mere correlations and then say "X leads to Y".

It is very easy to say that "atheism leads to immorality". But it's kind of hard, imo, to say how mere disbelief of rather specific fantastical claims in any way form the basis or motivation of certain specific seemingly unrelated actions. I've never seen someone rob a bank "in the name of disbelief of X" for example.

Is the world becoming more moral or less moral?

I'ld say that it becomes more moral overall.
There are bumps on the road and localized descends into immorality. But overall, in the sum of all things, I'ld say the trend is towards more moral.

And, does this have anything to do with the decline of religious belief?

Indirectly perhaps, but yes, I think so.
But I don't necessarily view this as a causation (hence "indirect").
I think it's more a correlation then anything else.

It's about people becoming more aware of reality, the world around us, the true nature of what it is to be human. And as it happens, such information usually flies in the face of (at least literalist) interpretations of certain mythological religions.

So the trend towards more morality isn't imo caused by a decline in religious belief.
If anything, I'ld expect it to be the other way round: the decline of belief being a result of the same cause of the rise of morality. One doesn't trigger the other. Instead, both are triggered by the same underlying thing, which is overall progress in science, general knowledge and a better realization of our place in the world and the universe.

 

[Ella S.]

There has been thousands of academic literature on the philosophy of righteousness - its benefits, edification, inconsequential results, unreproachable behaviour, character building, peaceful invocation, etc..And, of the depravity, hedonism, hypocrisy, insanity, self-annihilating, inciting, destructive, factious, results of wicked behaviour.
These are absolutes, actions and intent have an intrinsic quality to them that is not subjective. The majority of the consequences cited above affect character, this is the profundity of morality - eg: two consenting adults do not make something right or inconsequential - our thoughts and behaviour, and what we approve of invariably affects our character, for better or for worse.
This is the wisdom of morality - it's not a science for psychiatrists, which is how you sound..

I have something else I wanted to point out about what you're saying here.

Religious morality is not absolute. It's relative to that religion. In Christianity in particular, that morality takes the form of a divine law which is enforced by judging the individual and sentencing them to the relevant afterlife.

This is really no different from what human courts of law do, which is completely artificial. In practice, all you're doing is submitting yourself to the authority of the church, which is composed of people, or to the laws laid out in scripture, which were also written by people. There's nothing there to make them universal.

Even if God were to exist, which he doesn't, the God that you're talking about is totalitarian. He would punish me for the thought-crime of not believing in him, despite the fact that I can't help but not believe he exists, and he would do so with a punishment that is literally incomprehensibly horrible.

Is that really justice to you? It's difficult for me to imagine a situation that I would consider even more unjust, except maybe if I was being punished for someone else's wrongdoing. That's also a common belief in Christianity, though, thanks to Original Sin.

ETA: So what you're claiming is moral due to some "intrinsic property" isn't really the reality of Christian morality as I see it. Christian morality is hoping to be rewarded by God for your obedience, or at least submitting to his threats.

I don't believe in an afterlife or a God to judge me, so I don't believe the laws attributed to God have any such consequence. That's the real disagreement here.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

@Nakosis

"A new study suggests that, while atheists and theists share moral values related to protecting vulnerable individuals, atheists are less likely to endorse values that promote group cohesion and more inclined to judge the morality of actions based on their consequences."
Atheists and believers both have moral compasses, but with key differences: Belief in God associated with stronger endorsement of moral values that promote group cohesion.

 

[SkepticThinker]

atheism is the worldview of people who have been cast out of God's presence. being alive we strive to account for existence but being denied divine light it is as if we are blinded and to aggravate matters we develop an aversion to that which is truly holy and sanctified which further seals us in the darkness.

so, groping in the dark, this is how ungodliness and defiance leads humanity to generate materialistic explanations for existence which is what predominates in the world; this being the state of humanity fallen out of God's presence. this state of being causes a great deal of confusion and frustration which leads to violence, injustice and oppression on earth.

don't worry though God has power over all things and this world exists only for a limited fixed term as do we all and so on some future day God will enforce the law and justice will be done and everything that seems crooked will be made straight.

Atheism isn't a worldview. So you're wrong from the first sentence.
The rest is nonsensical.

 

[SkepticThinker]

doesn't atheism give us an account of how the world was created and what the purpose of life is?

No.

It's a single position on a single topic - whether god(s) exist or not.
Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). That's it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The origin of morals comes from the good nature of a supreme being, and no atheist can deny or give a reasonable logical answer to that. The best purpose of life is God and the highest standard of goodness within a person comes good a perfect and good conscience, to ability of goodness comes with how far and determined we are in spirit and connecting to God by being in tune with His Spirit. This proves the Holy Spirit exist and that God is a perfectly good God.

Someone would need to actually demonstrate that is the case, first.

 

[SkepticThinker]

We repulse at evil, murder, rape, kidnapping, prostitution, drug dealing, etc....
Why do no other creatures have the same sentiments? They kill each other indiscriminately and lose no sleep overt it. They eat each other alive, and will even kill their own for extremely inhumane reasons. They don't protest when another animal steals their food, or cry when a family member dies - no eulogy or funeral

Human beings kill each other in droves, all the time. Should I list all the wars that have been fought since we've been on this planet?

As to the rest of it, you really need to study up on the animal kingdom, if you truly believe that other animals "don't protest when another animal steals their food" or that they aren't upset when a family member dies."

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Lucy the hominid. basically this 'missing link' is just an ape. Plain and simple.

So are we