Atheists and believers surprisingly share moral values, except for these 2 key differences

[Left Coast]

I'm simply discussing the information given by the study in the OP. And I think it's accurate. You just don't like the implications now that I've spelled them out.

No, what you've done is bring up something the study doesn't even address, and created a strawman of what people actually think based on that. The article doesn't address the role of intent in moral considerations at all, for theists or atheists. You just took this opportunity to take a potshot anyway.

Because they are toxic desires, both for the self, and for others. They are what drives we humans to harm each other. They are CAUSE, while the harm is the SYMPTOM. How can we ever hope to eliminate the symptoms if we are not willing to eliminate the cause of them?

I agree that our internal states lead to our actions. Again, I know zero atheists who would deny that. It's obvious. The question is whether society should hold people morally responsible for our thoughts and feelings, over which we largely have no control anyway. Thoughts and feelings emerge spontaneously in our minds all day every day, through no fault of our own. Even if we recognize that some of those thoughts and feelings are unhelpful, or cause us to behave in harmful ways to others, that doesn't mean we are morally culpable for the thoughts and feelings themselves. If you think intent is important in evaluating morality, this should be rather obvious to you. How can we be morally responsible for that over which we exercise no control?

To say otherwise is, again, to literally endorse the criminalization of thought. Which, for someone chiding me about my moral compass, is absolutely despicable and regressive.

 

[blü 2]

The difference pointed out in the OP is one of intent. The atheist ignores the morality one's intent, and focuses only on the ethical value of the result.

But the intent to which the OP's report points is the intent not to harm, not to cause damage.

Why is that not a superior intent to obedience to rules for rules' sake?

Overlooking the cause by focusing on the damage.

Please give me an example of "overlooking the cause".

I'm still in the dark about where this "morality" you speak of comes from, and how it derives its description as "morality". In the bible, for example, God does countless immoral things ─ orders aggressive war, massacres of populations, mass rapes, human sacrifice, supports slavery, women as property, and so on.

 

[robocop (actually)]

But the intent to which the OP's report points is the intent not to harm, not to cause damage.

Why is that not a superior intent to obedience to rules for rules' sake?
Please give me an example of "overlooking the cause".

I'm still in the dark about where this "morality" you speak of comes from, and how it derives its description as "morality". In the bible, for example, God does countless immoral things ─ orders aggressive war, massacres of populations, mass rapes, human sacrifice, supports slavery, women as property, and so on.

God is allowed to do what He wants. Jews had His commandments. Also the Torah has many very deep morals in it.

 

[Revoltingest]

"No problem" does not equate to being "moral". This is what you're not understanding.

"No problem" means that it's "not immoral".
That makes it moral.
Understand?

If I mean to do you harm, and for whatever reason I am not currently able to, this is still "a moral problem" in the theist's eyes. Morality, for most theists, is defined by intent, not by result. (Certainly this is true of most Christian theists.) The result is just the symptom, to the theist, the real moral problem (sin) is in the intent.

For the heathen, intent to do harm is wrong because
of the consequences of the act intended.

So that when atheists ignore this morality of intent, or otherwise disregard it, theists often perceive this as being morally (and willfully) defiant.

We don't ignore intent.
What we do ignore are intentions & acts that cause no harm.
For example, there is no bad consequence for praying to a
graven image. So to us it's moral....loopy, but moral.

 

[Mock Turtle]

"Progress" toward what? This is where the atheist appears quite ignorant and unsubstantiated, to the theist. They want the freedom to progress toward what, exactly, ... in a random, meaningless, pointless (Godless) existence? Individual self-fulfillment? That's just means more chaos and strife for the species; and to what ultimate end but our collective annihilation? Where does all that freedom and individuality ultimately end us up?

This is why theists so often see atheists as being rudderless, and pointless, in their constant negation of any sort of moral authority.

Progress? Well the obvious ones - of seeing homosexuals (and others) as being as 'normal' as the next, and not treated as pariahs, or even the basic one, of treating females as equals. Plenty having some religious belief fail in these two basic areas. And then we can proceed to the rights of children - not to be indoctrinated with the religious beliefs of their parents. Etc. I regard such as progress. And lots more - crime and appropriate punishments, for example. So more about equality and freedoms. We live in countries that have advanced in such areas - still much to do - but plenty don't.

And I think your random, meaningless, pointless existence just means freedom to be autonomous - from the fixed-in-stone moralities and beliefs of the various religions - and where the latter are often just a drag on any progress. Who might be waiting for the Second Coming rather than acting so as to improve this world?

 

[blü 2]

God is allowed to do what He wants.

That doesn't make what God does "moral".

Jews had His commandments.

As I've mentioned more than once ─ eg >here< ─ the Ten Commandments are deeply flawed as a moral system, in particular because they don't state moral principles like fairness, kindness, reciprocity, and so on.

