Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

YjntXYDPw44

"If you take away religion, you cannot hire enough police."

AS soon as he said "Democracy works" I laughed and stopped watching. Another fool who thinks the U.S. is a democracy instead of a republic. Not worth my time listening to that BS.

He makes a good point regardless of saying democracy.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
He makes a good point regardless of saying democracy.




Perhaps he does but when people say that they lose all of my respect and I don't care about anything else they have to say, tbh, because they're part of the problem. Perpetuating the lie (just like so many movies and the media does) that we're a democracy when we're clearly not.


"Democracies work". LMAO. Riiiight. Our founding fathers knew how democracies always tended to have short violent lives so they gave us a republic instead which is much superior to a democracy.

Clay Christensen does very good, groundbreaking work in his field of business. His books should be required reading for anyone managing a company or parts of a company.

But I don't think that makes him any more qualified than anyone else to talk about Religion. His premise that only Religious institutions provide the morality to make a country function is just blatantly false. Atheists and non-Religious people have the same levels, if not superior levels, of morality and empathy than Religious people. If he had just limited himself to talking about the aspects of personal morality in the functioning of a country, I'd agree with him, but he conflates morality with religion, and that's just false.

It's funny how this guy is making the same argument that Marty Hart made on True Detective about the value of religion. If we remember Rust's response to him: " If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit"

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's funny how this guy is making the same argument that Marty Hart made on True Detective about the value of religion. If we remember Rust's response to him: " If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit"

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.

_RfUj09pWfM

And I agree with bardock, I don't think that only religion provides morality. It just goes back to the moral absolutist vs. moral relativist argument, without there being a middle ground.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
" If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit"

Ppl are naturally good or naturally pieces of shit. Going by your statement, the good will be good regardless and the pieces of shit can be kept decent by "divine reward". Win-win imo.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Ppl are naturally good or naturally pieces of shit, going by your statement, the good will be good regardless and the pieces of shit can be kept decent by "divine reward". Win-win imo.

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.

I'm not a big fan of religion, but he's got a point. Some people cannot control themselves without thinking a skydaddy is watching and waiting to punish them for doing bad things.

A large portion of the world is this way.

Originally posted by long pig
I'm not a big fan of religion, but he's got a point. Some people cannot control themselves without thinking a skydaddy is watching and waiting to punish them for doing bad things.

A large portion of the world is this way.
People need some kind of moral framework, but it doesn't have to come from religion. Look at China, Chinese people aren't constantly murdering, robbing, and butt****ing each other in the streets, and very few of them practice religion.

So I guess every single person in prison right now in America is an atheist. Interesting.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
People need some kind of moral framework, but it doesn't have to come from religion. Look at China, Chinese people aren't constantly murdering, robbing, and butt****ing each other in the streets, and very few of them practice religion.

Uh technically nobody is constantly murdering, robbing, or butt****ing each other on the street. We might as well say everyone who is has mental issues because it's such a small portion of the population.

Originally posted by Surtur
So I guess every single person in prison right now in America is an atheist. Interesting.

Where did you get this from?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
People need some kind of moral framework, but it doesn't have to come from religion. Look at China, Chinese people aren't constantly murdering, robbing, and butt****ing each other in the streets, and very few of them practice religion.

Yes, moral frameworks are good.

Religion can provide a moral framework and thus can be good.

Other things that can provide a moral framework are good, too. It doesn't have to come from religion but getting it from religion isn't a bad thing.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Where did you get this from?

It just sounds like he is saying society might fall apart due to lack of religion.

Originally posted by Surtur
It just sounds like he is saying society might fall apart due to lack of religion.

I don't see this. Where was this said?

He talks about how people began to follow these rules because they weren't just accountable to society, but also to God. He talks about what will happen to democracy if religion is gone. This is all said over images of violence, etc.

How do you expect someone to interpret his basic message?

Originally posted by Surtur
He talks about how people began to follow these rules because they weren't just accountable to society, but also to God. He talks about what will happen to democracy if religion is gone. This is all said over images of violence, etc.

How do you expect someone to interpret his basic message?

I don't even know whose post you are replying to so I don't know how you expect me to determine how one person can interpret anything....

