Heyo
Veteran Member
Maybe the hijackers should have studied it?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Difference in moral thought between atheists and believers
- Thread starter IndigoChild5559
- Start date
I've been reading it for 20+ years.
Yawn. Can't you come up with a better pretend rebuttal? Do you even know the verse I'm talking about?
Heyo
Veteran Member
The nice thing about gods is, there are so many to choose from. And each believer chose the god that commands just what they want but don't dare to proclaim by themselves.
When you're a bigot, you choose the Christian god, or, more precisely, that variant of the Christian god which says that blacks are inferior or that being gay is sinful.
This non-believer doesn't steal because he doesn't like to be stolen from.
And you will steal, if someone can convince you that god commands it. If it is the god of Abraham, it has done so before, according to scripture.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
What the heck? I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but the way you are making it is incredibly offensive.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
Most of morality is based on two biological instincts: a sense of fairness, and empathy. Atheists have the same biology as theists.
I would hope that the reason you don't steal would be that you love your neighbor as yourself. If the only reason is because "that's the rule," I would say that your moral development got stalled as a kid.
You have completely discounted the one true basis of morality among those who don't need a magic sky fairy to tell them right from wrong - empathy.
Have you never heard a parent say to their child after they hurt someone, "How would you feel if someone did that to you?" That is where morality comes from.
He's saying the highjackers were obeying their god's dictates to fight, kill, and if necessary, die.
Madsaac
Active Member
That's right, non believers have to think for themselves and question things more. And hopefully for the correct outcome.
Which god would that be surely not the Abrahamic god, having read the bible and also being the recipient of his mindset i csn think on nothing that is more immoral
----
Nonsense. Morality is a human (and some animals) trait, developed to allow group centered animals (including humans) to form civilisations. Which in the case of humans then developed gods and religion. Religion then stole morality, adapted it to exclude anyone not in the club and so we now get the sort of nonsense i read in your posts
I don't steal, not because i have a god on my shoulder telling me what to do but because not stealing is the right thing to do
Again, nonsense, most people don't steal from a long time before they knew what punishment even was
And at anytime i would pit my morality against yours and be confident of the outcome
My solution to the Trolley Problem is to derail the trolley at the junction - by switching back and forth - so saving all.I will be referencing the points of the following article:
Atheists and believers have different moral compasses
Atheists and believers have a moral compass, just not the same one.www.livescience.com
Research indicates that when it comes to morality, Atheists and the devoutly religion all tend to be very moral people. (It seems to be the nominally religious that tend to make excuses why something isn't wrong in their unique case). In both cases, fairness and helping the vulnerable play a dominant role.
However, the researchers found "differences between believers and disbelievers on the other three values: authority (respecting authority figures, such as police, parents and teachers), loyalty (being loyal to one's group, such as a country — not burning a country's flag, for instance) and sanctity (not doing anything perceived as degrading, usually in a sexual sense, such as being promiscuous)."
This seems to be related to the fact that believers are more concerned with group cohesion -- ethics that bind a community together. This is not the first time I have come across a study documenting this.
Another difference that has come up both in this study, and previous studies I have read is that Atheist morality tends to be more outcome based than rule based. Basically, atheists were more likely than believers to base their judgments about what is or isn't moral based on the consequences of their actions.
An example of this is the statistical differences in the two groups in their response to the classic trolley car problem.
For those who don't know what that is, imagine a trolley car going down the track, approaching a division in the track. If left to follow how the track is currently configured, the trolley car will hit and kill 5 people. However, if you pull a switch, it will switch tracks, and kill only one person. Do you pull the switch or do you just allow things to happen without intervention?
"In that situation, the disbelievers are more inclined to say 'flip [the] switch and kill the one person rather than five,' because they are assessing the relative harm," Ståhl told Live Science. "Whereas believers are more icky about that because they feel like they're actively killing someone, and they shouldn't kill. So, they are less comfortable with those calculations."
Now, just for fun, I am including the following video simply for levity. It shows a two year old's solution to the trolley car dilemma.
But, I tend to go with the not switching, given we have no way of knowing whether the one might have been some great figure who could have been a boon to humankind whereas the others might have been just normal individuals. Who are we to play at being God?
Niatero
*banned*
I don't know what I would do. Probably it would all be over before I even knew what was happening. If I really had time to do something and I knew about the switch and how to pull it, maybe I would yell at the one person to get off the track on my way to pulling the switch. Were the people in the study put into a simulation. or was it just described to them with the question being asked them and all the time they wanted to answer it?I will be referencing the points of the following article:
Atheists and believers have different moral compasses
Atheists and believers have a moral compass, just not the same one.
Research indicates that when it comes to morality, Atheists and the devoutly religion all tend to be very moral people. (It seems to be the nominally religious that tend to make excuses why something isn't wrong in their unique case). In both cases, fairness and helping the vulnerable play a dominant role.
However, the researchers found "differences between believers and disbelievers on the other three values: authority (respecting authority figures, such as police, parents and teachers), loyalty (being loyal to one's group, such as a country — not burning a country's flag, for instance) and sanctity (not doing anything perceived as degrading, usually in a sexual sense, such as being promiscuous)."
This seems to be related to the fact that believers are more concerned with group cohesion -- ethics that bind a community together. This is not the first time I have come across a study documenting this.
Another difference that has come up both in this study, and previous studies I have read is that Atheist morality tends to be more outcome based than rule based. Basically, atheists were more likely than believers to base their judgments about what is or isn't moral based on the consequences of their actions.
An example of this is the statistical differences in the two groups in their response to the classic trolley car problem.
