Does Atheism Lead to Immoral Behavior?

[Valjean]

The trouble with most deontological systems is that the rules are often not functionally related to the consequences. It's often not clear what they're intended to achieve.

 

[Sand Dancer]

It's amazing how mant theists keep defering to some holy text as if it is God itself. The rules they claiam are from God are often biased against some group. The Baha'i have their direct prejudice against gays, which is a serious flaw in their belief. Their justification is that it appears in the text. And they claim baha'u'llah is a middleman to God. Is there ant evidenbce? No. They refuse to admit it is them making the moral and absolute decision that Baha'u'llah is authentic, and thus anything he says is authentic. For all theists they bypass their own decision and meaning assignment of the texts, and they believe they are exempt from whatever texts say, and how they behave as followers. This renders them obedient robots who refuse to take responsibility for their own thinking and actions. This is the antithesis of what it means to be a moral agent.

Sounds like idol worship to me.

 

[Eli G]

I think there is a diference in the belief/disbelief of an individual, and the moral/inmoral behaviour that he may adopt following his own principles or the principles of a community he belongs to.

One thing is truth: a person who fears God is supposed to be more conscious of his own behaviour ... not that it always happens, of course.

Anyway, if each person by himself, or group by itself, choose what is moral to them, doesn't mean that that if they are their own judges they will be judged as non-guilty all the time by their own rules of what is moral or not?

For religious people, God decides what is moral, and He will judge, sooner or later.

 

[Sand Dancer]

I think there is a diference in the belief/disbelief of an individual, and the moral/inmoral behaviour that he may adopt following his own principles or the principles of a community he belongs to.

One thing is truth: a person who fears God is supposed to be more conscious of his own behaviour ... not that it always happens, of course.

Anyway, if each person by himself, or group by itself, choose what is moral to them, doesn't mean that that if they are their own judges they will be judged as non-guilty all the time by their own rules of what is moral or not?

For religious people, God decides what is moral, and He will judge, sooner or later.

Not all religions believe in a god of judgement.

 

[Eli G]

Not all religions believe in a god of judgement.

Tell me more

 

[Trailblazer]

What, if anything, encourages/discourages immoral behavior?

A conscience.

 

[Trailblazer]

Personally speaking, I don't know. I'm not aware of any reason to assume there is one but there could be one we're not aware of. It does strike me as something of an academic question though, since even if there was some kind of overarching purpose to our existence, would there be anything we could or should do differently as a result?

If God created humans then it makes logical sense that God would know the purpose for which humans were created.
If there is an overarching purpose to our existence as determined by God, I think that it would to be beneficial to know what that purpose is so we can fulfill it.
Yes, I think that if we knew the purpose of our existence there would be plenty of things that we could and should do differently.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it needed to be explained it wouldn't be axiomatic. If it did exist though, it would be largely the same "axiomatic" evidence for Christianity, which was essentially my point.

The evidence for Christianity and Islam are the Bible and the Qur'an, what's the difference?

 

[Trailblazer]

No Gods are known to exist so atheists are not worried.

Whether God is known to exist is a moot point. If God exists, God exists.
If God did not want to be known to exist, how could we ever know that God exists?

 

[Trailblazer]

I'm an atheist. I do want to believe in God and abide by His precepts. It was my quest to figure out which precepts were his and how to abide by them that eventually turned me into an atheist, because I could find no evidence that any precepts come from God rather than men claiming to speak for God.

With all due respect, if 'some men' who claim to speak for God are actually speaking for God, and if that is the only way we can ever know anything about God, it makes sense to me to listen to those men, who claim to be Messengers of God, but only after we have determined that they were Messengers.

 

[Trailblazer]

I find the God of the Bible to be immoral and not worthy of worship.

Then why not look for another version of God?

 

[Trailblazer]

So are doctors immoral and evil for going against God's will by saving the lives of children?

The doctors are not going against God's will, they are doing God's will.

