Atheistforums.com

Humanities Section => Philosophy & Rhetoric General Discussion => Topic started by: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2021, 10:29:23 AM

Title: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2021, 10:29:23 AM
Interesting study. Speaking only for myself, I know that I don't consider respect for authority, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity as important as most people. I also tend to be a consequentialist and want to consider different situations on a case-by-case basis.

Atheists and believers both have moral compasses, but with key differences (https://phys.org/news/2021-02-atheists-believers-moral-compasses-key.html)

... Analysis of the results suggests that theists are more inclined than atheists to endorse moral values that promote group cohesion. Meanwhile, atheists are more likely to judge the morality of an action based on its consequences. However, atheists and theists appear to align on moral values related to protecting vulnerable individuals, liberty versus oppression, and being epistemically rational, i.e.: believing in claims when they are evidence-based and being skeptical about claims not backed by evidence.

The survey results also provided clues as to why atheists' and theists' moral compasses may be calibrated differently: the distinctions may stem in part from theists' increased exposure to community engagement in belief-based behaviors that would be costly if the beliefs were false (such as attending religious meetings). Differences in cognitive style and levels of perceived existential threat may also contribute. Future studies could further explore these potential causal relationships.

These findings suggest that the widespread idea that atheists are immoral may arise in part from their weak endorsement of moral values that promote group cohesion and their consequence-based, case-by-case moral judgment of actions.

Ståhl adds: "The most general take-home message from these studies is that people who do not believe in God do have a moral compass. In fact, they share many of the same moral concerns that religious believers have, such as concerns about fairness, and about protecting vulnerable individuals from harm. However, disbelievers are less inclined than believers to endorse moral values that serve group cohesion, such as having respect for authorities, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity... It is possible that the negative stereotype of atheists as immoral may stem in part from the fact that they are less inclined than religious people to view respect for authority, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity as relevant for morality, and they are more likely to make moral judgments about harm on a consequentialist, case by case basis."
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: Mike Cl on February 25, 2021, 11:47:38 AM
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2021, 10:29:23 AM
Interesting study. Speaking only for myself, I know that I don't consider respect for authority, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity as important as most people. I also tend to be a consequentialist and want to consider different situations on a case-by-case basis.

Atheists and believers both have moral compasses, but with key differences (https://phys.org/news/2021-02-atheists-believers-moral-compasses-key.html)

... Analysis of the results suggests that theists are more inclined than atheists to endorse moral values that promote group cohesion. Meanwhile, atheists are more likely to judge the morality of an action based on its consequences. However, atheists and theists appear to align on moral values related to protecting vulnerable individuals, liberty versus oppression, and being epistemically rational, i.e.: believing in claims when they are evidence-based and being skeptical about claims not backed by evidence.

The survey results also provided clues as to why atheists' and theists' moral compasses may be calibrated differently: the distinctions may stem in part from theists' increased exposure to community engagement in belief-based behaviors that would be costly if the beliefs were false (such as attending religious meetings). Differences in cognitive style and levels of perceived existential threat may also contribute. Future studies could further explore these potential causal relationships.

These findings suggest that the widespread idea that atheists are immoral may arise in part from their weak endorsement of moral values that promote group cohesion and their consequence-based, case-by-case moral judgment of actions.

Ståhl adds: "The most general take-home message from these studies is that people who do not believe in God do have a moral compass. In fact, they share many of the same moral concerns that religious believers have, such as concerns about fairness, and about protecting vulnerable individuals from harm. However, disbelievers are less inclined than believers to endorse moral values that serve group cohesion, such as having respect for authorities, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity... It is possible that the negative stereotype of atheists as immoral may stem in part from the fact that they are less inclined than religious people to view respect for authority, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity as relevant for morality, and they are more likely to make moral judgments about harm on a consequentialist, case by case basis."
I tend to disagree with studies like this.  One important factor for me is to clearly define what a 'moral' is.  I didn't see that in this article--too much is assumed.  Take this statement: " However, atheists and theists appear to align on moral values related to protecting vulnerable individuals, liberty versus oppression, and being epistemically rational, i.e.: believing in claims when they are evidence-based and being skeptical about claims not backed by evidence."  I would like somebody to point me toward any theist that bases any of their beliefs on evidence-based claims; or being skeptical about much of anything.  Theists claims of morality and beliefs is actually based upon fear, not reasoning. 

