Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[DNB]

First, humans are a species of animal. Second, there are many other animals that express emotions and feelings. Your obsolete, hardline Abrahamic beliefs are a poor source to understand what is true about the universe.

5 Animals With a Moral Compass

And I suggest that most animals live in synchronicity with nature that most humans do not. Animals have a direct contact with the planet while humans are disconnected with shoes and buildings. So I suggest they have a natural spiritual state of being thasn most humans. Don't confuse a head full of religious dogma as spirituality. That is a common mistake.


Because Christianity is its own worst enemy. It has failed to live up to the ideals many Chriustians claim of it. Evanglelical Christianity is largely a self-serving set of dogmas that end up causing a lot of harm on marginalized groups, and leave believers empty of any empathy.


False. Here is an examle of you as a Christian causiung harm to a marginalized group. This condemnation isn't true and is heavily biased. Why can't Christianity better inform believers how to be dignified and honest?

On top of that I gave examples of Christians being immoral, namely the Bapists who owned slaves and the Lutherans and Catholics who worked in concentration camps. Explain that.


What a horrendous expression of judgment, something Jesus taught his followers not to do. You have much work ahead of you.

Atheists are evil because they don't want to believe in God and abide by His precepts, despite the evidence being so axiomatic.

 

[DNB]

Temperament: Temperament refers to the genetic, inborn traits that control how your baby approaches the world. These traits can affect how your little one learns about his or her environment, and how they react to it.
What’s Your Baby’s Personality Type?

Actually, children are born with genetic traits which effect their early development. A "man's heart" is just a romantic way of describing the way we react to the physical chemical stimulation that drives our behavior. This is neither intangible nor unquantifiable but does often overpower our conscious intellectual thinking. Fear/anger that we are caused to feel by these chemicals released into our body cause us to react destructively instead of think through our problems. Love, compassion, joy are feelings we have caused by these chemicals. We can cause their release somewhat by the images/thoughts we hold in our mind but there is no mystery about this. You think about God, you think about love, this triggers the release of pleasurable chemicals into our system. Something in your environment cause you to be afraid and different chemicals causes you to feel and react to the situation differently.

Emotions come before the chemicals, obviously. A man's heart despises another because of the colour of their skin, then the chemicals came, obviously

 

[DNB]

Let’s get right to the point. In Wild Justice, we argue that animals feel empathy for each other, treat one another fairly, cooperate towards common goals, and help each other out of trouble. We argue, in short, that animals have morality. Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals by Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce, an excerpt



Not by my definition.

Animals are survivors, without a spiritual dimension that allows them to defy their intelligence - therefore, they are the epitome of efficiency and practicality. Much, unlike man, who clearly has an influence upon him that causes him to act in a manner which defies his intellect - even the beasts of the field act more intelligibly than him, despite having a fraction of man's capacity to reason

 

[Revoltingest]

Atheists are evil because they don't want to believe in God and abide by His precepts, despite the evidence being so axiomatic.

Should this evil atheist aspire to believe
so that I can be as moral as Vlad Putin?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Atheists are evil because they don't want to believe in God and abide by His precepts, despite the evidence being so axiomatic.

Demonstrating that you don't quite know what either "evidence" or "axiomatic" really mean.

 

[Nakosis]

Emotions come before the chemicals, obviously. A man's heart despises another because of the colour of their skin, then the chemicals came, obviously

The situation or internal thoughts happen before the emotions. You see someone with whatever color skin which causes the release of the chemicals which cause you to feel the emotion of hate.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is it irrational to believe in God? irrational: not logical or reasonable

It is irrational to conclude that gods exist, since reason doesn't support the claim. No sound argument - evidenced or pure reason - concludes, "therefore God." So, to hold that belief, one must turn to faith. I understand that the faithful have been taught that faith is a virtue, but that's a self-serving position for an institution that depends on it for its existence to take. In critical thinking, a leap of faith is logical fallacy (non sequitur). It's simply an error in reasoning.

Who are you to decide what is reasonable? You can say that it is not reasonable for YOU to believe in God.

One could argue that if a person has been raised in religion and he finds it a comfort or its absence frightening, that it is reasonable (rational) to hold onto that belief. Better, however, is to mature without those beliefs and be comfortable living in what appears to be a godless, naturalistic universe. It's kind of like smoking. A smoker has a dysphoric experience when he begins to want the next cigarette, and one could say that it is rational to relieve that suffering with a cigarette. But it's better to be a nonsmoker and have no such need.

