Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[Hockeycowboy]

Interesting study. I'm assuming both groups were screened to optimize psycho-social similarities at the outset,so the results reflect a comparable Norwiegen demographic, even so, the specific HADS Depression graph showed little variation.
I'm still curious as to why you'd think untoward effects of induced abortion would be innate, and unrelated to enculturated mores.

For females to have the desire to be Mothers, is instinctive. It’s not a learned trait.

To willfully terminate healthy progeny, is an unnatural inclination.

IMO

Take care.

 

[Valjean]

Your statement is not accurate then.
"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."

You cannot gain a physical trait if you are dead.

Huh? Dead? What are you talking about? I don't think you've grasped the concept of natural selection.

It would have been more accurate for you to have said, you are born with a conscience and moral judgement, which was passed down to you from your ancestors.

We are born with capacities, but no knowledge of anything. A prewired operating system, but no RAM.

So, you think we are born with moral judgment?

Born with no judgement at all.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

The reasons the assorted sexual prohibitions of the Abrahamic religions is based in the need to keep every fertile womb working and for paternity and inheritance purposes. Maidens are to marry at puberty, cannot refuse their husbands sex, and there are rules against divorce, homosexuality, masturbation, and birth control (rhythm method and early withdrawal originally, oral contraceptives, IUDs, and abortions later), and no extramarital sex.

No; regarding the Bible’s stipulations on sex, I don’t agree. In combination with the other Mosaic Law stipulations regulating family life, it was designed to keep family units strong to benefit the emotional development of the children in those families, and to curtail any activity that might direct the husband’s attention toward another, and away from his wife.

We see too much of this in these times, and family members’ lives — especially the children’s — are suffering.

Now regarding ‘maidens marrying at puberty,’ or ‘wives refusing their husbands sex’….there’s nothing in the Bible about that. That’s religious thought / decree, outside of / beyond the Bible’s instruction; I simply have no use for such dogma.

No, by the priesthood I mean all clergy including Catholic priests, such as pastors, ministers, rabbis, imams, etc..

Ok. Well, I’d probably agree w/ most of your assessments.

Because, as you might be aware, I come down hard on the leaders of Christendom! They’ve misled, abused & misused their flocks for centuries!

Have a good night.

 

[F1fan]

No; regarding the Bible’s stipulations on sex, I don’t agree. In combination with the other Mosaic Law stipulations regulating family life, it was designed to keep family units strong to benefit the emotional development of the children in those families, and to curtail any activity that might direct the husband’s attention toward another, and away from his wife.

Well it doesn't work. It's as if even believers don't think there's any authority behind the Bible. If they really believed they would be scared to death to violate any laws.

I suggest it is more effective to have mature and emotionally stable people as they can make better judgments.

 

[Valjean]

Conscientiously.

??? -- not following.

Still an atheist.

Of course, but a specific subset of atheist, hence the modifier.
Haven't you been paying attention to the explanations posted?

No child is an atheist, before conscientiously making a decision.
Why atheist? Why not agnostic? It doesn't follow.

An agnostic, technically, is one who believes it's not possible to know whether God exists or not. Colloquially, it designates someone who simply doesn't know whether God exists. In this sense, agnosticism is weak atheism.

A definition designates a feature common and unique to all types of the thing defined. Only one feature is common to all subsets of atheism: lack of belief. Therefore the definition of atheism, sans modifying adjective, is lack of belief in god(s). When we say "atheist," this is what we mean. If we're talking about one who states positively that god does not exist, we use a modifier like "strong" or "explicit."

Children? Does a child fit the definition? Well, there's your answer.

Atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The arguments for belief in evolution are poor, but you would not admit that.
Maybe we all see circumstantial evidence in light of our understanding. So we have our opinions, which doesn't always agree.

The arguments and evidence are voluminous, consilient, and have convinced pretty much everyone who's dispassionately reviewed them. In fact, those most familiar with the theory are the ones most strongly convinced of its veracity.

In your opinion.

Not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact. It's reasonable, logical and well evidenced.

So you say.
That's not what is evident. You know this. Why are you denying it?
Tell me one time when I have not justified any claims. Just give me the link to the post

Your concept of evidence is skewed. You include subjective evidence, illogical evidence, mythology and feelings. These are epistemically useless but, for some reason, you can't seem to grasp this.
Lack of belief in poorly evidenced claims is the reasonable position.

.Justify their beliefs? What do you mean... and why would a theist need to justify their beliefs on a forum?

Because unjustified beliefs are usually delusions, and epistemically useless, so they have no place in discussion or debate fora.

Not from what I have seem.
I've seen atheists run away when confronted with data. You don't hear from them.
Then they turn up in another thread, singing the same tune.

That doesn't sound like most atheists here. It sounds more like YOU, and some of the other RF apologists.
Again, what you provide is not useful evidence or logical arguments. We point this out, over and over, but you still don't grasp the concept or alter your arguments.

 

[Valjean]

Perhaps you should put yourself in the position of the police,
and consider what you are saying.

