Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[Valjean]

Fact based religion? What is that?

ROFL! Now you're getting it!

You said, Both those who say there's no god and those who are simple unbelievers have one thing in common: lack of belief. It's this lack of belief that defines both as atheists.
An unbelievers does not necessarily lack belief in God, or gods.

OK. I'll bite. Define "unbeliever."

So, there you have mutilated the term.

Sorry, not following.
1. How am I defining the term?
2. How are you defining it?

.Does this work?
the vast majority of U.S. atheists fit this description: 81% say they do not believe in God or a higher power or in a spiritual force of any kind. (Overall, 10% of American adults share this view.) At the same time, roughly one-in-five self-described atheists (18%) say they do believe in some kind of higher power.

Your example works. Most atheists don't believe in God or a higher power -- but it would be helpful to clarify what they meant by these terms, what the sample demographic was, and the context and wording of the questions.
Higher power like the strong nuclear force? I believe in that.

Your average Joe, asked about belief in a casual context, is not likely to give a precise or carefully thought out answer. A student in a philosophy class would likely give a more precise, considered, technical answer.

How do you define a "None"?
NONE MEANS NONE (NOT ATHEIST, AGNOSTIC, UNBELIEVER…)

The ‘nones’ are growing — and growing more diverse
40% of white nones are atheists or agnostics. It’s 35% of Asians and 28% of Hispanics. African American nones stand out in that only 14% say they are atheist or agnostic

the increasing numbers of people identifying in various nonreligious ways are lumped together and labeled in terms of what they lack instead of what they actually believe and practice.​

It's not a term I use.

 

[Trailblazer]

You are describing your religion’s morality if you can’t answer that it allows basic human rights to women.

That cuts both ways, because a man cannot refuse to have sex with his wife if she wants it either.

Why can't women refuse sex with her husband in Islam?

Answer (1 of 11): I think all these posts are trying to come from an intelligent place, but they all mostly sounded illiterate lol. First of all, this is a loaded question. You and everyone on this chain of answers are wrong to say that women can't refuse sex. Because that is untrue. Women and ...

www.quora.com

I do not agree with either of these Hadiths, since I believe a person has a right to decide if they want sex or not, whether they are a man or a woman.

 

[Valjean]

I pick the term appropriate to me. I mean, words have meanings. "Red" does not mean "green." Not where I come from, anyway.

Quite right. Red means communist, green means environmentalist, or inexperienced, or unripe, or envious.....
and I maintain that people who live in green houses shouldn't throw stones.

 

[Kathryn]

Quite right. Red means communist, green means environmentalist, or inexperienced, or unripe, or envious.....
and I maintain that people who live in green houses shouldn't throw stones.

"Red" does not mean "green." In any dictionary or in common usage that I know of.

 

[Kathryn]

"Red" does not mean "green." In any dictionary or in common usage that I know of.

LOL go ahead, look it up so I don't have to.

 

[Polymath257]

Is it?
Many people on this thread consider it rape if a woman says "no" to her husband.
They make it all about consent.

Yes, if a wife says no to sex and the husband proceeds to force her to have sex, that is violence.

She may have said yes in the past. She might even desire sex with her husband in the future.

But if he forced her to have sex against her will, that is rape and yes, it is also violence.

..so it becomes technical, and I was explaining the difference in legal terms.
It is not about consent, in a traditional society, it is about violence.

And to force someone to have sex when they deny consent *is* violent.

Can a man have sexual relations with his wife without using violence? Yes.
..even if she says "no".

And that is where we disagree. Violence does NOT require actual bodily harm. It can also be forcing oneself on another against their will.

As an analogy: suppose that I threaten you with a gun and steal your money. The gun was never fired. Was any violence done? I would say yes. But there was no actual bodily harm, was there?

The point is that it is violent to force someone into an act against their will.

If a woman is actually harmed, it becomes ABH.
It is not necessary to have a special marital rape law.

Any time someone has sex without permission, it is rape. No special marital rape law is required.

That's right .. it's not a criminal matter.
If a woman dislikes her husband, she is entitled to a no-fault divorce.

That isn't the point. She may still love her husband, but simply not want to have sex that one time. If he then forces himself on her, that is rape. And yes, it is violence even if there is no ABH.

 

[F1fan]

That cuts both ways, because a man cannot refuse to have sex with his wife if she wants it either.

Why can't women refuse sex with her husband in Islam?