The origin of morals comes from the good nature of a supreme being, and no atheist can deny or give a reasonable logical answer to that.

This is incorrect. Humanists have a different understanding of where moral values come from and what constitutes moral behavior.

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

Morality is subjective, and hardly meaningless, but there is a great amount of interobserver agreement on what is moral among humanists. That notion of absolute morality coming from a book is counterproductive to humanity. Moral progress always comes from rational ethics, which is the application of reason to moral intuitions, which in humanism is utilitarian ethics, which is based in human wellbeing.

Atheists are immoral by definition

This, too, is why I am an antitheist and would like to see the institution teaching people such things to evaporate away. Why should I or any theist have to deal with this?

hate and bigotries. The latter dispositions defy rationale and pragmatism - they are evil and are derived from the inner most parts of man's heart - the intangible and unquantifiable - having absolutely nothing to do with intellect, again, such self-destructive behaviour defies man's intelligence.

Careful. You're describing your religion as manifest in the States. It's the chief source of homophobia and atheophobia there, two hateful, bigoted doctrines.

Atheists are evil because they don't want to believe in God and abide by His precepts, despite the evidence being so axiomatic.

More Abrahamic bigotry and cartoonish depictions. We don't need this in the world.

Animals are survivors, without a spiritual dimension that allows them to defy their intelligence - therefore, they are the epitome of efficiency and practicality. Much, unlike man, who clearly has an influence upon him that causes him to act in a manner which defies his intellect - even the beasts of the field act more intelligibly than him, despite having a fraction of man's capacity to reason

You've misunderstood. When man commits immoral acts, it's his animal nature that motivates him. The beasts don't have man's symbolic reasoning capacity, which often directs him to defy those animal urges. When he fails, that is a moral lapse. He sees something he wants, knows it's wrong to take it, but steals it anyway, and we call it immoral. The beast has no such conflicting message coming from higher cortical centers, and when it takes what it wants, it doesn't feel shame or guilt, and we don't call it immoral. The influence to which you refer *IS* his intellect (and conscience), not defiance of it. It's his intellect and conscience in defiance of his animal nature, which you praise as intellect.

Incidentally, intellect is not the same as intelligence, which the beasts also possess as they go about learning and solving problems. Intellect is human only, and involves symbolic thought (language and linguistic reasoning, mathematics).

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

people who are truly compassionate have expanded consciousness, they are not immobilized and blinded by self interest; their perceptions stuck in this 1 dimensional world. a selfish egocentric mind isn't broad enough to include God it's too preoccupied with self aggrandisement

We don't need gods or religion to be compassionate, nor for anything else. And humanists aren't going to be taking moral instruction from people who get theirs out of a book and talk about things like absolute moral values or demean moral relativism. It's a failure to understand what moral evolution is and the relationship of moral values to time and place. The existing holy books are too old to be relevant today.

Their obsession with sexual behavior is mostly rooted in a need to make lots of people in a time when people didn't live as long, were often stillborn or saw mothers dying in childbirth, men killed in war, and infection and poisonings commoner. So, anything that limits human fecundity is seen as immoral except in two places, both exceptions being related to money. Priests and nuns are not to have children, since having families would be an expense for the church and a lead to divided loyalties and priests having heirs other than the church. And extramarital sex is deemed immoral also because of pedigree and inheritance issues. But every other rule is intended to keep all fertile wombs busy - pressure to marry at puberty, admonitions about withholding sex, divorce, homosexuality, and contraceptive practices (rhythm method, pills, IUDs, abortion).

Those rules are counterproductive in an overpopulated world, but they are ossified in an ancient holy book, they are called absolute and unchanging morals, so the church can't adapt. That's why I say that it is inappropriate to take life advice from an ancient book. That's why I say that moral values are relative and evolve.

Atheism is not the knowledge that God does not exist, but only the wish that He did not, in order that one could sin without reproach or exalt one's ego without challenge.

You have a cartoonish understanding of the humanist's inner life and what motivates him. Agnostic atheism is the only rational position to take on gods until somebody can demonstrate that they are not fictions of imagination. Sin is a religious fiction as well.

Devoid of purity, good conduct and truth, and having no faith in God or a higher Reality beyond this visible world, man degenerates into a two-legged beast of ugly character and cruel actions, and sinks into darkness.