Personally, I view theists as being mostly sheeple and will simply give one the herd view, not a reasoned view of the world.  Their morality is based upon fear--don't do such-and-such or you will go to hell, type of belief.  Look at the labels they apply to their views--Lord, King, Prince, Christ--all terms that demonstrate they are really into dictatorships and doing what 'authority' tells them to do (which is made up to suit whatever leader they are under).  Atheists are not cookie-cutter in their thinking.  But all are much more skeptical than theists.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: aitm on February 25, 2021, 01:14:07 PM
In general I agree with the findings. But the reason for less than enthusiastic respect for authorities, in group loyalty is because they chose to be atheist. Not exactly a “let’s have a group hug” with those who actively denigrate you or attack you simply due to your lack of faith. So it’s a kind of a “Gee! Ya think?” No doubt we share many moral “absolutes” but can’t respect those who choose to attack others for reason we do not find immoral. Gays, immigrants etc... so yeah.
If we had a 700 page checklist of things we find moral vs immoral no doubt we would have many in common and “we” would have less immoral ones than they would...but of course they would follow all their Immoral checks with 5 exclamations.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2021, 01:15:54 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 25, 2021, 11:47:38 AM
I tend to disagree with studies like this.  One important factor for me is to clearly define what a 'moral' is.  I didn't see that in this article--too much is assumed.  Take this statement: " However, atheists and theists appear to align on moral values related to protecting vulnerable individuals, liberty versus oppression, and being epistemically rational, i.e.: believing in claims when they are evidence-based and being skeptical about claims not backed by evidence."  I would like somebody to point me toward any theist that bases any of their beliefs on evidence-based claims; or being skeptical about much of anything.  Theists claims of morality and beliefs is actually based upon fear, not reasoning. 

Personally, I view theists as being mostly sheeple and will simply give one the herd view, not a reasoned view of the world.  Their morality is based upon fear--don't do such-and-such or you will go to hell, type of belief.  Look at the labels they apply to their views--Lord, King, Prince, Christ--all terms that demonstrate they are really into dictatorships and doing what 'authority' tells them to do (which is made up to suit whatever leader they are under).  Atheists are not cookie-cutter in their thinking.  But all are much more skeptical than theists.

This study was done by survey, meaning people are self-reporting whether they make decisions on evidence-based claims, not whether they actually do so. What is interesting, to me anyway, is how atheists and believers differ in their self-reports. For example, the study indicates that believers tend to endorse values that reinforce group cohesion and you respond by stating that believers are "sheeple", indicating that you believe putting the harmony of the group before the belief of the individual isn't desirable. To be an atheist in a predominately religious culture requires a degree of resistance to authority and denial of the sacred, otherwise how can one stand up publicly and say Christianity, Islam or other religions are lies.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: Mike Cl on February 25, 2021, 02:02:00 PM
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2021, 01:15:54 PM
This study was done by survey, meaning people are self-reporting whether they make decisions on evidence-based claims, not whether they actually do so. What is interesting, to me anyway, is how atheists and believers differ in their self-reports. For example, the study indicates that believers tend to endorse values that reinforce group cohesion and you respond by stating that believers are "sheeple", indicating that you believe putting the harmony of the group before the belief of the individual isn't desirable. To be an atheist in a predominately religious culture requires a degree of resistance to authority and denial of the sacred, otherwise how can one stand up publicly and say Christianity, Islam or other religions are lies.
Putting the harmony of the group before belief of the individual---too often, that is simply us vs them.  Like just about everything, it depends upon how one looks at something.  Going along with the group belief that there are mud people and therefore, they are subhuman is not a good thing even though the harmony of the group is maintained.  But wearing a mask because it is good for the group harmony is a good thing.  When theists speak of 'morals' they are actually thinking of absolute morality.  Absolute morality does not exist, at least not in my view.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2021, 02:38:11 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 25, 2021, 02:02:00 PM
Absolute morality does not exist, at least not in my view.

That is a defining difference. Theists believe morality is independent of human reasoning. God determines what is right and wrong, not people.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: Cassia on February 25, 2021, 04:26:22 PM
Harmony, LOL. Religion provides us comfort in a world torn apart by religion. Too bad we can't just stop "teaming up" in so many ways.

