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

[wellwisher]

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

This is expected since Atheism originally defined itself on a negative; what it is not (does not believe in God or religion). Therefore it is like a reflection in the mirror of religion. Defining yourself what you are, allows you to branch in a unique way or direction. But defining yourself in terms of what you are not, tends to funnel you via the mirror. Atheism came from Christianity; mirror world; x and -x.

There are molecular states in chemistry called isomers; constitutional and stereo. Isomers are chemicals that have the same formula, but differ by how the atoms are arranged in space. Enantiomers are stereo isomers, which look like mirror images, but cannot be superimposed in space; God or No God. Another form of isomer are cis and trans isomers, that have the same formula, they cannot superimpose, but they are not mirror images. This can create similarities in atheist and religious, from different approaches; ways they differ but still end in the same places; formula.

As a side note; notice the cis and trans, used as the terms to describe transsexual versus biological, are done backwards. Cis has CH3 twice on one side; female in a male body or male in female body. While trans isomers are closer to biological sex; male and female on opposite sides. My guess this was an enantiomer moment, seen in the mirror of Atheism; morphed application of cis and trans.

Classic morality is about maximizing the group. Atheism is more about maximizing the ego or individual. Maximizing the group is about the team effect; team can become more than the sum of its parts. Whereas, maximizing the individual is less about the team, and more about the ego of the teammates; politics ahead of merit.

If we tried to form a successful team, the ego of each player will need to make sacrifices, for the needs of the team. The coach will assign players, whose ego may wish something else. The coach is not there to make everyone feel good about themselves. Rather his job is to put together a team that will sacrifice for each other and win.

The religious moral codes comes from the big coach; God. The players may not agree on all the rules; subject of debate, but they will still sacrifice. The team is bigger than the ego, and the ego needs to restructure itself, to be in the right place for the team, so the gears mesh.

If the goal was the ego of the players, we may sacrifice most of the authority of the coach. The parent politics may want more play time for the second string players, so their babies can shine for them. It is less about the team, and more about nobody feeling left out, and everyone feeling good about themselves. This precludes, many of the sacrifice needed for a winning team structure; DEI instead of merit.

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).

In this case, the word "hurt" does not include the effects of infidelity on the person or people cheated on, or an aborted baby. It is not about the larger team, beyond the ego's state of mind, during the act itself. I was so loving and caring.

In the case of the team, having an affair with a teammate's wife or girlfriend, can cause friction for the entire team. The coach will make it clear, up front, what happens if this happens, no matter how you; ego, justify it.

On there other hand, there is the team life and there is private life. On your time off, the ego can have more flexibility as long as your team spirit is not compromised; I was funny, but am now to hung over to play. This amalgam; team and home team, will result in similarities between the Religious and Atheists; good company and home people who take pride in doing a good job.

 

[☆Dreamwind☆]

That shouldn't surprise anyone.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

This is expected since Atheism originally defined itself on a negative; what it is not (does not believe in God or religion). Therefore it is like a reflection in the mirror of religion. Defining yourself what you are, allows you to branch in a unique way or direction. But defining yourself in terms of what you are not, tends to funnel you via the mirror. Atheism came from Christianity; mirror world; x and -x.

There are molecular states in chemistry called isomers; constitutional and stereo. Isomers are chemicals that have the same formula, but differ by how the atoms are arranged in space. Enantiomers are stereo isomers, which look like mirror images, but cannot be superimposed in space; God or No God. Another form of isomer are cis and trans isomers, that have the same formula, they cannot superimpose, but they are not mirror images. This can create similarities in atheist and religious, from different approaches; ways they differ but still end in the same places; formula.

As a side note; notice the cis and trans, used as the terms to describe transsexual versus biological, are done backwards. Cis has CH3 twice on one side; female in a male body or male in female body. While trans isomers are closer to biological sex; male and female on opposite sides. My guess this was an enantiomer moment, seen in the mirror of Atheism; morphed application of cis and trans.

Always good to break things down to the molecular level.

The Molecular Shape of You (Ed Sheeran Parody) | A Capella Science

 

[PureX]

As I see it, you can't see that morality is ultimately about consequences. That is shown even in the examples you have given.

The difference is personal, even 'spiritual'. A choice made for it's own sake, not because "the world" dictates it, or rewards it, because it doesn't. This is what you can't recognize or acknowledge. All you have is "the world". Nothing else is comprehended as 'real' for you. I understand this.

 

[Polymath257]

The difference is personal, even 'spiritual'. A choice made for it's own sake, not because "the world" dictates it, or rewards it, because it doesn't. This is what you can't recognize or acknowledge. All you have is "the world". Nothing else is comprehended as 'real' for you. I understand this.

It isn't a matter of 'the world' dictating morals. It doesn't. But morality, is ultimately about how humans (and, perhaps, other intelligent creatures) interact with each other to encourage a fulfilling life.

