Originally posted by Surtur
Yes, I dislike people who only act like decent human beings because they think they will get some nifty prize when they die. That is definitely my opinion.
Ok then so it's basically this:
"I think religion and anyone who follows it is insane, therefore anyone who has morals because of a fear of God is insane."
Originally posted by AstnerThere has never been any correlation between having the death penalty and lowering the crime rate.
The death penalty is certainly a deterrent wherever it's implemented, and you'd be an idiot to believe otherwise.However, the way it's implemented in the States is not particularly effective, especially not when compared to the way it's implemented in China; and I hope you know the difference.
In fact the country with the lowest crime rate in the world is Switzerland and it abolished the death penalty sometime in the early 1940s.
Newjak will take you to school on the death penalty. Not a discussion you want to get into, Astner. 😉
Originally posted by psmith81992
This is my point. Furthermore, I don't understand how one can do a morality study of atheism vs. theism. Are certain morals in play here? Or just the ones atheists and theists agree on? Otherwise you have the moral relativism of atheists and the moral absolutism of theists and that doesn't make for a very accurate study.
Atheists aren't necessarily relativists. I've known several who believe in objective morality, and I personally remain somewhat ambivalent on the subject. There just isn't a book or leader prescribing what those tenets are.
The thread I linked goes into some detail, though, on what they were measuring. Among them, specific forms of prejudice, cheating, honesty, and other ideas that I think we can agree are fairly uncontroversial measures of morality. As mentioned, most can be looked up for further research. But in any case, this seems like a weak argument in the face of such overwhelming research.
In fairness, though, most of the studies in question didn't differentiate between atheists and other forms of non-religiosity (though some do). The results, however, were unequivocal and repeated: that increased levels of religiosity correlated strongly with increased immorality in several key areas like those mentioned above.
Atheists aren't necessarily relativists. I've known several who believe in objective morality, and I personally remain somewhat ambivalent on the subject. There just isn't a book or leader prescribing what those tenets are.
The thread I linked goes into some detail, though, on what they were measuring. Among them, specific forms of prejudice, cheating, honesty, and other ideas that I think we can agree are fairly uncontroversial measures of morality. As mentioned, most can be looked up for further research. But in any case, this seems like a weak argument in the face of such overwhelming research.
In fairness, though, most of the studies in question didn't differentiate between atheists and other forms of non-religiosity (though some do). The results, however, were unequivocal and repeated: that increased levels of religiosity correlated strongly with increased immorality in several key areas like those mentioned above.
I'm reading your thread. The problem is, no real specific criteria was given and no real numbers were given. It's flimsy at best and that's not because I'm more religious than not. Then again, this was what your original premise was regarding the research:
It does not prove that atheism or spirituality makes one more moral than the other, but it shows irrefutable evidence that not only that atheism can be moral, but most atheists are moral.
Psmith, you don't actually know what the samples sizes are. You're guessing. Or have you checked up on each of the various studies I mentioned? As it is, collectively we're talking about dozens of studies. With any one of them, you have a point. But taken together, you just sound like you're repeating an argument regardless of what I say. For reference, I haven't read every single one of the studies either. I've looked into a couple out of curiosity, but I'm not a sociologist. But if you have contrary evidence, show it. In the meantime, I'm more than ok provisionally believing something for which we have dozens of data points stretched out across decades. Skepticism is great for filtering out aberrations and bias, but also useful for identifying when to accept something as true until/unless presented with sufficient competing evidence.
Also, you claim that no specific criteria was given, but that's because my thread is a summary of the studies. As mentioned, for the 3rd time now, I literally Googled a few of them to find them online. So you can research them further if you'd like. And it also makes your claim that there's nothing online about this entirely false. Besides, are certain measures of honesty, cheating, lying, prejudice, etc. NOT good variables to measure when testing morality?
I also didn't say it wasn't overwhelming. I said - twice - that it was unequivocal and clear in its findings. I also said it was a provisional truth, subject to further evidence, but that's a rote disclaimer and is true of literally all studies ever about everything. That's probably what you were referring to. Or perhaps the final quoted line in your post there, in which I again hedge against calling it abject proof, but certainly endorse its validity when taken as a whole. I'm happy to be disproven, but have yet to see any competing studies from unbiased sources that refute my claim.
