Athiests, where do you get your moral values?

[NoIDidn't]

NID, If you reread what I said, you will see that I did not claim that religion causes crime. The statistics I presented showed no correlation between religion (or lack of it) and crime. There is nothing in these data to prove the superiority of religious over non religious moral values -- it appears the religious and the non-religious are equally likely to commit crimes.

 

Actually, I never said you did that. I apologize if that's what you took from my post.

[dunstable]

I think its more likely that these surveys are done periodically - not just to new admissions - to ascertain the spiritual needs of the prisoners.

 

Prisoners switch religious affiliations frequently. One may have entered a Christian, but exitted a Muslim or an atheist and vice versa.

 

You might be right. But it's still remarkable that the prison population divided 80%:20% between religious and non-religious and the general population divided in the same percentages. While there are measurement uncertainties in any poll, one cannot deduce from these data that those without religion have inferior moral values or vice versa.

[dunstable]

I don't agree that lack of religion is the cause of crime. Ignorance' date=' greed, and poverty are the main precursors to people becoming criminals. Not their belief or lack of belief in a diety.[/quote']

I agree with that view and think the prison statistics are compatible with it.

[Moai]

Athiest morality has given us gangstas, and unruly unchurched people.

 

Patently false. 99% of criminals currently incarcerated profess a belief in god. Not only that, the poorest and least educated in our culture are the most religious. Moreover, the places in the country that most advocate a larger role for religion in our society have the most social problems. I have posted links to this evidence so many times it is becoming exhausting.

 

As is typical of a religious position, you have an idea in your head that "feels" right, and so it must be so and requires no evidence to support it. Any evidence to the contrary can be easily ignored, since it goes against how what yo think "feels". It' sad, really.

 

We appear to have developed a collective stupidity as a result of the widespread dechurchification. Maybe American society has peaked, and all we have is a future of decadence.

 

Violent crime rates are actually decreasing nationwide, and have been on a general downward slide since the 60s.

 

Atheists are actually more moral than any religious person, as they do the right thing for its own sake, rather than from threat of some post-death punishment.

 

The Golden Rule needs religious belief to back it up, as it is completely rational.

 

I see, drugs are the answer. We need to mass produce some chill pills to go with the happy pills. We can have one to go with every mood, and come in a variety of colors.

 

You have made an excellent argument for the Taliban, by the way. They see corruption of their culture as a religious question, and are as 'churchified" as you can get. They behead people regularly for religious infractions--let alone petty crime.

 

In Saudi Arabia, they are installing cameras in public places so they can monitor the moral behavior of their citizens, and punish them accordingly. Sounds pretty "churchified" to me.

 

You can make the claim that YOUR religion would never do anything like that, but they have in the past, and given the chance they would again. The Christian Right is trying desperately to get into a position to do just that. Go read the threads at "Rapture Ready".

 

When a young man took a communion wafer from a Catholic Church some time ago, the offended Catholics threatened him with beating at the least, and death at the worst. FOR LEAVING WITH AN UNEATEN CRACKER. How did "churchification" effect their moral position.

 

In essence, you suggest that believing that god came to Earth in human form, was tortured and crucified, and then reanimated after three days, and then going to a building once a week with others who also believe that is the key to morality. Comments fail me.

[Moai]

More paranoia.

 

Here is a thought. The black neighborhoods were safer when the black community was more religious. They also had a lot more dignity. I bet they were safer back then even under the jim crow laws.

 

[sarcasm]Let's bring 'em back then! As we all know, it is the duty of white Christians to monitor the morality of "darker" people and enforce said morality when necessary.[/sarcasm]

 

Assertion with no evidence. Fail. Even if it were true that there was less black on black crime at that time, they certainly weren't safer from white on black crime.

 

Do you even think before you post? Where do you get this stuff?

 

Have you read the report, nine years in the making, about sexual and physical abuse in schools run by the Catholic Church? Funny, but it goes back to the 50s, the time, it seems, that you argue was a crime-free utopia in America (back before those uppity coloreds, women, and now f****ots started running their mouths and asking to be treated "equally".). Rampant physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by priests ON CHILDREN.

 

Would it be fair to say that priests are "churchified"? At the very least, would it not be fair to say that they are religious? If your position is even REMOTELY valid, such would be impossible, no? I mean, we are talking about systemic abuse of children, over the course of decades, in schools run by the Catholic Church itself.

 

Why did no priest blow the whistle on the abuse? And even if one did, why did the Church not listen and step in and fix it?

 

Look at the "moral" behavior of the Catholic Church regarding the rampant sexual abuse in the US. Instead of allowing the priests in question to be punished in civil courts, they are repeatedly transferred to other parishes where the abuse continued. The Church did everything it could to keep the abuse quiet.

