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

[Revoltingest]

Atheism, too, can be used to support the hatred and abuse of others.

Atheism is merely disbelief in gods.
It neither supports nor opposes hatred & abuse.

Religion is different, with scriptural passages promoting
hate, vengeance, bigotry, aggression, & oppression.
History bears out that these extremes were & are common.

 

[Koldo]

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.

Both.
I don't see this as being the difference pointed out by the survey.

 

[PureX]

Both.
I don't see this as being the difference pointed out by the survey.

I can't help you understand what you don't see.

 

[Left Coast]

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.

Why would God hold us accountable for something we can't control?

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'.

Yes, I know that. The question is why. If intent is morally relevant, how can I be morally responsible for thoughts and feelings I did not intend?

This is the reason, for example, it's so awful for theists to hold gay people accountable for being gay. It's completely unjust and horrifying, and leads to completely unnecessary and harmful guilt and shame. Yet as you just explained, it follows quite naturally from that kind of theistic thinking. Which is why that kind of theistic thinking is so deeply problematic.

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.

Every atheist who is out of the closet has heard theists tell them they're only atheists to have an excuse to sin. We understand it quite well, thanks.

The other issue is, calling something a "divine ideal" tells us nothing it itself, morally speaking. What is it that makes a thought or action "divinely ideal?" What criteria does God use?

Because they are OUR thoughts and feelings. They are who and what WE ARE.

Actually they are not, in my view. What "we are" is constantly in flux and not under our direct control.

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.

And that is extremely problematic, because identifying a thought as a "failing" will not help you transcend it. It just creates aversion/hatred, guilt, and shame.

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.

Whether the governance is internal or external, holding people morally culpable for thoughts and feelings is unhelpful and, to be honest, quite cruel. That's generally why atheists reject such things, in my experience.

 

[PureX]

Why would God hold us accountable for something we can't control?

Presumably because we can. Or should. Or should at least, try.

Yes, I know that. The question is why. If intent is morally relevant, how can I be morally responsible for thoughts and feelings I did not intend?

Because you are you. And because you can choose how you respond to your own 'sinful nature'. And in doing so, you are defining who you are becoming. For example; if you choose to excuse and embrace your sinful nature, you will become it, and it will become you, even more fully. If you choose to struggle against it, that struggle will get easier over time, and become less necessary. As you will become a better (more righteous) being.

This is the reason, for example, it's so awful for theists to hold gay people accountable for being gay. It's completely unjust and horrifying, and leads to completely unnecessary and harmful guilt and shame. Yet as you just explained, it follows quite naturally from that kind of theistic thinking. Which is why that kind of theistic thinking is so deeply problematic.

First, they are not being held accountable for being gay. They are being held accountable for not struggling to overcome that 'sinful nature'.

Secondly, except for the most extreme and bizarre expressions of religiosity, no one is supposed to be holding anyone else to account for anything. That is between each of us, and God.

Every atheist who is out of the closet has heard theists tell them they're only atheists to have an excuse to sin. We understand it quite well, thanks.

I don't think so. Not by the comments they give in response. In fact, your comment just above is a good example.

The other issue is, calling something a "divine ideal" tells us nothing it itself, morally speaking. What is it that makes a thought or action "divinely ideal?" What criteria does God use?

We have to figure that out for ourselves. Some people think they can read the Bible "literally" and they will have all the answers to that question they need. Other's have to study and interpret it to try and discern the answers to that question. Others find the answers in life, instead of books. And so on. But what these methods all have in common is that they're based on faith. On trusting that the answers are there, and that we can find them. And that we can embody them, with time, and practice, and honest effort.

And that is extremely problematic, because identifying a thought as a "failing" will not help you transcend it. It just creates aversion/hatred, guilt, and shame.

There are ways. It's what religions are for, and about.

Whether the governance is internal or external, holding people morally culpable for thoughts and feelings is unhelpful and, to be honest, quite cruel. That's generally why atheists reject such things, in my experience.

Believing this does not make it so.

 

[Koldo]

I can't help you understand what you don't see.

I can not see what is not there though...

 

[Left Coast]

Presumably because we can. Or should. Or should at least, try.

That is like trying to catch water with a sieve. Water just flows. That’s what it does. Thoughts just emerge. That's what they do. Punishing a river for flowing just makes no sense. It's a fools errand.

Because you are you. And because you can choose how you respond to your own 'sinful nature'.

Ah, but now we're getting to behavior. I agree we can be responsible for our responses to our thoughts, to a greater degree than thoughts themselves. But that's getting into the effects of what we actually do, which is just what us silly atheists care about.

First, they are not being held accountable for being gay. They are being held accountable for not struggling to overcome that 'sinful nature'.

That is a distinction without a difference. "Not struggling against their sinful nature," when you identify their sinful nature as their gayness, is a wordier way of simply saying they are gay.

Secondly, except for the most extreme and bizarre expressions of religiosity, no one is supposed to be holding anyone else to account for anything. That is between each of us, and God.

I assume you're not affiliated with any mainstream church or denomination.

I don't think so. Not by the comments they give in response. In fact, your comment just above is a good example.

How did my response above reflect me not understanding? You think atheism is an excuse for "sin." Yeah, we know that. We don't think your "sin" is a relevant or helpful category.

We have to figure that out for ourselves.

Then appealing to it is useless, and you may as well not bring it up. Because "figuring it out for ourselves" is precisely what atheists do in navigating the morality of how they and others behave. Until we have actual criteria, and some logic as to why we should care about those criteria, appealing to God gets us no where in a conversation on morality.

There are ways. It's what religions are for, and about.

No, it's what your religion is for and about.

Believing this does not make it so.

Physician, heal thyself.

 

[blü 2]

Atheism, too, can be used to support the hatred and abuse of others. So can history, and science, and even nature, itself.

Just so.

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

Because human morality comes from evolution appropriate for our living as gregarious and cooperative mammals, and not from God or any version of gods. Whether you're born in a Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Confucian, atheist or other country or family, you'll still have a conscience, and empathy, and moral tendencies that include fairness and reciprocity, and dislike of the one who harms (and more).

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.

Fine, if it helps them be decent humans. But it's simply not prerequisite. I try to apply my little mantra of decency, respect and inclusion, and when I don't and in my terms I should have, I chide myself. And then have a cup of coffee.

 

[blü 2]

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

God protecting [his] backside, yes, stated in so many words (Genesis 11:6-7).

 

[BilliardsBall]

Only 2?
I put a plus sign by 2 other common ones.

You've never stolen anything, cheated on an exam, fudged a bit at work?

 

[Heyo]

You've never stolen anything, cheated on an exam, fudged a bit at work?

I've done immoral, illegal and irrational things. That doesn't mean I don't recognize them as immoral, illegal or irrational.

 

[Revoltingest]

You've never stolen anything, cheated on an exam, fudged a bit at work?

Sins committed long ago.
I used to be imperfect.
How about you?