 

[HonestJoe]

If there is an overarching purpose to our existence as determined by God, I think that it would to be beneficial to know what that purpose is so we can fulfill it.
Yes, I think that if we knew the purpose of our existence there would be plenty of things that we could and should do differently.

That presumes that purpose would be something we'd all want to fulfil. If cows on a farm were aware of their purpose in life, would they voluntarily walk in to the slaughterhouse? It's also possible (and even promoted by some religious beliefs), that not knowing the ultimate purpose is necessary, that our actions shouldn't be based on a cold assessment of the eternal benefits for ourselves but on a moral assessment of what is best for everyone.

The evidence for Christianity and Islam are the Bible and the Qur'an, what's the difference?

In the context of their general trustworthiness and validity, there is no difference, which was my point. There is generally no valid reason to accept one set of religious beliefs while dismissing any contradictory or contrasting ones.

 

[Trailblazer]

That presumes that purpose would be something we'd all want to fulfil. If cows on a farm were aware of their purpose in life, would they voluntarily walk in to the slaughterhouse? It's also possible (and even promoted by some religious beliefs), that not knowing the ultimate purpose is necessary, that our actions shouldn't be based on a cold assessment of the eternal benefits for ourselves but on a moral assessment of what is best for everyone.

I don't think that God determined that the purpose of the cows on a farm was to be slaughtered, humans determined that would be their purpose. I believe that in the future meat will no longer be eaten.

I don't think it is our purpose is to try to get to heaven since that is selfish. I believe our purpose is to know and love God and follow His teachings and commandments. I think our actions should be based upon a moral assessment of what is best for everyone, and that is one of His teachings.

In the context of their general trustworthiness and validity, there is no difference, which was my point. There is generally no valid reason to accept one set of religious beliefs while dismissing any contradictory or contrasting ones.

I fully agree.

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't think that God determined that the purpose of the cows on a farm was to be slaughtered, humans determined that would be their purpose. I believe that in the future meat will no longer be eaten.

I obviously wasn't saying God determined that, it was just an example of beings having a purpose (regardless of who or what gave it) that those beings themselves wouldn't approve of and hence it is kept from them. Maybe we don't know what our purpose is because that purpose isn't for our benefit. Maybe we're just some kind of tools or slaves, and the point of religion is to discourage us from finding the truth.

I don't think it is our purpose is to try to get to heaven since that is selfish. I believe our purpose is to know and love God and follow His teachings and commandments. I think our actions should be based upon a moral assessment of what is best for everyone, and that is one of His teachings.

Sure, that's the kind of purpose we'd all like to believe but that doesn't make it any more than wishful thinking.

It also doesn't really present the underlying purpose. What is the point of us "knowing and loving God" or following what you believe are his teachings and commandments? What is a gained from people doing that and what is lost if we don't? Why couldn't the purpose (or a consequence of it) be selfish or immoral from our point of view? Why would it need to be best for everyone?

I fully agree.

Do you? Because you clearly do accept on set of religious beliefs over any others - you literally just told me. If you agreed, you'd have an unconditional "I don't know" position, even in the context of things you personally believe.

 

[Trailblazer]

I obviously wasn't saying God determined that, it was just an example of beings having a purpose (regardless of who or what gave it) that those beings themselves wouldn't approve of and hence it is kept from them. Maybe we don't know what our purpose is because that purpose isn't for our benefit. Maybe we're just some kind of tools or slaves, and the point of religion is to discourage us from finding the truth.

Hypothetically speaking, if an all-knowing and all-wise God who created us had a purpose in mind for us, it would be beneficial for us. That does not mean that everyone would 'like' what that purpose was, because all people do not have the same likes and dislikes.

If religion is man-made and not revealed by God then hypothetically speaking, the men who wrote the alleged scriptures could have had an ulterior purpose or motive in mind, we could just be some kind of tools or slaves, and the point of the man-made religion could be to discourage us from finding the truth.

Sure, that's the kind of purpose we'd all like to believe but that doesn't make it any more than wishful thinking.

