Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[nPeace]

It is in this context, a discussion of atheism and atheists. Some people find calling themselves atheist off-putting to others, and look for euphemisms like unbeliever, skeptic, and freethinker. Some call themselves agnostic but not atheist despite not believing in gods.

The term unbeliever was used long before the word atheist, so I think you have put the cart before the horse, here... or somehow tried to fill a round hole with a square peg.

Disagree. The world is moving forward. Backwards is recriminalizing abortion. Backward is oppressing LGBTQ+ to please an imagined deity said to find them abominable. Backward is a war on drag shows. Humanist struggle to advance man from that, but are just insulted with words like PC, woke, social justice warrior, and snowflake - all euphemisms for empathetic by people who are not. There has never been a higher fraction of people living long, safe, functional, comfortable, easy, interesting lives.

As they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so that would apply in this case as well.

 

[nPeace]

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

What???

 

[We Never Know]

No. You just can't understand any other point of view than your own.

Nobody is saying that it is OK for a man to mistreat his wife.
I think maybe you are confusing a recommendation that a wife should not refuse her husband,
as a law that says it is alright to bully her .. which it isn't.

I guy I know has a weird way he puts it.

He says ... "When I married my wife I agreed to never have sex with anyone else again. Its like eating out. If I agreed to only eat at one restaurant for the rest of my life, then I should be able to eat there anytime I want"

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I guy I know has a weird way he puts it.

He says ... "When I married my wife I agreed to never have sex with anyone else again. Its like eating out. If I agreed to only eat at one restaurant for the rest of my life, then I should be able to eat there anytime I want"

People are weird. I'd hate to have sex with anyone who didn't want to. Including my wife.
Whereas the restaurant is unlikely to feel objectified, or otherwise wonder why the person she loves would see her as a way to satiate themselves without consideration.

Crappy and self serving analogy imho.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'm still wrapping my head around the title question of 'does atheism lead to immoral behaviour'?

It kinda twists my little mind in knots.

If you think disbelief in God is immoral, than unequivocally atheism is an immoral position. But atheism does nothing to direct my behaviour, per se. And belief in God isn't something I can directly control. (Of course, I could fake it, or skew information sources to try and convert myself, but that's presumably more effective at fooling other humans than God...)

So then the assumption, perhaps, is that without the tenets of religion, all bets are off and people will be hedonists.

Except all atheists are not hedonists. Not even close. Much like 'theists' you're talking about a broad group with limited coherence.

And theists don't all follow the same moral precepts, so either some theists are moral, and the rest are not...or the important thing is not the divinity of morals, but the presence of them.

In which case it's entirely possible to be moral and non religious. Or religious and a non theist, for that matter.

The clearest answer here is from the people who believe in a very narrowly inspired divinity and set of 'objective' morality handed down by their particular God. It deals with some of the contradictions of some other philosophies. It tends to ignore entirely measuring which divinely inspired set of morality is the 'real' one, though, in high level discussions. And leads to considerably more angst when applied directly at a more granular level, leading to schism and conflict.

One day we all die, and many Abrahamaics believe God will judge us for our beliefs and actions. Yet they also want to restrict those same actions here on Earth.

That poor hypothetical hedonist has a few years of fun, only to be denied divinity for ever, yet we want to take that away. And the more 'responsible' atheists like myself cop it both ways.

Knots.

 

[nPeace]

I guy I know has a weird way he puts it.

He says ... "When I married my wife I agreed to never have sex with anyone else again. Its like eating out. If I agreed to only eat at one restaurant for the rest of my life, then I should be able to eat there anytime I want"

One guy put it like this...
Drink water from your own cistern And flowing water from your own well. Should your springs be dispersed outside, Your streams of water in the public squares? Let them be for you alone, And not for strangers with you. May your own fountain be blessed, And may you rejoice with the wife of your youth, A loving doe, a graceful mountain goat. Let her breasts satisfy you at all times. May you be captivated by her love constantly. So why, my son, should you be captivated by a wayward woman Or embrace the bosom of an immoral woman? - Solomon (Proverbs 5:15-20)

 

[We Never Know]

One guy put it like this...
Drink water from your own cistern And flowing water from your own well. Should your springs be dispersed outside, Your streams of water in the public squares? Let them be for you alone, And not for strangers with you. May your own fountain be blessed, And may you rejoice with the wife of your youth, A loving doe, a graceful mountain goat. Let her breasts satisfy you at all times. May you be captivated by her love constantly. So why, my son, should you be captivated by a wayward woman Or embrace the bosom of an immoral woman? - Solomon (Proverbs 5:15-20)

And some put it like this... The bible is mythical. I can think on my own.

