Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[Valjean]

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.

But this is all folklore, not sociology, psychology or ethics.
What evidence do you have for any of this? What studies do you base this on?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Belief in God leads to immoral behaviour.

No. In some if not most, but not universally.

 

[nPeace]

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.

That's not true.
When the pew research says that people who do drugs are less in control of their senses than those who don't, it is not trying to promote a sense of superiority in one group, over the other.
Some people just take themselves too seriously, and think too high of themselves, so any statement that they feel threatens or disrupts their egotistical nature, is viewed as a deliberate attack against them, or they see their nature in the other person.
It becomes a competitive thing... because they feel superior.

 

[nPeace]

But this is all folklore, not sociology, psychology or ethics.

I probably heard your opinion a million times now.

What evidence do you have for any of this? What studies do you base this on?

I hear this a million times too, and when you get the evidence, you duck your head in the sand, and resurface moments after, asking the same thing.

 

[osgart]

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.

Most Christians cherry pick the Bible. Calling one's self a Christian is commonplace, but actual Christians are fewer. I think also many Christians are cultural Christians.

What's the use of a book of it lacks literal, and allegorical significance both? If the Bible is taken literally it's an exclusive religion. Literally it's meant for all to accept or perish. Allegorically you can derive meaning from its stories, and then that's all subjective.

 

[nPeace]

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

That sounds more like it.

Thanks for that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I know the spaghetti monster God was invented to mock believers.

Not believers in general. It was invented to mock the sort of believers who would break the law, including the Constitution, to impose their religious beliefs on others in public schools and pawn them off as science.

 

[osgart]

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.

Natural selection is a poor way to get one's morality as well. Morality should be based on reasoning about that which is acceptable and that which is never acceptable. Sure there are consequences and rewards involving morality, but that is secondary.

People are more individual than you think. I totally disagreed with my father; I didn't develop any of his traits about morality.

Do you attribute everything about humans to natural selection? To me that is a big mistake because humans have abstract reasoning, and there's a lot of individual freedom one has to accept or reject moralities they don't see as true.

 

[nPeace]

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.

We both know that you did not get this from any verifiable scientific study.
So, that is your atheistic belief... against mine.

Yes. Atheists have a belief against God. You demonstrated that one. This is the atheism that I know to be the original. However, there are other forms of atheism, which persons have adapted, and are now popular.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We both know that you did not get this from any verifiable scientific study.
So, that is your atheistic belief... against mine.

Yes. Atheists have a belief against God. You demonstrated that one. This is the atheism that I know to be the original. However, there are other forms of atheism, which persons have adapted, and are now popular.

My bold. I never had that as an atheist. I lack a positive belief in God, but I never had a belief against God.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

But that is still a religion right?
Do you think they are the most moral that you met because of their religion?

There are atheists and theists. I have been informed by the Satanic Temple that they are Satanists while the theistic ones are Satan worshippers. I judge them more moral based on their views and actions.

 

[nPeace]

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 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.

Reasonable.
I think you explained how those persons Paul referred to, got their conscience trained.
I totally agree that all humans posses some moral values. However, overall, we are flawed morally.
Would you agree with that?

 

[Valjean]

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".

Which Kohlberg stage and level are you equating with 'external ethics'? Most people never develop beyond conventional, law-and-order, morality. Principled, post conventional morality is not wedded to rules written in a book, somewhere.
Kohlberg's highest stage is a morality based on abstract principles.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.

Quite so! In fact, since this sub-topic in the thread includes a reference to the Giant Spaghetti Monster, most atheists would find it quite easy, when being mocked for not believing in God, to mutter under their breath, "and I don't believe in Spaghetti Monsters, either -- that's the whole point of mentioning it."

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Immorality always mirrors atheism in the Bible.

Really? So the Jews, who slaughtered the Canaanites, including their baby boys, and kept the virgin chicks for themselves (for some reason one can only guess at ) were acting so immorally because they were atheists? Well, who knew!?!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Control = trying to cause people to reject their faith.

If someone freely leaves their faith because they become convinced it isn't true, that isn't "control."

 

[Valjean]

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

Yes, better to assist the faithful in their quest for truth by pointing out the flaws in their arguments. That would be the respectful response.

 

[Colt]

If someone freely leaves their faith because they become convinced it isn't true, that isn't "control."

Those crafty individuals who engage in leading people away from God are complicit and will be held accountable for such evil behavior.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, better to assist the faithful in their quest for truth by pointing out the flaws in their arguments. That would be the respectful response.

Or point out that there are also problems with truth. There are non-religious systems that contradict other non-religious systems of truth.

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, better to assist the faithful in their quest for truth by pointing out the flaws in their arguments. That would be the respectful response.

Yes, better to assist the unfaithful in their quest for truth by pointing out the flaws in their arguments. That would be the respectful response.