The 1991 book also compiles dozens of such studies, so we can't say this is just 1-2 studies taken in a vacuum.
So, do you have evidence to contradict my claim and cited research? Anything, at all? At best, I agree with you that religion is far from the only factor in morality. And I agree that this - as most things do - bears further study. However, you're taking it too far, and ignoring what's being presented to you.
Psmith, you don't actually know what the samples sizes are. You're guessing. Or have you checked up on each of the various studies I mentioned?
Also, you claim that no specific criteria was given, but that's because my thread is a summary of the studies. As mentioned, for the 3rd time now, I literally Googled a few of them to find them online. So you can research them further if you'd like. And it also makes your claim that there's nothing online about this entirely false. Besides, are certain measures of honesty, cheating, lying, prejudice, etc. NOT good variables to measure when testing morality?
2. Those variables are a good start. I don't want to call this study misleading, so the only word I can use to describe it is incomplete.
I'm happy to be disproven, but have yet to see any competing studies from unbiased sources that refute my claim.
So you disagree about the degree, which is fine. But I'm saying it is evidence, and afaik, the only that we have from sources without a vested interest in the answer.
I can't give you sample sizes. One references "thousands" which can be enough if properly controlled, but we lack context. What you see in that thread is most of what I know. But when we're literally talking about dozens of studies stretching across decades, and no contrary evidence is being presented, I'm telling you that what evidence we have suggests that those who are nonreligious are, at worst, no better/worse than their religious counterparts, and ample studies exist that show a negative correlation with religion and morality. The point of my 2008 thread there was to debunk the myth that atheists aren't moral, or are less moral than religious people. Your own earlier links show that as well, and I think my thread does an admirable job of making the point as well.
If you're ok with saying "sample size" to dismiss dozens of studies, cool. I'm not. I've hedged appropriately, and have never called it proof. It bears further study, undoubtedly. But entirely dismissing what we do have is equally irresponsible, especially when we see it so repeated. For reference, I don't care if atheists are more moral. I'm only reporting what data I've seen. But while you have some valid concerns about the studies themselves, your wholesale dismissal of them without any acceptance or consideration of their premise seems to me like your skepticism is tinged with your preconceptions. But I'm not demanding proof; I'm asking if you know of anything contrary or complimentary? Do you? If not, I'll go with what we have.
Also did some more Google trolling, trying to find sources and/or frame my search queries in ways that didn't lead to one conclusion or another.
Huff Post posted this a while back:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/17/religious-more-moral-atheists_n_5822492.html
Which seems to take the stance that the two groups (religious/nonreligious) are similar in morality. Which is consistent with some of the findings I've referenced. Here's a study they mentioned:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/345/6202/1340
...which also makes references to its sample size.
Also found this on an academic blog from 2011:
http://religiondispatches.org/are-atheists-more-moral-than-the-religious/
...
It references two books/studies:
http://universitypublishingonline.org/cambridge/companions/ebook.jsf?bid=CBO9781139001182
The other link is broken. But a quote from one of the papers is quite damning:
A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency— issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious.
...
I've struggled to find something to the contrary that isn't from an explicitly Christian website. Not that academia is always unassailable in its integrity, but I'm less likely to trust the source when it has a clear agenda.
A growing body of social science research reveals that atheists, and non-religious people in general, are far from the unsavory beings many assume them to be. On basic questions of morality and human decency— issues such as governmental use of torture, the death penalty, punitive hitting of children, racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, environmental degradation or human rights — the irreligious tend to be more ethical than their religious peers, particularly compared with those who describe themselves as very religious
I think the quote is probably an aggregate of several studies, in the same way that the 1991 book I referenced phrases it:
David Wulff's 1991 novel Psychology of Religion compiles dozens of studies to this affect and finds a positive correlation between "religious affiliation, church attendance, doctrinal orthodoxy, rated importance of religion, and so on" with "ethnocentrism, authoritarianism, dogmatism, social distance, intolerance of ambiguity, and specific forms of prejudice, especially against Jews and blacks" (219-220).
