The Paradox of Atheism and God

[Heyo]

However, at least in America, atheists tend to habe a better sense of morality, with some research even showing they have more tolerance and respect for other groups than their own.

Never questioned that. I wouldn't even deny that atheism might be an indirect cause, just that there is a doctrinal requirement.

(I have a suspicion (but no data) that the seeming moral superiority of atheists will vanish in a society where atheists aren't a minority that is under constant scrutiny.)

 

[Revoltingest]

(I have a suspicion (but no data) that the seeming moral superiority of atheists will vanish in a society where atheists aren't a minority that is under constant scrutiny.)

It's possible that atheists could be inherently more moral,
even if the majority. We observe that believers aren't
restrained from doing immoral things. Also that believers
are inspired (even commanded by scripture) to do immoral
things. But atheists have no religion to cause immoral acts.
So we have only the fundamental human tendency to be
immoral....unlike believers whose wicked tendencies are
actually enhanced by belief, eg, Manifest Destiny, crusades,
honor killings, punishing the infidel, slavery, castes.

 

[Heyo]

It's possible that atheists could be inherently more moral,
even if the majority. We observe that believers aren't
restrained from doing immoral things. Also that believers
are inspired (even commanded by scripture) to do immoral
things. But atheists have no religion to cause immoral acts.
So we have only the fundamental human tendency to be
immoral....unlike believers whose wicked tendencies are
actually enhanced by belief, eg, Manifest Destiny, crusades,
honor killings, punishing the infidel, slavery, castes.

That would be an interesting question to research and
it would be a very controversial question to debate. I
can see arguments for both sides. The main
difficulty would be to eliminate factors that are related
to atheism but not inherent. E.g.: it takes education
and critical thinking to arrive at atheism from
indoctrinated belief - and both are factors for moral
behaviour so they would have to be eliminated in an
analysis.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

That would be an interesting question to research and
it would be a very controversial question to debate. I
can see arguments for both sides. The main
difficulty would be to eliminate factors that are related
to atheism but not inherent. E.g.: it takes education
and critical thinking to arrive at atheism from
indoctrinated belief - and both are factors for moral
behaviour so they would have to be eliminated in an
analysis.

One thing I fear happening, is it starting out being a theists vs. atheists comparison, which would be only a moderately complex debate, but then would somehow get into agnostics vs. atheists, and when taken in a full public setting, could create a really explosive, confusing and erratic thread - in my opinion.

 

[PureX]

It's possible that atheists could be inherently more moral,
even if the majority. We observe that believers aren't
restrained from doing immoral things. Also that believers
are inspired (even commanded by scripture) to do immoral
things. But atheists have no religion to cause immoral acts.
So we have only the fundamental human tendency to be
immoral....unlike believers whose wicked tendencies are
actually enhanced by belief, eg, Manifest Destiny, crusades,
honor killings, punishing the infidel, slavery, castes.

Religions clearly admonish moral behavior, as a general rule, and yet religious people are not by and large any more moral than anyone else is. So clearly, the admonishments of religion are not having much of an effect. That being the case, religion is not going to have much of an effect if it admonishes immoral behavior, either.

The fact is that for a lot of people, religion is a reflection of who they already are, morally. It's not changing or controlling who they are, morally. This isn't true of everyone, though. There are some people that use their religion to try and become morally improved. And there are some people that use their religion to excuse bring morally deplorable.

That last group, of course, are the people that the anti-religious atheists here focus on almost exclusively.

 

[Revoltingest]

That would be an interesting question to research and
it would be a very controversial question to debate. I
can see arguments for both sides. The main
difficulty would be to eliminate factors that are related
to atheism but not inherent. E.g.: it takes education
and critical thinking to arrive at atheism from
indoctrinated belief - and both are factors for moral
behaviour so they would have to be eliminated in an
analysis.

Here's your PhD research topic.

 

[Revoltingest]

Religions clearly admonish moral behavior, as a general rule, and yet religious people are not by and large any more moral than anyone else is. So clearly, the admonishments of religion are not having much of an effect. That being the case, religion is not going to have much of an effect if it admonishes immoral behavior, either.

The fact is that for a lot of people, religion is a reflection of who they already are, morally. It's not changing or controlling who they are, morally. This isn't true of everyone, though. There are some people that use their religion to try and become morally improved. And there are some people that use their religion to excuse bring morally deplorable.

That last group, of course, are the people that the anti-religious atheists here focus on almost exclusively.

You left out an important group...
Believers who go against their better nature to perpetrate
evil because religions inspires / commands it.

 

[PureX]

You left out an important group...
Believers who go against their better nature to perpetrate
evil because religions inspires / commands it.

No one actually does that, though, except in the imaginations of people that despise religion.

What actually happens is that people within a religious culture that by their nature want to commit heinous immoral acts will twist their interpretation and understanding of their religion to make it support their desired behavior. And the way we know this is because all the other people engagining in that same religion are not interpreting it that way, or behaving that way as a result. If religion were the cause, it would effect everyone engaged in it, equally. But it doesn't.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

No one actually does that, though, except in the imaginations of people that despise religion.

What actually happens is that people within a religious culture that by their nature want to commit heinous immoral acts will twist their interpretation and understanding of their religion to make it support their desired behavior. And the way we know this is because all the other people engagining in that same religion are not interpreting it that way, or behaving that way as a result. If religion were the cause, it would effect everyone engaged in it, equally. But it doesn't.

I'd say the real reason for that is because there's a war going on between one's internal morality, and what the holy books might imply (at times), and that one's internal morality often wins some or most of those battles.

That's not to say the holy books contain nothing good either, though.

 

[ChristineM]

No one actually does that, though, except in the imaginations of people that despise religion.

