Athiests, where do you get your moral values?

[sb129]

I am reading this book at the moment.

 

Its pretty interesting reading. It doesn't portray Jesus in such a favourable light (although what do you expect from a naughty atheist?). Interesting to get a different perspective on such a "well known" story.

[sb129]

PS- we have no goats at the moment. Is deer blood ok?

 

My baby is not ready for poaching at the moment, but I am poisoning her mind with all sorts of terrible ideas in utero- seems as good a time to start as any.

[dobler33]

PS- we have no goats at the moment. Is deer blood ok?

 

My baby is not ready for poaching at the moment, but I am poisoning her mind with all sorts of terrible ideas in utero- seems as good a time to start as any.

 

 

heehee! you guys are cracking me up. i took a look at that page - looks really interesting. i'm in the middle of proust, obama and some crazy neo-victorian thing with lots of cult appeal, but there's always more room on my stack. for a light and goofy read try "Lamb: The Gospel According to Jesus's Best Friend Biff" by Christopher Moore, and for a more urbane but equally scathing speculative fantasy try "Waiting for the Galactic Bus." by Parke Godwin. two of my favorite naughty atheist retellings of the christ story.

[dunstable]

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.

Please see my previous response to you where I explained that I lumped them together as it was the only practical method to compare the national demographics with the prison population (because the prison data does not mention agnostics). The ARIS demographic study where I obtained the national statistics goes into fine detail -- I think they would have put your belief in Gaia into the catchall religious category "New religous movements and other religions".

 

In order to mirror society you would expect 4% of criminals to be atheists, and yet the percentage is far less.

Where do you get 4%? ARIS 2008 gives 0.7% for atheists. The data comparisons I described in previous posts showed atheists in prisons 0.2% (1997 data) and atheists in the general population 0.4% (ARIS 2001 data). This indicated prison and national demographics were similar. The differences between 0.2% and 0.4% are not necessarily statistical significant.

 

 

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?

Right! But I didn't find any clear evidence for the superiority of atheist morality either - the fact that atheists in prison were 0.2% compared with 0.4% in the general population based on the data I cited points in the general direction of that conclusion but the difference might not be statistically significant.

[FleshNBones]

let me also point out that even though i'm an atheist i am involved with charitable religious organizations that adhere to foundations of justice and community activism. i sing in the choir of one such in my city - a church that has fought for freedom to marry, gay rights, racial equality and the advancement of women. they fight against homophobia, misogyny, racism, classism and political oppression of all sorts, and when i sing with them, even though the words of the songs are about a god i don't believe in, i know that the power of a gathering of people committed to bring strength and freedom to all people is a scientifically observable phenomenon, therefore it doesn't conflict with my atheism. i don't reject the idea of religiosity, i just reject the belief that atheism precludes morality.

The more I thought about it, the more I was offended. Using a church service to make a political statement is actually pretty despicable.

[FleshNBones]

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.

That is what we call a taboo.

 

I guess it is moral (from an Athiest perspective) for an Athiest to commit taboos against people they don't like.

 

One societal norm is that people be polite. Committing taboos is far from polite.

[Moai]

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.

 

It wasn't your math that I was referencing, it was the description of the different categories. IMO, listing "don't know/don't care" as one category is misleading. It was not you who did so, but the studies that you referenced--and I read myself in the past. YOUR treatment of the two groups as one is understandable, and not something with which I have issue.

 

In point of fact, I don't have issue with any of it. Even if the prison population mirrored the general population of society (which I do not think that it does), it would show that religious belief does not make anyone any more moral than anyone else.

 

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.

 

The Freethought Pedia. Ther's is based on a Harris poll.

 

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists

 

I have read studies, one from "Transformation America" that claims atheism as high as 8% in the US. I haven't checked any of their methodologies, but given the wide swath it seems to me 4% is about right. Of course, that does not include agnostics

 

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%).

 

Again, it was not your post I referencing, but the report itself and te study I read that came from The Texas Dept. of Corrections.

 

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.

 

I thought the link to the study I posted did a fine job of that, and actually listed a number of prisons polled that had 1 or no atheists in the inmate population.

