Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[dybmh]

Do you have any training in science? Or even logic or debate? I ask because these teach about how to think objectively, and how to avoid bias. We humans are naturally emotional, but we are not naturally rational. We have to learn cognitive tools to think skillfully. Once a person acquires langauge they can form abstract thoughts and can think, but thinking is not reasoning. It is easy to develop bad thinking habits and not be aware the process isn't reason.

Any training in science? Sure, a little. Not logic nor debate though.

We don't have to assume natural exists, it is there to see. We are even part of it. We only have to assume a supernatural because by definition we can't determine it existing. So no hypocrisy. Science is the examination of what we can observe, and that is nature.

Good. So, making an assumption based on observable facts is not faulty reasoning. Ignoring observable facts would be faulty reasoning, correct?

So you are referring to abstrations and emotions as immaterial.

Yes, because they do not behave like material "things".

The thing is we feel awe. Teamwork is a work that describes certain behaviors. Boredom is an experience. These are all nouns. Nouns are words that refer to people, places, and things.

Sure, they describe. The map is not the territory.

You don't mention any actual definition. Are you using spiritual and immaterial synonymously? If so, you consider boredom as immaterial, thus spiritual. Does that make any sense?

Now you're not being fair. You gave a definition of science and nature. My definition of material and spiritual is just as specific, if not more so. And my definition is not "actual" because? Is it because I have no formal training? That's a significant bias. Only people with training can make "actual" definitions, but the content of the definition is ignored?

But to answer the question, yes, I am saying spiritual is the same as non-material. Spiritual is the opposite of material. Similar accepted definitions exist: light and darkness, good and evil, order and chaos, etc... Material and Spiritual are pairs, they are opposites. You basically did the same thing with Material vs. Imaginary.

Boredom is a little bit tricky, but, I think its behavior matches the others I listed.

Even with this crude definition it doesn't really seem that immaterial is accurate and useful, because the words you select above do have very material relationships to our lives.

My definition of material and spiritual was no more "crude" than your definition of nature and science. This is hypocritical, a double standard, and faulty reasoning. Evidently education and training in logic and science do not prevent bias, nor is education and training in logic and science requried to identify bias. So education and training is irrelevant, thank you for demonstrating that.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

And I can believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Both stories are just as reliable. What matters in a debate are the claims that you can support, not fantasies.

And the FSM has photos.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

To show that love is material, I think more than a brain scan is needed. In order to show it's material, then love would need to behave like other material phenomena. For example: a specific quantity of "love" would need to be measured, and the phenomena resulting from that quantity would need to be predictable. IOW, can someone measure 30 cc's of love and predict how a person will behave after receiveing it? Another example: does love break down over time?

Using this method, many non-material things ( for lack of a better word ) exist. An idea, for instance. Can it be measured physically? Is it predictable? Does it break down over time?

Since hormones are involved, surely they can be measured.

 

[dybmh]

Since hormones are involved, surely they can be measured.

Chicken vs egg?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Chicken vs egg?

Two material items? Light and dark are material too.

 

[dybmh]

Two material items?

The point isn't that they're both material. The point is what came first. Does the emotion come first, and the hormones come second. Or do the hormones come first, then the emotion.

Light and dark are material too.

Light and dark weren't on my list as spiritual. So I respectfully ask, relevance?

 

[DNB]

Interesting question. I don't know whether other animals would have a concrete belief in the supernatural or a transcendent being, but I wouldn't rule out a perception of the numinous or a feeling of awe and wonder in certain situations, and it's these that likely underlie the later development of concrete beliefs.

I'm sorry, if you don't know by now what it means to be spiritual, or what the outward evidence of such a disposition is, then I don't believe that you're being reasonable on any level?

 

[DNB]

First, it's very dishonest of you to lump all religions on one pile, while the vast majority of them are UTTERLY incompatible.

Second, if you're going to lump them all together, then you might as well include all other superstitious beliefs to that pile. Like horoscopes, homeopathy, crystal healings, tarrot card readers, fortune tellers and... yes, alchemy.

Third, the point I made clearly went flying high above your head. My point wasn't about alchemy. It was a reply to your point that "there has to be something to religion" and thus not just be "figments of the imagination" because so much money, energy and hours were invested into it. I was exposing the flaw in that thinking by illustrating that Newton, arguably one of the most intelligent people in recent history, did just that: invest MOST of his life into a figment of the imagination. If the "alchemy" part takes you off track, you can just as well use something else. Like Aztec religion. How many lives were sacrificed to appease those gods? Sacrificing a life is like the ultimate investment. Surely you agree that Aztec gods are figments of the imagination and sacrificing a life to appease those gods is nonsense, right?