Also the Torah has many very deep morals in it.

We'll have to cordially disagree about that. Do you suffer a witch to live? Keep company with menstruating women? Do you know the rules for selling your daughter? How about killing those men who shave their beards? Those children who razz their parents? Do those things seem moral to you?

They dang sure don't to me.

 

[PureX]

But we do have that internalized divine criteria, we just don't call it this way. We experience feeling guilty too. We have conscience too.

Because you want to DO better, or because you want to BE better? I think most theists sincerely want to BE better, not just DO better. Maybe that's a difference without much distinction. Or maybe it isn't. But that seems to be the difference being pointed out by the survey. And I think it's something to consider.

 

[robocop (actually)]

That doesn't make what God does "moral".

Actually it does. God can do what He wants.


As I've mentioned more than once ─ eg >here< ─ the Ten Commandments are deeply flawed as a moral system, in particular because they don't state moral principles like fairness, kindness, reciprocity, and so on.
We'll have to cordially disagree about that. Do you suffer a witch to live? Keep company with menstruating women? Do you know the rules for selling your daughter? How about killing those men who shave their beards? Those children who razz their parents? Do those things seem moral to you?

They dang sure don't to me.

Think of the first 8 chapters and all their symbolism. The law of moses was a type of Christ.

 

[robocop (actually)]

(God can do what He wants)

 

[PureX]

But the intent to which the OP's report points is the intent not to harm, not to cause damage.

Why is that not a superior intent to obedience to rules for rules' sake?
Please give me an example of "overlooking the cause".

Which is better; to treat homosexuals fairly for the sake of social peace and order, or to treat them fairly because you want to see them as equally deserving of our respect and consideration? The first for the positive external effect, the latter for the internal righteousness.

I'm still in the dark about where this "morality" you speak of comes from, and how it derives its description as "morality". In the bible, for example, God does countless immoral things ─ orders aggressive war, massacres of populations, mass rapes, human sacrifice, supports slavery, women as property, and so on.

The Bible does not define theism. Bible stories are just stories, intended to challenge the reader, to be contemplated, and hopefully to be learned from. It's only the religious extremists that take the Bible as blind dictation, and atheists that constantly view it that way as their straw-man.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

This is news to many, including Tomas Ståhl, an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Illinois at Chicago, who this week published a fascinating study in Plos One comparing the deepest beliefs of theists and atheists.

That just means you need to get out and meet some atheists.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Interesting that none of the atheists here cared to comment on their apparently amoral belief that 'the end justifies or condemns the means'.

"Atheists tend to decide whether or not something is moral by the consequences of a behavior, rather than the morality (intent) of the action that caused it."

Interesting that you assume it is immoral and automatically label it as such and think it is something atheists are charged with addressing it as it fits to your worldview.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Atheists tend to decide whether or not something is moral by the consequences of a behavior, rather than the morality of the action that caused it (for instance, the common atheist bent that sex acts are fine as long as they’re consensual and no one gets hurt)."

The statement needs some fine-tuning - 'if no one else is involved'. If my sex-escapades involve a wife and children, then I should not indulge in it, because it may have deleterious affect on these relationships. Social interactions (I would not say laws), for theists as well as atheists, are made in a way that they would have the least side-affects. These rules for interaction are created by society and not by some God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"I think most theists sincerely want to BE better, .."

Be better regarding what? Do better regarding what? Following what is written in the books, whether right or wrong? Like what Mock Turtle said hating homosexuals, treating females as cattle?

Which is better; to treat homosexuals fairly for the sake of social peace and order, or to treat them fairly because you want to see them as equally deserving of our respect and consideration?

Does your book give you these liberties?

 

[blü 2]

Think of the first 8 chapters and all their symbolism. The law of moses was a type of Christ.

The first eight chapters of Genesis? Or of what? If Genesis, the morality of the tales is particularly primitive, God putting down the humans in the Garden and at "Babel" for no higher morality than to protect [his] own position.

I can't see anything there that matches the quality of the idea of avoiding harm.

 

[blü 2]

Which is better; to treat homosexuals fairly for the sake of social peace and order, or to treat them fairly because you want to see them as equally deserving of our respect and consideration?

Clearly the latter. That view is shared by more churches these days than it used to be, but out there on the right wing of Christianity we see the drive for persecution and rejection ─ and all fully supported by the bible, in the NT Paul in particular. (I wouldn't be the first to wonder if Paul himself was gay.)

The first for the positive external effect, the latter for the internal righteousness.

I don't think of myself as righteous, I simply think respect and inclusion are common decency.

The Bible does not define theism. Bible stories are just stories, intended to challenge the reader, to be contemplated, and hopefully to be learned from.