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's funny how this guy is making the same argument that Marty Hart made on True Detective about the value of religion. If we remember Rust's response to him: " If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit" Most people are pieces of shit.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
If we remember Rust's response to him: " If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit"
So you'd rather live among criminals than people whose altruism is grounded in religion?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
People need some kind of moral framework, but it doesn't have to come from religion. Look at China, Chinese people aren't constantly murdering, robbing, and butt****ing each other in the streets, and very few of them practice religion.
It's not morals that deters Chinese citizens from behaving poorly, it's the mass execution of its criminals that does.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
People need some kind of moral framework, but it doesn't have to come from religion. Look at China, Chinese people aren't constantly murdering, robbing, and butt****ing each other in the streets, and very few of them practice religion.
You have a point.

But theyre dicks. http://www.ijreview.com/2015/09/412249-pedestrians-china-keep-getting-run-killed-cars-horrifying-reason/

Originally posted by Astner
So you'd rather live among criminals than people whose altruism is grounded in religion?


It's not morals that deters Chinese citizens from behaving poorly, it's the mass execution of its criminals that does. In case you didn't know, China is not a democracy.
Lol, in no way does the Rust quote suggest that. As the quote continues, Rust states that he thinks people who are only kept moral by religion are dangerous phonies, and they should be outed as people without real integrity.

Ahh okay so you're one of those who still believes that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. Good to know.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
Where did you get this from?
From him not reading my post well.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Ahh okay so you're one of those who still believes that the death penalty acts as a deterrent. Good to know.
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.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lol, in no way does the Rust quote suggest that. As the quote continues, Rust states that he thinks people who are only kept moral by religion are dangerous phonies, and they should be outed as people without real integrity.
If religion can serve as the basis for some people's moral growth, then it's an asset to society, and to undermine that asset would be to hinder social growth.

Originally posted by Nibedicus
I don't even know whose post you are replying to so I don't know how you expect me to determine how one person can interpret anything....

My first post wasn't aimed at any specific person. But it seemed to me this video was saying that it is religion that keeps people from committing crimes. That is how I took it. Thus, if that were true, the prisons would be full of nothing but atheists, yes?

When I ask how else to interpret the message, I am referring to the video. When the guy is saying shit like that about religion over images of people being arrested, violence, etc. what is one supposed to take away from it, other then what I took?

It sure as hell ends up coming off like "well, democracy needs religion and the world will fall into decay without religion". Maybe I am wrong.

Does he have evidence to refute the (heavily studied) idea that atheists are actually more moral on the whole than those who are religious? Seriously, it's been studied and repeated ad nauseum for decades.

If I thought it meant societal collapse, I wouldn't espouse secularism just because that's what I believe. I would see the greater whole and understand that religion is a necessary part of the social fabric of society. As it is, I don't see much merit in his argument in the face of evidence. That he's a Harvard prof. is nice and all, but appeals to authority can be found that back either side of many (most?) debates.

Economic factors have more to do with crime than religious ones anyway. Secular, religious...I don't think it matters a whole lot compared to economic variables.

Really? Please show me an actual peer reviewed study that doesn't include a minimal sample size. To suggest such a study to be conclusive whether religious are more moral or atheists, is asinine.

Morality has very little to do with religion vs. atheism.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Really? Please show me an actual peer reviewed study that doesn't include a minimal sample size. To suggest such a study to be conclusive whether religious are more moral or atheists, is asinine.




Indeed.

The guy didn't really cite evidence of any kind in the video. Just talked about what one dude told him about religion, and his take on it's need for sustained democracy and all that jazz. I just plain do not agree. It just sounds silly to me. It seems to be that because the guy is from Harvard we're supposed to take what he says seriously.

I also agree that someone who is only a decent person because they are afraid of some punishment in the afterlife is a piece of shit. I'd actually take it one step further and qualify such a person as utterly insane.

I find most people don't have the desire to be overly shitty. Just out of a simple "don't mess with mine I won't mess with yours" mentality. On top of that, most people like their comforts and don't think the risk of imprisonment is worth doing anything too crazy.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Really? Please show me an actual peer reviewed study that doesn't include a minimal sample size. To suggest such a study to be conclusive whether religious are more moral or atheists, is asinine.

Morality has very little to do with religion vs. atheism.

I'll go one better. I can show you several:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479017

The studies are all cited in enough detail that you can look them up individually.

I agree with you that it's asinine to expect a single study to produce results that are trustworthy. Which is why I didn't make the claim based on a single study. Even with the dozens of studies cited or compiled in those results, truth is provisional with these things, and subject to further evidence. But the correlation is strong and clear throughout numerous studies, to the point where I feel it's justified to make the claim, knowing that it isn't made lightly nor without extensive research.

