Many exceptions. Which does prove something.
Many bad deeds. So, again, it *does* prove something. Goodness and belief are not correlated strongly.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?
- Thread starter Nakosis
- Start date
Which is why analogies like the FSM can be useful. Some may just realize the weakness of their religious position.
Not at all. It is an attempt to point out where theists go wrong and to help them. It is also an attempt to *prevent* theists from controlling people through politics.
Beyond the need simply because of non-existence? Sure.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
It depends how you define "goodness".
I would say that good behaviour is indeed correlated with people who attend worship
at a church or mosque.
Outliers are the exception, imo.
Based upon recent research in how humans
experience a feeling of the presence of others,
I can see how this could relate to some people
having a sense of a felt but unseen presence
that they'd describe as God, Allah, etc.
So I accept his feeling as real.
It's just not a feeling that I ever had.
muhammad_isa
Veteran Member
No .. beyond any needs whatsoever.
If God needed us to believe, we would not have the choice.
Clearly, we do have a choice .. you are a "good" example.
I guess you've already seen a few reactions to that comment. I don't find religious people particularly righteous or good, and most of people I admire for their character hold humanistic values, which include some liberal theists like Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden, but are mostly atheistic humanists, like Carl Sagan and Matt Dillahunty, or dharmics like Gandhi.
Critical thinking rejects all faith-based belief. What god? What authority? If there is a god, it is not communicating with man, nor is it intervening in our lives - like the deist god, which existence would be irrelevant. If somebody is telling you that a god told him to tell you what rules you need to follow, run away from him. He is not your friend.
And how does that help you? I feel no such presence - no such person. There's just nature, and it is sacred without gods. The dharmics and pagans seem to agree, although they add symbolic gods representative of natural principles that aren't people talking to them or giving them commandments, which is why they also mostly embody humanistic values. Their religions aren't telling them to ignore their consciences and follow arbitrary rules that deform the native moral intuitions that lead to a humanist understanding of right and wrong.
So what do you suppose that those with no god need and no religion are missing out on if anything? How would they be better off attributing their intuitions of the sacred to a sentient being that is indistinguishable from nonexistent? Right now, I see that need as a problem, not something desirable - like needing glasses to read. If you have that need, glasses will improve your life, but if you don't, they would only degrade already good vision. That's how I view religion. If it makes you feel more comfortable, you'll probably invite it in, but you're better off if you have no unmet needs without it.
It was intended to show the folly of belief in gods by faith, along with Sagan's dragon and the Invisible Pink Unicorn. One can worship the FSM just as easily as any other deity. Happy Feaster, Pastaover and Ramenadan. Pizza on earth and gouda will toward men. If that offends you, sorry, but that's your choice to be offended. You can also laugh along. Behold, the Putanescene Creed: Blessed be the Flying Spaghetti Monster, born of extra virgin olive oil, delivered by Little Caesarian (in 30 minutes or less) and cast out of the Olive Garden carrying the Ten Condiments, who has come for our salivation. Our pasta was killed by the Antipasto as foretold in the book of Romanos. Snagged by a giant twirling fork, Our Savory was placed on a plate and hurled onto a wall, where He stuck and dried for our sins. Cheese's Crust, how grated thou art!
I mostly like to discuss physical and life science, psychology, and philosophy including epistemology. I also like to make and deconstruct argument, identifying and naming fallacies. This is a great venue for that. But yes, there is a little impatience with some opinions that manifests as ridicule.
That's correct. Go with the critical thinkers if you want people whose beliefs are reasoned. You can demonstrate new truths to them, and they will receptive to your sound arguments.
Au contraire. Atheism is freedom form controlling religions.
Audie
Veteran Member
It's the God part that's bogus
Those bad "outliers" are so numerous that they define the whole.
Perhaps the believers who are peaceful, charitable, & tolerant of
others are the real outliers.
Don't forget all of the great many
ancillary beliefs, in their scared books.
Audie
Veteran Member
Belief in God leads to immoral behaviour.
Often, but not always.
It depends upon the individual & on society.
nPeace
Veteran Member
I think that might depend on which version / definition of Atheism one uses.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?
For example, there are different forms of Christianity, as defined by different people.
The same evidently is true of Atheism.
A person that does not know God, is immoral, whether that person is ignorant of that fact, or not.