 

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.

 

Hence my "oops" post, since I was reading the thread and responding to FNB and then saw your excellent post. I in no way have a problem with your data or analysis, it was just that in an earlier post you mentioned the 20% figure and that sounded a bit high to me, and then you spent the time to list all of your research.

 

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.

 

I disagree, no atheism is implied. Denial of organized religion is, however, which speaks directly to FNB's point that if society were more "churchified" we'd all be better off.

 

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).

 

Exactly. If at any point I seemed antagonistic to your position or calculations allow me to apologize, as that was not my intent at all. The only reason I even mentioned it was because I read your post mentioning the number 20%. I was not doing so to put you on the defensive or even disagree with you, it was to clarify the point--which you did later and in much greater detail than I.

 

Again, I am sorry if I was not clear in my post and regret any misunderstanding that resulted. I appreciate your point of view and the detail that you have taken the time to present.

[Moai]

That is what we call a taboo.

 

You and other who believe as you do call it a taboo, everyone else thinks it is silly.

 

You openly eat pork, which is a taboo for Jews and Muslims. I am not aware that they threaten BBQ restaurants with violent death very often.

 

I guess it is moral (from an Athiest perspective) for an Athiest to commit taboos against people they don't like.

 

Taboos are stupid. notice, however, that you do not address the germane issue which is that the "churchified" are more moral.

 

Murder is not a taboo, it is a crime--and a sin, according to your very own religion. But Catholics have no problem getting into it if it goes against one of your "taboos", huh? Is that even REMOTELY moral? What about "turn the other cheek"?

 

What about the sanctity of life in general? A guy walks out with a cracker--which, granted, you believe is actually Jesus' body ()--and that is grounds to break commandments and commit what even our secular society calls a crime?

 

I notice that you make no mention of their reaction being over the top. Can we take that to mean you agree?

 

One societal norm is that people be polite. Committing taboos is far from polite.

 

Yes, and as a believer if someone is impolite to you or your superstition it is fine to kill them. I am sure that the threats would have been realized had the student's address been known.

 

Believers killing for some perceived offense is all too common. Catholics are no different, as history shows.

[Moai]

The more I thought about it, the more I was offended. Using a church service to make a political statement is actually pretty despicable.

 

So every pastor and priest who makes political statements from the pulpit (which is illegal if they don't pay taxes, by the way) offends you?

 

Good for you.

[FleshNBones]

Murder is not a taboo, it is a crime--and a sin, according to your very own religion. But Catholics have no problem getting into it if it goes against one of your "taboos", huh? Is that even REMOTELY moral? What about "turn the other cheek"?

Not liking me is one thing. Entering my home and pissing on the walls is grounds for an ass kicking. Pulling a stunt like that in Mass is no different.

[FleshNBones]

So every pastor and priest who makes political statements from the pulpit (which is illegal if they don't pay taxes, by the way) offends you?

 

Good for you.

Protecting life is important. Pushing a homosexual agenda is another. Do you even see the difference?

[clv0116]

Protecting life is important. Pushing a homosexual agenda is another. Do you even see the difference?

 

Actually, what lesson was Jesus supposed to be teaching when he talked about why his attendants didn't fight for him on night of the last supper?

[FleshNBones]

I think this might give you a better idea of what disrespect is.

http://vodpod.com/watch/1420779-true-hollywood-stories-rick-james-pt-2

[sb129]

..............................

 

Never mind.

 

Moai, your patience and dedication is admirable.

[dunstable]

The Freethought Pedia. Ther's is based on a Harris poll.

 

http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists

The ARIS polls of 2001 and 2008 were more comprehensive that the Harris poll of 1996.

 

The ARIS polls collected answers from from 50,382 respondents in 2001 and 54,461 in 2008. These polls used random digit telephone dialling so the samples were random and it is possible to apply sampling theory to calculate sampling error. The 2008 poll showed that 0.7% of the 54,461 respondents declared themselves as atheist, from which we can calculate a 95% confidence interval to be 0.63% to 0.77%.