If you have competing or complimentary evidence, I'd legitimately love to see it.

Originally posted by Digi
I'll go one better. I can show you several:
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=479017

The studies are all cited in enough detail that you can look them up individually.

I agree with you that it's asinine to expect a single study to produce results that are trustworthy. Which is why I didn't make the claim based on a single study. Even with the dozens of studies cited or compiled in those results, truth is provisional with these things, and subject to further evidence. But the correlation is strong and clear throughout numerous studies, to the point where I feel it's justified to make the claim, knowing that it isn't made lightly nor without extensive research.

If you have competing or complimentary evidence, I'd legitimately love to see it.

http://www.livescience.com/47799-morality-religion-political-beliefs.html
This study simply shows that religious people aren't necessarily more moral.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/why-religion-is-natural-and-science-is-not/201203/are-religious-people-more-moral-atheists

I also have a problem with self reporting as far as "atheists" and actual religious people are concerned. A lot of people equate spiritual with religious as well. Finally, where are the links in your post, detailing these studies? You didn't post any and I can't find any actual studies.


This isn't an intelligent post. You find it "insane" because you already don't believe in god. It's very rational for those that have a profound belief in God to fear him (and his punishments).

But I was talking about people who specifically do not do things because God said it is wrong, as opposed to people not doing things simply because it is in their nature.

You want to talk about intelligent posts, but it's going to be hard since the subject is religion.

Originally posted by Surtur
But I was talking about people who specifically do not do things because God said it is wrong, as opposed to people not doing things simply because it is in their nature.

You want to talk about intelligent posts, but it's going to be hard since the subject is religion.

No, it's going to be hard to find with atheists who don't know how to properly argue against religion, instead bringing their emotions and biases against it. I know what you were talking about and my point stands.

Yet my point still stands as well: if you are only being decent because God told you to..there is a problem.

I too would take issue with someone doing something good ONLY because God says so, not because they see the intrinsic value of it. However, I don't think that's what most people do, even if that's what they cite as their reasoning for good works.

Originally posted by psmith81992
http://www.livescience.com/47799-morality-religion-political-beliefs.html
This study simply shows that religious people aren't necessarily more moral.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/why-religion-is-natural-and-science-is-not/201203/are-religious-people-more-moral-atheists

I also have a problem with self reporting as far as "atheists" and actual religious people are concerned. A lot of people equate spiritual with religious as well. Finally, where are the links in your post, detailing these studies? You didn't post any and I can't find any actual studies.


This isn't an intelligent post. You find it "insane" because you already don't believe in god. It's very rational for those that have a profound belief in God to fear him (and his punishments).

I cited the magazine and article from which they came. You're welcome to read it for the full article from which I pulled the studies. But I didn't look these up on the internet, which doesn't invalidate the studies. As it is, the book with the metadata can be found with a simple Google search, as can a few of the studies by copy/pasting the names of the researchers and the year. I can't do all of the legwork for you, especially when I've gone to great pains already to cite the data accurately. /srug

Your links don't seem to refute my point. The latter in particular deals more with the affects of priming than it does with anything having to do with religion. Priming is fascinating, but somewhat beside the point here.

I'll address the former, though. If your point is that other factors outside religion are largely responsible for morality, I'd actually agree with you wholeheartedly. Good and evil are human characteristics, largely irrespective of religious affiliation. I've agreed with that for years. But what the studies I cited show is that religious affiliation - and the beliefs attached to them - are, in fact, a variable in the question that is morality. Not the ONLY one, and perhaps not even the most important one. But a tangible one. Because just as it would be ludicrous to think that religion is the sole variable in morality, I find it just as ludicrous that such a comprehensive worldview and - often - dogma with guidelines for morality wouldn't affect a person's morals at all.

Originally posted by Surtur
Yet my point still stands as well: if you are only being decent because God told you to..there is a problem. THat isn't a point, it's an opinion based off of your dislike for religion.

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.

Originally posted by psmith81992
THat isn't a point, it's an opinion based off of your dislike for religion.

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.

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 Astner
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. There has never been any correlation between having the death penalty and lowering the crime rate.

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.

That's not what I said at all and you are the one who keeps talking about intelligence. I'm talking about people who are only good because God said to be. Not a combination of "this person is decent plus their faith says it is wrong". That doesn't mean anyone who follows religion insane.

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.

