Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[Kathryn]

Let's compare belief in gods with belief that somebody is trustworthy. When you first meet somebody about whom you know nothing, do you know that you can trust him or do you know that he can't be trusted? Probably neither. Why? You're agnostic on the matter. You don't have enough experience with this person to decide.

There are three positions possible: trust, distrust, and neither yet. But there are only two ways to act - put your trust in this person or not. Generally, we don't put trust in them regarding something important if we don't have to, meaning that we treat them the same as people that we know shouldn't be trusted. Should that person be offended that he is being called dishonest? Hopefully he understands the difference between I don't trust you because I don't know you and I don't trust you because I know you're dishonest and isn't offended.

Now consider gods. Some say they exist, some say they don't, and some say they don't know, making them agnostic. Most of that latter group don't have a god belief, and so are agnostic atheists - the position of most atheists, meaning that most atheists are agnostic atheists.

There are also agnostic theists. They're rare, but if you say that you believe in gods but don't claim to know that any exist, you'd be an agnostic theist.

This might help:

View attachment 74865

So I'm thinking that one is either agnostic or atheist, but not both.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What do atheists think regarding God? 10 facts about atheists

Do you have a point behind your random link?

 

[Kathryn]

Well, part of my "random" link is that it's from Pew Research which is pretty well thought of in most circles.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So I'm thinking that one is either agnostic or atheist, but not both.

Fun game. So next, the agnostic atheists get to tell you which terms describing you are invalid, right?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, part of my "random" link is that it's from Pew Research which is pretty well thought of in most circles.

Still not getting any closer to saying what point you were trying to make.

 

[Kathryn]

And the "random" link which I posted also says this:

The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster. And the vast majority of U.S. atheists fit this description

Which was my point.

 

[Kathryn]

Still not getting any closer to saying what point you were trying to make.

Read it and you will see.

 

[Kathryn]

Fun game. So next, the agnostic atheists get to tell you which terms describing you are invalid, right?

Sure I guess, if they want to play that game. I mean, I identify as a female - should we start there, or where do you want to start?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Read it and you will see.

Kind of presumptuous of you to think I should put that kind of effort in when you can't even be arsed to type a sentence or two to say your point.

 

[Kathryn]

Kind of presumptuous of you to think I should put that kind of effort in when you can't even be arsed to type a sentence or two to say your point.

I've already stated my point in posting the link. Several times, in fact. I'm done.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure I guess, if they want to play that game. I mean, I identify as a female - should we start there, or where do you want to start?

It went over your head. That's okay.

 

[Kathryn]

Nothing went over my head. I'm just not playing your game.

 

[Debater Slayer]

..and I find the opinion of most in this thread i.e. the West, to be unenlightened and simplistic.

I just want to say that people in this thread thankfully aren't alone in believing that marital rape should be illegal. My own country, which is Arab and majority-Muslim, has had public calls in recent years to recognize and outlaw marital rape. Many Muslims (usually women, from what I have seen) agree with those proposals. Many also oppose the proposals on religious grounds—usually fundamentalists and extremists.

The idea that the contract of marriage permanently entitles a spouse to their partner's sexual consent is abusive and coercive. It needs to go the way of witch hunts and burning at the stake.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've already stated my point in posting the link. Several times, in fact. I'm done.

Oh. In that case, here you go:

Home | A Link Is Not an Argument

A website dedicated to a friendly note to myself: a link is not an argument.

alinkisnotanargument.com

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your second statement contradicts your first.

That was a response to, "Only the ones written in English. It's not a difficult book to decipher. Much is ambiguous and means whatever the reader wants it to mean."

I disagree. I don't see anything contradictory there.

And that's three sentences, so I don't know which two statements you mean, since it's hard to believe that you mean that the first two sentences contradict one another.

You might try fleshing out your answers a bit more and explaining why you say that so that I can either be educated or rebut your claim. At this point, I can only call it wrong and wonder why you wrote it. Perhaps you think that recognizing that something has no fixed meaning means not understanding it. If so, I would disagree.