 

The Harris 2006 poll collected answers from 2,078 respondents in the US. It was not a random poll but a selection of people who had signed up to participate in online polls so sampling theory does not apply. However, let's pretend it was a random sample. It showed that 4% of the 2,078 respondents declared themselves as atheists. The 95% confidence interval would then be 3.2% to 4.9%. Since it wasn't a random sample, the true confidence limits would actually be wider than this but cannot be determined.

 

The non-overlap of the confidence intervals suggests that the ARIS and Harris polls are in significant disagreement. I think the disagreement may result from the differences in interview methodologies.

 

ARIS asked "What is your religion, if any?" without prompting or offering a list of suggested answers. There were then filter questions like "What denomination is that?". Harris, on the other hand asked people to select from 5 categories - (1) believe in God or supreme being, (2) agnostic, (3) atheist, (4) do not want to say, or (5) not sure.

 

ARIS included a subset of questions regarding to the existence of God. While people declaring themselves as atheist were only 0.7%, the percentage of those who said there is no such thing as God was 2.3%. Similarly, the percentage of people declaring themselves as agnostic was 0.9% but the percentage stating they were not sure of the existence of God or that there was no way to know if there was a God was 10%.

 

So according to ARIS, people with atheist or agnostic beliefs are about 12.3% but those labeling themselves as atheist or agnostic amount to only 1.6%. In other words, asking people for their religious identification gives very different results to deducing their identification from their stated beliefs. It follows that it will be difficult to compare religious beliefs between convicts in prison and the general population unless both groups are polled using the same methodology, which to date does not appear to have been done.

[dobler33]

The more I thought about it, the more I was offended. Using a church service to make a political statement is actually pretty despicable.

 

hey, baby, i ain't the one preaching. the pastor is about to be recognized as a leader of the civil rights movement, with the dedication to be offered by maya angelou. you gonna argue with that? i'm not. i'm just gonna help him build his damn float.

 

You and other who believe as you do call it a taboo, everyone else thinks it is silly.

 

You openly eat pork, which is a taboo for Jews and Muslims. I am not aware that they threaten BBQ restaurants with violent death very often.

 

that made me spit out my tea. effing hilarious, moai.

 

 

 

Not liking me is one thing. Entering my home and pissing on the walls is grounds for an ass kicking. Pulling a stunt like that in Mass is no different.

 

i only piss in bathrooms, unless i'm camping. i am fairly sure i have never pissed on your walls. i mean, there were some crazy days in the mid-90's, but i'm sure someone would have told me if i'd pissed on someone's walls. why do you want to kick my ass? because i don't believe what you do? that's kind of, well, pissy.

[dunstable]

I think FNB's posts have vividly revealed some of the shortcomings typical of religious people -- inability to reason about ethics because they have a set of rules they can't contemplating deviating from, wanting to impose their moral values and ethical rules on others because they can't conceive that others could be right, and intolerance of (and even acceptance of violence towards) anyone who thinks or acts differently, again because they can't conceive that others could be right.

 

Atheism doesn't prescribe any rules for living life. It's just a state of non-belief in the supernatural. It leaves people free to set their own moral values and to work out their own solutions to ethical questions under the conditions of the present day. Atheists can use all the resources available to them -- their experiences, their reasoning, all that they have read, and their innate sense of what's right and wrong.

 

Religion is not the origin of moral values. Non-human animals have moral values but I have no reason to suppose they have religion. Religion appears to have been a human invention and therefore it came after morality. Religion was probably invented to calm fears of mortality. To do that it had to give people hope that they could control the environment with rituals and it had to provide a reassuring story about what happens when people die. As new religions developed, they incorporated the current moral values of the tribes concerned. Because religions claim to know truth, they resist change, and they tend to perpetuate moral values beyond their useful life, imposing them when they are no longer appropriate. Religions therefore hinder the evolution of moral values to cope with changing conditions. It is therefore to be expected that moral values based on religion will not be optimum.

[sb129]

Good post Dunstable.

 

I find it amusing that FNB can disagree with me as to where my own morals come from- not sure how you can figure that one.