Answer (1 of 11): I think all these posts are trying to come from an intelligent place, but they all mostly sounded illiterate lol. First of all, this is a loaded question. You and everyone on this chain of answers are wrong to say that women can't refuse sex. Because that is untrue. Women and ...

www.quora.com

I do not agree with either of these Hadiths, since I believe a person has a right to decide if they want sex or not, whether they are a man or a woman.

It almost sounds equal until we realize these theocratic societies are run by men, and usually to benefit men. The Abrahamic religions are historically patriarchies and there's a serious history of abuse of women.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

For females to have the desire to be Mothers, is instinctive. It’s not a learned trait.

To willfully terminate healthy progeny, is an unnatural inclination.

IMO

Take care.

Well, here are the reasons women give for seeking abortions:

The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%).

Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives

Public discussion about abortion in the United States has generally focused on policy: who should be allowed to have abortions, and under what circumstances. Receiving less attention are the women behind the statistics—the 1.3 million women who obtain abortions each year1—and their reasons for...

www.guttmacher.org

If you think that the women who seek abortions are being pushed by circumstance into a decision they wouldn't otherwise make, then you ought to support doing something about the root causes behind these decisions.

The top two reasons would be directly addressed by ensuring a long period (say 1-2 years) of paid, job-protected pregnancy and parental leave, followed by heavily subsidized child care.

I trust that you would fully support such an initiative... right?

 

[Trailblazer]

Yes, if a wife says no to sex and the husband proceeds to force her to have sex, that is violence.

She may have said yes in the past. She might even desire sex with her husband in the future.

But if he forced her to have sex against her will, that is rape and yes, it is also violence.

And to force someone to have sex when they deny consent *is* violent.

And that is where we disagree. Violence does NOT require actual bodily harm. It can also be forcing oneself on another against their will.

As an analogy: suppose that I threaten you with a gun and steal your money. The gun was never fired. Was any violence done? I would say yes. But there was no actual bodily harm, was there?

The point is that it is violent to force someone into an act against their will.

Any time someone has sex without permission, it is rape. No special marital rape law is required.

That isn't the point. She may still love her husband, but simply not want to have sex that one time. If he then forces himself on her, that is rape. And yes, it is violence even if there is no ABH.

*WINNER*

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Well it doesn't work.

Actually, it does work. Following the Bible’s guidelines on sex, has been beneficial to my group for over 100 years.
For the most part, we have strong families, with well-grounded & happy spouses, children, and parents.
(Notice my qualifier.{“For the most part”} When it doesn’t, it’s due to an encroaching affinity for the world & its influences, something Christians are counseled to avoid. [1 John 2:15] But we strive to listen to our Creator, and the majority of us [JW’s] are successful.)

I suggest it is more effective to have mature and emotionally stable people as they can make better judgments.

I’ve got an honest question for you:

For the last 150 years or so, the Bible’s influence has been increasingly waning, especially with regard to sexual restraint & limiting venereal contact.

Do you think people are exhibiting more emotional stability in this world, or less?

I see less. And much of this instability we see, is due to the fractured family life they experienced growing up.

Promiscuous behavior does not lead to wise, ie., well-thought-out, read mature, results.

It’s core is selfishness.

So even if a promiscuous person were honest & thought he was mature, he would still be dealing with another person, that might be dishonest, hiding their disease status.

I think I’ve posted enough peer-reviewed articles that explicate the dangers & results.

Have at it.
(But it won’t be with me or mine, lol!)

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Uh, no. Not all females feel the need to be mothers, and termination of a pregnancy can depend on a lot of external factors like medical necessity or not being able to care for a baby.

So… you’re saying it’s not generally instinctive for a female to want to be a Mother?

There are no stereotypical absolutes when dealing with people, but for the majority of females it is a fact.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's actually how about 85 percent of people use such words. And I've already given the link so I won't repeat myself.

So let us analyze your claim:

No thanks, I don't generally get info from wiki. Anyway, to parse down itemization to beliefs vs knowledge is parsing things down too much in my opinion. To me, an agnostic thinks there MAY be a god but doesn't know for sure, and an atheist thinks there's not a god. Why would someone claim to believe something that their knowledge tells them isn't true? I would call that person "mentally ill."

You claim that another person thinks in certain way based on how you think: To me, an agnostic thinks there MAY be a god but doesn't know for sure, and an atheist thinks there's not a god.
As has been shown that is not the case, because some people think differently about the meaning of the relevant words.
Basically 100% of all people think like you, because you think that. And yet you admit that it is not 100%, but 85%.
So what is it, 100% or 85%?

