• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Study: Atheists Thought Immoral Even by Fellow Atheists

LowDown

LowDown

Curmudgeon
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2012
Messages
14,185
Reaction score
8,768
Location
Houston
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
An unusual social study has revealed that atheists are more easily suspected of vile deeds than Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists -- strikingly, even by fellow atheists, researchers said Monday.

This suggests that in an increasingly secular world, many -- including some atheists -- still hold the view that people will do bad things unless they fear punishment from all-seeing gods.

The results of the study "show that across the world, religious belief is intuitively viewed as a necessary safeguard against the temptations of grossly immoral conduct," an international team wrote in the journal Nature Human Behaviour.
Click to expand...

Yes, "libertine" use to be a synonym for "atheist", and for many it apparently still is.

Whether this is a false meme or not isn't the point. The fact is that a lot of people have this attitude.

Chalk this up as a benefit of religion, or of being seen as religious. Religions have long been the vehicle whereby traditions of morality are taught to the people.
 
Well I certainly trust people less that only act like decent human beings because they're afraid of cosmic punishment. How much more meaningful it is to know there are no eternal repercussions but still choosing with your own free will to not be a dick.
 
LowDown said:
Yes, "libertine" use to be a synonym for "atheist", and for many it apparently still is.

Whether this is a false meme or not isn't the point. The fact is that a lot of people have this attitude.

Chalk this up as a benefit of religion, or of being seen as religious. Religions have long been the vehicle whereby traditions of morality are taught to the people.
Click to expand...

I wonder. There is a perfectly rational reason to distrust atheists more than the religious. Religions have much better defined world view and less relativistic ethics that are stable over long periods. This means that one can tendencially predict a religious person better. This is highly significant in optimizing one's own behavior.
A further point that should way in is that atheists act irrationally in being atheist instead of religious or agnostics.
 
joG said:
I wonder. There is a perfectly rational reason to distrust atheists more than the religious. Religions have much better defined world view and less relativistic ethics that are stable over long periods. This means that one can tendencially predict a religious person better. This is highly significant in optimizing one's own behavior.
A further point that should way in is that atheists act irrationally in being atheist instead of religious or agnostics.
Click to expand...

So believing there definitely is a god is rational, and believing there might be a god is rational, but simply not believing in god is irrational?
 
LowDown said:
Yes, "libertine" use to be a synonym for "atheist", and for many it apparently still is.
Click to expand...

No, it was never considered that by anyone rational familiar with the words.
Whether this is a false meme or not isn't the point. The fact is that a lot of people have this attitude.

Chalk this up as a benefit of religion, or of being seen as religious. Religions have long been the vehicle whereby traditions of morality are taught to the people.
Click to expand...

So you admit merely being seen as religious is the issue here, not atheism.
 
joG said:
I wonder. There is a perfectly rational reason to distrust atheists more than the religious. Religions have much better defined world view and less relativistic ethics that are stable over long periods. This means that one can tendencially predict a religious person better. This is highly significant in optimizing one's own behavior.
A further point that should way in is that atheists act irrationally in being atheist instead of religious or agnostics.
Click to expand...

No, there isn't. That's a rationalization, not rational. There are more than 42,000 distinct Christian sects in the world, clearly they don't have a very well-defined world-view, they all just get their ideas from the same ancient book of mythology, from which they individually pick and choose which parts to pay attention to and which parts to ignore. Atheists aren't the ones acting irrationally, atheists don't have imaginary friends.

But the people with imaginary friends are. They cannot think about what ought to be moral, they simply take a book of multiple-choice and decide that it's easier to follow what some guy in a dress in a pulpit says about morality than to actually be bothered to think about it themselves. The religious get led around by the nose. That's not being rational.
 
joG said:
I wonder. There is a perfectly rational reason to distrust atheists more than the religious. Religions have much better defined world view and less relativistic ethics that are stable over long periods. This means that one can tendencially predict a religious person better. This is highly significant in optimizing one's own behavior.
A further point that should way in is that atheists act irrationally in being atheist instead of religious or agnostics.
Click to expand...