I agree all of those variables are not equal in terms of moral importance. But we also can't dismiss the worse ones (homophobia, racism, sexism, etc.) because we disagree with the more benign ones.
Originally posted by Digi
I agree all of those variables are not equal in terms of moral importance. But we also can't dismiss the worse ones (homophobia, racism, sexism, etc.) because we disagree with the more benign ones. [/B]
That may be true but these social scientists are combining ALL of them. They're not making any kind of distinction between what they think is ethical, and what the general populace thinks is ethical. Ergo, if they'r instituting their own opinions and biases into the study, the study becomes tainted.
Agreed, but we're discussing hypotheticals at that point. We don't know if that references numerous studies or one. Or exactly how the studies were controlled. I'm also a little unclear on how a researcher's biases on, say, the death penalty can influence something much less ambiguous like racism. Or maybe they went too far in calling it a moral issue, but the results themselves are accurate in saying that less atheists are for the death penalty. There are alternative explanations that don't invalidate the whole, or maintain some validity. Best to try to dig up what we can and go from there. And, frankly, I'm doing all of the legwork here. I'm happy to discuss this, but I feel like your goal is to tear down anything I post. Like, those links? I'm not saying they're spotless; I'm just trying to search for more data and presenting it. The quote is flawed, but It's a little frustrating when we can agree on some things but it feels like you've decided what you think before anything is shown. Because my chief complaint with your posts - among numerous things I agree with - is that you're identifying small flaws, ambiguities, or things we don't know about the studies, and extrapolating them to absurd degrees in order to dismiss everything. I'm not asking you to accept this uncritically. But I do think what data we do have is categorically skewed toward my original premise, and that it can't be entirely dismissed. Pointing out areas for improvement or calling for more research is awesome, but literally nothing has been shown that outright refutes the central premise, amidst quite a lot that supports it.
We don't know if that references numerous studies or one. Or exactly how the studies were controlled. I'm also a little unclear on how a researcher's biases on, say, the death penalty can influence something much less ambiguous like racism
'm doing all of the legwork here. I'm happy to discuss this, but I feel like your goal is to tear down anything I post
But I do think what data we do have is categorically skewed toward my original premise, and that it can't be entirely dismissed. Pointing out areas for improvement or calling for more research is awesome, but literally nothing has been shown that outright refutes the central premise, amidst quite a lot that supports it.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Rust was just a generally "I hate life" kinda guy. His argument posed an inherent contradiction. With that said, this is the greatest scene in any true detective season and rivals some of Tarantino's work.
Originally posted by psmith81992
Rust's comment was pretty over the top lol. You could see the anger in his eyes towards the religious crowd. Great stuff from M.M. though.
Originally posted by psmith81992
This is the entire point of my argument. We don't know the researcher's bias because he brings up a few topics where it's a matter of opinion, then others which are more or less universally accepted, and then lumps them into the "ethical" or "unethical" category. That does not make for a very good study.You're doing the legwork because you aren't providing very well documented and peer reviewed studies. I don't know why you feel that is my goal, I'm only doing it because the holes are transparent.
I didn't say it should be dismissed at all. What I am saying is, the studies are flimsy and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Yes, but I'm trying. And you're also making a lot of assumptions about some of the studies. "We don't know everything" isn't equivalent to "this study is worthless." Further, "problems with some" isn't equivalent to "an entire body of evidence over decades means nothing." That's where we disagree, and it's what you seem unable to address or admit.
But you don't really seem too motivated to do anything proactive to glean more information. I'm not sure if it's because you're content in your current beliefs or just don't want to for other reasons. But I don't need to convince you of anything. This isn't one of those types of discussions. I wanted to disprove that atheists aren't moral, and/or that religious people are more moral, which has relevance to the OP. I think I've done that sufficiently, and I don't think you'd disagree with me on those points. You've actually posted links that support the idea (well, one at least).
Anything beyond that is just in pursuit of refinement, refutation, or repeated confirmation. You seem opposed to that pursuit, so I'm not sure what else to do at this point. Because the data and studies I've produced - flawed as some of them may be - are the only things that have been produced. I'm not going for abject proof, but to begin to make any other claim, some supporting evidence must be provided. Or, if you hate my links and studies, help me find better ones.
This is like a creationism argument, ironically. They have no evidence of their own, but substitute (occasionally fair, often unfair) criticism of evolution as evidence of their own claims. I wouldn't exactly liken "atheists are more moral than Christians" to "evolution", because the latter really IS proven beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the former is not. But I think the former is more likely than not, given what we know. And that, if we must hedge, the data at least supports that there is no negative correlation with non-religiosity and morality. Do you disagree with that statement?
Yes, but I'm trying. And you're also making a lot of assumptions about some of the studies. "We don't know everything" isn't equivalent to "this study is worthless." Further, "problems with some" isn't equivalent to "an entire body of evidence over decades means nothing." That's where we disagree, and it's what you seem unable to address or admit.
But you don't really seem too motivated to do anything proactive to glean more information. I'm not sure if it's because you're content in your current beliefs or just don't want to for other reasons. But I don't need to convince you of anything. This isn't one of those types of discussions. I wanted to disprove that atheists aren't moral, and/or that religious people are more moral, which has relevance to the OP. I think I've done that sufficiently, and I don't think you'd disagree with me on those points. You've actually posted links that support the idea (well, one at least).
his is like a creationism argument, ironically. They have no evidence of their own, but substitute (occasionally fair, often unfair) criticism of evolution as evidence of their own claims. I wouldn't exactly liken "atheists are more moral than Christians" to "evolution", because the latter really IS proven beyond reasonable doubt, whereas the former is not. But I think the former is more likely than not, given what we know. And that, if we must hedge, the data at least supports that there is no negative correlation with non-religiosity and morality. Do you disagree with that statement?
Because, here's the other thing: Skeptic Magazine researches the sh*t out of their articles. They're often on the forefront of calling out insufficient studies on scientific and sociological topics. They've built a trust with me. So I consider it much more likely than not that the studies I originally referenced are quite valid as tests. But because I have a day job and social life, I can't read hundreds of pages to confirm whether or not psmith is right about sample sizes and controls. There are also, again, dozens of them, which reinforces the point. But because I'm a skeptical dude myself, I'm trying not to overstep the bounds of my knowledge. But my instinct is that if we really did take the time to read those studies in detail, we'd have a huge, valid body of evidence.
As it is, Psmith is likely going to keep demanding more, then saying anything I provide is inadequate. Again, I don't need to convince you. My point was to dispel a myth perpetuated by OP's video. That's been done. So when I say go look stuff up, I mean it. If you care about figuring out this topic, I've proven that the literature and studies are out there. If you want to make up your own mind, your Google searches are as good as my own, and we're both lay people with access to libraries, the Internet, and Amazon. Go educate yourself, and if you find anything that contradicts my point, I'll be fascinated to hear it.
Because it seems we disagree on matters of degree with most of this, and agree on a fair amount. We're nearing an impasse with the majority of this discussion. I don't have much more to add, or time to give to idle searching. I agree with you that it's good to be skeptical of studies, and I'd love to see further research. I just think you're taking it too far given the number of times these results have been found.
Because, here's the other thing: Skeptic Magazine researches the sh*t out of their articles. They're often on the forefront of calling out insufficient studies on scientific and sociological topics. They've built a trust with me. So I consider it much more likely than not that the studies I originally referenced are quite valid as tests. But because I have a day job and social life, I can't read hundreds of pages to confirm whether or not psmith is right about sample sizes and controls. There are also, again, dozens of them, which reinforces the point. But because I'm a skeptical dude myself, I'm trying not to overstep the bounds of my knowledge. But my instinct is that if we really did take the time to read those studies in detail, we'd have a huge, valid body of evidence.
As it is, Psmith is likely going to keep demanding more, then saying anything I provide is inadequate.
Go educate yourself, and if you find anything that contradicts my point, I'll be fascinated to hear it.
In short, I don't think you've provided much evidence to the claim that atheists are more moral than theists, and done just about enough to prove that (at least according to these studies), atheists are no less moral than theists. We can just agree to disagree.