It also doesn't really present the underlying purpose. What is the point of us "knowing and loving God" or following what you believe are his teachings and commandments? What is a gained from people doing that and what is lost if we don't? Why couldn't the purpose (or a consequence of it) be selfish or immoral from our point of view? Why would it need to be best for everyone?.

The reason for us "knowing and loving God" and following His teachings and commandments is because, according to my beliefs, that is what God has enjoined us to do, for our own benefit.

I believe that people who follow God's teachings and laws lead a happier and more fulfilled life overall. A purpose that is selfish or immoral and not best for everyone might bring momentary happiness but it does not lead to happiness that endures into the next life.

I cannot say what will ultimately be gained or lost as I think that will only come to fruition in the next life, commonly referred to as the afterlife. A gamble is involved because we have to make certain sacrifices for a future reward that we cannot prove exists, and that requires faith

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe that people who follow God's teachings and laws lead a happier and more fulfilled life overall.

Exactly. Which is why when I experience doubts, I stick with my religion, because even if I'm wrong, it is the best possible life.

 

[Ella S.]

With all due respect, if 'some men' who claim to speak for God are actually speaking for God, and if that is the only way we can ever know anything about God, it makes sense to me to listen to those men, who claim to be Messengers of God, but only after we have determined that they were Messengers.

As far as I'm aware, none of the people claiming to speak for God have ever been able to back up their claim.

ETA: I don't think any of them that I have investigated have ever even remotely come close, if I'm being honest. It's why I feel quite comfortable chalking them up to baseless claims; as far as I'm aware, there is no basis to affirm anything they say.

I think people forget too often that the scriptures they pull from didn't come straight from the mouth of a god, but instead they came from the tip of a pen guided by a human hand. No god is necessary to explain any scripture's existence. They all make sense as the product of people and the human mind.

 

[Brian2]

As far as I'm aware, none of the people claiming to speak for God have ever been able to back up their claim.

ETA: I don't think any of them that I have investigated have ever even remotely come close, if I'm being honest. It's why I feel quite comfortable chalking them up to baseless claims; as far as I'm aware, there is no basis to affirm anything they say.

I think people forget too often that the scriptures they pull from didn't come straight from the mouth of a god, but instead they came from the tip of a pen guided by a human hand. No god is necessary to explain any scripture's existence. They all make sense as the product of people and the human mind.

You sound like you think you know the mind of God, but really you think nobody knows the mind of God.
I like what you said about no god being necessary to explain any scripture's existence. There needs to be more than scriptures. God needs to confirm that person who claims to have spoken for God.
God confirmed Jesus by His resurrection and Jesus showed His disciples that God had confirmed Him and so they believed and did as He told them to do, spread His message to the world.
Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy through what He did in life and in His resurrection and fulfilled what He had told His disciples would happen to Him, His crucifixion, death and resurrection.
So people even 2000 years later still believe and spread His message to the world.

 

[HonestJoe]

Hypothetically speaking, if an all-knowing and all-wise God who created us had a purpose in mind for us, it would be beneficial for us.

The assumes we were created by an all-knowing, all-wise God though. The question I responded to (back in post #151) was wider than that; Whether our existence has a purpose, independent of who or what created or caused that purpose to exist. That purpose could be literally anything (or nothing).

Even if we do accept the all-knowing, all-wise creator God, the purpose of creation could well not actually be for all humans (even if we have been told that is the case). Even if that God is also omni-benevolent, and generally wants good things for humans, that doesn't mean a positive or pleasant existence for us (during and/or after life) is the overall purpose of the whole thing. We could just as easily be a means to an end or a irrelevant side-effect. It always struck me as arrogant to assume that the whole of creation must be all about us.

The reason for us "knowing and loving God" and following His teachings and commandments is because, according to my beliefs, that is what God has enjoined us to do, for our own benefit.

I appreciate and respect that is what you believe, and similar to (though often with key differences) what other people believe. That is only belief though. It is distinct from the question of what actually is or could be and doesn't automatically lead to ay right or better way to act in life (which is the underlying flawed assumption behind the initial thread topic).