The Christian foundations of vicarious redemption and human sacrifice are immoral. A real bad start.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: Mermaid on February 25, 2021, 04:35:56 PM
Interesting, and makes a lot of sense to me.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: Mike Cl on February 25, 2021, 06:28:45 PM
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2021, 02:38:11 PM
That is a defining difference. Theists believe morality is independent of human reasoning. God determines what is right and wrong, not people.
Absolutely- that is what theists insist.  God gave us the rules that make us moral if we follow them.  Except, nobody can point out exactly what these rules are, and even in the context of the 10 commandments, where they are found.  Everybody knows what they are (according to the various leaders say) it's just that 'everybody' disagrees with everybody else.  Theists don't reason, just believe.  And therein lies the entire difference between theism/religion and atheists.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: Hydra009 on February 25, 2021, 06:34:06 PM
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2021, 10:29:23 AM... Analysis of the results suggests that theists are more inclined than atheists to endorse moral values that promote group cohesion. Meanwhile, atheists are more likely to judge the morality of an action based on its consequences.
Huge consequentialist here, so that part is unsurprising.  Imo, when it comes to morality, the whole point is to build a better world (aka human flourishing).  I'm suspicious of anyone whose morality is not laser-focused on that.

Case in point is "family values" and "sanctity of marriage" stuff that seems aimed at denigrating (if not actively violent against) people who deviate from a very idealized hetero relationship.

Is that what they mean by "promoting group cohesion"?  Pressure to conform to a very narrow and frankly strange idea of what society should be like?  Because if so, count me out.

QuoteThese findings suggest that the widespread idea that atheists are immoral may arise in part from their weak endorsement of moral values that promote group cohesion and their consequence-based, case-by-case moral judgment of actions.
Well, that extremely uncharitable conclusion is kinda built into the religion - it's not like hugely religious people encountered atheists and then independently decided that atheists are immoral.  This garbage is preached from the pulpit, not learned from experience.

QuoteStåhl adds: "The most general take-home message from these studies is that people who do not believe in God do have a moral compass. In fact, they share many of the same moral concerns that religious believers have, such as concerns about fairness, and about protecting vulnerable individuals from harm.
I would certainly hope so, but I dunno if we should take this as a given.  When it comes to protecting the most vulnerable in society, in the US there are some pretty stark political differences entwined to some degree with religion.

QuoteHowever, disbelievers are less inclined than believers to endorse moral values that serve group cohesion, such as having respect for authorities, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity... It is possible that the negative stereotype of atheists as immoral may stem in part from the fact that they are less inclined than religious people to view respect for authority, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity as relevant for morality, and they are more likely to make moral judgments about harm on a consequentialist, case by case basis."
Well, obviously atheists tend to lack a sense of "sanctity" (whatever that means exactly) and ingroup loyalty is at the expense of outgroup hostility.  So that's a big yikes from me.

And yes, atheists have less respect for authorities because those authorities are often either religious leaders themselves or strongly allied with them.  In American politics, and thankfully this is sort of going away, it wasn't too long ago that "God told me to go to war" was a thing.  That's a diseased moral compass that I'm thankful I'm not infected with.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: Hydra009 on February 25, 2021, 06:38:18 PM
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2021, 02:38:11 PMThat is a defining difference. Theists believe morality is independent of human reasoning. God determines what is right and wrong, not people.
Which is an incredibly dangerous stance to take because it makes reform unthinkable.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2021, 10:05:18 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on February 25, 2021, 06:38:18 PM
Which is an incredibly dangerous stance to take because it makes reform unthinkable.

Agreed. My problems with Christianity aren't in the details but the foundational concepts. For example, I believe humans, being primates, have moral reasoning that evolved, and continues to evolve, from the bottom up and not given to us, from the top down, in a book or stone tablets.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: Hydra009 on February 25, 2021, 11:28:04 PM
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 25, 2021, 10:05:18 PM
Agreed. My problems with Christianity aren't in the details but the foundational concepts. For example, I believe humans, being primates, have moral reasoning that evolved, and continues to evolve, from the bottom up and not given to us, from the top down, in a book or stone tablets.
*shows Michelangelo's painting, Creation of Adam*
"...you see, it took 500 years for someone to notice something hidden in plain sight, it was a doctor who noticed the shape of the human brain.  The message being that the divine gift does not come from a higher power, but from our own minds" - Ford, Westworld
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 26, 2021, 05:45:48 AM
Yeah...no. That study is a politically correct, elegant pile of bullshit. The usage of the terms to begin with...Theists? Who are these theists?

Quote... Analysis of the results suggests that theists are more inclined than atheists to endorse moral values that promote group cohesion.

An overwhelming amount of theists in the world do not define themselves as 'theists'. They define themselves as a member of a specific religion. Yes, technically they are theists but with religous that's where it ends because they do not recognise 'theists'. They believe in the 'moral' values, rules and norms of an organised religion as absolutes required to control and dictate people's lives to fight aginst individualism and that's the reason for their tendency towards group choesion. Otherwise organised religion cannot exist. They cannot exists. The point of being a member of a religion is meeting up, being a part of that group. And they do not define theists or other believers equal to themselves.