 

My core morals have developed and grown as I have as a person. And on occasion I encounter issues that challenge those morals and I have to re-examine them.

I think its quite a good way to be. It makes you more adaptable and tolerant in a rapidly changing society.

 

Works for me anyway, and the OP asked us where we got our morals from, not to justify them.

[dunstable]

Good post Dunstable.

 

I find it amusing that FNB can disagree with me as to where my own morals come from- not sure how you can figure that one.

I couldn't figure out how he could disagree with a personal statement on where your morals came from. I think he may have been reacting to your statement that one of your sources was learning from others and he was possibly trying to say that he's very careful about which others he learns from, and I take that to mean he's deeply influenced by a few people in his religious group.

[dunstable]

My core morals have developed and grown as I have as a person. And on occasion I encounter issues that challenge those morals and I have to re-examine them.

I think its quite a good way to be. It makes you more adaptable and tolerant in a rapidly changing society.

Exactly! If on the other hand, you get your morals from a few people in your religious group as FNB implied he does, then I would think it's hard to change or make decisions on new ethical issues due to the peer pressure and the desire to conform.

[FleshNBones]

hey, baby, i ain't the one preaching. the pastor is about to be recognized as a leader of the civil rights movement, with the dedication to be offered by maya angelou. you gonna argue with that? i'm not. i'm just gonna help him build his damn float.

 

i only piss in bathrooms, unless i'm camping. i am fairly sure i have never pissed on your walls. i mean, there were some crazy days in the mid-90's, but i'm sure someone would have told me if i'd pissed on someone's walls. why do you want to kick my ass? because i don't believe what you do? that's kind of, well, pissy.

I am not aware of blacks storming into curches and committing acts of sacrelege during the real civil rights movement. They had a lot more sense than that.

 

A**holes being a**holes is hardly noble, and certainly worthy of an ass kicking. They don't get sympathy from other more intelligent folk.

[FleshNBones]

I think FNB's posts have vividly revealed some of the shortcomings typical of religious people -- inability to reason about ethics because they have a set of rules they can't contemplating deviating from, wanting to impose their moral values and ethical rules on others because they can't conceive that others could be right, and intolerance of (and even acceptance of violence towards) anyone who thinks or acts differently, again because they can't conceive that others could be right.

 

Atheism doesn't prescribe any rules for living life. It's just a state of non-belief in the supernatural. It leaves people free to set their own moral values and to work out their own solutions to ethical questions under the conditions of the present day. Atheists can use all the resources available to them -- their experiences, their reasoning, all that they have read, and their innate sense of what's right and wrong.

If you think it is morally acceptable or praiseworthy for an Athiest to commit wrongs against people they don't like then you are morally corrupt.

 

Committing taboos is legal. Deceiving people is legal. Hating people is legal. These are things you and your buddies have embraced. Society considers these things immoral. So I guess the athiests, or at least the ones here, are immoral.

[dunstable]

I am not aware of blacks storming into curches and committing acts of sacrelege during the real civil rights movement. They had a lot more sense than that.

Did anybody say they did? Why do you suppose they would want to? Even if they did want to, why would it make sense not to? Spell it out for us -- you mean it's because good Christian folks get murderous when they are offended, don't you? That's what many of us have been saying throughout this thread -- religion leads to intolerance and self-righteous violence. Glad to see you admit it! Atheists like other human beings have been known to kill people too but not believing in God gives them one less reason to do so.

[dunstable]

A**holes being a**holes is hardly noble, and certainly worthy of an ass kicking. They don't get sympathy from other more intelligent folk.

No, ass kicking is not endorsed by intelligent folk when their belief system is offended.

[dunstable]

If you think it is morally acceptable or praiseworthy for an Athiest to commit wrongs against people they don't like then you are morally corrupt.

I don't think that committing wrongs is morally acceptable. Though numerous ethical dilemmas do arise when you have to decide which of two courses of action is the lesser of two evils. A religious person would often have difficulty with an ethical issue because they are under pressure to toe the line of their religious group. An atheist would be free to think the issue over and decide what is best under the circumstances.