Should attitudes about atheism change?

[Tcg]

.
Yet another study reveals that atheism does not result in immorality:

Atheism, Morality, and Society
Is God necessary for goodness?

According to a recent study conducted by the Pew Research Center, only 44 percent of Americans say that it is necessary to believe in God in order to “be moral and have good values.” Or put differently, a majority of Americans—around 56 percent—think that you can be moral and have good values, even if you are an atheist.

They are absolutely correct.

The evidence is clear that atheism does not result in immorality. If anything, secularity is strongly correlated with sound ethical living.

Despite the horrible, murderous crimes of various infamous atheist dictators—such as Cambodia's Pol Pot or the USSR's Stalin, who criminally forced their atheism on captive populations and sought to destroy religion—in societies where atheism isn't coerced, but emerges naturally in free, democratic contexts, the result is usually not inhumanity, crime, and chaos, but well-being, safety, and sound moral life.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... nd-society

Why do the 44% continue to think that one must be a theist to be moral when the data reveals that isn't true?


Tcg

[alexxcJRO]

Fair enough, let me try to answer these for you.
1. Material is that which is subject to scientific inquiry, is the stuff we deal with when we undertake scientific inquiry. It includes matter, energy, fields, laws, all of the fundamental abstractions that are represented in our scientific theories.
2. What three laws are you referring to?
3. I mean the potential to create change in ways that our current models of reality cannot sustain.
4. No I do not mean "hivemind", I mean something that cannot be subject to reductionism.
5. Sentient is necessary here otherwise the being is acting in accordance with scientific laws, only an entity not subject to, not acting under laws can create laws where laws did not exist, in the absence of laws, laws cannot play a role, something very different is needed.

1. Q: What if there is “material” causes that are outside the universe in the multiverse that are not comprised of matter, energy, fields, laws, all of the fundamental abstractions that are represented in our scientific theories?
More “material” so to speak.
Q: Your god is not comprised of this new “material” either?

2. (1) the law of contradiction, (2) the law of excluded middle (or third), and (3) the principle of identity.

3. What do you mean by “that our current models of reality cannot sustain.“? Breaking the laws of physics?
If yes what if there is more “physics” outside our model of reality(universe) which laws your god abide to.

4. Q: Why there cannot be a hive mind or more then one creator? Based on what, subjective ponderings? Why the necessity: “that cannot be subject to reductionism”?

5. Why cannot be something alone the line of: a very powerful being exists and is indifferent in respect to the well being and affairs of humans akin to the likes of “Azeroth”.

Azathoth is a mindless force of Chaos-objective randomness that happens to be extremely powerful. He simply is. Existing but not much else. With no real ability to think in either the abstract sense or the simple way non-human animals way. In his random, unintelligibly, mindless way Azathoth created or dreamed the universe as we know it into existence. He did this unintentionally, unaware of the occurrence. He will be equally oblivious, unaware when he destroys it. There's no point behind his actions, it's just happenstance when he does something.

The term "multiverse" is a misnomer, the term "universe" means (and always has) - literally - all material, everything in totality that exists. The pseudo science term "multiverse" is an abuse of language, a far better term would have been "multicosmos" because that's actually what people mean by it.

Well in science offering up an observation as the explanation for that observation is somewhat frowned upon. It is the equivalent of answering "because" when someone asks "why is the sky blue" or "how does radio energy travel through empty space".

Answering "because" to such questions if you were a science teacher would soon have you looking for a new job. Likewise answering "because" to the question "why does the universe exist" should be treated the same way, dismissal because it is not a scientific answer.

Q:What if the universe(everything in totality that exists) thing can serve as its own explanation(Eternalism) in a B theory of time where there is no such thing as temporal becoming and temporal lapse of time?
Every moment of time, all there is just exists at once: tenselessly.
The absurdities discussed by al-Ghazali do not arise.
The passage of time is a subjective illusion of human consciousness. Temporal becoming is not an objective feature of reality.
No god or another cause outside its existence.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Only if I agree with your assumptions, all "objective" models in the sciences are based on assumptions and axioms, we are in such cases free to pick and choose our axioms.

Q: What are you babbling here?
Q: What assumptions?
Please be more specific.

Insult noted.

Yes take the axiom "the laws of physics have never changed" this cannot be tested, we either assume it or not, if we assume it's true we can develop a theoretical cosmology but if we assume it's false then we can develop a different theoretical cosmology.

It is possible to generate two theories with different axioms that each match observation too, so as I said we cannot test the axiom itself only our reasoning from it. There are other examples too, for example the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe.

A real example if that will help is the axiom about gravitation and dark matter, one schools says dark matter really does exist the other says it does not and what we see is actually the result of gravity behaving differently to what we assume, that GR is in fact wrong and that modifying it can explain the apparent dark matter.

Does this help?

So we have contrasting stories then, I was once immersed in science, studied theoretical physics, and was a very vocal atheism and evolution advocate before it became as fashionable as it is today.

From a very vocal atheist and evolution advocate now a believer in a God that is responsible for the great suffering and pain of non-moral agents(infants, non-human animals, severely mentally impaired).
Q: Do you believe your God is some indifferent deist God? Who could care less what happens with the humans?
Q: Do you no longer believe evolution happened?

1. No I do not regard God as indifferent, I accept that I do not understand his goal and unless we do we cannot critique the methods he uses.
2. I do not believe that life evolved from simpler, primitive life.

There is no "law of reciprocity", a law is inviolable in the sciences (which is why the term is so used).

Ok if you don’t like it. Then we will say “affective empathy leads to an intrinsically sense of morality mostly guided by the Golden Rule”.

You say it "works" so to what end? what defines "works" for you, here?

Humans because of this objective mechanism don’t go out and kill, rape, torture because they find such acts abhorrent.