More of your cartoon. Your priests taught you that, and you have imbibed it uncritically. I happen to be not just an atheist and humanist, but also an antitheist - one who sees organized, politicized religion as a net social harm - in large part because it spreads this kind of hateful, divisive propaganda in service of its own propagation. What do any of us need with an institution that does that? And it does the same with LGBTQ+, spreading its hateful bigotries to anybody that will accept them.

atheist secular scientism is a religion because it furnishes a moral code stating that there no is no right and wrong

And more of your cartoon. Atheism offers no advice and has no moral code.

Your use of the word religion is telling. You seem to understand that that is a derogatory term. You could have said worldview or philosophy, which are neutral terms, but you chose religion. I like this comment from Amanda Marcotte:

"I always flinch in embarrassment for the believer who trots out, 'Atheism is just another kind of faith,' because it's a tacit admission that taking claims on faith is a silly thing to do. When you've succumbed to arguing that the opposition is just as misguided as you are, it's time to take a step back and rethink your attitudes."

atheism is the worldview of people who have been cast out of God's presence.

Atheism is for people who can live without religion. What does your religion have to offer a person who has accepted the possibility that consciousness is extinguished at death, that there is nobody hearing or answering prayers?

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

You seem to know nothing about atheism, yet you pontificate about its shortcomings. Science, not atheism, gives us our understanding of how the universe works and how it came to be that way. Life has no purpose except for the living. Conscious agents have purpose, but the cosmos does not.

 

[F1fan]

Atheists are evil because they don't want to believe in God and abide by His precepts, despite the evidence being so axiomatic.

Is that right? If you were king and had ultimate power what would you do with atheists in your nation since they are evil?

 

[Polymath257]

are you unaware of the intrinsic and transcendent nature of morality?

Morality is about how to promote human well being. There is nothing 'transcendental' about it.

Does a racist hate another for practical reasons - is there any rationale in the world to support such logic?

Usually one based on tribalism and supported by religion, both of which promote immoral ways of thinking.

Why would one die, or risk their life for another outside of age or familial reasons?

Compassion, honor, ideals, duty, etc.

Why lend money and expect no return, if it wasn't for the sake of goodness and the spiritual joy derived from it?

Joy, yes, goodness, yes. Spiritual? No.

Atheists also lend money without the expectation of return because we wish to help others. Humans are a social species and so we have compassion and a sense of fairness like many other primates do.

No deity required.

 

[Polymath257]

Why do only humans have that nature?

We don't. Other animals show compassion and caring for others. Some even have a sense of fairness.

 

[sun rise]

We don't. Other animals show compassion and caring for others. Some even have a sense of fairness.

I found that finding about animals having a sense of fairness to be very interesting. ANIMALS’ SENSE OF FAIRNESS

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

​

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 most moral people I have met on the internet were satanists and Satan worshippers.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

people undergoing body modification surgeries and then committing suicide is degenerate. canadian medical assistance in suicide (MAID. maids clean up places) is totally insanely degenerate.


In most jurisdictions in the world with legalized euthanasia, doctors are explicitly prohibited, or strongly discouraged from raising assisted dying with a patient.


Canadian doctors encouraged to bring up medically assisted death before their patients do
A guidance document produced by Canada’s providers of medically assisted death states that doctors have a professional obligation to bring up MAID

How is informing a patient of available options immoral? Hiding options like pregnancy centers do is immoral.

 

[Revoltingest]

The most moral people I have met on the internet were satanists and Satan worshippers.

Was I the one who brought down
the atheists' average? Dang!

 

[muhammad_isa]

I understand that the faithful have been taught that faith is a virtue..

The proof of the podding is in the eating..

One could argue that if a person has been raised in religion and he finds it a comfort or its absence frightening, that it is reasonable (rational) to hold onto that belief..

I wouldn't make such a conclusion.
What sort of reason is that, to claim something is true?
..just because you find comfort in it?

Better, however, is to mature without those beliefs and be comfortable living in what appears to be a godless, naturalistic universe..

That is what you perceive..
I perceive differently.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

evolution teaches us that extinction, survival of the fittest (opportunistic murder and other forms of brutality) and genocide are simply nature taking its course

Religion just swaps out nature with God.

 

[chris baron]

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

 

[Nakosis]

The most moral people I have met on the internet were satanists and Satan worshippers.

But that is still a religion right?
Do you think they are the most moral that you met because of their religion?

 

[sun rise]

This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.

Since you are quoting the Bible, you should make that explicit.