On the other hand, there are increasing amount of theists who define themselves as believers in a creator, but refuse to be a member of an organised religious system of any sort. They are also divided in two main sub groups and while in one of them people hold the belief that the creator is not interested in his/her creation, people's lives, their deeds...etc., in the other group people believe in various ways the creator intervenes or attends to his/her creation. (I'm not using any other specific term purposefully.)

The second group of theists are the minority group of theists. They -also like atheists- do not control wealth or political power. The first group of theists, organised religious groups are in control of significant amount of wealth and political power and manage resources through their beliefs. And the moment they lose their numbers, they will lose their position. Hence the engagament for group cohesion. Numbers and money.

QuoteMeanwhile, atheists are more likely to judge the morality of an action based on its consequences.

There is a problem with this sentence. Judging an action based on its consequences, does not make the judgement rational. If the rational judgement here is doing/chosing the necessary thing for the benefit/profit of the one who makes the moral judgement -because frankly, that's how morality works- then religious people do the same. For example, they're well aware that their sexual orientation or personal lives won't change when gay people or minorities have equal rights, treatment with them. (Extreme voices do not matter in this context.) Their problem is with open exchange, loss of power; and the equality itself, because that's the consequence. 

On the other hand, in the last 15 years there has been a visible shift to far right in atheists groups from every age, in every culture. This is to a deegre that almost the only difference is the unbelief status, while these groups share the same 'moral' values with religous groups against nonwhite minorities, LGBTQ groups, women...exactly because of the consequences of equality.

QuoteHowever, atheists and theists appear to align on moral values related to protecting vulnerable individuals, liberty versus oppression,

That's what social acceptance dictates. If somebody asks you a question about this and you answer; 'No, I defend oppression over liberty, and you know what, we should harm vulnerable individuals, why not!' people would think you are either trolling the survey or you are one disturbed individual. Either way, you end up in some extreme tendency group and won't taken into account if the survey is not constructed accordingly.

Quoteand being epistemically rational, i.e.: believing in claims when they are evidence-based and being skeptical about claims not backed by evidence.

Religious people cannot be epistemically rational. You don't consider the accumulation of human knowledge as the explanation of human behaviour in/of the actual world and then accept religous 'moral' values. It's an oxymoron. Not even going to get in evidence based, backed...etc. claim. Lets start with finding 5 in 1000 religous people who considered the word epistemology something different/beyond of what was written in a book some hundreds, thousands years ago.

QuoteThe survey results also provided clues as to why atheists' and theists' moral compasses may be calibrated differently: the distinctions may stem in part from theists' increased exposure to community engagement in belief-based behaviors that would be costly if the beliefs were false (such as attending religious meetings). ...

In atheist far right groups, esp. including the new movements, exactly the same thing goes. It's not just costly once you are in, members are also expected to act and speak in a certain hostile manners and show agressive attitudes to certain groups to be noticed and initiated into those groups.

QuoteThese findings suggest that the widespread idea that atheists are immoral may arise in part from their weak endorsement of moral values that promote group cohesion and their consequence-based, case-by-case moral judgment of actions.

That is a religious value, not an idea. It doesn't have any validity. It's widespread because there have always been more believers than nonbelievers. It's a commercail line of '...is a religion of peace' or '...is the best beer in the world'.

QuoteStåhl adds: "The most general take-home message from these studies is that people who do not believe in God do have a moral compass. In fact, they share many of the same moral concerns that religious believers have, such as concerns about fairness, and about protecting vulnerable individuals from harm. However, disbelievers are less inclined than believers to endorse moral values that serve group cohesion, such as having respect for authorities, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity... It is possible that the negative stereotype of atheists as immoral may stem in part from the fact that they are less inclined than religious people to view respect for authority, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity as relevant for morality, and they are more likely to make moral judgments about harm on a consequentialist, case by case basis."

If that was true, there would be atheist terrorist groups bombing places here and there, and secular/atheistic societies would suffer from extreme crime stats. However, there are no atheist terrorist groups in the world, while international and domestic terrorism have almost become synoymous with organised religions. And atheistic/secular societies do not just have the least crime, they have the highest crime charges in certain type of crimes because people are not afraid, and also have the highest social justice and equality.

Because fuck morality, it is ILLEGAL to kill, harm, torture, enslave, sexually or psyhologically abuse people. It's ILLEGAL to attempt to kill elected officials after a lost election, It's ILLEGAL to force people to live according to some arbitrary set of rules.