I am more than willing to acknowledge something other than 'the world' if you can present evidence of something else actually existing. In particular, clear methods to separate truth from falsities are required.

 

[robocop (actually)]

This is expected since Atheism originally defined itself on a negative; what it is not (does not believe in God or religion). Therefore it is like a reflection in the mirror of religion. Defining yourself what you are, allows you to branch in a unique way or direction. But defining yourself in terms of what you are not, tends to funnel you via the mirror. Atheism came from Christianity; mirror world; x and -x.

There are molecular states in chemistry called isomers; constitutional and stereo. Isomers are chemicals that have the same formula, but differ by how the atoms are arranged in space. Enantiomers are stereo isomers, which look like mirror images, but cannot be superimposed in space; God or No God. Another form of isomer are cis and trans isomers, that have the same formula, they cannot superimpose, but they are not mirror images. This can create similarities in atheist and religious, from different approaches; ways they differ but still end in the same places; formula.

As a side note; notice the cis and trans, used as the terms to describe transsexual versus biological, are done backwards. Cis has CH3 twice on one side; female in a male body or male in female body. While trans isomers are closer to biological sex; male and female on opposite sides. My guess this was an enantiomer moment, seen in the mirror of Atheism; morphed application of cis and trans.

Classic morality is about maximizing the group. Atheism is more about maximizing the ego or individual. Maximizing the group is about the team effect; team can become more than the sum of its parts. Whereas, maximizing the individual is less about the team, and more about the ego of the teammates; politics ahead of merit.

If we tried to form a successful team, the ego of each player will need to make sacrifices, for the needs of the team. The coach will assign players, whose ego may wish something else. The coach is not there to make everyone feel good about themselves. Rather his job is to put together a team that will sacrifice for each other and win.

The religious moral codes comes from the big coach; God. The players may not agree on all the rules; subject of debate, but they will still sacrifice. The team is bigger than the ego, and the ego needs to restructure itself, to be in the right place for the team, so the gears mesh.

If the goal was the ego of the players, we may sacrifice most of the authority of the coach. The parent politics may want more play time for the second string players, so their babies can shine for them. It is less about the team, and more about nobody feeling left out, and everyone feeling good about themselves. This precludes, many of the sacrifice needed for a winning team structure; DEI instead of merit.



In this case, the word "hurt" does not include the effects of infidelity on the person or people cheated on, or an aborted baby. It is not about the larger team, beyond the ego's state of mind, during the act itself. I was so loving and caring.

In the case of the team, having an affair with a teammate's wife or girlfriend, can cause friction for the entire team. The coach will make it clear, up front, what happens if this happens, no matter how you; ego, justify it.

On there other hand, there is the team life and there is private life. On your time off, the ego can have more flexibility as long as your team spirit is not compromised; I was funny, but am now to hung over to play. This amalgam; team and home team, will result in similarities between the Religious and Atheists; good company and home people who take pride in doing a good job.

Sorry TLDR

 

[Valjean]

You seem to want to ignore that it's not about the consequences for most people. It's about right and wrong, good and evil, for their own sake.

But how are these distinguished? What makes something right and good, or wrong and evil?

 

[Revoltingest]

This is expected since Atheism originally defined itself on a negative; what it is not (does not believe in God or religion). Therefore it is like a reflection in the mirror of religion. Defining yourself what you are, allows you to branch in a unique way or direction. But defining yourself in terms of what you are not, tends to funnel you via the mirror. Atheism came from Christianity; mirror world; x and -x.

Atheism is merely a response to Christianity?
I don't think so. I'd wager that people disbelieving in
gods existed long before Jesus arrived. Other religions
are much older. Very likely those & ancient religious
beliefs now unknown to us were rejected by cave men
(& cave gals) skeptical of such myths.

 

[blü 2]

No, they aren't. But as a materialist, you can't see that.

Right and wrong. good and bad, better and worse, are all subjective judgments in that they require a point of view.

Is it good to invade Ukraine? There appear to be at least two views on this.

Is it good that volcano eruptions kill people and wipe out villages? It's not to the benefit of those affected, but no malice was involved.

 

[blü 2]

The religious moral codes comes from the big coach; God. The players may not agree on all the rules; subject of debate, but they will still sacrifice. The team is bigger than the ego, and the ego needs to restructure itself, to be in the right place for the team, so the gears mesh.

You assert this very confidently. What's an example that's been analyzed?

If the goal was the ego of the players, we may sacrifice most of the authority of the coach. The parent politics may want more play time for the second string players, so their babies can shine for them. It is less about the team, and more about nobody feeling left out, and everyone feeling good about themselves. This precludes, many of the sacrifice needed for a winning team structure; DEI instead of merit.

No, that's just an echo of the silly argument that atheists know God exists but choose to claim [he] doesn't so they can sin.

In this case, the word "hurt" does not include the effects of infidelity on the person or people cheated on, or an aborted baby. It is not about the larger team, beyond the ego's state of mind, during the act itself. I was so loving and caring.

