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?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

We already knew that atheists were more moral than theists. Isn't that obvious from looking at the problems of the world.

I don’t know that, and I’ve been an atheist for as long as I can remember.

 

[PureX]

Just so.
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).

Or you won't. Because apparently nature is fickle and prone to creating mutants. And not only that, nature has the unfortunate tendency of rewarding immoral behavior because nature is itself ammoral. Which is what encourages immorality within us.

Part of the reason we humans need moral gods is to help us stay focused on morality in a "natural world" that is not focused on it.

Fine, if it helps them be decent humans. But it's simply not prerequisite.

The prerequisite is the NEED for morality. And inventing and obeying moral gods is a very popular way we humans try to achieve that.

 

[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).

Yes, there are athiests like that (and even theists, after all, they make the majority of people), but do not generalize.

 

[blü 2]

Or you won't. Because apparently nature is fickle and prone to creating mutants. And not only that, nature has the unfortunate tendency of rewarding immoral behavior because nature is itself ammoral. Which is what encourages immorality within us.

Nature is amoral, in the sense that we're moral because of the functional benefits of morality. Those benefits make tribal cooperation possible, and cooperation makes it possible to benefit your tribe by killing, or seizing the territory or assets of, other tribes. (That's why I'm personally attracted to the idea of Gens una sumus, but reality is going to keep that as merely an idea for quite a while yet; it may be functionally impossible.)

Part of the reason we humans need moral gods is to help us stay focused on morality in a "natural world" that is not focused on it.

Perhaps some of us do. I don't look to gods to solve global warming. The problem comes from us humans.

The prerequisite is the NEED for morality. And inventing and obeying moral gods is a very popular way we humans try to achieve that.

Certainly we've never found a culture free of supernatural beliefs. But as you know, we've evolved brains that operate within a narrative that they constantly generate, so that we're accounting for all the "important" phenomena that are, or may be, around us, with hypotheses, until we can determine whether we need to be further concerned, and if we do, how to go about defining the problem and determining a course of action for it. This process is so automatic and so constant that we very largely never notice it, but it must be satisfied. So questions like, what is lightning, what is thunder, why is there a drought, a flood, the death of leaders, how can I improve my luck with hunting, with love, with tribal politics, may all lack modern explanations but will have some or other explanations instead.

 

[Polymath257]

I agree. However, when our fellow humans give someone the authority to represent them, it's right to revere them the honor of that responsibility. To respect the office, as they say, if not the individual.

I think people don't *deserve* respect. They *earn* respect. Authorities are frequently cruel, self-important, and prone to abuse their power. That means that 'respect for authority' in and of itself is a pretty poor moral value (in my estimation).

So, yes, if you want to pit 'respect for authority' and 'consequences of actions' as ways to determine morality, I will uphold 'consequences of actions' as the better alternative. But I would not do this on a case-by-case basis, but rather on what should be expected to be the consequences of the actions: in other words, intent is also important.

Atheists *tend* to hold truth in high regard: that is why they are atheists, after all: they see no proof of the existence of a deity, so they don't believe.

This means that atheists generally don't like those who lie. Honesty has a high value. But doubt also has high value. Hence, the requirement that authorities earn their respect.

So, having an affair would not be considered moral since it is lying to a partner. The issue is NOT the sex, but rather the dishonesty. On the other hand, sex outside of marriage *where everyone is aware and approves* would not have the same moral stigma. The act is not the issue: the consequences are.

 

[Polymath257]

For the innate selfishness, and the ill-intent that it so often inspires within us. For being less than 'divine'. But to understand this, one has to believe in the 'divine', and want to aspire to it.

For me, ill-intent is simply being able to anticipate the consequences of your actions and doing them in spite of the likelihood of harming others.

In my personal beliefs, there are two basic moral values: think and care. We need to *think* about our actions and the likely consequences and *care* about how those consequences affect others.

Because of this, intent is very important. What a person *intends* says why they did the action they took and how they were thinking about it. Whether they did the action without *caring* for the consequences and whether they *thought* about those consequences before the action is at the heart of morality, as I see it.

But, even with intent as an important factor, the expected consequences are crucial for determining morality, NOT what some 'authority' made up.

 

[PureX]

I think people don't *deserve* respect. They *earn* respect.

Thus, we presume to stand in judgment of everyone we encounter.

Authorities are frequently cruel, self-important, and prone to abuse their power.

So are judges, including you and I when we stand in judgment of others.

That means that 'respect for authority' in and of itself is a pretty poor moral value (in my estimation).

There are two methods of obtaining authority. One is to have it confered upon us, by others, and the other is for it to be pushed on others, by us. The former deserves everyone's respect, while that latter deserves no ones respect.

So, yes, if you want to pit 'respect for authority' and 'consequences of actions' as ways to determine morality, I will uphold 'consequences of actions' as the better alternative. But I would not do this on a case-by-case basis, but rather on what should be expected to be the consequences of the actions: in other words, intent is also important.

Always the lone judge, and never a supporting member of society, right?

Atheists *tend* to hold truth in high regard: that is why they are atheists, after all: they see no proof of the existence of a deity, so they don't believe.

Atheist tend to be just as full of and biased by their own BS as anyone else is. And just as blind to it, too.

And they sure do like to stand in judgment of everything and everyone.

This means that atheists generally don't like those who lie. Honesty has a high value. But doubt also has high value. Hence, the requirement that authorities earn their respect.

I have witnessed that they only thing atheists doubt is the judgement of others. Never their own.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Atheists, it turns out, are a rather morally driven bunch. 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.

By analyzing the beliefs of nearly 5,000 people in the United States and Sweden, he found that atheists and theists share a number of moral values: Both groups fervently believe in fairness, liberty (including freedom of belief), and the importance of protecting the vulnerable, and both groups hold surprisingly strong bents toward rationality and evidence-based knowledge.

Where they differ is revealing:

• Theists are likely to support morals such as reverence for authority, loyalty, and sanctity, which all fuel group cohesion (versus individuality).
• 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).
  
  Atheists and believers surprisingly share moral values, except for these 2 key differences

3 key differences.

The third is expecting a reward for morality.