Forget terrorism, do you know any atheist or even secular mafia? Any kind of orgnaised criminal group? No. But then from Yakuza to Italians, Russian to Turkish mafia, they are all pretty religous and strongly attached to their cultural traditions of the sort, aren't they? 

Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: GSOgymrat on February 26, 2021, 08:34:57 AM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 26, 2021, 05:45:48 AM
There is a problem with this sentence. Judging an action based on its consequences, does not make the judgement rational. If the rational judgement here is doing/chosing the necessary thing for the benefit/profit of the one who makes the moral judgement -because frankly, that's how morality works- then religious people do the same.

Consequentialism and deontology aren't differentiated by rationality. An example is lying: A deontologist would say lying is always wrong where a consequentialist would say lying is wrong if it results in negative consequences. Christians ideally tend to be deontologists because they have a list of commandments.

(https://pediaa.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Difference-Between-Deontology-and-Consequentialism-Comparison-Summary.jpg)

Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 26, 2021, 05:45:48 AM
However, atheists and theists appear to align on moral values related to protecting vulnerable individuals, liberty versus oppression

That's what social acceptance dictates. If somebody asks you a question about this and you answer; 'No, I defend oppression over liberty, and you know what, we should harm vulnerable individuals, why not!' people would think you are either trolling the survey or you are one disturbed individual. Either way, you end up in some extreme tendency group and won't taken into account if the survey is not constructed accordingly.

You are correct the result will depend on how the question is phrased. I doubt the researchers would say "do you agree with protecting vulnerable populations." A better question would be, "Should the US government accept political refugees, acknowledging that some claiming to be refugees will be terrorists?"
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: Mike Cl on February 26, 2021, 09:14:22 AM
Discussing this topic (morality, ethics, terrorism, and the like)is difficult, if not impossible, because so much depends upon how one defines those words.  For example, what is a terrorist?  I think that that word is so dependent upon one's concept.  I think the word is almost impossible to define, for it is so fluid and dependent upon one's view of the world.  So, in a discussion it is almost a useless word.  Same for cult.  What is a cult?  It's like beauty, totally in the eye of the beholder.  I view The Catholic Church as a cult.  So is the Southern Baptist Church.  Or any other religion or sect.  In my personal viewpoint, all organized religions are cults, and terrorists, and immoral, and purveyors of authoritianism, selectively  blind to many facts, uses belief/faith instead of critical thinking.  Religion is the scourge of the world.  If I wanted to have a fruitful discussion about any of this, especially with a theist, one must agree upon what these words mean.  Otherwise all that happens is that we talk past each other.   
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 26, 2021, 11:31:09 AM
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 26, 2021, 08:34:57 AM
Consequentialism and deontology aren't differentiated by rationality. An example is lying: A deontologist would say lying is always wrong where a consequentialist would say lying is wrong if it results in negative consequences. Christians ideally tend to be deontologists because they have a list of commandments.

Oh, you misunderstand me. I don't think anyone is lying at all. You are talking about something completely different. I'm saying, when people make any kind of judgement, they automatically make a judgement in relation to themselves or any kind of position they are in.

It doesn't matter how many lists of commandments Christians, or members of other organised religions have. It has no hold whatsoever on how people behave or act in the real world.

What's more, commandments actually almost endorse religous people to treat other people out of their group differently. Religons openly order to kill or enslave anyone out of the norms. This is a common form of behaviour among religious people.

QuoteYou are correct the result will depend on how the question is phrased. I doubt the researchers would say "do you agree with protecting vulnerable populations." A better question would be, "Should the US government accept political refugees, acknowledging that some claiming to be refugees will be terrorists?"

Yeah but then considering the solid examples they gave, i.ie. 'liberty vs oppression' doesn't have many different choices in description. A survey needs to be brief, clear and on spot. You need to use the speicifc terms mostly.

[I know it is completely different, but when you apply for an American tourist visa, they actually ask you that question for word for word in written form. "Are you a terrorist?" Most people find this funny, but I personally think it is very clever.]
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 26, 2021, 11:40:18 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 26, 2021, 09:14:22 AM
Discussing this topic (morality, ethics, terrorism, and the like)is difficult, if not impossible, because so much depends upon how one defines those words.  For example, what is a terrorist?  I think that that word is so dependent upon one's concept.  I think the word is almost impossible to define, for it is so fluid and dependent upon one's view of the world.  So, in a discussion it is almost a useless word.  Same for cult.  What is a cult?  It's like beauty, totally in the eye of the beholder.  I view The Catholic Church as a cult.  So is the Southern Baptist Church.  Or any other religion or sect.  In my personal viewpoint, all organized religions are cults, and terrorists, and immoral, and purveyors of authoritianism, selectively  blind to many facts, uses belief/faith instead of critical thinking.  Religion is the scourge of the world.  If I wanted to have a fruitful discussion about any of this, especially with a theist, one must agree upon what these words mean.  Otherwise all that happens is that we talk past each other.