What are they supposed to do to convict him .. take a sample of his DNA?


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

We're not talking about enforcement, we're talking about the morality of the act.

 

[Aupmanyav]

If he does so against her will, .. without her permission.

Don't forget maintenance.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It seems to me that a violent husband is a direct attack on the institution of marriage.

Yeah, it is perfectly legal and Allah has put rules regarding that. Don't disfigure her to the extent that you may not like to sleep with her. Do not extend physical harm to such extent that she may be unable to cook for you, etc. Punish but leave her usable.

 

[Valjean]

I'll probably have to talk to all the atheists in the world. I'm not sure they all agree.

But they all agree on one thing, and that thing, therefore, is definitive of "atheist."

I didn't say that.
Some people do not believe in God. They are unbelievers, but they do not say there is no God.
There are differences. I don't believe labelling a person as atheist, simply because he doesn't believe in God, is accurate.
Where does agnostic fit then?

Both those who say there's no god and those who are simple unbelievers have one thing in common: lack of belief. It's this lack of belief that defines both as atheists.

Not believing in god is the essence of atheism. It's definitive, so labeling a simple non-believer an atheist is accurate.

An agnostic, as you're using it, is basically a weak atheist; a simple non-believer.

I don't agree. I don't hold that view.

Yet it's how the word's being used. You may hold the view that a "table" is a flying animal with feathers, but that doesn't make it so

I really am not on about challenging ones faith, but if you want to make it about that, that's up to you.

True -- you seem more about denying evidence and and facturing your own.

I'm more focussed on the fact that if one fails to listen, acknowledge, and consider a view, they are on a mission, and nothing else matters.
This is what I see in most atheists here.
Maybe they are blind to this fact, and certainly that's possible. The heart is treacherous.

We listen, but we don't hear objective, falsifiable evidence or logical arguments. When we point this out, you fail to grasp our points.
The heart? It's not we who are leading from the heart. We have cold, hard, reason and logic. A computer would come to the same conclusions.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No thanks, I don't generally get info from wiki. Anyway, to parse down itemization to beliefs vs knowledge is parsing things down too much in my opinion. To me, an agnostic thinks there MAY be a god but doesn't know for sure, and an atheist thinks there's not a god. Why would someone claim to believe something that their knowledge tells them isn't true? I would call that person "mentally ill."

Anyone, who doesn't think like me, is "mental ill". You are not anyone in regards to me, because you are "special". Fun game.

 

[Kathryn]

Anyone, who doesn't think like me, is "mental ill". You are not anyone in regards to me, because you are "special". Fun game.

Sorry, don't really know what you mean.

 

[Kathryn]

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.

Oh well of course I'll take your word over Merriam Webster and Pew Research!

 

[Kathryn]

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.

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

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.

I guess if that makes you feel better, go for it. I'll stick with Merriam Webster though myself.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry, don't really know what you mean.

Stop playing with the words "mentally ill". That could be a sign that someone is that. I can play that game too.

 

[Kathryn]

Stop playing with the words "mentally ill". That could be a sign that someone is that. I can play that game too.

Hey, I'm not mentally ill, but my brother is. And our mom was. Coincidence? I think not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Hey, I'm not mentally ill, but my brother is. And our mom was. Coincidence? I think not.

Well, from that doesn't follow that you are correct in your understanding of the world all the time.
And no, there are more to words than dictionaries.

 

[Kathryn]

Well, from that doesn't follow that you are correct in your understanding of the world all the time.
And no, there are more to words than dictionaries.

What? How does this relate to anything I've said?

You're strange. I'm going to say it's because of language and cultural differences, but I could be wrong.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I guess if that makes you feel better, go for it. I'll stick with Merriam Webster though myself.

atheism​

noun​

athe·ism ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm

1 a: a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods
b: a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

2 archaic : godlessness especially in conduct : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS

SOURCE: Definition of ATHEISM

agnostic​

noun​

ag·nos·tic ag-ˈnä-stik
əg-

1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable
broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something
political agnostics

SOURCE: Definition of AGNOSTIC

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What? How does this relate to anything I've said?

You're strange. I'm going to say it's because of language and cultural differences, but I could be wrong.

"Technically, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god, while an agnostic is someone who doesn't believe it's possible to know for sure that a god exists. It's possible to be both—an agnostic atheist doesn't believe but also doesn't think we can ever know whether a god exists."

What do you believe?

Psychological scientists explore the causes and effects of atheism.

www.apa.org

There is more to words that dictionaries and PEW research.

 

[Kathryn]

"Technically, an atheist is someone who doesn't believe in a god, while an agnostic is someone who doesn't believe it's possible to know for sure that a god exists. It's possible to be both—an agnostic atheist doesn't believe but also doesn't think we can ever know whether a god exists."

What do you believe?

Psychological scientists explore the causes and effects of atheism.

www.apa.org

There is more to words that dictionaries and PEW research.

THAN