ARE NON BELIEVERS LOWER IN MORAL CHARACTER THAN CHRISTIANS? Peanut Gallery.

[MarkRohfrietsch]

my first post is up, being reviewed by moderator.

Post is reviewed, and I up.

 

[poolerboy0077]

I'd love to hear a response to Christopher Hitchens' challenge:

Can anyone think of a moral action performed, or moral statement made, by a believer that could not be made by a non-believer?
​

 

[Queller]

Rather, "unknown" does not necessarily mean non-religious or religious, but not identifying with any faith certainly indicates they are not Christian in faith,

Sorry, no it doesn't, not by any logical criteria you choose to use. It simply means "not known".

 

[Gadarene]

That Bama group survey is obviously nonsense (or being grossly misinterpreted) given that it only reports 12% of evangelicals self-reporting as viewing pornography

lying is a sin, you lot

 

[abdAlSalam]

RE: the study from B.C. in David's new post, I actually performed a replication of this study, I have a class to get to so I don't have time to do it now, but would gladly do a write up later today.

Suffice it to say for now, but it certainly does not help David's case.

 

[Gadarene]

Sooooo.....bhsmte's studies are flawed because they don't meet TCMD's assertion of what a Christian is.....but his studies do? Where do they meet that criterion?

 

[abdAlSalam]

So the day got away from me a bit yesterday and I wasn't able to do my write-up about the study from the University of British Colombia. I've got some time to do it today, and here it is.

The study in question is looking at implicit prejudices Americans and Canadians have for various groups. The groups in question were Christians, Muslims, Atheists and Rapists. For anyone who ever watched Sesame Street, they might tell right away that one of these things is not like the others.

So how did the researchers discover these implicit attitudes?

A quick psychology lesson is in order. The two concepts we are looking at in this study are Heuristics (specifically the Representativeness Heuristic) and something known as the Conjunction Fallacy.

Heuristics (definition from Cognition by Margaret W. Matlin, 7th edition): A general strategy that usually produces a correct solution, for example, in language, problem solving, and decision making. The Representativeness Heuristic is the mental shortcut we take when we decide that, since a particular individual has certain characteristics that we associate with a group, we judge this individual to be part of said group. So for example we see a young woman who is a member of a Women's Advocacy group who works to raise funds for various legislative actions. Several of these traits are ones we associate with liberals. So we would guess that this young woman probably votes for the Democratic Party.

Now this is where we come upon the Conjunction Fallacy. The conjunction rule states that the probability of the conjunction of two events cannot be larger than the probability of either of its constituent events. So it is statistically impossible for it to be more likely that our young woman is a Women's Rights Advocate and a Democratic Party voter than it is for her to be just a Women's Rights Advocate.

However, because of the Representativeness Heuristic, we make an error in judgment. We judge the probability of the conjunction of two events to be greater than the probability of a single event.

So how do these concepts relate to the study?

In this particular study, the researchers told participants two stories involving a man who performs some pretty bad behaviors. In the first story the man backs into a car, pretends to leave his insurance information (leaving a piece of blank paper on the windshield of the car he hit) and drives off. In the second story, the same man finds a wallet in the park, takes the money out, and throws the wallet into a nearby trashcan. After both stories are read, researchers would ask the participant if it was more likely that the man was a teacher, or if the man was a teacher AND x (where x is Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or Rapist). Each participant was only asked about one x.

So what the story shows us is that people are more likely to perform the conjunction fallacy because of their implicit negative attitudes about Atheists as opposed to Muslims or Christians.

When I did my replication, I added a second set of conditions where participants were asked if the man was more likely to be a Lawyer or Lawyer and x. The pattern was the same for both the original Teacher condition and the Lawyer condition.

The end result is that we make errors in judgment based on representativeness of the individual. If we think that Atheists are immoral people, then we are more likely to conclude that an immoral person is an Atheist. This does not support the original premise of the debate, that is that Atheists are less moral than Christians. Perception of morality is not the same as being moral.

 

[madaz]

When I was a Christian I believed at the time that Christians were morally higher in character but it was simply just a belief based on what the Christians around me believed and my ignorance of other demographics. If one believes they have a higher moral character they can easily kid themselves into thinking its true when its not. This mindset has deluded the minds of many a believer.

Now I am atheist and facilitator of a local atheist group(which includes some Budhist members) I can confidently assert that (our group at least) are of a higher moral character, however, that quality could be attributed to the average age of people in our atheist group as opposed the the average age of the people in the Christian groups that I belonged to in the past which were mainly youth groups.

Overall though, I dont think either demographic hold a monopoly on high moral character.

Interesting debate!

 

[ebia]

I'm not sure why Dave didn't go the whole hog:

True Christians behave like Christ; that is perfectly. Atheists don't behave perfectly. Therefore true Christians behave better than atheists.


Of course there is the slight problem of the lack of True Christians (TM), but that's a minor detail.

 

[TravelerFarAwayFromHome]

I'm not sure why Dave didn't go the whole hog:

True Christians behave like Christ; that is perfectly. Atheists don't behave perfectly. Therefore true Christians behave better than atheists.


Of course there is the slight problem of the lack of True Christians (TM), but that's a minor detail.

I think the point should be Christian SHOULD be better than atheists, and some of them are, but some of them are not.

 

[stevevw]

When I was a Christian I believed at the time that Christians were morally higher in character but it was simply just a belief based on what the Christians around me believed and my ignorance of other demographics. If one believes they have a higher moral character they can easily kid themselves into thinking its true when its not. This mindset has deluded the minds of many a believer.

Now I am atheist and facilitator of a local atheist group(which includes some Budhist members) I can confidently assert that (our group at least) are of a higher moral character, however, that quality could be attributed to the average age of people in our atheist group as opposed the the average age of the people in the Christian groups that I belonged to in the past which were mainly youth groups.

Overall though, I dont think either demographic hold a monopoly on high moral character.

Interesting debate!

It could also be that because you are in a group you are organized to get together to think of these things. You take time out each week to discuss things and make yourself aware. Its like a little exercise that you do with the group support where you share your feelings, values and beliefs. This empowers you each week and you can take home some motivation or self awareness that you may not have got in your normal weekly routine. They say that taking time out to even just think about things like your attitudes and behaviors can give you good awareness and help you become a better person.

I look at this in the same way as the church meetings or getting together with other Christians. We can go over some readings and then discuss our attitudes and behaviors with the aim to share and become aware. This can then identify our shortcomings and then we can work on becoming a better person.

 

[stevevw]

When I was a Christian I believed at the time that Christians were morally higher in character but it was simply just a belief based on what the Christians around me believed and my ignorance of other demographics. If one believes they have a higher moral character they can easily kid themselves into thinking its true when its not. This mindset has deluded the minds of many a believer.

Now I am atheist and facilitator of a local atheist group(which includes some Budhist members) I can confidently assert that (our group at least) are of a higher moral character, however, that quality could be attributed to the average age of people in our atheist group as opposed the the average age of the people in the Christian groups that I belonged to in the past which were mainly youth groups.

Overall though, I dont think either demographic hold a monopoly on high moral character.

Interesting debate!

It could also be that because you are in a group you are organized to get together to think of these things. You take time out each week to discuss things and make yourself aware. Its like a little exercise that you do with the group support where you share your feelings, values and beliefs. This empowers you each week and you can take home some motivation or self awareness that you may not have got in your normal weekly routine. They say that taking time out to even just think about things like your attitudes and behaviors can give you good awareness and help you become a better person.

I look at this in the same way as the church meetings or getting together with other Christians. We can go over some readings and then discuss our attitudes and behaviors with the aim to share and become aware. This can then identify our shortcomings and then we can work on becoming a better person.

 

[Gadarene]

I'm not sure why Dave didn't go the whole hog:

True Christians behave like Christ; that is perfectly. Atheists don't behave perfectly. Therefore true Christians behave better than atheists.


Of course there is the slight problem of the lack of True Christians (TM), but that's a minor detail.

Pretty sure that is what his argument boils down to

 

[Sectio Aurea]

I'm not sure why Dave didn't go the whole hog:

True Christians behave like Christ; that is perfectly. Atheists don't behave perfectly. Therefore true Christians behave better than atheists.


Of course there is the slight problem of the lack of True Christians (TM), but that's a minor detail.

Agreed.


Do "True Christians (TM)" even exist? I mean, if Jesus is the benchmark for perfect moral character, how many Christians actually achieve and maintain this benchmark for the remainder of their lives?

I'm guessing the statistics would be about 0%.

 

[ebia]

Agreed. Do "True Christians (TM)" even exist? I mean, if Jesus is the benchmark for perfect moral character, how many Christians actually achieve and maintain this benchmark for the remainder of their lives? I'm guessing the statistics would be about 0%.

Somewhere around there.

Of course it's because the wrong question anyway. Rather like trying to measure schools by the raw achievement scores of its students.

The question shouldn't be "are Christians better" but "does Christian discipleship improve people". Christ came to heal the sick, not to recruit the healthy.

 

[Gadarene]

It's remarkable how much of Dave's latest word salad demonstrates the bigotry against atheists his sources actually prove (and not the point he was trying to make)

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Final posts are up.

 

[Freodin]

While this was a very interesting debate, I think it only emphasizes the main point of difference between the two sides: the completely different view of what it means to be "moral".

While in David's post there were such points as "gambling", "drunkenness","looking at pornography" and "profanity in public", bhsmte repeatedly cited "nationalism", "gender equality", "torture" and "authoritarian[ism]"

I for one know which values I support.

 

[ianjosephjackson]

Is there a difference in believing in religion and believing that there is a God? Are they the same thing? If they are not the same thing, then what is a NONBELIEVER? Someone that doesn't believe in religion or someone that doesn't believe in God? I don't believe in religion because of its negative energy that it creates. And God won't be associated with this negative energy. God tells you not to judge in the bible. But here you are judging! How far must we all go to battle religions against GOD's will. I respect everyone's view of how a soul should be. But religion doesn't control my soul. God guides our souls to see if our souls are good and at peace. Is your soul at peace and are you able to accept people's differences no matter what their adversity?

 

[The RedRose]

When I was a Christian I believed at the time that Christians were morally higher in character but it was simply just a belief based on what the Christians around me believed and my ignorance of other demographics. If one believes they have a higher moral character they can easily kid themselves into thinking its true when its not. This mindset has deluded the minds of many a believer.

Now I am atheist and facilitator of a local atheist group(which includes some Budhist members) I can confidently assert that (our group at least) are of a higher moral character, however, that quality could be attributed to the average age of people in our atheist group as opposed the the average age of the people in the Christian groups that I belonged to in the past which were mainly youth groups.

Overall though, I dont think either demographic hold a monopoly on high moral character.

Interesting debate!

Madaz,

I am sorry to hear you went from "center"
to far "left"
and not "turned to the RIGHT "

(play on words I hope you don't mind ?!!)

I "was a christian", too, but I turned to Messianic Beliefs and I am so, so, much Happier with such Wonderful Peace ...

... are you "truly" and "atheist" and believe in NO God/god ?

Please explain ...

Thank You,

Sincerely, The RedRose