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

[nobspeople]

[Replying to Tcg in post #1]

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

This speaks to the power and influence of christianity and the lack of education among humanity. It's no surprise that christianity has its views that are sacred to them to the point they influence their sheep to dislike/distrust/hate ANYTHING that's different from them.
Also, it's easier to 'believe' in god than not, due to this influence, IMO.
It's all about control and income.

[Sherlock Holmes]

.
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

This depends on how one chooses to define morality, if the definition excludes God (atheism) then of course you won't need God to be moral but if the definition is in terms of God (theism) then of course you do need God.

[TRANSPONDER]

The apologetic is that morality comes from God is the basis (if any is sought other than 'atheist evil') of Morality and thus no God, no morality. That argument. But assuming that the public mind is open to the arguments about biological and social evolution (if not, evidence and reasoning is pointless, anyway), then an explanation of how and why we have morality can be made without a god being needed and in fact morality is better off without. It doesn't hurt to point out that the Golden Rule is not the personal possession of Christianity but can be arrived at in any religion or none, and it is rather that it (reciprocity) is a behavioural basis of pack or tribe instinct and religions just recite it in their own Holy Books and take credit for it

It may be that this idea is gradually Getting Out there. The more this is fed into public consciousness, the less religion will be able to claim morality for God (name your own) and one of the salient polemics against atheism will have gone up in smoke.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The apologetic is that morality comes from God is the basis (if any is sought other than 'atheist evil') of Morality and thus no God, no morality. That argument. But assuming that the public mind is open to the arguments about biological and social evolution (if not, evidence and reasoning is pointless, anyway), then an explanation of how and why we have morality can be made without a god being needed and in fact morality is better off without. It doesn't hurt to point out that the Golden Rule is not the personal possession of Christianity but can be arrived at in any religion or none, and it is rather that it (reciprocity) is a behavioural basis of pack or tribe instinct and religions just recite it in their own Holy Books and take credit for it

It may be that this idea is gradually Getting Out there. The more this is fed into public consciousness, the less religion will be able to claim morality for God (name your own) and one of the salient polemics against atheism will have gone up in smoke.

Well as a theist, everything comes from God, all pleasure, pain, joy, experiences all exist because of God, life, the universe, matter, energy, fields, laws all exist because of God.

So it is meaningless to speak to someone like me of a morality that does defer in some way to God.

Atheism offers no prospect of morality, none, like eugenics it attempts to materialize what is spiritual.

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?

[alexxcJRO]

Well as a theist, everything comes from God, all pleasure, pain, joy, experiences all exist because of God, life, the universe, matter, energy, fields, laws all exist because of God.

It is lovely to know that non-moral evils such as genetic diseases, cancer, natural forest fires, earthquakes, hurricanes which affect indiscriminately non-moral agents(infants, non-human animals, severely mentally impaired) come from God.

Q: Isn’t that something?!(rhetorical question)

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?

Objective mechanism leading to a morality that is independent of religious propaganda or societal influence.

Evolution -> Mirror neurons -> Affective Empathy.

As a result of this mirroring process =affective empathy we humans(except psychopaths who have a innate problem involving the affective empathy) have developed intrinsically a sense of morality) mostly guided by the Golden Rule or law of reciprocity which is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself.
It is a fact that when you see children, women being raped, tortured or killed; when you see the face of someone experiencing intense fear/pain/suffering your mirror neurons fire and the affective empathy process is triggered. You empathize with these people for you put yourself in their shoes aka the mirroring process and because you would not want to be raped, tortured, killed(your existence to be stopped, because of the survival instinct) you instinctively find these actions abhorrent.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Well as a theist, everything comes from God, all pleasure, pain, joy, experiences all exist because of God, life, the universe, matter, energy, fields, laws all exist because of God.

It is lovely to know that non-moral evils such as genetic diseases, cancer, natural forest fires, earthquakes, hurricanes which affect indiscriminately non-moral agents(infants, non-human animals, severely mentally impaired) come from God.

Q: Isn’t that something?!(rhetorical question)

Since it's rhetorical I won't address it.

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?

Objective mechanism leading to a morality that is independent of religious propaganda or societal influence.

Evolution -> Mirror neurons -> Affective Empathy.

You mean I should regard you as God? rely on your definition?

As a result of this mirroring process =affective empathy we humans(except psychopaths who have a innate problem involving the affective empathy) have developed intrinsically a sense of morality) mostly guided by the Golden Rule or law of reciprocity which is the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated oneself.

Yes, but this is a person's definition, your definition, why do you think I should adopt your ideas about morality?

It is a fact that when you see children, women being raped, tortured or killed; when you see the face of someone experiencing intense fear/pain/suffering your mirror neurons fire and the affective empathy process is triggered.

You are equating empathy with morality, if that's your definition of moral then what about cases where a person feels empathy for an immoral person?

You empathize with these people for you put yourself in their shoes aka the mirroring process and because you would not want to be raped, tortured, killed(your existence to be stopped, because of the survival instinct) you instinctively find these actions abhorrent.

This is absurd, should I refuse to inject a child with vaccine because I feel empathy when they express extreme fear?

Besides why should I embrace empathy? what if I do not care about others and do not have empathy?

Furthermore on what basis can a person be deemed immoral when (as I assume you believe) we have no will, we are fantastically complex deterministic machines; how can a machine whose parts adhere to scientific laws, act in a way at odds with those laws?

