Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[Father Heathen]

"goofy"? that's not very polite. why the hostility and personal attacks, whatever happened to polite conversation?

You set the tone with your vilification and false witness.

 

[sun rise]

"But Prof Stringer believes" ... So he is merely speculating?


MORE forgeries perpetrated by evolutionists

Earnst Haeckels evolution embryo fraud: He basically faked his diagrams to show how embryos apparently went through all the stages of evolution in utero.
Piltdown man, deliberate evolution fraud

Nebraska Man. False evolutionary model made from a pigs tooth.

Java Man is False! it was 'discovered' by a student of Earnst HAeckel called Dubois, who was exposed in the 1920s...

Neanderthal man, another deliberate fraud by evolutionist scientists.

All of this whole 'neanderthal man' rubbish was based on just ONE skull that was found by a Professor Reiner Protsch, who deliberately falsified the age of his findings (he's a 'carbon dating expert') and was forced to retire in disgrace in 2005.

But the Neanderthal skull was not the only forgery. Protsch also had paraded “Binshof-Speyer” woman before the public, stating that she was 21,300 years old. Yet the new Oxford date puts this woman living at 1,300 B.C. Protsch also claimed that “Paderborn-Sande Man” walked the Earth 27,400 B.C., and yet the corrected figure reveals that he died only a couple hundred years ago—in A.D. 1750!

Lucy the hominid. basically this 'missing link' is just an ape. Plain and simple.

Orce Man. Again, the level of intelligence being displayed by these scientists is abysmal. They basically mistook a 4 month old DONKEY skeleton for a 'missing link' for mankind.

A three-day scientific symposium had been scheduled, so that the experts could examine and discuss the bone which had already been named, Orce Man, for the southern Spanish town near which it had been found. The French caused problems, however. Scientists from Paris showed that Orce Man was a skull fragment of a four-month-old donkey. The embarrassed Spanish officials sent out 500 letters canceling the symposium.

You made a strong case against Islam because to me what you state is FAR from the truth.

 

[chris baron]

Then why do atheists only make up 0.1% of the U.S. prison population? Why are the vast majority of hate groups and terrorist organizations religious? Why is it mostly religious people who try to deny rights, freedom, and equality for others? Why do so many religious institutions pursue wealth, commit fraud, sexually abuse children, attempt to cover it up, etc?

What you're doing is bearing false witness, which is a sin. Drop to your knees, boy, and pray for forgiveness.

atheist secular scientism is a religion because it furnishes a moral code stating that there no is no right and wrong and there are no moral absolutes, that anything goes and that the golden rule is that he who has the most gold makes up the rules. atheist secular scientism furnishes cosmological explanations for the origins and the purpose of life, it has its orthodoxy that may not be challenged this being heliocentrism and evolution and it has its priest, prophets and sages like einstein, tesla, neils tyson, richard dawkins and carl sagan etc, also secular scientism furnishes ideas about the perfect messianic future that the scientific class of anointed wise men will be bring us with more advanced technology and depopulation schemes.
secular atheistic scientism is definitely a religion and not some manifestation of more highly "evolved" and "enlightened" minds.

 

[Father Heathen]

"goofy"? that's not very polite. why the hostility and personal attacks, whatever happened to polite conversation?

If you had genuine interest in polite conversation, you wouldn't have engaged in vilifying and bearing false witness.

 

[DNB]

​

I'd suppose this depends on what you view as moral behavior but I thought I'd ask the question to see what people would say.

It is easy to justify one's personal morals but I'd like you to consider the world at large. Is the world becoming more moral or less moral?

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

Yes, of course - for morality is just a subjective, and meaningless, notion without an absolute truth of righteousness, namely God.
Atheists try and rationalize the innate need for morality, but every time that they make an attempt to do so, they fail to recognize that it is the spiritual nature within them that, first, protests injustices, and two, desires equity and rectitude. No other creature on the planet besides man, repulses before an atrocious or inhumane act.
So, why are even the atheists capable of acting in such a wholesome manner - because they are created in God's image, knowing right from wrong. The atheist will try and explain his disposition in pragmatic terms, but their theories are shallow and non-factual - morality is not a placebo that man created in order to stop humans from annihilating each other.
Countless dissertations, treatises, polemics, books scholarships, academia, etc, have been dedicated to the philosophy of morality. Extremely wise and profound literature exists all through the ages elaborating on the intrinsically evil and subversive nature of sin, and of the edifying, sound and inconsequential nature of holiness, altruism and love (even towards one enemy).

Morality is much more innate than an atheist will ever realize, and just their oblivion to this fact indicts them as being typically immoral. And, even more so, as they deny the author of all goodness and love.

 

[idea]

Yes, of course - for morality is just a subjective, and meaningless, notion without an absolute truth of righteousness, namely God.
.

Which God? Whose interpretation of God? Religious beliefs are subjective, meaningless, no one agrees on anything.

