Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[nPeace]

it is hypocritical to call oneself a Christian and then go against what the Bible says.

Be careful. Not many here, calling themselves Christian, would agree with your statement. Especially since... "The Bible does not say anything." Your words.

 

[Colt]

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.

Religious and atheist can be good or evil.

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.

I am a critical thinker, but I recognize 2 different realms of existence, the material and the spiritual. From the outside looking in the universe may appear entirely material (mostly empty space actually). But from within looking out the same universe can be seen as entirely spiritual.

I believe humans are spiritual beings having a material experience of faith.

"If any man chooses to do the divine will, he shall know the way of truth. It is literally true, “Human things must be known in order to be loved, but divine things must be loved in order to be known.” But honest doubts and sincere questionings are not sin; such attitudes merely spell delay in the progressive journey toward perfection attainment. Childlike trust secures man’s entrance into the kingdom of heavenly ascent, but progress is wholly dependent on the vigorous exercise of the robust and confident faith of the full-grown man." UB 1955

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.

Nature is the habit of God. Atheists plagiarize their values when the claim to have invented morality in humanistic speculation. Personality is innately moral becuse all personality comes from a moral creator.

"When a moral being chooses to be unselfish when confronted by the urge to be selfish, that is primitive religious experience. No animal can make such a choice; such a decision is both human and religious. It embraces the fact of God-consciousness and exhibits the impulse of social service, the basis of the brotherhood of man. When mind chooses a right moral judgment by an act of the free will, such a decision constitutes a religious experience." UB 1955

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 is in our self-interest to surrender, to hatch from the protective egg of the human ego, too dedicate our lives to cooperating with the will and plan of God the Father.

"Material mind is the arena in which human personalities live, are self-conscious, make decisions, choose God or forsake him, eternalize or destroy themselves.

Material evolution has provided you a life machine, your body; the Father himself has endowed you with the purest spirit reality known in the universe, your Thought Adjuster. But into your hands, subject to your own decisions, has been given mind, and it is by mind that you live or die. It is within this mind and with this mind that you make those moral decisions which enable you to achieve Adjusterlikeness, and that is Godlikeness." UB 1955

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!

If you added up all the time you have spent on this site promoting yourself, just think of the weeks and perhaps months lost in such a short life?

Jesus continued to teach the twenty-four, saying: “The heathen are not without excuse when they rage at us. Because their outlook is small and narrow, they are able to concentrate their energies enthusiastically. Their goal is near and more or less visible; wherefore do they strive with valiant and effective execution. You who have professed entrance into the kingdom of heaven are altogether too vacillating and indefinite in your teaching conduct. The heathen strike directly for their objectives; you are guilty of too much chronic yearning. If you desire to enter the kingdom why do you not take it by spiritual assault even as the heathen take a city they lay siege to? You are hardly worthy of the kingdom when your service consists so largely in an attitude of regretting the past, whining over the present, and vainly hoping for the future. Why do the heathen rage? Because they know not the truth. Why do you languish in futile yearning? Because you obey not the truth. Cease your useless yearning and go forth bravely doing that which concerns the establishment of the kingdom.

 

[Revoltingest]

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."

What difference do you see between "does
not know God" & "not believing in God"?

Also, is there only the singular Christian God...
not Allah, Ganesh, etc, etc?
It sounds like many Christians see themselves
as the only moral people, & their religion as
singularly The Truth. Looking at the behavior
of so very many of them, I'm unconvinced.

 

[Revoltingest]

Always terrif to hear from someone who
thinks he is morally superior to me.

Tis human nature to feel superior to others.
Sacred books & their interpreters are attractive
because they variously teach not just superiority,
but also that others are evil...
- The atheist has God written in their heart...or something like that.
- Apostates should be killed.
- Enslaving captured non-believers.
The list goes on.

 

[Trailblazer]

Be careful. Not many here, calling themselves Christian, would agree with your statement. Especially since... "The Bible does not say anything." Your words.

Correction: it is hypocritical to call oneself a Christian and then go against what is recorded in the Bible.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

all you need to do is look at expressly atheist societies and see how degenerate they are. nominally religious societies are also degenerate but that is not because of religion but despite it.

there is no such thing as an atheist, whatever is your priority in life, who are whatever you think is the most powerful entity on earth, whatever you get up in the morning for is your "god", even if it is not much of a god and you have nothing in particular to live for.

I say "rubbish" to both paragraphs. You are making statements of fact with no reasoning whatever to back them up.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I know the spaghetti monster God was invented to mock believers. I also know that there is a similar motive among Atheist who join "religious forums", to undermine faith, mock and condescend people of faith.