So I'm thinking that one is either agnostic or atheist, but not both.

I don't know how else to explain this, but I'll try again:

The literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster. And the vast majority of U.S. atheists fit this description

Yes, including me and all other agnostic atheists. That's my position - I don't believe in any gods, and that makes me an atheist. Now ask me if it's because I've figured out a way to rule them out, and I'll say no, only a few, not all. There may well be or have been a god like the deist god. How could I know that there isn't given that the prediction is that this god would not intervene in reality again after creating it and setting it in motion before disappearing? I can't, and I understand that. I understand the limits of knowledge here. Such a god could never be ruled in or out as is the case with all unfalsifiable claims that predict nothing detectable.

It is for this same reason that I remain agnostic about vampires and leprechauns. That's not to say that I seriously entertain their possibility, just that I realize that I have no observation, experiment, argument, or algorithm that can decide the matter.

So now:
Do you say that gods don't exist?"
"No. I also don't say that they do exist. I live as if they don't"

What do you call that? Atheist but not agnostic, agnostic but not atheist, both, or neither? (Please give a one- to four-word answer)

How about these (same request - a brief name for each of these positions):
"I know that God is real."
"I believe in God, but it's just a gut feeling and I don't consider it fact. I might be wrong. There might be no gods"
"I know that there are no gods."

The nomenclature that most unbelievers have chosen allows us to distinguish between all of these by combing agnostic or gnostic with atheist or theist according to the graphic I provided.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I just want to say that people in this thread thankfully aren't alone in believing that marital rape should be illegal.

Of course they are not..
I am a lone voice, but that does not deter me.

My own country, which is Arab and majority-Muslim, has had public calls in recent years to recognize and outlaw marital rape. Many Muslims (usually women, from what I have seen) agree with those proposals. Many also oppose the proposals on religious grounds—usually fundamentalists and extremists.

I don't know all the details, so can't comment.

The idea that the contract of marriage permanently entitles a spouse to their partner's sexual consent is abusive and coercive.

No, it isn't imo.
What is the point of a marriage contract, if it does not imply consent?

Needless to say, that does not give consent to abuse and cause actual bodily harm.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Of course they are not..
I am a lone voice, but that does not deter me.

Hopefully the evidence and information about the harm caused by marital rape deter you instead.

No, it isn't imo.
What is the point of a marriage contract, if it does not imply consent?

Needless to say, that does not give consent to abuse and cause actual bodily harm.

Marital rape is abusive and causes mental harm and bodily harm.

Marriage isn't just about sex; there are many legal and social benefits that typically come with it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Marital rape is abusive and causes mental harm and bodily harm..

It can .. we are all capable of evil.
Naturally, many people will claim that they will never do bad stuff .. it is always somebody else.

Marriage isn't just about sex; there are many legal and social benefits that typically come with it.

I'm not sure what point you are making here..
The institution of marriage is a religious one, in an Islamic/Christian country.

Sex before marriage is not acceptable.
..so the issue of "consent between adults" is not applicable.
Naturally, if the institution of marriage is merely one of "status", there would be no other way
of dealing with sexual misdemeanour.

..so it becomes an argument between those that favour the law of G-d, and those that prefer
a more liberal society. There are consequences .. G-d only wishes our society to be secure..

 

[Valjean]

..except that I never said that it was..
All you are doing here, is trying to deflect away from the main issue.

A society where sex before marriage is acceptable leads to more sexual crimes being committed against women,
that are difficult to prosecute.

But that is just flat out wrong, quite the opposite, in fact, as innumerable examples illustrate.
Unless, of course, you consider premarital sex itself a crime against women.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

And the "random" link which I posted also says this:


Which was my point.

As I said earlier, belief doesn't preclude knowledge. 'I don't believe there are gods but I don't know for sure' = agnostic atheist.