I would call a person, who actually thinks 100% and 85% are the same "mentally ill".
See, that is an absurd game. And it works on all humans, but off course not you.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

I disagree. It was to generate children and to guarantee paternity. It was to make families large, not strong. Most of that behavior, whether compelled or forbidden, is of little to no benefit to anybody in the family. This is why women encouraged to get married as soon as they were fertile and forbidden to deny their husbands sex even if that's not what they wanted - to make families larger, not stronger. How does forbidding masturbation or the rhythm method make families stronger? It doesn't. It makes them larger.

If this were so, then there’d be no need for families… it would promote the “it takes a village” mentality, and no marriages.

Your comment on what you’ve inferred as our “reptilian and pre-primate mammalian past”,,, oh my goodness! We are so different in that regard, you & I.

How you think our cells, with all of their exquisite & functional protein-building machinery working together, could have arisen without any intelligent guidance, is beyond me.

Goodnight, my friend.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If this were so, then there’d be no need for families… it would promote the “it takes a village” mentality, and no marriages.

Your comment on what you’ve inferred as our “reptilian and pre-primate mammalian past”,,, oh my goodness! We are so different in that regard, you & I.

How you think our cells, with all of their exquisite & functional protein-building machinery working together, could have arisen without any intelligent guidance, is beyond me.

Goodnight, my friend.

Here is my take:
I am an agnostic, so I don't know one way or another. I have simply take then 3rd option between it is known, that X is Y and not Z or in reverse. I don't know.
I care about living in this world and try to accept that humans are not monolithic in all cases.
So you can have your view and but can I have mine?

 

[muhammad_isa]

That isn't the point. She may still love her husband, but simply not want to have sex that one time. If he then forces himself on her, that is rape. And yes, it is violence even if there is no ABH.

That is a contradiction..
She either loves her husband, or she does not.
Why would a woman want to prosecute her husband for "rape", and send him to his death?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Why would a woman want to prosecute her husband for "rape", and send him to his death?

Maybe because he raped her?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Maybe because he raped her?

Sorry, but this is going nowhere..
A man loves his wife, and the wife loves the man.
..all well and good so far..

The woman feels violated because her husband couldn't control himself.
Now this is where we part company.
You say that the woman should have the right to have him put to death [ punished for rape ].
..and I say no .. steady on .. if she feels like that, they should part company.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Sorry, but this is going nowhere..
A man loves his wife, and the wife loves the man.
..all well and good so far..

Except for the rape?

The woman feels violated because her husband couldn't control himself.

The fact that you would frame rape in these terms says a lot.

Her could control himself. He chose to rape her. It was a conscious act that was not out of his control.

Now this is where we part company.
You say that the woman should have the right to have him put to death [ punished for rape ].

No, actually. I personally believe being put to death by the state for a crime is immoral. But I do think rape is immoral and should be punished with just cause and appropriate punishment.

..and I say no .. steady on .. if she feels like that, they should part company.

So do you think men should not be punished for rape?

If you and me were very good friends, but then one day I "couldn't control myself" and I attacked or raped you, should you and I simply part company, or do you think I should at least face some kind of consequences for my actions?

 

[muhammad_isa]

No, actually. I personally believe being put to death by the state for a crime is immoral.

Well, I don't.
That is besides the point though.
You say that he should be sent to prison for life, say..

But I do think rape is immoral and should be punished with just cause and appropriate punishment.

So do I.
However, a marriage contract is a form of consent.
If the wife no longer wants her husband to have consent, she needs to part company.

If you and me were very good friends, but then one day I couldn't control myself and I attacked or raped you, should you and I simply part company, or do you think I should at least face some kind of consequences for my actions?

If "we" had no marriage contract, then there is no consent.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Well, I don't.
That is besides the point though.

According to you, it is the point. You argue that we shouldn't out rapists because they'd be put to death. I argue that I don't want them to die, I want them to face just punishment.

If you believe rapists SHOULD be put to death, then what's the issue? A woman should out her husband if he's a rapist.

You say that he should be sent to prison for life, say..

Yep.

So do I.
However, a marriage contract is a form of consent.

No, it is not. A marriage contract is consent to marriage, not to sex.

If the wife no longer wants her husband to have consent, she needs to part company.

I agree. But what should happen if the husband disregards this and rapes her?

If "we" had no marriage contract, then there is no consent.

There is consent to being my friend, and that means you like me, and that means I can rape you and you can't punish me, right?