Not my intention to mock any (despite the username), or to undermine their faith. But many of the religious are here to proselytise in their various fashions (even when it is supposed to be forbidden), hence we do learn from such, and we would probably fail in our duty to allow untruths to flourish just as much as you might do so if and when you encounter any. It would hardly be a forum without debate, discussion, and dissent now would it? And surely you can't have missed the mocking towards those having no faith - often almost innocuously, but still there. And given such, I doubt many are bothered by this. Not me anyway.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

This is well-known to be totally false. Morality is 100% a function of our nature as a social species. Before leaving the womb (and for a brief time afterward) a human might be amoral (but certainly not immoral). Still, as soon as they begin to develop socially, they acquire a vast array of moral attitudes and behaviours having nothing to do with deities.

 

[Trailblazer]

And surely you can't have missed the mocking towards those having no faith - often almost innocuously, but still there. And given such, I doubt many are bothered by this.

It bothers me, since I don't think anyone should mock anyone for their faith or lack thereof.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It bothers me, since I don't think anyone should mock anyone for their faith or lack thereof.

I tend to agree as to not mocking any but I suspect those without any religious belief are probably more secure in their non-belief so as not to be affected by any mocking.

 

[Nakosis]

I 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...

I use the definition of one who lacks a belief in a God.

I also a slightly different view of how morals are developed. There are three basic parts to it. Genetics, culture and experience.
We are born with certain personality traits. Some kids are shy, some are out going, some are more aggressive, some more passive, etc...
This affect how in the early years a child interacts with the world and starts to cultivate ideas of right and wrong.
The culture of the parents/extended family, what they see on tv, what they are taught in school. Now a days the games they play. When they start to interact with society, that begins to instill ideas of right and wrong. This would include any religious doctrine.
Finally, through their own personal experience. They see how the world is how they affect it and how it affects them. They start to develop their own ideas and what is right and wrong.

So religion and concepts of God can be a part of a person's development of morality, but there is plenty of other factors that'd continue to influence their moral development even without the influence of religion.

It ends up being a very complicated path how any individual develops the set of moral values they hold. Of course we all influence one another as well. I have the morals I have. Can't exactly trace how they all got instilled in me. Can't even really say my morals are better than anyone elses. They just happen to be values of right and wrong I currently accept. And, they are still subject to change, though at my age, probably not by much.

 

[Valjean]

Trying to reason people out of a position that they weren't reasoning into is a waste of time.

Atheism as you are practicing it here in this exchange is an attempt to control people.

????? -- How so?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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."

And I say, nobody "knows" God.

 

[Nakosis]

Not necessarily, but it could lead to disqualifying the source of moral truth. Atheism defiantly rejects the existence and authority of our creator Father.

I expect there are probably a few sources of "moral truth" you might find yourself rejecting too. So nothing unique about it.

 

[Colt]

????? -- How so?

Control = trying to cause people to reject their faith.

 

[Trailblazer]

I tend to agree as to not mocking any but I suspect those without any religious belief are probably more secure in their non-belief so as not to be affected by any mocking.

I suspect those with a religious belief who are are secure in their belief are not affected by any mocking. I am not affected by mocking.

 

[Apostle John]

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

Atheism has always been a decline in the belief in God since people always knew of Him 6000 years ago. He has always been in human psyche. Immorality always mirrors atheism in the Bible. Not all see the moral code coming from God but immorality will be everywhere in the Tribulation, from the moment the restrainer is taken out of the way.

 

[Valjean]

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.

Like the Taliban, IS, the American slavers, or the Israelite slaughter of the Canaanites, Amalekites, &al? Weren't these all devout believers?

It seems to me that religion often separates moral behavior from consequences. It justifies evil with scriptural law.

 

[nPeace]

What difference do you see between "does
not know God" & "not believing in God"?

Why do you break the sentence down each time?

I don't know Jannnu Bdua.
I don't believe in Jannnu Bdua.

Are they the same thing, or is there a difference?

One who does not know toothbrushes is unhygienic.
Not believing in toothbrushes, is unhygienic.

I think there are difference. Do you see any?
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."

One is saying it is immoral to not believe in God.
The other is saying, one who does not know God is immoral... not that he is immoral for not believing in God.
Do you see the difference?

In either case, we believe differently. No problem.

Also, is there only the singular Christian God...
not Allah, Ganesh, etc, etc? It just sounds like
Christians see themselves as the only moral
people, & their religion as singularly The Truth.
Looking at the behavior of so very many of
them, I'm unconvinced.

Even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him. - Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 8:5, 6)

 

[Valjean]

I 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...

One gains a conscience and moral judgement like one gains any other physical or psychological trait: by natural selection of adaptive traits over many generations.

Blindly following a list of apparently arbitrary rules, that might once have been useful amongst sheep herders, with no regard for their consequences, seems a poor basis for moral behavior.