Not true and the reason i left the church i loved so much.

 

[dybmh]

The stories in the OT are not generally evidenced, a few places are and these are accepted as having existed based on the evidence.

However god magic is not evidence but please feel free to provide the falsifiable evidence you claim

Umm... my claim is directly above the words you typed. God-magic is not in the claim. Here:



And here it is zoomed in:



Regarding falsifiable evidence of the claim: that's easy. Although it does take a quite a few words and a few paragraphs to get there.

​

Premise: Online-atheist makes a claim about god in the OT commanding others to murder because of the story in 2 Chron 20. A religious adherent who studies the bible brings verses which undeniably show that the deaths in the story were self-defense NOT murder.​

​

Case 1: The online-atheist reads the verse; checks their own trusted translation; realizes they were wrong, assimilates this into their knowledge, and adjusts their conclusion. They no longer include 2 Chron 20 when making claims about god in the OT commanding murder. This would falsify the claim.​

​

Case 2: The online-atheist ignores the verse, doesn't read it, and denies the evidence that **they were wrong about the details of the story**. This confirms the claim is true. The online-atheist is NOT better at accepting evidence as you said. In fact, they deny what does not fit into their own mythology just like any other religious person.​

That's the falsifiable test. Here's a link to the thread where you did precisely what is described in the premise and case 2.

https://www.religiousforums.com/goto/post?id=8253721

Here is my post where the details of the story were given. You did not assimilate the information into your knowledge. The conclusion was not adjusted. This is not the first time this happened with you.

https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/is-satan-capable-of-good.271959/post-8254099

It happened in another thread recently. An online atheist got the story in Genesis 2-3 wrong. I showed them they were wrong. They ignored all of that, and said something about their preferred translation. I showed them their preferred tranlsation, which confirms they had the details of the story wrong according to their own preferred translation. That was ignored. I brought them a list of reasons they were wrong, including their preferred translation. None of that evidence was accepted. It wasn't denied explicitly. But your claim is: atheists are better at accepting evidence. That's evidentally false.

When it comes to being corrected on details of the story in the OT, online-atheists do NOT accept evidence. They deny whatever does not match their mythology just like any other religious person. And since most online-atheists are ex-christians, this makes sense. Old habits die hard.

 

[Revoltingest]

No one actually does that, though....

Oh ye of strong belief
and empty claims.

 

[Revoltingest]

When it comes to being corrected on details of the story in the OT, online-atheists do NOT accept evidence.

That's a pretty broad statement.
All of them?
Is it also possible that millennia old poetic language
that's translated & re-translated & then interpreted
by people of different languages & cultures could
merely differ on meaning used as evidence?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's called a philosophical dialogue. Like a formal debate. Neither participant has to "believe" anything. They simply choose a position to propose and defend. In fact, it's far better if the participants are not "believers", as they will be more able to learn from the other's argument.

If you have a debate where either side doesn't actually believe the position they defend, then that side is fundamentally being dishonest.
Sure, it can be a good exercise to become proficient in debating techniques. But to do it "for real" only makes you a liar and dishonest.

It is not a debate worth having. I prefer honest conversations where people actually mean and believe what they say.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

That's a pretty broad statement.
All of them?
Is it also possible that millennia old poetic language
that's translated & re-translated & then interpreted
by people of different languages & cultures could
differ on meaning used as evidence?

My guess is that when @dybmh said "online-atheists" (whatever that means), he might have perhaps meant a specific caricature.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Religions clearly admonish moral behavior, as a general rule

The problem is that most of the time, those religions themselves also "decide" and / or "declare" what moral behavior is.

The religion of Mayans for example, considered it to be a moral duty to sacrifice virgin girls to appease the gods.

The problem is that the "morality" of religions that do such isn't moral at all.
Proper morality is argued, reasoned ...

To use Prof Dawkins' joke: I want a morality that is intelligently designed instead of merely "commanded" by a perceived authority.

Why is X wrong?
"because god says so!"
That is not morality. That is psychopathy.

 

[dybmh]

My guess is that when @dybmh said "online-atheists" (whatever that means), he might have perhaps meant a specific caricature.

No. It's those atheists who come to online venues to debate with religious people. Atheists who do not do this are, in general, apatheists who do not care 1 iota about what is in the OT.

Online-atheism has its own mythology. One of those myths is, the online-atheist is more knowledgable about the OT than the religious adherents who study it. Just like any other religious person, they deny evidence which undermines the mythology.

And, it's perfectly fair to make this assertion about online-atheists. If they can make the assertion that religious adherents don't know their own mythology, then, I can make the same assertion that online-atheists dont know their own mythology.

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

No. It's those atheists who come to online venues to debate with religious people. Atheists who do not do this are, in general, apatheists who do not care 1 iota about what is in the OT.

Online-atheism has its own mythology. One of those myths is, the online-atheist is more knowledgable about the OT than the religious adherents who study it. Just like any other religious person, they deny evidence which undermines the mythology.

Your assessment sounds overall convoluted, in my opinion.

 

[Revoltingest]

My guess is that when @dybmh said "online-atheists" (whatever that means), he might have perhaps meant a specific caricature.

Gotta be cautious about making those.

 

[dybmh]

That's a pretty broad statement.
All of them?
Is it also possible that millennia old poetic language
that's translated & re-translated & then interpreted
by people of different languages & cultures could
merely differ on meaning used as evidence?

If you scroll back, and read the original claim, it was a universal statement about all atheists. I am replying to that. If they wish to qualify their claim, then I will qualify my claim. Otherwise I think it's safe to conclude per common parlance that they were speaking generally about most atheists. I am also talking about most online-atheists.