No, it is not. It's not in the eye of the beholder. Terrorism is killing random innocent people to pursue a political, or ideological or a religious agenda, so to scare others and disrupt the order of daily life in a given region. Terrere means to scare in Latin, I think.

You might be thinking this way because bombs are not going on off around you where you live. When you live in a region where the bombs are randomly going on and off, the daily life changes dramatically. From social life to economy.  Its NOT like shootings. It's not like qanon. I hope you'll never know that.



Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 26, 2021, 12:20:16 PM
Overall that study sounds pretty authoritarian and traditional, almost theist and that is annoying me to no end because it is pretending to be 'objective'. Theist, atheist...It's sterilised as if the society is divided in between believers and nonbelievers. It's not. 

What is the scope of 'going against authority'? What does that mean? Questioning, critical thinking, protest, right to assembly; freedom of speech...these are all under protection of the authority in developed socities. What are the standards for an atheist, thei,st or a christian or a muslim to go against the authority? In state of California? In Texas? In Utah or New York?

Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: Mike Cl on February 26, 2021, 01:01:02 PM
Quote from: drunkenshoe on February 26, 2021, 11:40:18 AM
No, it is not. It's not in the eye of the beholder. Terrorism is killing random innocent people to pursue a political, or ideological or a religious agenda, so to scare others and disrupt the order of daily life in a given region. Terrere means to scare in Latin, I think.

You might be thinking this way because bombs are not going on off around you where you live. When you live in a region where the bombs are randomly going on and off, the daily life changes dramatically. From social life to economy.  Its NOT like shootings. It's not like qanon. I hope you'll never know that.
Shoe, I am not saying that terrorism does not exist; it has existed for all time.  The point I was trying to make is that what I label as a terrorist act could be labeled freedom fighter by somebody else.  And terrorist acts are not always labeled or regarded as such---for example, the 'rebel yell' of the confederate soldier was meant to terrorize the Yanks.  And it also served the propose of building moral and confidence of the southern soldier.  And the Zulu practice of beating their shields with their swords and spears and wailing at the enemy served the same two purposes.  For the Saudis who ran the planes into the twin towers, it was an act of war; we regard it as an act of terrorism.  One needs to define what one means by a terrorist act.

I would imagine the fire bombing of Dresden in WWII was considered by the Allies as an act of war; the people who lived in that city would label it terrorism.  And I agree that I hope I never experience random bombs going off in my neighborhood.  But in your neighborhood, whoever sets those bombs off would not label that act as an act of terrorism.  But from your point of view it clearly is.  The term 'terrorism' is so nebulas, that declaring something like the 'war on terrorism' is meaningless, except to companies or agencies that profit from doing so. 
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 26, 2021, 01:45:11 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on February 26, 2021, 01:01:02 PM
Shoe, I am not saying that terrorism does not exist; it has existed for all time.

I don't think you are. I have just pointed out there is a common, established methodology of terrorism which is killing the ordinary, innocent people going about their own business in every day life. That's the point and the goal. You go out with your kid to make a grocery shopping and somebody blows it up. It doesn't matter what the victims in that shopping mall believe.

QuoteThe point I was trying to make is that what I label as a terrorist act could be labeled freedom fighter by somebody else.

Agreed. However, I insist that that angle will look reasonable, when you live in some place when you are not under that threat.

Recently, I often keep finding myself talking about FEAR and how easy is to create it with violence and how instantly and easily that changes human behaviour dramatically.

QuoteAnd terrorist acts are not always labeled or regarded as such---for example, the 'rebel yell' of the confederate soldier was meant to terrorize the Yanks.  And it also served the propose of building moral and confidence of the southern soldier.  And the Zulu practice of beating their shields with their swords and spears and wailing at the enemy served the same two purposes.  For the Saudis who ran the planes into the twin towers, it was an act of war; we regard it as an act of terrorism.  One needs to define what one means by a terrorist act.

I would imagine the fire bombing of Dresden in WWII was considered by the Allies as an act of war; the people who lived in that city would label it terrorism. 

Any daily example of a traditonal attack in American society? I don't think so.