 

Why? I am sure it is because they didn't want the Church itself to look bad, and in their (ever so moral) mind it was better to hide it--even if it continued--and save face for the Church, because if it came out the Church might then have difficulty saving souls, and that is more important.

 

This is not the first instance of people committing crimes to protect the "church" or the belief system. Ahh, the Church is so moral. Always has been.

[Moai]

You might be right. But it's still remarkable that the prison population divided 80%:20% between religious and non-religious and the general population divided in the same percentages. While there are measurement uncertainties in any poll, one cannot deduce from these data that those without religion have inferior moral values or vice versa.

 

The prison population does not mirror society. To get your statistics, you must include agnostics in your numbers, as those who profess no belief in god is around 5 or 6%--growing to be sure, but it isn't near 20% unless you look globally.

 

In prisons, however, there are virtually No atheists. The study I read rounded up to get a number of 1%--and I don't think any of them were violent criminals.

 

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

 

The study finds that "intelligence and education result in less crime. Crime is the result of SUPERSTITION and ignorance."

 

Pretty cool, huh?

 

There was a study done in Texas that lumped those who didn't know or didn't care about religion into the "atheist" category and got 20%--sloppy methodology.

 

Thanks for all the great posts, by the way.

[Moai]

FNB, take a look at the 1997 statistics from the FBI on religious affiliations of convicted persons in prison (see http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm).

 

I have made an evaluation of the FBI statistics. Since there is no category for "no religious affiliation" and no category for "agnostic", I assumed those convicts with no religious affilation and agnostics were included in those described as "unknown/no answer".

 

The categories of convicts can then be summarized as religious 80.1%, unknown/no answer/no affiliation/agnostic 19.7%, atheists 0.2%.

 

From a 2001 demographic survey http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/reports/ARIS_Report_2008.pdf, the corresponding figures for the entire US population are religious 80.4%, unknown/no answer/no affiliation/agnostic 19.2%, atheist 0.4%.

 

I chose the 2001 demographics as the closest year to the year of the FBI statistics.

 

It can be seen that there is no significant difference between the affiliations of convicts and those of the population at large. There do appear to be only half as many atheists in jail as would be expected from their prevalence in the population but the percentage of atheists is very small so I would not like to draw any firm conclusions from that observation.

 

In summary, the percentages of religious and non-religious people in jail in the USA in 1997 was almost exactly as in the population as a whole -- so no apparent difference between the religious and the non-religious when it comes to criminal behavior.

 

Your claim that "Athiest morality has given us gangstas" is particularly absurd when one notes that atheists amount to only 0.4% of the US population.

 

Oops! That is similar to the study I was talking about. To lump no affiliation and agnostic together is sloppy, as there are many who believe in god but do not belong to a formal religion. If I claimed belief in Gaia, for example, I would be agnostic or atheist according to this study.

 

In order to mirror society you would expect 4% of criminals to be atheists, and yet the percentage is far less. Even still, while I personally think that there are better studies--I linked one--even this one supports the non-religious point, so I am glad you posted it.

 

If the counter-argument holds, that the religious are more moral or that what we need is a return to a more religious culture, you would expect virtually all criminals to be atheists, right? And since there aren't, I am sure we can expect a No True Scotsman coming any minute....

[Moai]

Nice, selling crack to other kids to feed their own.

Of these people who were "supposedly inspired by jesus", how many would you say were mentally ill?

 

I think anyone who claims to be inspired by Jesus is mentally ill.

 

I just wonder how many had problems like a violent temper, problems with bed wetting, or hatred in general.

 

That bed-wetting crime wave sweeping the nation must be stopped! Where will it end?

 

The idea floating here is that you can take an athiest, inject him with some religious (presumably Christian) faith, and then he will become more violent. Do you hold this belief?

 

I do. Your injection idea is a bit severe, but on the whole correct.

 

All children are born atheists. They have to be taught to believe in a god or gods. God belief obviously does not make someone more moral--in many ways the contrary is the case.

 

Moreover, it is easier to get a believer in a frenzy about the "heretics" or whatever and get them in a killing mood that it would be an atheist. As an atheist, I cannot conceive of an idea that someone should be killed for thinking. I cannot conceive of a behavior that should be punished that harms nobody.

 

But the religious sure can.

[Moai]

I suspect the disproportion of Catholics has something to do with the Hispanic population, illegal immigration, and the border debacle in general. I do believe the disproportionate number of Catholics are actually illegal aliens.

 

Of course you do, because you are a racist.

 

[edit]

[sb129]

Am taking my time reading the whole thread, but its been very interesting so far.

 

To answer the OP-

 

As a child, my morality came from my parents, my teachers (schools in my country are secular unless specifically stated) and other influential adults, none of whom were religious.