That point of view can bring positive results (in my terms), although that's not guaranteed.

It's only the religious extremists that take the Bible as blind dictation, and atheists that constantly view it that way as their straw-man.

I don't see the bible as a straw man. I see it as a set of ancient documents written at different times and places by different people with different agendas; and from that point of view, I dislike the very longstanding Christian tradition of misrepresenting what it actually says. (I don't mind what people of good will believe, but I'd like to see the ancient documents properly understood and not misrepresented.)

However, I still don't see anything there morally superior to the morality based on avoiding harm to others, whether practiced by believers or non-believers. Treating people with decency, respect and inclusion ─ which surely entails avoiding harm ─ can't be far from Golden Rule country, one of the most natural and widespread views of moral humans.

 

[PureX]

Be better regarding what? Do better regarding what? Following what is written in the books, whether right or wrong? Like what Mock Turtle said hating homosexuals, treating females as cattle? Does your book give you these liberties?

Regarding what they believe to be the 'divine ideal'. And that does not usually include hating anyone. Just the opposite. But you have to focus on the worst extremes to put it into the most negative light.

 

[PureX]

Clearly the latter. That view is shared by more churches these days than it used to be, but out there on the right wing of Christianity we see the drive for persecution and rejection ─ and all fully supported by the bible, in the NT Paul in particular. (I wouldn't be the first to wonder if Paul himself was gay.)

Atheism, too, can be used to support the hatred and abuse of others. So can history, and science, and even nature, itself. So the fact that some people use religion to do so is in no way significant, from what I'm seeing.

I don't think of myself as righteous, I simply think respect and inclusion are common decency.

If there is no divine ideal to aspire to, why would common decency matter to an atheist beyond it's functional ease?

That point of view can bring positive results (in my terms), although that's not guaranteed.

I don't see the bible as a straw man. I see it as a set of ancient documents written at different times and places by different people with different agendas; and from that point of view, I dislike the very longstanding Christian tradition of misrepresenting what it actually says. (I don't mind what people of good will believe, but I'd like to see the ancient documents properly understood and not misrepresented.)

However, I still don't see anything there morally superior to the morality based on avoiding harm to others, whether practiced by believers or non-believers. Treating people with decency, respect and inclusion ─ which surely entails avoiding harm ─ can't be far from Golden Rule country, one of the most natural and widespread views of moral humans.

I think the difference that I'm seeing is that theists want to embody that ideal, not just practice it. Because they see it as being 'divine', as opposed to just being functionally logical.

 

[robocop (actually)]

The first eight chapters of Genesis? Or of what? If Genesis, the morality of the tales is particularly primitive, God putting down the humans in the Garden and at "Babel" for no higher morality than to protect [his] own position.

I can't see anything there that matches the quality of the idea of avoiding harm.

Tower of Babel could have been about wanting to take over God.

 

[PureX]

I agree that our internal states lead to our actions. Again, I know zero atheists who would deny that. It's obvious. The question is whether society should hold people morally responsible for our thoughts and feelings, over which we largely have no control anyway.

It's not a question of society holding people responsible for their thoughts and feelings. It's a question of God holding us accountable for them. And thereby demanding that we hold ourselves accountable for them; whether they end up actually affecting anyone else, or not.

To most theists, wanting to have sex with your neighbor's wife, or daughter, or anyone not your own wife, is considered a sin. And is therefor 'immoral'. So they seek ways of trying not to engage in the sin of inappropriate desires. To most atheists, this sound silly, and extreme, and they mock theists for it because they judge morality based on external behavior, not on internal desire. And because of this, some theists tend to see the atheist as rejecting the idea of divine morality so they can 'sin freely' in their hearts and minds, even if not in their actions. Few atheists understand this. How could they when they don't accept the reality of a 'divine ideal'. To them it's all just nature and personal choice.

Thoughts and feelings emerge spontaneously in our minds all day every day, through no fault of our own. Even if we recognize that some of those thoughts and feelings are unhelpful, or cause us to behave in harmful ways to others, that doesn't mean we are morally culpable for the thoughts and feelings themselves. If you think intent is important in evaluating morality, this should be rather obvious to you. How can we be morally responsible for that over which we exercise no control?

Because they are OUR thoughts and feelings. They are who and what WE ARE. And most theists believe it's their life's work to try and transcend these failings. That's mostly what their religions are all about: helping them transcend their "fallen" (animal) selves, into a more divine reflection-manifestation of their creator-God.

To say otherwise is, again, to literally endorse the criminalization of thought. Which, for someone chiding me about my moral compass, is absolutely despicable and regressive.

You're stuck in the "external" mode of thinking: that this about laws and governments and so on. It's not. Or it's not, usually. Theism is not an external form of government. Its an internal form of governance using "God" as one's divine ideal.