The closest there is to truth comes through scientific method, which has produced medicine, energy, transportation and housing, improved agriculture, computers/internet. Scientific advances have created stronger societies, longer lives, higher quality of life for all.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

No, not caring about others leads to immoral behaviour.

And I'm afraid that (in my opinion) far too many religious people care more about the deity they believe in than the people around them, and this can and does lead to some deeply immoral behaviours. I don't believe I need to supply a representative list of such behaviours -- they're well-enough known.

Let us now give a real-world, immediate example of one of those immoral behaviours. The Taliban -- for 100% (as they claim) religious reasons -- have just banned women the right to work in NGOs, many of which provide succor and care to people in need. The consequence? Easy, more people will suffer and die. This, unfortunately, is not a consideration for the these religious morons. It is also evil, very, very evil. And it is caused not by lack of belief, but too much belief in too much utter nonsense.

 

[DNB]

Which God? Whose interpretation of God? Religious beliefs are subjective, meaningless, no one agrees on anything.

The closest there is to truth comes through scientific method, which has produced medicine, energy, transportation and housing, improved agriculture, computers/internet. Scientific advances have created stronger societies, longer lives, higher quality of life for all.

My stars, and you claim to be spiritual?!?!
You didn't mention one spiritual insight in your rebuttal above?

 

[F1fan]

Yes, of course - for morality is just a subjective, and meaningless, notion without an absolute truth of righteousness, namely God.

there are natural moral absolutes that have been part of the evolution of social animals. Social animals will cooperate with their group and kill prey, and then share it with others. We see compassion in many animals, and some feel depression and grief with loss.

Atheists try and rationalize the innate need for morality, but every time that they make an attempt to do so, they fail to recognize that it is the spiritual nature within them that, first, protests injustices, and two, desires equity and rectitude. No other creature on the planet besides man, repulses before an atrocious or inhumane act.
So, why are even the atheists capable of acting in such a wholesome manner - because they are created in God's image, knowing right from wrong.

False. First there are no Gods known to exist. Second, there is no reason to use the Bible as a means to explain human and animal behavior. The reason why atheists will be moral and compassionate is the same reason why many theists are immoral and sociopaths: evolution. As noted social animals, like humans, benefit by being cooperative and empathetic. Early humans would benefit from this. Of course these behaviors would be included in religious lore and rules, as they helped the community survive.

The atheist will try and explain his disposition in pragmatic terms, but their theories are shallow and non-factual - morality is not a placebo that man created in order to stop humans from annihilating each other.

None of this is true. This is just an insult that aims to bolster your bad faith. The irony is that here you are trying to claim atheists are bad and immoral, and here you lie about them to make you you as a religious person seem better. That backfired. This is an example why religion can misinform people with false beliefs and we can't trust their moral judgment. Remember it was Baptists who made up the majority of the Confederate South and their fight to hold slaves. It was Lutherans and Catholics who worked in Nazi concentration camps to kill some 6 million Jews. It was Muslims who flew planes into the World Trade Centers and pentagon. Tell us more about how God leads to moral superiority.

My stars, and you claim to be spiritual?!?!
You didn't mention one spiritual insight in your rebuttal above?

Oh the irony.

 

[Ella S.]

Honestly, I think the concept of "morality" is so contentious and subject to so many conflicting perspectives that moral language has ceased all communicative utility. In my opinion:

If you're a Deontologist, don't call something immoral, say it violates the categorical imperative.

If you're a Utilitarian, don't call something unethical, say it causes more pain than happiness.

If you adhere to divine commands, don't say something is wicked, say it violates whatever particular divine command.

If you're a conformist, don't say something is bad, say that it's a social taboo.

It makes communication clearer.

 

[Viker]

atheist secular scientism is a religion because it furnishes a moral code stating that there no is no right and wrong and there are no moral absolutes, that anything goes and that the golden rule is that he who has the most gold makes up the rules. atheist secular scientism furnishes cosmological explanations for the origins and the purpose of life, it has its orthodoxy that may not be challenged this being heliocentrism and evolution and it has its priest, prophets and sages like einstein, tesla, neils tyson, richard dawkins and carl sagan etc, also secular scientism furnishes ideas about the perfect messianic future that the scientific class of anointed wise men will be bring us with more advanced technology and depopulation schemes.
secular atheistic scientism is definitely a religion and not some manifestation of more highly "evolved" and "enlightened" minds.

Great straw man you made there!

 

[Ella S.]

It’s an empirical fact: San Francisco is a crappier place to live these days. Sightings of human feces on the sidewalks are now a regular occurrence; over the past 10 years, complaints about human waste have increased 400%

San Francisco being "crappier" isn't a fact. It's an evaluative opinion. It might be based on how you feel about certain facts, but it is not a fact in and of itself.

 

[chris baron]

atheism is the worldview of people who have been cast out of God's presence. being alive we strive to account for existence but being denied divine light it is as if we are blinded and to aggravate matters we develop an aversion to that which is truly holy and sanctified which further seals us in the darkness.

so, groping in the dark, this is how ungodliness and defiance leads humanity to generate materialistic explanations for existence which is what predominates in the world; this being the state of humanity fallen out of God's presence. this state of being causes a great deal of confusion and frustration which leads to violence, injustice and oppression on earth.

don't worry though God has power over all things and this world exists only for a limited fixed term as do we all and so on some future day God will enforce the law and justice will be done and everything that seems crooked will be made straight.