Ow well. I don't have high hopes that you'll get the point this time. Likely you'll find some other irrelevant thing to complain about.

Have you ever seen a donkey or a fish sacrifice their children to anything?

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The point isn't that they're both material. The point is what came first. Does the emotion come first, and the hormones come second. Or do the hormones come first, then the emotion.

Light and dark weren't on my list as spiritual. So I respectfully ask, relevance?

The egg predates the chicken and you included light and dark with more abstract concepts.

 

[dybmh]

The egg predates the chicken

OK. Does that establish which came first emotion or the hormone?

and you included light and dark with more abstract concepts.

I didn't say they were abstract. See below:

Spiritual is the opposite of material. Similar accepted definitions exist: light and darkness, good and evil, order and chaos, etc... Material and Spiritual are pairs, they are opposites.

So no, not abstract. I said they were opposites which are defined in a pair. That's all. I included light and darkness in a series of examples of things which are defined in pairs as opposites. The point was, defining material and spiritual as a pair of opposites is not invalid.

Just to confirm, please see Darkness - Wikipedia, right at the top it says:

Darkness, the direct opposite of lightness, is defined as a lack of illumination, an absence of visible light, or a surface that absorbs light, such as black or brown.​

There ya go.

A little later in the article it speaks about a measurement for "dim" or "dark" based on comparing it to starlight.

One scientific measure of darkness is the Bortle Dark-Sky Scale, which indicates the night sky's and stars' brightness at a particular location, and the observability of celestial objects at that location.
​

How does this work? By observing the brightness of a star, the surrounding darkness is measured.

 

[Ella S.]

Chicken vs egg?

This question assumes mind-body dualism. For a mental experience to come before or after the associated physiological symptom, the mind and the body would have to be separate things.

They aren't.

 

[dybmh]

This question assumes mind-body dualism. For a mental experience to come before or after the associated physiological symptom, the mind and the body would have to be separate things.

They aren't.

I agree that the mental experience and the physiological symptom are not seperate.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Have you ever seen a donkey or a fish sacrifice their children to anything?

No, but I have seen pigeons resort to the most ridiculous behavior as a result of superstitious beliefs in experiments.

I also have seen you do your outmost best to dodge the actual points made in posts in a pathetic attempt to change the topic when it gets to heated.

 

[Spirit of Light]

​

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 is easy to justify one's personal morals but I'd like you to consider the world at large. Is the world becoming more moral or less moral?

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

Sorry jump in to the discussion very late.

No, atheists does not automatically become less moral just because they do not believe in a God of sorts.
There are countless immoral religious people in this world.

And there are many morally good atheists in this world whom helping unconditionally other people because the see the need, and they put aside their own ego to stay with the people who struggle.

 

[1213]

​

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 is easy to justify one's personal morals but I'd like you to consider the world at large. Is the world becoming more moral or less moral?

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

I think that same that leads to atheism, can lead also to immoral behavior. Atheism itself is just a result and doesn't do anything on its own.

 

[Polymath257]

*** Thread Locked ***

 

[Debater Slayer]

***Mod Post***

Thread reopened. Please keep Rules 1, 3, 8, and 9 in mind while posting.​

 

[Valjean]

Religion enables immoral behavior, with its convenient rule book of arbitrary do's and don'ts.

Atheism necessitates actually thinking about what constitutes right and wrong; about moral principles and consequences. Atheism promotes the development of a strong, internalized morality. It has no rule book to fall back on.

 

[F1fan]

Religion enables immoral behavior, with its convenient rule book of arbitrary do's and don'ts.

Atheism necessitates actually thinking about what constitutes right and wrong; about moral principles and consequences. Atheism promotes the development of a strong, internalized morality. It has no rule book to fall back on.

It's amazing how mant theists keep defering to some holy text as if it is God itself. The rules they claiam are from God are often biased against some group. The Baha'i have their direct prejudice against gays, which is a serious flaw in their belief. Their justification is that it appears in the text. And they claim baha'u'llah is a middleman to God. Is there ant evidenbce? No. They refuse to admit it is them making the moral and absolute decision that Baha'u'llah is authentic, and thus anything he says is authentic. For all theists they bypass their own decision and meaning assignment of the texts, and they believe they are exempt from whatever texts say, and how they behave as followers. This renders them obedient robots who refuse to take responsibility for their own thinking and actions. This is the antithesis of what it means to be a moral agent.