Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[mikkel_the_dane]

And it JUST HAPPENS that you got lucky
and chose the right one.

Just like everyone else in every other " religion".

That also works for some ideologies and versions of truth and real.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I have never observed the real world..

..and neither have I .. perhaps it doesn't exist.

 

[Valjean]

Religion does nothing of the kind..
Mankind are always looking for loopholes .. they naturally don't like the taxman,
or being demoted in status.

It is all about balance.
Let the thief free without punishment, the society will not be secure, and end up in anarchy.
Cut off the hand of a thief without trial and on every occasion, and you have injustice.
...

So let the lady's hijab slip, and you'll have anarchy?
What about those explicit commandments that generate or allow harm, injustice and exploitation?

 

[Apostle John]

Really? So the Jews, who slaughtered the Canaanites, including their baby boys, were acting so immorally because they were atheists?

No, it was because it was a judgment from God. There’s a distinct difference between judgments, commandments and immorality.
In the Tribulation it will be a kind of dog eat dog situation apart from the two witnesses, the 144,000 and those that are influenced by them.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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

But not those crafty Christian missionaries who engaged in leading millions around the world away from their gods, right? Because of course, they've got the only real one, and the proof is in a safe in your garage.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, it was because it was a judgment from God. There’s a distinct difference between judgments, commandments and immorality.
In the Tribulation it will be a kind of dog eat dog situation apart from the two witnesses, the 144,000 and those that are influenced by them.

That might be your belief. It makes no rational sense whatever to me. I'm driven by reason, so very odd religious notions aren't part of my thought processes.

 

[Colt]

Does the same go for those crafty religious folks who proselytise in order to lead non belivers to god?

Yes, leading lost, confused and unsaved people to God is good.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

A person that does not know God, is immoral

It's more likely to be the other way around. You're not going to learn to be moral in church. You'll be taught to be an atheophobe, homophobe, and misogynist. You'll learn love, mercy, and justice in terms of a deity that defines love in terms of a blood sacrifice, and who built a torture pit and staffed it with demons for the sole purpose of keeping souls that didn't guess right conscious to suffer to the benefit of nobody but sadists, and from which there is no appeal or parole. Sorry, but that's all immoral. Humanism has a completely different conceptions of all of those, and the results are encouraging.

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.

Some people have little to no empathy or endogenous moral compass, either because of a pathology like antisocial personality disorder or from atrophy due to disuse if they imbibe an exogenous moral code and refer to it instead, which they are encouraged to do.

Jesus was human - a perfect man. Being human did not lead to immoral behavior.

Jesus as depicted in the New Testament committed several moral errors. You wouldn't agree, because you are a believer, and such thinking isn't permitted. The believer simply will not let his mind wander into a place that he believes is blasphemous to an intolerant and harshly judgmental god that can read his mind. Here's a list of bad ideas from Jesus that I've compiled. I'm sure that you can come up with reasons why these are all great ideas, but I don't expect them to be more than unconvincing rationalization:

[1] Matt 5:28-32 - Jesus says marriage to a divorcee is adultery; and a man who ogles a woman has already committed adultery; and that you must cut off your hand or pluck out your eye if it offends.​

​

[2] Matt 6:19-34 - Jesus says don't save money or plan ahead. "Take therefore no thought for tomorrow: for tomorrow shall take thought of the things for itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof."​

​

[3] Matt 8:32 - Having no regard for private property, Jesus destroys a herd of someone else's pigs.​

​

[4] Matt 10:34 - Jesus says he brings not peace on earth but "a sword": "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."​

​

[5] Jesus divides families: Matthew 10:35-37 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's foes [shall][be] they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.​

​

[6] Matt 19:12 - Jesus says the best way for a man to be sure of getting into heaven is to have himself castrated.​

​

[7] Mark 11:13 - Jesus destroys a fig tree for not bearing figs out of season.​

​

[8] Mark 14:4-7 - Jesus says it is more important to anoint him with precious ointment than to give to the poor, who will always be here.(Why not just get rid of poverty?)​

​

[9] Christ categorically says in Mark 16:16 that he who believes and is baptized, shall be saved, while he who does not believe (in Christ and Christianity) shall be damned. That's pretty narcissistic.​

​

[10] Mark 16:18 - Jesus says anyone who believes in him can play with venomous snakes or drink poison without harm.(This act has been often tried, with rather unsatisfactory results.)​

​

[11] Luke 12:47-48 - Jesus fails to condemn whipping slaves.​

​

[12] Luke 14:26 - Jesus says no man can be his disciple unless he hates his parents, siblings, wife, children, and himself as well: "If any one comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple."​

​

[13] Luke 19:27 - In telling a parable, Jesus insinuates that anyone who denies his rulership must be killed. "But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and kill them in front of me."​

​

[14] Luke 22:36 - Jesus wants us to have swords, too. He says to sell your clothes if necessary to buy one: "and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."-​

​

[15] John 15:6 - Jesus says anyone who doesn't believe in him is fit to be burned.​

​

[16] 2 John 1:10-11 - A Christian is forbidden to offer hospitality to a non-Christian, not even to wish him "Godspeed" on parting.​

​

[17] James 4:4 - Christians are not to be friendly with the world: "You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God."​

Nature is the habit of God.

Nature has no apparent need for gods. Moreover, gods seem to be the least likely thing to exist. How could one exist, and what would be its job?