 

[chris baron]

San Francisco being "crappier" isn't a fact. It's an evaluative opinion. It might be based on how you feel about certain facts, but it is not a fact in and of itself.

people are defecating on the sidewalk, "crappy" is not used figuratively here.

 

[Ella S.]

people are defecating on the sidewalk, "crappy" is not used figuratively here.

If you're going by how much literal fecal matter is in a city, population size is a more useful statistic. You were not being literal.

 

[wellwisher]

​

I'd suppose this depends on what you view as moral behavior but I thought I'd ask the question to see what people would say.

It is easy to justify one's personal morals but I'd like you to consider the world at large. Is the world becoming more moral or less moral?

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

The answer is yes. Atheism defines morality as relative to one's own whims. This allows one to pick and choose, usually for you own self interest, which can have consequences beyond yourself.

When I was young, I was brought up as a Catholic. After becoming Confirmed as a teen of 13, I was considered and spiritual adult by the Church, and decided to become something closer to Atheism. This was partly because of my interests in science and math. The other reason was so I could justify all the party behavior of my hippy generation as a young teen. I did not wish to be a hypocrite, or feel guilty, so I went to the other team, where such behavior was more the norm.

The amount of money spent on social mops has increased since the rise of Atheist relative morality; alternate lifestyles. Not all paths have the same happy ending in terms of social efficiency. Relative morality is subjective, and does not objectify well, if we compare overall rise in social costs.

Divorce for example, which became more socially acceptable at that time, has had a far ranging social impact on children. The ego of the adults is not thinking of their young teammates, but its own needs due to relative morality.

Divorce then doubled the living expenses for the same people; need two places to live, which through the law of supply and demand, raised the price of housing for all including married couples. This added money stress to all. Which then caused further suffering for many women and children; women needed to work or if they did not they needs social mops; public assistance. These mops, to be efficient in cities, crowded people into tenements, which led to pockets of drugs and crime, which are also driven by relative morality.

Nobody likes it when the police practice relative morality, with the criminal scum bags. The police are supposed to stay moral or else things go to hell via the relative morality of criminals. Then you need a mop for the mop. This sorry state of affairs is not due to religion. Religion is what has put the brakes on the social decline, but there is too weight in the cart, and the brakes only able to slow but not stop the decline.

The Twitter file release has shown how relative morality was used to steal an election; ends justices the means. Yet there is little outcry from those who benefit by the steal, since this was considered good on a relative scale. The moral have to hold them accountable to brake further decline.

 

[chris baron]

If you're going by how much literal fecal matter is in a city, population size is a more useful statistic. You were not being literal.

generally people use toilets, it's the norm, it's sanitary. when people start defecating on the streets you know things are going in the wrong direction

 

[Ella S.]

generally people use toilets, it's the norm, it's sanitary. when people start defecating on the streets you know things are going in the wrong direction

I wouldn't say that I know anything except that which is necessarily true or, if I'm feeling bold, that which is almost certainly true. (When I say "almost," I mean something that is at least 95% or more likely to be true, because then the percentage can round to 100%.)

I can't say that an evaluative opinion, like what is or isn't a "wrong direction," is true or false. Opinions are simply not truth-apt.

ETA: Unless you specify your relative criteria, such as "this is the wrong direction to the town we are trying to go to."

 

[chris baron]

I wouldn't say that I know anything except that which is necessarily true or, if I'm feeling bold, that which is almost certainly true. (When I say "almost," I mean something that is at least 95% or more likely to be true, because then the percentage can round to 100%.)

I can't say that an evaluative opinion, like what is or isn't a "wrong direction," is true or false. Opinions are simply not truth-apt.

ETA: Unless you specify your relative criteria, such as "this is the wrong direction to the town we are trying to go to."

you don't think public sanitation is necessarily good? what about sanitation in your own home? i don't think it's merely a matter of opinion that some things are offensive, smell bad and are unhealthy.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

atheist secular scientism is a religion because it furnishes a moral code stating that there no is no right and wrong and there are no moral absolutes, that anything goes and that the golden rule is that he who has the most gold makes up the rules. atheist secular scientism furnishes cosmological explanations for the origins and the purpose of life, it has its orthodoxy that may not be challenged this being heliocentrism and evolution and it has its priest, prophets and sages like einstein, tesla, neils tyson, richard dawkins and carl sagan etc, also secular scientism furnishes ideas about the perfect messianic future that the scientific class of anointed wise men will be bring us with more advanced technology and depopulation schemes.
secular atheistic scientism is definitely a religion and not some manifestation of more highly "evolved" and "enlightened" minds.

Great straw man you made there!

Strawman? No, those are mostly just blatant falsehoods.