No person is born morally upright. From the time one leaves the womb, they have no moral values... well... even before leaving the womb.
I'll leave the question of how one becomes morally upright, for if you ask, but another question arises... how does one gain a conscience that tells them something is right, or wrong. Where does that come from?
The apostle Paul said... [Persons who don't know God, do] demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them, and by their own thoughts they are being accused or even excused.
In other words, people have a conscience, which allows them to examine themselves, and render judgment about their own behavior.
Yet. we hear the expressions... 'that person has no conscience.' Or, 'that person's conscience is dead.'
Everyone's conscience does not dictate the same "laws". So what does that tell us? The conscience is trained. Or, it can be corrupted or dulled.
So, we are led to another question. How can a conscience be trained to be accurate?
You see, your question has opened a can... or maybe cans of worms.
I believe there is only one question, and answer, that removes those cans for good.
The question is actually quite ancient. The answer is clear to millions.
Only one person can conclusively demonstrate the answer to the question to be definitive, though, so it would be to open another can of worms to discuss that here... and we don't want to do that. Or do we...
Audie
Veteran Member
Of course.
But how consistently does it lead the
Believer to think he is morally superior to
those not so afflicted?
Last edited:
I see it differently....
Immorality is when one commits immoral acts.
Not believing in your God isn't immoral.
Some examples of immorality in the name of various religions....
- Manifest destiny
- Justifying slavery
- Zionism
- Denying education to females.
- Making females wear bags over their entire bodies.
- Terrorism.
- Sexual abuse of children & vanquished populations.
nPeace
Veteran Member
More accurately... being an imperfect human leads to immorality.
Jesus was human - a perfect man. Being human did not lead to immoral behavior.
Also, the angel that sinned, and received the name Satan the Devil, acted immorally. He was not human. Nor were the the angels that left heaven to have immoral relations with the women on earth.
So, while you had something in mind that was correct, you were a tad off.
Audie
Veteran Member
Always terrif to hear from someone whoI think that might depend on which version / definition of Atheism one uses.
For example, there are different forms of Christianity, as defined by different people.
The same evidently is true of Atheism.
A person that does not know God, is immoral, whether that person is ignorant of that fact, or not.
No person is born morally upright. From the time one leaves the womb, they have no moral values... well... even before leaving the womb.
I'll leave the question of how one becomes morally upright, for if you ask, but another question arises... how does one gain a conscience that tells them something is right, or wrong. Where does that come from?
The apostle Paul said... [Persons who don't know God, do] demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts, while their conscience is bearing witness with them, and by their own thoughts they are being accused or even excused.
In other words, people have a conscience, which allows them to examine themselves, and render judgment about their own behavior.
Yet. we hear the expressions... 'that person has no conscience.' Or, 'that person's conscience is dead.'
Everyone's conscience does not dictate the same "laws". So what does that tell us? The conscience is trained. Or, it can be corrupted or dulled.
So, we are led to another question. How can a conscience be trained to be accurate?
You see, your question has opened a can... or maybe cans of worms.
I believe there is only one question, and answer, that removes those cans for good.
The question is actually quite ancient. The answer is clear to millions.
Only one person can conclusively demonstrate the answer to the question to be definitive, though, so it would be to open another can of worms to discuss that here... and we don't want to do that. Or do we...
thinks he is morally superior to me.
Trailblazer
Veteran Member
The Baha'i Faith has also outlawed sexual promiscuity and any kind of sex outside of marriage.
I cannot say what other Baha'is do but I know that Christians are not following the Bible since many of the men I talk to on dating sites are Christians and they all want casual sex...
Well, it's a known fact that most people don't wait until they get married to have sex, and that includes Christians...
But nobody wants to talk about this, they just sweep it under the rug.
Atheists have no reason to avoid casual sex so I don't fault them for it, but it is hypocritical to call oneself a Christian and then go against what the Bible says. Of course that would also apply to a Baha'i if they didn't adhere to the Baha'i Laws regarding sex.
PearlSeeker
Well-Known Member
External ethics is a normal stage in moral development (see Kohlberg).
The Bible itself says that Gentiles (who don't know the scripture) have the law "written on their hearts".
nPeace
Veteran Member
The phrase... "A person that does not know God, is immoral...", is not the same thing as... "not believing in [someone's] God is immoral."