Atheists plagiarize their values when the claim to have invented morality in humanistic speculation.

Atheists claim to have invented morality? That's news to me.

And plagiarize Christianity? Humanists reject Christian morality (see above). Humanist morals are grounded in tolerance and compassion, the opposite of Christian morality, which features multiple bigotries. To me, Christian morality is politeness and a lot of insincere smiling, especially Sunday morning before returning to the car and resuming life as usual. It's like the Mormons and Witnesses who come to the door trying to look wholesome, and who play the part of people happier in their religion than they actually are - the witnessing face.

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.

No, it is in the interest of the kings and priests that you submit. Religions with instruction for you from an unseen god don't exist for the believers, and don't expect them to be there for you when you need something. You'll be told to pray, although when the church needs a new gym or whatever, you'll be expected to do more than pray. The adherent's job is to submit to church authority, to tithe, and to bring in more potential converts.

My bridge partner is a retired accountant who has been enlisted by his church to fix their books after a few hundred thousand dollars were embezzled from its bank accounts, much from his tithing. They expect him to give them his time for free, and he has been for about a year now. He is trying to get out of it, but is getting no help from the church in finding a replacement. They were incompetent as stewards, and don't mind burdening him like a pack animal. I told him to expect that they will not help him or prepare for his departure, and that he will have to walk out, and they will try to guilt him for that. He is already aware of all of that. That is what surrender looks like for him.

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?

Promoting myself? No. I promote reason, empiricism, humanism, and the avoidance of belief by faith. And that has been time well spent. That's what leisure is for. It is impossible to waste time if responsibilities are met and one is enjoying himself safely.

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

Giving people the means to live without and outside of religion is a gift. Once one has accepted that consciousness probably ends with death and that nobody is reading his mind or judging him, that the evidence for gods approaches zero, that faith is a terrible way to decide what is true, and that nobody not on earth is looking over him, religion has nothing to offer him. If you can teach somebody this, you have given them a great gift.

Yes, leading lost, confused and unsaved people to God is good.

Good for somebody, but not for them. But yes, those who are unable to defend themselves from indoctrination belong to the church, and if American, to conservative elements doing the exact same thing to them - indoctrination.

 

[Colt]

But not those crafty Christian missionaries who engaged in leading millions around the world away from their gods, right? Because of course, they've got the only real one, and the proof is in a safe in your garage.

The original gospel of Jesus could benefit and enhance any religion. But as Christianity evolved it became a new religion itself, inflexible and adopted the chosen people arrogance of Judaism.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes, leading lost, confused and unsaved people to God is good.

It is the absolute utmost of hubris to suppose -- on the basis of mere belief -- that what you believe is superior to or more correct than what someone else believes, and that therefore makes it right for one side to lead the other, but not the reverse. Hubris, as you might or might not know, is not just arrogant, but contains the element of dangerous over-confidence.

 

[Colt]

It is the absolute utmost of hubris to suppose -- on the basis of mere belief -- that what you believe is superior or more correct to what someone else believes, and that therefore makes it right for one side to lead the other, but not the reverse. Hubris, as you might or might not know, is not just arrogant, but contains the element of dangerous over-confidence.

Something’s true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

So let the lady's hijab slip, and you'll have anarchy?

No .. that is happening due to the global nature of the world.
Furthermore, it is debatable whether the govt. is responsible for punishing women
for not wearing hijab.
In Islam, a man is responsible for his familt, and if ladies dress inappropriately, he should
chastise them .. not necessarily some "morality police".

Again, this has happened due to western interference, and is an attempt to reverse
the trend.
Western, secular values are not necessarily correct .. but neither is the forcing of
people to follow a religion.

Where does one draw the line, though?
What if women decide to walk around topless?
Is that acceptable? Not in my opinion, it isn't.

 

[Revoltingest]

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

OK.

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?

As stated, no difference.
But I see what you intend.

In either case, we believe differently. No problem.


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)

Even God is a "so-called god".

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Something’s true.

Yes, but don't forget, it could just be that it is true that so many, many of the 18,000 or so deities worshipped by humans throughout our history have not existed -- and yours may very well be just another one of them.

 

[Apostle John]

I'm driven by reason, so very odd religious notions aren't part of my thought processes.

Evangelical, atheism is a very, very odd religious notion and could be part of an atheist’s thoughts without them knowing. Wine of confusion- spirit of stupor can keep a person in a very, very dark, dead spiritual place.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

I made no claim about drugs.

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.

OK.

 

[Revoltingest]

I experienced what could be seen as a kind of proto religion, superstition. I would decide that if I arranged things in a certain way in my room, I would get "good luck". Even though my common sense told me that it was ridiculous, I still did it. And the opposite. I would not step on cracks in the pavement to avoid bad luck. This was as a small child, and I grew out of it, thankfully.

I see it as an attempt to control the uncontrollable. Maybe something like that led to primitive religion.

It does seem related to religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think we should decide based on numbers, not volume of noise produced.

Of course.
That's why the sentence began with "Perhaps".

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes. Atheists have a belief against God.

That's an odd turn of phrase.
Would you say I have a belief against The Flying Spaghetti Monster too?
We typically aren't "against" things imaginary.
There's nothing to oppose.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Where's the flaw in...
I don't believe in things that aren't evidenced.