I've repeatedly asked Ush to provide me an example of what can be considered "objective" morality and have yet to receive any kind of response.


It's not "overwhelming" research as you yourself even admitted. The sample size is pretty miniscule. I'm just shocked there is nothing online regarding this.



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:

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.

I'm not guessing, I'm telling you we have NO idea of the sample size so the study is flimsy at best, at the VERY beginning.


1. There's nothing that I can google. You're saying I have to buy a book or sift through the e-book online.

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.



You can't simply post something and then scream "prove me wrong", digi. You're citing incomplete studies. I don't recall a SINGLE study you cited where the sample size was mentioned. Further, you're telling me to "go look it up" when I ask you to maybe elaborate more. It's not my job to prove you wrong when there's nothing really to prove. Had the study been more comprehensive, I would have been required to rebut your claims.

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.

I have a problem with this. What are "social scientists" saying here? It's unethical to support the death penalty? It's unethical to spank children? I'm not sure how any of these things can be lumped together with racism, sexism, homophobia, OR anti semitism. It's as if these social scientists themselves came up with what they consider ethical, and the rest seems like confirmation bias. What am I missing?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Wait, I'm legitimately curious. What was the contradiction in his argument?
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.
Seemed like a pretty grounded statement to me. He did say "if."

You're mistaken that I had anything against the statement. It was one of the best non Tarantino dialogues I've ever seen.

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?

I didn't say this study is worthless. And it's not that we don't know anything, it's that we HARDLY know anything. The entire body of evidence is tainted when you see what the social scientists were doing, lumping up morals to dictate ethics. I'm not comparing it to someone lying on the stand once and us discounting ALL of his testimony, but there's VERY little to go on in this study.


If your goal was to disprove that atheists weren't moral, this conversation would have ended a long time ago. However, didn't you say atheists were more moral than theists? It's not that I'm trying to find out more information, because it doesn't exist I don't think or I am not going to spend a ridiculous amount of time on it. I'm just calling out the authenticity of the studies.


I'm not a creationist but evolution and creation don't really contradict. I don't know why people keep saying this.

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.

You'd be correct if the details they outlined (IE the most important details), would have a sample size, a reason for lumping all morals together, etc. But because the only thing I came up with when reading that post was "says who", it calls these so called experiments into question. And you're right, I don't have the time or inclination to research it further, but these studies in incomplete because sample size was not included, and because "morals" is a subjective thing as far as this study goes, for aforementioned reasons.


This is presumptuous, because it assumes you've provided "something" for me to ask more of. And the last part of the sentence is a copout. You're basically stating, "there's no point on me actually backing up what I posted because he's just going to poo poo it anyways. That's not how this works.


I don't need to educate myself, it's you who needs to remain consistent about your opinions. You said your "proof" posited that atheists are not less moral than theists. But in this thread, you posted that atheists were found to be more moral than theists, so you're contradicting yourself. If you're saying the former, I think the studies, although flimsy/weak, do more to your credit than stating the latter, which begs proof.

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.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I've repeatedly asked Ush to provide me an example of what can be considered "objective" morality and have yet to receive any kind of response.


I note you keep saying this. Aside from the fact that you never actually made a reasonable request, that I noted how a full discussion there would require its own thread, but in any case I did actually give some potential ways this would work which I don't think you understood, the basic issue here remains the same, and Digi is having the same issue with you.

Your argument style is poor and I don't think for one moment you are interested in or capable of a serious discussion of a subject of that complexity.

There are other posters here I'd happily talk it over with, so if you are lucky you can watch that one day.

Originally posted by psmith81992
This is presumptuous, because it assumes you've provided "something" for me to ask more of. And the last part of the sentence is a copout. You're basically stating, "there's no point on me actually backing up what I posted because he's just going to poo poo it anyways. That's not how this works.

Sorry, but it's not presumptuous when it's all you've done for two pages. I'm stating a tautology at that point, not making a great leap of logic with my prediction. It would also be hypocritical only if I wasn't trying to back my statements, which I have done. We disagree on the degree to which I've done that, is all.

Originally posted by psmith81992
I don't need to educate myself, it's you who needs to remain consistent about your opinions. You said your "proof" posited that atheists are not less moral than theists. But in this thread, you posted that atheists were found to be more moral than theists, so you're contradicting yourself. If you're saying the former, I think the studies, although flimsy/weak, do more to your credit than stating the latter, which begs proof.

I've never once called it proof. Or have you forgotten the quote of mine you already referenced:
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.