QuoteAnd I agree that I hope I never experience random bombs going off in my neighborhood.  But in your neighborhood, whoever sets those bombs off would not label that act as an act of terrorism.  But from your point of view it clearly is.  The term 'terrorism' is so nebulas, that declaring something like the 'war on terrorism' is meaningless, except to companies or agencies that profit from doing so.

Yeah, that is the thing with terrorists and terrorism. They believe they are doing the right thing. It doesn't change anything. If you are killing civilians going about their daily business to threaten a state to push your agenda, for anything, freedom, power...etc. You are actually declaring that nothing is important for you but killing. Days of IRA is over. Actually, it was an isolated event. With all due respect you are late.

Are we talking about American invasion of Afghanistan and Irak? Nobody has ever thought that was a 'war against terrorism', Mike. Please.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: Hydra009 on February 26, 2021, 03:29:41 PM
Quote from: GSOgymrat on February 26, 2021, 08:34:57 AM
Consequentialism and deontology aren't differentiated by rationality. An example is lying: A deontologist would say lying is always wrong where a consequentialist would say lying is wrong if it results in negative consequences. Christians ideally tend to be deontologists because they have a list of commandments.
Which is crazy because there are always exceptions that pose problems for such rigid absolutism.  For example, the classic scenario of gestapo knocking at your door asking if you know the whereabouts of any jews.  For someone who believes that lying is always wrong, that's quite the conundrum!  But for a consequentialist, it's easy - you're weighing telling a lie versus the lives of other people.

In consequentialism, you tailor your moral code to work towards the well-being of people because people's well-being is the end goal.

In deontology, you decide your moral code arbitrarily and it might work out for people's well-being or it might not.  (Yikes)  And if you believe god handed it down, then the slightest error in that moral code gets handed down from generation to generation, through a lot of changing circumstances, and the end result is something extremely maladaptive, a lot of needless human misery.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: SoldierofFortune on February 26, 2021, 04:33:43 PM
Moral is usually imposed on people by the society surrounding them. They think they internalize the values they have by themselves, but they often acquired the values under the influence of the society.

Atheist or theist, no matter wherever you are on the religion/belief spectrum, in case you are among the average people commonly found on the street in any given society, you are one of them except if you are a marginal one who choose to stand out from the crowd.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 28, 2021, 03:57:40 AM
People do not just lie according to conqeuences, they lie because they are homo sapient. Yeah, it sounds like a silly, dismissing tautology, but unfortunately that's how we've evolved. We are almost 'programmed' not to think 'objectively', not to think beyond our personal circle. Even when we look at something horrible, our first reaction, our positive empathy relies on an unconsciously felt "thank fuck, that wasn't me or one of my loved ones or thanks it didn't happen where I live." It works pretty much like comedy in that sense in its origin.

While discussing about a huge concept like moral judgement, asnwering questions and thinking about the very subject in any aspects, we are alienated from it's conditions completely. Like I am trying to do right now. Pulling it to a higher concept. Otherwise it is impossible to think and make an inquiry about it. But then when people are in a real life situation, their reactions are almost like a reflex. Be it watching a video in social media or living something out there in the real world.

Thinking is a very taxing activity and it's uncomfortable, it even hurts. When we think we are thinking about something, or better trying to think 'objectively' about something, we are only thinking 'idealistically' most of the time which is far from reality. Hence the first age of philosophical thinking as we know in human history. Ancient philosophers of Greece were not seen as philosophers or thinkers of their time. They were called philosophers after Abrahamic religions kicked in. They were pushed to some 'secular' plane in contrast. They were Olympians, regraded as even higher than prophets. Just the culture, the conditions didn't create religions as we know. They had 2 main lines of thinking trying to explain the physical words and determine the best way how a human a being -in this case a man- should live.

The thing is all of these concepts are religious concepts in origin. they are derived from concepts that were created in fields of medicine, law and religion. Add to that that all humanities, social sciences are inherently linguistic, you have this big mess in application. In a simple sense, 'A'theism. 'Non'-belief. It's a huge mess. All this turmoil and decline in social sicences since 1980s should serve for something in the end. We are actually witnessing a big historical crisis. Considering the last one took around 250 years or so -starting before the two main scientific revolutions- yeah it will take a lot of time before we have actual secular plane of thinking.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 28, 2021, 06:20:32 AM
The birth of religious morality and traditon is about securing the resources; human, food, water...etc. When these poeple define themselves as 'theists' and declare or believe in that their [moral] judgement is based on their believer vision or faith they are actually refring to something that doesn't exist today in this age.

