Atheists roughly as distrusted as rapists, UBC study finds

[CDNBear]

Bear asks, "What moral code says I shouldn't be allowed to go thump my neighbour and take his things?

Deuteronomy 2:33-34
King James Version (KJV)
33And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain:

Thanks Spade, but I was kind of hoping for the atheists version/point of view.

Consequences, and you'll note that the consequences are often defined in relative terms, such as, it's okay to thump a guy from another tribe or clan and take his stuff, but it's not okay to do it to members of your own, you'll be punished for that by other members, which it occurs to me is a pretty fair summary of human civilization. It's perfectly clear from the OT, for instance, that the injunction, "Thou shalt not kill" delivered to the Israelites applied only to other Israelites. After receiving it they went on a long campaign of invasion and slaughter abetted by their mass murdering, ethnic cleansing deity.

We evolved as social animals so rules for getting along with each other in groups, with all our competing individual needs, wants, and interests, had to evolve along with us or we wouldn't have survived this long, but we still distinguish different rules for the in group, our own tribe, clan, religion, colour, whatever, and out groups, everybody who's of a different tribe, clan, etc. I think it's a measure of improving civilization that the in groups are getting bigger, they're multinational now, but there are still too many competing camps. One is all we need, and in the long term I think all we can afford.

Tuff to argue with that logic, thanks Dex.

 

[darkbeaver]

db brings up a good point. Unwittingly I'm sure...



Naturally, nature says might makes right, the strong and healthy take advantage of the weak and/or sick. This was so, even up to biblical times and beyond in some sectors.

What moral code says I shouldn't be allowed to go thump my neighbour and take his things?

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This is so very old and so very universal. Ethics and morality require the cultivation of empathy and compassion in the presence of reason.
As far as I know nature always favours intelligence over any other attribute. Intelligence is sometimes hard to see, sometimes takes generations to flower but woe to those who forget its presence.

 

[CDNBear]

Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. This is so very old and so very universal. Ethics and morality require the cultivation of empathy and compassion in the presence of reason.
As far as I know nature always favours intelligence over any other attribute. Intelligence is sometimes hard to see, sometimes takes generations to flower but woe to those who forget its presence.

Where the f!ck is this darkbeaver the rest of the time!

Seriously dude, that was well said, thank you!

I have to ask though, isn't do onto others, a religious affectation?

 

[Cannuck]

That is a big can of worms for so early in the morning. First off, I think we are born with a sense of right and wrong, although it does take life experiences to solidify those codes. Things like if you hit a another kid they quite often hit back and it hurts.

That's not right and wrong. That's self preservation. There is no right and wrong in the natural world. It is a human invention based on a belief in something greater. Any morality an atheist has is of their own making and as such they have no reason to question the morality of anybody else.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

There is no right and wrong in the natural world. It is a human invention based on a belief in something greater. Any morality an atheist has is of their own making and as such they have no reason to question the morality of anybody else.

I'd agree up to a point (the first two sentences), though the belief in something greater need not be anything like a deity, but simply the value of belonging to a group. Any morality *anybody* has is ultimately of their own making, if it's a human invention it can't really be otherwise. Much of it will have been delivered by the socialization process, but anyone's free to reject it if they're prepared to accept the consequences, which might be pretty severe, like getting ostracized, jailed, or executed. But your final conclusion absolutely does not follow. The only way to establish an acceptable relative morality--and in the absence of a deity handing it down that's the only kind there can be--is to talk about it, poke at the options, challenge it, argue about it.

I find that infinitely preferable to the kind of absolutist morality we find in supposedly holy books, that produce such lamentable folly as that poor Afghan woman who was jailed for adultery after reporting being sexually assaulted, and was released on condition she marry the man who assaulted her as the only way to satisfy the family honour. Any thoughtful, compassionate human being can find very good reasons to question the morality of that, being atheist or not isn't relevant.

 

[Corduroy]

The only way to establish an acceptable relative morality--and in the absence of a deity handing it down that's the only kind there can be--is to talk about it, poke at the options, challenge it, argue about it.

The bit about a deity being the only possible source of an objective morality is often said. It seems to be just simply assumed. How is that only a deity can create objective morality? How is it that a deity can create an objective morality at all?