If only that were true, our prisons would be empty and that poor girl who was recently stabbed by a maniac in LA would be alive.

Right so now you need some agreed way to measure and estimate the utility of a course of action. One that has high utility is deemed "moral" and one that has low utility is deemed "immoral".

So your argument all boils down to utility, a material way of defining some kind of material value system, but we can all define our own utility here, nothing special about your or anyone's really.

The child will perceive the vaccinator is "evil" a source of fear and pain, her measure of utility is quite different from yours.

Its irrelevant for my initial response was to this : “If the universe is simply unfeeling, uncaring, deterministic laws acting upon matter and space then I do not see how "moral" and "immoral" can be defined scientifically, they can only be defined arbitrarily, based on whim.
Are there "moral" laws of nature?”

And I pointed that there exists an objective morality that results from an objective mechanism and its not based on whim. This mechanism triggers no matter if we want or not. We find certain actions abhorrent because of it.

This is speculation.

Yes, you keep talking about your experiences, this is hardly a way to talk about objective moral laws.

There exists an objective morality that results from an objective mechanism and its not based on whim-subjective feelings sir. This mechanism triggers no matter if we want or not. We find certain actions abhorrent because of it. There is no choice.
If murder triggers this mechanism (because we(most of us) have a developed affective empathy) we find murder abhorrent independent of our subjective whims.

Yet we do see murder, abuse, torture, rape, power imposed upon the weak, exploitation etc, this fact seems to undermine your claims.

But does that make them immoral?

According to the objective mechanism (because one has a developed affective empathy) we find murder(caused by a psychopath) abhorrent.

Murderers don't find murder abhorrent.

And there we go, a poorly disguised attempt to stereotype anyone who is not an atheist, disparaging, insulting, all so typical in such conversations.

But it’s the truth. Ignorant ancient goat herders believed their God: Yahweh wanted them to kill witches, fortunetellers, gays; that they can beat a slave as long as him/her not dies after two days.
Q: Are you not familiar with Jewish mythology?

Affective empathy still functions if one has it developed sir no matter one thinks of gays, slaves, fortunetellers.

If we possess empathy we should thank God for that.

[alexxcJRO]

Yes take the axiom "the laws of physics have never changed" this cannot be tested, we either assume it or not, if we assume it's true we can develop a theoretical cosmology but if we assume it's false then we can develop a different theoretical cosmology.

It is possible to generate two theories with different axioms that each match observation too, so as I said we cannot test the axiom itself only our reasoning from it. There are other examples too, for example the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe.

A real example if that will help is the axiom about gravitation and dark matter, one schools says dark matter really does exist the other says it does not and what we see is actually the result of gravity behaving differently to what we assume, that GR is in fact wrong and that modifying it can explain the apparent dark matter.

Does this help?

Q: What does the fact that the "the laws of physics may change in the future" have to do with the fact that there exists an objective morality that results from an objective mechanism and its not based on whim or subjective ponderings, feelings?
Really don’t get it.

objective
/əbˈdʒɛktɪv/

Learn to pronounce

See definitions in:
All
Philosophy
Grammar
Optics
adjective
1. 1.
(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

This is speculation.

Q: So you do not believe affective empathy exists and that it works as I mention?(yes/no)

Yet we do see murder, abuse, torture, rape, power imposed upon the weak, exploitation etc, this fact seems to undermine your claims.
If only that were true, our prisons would be empty and that poor girl who was recently stabbed by a maniac in LA would be alive.

Existence of murder, abuse, torture, rape, power imposed upon the weak, exploitation does not disprove the existence of this objective mechanism.
One can ignore this intrinsic morality, the trigger of affective empathy and still act abhorrently. People with this intrinsic morality that commit such acts also feel remorse after because this objective mechanism tells them it’s wrong.
Many of these acts are done by psychopaths, sociopaths. Most people do not murder, torture, rape because they have their affective empathy developed.

Murderers don't find murder abhorrent.

Because their affective empathy is not developed/ is severely impaired(psychopaths, sociopaths) therefore they do not have this objective morality(this objective mechanism does not happen).

If we possess empathy we should thank God for that.

It developed thanks to evolution.

Morality evolved as the social behavior of the "pack", "group", "community", "tribe" of animals and humans evolved into what we have today. Scientists say that the following characteristics are
shared by humans and other social animals, particularly the great apes: attachment and bonding, cooperation and mutual aid, sympathy and empathy, direct and indirect reciprocity, altruism and
reciprocal altruism, conflict resolution and peacemaking, deception and deception detection, community concern and caring about what others think about you, and awareness of and response to the social rules of the group. They also argue that these pre-moral sentiments evolved in primate societies as a method of restraining individual selfishness and building more cooperative groups.
For any social species, the benefits of being part of an altruistic group should outweigh the benefits of individualism. For example, lack of group cohesion could make individuals more vulnerable
to attack from outsiders. Being part of group may also improve the chances of finding food. This is evident among animals that hunt in packs to take down large or dangerous prey.

Morality evolved because of natural selection.
Groups, pack, tribes that were more altruistic, that showed more cohesion, sympathy and empathy and cooperation were more likely to survive and find food. Groups were psychopathy was prevalent and showed mostly individual selfishness were less likely to survive.

1. No I do not regard God as indifferent, I accept that I do not understand his goal and unless we do we cannot critique the methods he uses.
2. I do not believe that life evolved from simpler, primitive life.

1. If you believe in a omnibenevolent, personal being(that cares about humans well being) how do you reconcile natural evils that inflict great suffering and pain indiscriminately to non-moral agents(infants, non-human animals, severely mentally impaired)with such being?
2. So you don’t believe in evolution with all the evidence from paleontology, biogeography, genetics, biology& morphology.
Q: How come?