How could have religious morality been born? I have no idea...let's caricaturise it. Before agriculture, you punish everyone who enters the place where you get the best driable nuts, roots and muhrooms with a violent, ritual death penalty in front of everyone and declare the garden 'sacred' because you can't make every individual in the clan sit down and understand that if they randomly comsume the resource, it will put the whole community's life in danger.

It's like trying to teach a 2 year old toddler that he shouldn't walk up to the log burner and touch it because he will get burnt and it will hurt very badly. You cannot 'explain' that to him. You make silly sounds imittaing burning and feeling pain for example. And take every caution so he wouldn't go near the logburner. And highly likley, at some point he will go and burn himself anyway. Well ancient people are not 2 year old toddlers of course, they just don't have systematic knowledge and so they created traditions and religions as precautions. That's why it is immoral and selfish to eat the nuts by yourself, and endanger your clan, not because it is against 'universal' morality'. Because it has practical real lfie consequences. And nonbeliver or believer alike, people will come to the same conclusion.

There is no tradition or some religious rule that wasn't born out of some neccesity of survival for some time and consequences. Most of them look moronic, violent, genocidal to us today because we don't need them anymore. We don't need to store the nuts and ration them if you will. Then why don't/didn't people abandon all of them them? Well, they did. But then for the remining bullshit, it is easier today to live with them as if they do work compared to the time they were invented and worked. Because there are no real life conseuqences for them. It's just political bullshit.   

OK, go back. Let's say it is a fantasy world, and we can actually make the whole clan sit down and understand. "Dude, don't go to that place and pick the nuts, OK? Because we need to pick them in a certain time, and store and then ration them in winter. Otherwise we are all gonna die. No, way around it. Don't fuck it up." And they got the point.

The thing is, we can be sure they will do it -did it- many times over anyway. That's the thing -especially- with the sapient lot. And they won't just do it for 'selfish' reasons either. They will think, there should be a better way around this system, better for me, and better for the clan while it is actually again about themselves, the self. But then, thank fuck they had done it, forced it again and over again, because otherwise we would have still been murmuring 'don't pick up the nuts' in a catatonic state. But it is about the self isn't it? This piece of shit sapients are highly likley the most self centered, agressive human species ever evolved and they adapted so successfully, their reflection and projection of the self desire to the mass scale has become their only categories. Was that the only way to survive? Probably? Maybe? I have no idea. We probably have killed every other human species, ate them and breeded over with the rest.

So that's the root of religous morality. A person living in a moderate society with some sort standards, law and some social order today, cannot have 'religous morality'. He certainly can believe he does, voice it, but in practice in real life, it is very limited. If he goes out and defends the original religous rules and 'laws' or try to act on and apply them, he'd get arrested.

Anti-vaccinators. We keep naming them along with religious groups. Are they really overwhelmingly religous? I doubt that. If they are acting according to the scripture, is there anything against vaccination in any part of Christianity? What is it? How did this thing start? They are stupid and ignornat...is that all? Yes they are stupid and ignorant. But then vacccination is not mandatory in the US, and those people have born into a society with a ridiculous understanding of freedom which is constantly advertised by the culture, the state...etc, along with a ridiculously inflated sense of American identity that is not compatible with professional standards of modern society. The rest is pushing the piece into that large circle whole, everythig fits in it...any kind of conspiracies...etc Bottom line, it is not that they believe in some religious or moral principle in the first place, they just do not believe anything bad will happen as a result. It's much simple. Because frankly, bad things happen to people in other countries.

Remember the 'gay wedding cake' conflict? Supreme court ruled for the baker and tons of people (dem, repubs, believer/nonbeliever) agreed that it made sense because he should be able to decide who to sell in a democratic country with religious freedom. It is not. It's idiotic. It was the most antidemocratic thing to do for the society.

Basically, the 'clerics' told one member of the 'clan' that he can pick the 'nuts' whenever he wants because there are so many nut trees anyway, and gave a licence to everyone who wants to do the same thing. There isn't enough amount of 'nut trees' in the world to support this idiotic principle without undermining any democratic system. Does it have anything to do with religion or freedom? No, it is a political judgement. There are 320 million people in the country and 'vritually' there are no real life consequences of this, while there is a need of some balancing propaganda after legalising gay marriage, it is pretty much nothing but feeding the other side a bit with 'there there'. 

Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: Atcherkeet57 on June 09, 2021, 01:24:53 PM
I like the moral compasses.
Title: Re: The moral compasses of atheists and believers
Post by: Mike Cl on June 09, 2021, 02:19:05 PM
Quote from: Atcherkeet57 on June 09, 2021, 01:24:53 PM
I like the moral compasses.
I prefer my compass shows N, S, E, W.