 

[Cannuck]

But your final conclusion absolutely does not follow. The only way to establish an acceptable relative morality--and in the absence of a deity handing it down that's the only kind there can be--is to talk about it, poke at the options, challenge it, argue about it.

Who decides what is is an acceptable relative morality other than the will of the majority.

Any thoughtful, compassionate human being can find very good reasons to question the morality of that, being atheist or not isn't relevant.

No doubt but your morality comes from within and is based on thoughtfulness and compassion. You are using the same circular logic that you have often accused religious folks of using. Compassion dictates it's immoral because you believe the woman in being treated unfairly because you have compassion that dictates it's immoral because you believe the woman in being treated unfairly because you have compassion that dictates .......

I don't believe in right and wrong. I believe in what works and what doesn't work given how I choose to live. Since others may or may not want the same things as I do, what is right for me may not be right for them. I think this is one of our greatest problems as a civilization. We need to ask ourselves what is is we want (big picture) and are our actions (morality if you will) leading us to that goal.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

So when you were banging her, it was a little bit of heaven, Right.

It was an awesome weekend. Her pop hated me. Her ex Italian Boyfriend tried to start a fight and to add insult to injury I ended up with a sunburned ass on Wreck Beach. On the up side I got laid and drank mucho grando beer.

We broke it off when I left.

Where the f!ck is this darkbeaver the rest of the time!

Seriously dude, that was well said, thank you!

I have to ask though, isn't do onto others, a religious affectation?

That's not Darkbeaver.

It's Kleinbeaver, he's got Darkbeaver tied to a wailing wall and is impersonating him.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

The bit about a deity being the only possible source of an objective morality is often said. It seems to be just simply assumed. How is that only a deity can create objective morality? How is it that a deity can create an objective morality at all?

I've no idea, that claim's never made much sense to me either, but it does seem clear to me that if there IS an objective morality (and I don't believe there is), it doesn't come from humans so it's necessary to postulate some other source. That gets into all kinds of thorny theological issues I've never found a satisfactory explanation for. Such as, if the postulated deity exists and is the source of morality, where did HE get it from? If he didn't invent it, it must exist separate from him and he's superfluous to it. And if he invented it, and has the inscrutable characteristics usually ascribed to him that put him beyond our comprehension, how can we tell if what he hands down is really any good or not? Life makes a lot more sense to me if I proceed on the assumption that he's not there.

Who decides what is is an acceptable relative morality other than the will of the majority.

Well of course that's who it is, it's part of the social contract. What else could it be but a general agreement among people who live together to behave in certain ways and not in others?

No doubt but your morality comes from within and is based on thoughtfulness and compassion. You are using the same circular logic that you have often accused religious folks of using.

It's true that my morality comes from within, but it's not based solely on thoughtfulness and compassion, there's a strong element of the practical in it too, or in your terms the what works and what doesn't. Have you not noticed that the negative end of the scale on any social indicator you can think of generally occurs in places where the status of women is lowest? That's not a coincidence; oppressing half your population doesn't work.

 

[Cannuck]

Have you not noticed that the negative end of the scale on any social indicator you can think of generally occurs in places where the status of women is lowest? That's not a coincidence; oppressing half your population doesn't work.

I've generally found that oppressing any percentage of the population doesn't work....unless you want an oppressive society.

 

[Bar Sinister]

That is a big can of worms for so early in the morning. First off, I think we are born with a sense of right and wrong, although it does take life experiences to solidify those codes. Things like if you hit a another kid they quite often hit back and it hurts. And parents, teachers and care givers all instill their sense of right and wrong. Morality, in the religious sense, is another story and deals with matters of conduct that are not necessarily wrong, like homosexuality and adultery, which seem to me to be more a sign of sexual repression by the person making the judgement. Many religions consider sexual behaviour that you and I may consider normal as sexual deviancy. Who is right and wrong in that case?