I've said it's more likely than not, provisionally true, etc. All defensible statements, imo. If I ever used the word proof, it was a typo, and exhaustingly refuted by the numerous times I've used phrases like those listed that go out of my way to be clear on what I believe it is and isn't.

Originally posted by psmith81992
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.

And this conclusion is biased. Because if you think the studies are invalid, then they're invalid. But you say they prove your point, just not mine. How convenient that my studies are JUST credible enough to make one point that you already agree with, but not others that their conclusions state.

I think you're partially right, though. It shows that both statements ("more moral" and "no less moral" are much more likely than not given the data.

Please, I destroyed your asinine and arrogant argument, and you provided absolutely nothing to the point that others had to come in and say the equivalent of "wtf". Your entire argument was "you just don't get it" and "your argument is poor" without offering anything of substance. You then high tailed it out. I made my "simple" requests on many occasions and you ignored them. Honestly, you didn't have any argument aside from criticizing mine.

We disagree with the premise. Either atheists are more moral than theists, or they're no less moral than theists. You've posited both, and you can't figure out which one you're sticking with.


I never once stated they were invalid. In fact, I said that I would never state that and the only word I could come up with was "incomplete".


But they don't mean the same thing. I don't know how you can prove the former, and even proving the latter (albeit easier) is still a stretch.

My argument now is most certainly that you don't get it, but that's only because of the attitude you displayed both there and here. You are not seriously debating. There's no genuine intellectual engagement- just an offhand destructiveness.

You destroyed nothing- you can't even hope to have destroyed one iota of my argument with your clumsy, vs. style quote-warring. You weren't even on the same page to begin to make such a claim- you didn't even understand the basics, and that is a result of your bad faith.

If you ever decide to grow up and actively engage in proper debate as opposed to just asking for things not out of curiosity but to knock them down because they do not fit your world view, then maybe one day I'll engage back with you. But I very much doubt it.

They're different claims but not mutually exclusive. Both can be supported by the same evidence. If an atheist is more moral than a theist, it also follows that they are no less moral than the theist. It's not an inability to decide between them. You introduced the latter concept and I merely adopted it as another statement that the data supports.

Of course, so your entire argument is a cop out. I understand you now.


Please, you talk a big game, post a lot of words, and then scream "you don't get it." Your argument was beyond arrogant, it was nonsensical and you were right to quit while you were behind.



Knowing your debating tactic, it's very unlikely you'll engage anyone in a debate, much less take the time to research what it is you're debating. Your incredibly arrogant attitude borders on insecurity. You've done it for years, not engaging anyone but talking yourself up like some unemployed philosopher writing his "book" in a coffee shop, then threatening to close a thread. I don't think I'm the one with the maturity issue. You should work on that if you expect to be taken seriously, instead of just a thread closer.



Yet if an atheist is no less moral than a theist, it doesn't necessarily mean he's more. It's a necessary/sufficient condition issue.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Please, I destroyed your asinine and arrogant argument, and you provided absolutely nothing to the point that others had to come in and say the equivalent of "wtf". Your entire argument was "you just don't get it" and "your argument is poor" without offering anything of substance. You then high tailed it out. I made my "simple" requests on many occasions and you ignored them. Honestly, you didn't have any argument aside from criticizing mine.

You have destroyed nothing, when I was emailed about this thread by a member I had made friends with and how stupid you looked in it, I had to have a look, because you are as others no doubt have told you, "one of those people who has no self awareness." I looked and discovered it was as I had supposed, you were stating an argument was wrong without understanding what others were even talking about. You are funny because you quite simply fail to understand, the joke is how little you understand. To call others asinine and arrogant in your case is to be unable to take a step back and look at who you are. Everyone else sees it, but you.

Originally posted by Knife
You have destroyed nothing, when I was emailed about this thread by a member I had made friends with and how stupid you looked in it. I had to have a look, because you are as others no doubt have told you, "one of those people who has no self awareness." I looked and discovered it was as I had supposed, you were stating an argument was wrong without understanding what others were even talking about. You are funny because you quite simply fail to understand, the joke is how little you understand.

This coming from the guy who everyone either ignores or ridicules when he posts? You haven't said one intelligent thing in this subforum and everything else was cringe worthy. A good number of the people on this forum thought it was amusing when you claimed someone emailed you about me, and you decided to leave. I guess you really couldn't stay away from trolling.