Edit.... Now I don't mean that in a mean way.

Example...

Ask non-religious Bob a question and he will give you his best answer. If he can't answer right off, he will think on it and get back with you.

Ask Religious Bill a question he will say "the bible says".. If he doesn't know he will look up a verse and say here's what this bible verse says.

 

[F1fan]

I'm still wrapping my head around the title question of 'does atheism lead to immoral behaviour'?

It kinda twists my little mind in knots.

A conversation about atheism leading to immorality and it's about the dubious morals of theists.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

A conversation about atheism leading to immorality and it's about the dubious morals of theists.

Well...I mean...plenty of atheists have dubious morals, I'm sure.
It's a stretch to blame it on atheism though.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well...I mean...plenty of atheists have dubious morals, I'm sure.
It's a stretch to blame it on atheism though.

The problem is that atheism is never something in a vacuum. So it has nothing to do with atheism per se, but it is some times connected to proof, evidence, truth, rational, objective, reasonable and/or other words, where some people, who are atheists bundle it all up and connect it to a greater worldview and then hide behind being atheists.
They, not all atheists, double speak as atheism is nothing about a lack of a positive belief in gods, but we can with proof, evidence, truth, rational, objective, reasonable and/or other words explain what the world really is.

 

[muhammad_isa]

What makes sex illegal unless parties are married?

Mmm .. perhaps this is the crux of the matter.
Is the act of sexual intercourse purely for pleasure, or is there some other purpose?

The advent of the pill, has encouraged us to think that we can have our pleasure without consequence,
which is not true. There is always a consequence.
Our emotional health is important, as is social security and that of the family.

Marriage is in essence a license to have sex.

You know very well what it is..
It's the joining together of a man and woman in Holy matrimony.
G-d has ordained love between man & wife.
They bring up their offspring.

The code condones rape so it's not as if decency is important..

You know very well it doesn't.
A man who attacks women and forces them to have sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not condoned.
You merely attempt to make fools out of believers.
..while in reality, you make a fool of yourself.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

A man who attacks women and forces them to have sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not condoned.

What about inside of marriage?

 

[muhammad_isa]

What about inside of marriage?

I have written dozens of posts in this thread about that allegation.
The institution of marriage does NOT condone rape .. it is complete nonsense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have written dozens of posts in this thread about that allegation.
The institution of marriage does NOT condone rape .. it is complete nonsense.

It just seems odd that you specified "outside of marriage" in that previous statement.

So, to be clear, your society punishes men attacking women or forcing them to have sexual intercourse inside of marriage as well as outside of it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

So, to be clear, your society punishes men attacking women or forcing them to have sexual intercourse inside of marriage as well as outside of it?

I have already made myself clear.
Mistreatment of wives is not condoned by G-d.

The "consent" laws are only there because the institution of marriage has collapsed.
There is nothing else that can be done.
In practice, it does not protect women from abuse.
It is not easy to prove that a husband has not got consent when sleeping in the same bed.
It's a nonsense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I have already made myself clear.
Mistreatment of wives is not condoned by G-d.

The "consent" laws are only there because the institution of marriage has collapsed.
There is nothing else that can be done.
In practice, it does not protect women from abuse.
It is not easy to prove that a husband has not got consent when sleeping in the same bed.
It's a nonsense.

My friend, it is a yes or no question.

Does your society punish men for attacking women or forcing them to have sexual intercourse inside of marriage as well as outside of it?

 

[muhammad_isa]

My friend, it is a yes or no question.

Does your society punish men for attacking women or forcing them to have sexual intercourse inside of marriage as well as outside of it?

My friend, the only reason why you want me to answer yes/no, is to play games.
I have no time for that .. I have to go and pray.

