Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[idea]

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

Not religious, not affiliated, no- God kind of spiritual. Here are some non-religious definitions of spiritual:

spir·it·u·al
/ˈspirəCH(əw)əl/
Learn to pronounce

adjective

1. 1.
   relating to or affecting the human spirit as opposed to material or physical things.
   "I'm responsible for his spiritual welfare"

spir·it·ed
/ˈspirədəd/
Learn to pronounce

adjective

1. 1.
   full of energy, enthusiasm, and determination.
   "a spirited campaigner for women's rights"
   
   Similar:
   lively, vivacious, vibrant, full of life, vital, animated, high-spirited, sparkling, sprightly, energetic, active, vigorous,dynamic, dashing,enthusiastic, passionate, fiery, courageous
2. 2.
   having a specified character, outlook on life, or mood.
   "he was a warmhearted, generous-spirited man

I use the primary definition(s) of spirit/spiritual, anything that inspires, creates awe, the substance of life, what makes one wake up. For me, science, nature, the ability to invent/create/learn - that is my spiritual place.

Not religious:
Which God? Whose interpretation of God? Religious beliefs are subjective, meaningless, no one agrees on anything.

Spiritual:
The closest there is to truth comes through scientific inquiries. Hope, progress, improved lives, the reason we are able to communicate through computers from comfortable homes - science and engineering - incredibly #blessed# to live in this age of technology created by engineers and scientists.

 

[chris baron]

Strawman? No, those are mostly just blatant falsehoods.

you can ignore reality but you can't ignore the consequence of ignoring reality.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Is the world becoming more moral or less moral?

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

I don't know if the world (people) is more/less moral. Maybe only legal system is more advanced and this helps to stem greater manifestation of more barbaric behavior.

What's religion got to do with it?

We have a statement from Dostoyevsky's The Brothers Karamazov:

"'But what will become of men then?' I asked him, 'without God and immortal life? All things are permitted then, they can do what they like?'"
​

On the other hand we have Weinberg saying:

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion."
​

I don't agree with both of the above. Independent of the belief in God one can accept the categorical imperative - "an absolute, unconditional requirement that must be obeyed in all circumstances and is justified as an end in itself." (Wiki)

With or without religion morality can't work if there is no adherence to absolute universal unconditional moral laws. It doesn't matter if people twist them in the name of God or in the name of unlimited human freedom (humans as self-made gods - "Homo Deus").

Lewis wrote in The Abolition of Man:

This thing which I have called for convenience the Tao, and which others may call Natural Law or Traditional Morality or the First Principles of Practical Reason or the First Platitudes, is not one among a series of possible systems of value. It is the sole source of all value judgements. If it is rejected, all value is rejected. If any value is retained, it is retained. The effort to refute it and raise a new system of value in its place is self-contradictory /... /

In order to avoid misunderstanding, I may add that though I myself am a Theist, and indeed a Christian, I am not here attempting any indirect argument for Theism. I am simply arguing that if we are to have values at all we must accept the ultimate platitudes of Practical Reason as having absolute validity: that any attempt, having become sceptical about these, to reintroduce value lower down on some supposedly more 'realistic' basis, is doomed. Whether this position implies a supernatural origin for the Tao is a question I am not here concerned with.​

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

you can ignore reality but you can't ignore the consequence of ignoring reality.

I don't ignore reality -- I pay quite careful attention to it. What I don't do is assume that my fantasies are real, however much I'd like them to be.

 

[chris baron]

Strawman? No, those are mostly just blatant falsehoods.

doesn't atheism give us an account of how the world was created and what the purpose of life is?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

The police have to be accountable to the law. Whether the current laws are moral is debatable.
IMO, genetics, experience and culture lead to us having inherent moral feelings. Survival/evolution provide a genetic base for moral feeling which can be re-enforce and some conscious thinking goes into what we accept as moral. This gets reflected in our religious beliefs.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Actually, I agree it is innate but IMO it comes to us via genetics/evolution, culture and experience.
Our moral feelings are the result of an evolutionary process, our brains are more developed than other animals. Because of this we are going to have a more developed sense of right and wrong.

