Atheists thought immoral, even by atheists

[Claire.]

Atheists thought immoral, even by fellow atheists: study

A unusual social study has revealed that atheists are more easily suspected of vile deeds than Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists—strikingly, even by fellow atheists, researchers said Monday. This suggests that in an increasingly secular world, many—including some atheists—still hold the view that people will do bad things unless they fear punishment from all-seeing gods.

Read more: Phys.org

[+OverSword]

Flabbergasted!

I'm not an atheist but don't expect them to hold a moral low-ground more than any other group.

Edited August 7, 2017 by OverSword

[eight bits]

With all respect for Nature Human Behaviour, the study as described is methodologically suspect.

Quote

Participants were given a description of a fictional evildoer who tortured animals as a child, then grows up to become a teacher who murders and mutilates five homeless people.

That's not an unethical or immoral person, that's a sociopath.

I suppose you could conclude that the lay public underestimates the prevalence of extreme religiosity among serial killers. That's not the way to spin it if you want a publication in a highly visible journal (NHB is too new to have an impact factor, but Nature is a powerhouse brand).

Edited August 7, 2017 by eight bits

[Mr Walker]

19 hours ago, Claire. said:

Atheists thought immoral, even by fellow atheists: study

A unusual social study has revealed that atheists are more easily suspected of vile deeds than Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists—strikingly, even by fellow atheists, researchers said Monday. This suggests that in an increasingly secular world, many—including some atheists—still hold the view that people will do bad things unless they fear punishment from all-seeing gods.

Read more: Phys.org

This attitude has been in existence since the first civilizations. Social anthropologists believe it is why religions contributed so much to the first major settlements A common religious belief allowed humans to trust others who otherwise were not family, clan or tribe, but complete strangers  

It works on this principle Humans KNOW that a person who truly believes a god is watching their every move and will judge their behaviour  is less likely to commit any crime when they are otherwise unobserved. They know that  such a believer thinks they are NEVER unobserved   The non believer doesn't have to believe in the god, he just knows that a believer will be more honest BECAUSE the believer thinks a powerful entity is watching and judging him .  There are many good atheists  with ethical principles But there is always temptation if oyu think you can get away with something to advantage you unobserved   A non believer has to be honest, principled, ethical, and self disciplined, not to commit an unobserved crime. 

A believer doesn't have to be honest ethical or of high principles.  He won't steal  etc IF he truly believes his god is watching him,and will reward and punish his behaviours.

 Given the nature of humanity, a society is safer with a mob of dishonest unprincipled believers than the same number of honest, principled unbelievers . 

And given we cannot tell if a stranger is honest and principled, or dishonest and unprincipled we will always assume that a person we know is religious is more likely to be honest than one we know is not.  

Ironically, even today, really dishonest and unprincipled men often pretend to be religious in order to facilitate different types of crimes, from paedophilia to   theft and  fraud

Edited August 8, 2017 by Mr Walker

[jmccr8]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

This attitude has been in existence since the first civilizations. Social anthropologists believe it is why religions contributed so much to the first major settlements A common religious belief allowed humans to trust others who otherwise were not family, clan or tribe, but complete strangers  

It works on this principle Humans KNOW that a person who truly believes a god is watching their every move and will judge their behaviour  is less likely to commit any crime when they are otherwise unobserved. They know that  such a believer thinks they are NEVER unobserved   The non believer doesn't have to believe in the god, he just knows that a believer will be more honest BECAUSE the believer thinks a powerful entity is watching and judging him .  There are many good atheists  with ethical principles But there is always temptation if oyu think you can get away with something to advantage you unobserved   A non believer has to be honest, principled, ethical, and self disciplined, not to commit an unobserved crime. 

A believer doesn't have to be honest ethical or of high principles.  He won't steal  etc IF he truly believes his god is watching him,and will reward and punish his behaviours.

 Given the nature of humanity, a society is safer with a mob of dishonest unprincipled believers than the same number of honest, principled unbelievers . 

And given we cannot tell if a stranger is honest and principled, or dishonest and unprincipled we will always assume that a person we know is religious is more likely to be honest than one we know is not.  

Ironically, even today, really dishonest and unprincipled men often pretend to be religious in order to facilitate different types of crimes, from paedophilia to   theft and  fraud

That is quite a leap to impose how early groups thought in the past. For the most part you don't know what the guy at the next table in the coffee shop thinks, so excuse me if I find your speculation weak.

jmccr8

Edited August 8, 2017 by jmccr8
Auto corrupt/ correct

[Stubbly_Dooright]

21 hours ago, eight bits said:

With all respect for Nature Human Behaviour, the study as described is methodologically suspect.

That's not an unethical or immoral person, that's a sociopath.

I suppose you could conclude that the lay public underestimates the prevalence of extreme religiosity among serial killers. That's not the way to spin it if you want a publication in a highly visible journal (NHB is too new to have an impact factor, but Nature is a powerhouse brand).

I would think the website itself would be an unbiased one, considering the name of the site. Then again, I could be wrong. Anyways, I think your points brought up some skepticism or more so anyways where I see this. Because, I can't see how one Atheist would see another as more likely to be evil over religion, that the first one doesn't believe in, so there for, doesn't believe have an impact. 

Maybe I feel this, because if you don't believe a religion actually has an impact of how you behave, then why believe someone within that religion will be expected to behave better (Over all) over another. Or, that's how I see it.  

And yes, I don't see how this could be seen as this way. And, I'm not an Atheist.   I guess, it could be being in retail all of my adult life all over the place, and see those, who I have come to know as religious, and the same with those who don't believe, and do not see a difference in how they behave contrary to how they are raised, or how others see them behave expected in how they were raise. I would think an Atheist, in my line of work, would more than likely come to the same conclusion as me, when seeing those who purchase religious items, but behaves contrary to them and who they are. And vice versa, with the Atheists and what they purchase. If anything, I tend to get a bit 'cringy' when it comes to those who buy a lot of religious books and items, because I expect some form of behavior that is contrary to consideration. It doesn't always happen, and it doesn't always happen a lot. It happens enough for my gut-instinct feeling to occur inside of me. 

 

[jmccr8]

Many years ago I worked a shut down at a power plant in a small city. This is in the bible belt and it seemed like there was a church on every corner and to be honest I"ve never seen so many sinners in one place.

jmccr8

[Podo]

4 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Many years ago I worked a shut down at a power plant in a small city. This is in the bible belt and it seemed like there was a church on every corner and to be honest I"ve never seen so many sinners in one place.

jmccr8

Isn't a Church just a place to concentrate the sinners?

[ShadowSot]

On 8/7/2017 at 2:10 PM, eight bits said:

With all respect for Nature Human Behaviour, the study as described is methodologically suspect.

That's not an unethical or immoral person, that's a sociopath.

I suppose you could conclude that the lay public underestimates the prevalence of extreme religiosity among serial killers. That's not the way to spin it if you want a publication in a highly visible journal (NHB is too new to have an impact factor, but Nature is a powerhouse brand).

Yeah, I wouldn't call myself a fan of serial killers. But being a fan of a True Crime podcast with the number of them that were either extreme fundamentalists or saw their fortunes as a gift from God I'd be inclined to believe the character was religious. 

 Not because, I want to say, I see religious as a natural lead in, but religion has a great number of twisted ideologies. 

[The Silver Thong]

don't ask

[Indiogene]

Atheism in the USA has a bad wrap, Americans need to understand logic on what it means to not believe in a god. Atheists can be good people with high morality and ethics, rejection of God(s) don't make a person evil or wicked. I'm an Agnostic which is a middle ground between belief in a deity or no belief at all, more like "I don't really know, unless proven to me." 

[Wes4747]

i see the atheist who views other atheist as less than trustworthy similar in nature to the concept of how some who crave sex deny themselves for adopting an- at one time -mainstream "christian" idea that sex was shameful...How odd?

Outside conceptions/society's mainstream, seems to tint ones own beliefs when not examined. 

However, maybe some are tipping their hand. An atheist that claims to believe other atheist are less than trustworthy could be considering their own lack of morals...

Human nature witnessed in little ones shows them to be more trustworthy when they know they are being watched, why wouldnt adults who thought they were being watched be more trustworthy?

Are we really a trustworthy species naturally? After managing so many people in my life, i'm not sure.

I know when i have earned someones respect i can trust them more, but i have fired christians and sinners alike for theft.

[XenoFish]

I guess it would depend on the atheist themselves and/or the philosophy they might follow. I guess you could consider me an existential apatheist. Meaning I do not know nor care if god exist and I am fully responsible for my choices. So you know whatever.

 

[ShadowSot]

I'm trying to think, is there an Atheist on television that isn't a jerk or shown as emotionally damaged? 

[XenoFish]

2 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

I'm trying to think, is there an Atheist on television that isn't a jerk or shown as emotionally damaged? 

Better make that YouTube. There are a lot that are a bit testy.

[Timothy]

More religious people commit crimes, that's a cold hard fact. 

I don't know how they picked the people in this study, but atheists aren't worried about each other not fearing an all-powerful god.

[eight bits]

Stubbly

The phys.org site is OK, they are just reporting what's in the paper that was published.

I'm not an atheist, either.

I don't buy that somebody believing that they live in a fishbowl (or a 'panopticon prison') would on balance much improve their behavior compared with reflection on more clearly realistic ways in which actions have consequences.

If literally everything I do is recorded, and I will someday have to answer for each and every thing I have ever done to the Cosmic Snoop, then my incentive is to develop rationalization skills, something people are good at anyway. Bart Simpson becomes our ideal role model - he often gets caught, but he's never at a loss for words.

As to specific religious teaching: If full compliance is hopeless and any non-compliance, even minuscule, makes me equally as guilty as the worst sinner (a popular Protestant view, easily found in the United States), then why should I bother? Hey, maybe I further believe that I'd be dissing Jesus to think he hadn't fully paid for all my sins in advance. Wouldn't want to diss Jesus... that's got to be as bad as anything I'd actually want to do.

Belief in a god, even in a pettifogging vindictive one, simply doesn't imply an incentive for better behavior. Psychology experiments have long shown that people make many logical errors when they are asked to apply themselves to low-stakes tasks (like participating in psychology experiments). Why not this error, too?

The experimenters could hardly have been clearer about signalling what they wanted to hear. There may well be a real societal problem with stereotyping of atheists and discriminating against them. This experiment isn't much of a contribution to understanding that better, IMO.

[SHaYap]

If a tin whistle is made of tin, what is a foghorn made of ?

~

• George Carlin Quotes on FaceBook link

 

~

[Stubbly_Dooright]

15 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

Yeah, I wouldn't call myself a fan of serial killers. But being a fan of a True Crime podcast with the number of them that were either extreme fundamentalists or saw their fortunes as a gift from God I'd be inclined to believe the character was religious. 

 Not because, I want to say, I see religious as a natural lead in, but religion has a great number of twisted ideologies. 

I have always have found and heard and read elsewhere, that there seems to usually be a small ratio of Atheists in prisons.  Though the particular site I linked, shows possibilities of other reasons for the prison ratio. Same here in this site.  But, it seems the chart shows that Atheists are in the low ratio in both sites. Even though, this is from an Atheist site,  it shows the same kind of chart. And this from a site with the same kind of outlook,  shows just how Atheists take up less of the population of prisons. 

Yes, I brought up the prison factor, and it depends on how the prisoners got there, and when they were religious or not before and after getting there, but it seems that it's usually not the high amount of atheists as to other religions in prisons. I have always felt that this situation, ( the low ratio of Atheists in prisons ) tends to have me reflect on how I see Atheists as being just as moral and driven to be considerate and good as anyone else. 

12 hours ago, Solipsi Rai said:

Atheism in the USA has a bad wrap, Americans need to understand logic on what it means to not believe in a god. Atheists can be good people with high morality and ethics, rejection of God(s) don't make a person evil or wicked. I'm an Agnostic which is a middle ground between belief in a deity or no belief at all, more like "I don't really know, unless proven to me." 

Growing up secular, I have often got a bit shocked and wondered at how some religious would behave a certain way ( wrong ) and then turn around and beg forgiveness to God. Then later, do something again, and then beg forgiveness again. I have often have observed a lot of varying devout and (preachy) religious say that they can expect to be forgiven by their god, (when the discussion of their bad behavior comes up) I'm like     and wonder how I can trust them. If my secular upbringing could also add to this point, I wouldn't do bad things, or I get punished by parents or the school or such, and that was that. As an adult, I would know that I would get caught and I would have the law come after to me and be punished by that. If anything, (and I'm sure lots of people and varying to religious and none religious upbringing) would consciously see how it effects others and how it effects their self esteem if they did so such things. 

As someone who would imagine what an Atheist would think, (and was one for some years in my young adulthood), it would vary from what religion someone would come from and even then it seems to differ within that religion. The contrary back and forth of being watched over by unproved being, warned of unproven afterlife eternal fiery prison and then forgiveness just happens at the drop of a hat no matter what, makes me think that seeing themselves and fellow Atheists more than likely consistent. 

I guess, I would think, it is not that simple. I'm actually surprised of the results of this particular survey. I don't really think fellow Atheists think this way about others like this. 

11 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I guess it would depend on the atheist themselves and/or the philosophy they might follow. I guess you could consider me an existential apatheist. Meaning I do not know nor care if god exist and I am fully responsible for my choices. So you know whatever.

 

  I should update my way of looking at various groups here. I didn't think to include how there are many levels to Atheists, just that they do not believe. But I see your point and agree with it. 

I wonder though which ones would behave as opposed to different type of Atheists. 

11 hours ago, ShadowSot said:

I'm trying to think, is there an Atheist on television that isn't a jerk or shown as emotionally damaged? 

You know, I never thought of that. And I'm trying to remember if one was portrayed as such. (not a jerk or such). But in today's age, with the varying types of channels and such, I think there have been plenty of shows that do. I feel, (can't pinpoint it right now) that there also have been shows that show varying heavily devout believers going overboard and that a lot also come across as jerks as well. 

The Show "Bones"  is probably a good example for me, that shows an Atheist as not really a jerk. She may behave a certain way, but she ends up as a happy and grounded individual, (married, a mother, lot's of friends, someone who comes in to save the day) If anything, the Syfy network's show "Eureka"  would show more none believers, considering it's about a show that deals with the high advancement in sciences. (Note: I'm not saying that all of the characters on that show would be Atheists, but the possibility that most are, and the point being that they are not mostly shown as jerks. *shrugs*.) 

6 hours ago, eight bits said:

Stubbly

The phys.org site is OK, they are just reporting what's in the paper that was published.

I figured. It's just I was also noting your posts and agreeing with it.   I have always wanted to get second and third opinions, or sources, or sites, (as I have done in my post response to Shadowsot.) Because, I wonder at the goal and outlook of said site information is coming from. I even take note of a certain site I source, because it might not be one hundred percent unbiased and that I would say in my opinion how I see it from this source. 

Quote

I'm not an atheist, either.

I don't buy that somebody believing that they live in a fishbowl (or a 'panopticon prison') would on balance much improve their behavior compared with reflection on more clearly realistic ways in which actions have consequences.

If literally everything I do is recorded, and I will someday have to answer for each and every thing I have ever done to the Cosmic Snoop, then my incentive is to develop rationalization skills, something people are good at anyway. Bart Simpson becomes our ideal role model - he often gets caught, but he's never at a loss for words.

That's how I have seen it and observed it with some, (as I also have noted in my observations in my previous responses) that it seems that someone could come up with why they can rationalize actually doing the wrong doing. Like someone feeling they can be forgiven just like that, (their own 'get out jail' free card) As I have stated before, I have a problem trusting said individuals. Your example of Bart Simpson, I find perfect as to show an example. 

Quote

As to specific religious teaching: If full compliance is hopeless and any non-compliance, even minuscule, makes me equally as guilty as the worst sinner (a popular Protestant view, easily found in the United States), then why should I bother? Hey, maybe I further believe that I'd be dissing Jesus to think he hadn't fully paid for all my sins in advance. Wouldn't want to diss Jesus... that's got to be as bad as anything I'd actually want to do.

I think that's a good point. (And one I often reflect when some preach about Jesus dying for our sins.) In that note, I consider how they feel they have to behave badly, because Jesus died for them to have them repent from that. I at first, couldn't understand all of that, but I have heard some comedians joke about that, since their sins were died for, they might as well do them.       

In my point of view, I often have the question as to how this helps fixing the damage that was done, after said perp feels they were forgiven by their god? Frankly, (and this might be myself ((Oh ok, I could be preaching.  )) feeling this ) but I often have thought and seen as what is sin, is just looking at human nature differently and being ashamed of it. I have come to see that human nature might not be just the guilt ridden thing we think it as much, but we do have to keep taps on it, and deal with it if it controlled us to cross the line. Meaning, accepting the punishment and seeing how it did damage. But, alas, that is me.....................      .......

   

Anyhow, this all depends on the many sub levels of religion, and as I have noted from Xeno's post, the sub levels of Atheism too. 

Quote

Belief in a god, even in a pettifogging vindictive one, simply doesn't imply an incentive for better behavior. Psychology experiments have long shown that people make many logical errors when they are asked to apply themselves to low-stakes tasks (like participating in psychology experiments). Why not this error, too?

The experimenters could hardly have been clearer about signalling what they wanted to hear. There may well be a real societal problem with stereotyping of atheists and discriminating against them. This experiment isn't much of a contribution to understanding that better, IMO.

And yes, sometimes, like I have noticed with those who have been preached about being born with 'sin', that it seems that gives them a reason to 'sin' without realizing how the consequences could be unfixable not just to them, but to others as well.   

 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

5 hours ago, third_eye said:

If a tin whistle is made of tin, what is a foghorn made of ?

~

• George Carlin Quotes on FaceBook link

 

~

I don't get it.      (which of course, is like me. Sometimes it takes more than a second.  ) 

 

[ShadowSot]

6 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

The Show "Bones"  is probably a good example for me, that shows an Atheist as not really a jerk. She may behave a certain way, but she ends up as a happy and grounded individual, (married, a mother, lot's of friends, someone who comes in to save the day) I

To be fair to Bones, Brennan isn't a jerk. But she is shown as very autistic initially. That's another constant, that atheists are emotionally damaged or compromised in some way. 

 Eureka religion just isn't mentioned. 

[Stubbly_Dooright]

7 minutes ago, ShadowSot said:

To be fair to Bones, Brennan isn't a jerk. But she is shown as very autistic initially. That's another constant, that atheists are emotionally damaged or compromised in some way. 

I often wondered about that. Though, are you saying she is shown in an autistic nature, or did someone or something pointed that out about her in the past? I'm just curious. 

I often compare her to Sheldon Cooper on "The Big Bang Theory", in how their outlook and manners are. Though, the difference I see is that Sheldon does come off as a big jerk, (he's an Atheist, but from a bible thumping mother), and Brennon has close friendships and gets married and has kids. 

Spoiler

Of course, not necessarily in that order.    

 

Quote

Eureka religion just isn't mentioned. 

Well, yeah, that's true. I would even say that of Star Trek, but then "DS9" did explore that a bit. Though, I am reminded of the ending scene in the original Star Trek's episode of "Bread and Circuses". 

You know, there would be an interesting thing, if a survey, a chart, which ever, was done of all the tv shows and Atheist characters on them and how they are presented. I would be deeply curious. A very good point you made there Shadowsot.  

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Stubbly_Dooright
Fixing post throw up.

[ShadowSot]

26 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I often wondered about that. Though, are you saying she is shown in an autistic nature, or did someone or something pointed that out about her in the past? I'm just curious. 

When I was still watching it was made to be she had some forms of autism, or at least poor emotional development. A lot of reviews presented her autistic. 

I sort of dropped out when the relationships overtook the show. 

BBT the humor comes from how weird and socially incompetent the characters are. 

 I think some of it comes from the short hand TV shows make their characters with. Smart people are either autistic or jerks. Atheists are smart. Therefore jerks. 

 Religious are shown as nice, but generally simple or average if not stupid. Also hard working and competent. 

37 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Well, yeah, that's true. I would even say that of Star Trek, but then "DS9" did explore that a bit. Though, I am reminded of the ending scene in the original Star Trek's episode of "Bread and Circuses". 

That's probably the only good example I can think of, though DS9 went off on the Bajoren gods and Sisko became a prophet. 

[Mr Walker]

On 09/08/2017 at 0:42 AM, jmccr8 said:

That is quite a leap to impose how early groups thought in the past. For the most part you don't know what the guy at the next table in the coffee shop thinks, so excuse me if I find your speculation weak.

jmccr8

Its not my conclusion, but that of professional academics in various fields, from human cognition and psychology, to   anthropology  In part it is based on the fact that all early cooperative endeavours were (at least in part)  based on common religious and spiritual activities  One can accurately interpolate how people think, from how they act and behave.

 Just out of interest, next time you are in a coffee shop, watch " the guy at the coffee shop" , see how he; behaves, speaks, and relates to all those around him,  and you will learn a lot about his values beliefs ethics and moralities   How does he treat the staff?  What denomination coin/ note  does he use to pay or does he use his phone to pay ?  Does he show differing levels of respect to different people of difernt social status?. Indeed, how is he dressed, what does his accent tell  you about his level of education ?   Is he socially confident in this locale ? and on and on . 

[Mr Walker]

On 09/08/2017 at 4:27 PM, Timonthy said:

More religious people commit crimes, that's a cold hard fact. 

I don't know how they picked the people in this study, but atheists aren't worried about each other not fearing an all-powerful god.

That is highly debatable. MAny studies show the benefits of religious belief  on honesty and social cohesion. 

This occurs for sound psychological reasons and is not limited to religious belief, but that definitely is one factor. 

Religious people are more likely than the non-religious to engage in prosocial behaviour – acts that benefit others at a personal cost – when it enhances the individual's reputation or when religious thoughts are freshly activated in the person's mind, say UBC social psychologists Ara Norenzayan and Azim Shariff

Their paper "The Origin and Evolution of Religious Prosociality" appears in the October 3, 2008 issue of the journal Science.

The two-part paper first reviews data from anthropology, sociology, psychology and economics. Norenzayan and Shariff then go on to explore how religion, by encouraging cooperation, became a factor in making possible the rise of large and stable societies made of genetically unrelated individuals.

To date, says Norenzayan, the public debate whether religion fosters cooperation and trust has largely been driven by opinion and anecdote.

"We wanted to look at the hard scientific evidence," says Norenzayan, an associate professor in the Dept. of Psychology.

The investigators found complementary results across the disciplines:

• Empirical data within anthropology suggests there is more cooperation among religious societies than the non-religious, especially when group survival is under threat
• Economic experiments indicate that religiosity increases levels of trust among participants
• Psychology experiments show that thoughts of an omniscient, morally concerned God reduce levels of cheating and selfish behaviour

"This type of religiously-motivated 'virtuous' behaviour has likely played a vital social role throughout history," says Shariff, a Psychology PhD student.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081002172013.htm

 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Mr Walker