No. A fixed moral code is not always an advantage, it mostly enforces fixed behaviour and removes situational reactions however, my experience is that many people adhere to these fixed codes right up to the point that they find that applying them to a situation is irrational.
 
William Rea said:
No. A fixed moral code is not always an advantage, it mostly enforces fixed behaviour and removes situational reactions however, my experience is that many people adhere to these fixed codes right up to the point that they find that applying them to a situation is irrational.
Click to expand...

Exactly so. In fact, I've seen evangelical Christians who are so devoted to being against abortion, that even if the fetus is dead with no chance whatsoever and continuing the pregnancy will, with absolute certainty, kill the mother, they still oppose abortion because whatever happens is "God's will".

Yes, people are that stupid.
 
LowDown said:
...The fact is that a lot of people have this attitude.
...
Religions have long been the vehicle whereby traditions of morality are taught to the people.
Click to expand...
Common-sense wisdom and the historical ground for that wisdom.
The study is about perceptions, and the perceptions in this case are informed by the facts about religion historically.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Well I certainly trust people less that only act like decent human beings because they're afraid of cosmic punishment. How much more meaningful it is to know there are no eternal repercussions but still choosing with your own free will to not be a dick.
Click to expand...

You're wrongly assuming that the reason we choose a morality based on our faith is in order to avoid punishment. While there are some who follow that model, the Biblical standard is to first of all love God and then let our actions be a reflection of that love. For a Christian, the goal is supposed to be to please God out of love, not fear. It's like a wife having sex with her husband because she loves him and enjoys it, but not to avoid divorce.
 
LowDown said:
Yes, "libertine" use to be a synonym for "atheist", and for many it apparently still is.

Whether this is a false meme or not isn't the point. The fact is that a lot of people have this attitude.

Chalk this up as a benefit of religion, or of being seen as religious. Religions have long been the vehicle whereby traditions of morality are taught to the people.
Click to expand...

From your link
I suspect that this stems from the prevalence of deeply entrenched pro-religious norms. Even in places that are currently quite overtly secular, people still seem to intuitively hold on to the believe that religion is a moral safeguard."

Only in Finland and New Zealand, two secular countries, did the experiment not yield conclusive evidence of anti-atheist prejudice, said the team.

Distrust of atheists was "very strong in the most highly religious states like the United States, United Arab Emirates and India," said Gervais, and lower in more secular countries.

Such research was about more than stigma alone, he added.

"In many places, atheism can be dangerous, if not fatal."
Click to expand...

The benefit of your religion is that it turns your ignorance into bigotry and hatred. A rather good description of religion really.

Oddly enough i would point out that in finland many people do believe in elves while in nz we still hold the record for having the most people who claim on the national census under religion to be jedi knights.

Perhaps we are the only two countries who really know what is going on. :)
 
Last edited:
joG said:
I wonder. There is a perfectly rational reason to distrust atheists more than the religious. Religions have much better defined world view and less relativistic ethics that are stable over long periods. This means that one can tendencially predict a religious person better. This is highly significant in optimizing one's own behavior.
A further point that should way in is that atheists act irrationally in being atheist instead of religious or agnostics.
Click to expand...
Well put, joG. The rationality of religion is a much-neglected theme in the public discourse on the OP topic.
 
LowDown said:
Yes, "libertine" use to be a synonym for "atheist", and for many it apparently still is.

Whether this is a false meme or not isn't the point. The fact is that a lot of people have this attitude.

Chalk this up as a benefit of religion, or of being seen as religious. Religions have long been the vehicle whereby traditions of morality are taught to the people.
Click to expand...