For those who don't know what that is, imagine a trolley car going down the track, approaching a division in the track. If left to follow how the track is currently configured, the trolley car will hit and kill 5 people. However, if you pull a switch, it will switch tracks, and kill only one person. Do you pull the switch or do you just allow things to happen without intervention?
"In that situation, the disbelievers are more inclined to say 'flip [the] switch and kill the one person rather than five,' because they are assessing the relative harm," Ståhl told Live Science. "Whereas believers are more icky about that because they feel like they're actively killing someone, and they shouldn't kill. So, they are less comfortable with those calculations."
Now, just for fun, I am including the following video simply for levity. It shows a two year old's solution to the trolley car dilemma.
Niatero
*banned*
No. "Many virtues/good character traits/moral qualities such as kindness (to people and animals), charity, forgiveness, honesty, patience, justice, respecting parents and elders, keeping promises, and controlling one's anger, are commanded or encouraged in verses in the Quran and hadith.
- Morality in Islam - Wikipedia
Last edited:
Niatero
*banned*
Sometimes we do. For example for me it is love for all of nature including all people everywhere.
What good is it for people to have morals dictated to them by God, when they mostly ignore what He says, interpret His words to say what they want them to say, or make up excuses for not doing it? (just a few examples of how they avoid doing what He says and sometimes even do just the opposite)
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Mistake #1 is labeling the groups "believers" and "atheists". When clearly atheists ARE "believers", too. As they believe in all kinds of things; just not in the existence of any gods.
And it is their beliefs that determine their ethical imperatives, just as it is the beliefs of the religious folks that determine their ethical imperatives.
The whole "study" is creating a false adversity between them and then trying to impose some sort of judgment based on it.
The whole purpose of practicing a religion is in using it to help one live their life according to the theological paradigm they've chosen to follow. So of course they will tend to be more rule oriented, and less self-determined. They are 'followers', after all. That would be a given for those who engage in religiosity.
Just as it would be more likely that those that eschew religion tend not to be followers, but more self-determined. And their ethical choices will tend to also be more self-determined.
OK, so now what. Is there some sort of value judgement to be passed, here? Based on what? Our own personal bias for or against religiosity? Or for or against self-determination? I fail to see the payoff in this judgement, except the tittilation of our ego.
And it is their beliefs that determine their ethical imperatives, just as it is the beliefs of the religious folks that determine their ethical imperatives.
The whole "study" is creating a false adversity between them and then trying to impose some sort of judgment based on it.
The whole purpose of practicing a religion is in using it to help one live their life according to the theological paradigm they've chosen to follow. So of course they will tend to be more rule oriented, and less self-determined. They are 'followers', after all. That would be a given for those who engage in religiosity.
Just as it would be more likely that those that eschew religion tend not to be followers, but more self-determined. And their ethical choices will tend to also be more self-determined.
OK, so now what. Is there some sort of value judgement to be passed, here? Based on what? Our own personal bias for or against religiosity? Or for or against self-determination? I fail to see the payoff in this judgement, except the tittilation of our ego.
Niatero
*banned*
This.
Niatero
*banned*
This.
"Only siths deal in absolutes". I think there is always more than 2 options.
Niatero
*banned*
I want to watch out more for your posts..
Honestly I think it's pretty impossible to answer such a question because atheists are not a monolith.
And theists or believers, whatever we want to call them, are not a monolith either.
I have my own personal definition: that are atheists who have God within, and that's why I admire so many atheists, starting with Richard Dawkins, and others from my country, like Corrado Augias.
Many theists don't have God within, unfortunately.
And theists or believers, whatever we want to call them, are not a monolith either.
I have my own personal definition: that are atheists who have God within, and that's why I admire so many atheists, starting with Richard Dawkins, and others from my country, like Corrado Augias.
Many theists don't have God within, unfortunately.
I will be referencing the points of the following article:
Atheists and believers have different moral compasses
Atheists and believers have a moral compass, just not the same one.
Research indicates that when it comes to morality, Atheists and the devoutly religion all tend to be very moral people. (It seems to be the nominally religious that tend to make excuses why something isn't wrong in their unique case). In both cases, fairness and helping the vulnerable play a dominant role.
However, the researchers found "differences between believers and disbelievers on the other three values: authority (respecting authority figures, such as police, parents and teachers), loyalty (being loyal to one's group, such as a country — not burning a country's flag, for instance) and sanctity (not doing anything perceived as degrading, usually in a sexual sense, such as being promiscuous)."
This seems to be related to the fact that believers are more concerned with group cohesion -- ethics that bind a community together. This is not the first time I have come across a study documenting this.
Another difference that has come up both in this study, and previous studies I have read is that Atheist morality tends to be more outcome based than rule based. Basically, atheists were more likely than believers to base their judgments about what is or isn't moral based on the consequences of their actions.
An example of this is the statistical differences in the two groups in their response to the classic trolley car problem.
For those who don't know what that is, imagine a trolley car going down the track, approaching a division in the track. If left to follow how the track is currently configured, the trolley car will hit and kill 5 people. However, if you pull a switch, it will switch tracks, and kill only one person. Do you pull the switch or do you just allow things to happen without intervention?
"In that situation, the disbelievers are more inclined to say 'flip [the] switch and kill the one person rather than five,' because they are assessing the relative harm," Ståhl told Live Science. "Whereas believers are more icky about that because they feel like they're actively killing someone, and they shouldn't kill. So, they are less comfortable with those calculations."
Now, just for fun, I am including the following video simply for levity. It shows a two year old's solution to the trolley car dilemma.
I find morals more related to culture. Atheist don't have a particular culture so it is kind of like comparing apples to oranges.