 

We were taught good and bad and right and wrong by these people, because most people have an inherent sense of morality regardless of their religious pursuasion.

 

Taking religion out of it teaches children to be more tolerant IMO- nobody in my childhood was telling me that other people of different races/ religions/ sexual orientations/ genders etc were "wrong" or "bad", we were brought up to treat everyone as an equal.

[FleshNBones]

Of course you do, because you are a racist.

I don't mind being called a racist.

Would you mind being called a bigot?

[wuggle]

I think anyone who claims to be inspired by Jesus is mentally ill..

 

I think that's a bit harsh, religion aside you have to admit he was a decent bloke (assuming he existed) so not a bad thing to use him as a role model, just don't assume he is the son of an omnipotent being, still a nice chap though.

[FleshNBones]

We were taught good and bad and right and wrong by these people, because most people have an inherent sense of morality regardless of their religious pursuasion.

I disagree. I learned early on that there are certain people I can trust, and there are many people I cannot trust. There are some things I can only share with people I've known for a long time, and there are some things I just can't share with anyone. There are also people who lead chaotic lives, and will gladly drag you down with them.

[clv0116]

The Bible says even atheists have a sense of right and wrong written on their hearts.

[dobler33]

moai, rock the f*ck on, my fine atheist friend. i'm having a sam-harris-gasm reading your posts. i'm looking longingly at my glossy signed richard dawkins head shot. i just put on my "Scarlet A" t-shirt and am doing a happy atheist dance all around my living room.

 

ok, i don't have a glossy signed richard dawkins head shot. but i wish i did. i would totally look longingly at it. while wearing my "Scarlet A" t-shirt. which i do have.

 

hilariously, i just home from church. how funny is that? i'm involved in the progessive leftist political community work of a non-denominational radical church in my city; i've been helping them build their gay pride parade float. they love me even though i'm an atheist. i try to do the same in reverse but so many of the religious folks i meet outside of that church seem to assume when they hear i'm an atheist that i'm running off to eat babies at my goat's-blood-drenched altar to osama bin laden.

 

which is ridiculous cause it's actually an altar to christopher hitchens. duh.

[sb129]

I learned early on that there are certain people I can trust, and there are many people I cannot trust. There are some things I can only share with people I've known for a long time, and there are some things I just can't share with anyone. There are also people who lead chaotic lives, and will gladly drag you down with them.

 

You just proved my point.

 

It was THESE people that taught you your morality rather than any religious doctrine. Whether you followed them or decided that their way wasn't for you- it was still them that showed you the difference.

 

Learning from other peoples mistakes still counts as learned behaviour.

[sb129]

And anyway F&B- the OP asked atheists where they got their moral values from.

 

I am an atheist, and I answered the question.

Disagreeing with me about my answer is pointless seeing as you don't know me or my background- I am the number one expert on my own morality and where it came from!

 

Religion didn't feature at all in my upbringing nor my moral development.

 

As a fully functioning member of society with a job that helps other people, a happy marriage, no criminal record and a clean bill of mental health, I think that makes me perfectly qualified to state that a good sense of morality can be gained without any religious influence.

 

Do you disagree with that too? I am living proof after all, and I DO exist.

[dobler33]

And anyway F&B- the OP asked atheists where they got their moral values from.

 

I am an atheist, and I answered the question.

Disagreeing with me about my answer is pointless seeing as you don't know me or my background- I am the number one expert on my own morality and where it came from!

 

Religion didn't feature at all in my upbringing nor my moral development.

 

As a fully functioning member of society with a job that helps other people, a happy marriage, no criminal record and a clean bill of mental health, I think that makes me perfectly qualified to state that a good sense of morality can be gained without any religious influence.

 

Do you disagree with that too? I am living proof after all, and I DO exist.

 

 

i learned my morals by paying attention, for sh*t's sake. justice, community, ethics, reason, compassion, empathy, creativity, openness and kindness. these are not strictly religious principles. in fact, many religions that do subscribe to these ideas have quite a few clauses about who gets to be treated this way and who doesn't - us and them, self and other, the in crowd and the out crowd. at least atheism encourages empirical positivist reason, which is more likely to result in a position of curiosity and a willingness to learn before making judgement.

[sb129]

Totally agree dobler- just because we are atheists doesn't mean we have taken leave of our senses!

 

Observation and learning are powerful tools, and are not exclusive to religion. If anything I think religion can hinder them.

[Moai]

I think that's a bit harsh, religion aside you have to admit he was a decent bloke (assuming he existed) so not a bad thing to use him as a role model, just don't assume he is the son of an omnipotent being, still a nice chap though.

 

He wasn't entirely nice, according to the text. And I took "inspired" to infer Jesus somehow communicating with someone living today and that resulting in some sort of action. Even if it results in good, it isn't any less crazy.