At one time, the moral codes were universal in the Christian world because everybody was indoctrinated into it. Today we have a mish mash of religious and spiritual beliefs and non beliefs and the only unifying code is the law. But even that is subject to the same testing as when a teen starts to test a parent's authority. It is normal human behaviour to break the rules to establish a sense of independence. To me, the only unifying law is karma: for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is all about consequences for our actions. As we mature (I know that it is hard to see sometimes) as a species, we begin to break away from old, stifling rules that hinder our progress and creativity.

Quite right, especially given that the Aztecs and their neighbours considered human sacrifice to be completely moral; and that Christians once considered burning at the stake a just punishment for those who disagreed with their beliefs; and that Hindus once considered the burning of widows as appropriate; it is quite obvious that morality can quite easily exist outside of religion. Any society whether atheist or not must have some basic moral codes otherwise it simply falls apart. It is hard to believe that a society with a non-religious moral base could do much worse than the thousands of religions that have attempted to impose their ideas of right and wrong on humanity, considering the many failures of religion based morality.

 

[darkbeaver]

Where the f!ck is this darkbeaver the rest of the time!

Seriously dude, that was well said, thank you!

I have to ask though, isn't do onto others, a religious affectation?

Its reason codified after long observation of the eventual results of habitual club work. A necessary survival adaptation leading to cooperation and eventually big screen TVs. Many were needlessly clubbed and many clubbed needlessly and nobody ate that winter.

 

[55Mercury]

I think if an act promotes harmony among people it is moral, but if it promotes discord then it is immoral.

 

[Cannuck]

I think if an act promotes harmony among people it is moral, but if it promotes discord then it is immoral.

So this forum is immoral then. I feel so dirty.

 

[damngrumpy]

This is a bit of singling people out because they have short comings of their own.
I don't judge people, at least not until I get to know them. There are religious
people I wouldn't leave my grand kids with if I had to go away, and the same can
be said for some who are non believers.
No I don't think they would be molested, they would be fed some serious nonsense
and distorted visions of religious beliefs. There are some wonderful people out there
who practice their faith and never cause a problem for anyone. Then the zealots
arrive and of course the same religious bully tactics, are used. If you do not believe
you will go to hell, you should be set aside because God does not want to hear from
you.
And the greatest patronizing statement of all, I love the sinner but I hate the sin.

Atheists are no different than any other group, period. Believing does not make you
moral. Look at the religious sex scandals and the church they will tell you that.
There is a guy here who just got fifteen years for killing a young woman eighteen
years ago. As it turns out he was a wonderful Christian, and family man and an
example for all. The truth is, he was a monster, prior to killing the young woman,
he was charged with sexual assault and for exposing himself. He was not an atheist
either. but then if you think about it he was not a Christian either he was and is just
evil.
The religious will howl just because he is used an example of being religious. Then
again it is an impression based on a label. If you are an atheist you wear the label
of mistrust. If you are a religious person you might even be a rapist and no one will
suspect it that person. It goes to show that society as a whole is not very good at
judging character, because society makes judgements based on impressions and
a skewed belief system. UBC must have teamed up with the Fraser Institute on this
one.

 

[Corduroy]

I've no idea, that claim's never made much sense to me either, but it does seem clear to me that if there IS an objective morality (and I don't believe there is), it doesn't come from humans so it's necessary to postulate some other source. That gets into all kinds of thorny theological issues I've never found a satisfactory explanation for. Such as, if the postulated deity exists and is the source of morality, where did HE get it from? If he didn't invent it, it must exist separate from him and he's superfluous to it. And if he invented it, and has the inscrutable characteristics usually ascribed to him that put him beyond our comprehension, how can we tell if what he hands down is really any good or not? Life makes a lot more sense to me if I proceed on the assumption that he's not there.

If god got his morality from another standard, then yes he would be superfluous. But if god created morality or morality is a part of god then that would still make morality subjective. It's subjective according to the nature of god or god's whims.

 

[Cliffy]

If god got his morality from another standard, then yes he would be superfluous. But if god created morality or morality is a part of god then that would still make morality subjective. It's subjective according to the nature of god or god's whims.

I think Mark Twain said it best: And Man created God in his own image." If he was right, then Man created morality and we all know what a bunch of flakes they can be.

 

[In Between Man]

I think it's unwise to distrust any identifiable group as a whole. I'll give any individual at least one chance with my trust. We're all human!