I just see evolution explaining our moral feelings/behavior without the need of a supernatural one.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Could you choose not to care about others?

It seems to me either we care or we don't. We generally don't decide to or not.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

doesn't atheism give us an account of how the world was created and what the purpose of life is?

I'll start with the second question first: how do you even know THAT life has a "purpose," let alone what that purpose might be? And once you've answered that, what, exactly, is the "purpose" of life?

To the first question, how the world was created. If you think a religious answer is going to be the correct one, how do you choose between these (or do you, like so many others, just assume that anybody who doesn't believe your fairy story are simply wrong?):

Creation from chaos

Enûma Eliš (Babylonian creation myth)
Greek cosmogonical myth
Jamshid
Korean creation narratives
Kumulipo
Leviathan (Book of Job 38–41 creation myth)
Mandé creation myth
Pangu
Raven in Creation
Serer creation myth
Sumerian creation myth
Tungusic creation myth
Unkulunkulu
Väinämöinen
Viracocha​

Earth diver

Ainu creation myth
Cherokee creation myth
Iroquois creation myth
Väinämöinen
Yoruba creation myth
Ob-Ugric creation myth​

Emergence

Hopi creation myth
Maya creation of the world myth
Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo)
Zuni creation myth​

Ex nihilo (out of nothing)

Debate between sheep and grain
Barton cylinder
Ancient Egyptian creation myths
Genesis creation myth (Judaism, Christianity and Islam)
Kabezya-Mpungu
Māori myths
Mbombo
Ngai
Popol Vuh​

World parent

Coatlicue
Enûma Eliš
Greek cosmogonical myth
Heliopolis creation myth
Hiranyagarbha creation myth
Kumulipo
Rangi and Papa
Völuspá​

Divine twins

Proto-Indo-European creation myths​

Regional

Africa

Ancient Egyptian creation myths
Fon creation myth
Kaang creation story (Bushmen)
Kintu myth (Bugandan)
Mandé creation myth
Mbombo (Kuba, Bakuba or Bushongo/Boshongo)
Ngai (Kamba, Kikuyu and Maasai )
Serer creation myth (cosmogony of the Serer people of Senegal, the Gambia and Mauritania)
Unkulunkulu (Zulu)
Yoruba creation​

Americas
Caribbean

Taíno creation myths​

Mesoamerica

Coatlicue (Aztec)
Maya creation of the world myth
Popol Vuh (Quiché Mayan)​

Mid North America

Anishinaabeg creation stories
Cherokee creation myth
Choctaw creation myth
Creek creation myth
Hopi creation myth
Kuterastan (Plains Apache)
Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo)
Raven in Creation (Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian)
Zuni creation myth​

South America

Legend of Trentren Vilu and Caicai Vilu (Chilean)
Viracocha (Incan)
Xolas (Chilean)​

Asia
Central Asia

Ergenekon
Mongolian creation myth
Tungusic creation myth​

East Asia

Ainu creation myth (Japan)
Au Co (Vietnamese)
Chinese creation myth
Japanese creation myth
Korean creation narratives
Nüwa (Chinese)
Pangu (Chinese)​

Indian subcontinent

Ajativada
Buddhist cosmology
Folk Hindu creation myth
Hiranyagarbha creation (India)
Jainism and non-creationism (India)
Meitei mythology (India)
Mimamsa eternalism (India)
Nyaya-Vaisheshika atomic theory (India)
Samkhya-yoga theory (India)
Sanamahi creation myth (India)​

Europe

Slavic creation myth
Theogony (Classical Greco-Roman)
Book of Invasions (Celtic, specifically Irish)
Väinämöinen (Finnish)
Völuspá (Norse)​

Middle East

Debate between sheep and grain
Enûma Eliš (Babylonian)
Genesis creation myth (Hebrew)
Islamic creation myth (Arabic)
Leviathan (Book of Job 38-41 creation myth)
Mashya and Mashyana (Persian)
Sumerian creation myth​