You appear to be claiming implicitly that to be an atheist is to be untrustworthy, with the inference that believers are indeed trustworthy.

Can you refer me to any research that shows such a thing? It is of course an entirely separate question of whether sex without or outside marriage is never permissible.

 

[Valjean]

Social hierarchies are effective for survival in many situations.
Acceptance of inequality can be good as inequality will always exist,

Social inequality, as we know it today, is a new thing. For most of our history we lived in small bands, as hunter-gatherers. Our minds are wired for this lifestyle.
These cultures are extremely égalitarian. Without variation in wealth or lifestyle, and with everyone interdependent and part of the same small band, any status variation is based on individual skills or personality.

Nationalism can lead to a sense of group identity that encourages pro-social behaviour within the group.

Yes -- and antagonism toward non-members -- "The Other."
In fact, without differential status or moral obligation between in- group and out-group, nationalism would be impossible.

Authoritarian leaders are more effective in certain situations.

Whether these things are positive or negative depend on a variety of contingent factors and subjective judgements.

They can certainly be problematic, but they are not intrinsically problematic. They are not necessarily maladaptive characteristics, they may be adaptive.

They might get the trains to run on time, but with little citizen control over a country's social, economic, or military policies, individual' freedom, security and prosperity would be at the whim of an authority likely more concerned with his own power and status than the happiness of the citizenry.

 

[Valjean]

No, they aren't. But as a materialist, you can't see that.

What is your morality based on, then?

What is the function of moral behavior; what's it supposed to accomplish?

 

[Revoltingest]

Social inequality, as we know it today, is a new thing.

I doubt that. Looking at other animals,
social inequality abounds, eg, chimps.

 

[PureX]

But how are these distinguished? What makes something right and good, or wrong and evil?

Love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity ... honesty, wisdom, beauty and equanimity. These divine gifts found within the human spirit. And the sense of their being a higher calling; more than just a road to our own pleasure, and survival. But this is a reality that the materialists cannot grasp. Because they think material reality is all the reality there is. For them, there is no divine, transcendent calling. No ideal that transcends the material mechanisms of existence.

And that is very sad, I think.

 

[Kenny]

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

I’m not surprised at all

 

[Polymath257]

Love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity ... honesty, wisdom, beauty and equanimity. These divine gifts found within the human spirit. And the sense of their being a higher calling; more than just a road to our own pleasure, and survival.

I agree. They are a crucial part of human well-being. It isn't just pleasure and survival that lead to fulfillment. It is all of the emotional aspects of life. And *those* emotional consequences have to *also* be taken into consideration when asking about morality.

But this is a reality that the materialists cannot grasp.

Simply false that these are a separate reality. They are a crucial part of what it means to be human, but they are ultimately, I believe, based on physical reality. That does not lessen their value or change their moral impact.

Because they think material reality is all the reality there is. For them, there is no divine, transcendent calling. No ideal that transcends the material mechanisms of existence.

Correct. Those wonderful emotions that give life meaning are ultimately, I believe, physical. They are not 'transcendent'. But that does not mean they are not real emotions that need to be considered when looking at consequences of our actions.

And that is very sad, I think.

And I find it sad that you need these to be transcendent to find them important.

 

[Valjean]

Love, forgiveness, kindness, and generosity ... honesty, wisdom, beauty and equanimity. These divine gifts found within the human spirit. And the sense of their being a higher calling; more than just a road to our own pleasure, and survival. But this is a reality that the materialists cannot grasp. Because they think material reality is all the reality there is. For them, there is no divine, transcendent calling. No ideal that transcends the material mechanisms of existence.

Admirable virtues, but I'm still not clear about what makes an action moral or immoral. I don't think an action is necessarily moral if done by an honest, loving, beautiful person..
What determines morality; what is its foundation? What is moral
action attempting to accomplish?

Q: Why do you say these virtues are gifts, as opposed to personal qualities or accomplishments?
Why do you imply that non-believers tend to be more concerned with their own pleasure or survival, rather than altruistic, social causes?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Is it good that volcano eruptions kill people and wipe out villages? It's not to the benefit of those affected, but no malice was involved.

Who knows? There is God.

 

[Polymath257]

Right and wrong. good and bad, better and worse, are all subjective judgments in that they require a point of view.

Is it good to invade Ukraine? There appear to be at least two views on this.

Is it good that volcano eruptions kill people and wipe out villages? It's not to the benefit of those affected, but no malice was involved.

On the other hand, modern archeologists have learned a LOT about Roman society from the ruins of Vesuvius. In Herculaneum (which is often forgotten compared to Pompeii), there is a library of scrolls that has been preserved, although carbonized. We are finally getting the technology to virtually unwrap them and read them for the first time in almost 2000 years.

 

[LuisDantas]

I strongly suspect that overall theists value rationality significantly less than atheists do.

And probably also less than they have convinced themselves that they do.