[TRANSPONDER]

The apologetic is that morality comes from God is the basis (if any is sought other than 'atheist evil') of Morality and thus no God, no morality. That argument. But assuming that the public mind is open to the arguments about biological and social evolution (if not, evidence and reasoning is pointless, anyway), then an explanation of how and why we have morality can be made without a god being needed and in fact morality is better off without. It doesn't hurt to point out that the Golden Rule is not the personal possession of Christianity but can be arrived at in any religion or none, and it is rather that it (reciprocity) is a behavioural basis of pack or tribe instinct and religions just recite it in their own Holy Books and take credit for it

It may be that this idea is gradually Getting Out there. The more this is fed into public consciousness, the less religion will be able to claim morality for God (name your own) and one of the salient polemics against atheism will have gone up in smoke.

Well as a theist, everything comes from God, all pleasure, pain, joy, experiences all exist because of God, life, the universe, matter, energy, fields, laws all exist because of God.

So it is meaningless to speak to someone like me of a morality that does defer in some way to God.

Atheism offers no prospect of morality, none, like eugenics it attempts to materialize what is spiritual.

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?

I assume that you don't use 'God' to mean 'natural laws of physics', but some cosmic mind that gave us thought and thus morals. but that is no longer tenable. The argument now is that instincts of kinship and social responsibility are innate and seen in animals with social structure. With a more complex social structure, social codes became more complex and the principle of reciprocity as a spin -off from the objective basis of morality (for the good of humans) means that morals are a human construction and religion only takes the credit for it, while often lagging behind and protesting that moral progress is in fact Immorality. Religion is playing catch -up to secular morality right now.

The Eugenics smear has been flung at secularism often enough, but Holy Wars can in turn be flung at religion. Atheism doesn't do Holy Wars, nor does it do misguided ideas of purifying the human race on religious, tribal or physical perfection grounds. One of the poster boys of atheism and the greatest physicist of the modern age spent most of his time in a wheelchair communicating by pressing a touch pad with his tongue. Religious society would have prayed over him and then discarded him. Science enabled him to contribute the best that the mind evolution had given him could do.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The apologetic is that morality comes from God is the basis (if any is sought other than 'atheist evil') of Morality and thus no God, no morality. That argument. But assuming that the public mind is open to the arguments about biological and social evolution (if not, evidence and reasoning is pointless, anyway), then an explanation of how and why we have morality can be made without a god being needed and in fact morality is better off without. It doesn't hurt to point out that the Golden Rule is not the personal possession of Christianity but can be arrived at in any religion or none, and it is rather that it (reciprocity) is a behavioural basis of pack or tribe instinct and religions just recite it in their own Holy Books and take credit for it

It may be that this idea is gradually Getting Out there. The more this is fed into public consciousness, the less religion will be able to claim morality for God (name your own) and one of the salient polemics against atheism will have gone up in smoke.

Well as a theist, everything comes from God, all pleasure, pain, joy, experiences all exist because of God, life, the universe, matter, energy, fields, laws all exist because of God.

So it is meaningless to speak to someone like me of a morality that does defer in some way to God.

Atheism offers no prospect of morality, none, like eugenics it attempts to materialize what is spiritual.

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?

I assume that you don't use 'God' to mean 'natural laws of physics', but some cosmic mind that gave us thought and thus morals. but that is no longer tenable. The argument now is that instincts of kinship and social responsibility are innate and seen in animals with social structure.

Yes, as I said all is due to God, "social responsibility" and a belief we can choose to act one way or another, is due to God as is everything else we value.

Deterministic systems - which is what an atheist likely sees us as - cannot possess any mean to choose moral over immoral, what we do and how we act is a result of nature nothing else can play a role.

With a more complex social structure, social codes became more complex and the principle of reciprocity as a spin -off from the objective basis of morality (for the good of humans) means that morals are a human construction and religion only takes the credit for it, while often lagging behind and protesting that moral progress is in fact Immorality. Religion is playing catch -up to secular morality right now.

The Eugenics smear has been flung at secularism often enough, but Holy Wars can in turn be flung at religion. Atheism doesn't do Holy Wars, nor does it do misguided ideas of purifying the human race on religious, tribal or physical perfection grounds. One of the poster boys of atheism and the greatest physicist of the modern age spent most of his time in a wheelchair communicating by pressing a touch pad with his tongue. Religious society would have prayed over him and then discarded him. Science enabled him to contribute the best that the mind evolution had given him could do.

Hawking was not one of the greatest physicists of the modern age.

He advocated "something from nothing" which is about as unscientific a position as one can take.

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science" (A.K.A. "magic")

1. There are no "laws of science" describing something out of nothing.
2. If there were no laws to begin with then there'd be no way for a universe to do anything "according" to those laws.
3. If laws must pre-exist (as in Hawking's statement above) then we cannot refer to that as "nothing".

[TRANSPONDER]

No and no. Social responsibility is a harder choice when one does not fear divine punishment, but it is not impossible, is more logical and more praiseworthy, as one is not doing it to wine a reward or escape punishment but for the good of humans as a whole.

And Hawking was indeed one of the greatest physics minds of the modern age, even though you can't see that 'something from nothing' is the only logical solution to infinite regression (an eternal complex being with no origin is not a logical solution, but a faith based dismissal of the problem) even though physics is still groping towards the explanation of a nothing with the potentiality to become something.