[Moai]

I don't mind being called a racist.

Would you mind being called a bigot?

 

Not by you, certainly. It would just be another in a long list of things you are wrong about.

[Moai]

moai, rock the f*ck on, my fine atheist friend. i'm having a sam-harris-gasm reading your posts. i'm looking longingly at my glossy signed richard dawkins head shot. i just put on my "Scarlet A" t-shirt and am doing a happy atheist dance all around my living room.

 

ok, i don't have a glossy signed richard dawkins head shot. but i wish i did. i would totally look longingly at it. while wearing my "Scarlet A" t-shirt. which i do have.

 

hilariously, i just home from church. how funny is that? i'm involved in the progessive leftist political community work of a non-denominational radical church in my city; i've been helping them build their gay pride parade float. they love me even though i'm an atheist. i try to do the same in reverse but so many of the religious folks i meet outside of that church seem to assume when they hear i'm an atheist that i'm running off to eat babies at my goat's-blood-drenched altar to osama bin laden.

 

which is ridiculous cause it's actually an altar to christopher hitchens. duh.

 

Thank you very much for the kind words and even kinder comparison!

 

I am poaching some babies this evening if you'd like to come over. Bring some fermented goat's blood and we'll make it a party!

[dunstable]

The prison population does not mirror society. To get your statistics, you must include agnostics in your numbers, as those who profess no belief in god is around 5 or 6%--growing to be sure, but it isn't near 20% unless you look globally.

 

I have the impression you didn't read my posts very carefully. I was comparing 2001 demographic data with 1997 prison data and referenced both my sources so people could check my maths. I chose the 2001 demographics to get as close in time as I could to the 1997 prison data. The demographic data indicates that 0.5% of the general population were agnostic and 0.4% atheist. I could not treat the agnostics as a separate category in making my comparisons because they are not identified separately in the prison data, so I lumped them in with those of no religious affiliation -- this was a practical necessity in order to be able to compare the data.

 

Where do you get your statistic that "those who profess no belief in God number 5% or 6%? According to the ARIS 2001 survey that I cited agnostics were 0.5% and atheists 0.4% in the general population. These figures rose to 0.9% agnostic and 0.7% atheist in the ARIS 2008 survey.

 

You misquoted me -- I didn't say those professing no belief in God amounted to 20%. I quoted 19.6% as the total for people with no religion (13.3%), atheists (0.4%), agnostics (0.5%), and those who didn't know or refused to say if they had a religion (5.4%).

 

Finally, your claim that the prison population does not mirror society is somewhat annoying when I've gone to a lot of trouble to analyze two sets of data to show that there is a mirroring according to these two data sets. And I'm not quoting someone else's analysis -- I did the maths myself and cited the references to the raw data so that people can check my maths if they want to. Of course, it may be that other data sets would give a different result and I would be interested to see more data if anyone has any.

 

In prisons, however, there are virtually No atheists. The study I read rounded up to get a number of 1%--and I don't think any of them were violent criminals.

 

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

 

 

The skepticfiles article you cite says atheists make up less than 1% of the prison population. This is consistent with my the figure of 0.2% that I quoted.

 

However, the article makes a startling error in its conclusions when it says "Fifty-two percent of people belong to no church, yet live clean lives and supply less than 1% of the total criminal population." By sleight of hand, it is redefines atheists as people who belong to no church. If it compared apples with apples, it would find that the percentage of atheists is less than 1% in the general population as well as in the prison population. The data that I presented indicated the percentage of atheists in the prison and general populations is broadly similar - 0.2% in jail (1997 data) versus 0.4% in the general population (2001 data). The differences between the two figures may or may not be statistically significant (can't judge without detailed knowledge of the methodologies of the two polls).

[dobler33]

He wasn't entirely nice, according to the text. And I took "inspired" to infer Jesus somehow communicating with someone living today and that resulting in some sort of action. Even if it results in good, it isn't any less crazy.

 

you know, it always surprises me how few christ-followers have actually read everything their guy did and said. the other-cheek and love-thy-neighbor stuff was there alright, but he could also be a bit, well, bitchy. remember that part about telling his mother off? and wanting to firebomb a tree because it didn't give him any fruit? i love julia sweeney's monologue from "letting go of god" about finally reading the bible after a lifetime of catholocism and discovering just how WHACKED it is. here's the trailer for the movie of her live show:

 

check it out, it's hilarious.

[dobler33]

Thank you very much for the kind words and even kinder comparison!

 

I am poaching some babies this evening if you'd like to come over. Bring some fermented goat's blood and we'll make it a party!

 

 

i have a perky little cab that goes beautifully with poached babies. brie and baby bruschette, anyone?