I'll leave you to read my answers from the last 20 pages.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My friend, the only reason why you want me to answer yes/no, is to play games.

Actually, it's quite the opposite. See, the ability to answer a simple yes or no question shows a willingness NOT to engage in wordplay, rhetoric or other methods generally employed to avoid meaningful debate or to avoid the logical conclusions of your position. You are the one playing games by refusing to give straightforward answers to simple questions.

I'll leave you to read my answers from the last 20 pages.

See, now who's the one playing games?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Is the act of sexual intercourse purely for pleasure, or is there some other purpose?

It is for me. I've never engaged in it for any other purpose.

The advent of the pill, has encouraged us to think that we can have our pleasure without consequence, which is not true.

I have never had an unacceptable consequence of sex, nor has any partner of mine to my knowledge. The pill prevents the most significant consequence of intercourse, which is its purpose and its great utility. I understand that that was as great a nightmare to the controlling religions as the loss of state-led prayer and teaching religion in science curricula, but that's of no concern to the rest of the world as it marches forward in its pursuit of the humanist vision for man, which supports people have such freedoms and options.

Our emotional health is important

And a healthy sex life is part of that. The vision you promote of sex is unhealthy to me. I can't imagine that it is emotionally healthy for a woman to be married to a man who views her as somebody he has the right to man-handle. I cannot conceive of love being possible when a man views his wife like that.

It's [marriage] the joining together of a man and woman in Holy matrimony. G-d has ordained love between man & wife.

Religion is not a part of marriage. Feel free to include your religion in your marriage if you like, but it's an option, not part of the process. And none of that contradicts the claim that for the Muslim man as you depict the religion, "Marriage is in essence a license to have sex."

They bring up their offspring.

Also irrelevant to marriage, although in the church's mind, that is the purpose of marriage - to procreate and raise children - but that is not a legitimate concern of the church and it has no say in that outside of the lives of its adherents.

A man who attacks women and forces them to have sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not condoned.

It's already been pointed out to you how telling that comment is. Here's the humanist version: Anybody who attacks anybody else is to be arrested and prosecuted. Their gender, purpose, and marital status are irrelevant.

You merely attempt to make fools out of believers...while in reality, you make a fool of yourself.

He says that your understanding of marriage condones rape. Unfortunately for you, it is YOU who came out on the short end of this. Your words are consistent with that conclusion, and you never rebutted him, so why should anybody believe he is wrong? Because you don't like his opinion and prefer another one in its place? That irrelevant to whether he is correct or not. Incidentally, I'm sure he's using his and civilized society's definition of rape, not yours. Is this really Muslim dogma - that a man has these rights - or are you an outlier? You learned to think like this somewhere.

The institution of marriage does NOT condone rape .. it is complete nonsense.

No, but you do. Your problem is that what you described as acceptable to you is considered rape by the majority, and you don't seem to understand that.

My friend, the only reason why you want me to answer yes/no, is to play games.

And you played. You had no choice. He asked, "Does your society punish men for attacking women or forcing them to have sexual intercourse inside of marriage as well as outside of it?" Any response or nonresponse is meaningful. Your response indicates that you are uncomfortable answering. Each reader is free to decide what the likely reason is. My assumption is that the answer is no - that in Muslim society, rape is condoned. There are probably laws against physically forcing women into sex that aren't enforced when the couple are married. It's the same in some parts of Christian America as well. There's nothing holy or sacred about such marriages. He wants sex and someone to cook and clean and raise his sons, and is prepared to force compliance if necessary as is his right as he understands it, and she wants protection and support. It's a loveless business arrangement, because you can't love a woman you don't respect or a man you fear.

 

[F1fan]

Well...I mean...plenty of atheists have dubious morals, I'm sure.
It's a stretch to blame it on atheism though.

Atheists get vilified as a category, which is of course prejudice. It's clear that atheists can be moral and actually have a more nuanced and practical moral framework than some theists. The issue of human rights does seem to be part of this disagreement as many religions date back to traditions that did not value basic human rights and equality.

I think a question is how well a religion works in modern societies, and if they are useful or a liability to social cohesion.