I've stated this before that having an external source for your morality is a big plus. Here's the part where all the anti-faith people get all confused: We can always choose whether or not to follow a moral standard or not, but the simple fact of having an external moral standard, rather than an internal one, makes people with such an external standard more trustworthy (no, I'm NOT saying that without one, you can't be trusted). When I choose toe follow an external standard, then when I violate that standard, I am performing an immoral act. When someone with no external standard does something similar, it may or may not be immoral for them and what was immoral yesterday for them, can be moral today. I know that if I ask a Christian to house-sit for me and ask them to not surf for porn while they are there, they may or may not do so, but I know that if they do, then they are violating a standard that they have agreed to follow, making them less likely to do so. But if have an atheist house-sit for me and ask them to do the same, I have no such confidence. While I'm talking to them, they can be telling that they have that same standard of behavior, but since that standard is purely internal, tomorrow they could decide that my wanting them no surf for porn is immoral and that they are going to do it anyway. Now both parties may end up surfing for lady-boys, but for one, it is an immoral act and will always be one, so long as they are Christian (which requires a huge change to step away from), but for the other it can be a passing shim to make that change.

I'm not claiming that people of faith are more or less moral than anyone else (as I've been accused of EVERY TIME I've made this argument), just that there is greater faith in a person to follow a moral code if it is external to themselves and not internal.

Now, who is going to be the first one to claim that I'm calling them immoral or claim that I'm saying the Christians can't be immoral....
 
faithful_servant said:
I've stated this before that having an external source for your morality is a big plus. Here's the part where all the anti-faith people get all confused: We can always choose whether or not to follow a moral standard or not, but the simple fact of having an external moral standard, rather than an internal one, makes people with such an external standard more trustworthy (no, I'm NOT saying that without one, you can't be trusted). When I choose toe follow an external standard, then when I violate that standard, I am performing an immoral act. When someone with no external standard does something similar, it may or may not be immoral for them and what was immoral yesterday for them, can be moral today. I know that if I ask a Christian to house-sit for me and ask them to not surf for porn while they are there, they may or may not do so, but I know that if they do, then they are violating a standard that they have agreed to follow, making them less likely to do so. But if have an atheist house-sit for me and ask them to do the same, I have no such confidence. While I'm talking to them, they can be telling that they have that same standard of behavior, but since that standard is purely internal, tomorrow they could decide that my wanting them no surf for porn is immoral and that they are going to do it anyway. Now both parties may end up surfing for lady-boys, but for one, it is an immoral act and will always be one, so long as they are Christian (which requires a huge change to step away from), but for the other it can be a passing shim to make that change.

I'm not claiming that people of faith are more or less moral than anyone else (as I've been accused of EVERY TIME I've made this argument), just that there is greater faith in a person to follow a moral code if it is external to themselves and not internal.

Now, who is going to be the first one to claim that I'm calling them immoral or claim that I'm saying the Christians can't be immoral....
Click to expand...

How is it a big plus if you can't prove that your external source of morality is actually true? What makes the Bible a better source of morality than the Qur'an? Or the Vedas? Or Mein Kampf? Just being an external source doesn't make it a good source. Because all of these things have reprehensible ideas in them that you, as an individual, have to pick and choose what to pay attention to and what to rationalize away. Absolutely nobody follows everything in the Bible, you'd have to be insane to do so. So why does following the Bible suddenly become better than simply evaluating the situation and making a moral decision, based on your own experience?
 
joG said:
I wonder. There is a perfectly rational reason to distrust atheists more than the religious. Religions have much better defined world view and less relativistic ethics that are stable over long periods. This means that one can tendencially predict a religious person better. This is highly significant in optimizing one's own behavior.
A further point that should way in is that atheists act irrationally in being atheist instead of religious or agnostics.
Click to expand...

If your religion proscribes killing, i.e.the sixth commandment, is military service an option for you or is it a relative ethic?
 
LowDown said:
Yes, "libertine" use to be a synonym for "atheist", and for many it apparently still is.

Whether this is a false meme or not isn't the point. The fact is that a lot of people have this attitude.

Chalk this up as a benefit of religion, or of being seen as religious. Religions have long been the vehicle whereby traditions of morality are taught to the people.
Click to expand...

The fact that the article states that the co-author of the study had to guess as to why the distrust of atheists was shown is troubling - why not study (simply ask folks) that? The article did note that distrust of atheists was higher in "more religious" nations which seems to indicate that a simple matter of us vs. them (prejudice?) may be at play.
 