Pacific Islands/Oceanic

.​

Areop-Enap (Nauruan)
Kumulipo (Hawaiian)
Māori myths (Māori)
Rangi and Papa (Māori)
Sureq Galigo (Buginese)
​

(Above list courtesy of Wikipedia)

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Morality can be shaped real world cause and effect, innate empathy, reason, compassion, critical thinking, mutual benefit, rational self interest, etc. in fact such morality is far more useful and genuine than morality formed from arbitrary, irrational, and unsubstantiated superstition. Hans are social animals and civilians require morals and ethics. No hocus pocus required.
Also, belief in god (nothing wrong with that, btw) isn't a prerequisite for finding purpose and meaning.
What you've presented is a dishonest straw man fallacy.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Arbitrary, irrational, and unsubstantiated superstitions used to justify bigotry and intellectual dishonesty smell bad and are unhealthy.

 

[Father Heathen]

you can ignore reality but you can't ignore the consequence of ignoring reality.

Take your own advice and apply it you yourself. All you have done is made empty assertions. You have to rationalize and substantiate your argument before it deserves consideration.

I think you're just being salty and have a chip on your shoulder because you've conflated your ego with your faith.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

Could you offer any credible sources? Some verifiable quotes perhaps?

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,

So what you're saying is that you've absolutely no idea what the scientific method is or how it works. How embarrassing. On that note, you should probably toss all of your "evil" medicine and technology away.

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.

By forgoing critical thinking, you've allowed your wild, wacky imagination to cloud and addle your mind.

 

[Father Heathen]

doesn't atheism give us an account of how the world was created and what the purpose of life is?

No, atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a deity. Nothing more. It's no more a religion than not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Science is an objective methodology of analyzing the available evidence and drawing logical conclusions from that.

If you're a mature, rational adult, then you'll have to accept that ancient, primitive goat herders perhaps didn't speak on God's behalf and in fact were probably wrong about a great deal of things.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If you're a mature, rational adult, then you'll have to accept that ancient, primitive goat herders perhaps didn't speak on God's behalf and in fact were probably wrong about a great deal of things..

That's an extreme viewpoint.
It all pivots on the meaning of "rational".
Is it irrational to believe in God?

irrational: not logical or reasonable

Who are you to decide what is reasonable?
You can say that it is not reasonable for YOU to believe in God.
Claiming that everybody has to believe as you do, is no better than religious fundamentalists.

 

[Father Heathen]

That's an extreme viewpoint.
It all pivots on the meaning of "rational".
Is it irrational to believe in God?

irrational: not logical or reasonable

Who are you to decide what is reasonable?
You can say that it is not reasonable for YOU to believe in God.
Claiming that everybody has to believe as you do, is no better than religious fundamentalists.

I never said that, though. There is nothing wrong with believing in god. However, blindly believing in the presumptions made by self-appointed, self-serving middlemen, especially literal interpretations thereof, is.

 

[syo]

​

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?

Not a clue.

 

[HonestJoe]

doesn't atheism give us an account of how the world was created and what the purpose of life is?

No. Atheism just describes a lack of belief in any god or gods. It's the opposite of theism, the belief in a god or gods. Neither atheism not theism alone say anything about the origins or the world/universe or any purpose of life, and both can be elements in a large and diverse range of different ideas, beliefs and worldviews or indeed can be largely irrelevant to them.

 

[chris baron]

No. Atheism just describes a lack of belief in any god or gods. It's the opposite of theism, the belief in a god or gods. Neither atheism not theism alone say anything about the origins or the world/universe or any purpose of life, and both can be elements in a large and diverse range of different ideas, beliefs and worldviews or indeed can be largely irrelevant to them.

do you think life has a purpose? is there a reason why we exist?

 

[Polymath257]

doesn't atheism give us an account of how the world was created and what the purpose of life is?

No. Science deals with questions of origins, providing evidence still exists. And the purpose of life is a personal matter. Atheism says nothing about either.