Your words don;t mean anything to me there, Psmith. I have a genuine reputation here as a good debater, and dissent from someone like you has no effect, and you trying to say I have nothing to argue is just desperate You had all you are getting out of me of well presented and well-meaning rational argument, and you threw it away. You can pretend that you think you are better- but the insecurity is all yours, and I know you won't be able to escape that.

My offer was genuine, though. If you actually change that attitude and become interested in actual discussion, I'll engage. Consider that an open offer- and try some self-reflection instead of angry posturing. Until then the joke is always going to be on you.

Good lord Ush. So your response was one long sentence, followed by "no you're insecure!" I expected more from such an esteemed debater* such as yourself. And I'm sure your reputation is all in your head. Also, I'm not sure if you're angry or not but it sure looks like it from the giant sentence littered with misspellings. Don't get upset though, I'm not calling you stupid. In fact it's more than likely that you're smarter than me as far as debating goes, you've just not shown it on any occasion.


I think you've received enough criticism on this forum in the last few years to last a life time so I find it funny that you think the joke is on me. I engaged you in open debate and you took the childish road out by claiming I didn't get it and my argument was poor, without providing a "why" or even substance for your argument. I'll gladly engage you in open debate but I (nor anyone else I think) will hold my breath for you to actually be serious.

You don't even believe that as you type it. But I am not angry- I am making a genuine offer. Your words are just wind, but there's an opportunity here if you want it. You can be better if you want to, or you can skulk it out in your non-debates.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You don't even believe that as you type it. But I am not angry- I am making a genuine offer. Your words are just wind, but there's an opportunity here if you want it.

It's tough to believe but your post was telling. Based on our previous argument, I'm confident arguing with you. If you choose to stay in this time and not run away, we can have a genuine debate. But I think you're going to get a lot of "wtf" as you try to explain away your entire premise (fallible beings can judge infallible beings, etc).

Nope, not with that attitude.

I'll try you in another few months- see if you can even realise what you keep doing wrong.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nope, not with that attitude.

I'll try you in another few months- see if you can even realise what you keep doing wrong.

Yup, that's what I thought. You keep your reputation consistent. You couldn't debate it the first time, and you've coped out again, with the ever amusing "sorry I can't help you if you can't realize what you're doing wrong." For shame, Ush.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Yet if an atheist is no less moral than a theist, it doesn't necessarily mean he's more. It's a necessary/sufficient condition issue.

Sure, but these are just logical truisms. You said I couldn't decide between the two claims and I told you why you were wrong. This statement, while entirely true, still does nothing to refute my claim.

I think both are supported, you think only one is. And I have no idea how you think the studies' conclusions, which explicitly endorse both claims, are only valid in so far as they support yours. It seems absurdly self-serving to draw the line on their credibility at exactly that point.

Because it's more possible to prove group A isn't less moral than group B than it is to prove group A is more moral than group B. And it's not that I drew the line, notice when I said that even the former conclusion, while using flimsy evidence is in a better position than the latter. I didn't outright agree with one and discredit the other. And I'm not sure it's absurd when they aren't the same thing, even if they could be.

Here's an example of a study on compassion. This would be very legitimate to introduce. Atheists ARE motivated more by compassion because they are governed more by feelings than religious people, who are less compassionate in light of following religious doctrine. That's not a bad thing, that's just following the rule of God versus allowing certain feelings to cloud your judgment.


Here's another study that shows the sample size and shows theists>atheists, although take it with a grain of salt considering the source.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheists_more_immoral.html

Eh I don't know what to make of that link.

This next link is something I'm going to take time to read because it seems like it has potential:
http://www.academia.edu/2922624/ How_Perceived_Religiosity_Influences_Moral_Apprais
al_The_Social_Cost_of_Atheism_with_Jen_Wright

Originally posted by psmith81992
You're mistaken that I had anything against the statement. It was one of the best non Tarantino dialogues I've ever seen.
The only immoral thing here is your obsession with Tarantino dialogue.

So being less compassionate to people because your religion says so is not a bad thing? That just doesn't come off sounding right. Saying "well it's Gods rule" is just a cop out, not a valid reason to behave in a certain way towards people.

The rules of your deity were set by men, not God. All we have to go on is the word of what people claim, and we know men are fallible.

Politics has become the Godless religion of the world. And people wonder why this world is so screwed up. Except the Utopians who think things are getting better.

Politics has always been the religion of the world.

No, Politics is interchangeable with religion as far as justifications go.