Cephus said:
How is it a big plus if you can't prove that your external source of morality is actually true? What makes the Bible a better source of morality than the Qur'an? Or the Vedas? Or Mein Kampf? Just being an external source doesn't make it a good source. Because all of these things have reprehensible ideas in them that you, as an individual, have to pick and choose what to pay attention to and what to rationalize away. Absolutely nobody follows everything in the Bible, you'd have to be insane to do so. So why does following the Bible suddenly become better than simply evaluating the situation and making a moral decision, based on your own experience?
Click to expand...

Pretty much the usual response to this... Some people simply can't get their head around this idea...
 
faithful_servant said:
Pretty much the usual response to this... Some people simply can't get their head around this idea...
Click to expand...

And some can't figure out why it's such a bad idea to begin with.
 
LowDown said:
Yes, "libertine" use to be a synonym for "atheist", and for many it apparently still is.

Whether this is a false meme or not isn't the point. The fact is that a lot of people have this attitude.

Chalk this up as a benefit of religion, or of being seen as religious. Religions have long been the vehicle whereby traditions of morality are taught to the people.
Click to expand...

Oh I see. That's why religious teachings of morality by everyone from the Spanish inquisition to the Islamic Republic of Iran have really made their respective societies so moral!

Making Germany great again:
"What the old parliaments and parties did not accomplish in 60 years, Herr Hitler's statesmanlike foresight has achieved in six months. For Germany's prestige in East and West and before the whole world this handshake with the Papacy (the concordat), the greatest moral power in the history of the world, is a feat of immeasurable blessing.... May God preserve the Reich Chancellor for our people. "
-Cardinal Faulhaber, in a handwritten letter of congratulations to Hitler about the Concordat between Germany and the Vatican
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
faithful_servant said:
We can always choose whether or not to follow a moral standard or not, but the simple fact of having an external moral standard, rather than an internal one, makes people with such an external standard more trustworthy (no, I'm NOT saying that without one, you can't be trusted). When I choose toe follow an external standard, then when I violate that standard, I am performing an immoral act.
Click to expand...

This is like a little kid, who, when asked why he should bathe regularly, or keep his room clean, or not pull his little sister's hair, says "because mommy said so", or "because daddy will beat me". He lacks judgment, and has not learned to think through issues on their own merits, to exercise critical thinking or judgment. The hope of every parent is that as the child grows up, he learns to think for himself and develop sound judgment. Because, after all, if he does grow up and the only reason he doesn't throw a beer party and trash the house is because his parents have told him not to, guess what he is going to do the second they are away. A kid who has learned to think through issues, not based on external authority, but on their own merits, is going to be more trustworthy and have more sound and sophisticated judgment, even in difficult situations which become more grey and difficult.

Which kid would you like to see your son, if you have any, grow up to be like?
 
faithful_servant said:
Pretty much the usual response to this... Some people simply can't get their head around this idea...
Click to expand...
I admire your patience and charity while surrounded on all sides by secularist obduracy, faithful_servant. When it comes to the concept of faith, these secularists haven't a clue as to what you're talking about, or what they're talking about for that matter. They cavalierly dismiss the importance of religion to civilization without so much as an inkling of what a horror show an amoral society would be like. Leave them to their secularist fantasy.
 
Cephus said:
Exactly so. In fact, I've seen evangelical Christians who are so devoted to being against abortion, that even if the fetus is dead with no chance whatsoever and continuing the pregnancy will, with absolute certainty, kill the mother, they still oppose abortion because whatever happens is "God's will".

Yes, people are that stupid.
Click to expand...

When we were in Egypt, some Muslims would cross the street in heavy traffic without looking because "God has already decided if they'll make it across safely, so to look first would be to suggest that they could alter God's will". Yes, people are that stupid.
 
I'm skeptical of this so-called study. The link did not tell us what alleged percentage of atheists thought that an atheist was more likely to commit murder. Moreover, it does not tell us how the atheists were identified. If someone was identified as an ate=heist who is merely not a church member, imagine how far off the results would be?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom