What's new

Atheists tend to be seen as immoral – even by other atheists: study

boomboomcheema

First Class Star
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Runs
3,827
Atheists are more easily suspected of evil deeds than Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists – even by fellow atheists, according to the authors of a new study.

The finding 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.

The results of the study “show that across the world, religious belief is intuitively viewed as a necessary safeguard against the temptations of grossly immoral conduct,” an international team wrote in the journal Nature Human Behaviour. It revealed that “atheists are broadly perceived as potentially morally depraved and dangerous”.

The study measured the attitudes of more than 3,000 people in 13 countries on five continents. They ranged from “very secular” countries such as China and the Netherlands, to those with high numbers of religious believers, such as the United Arab Emirates, the US and India.

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. Half of the group were asked how likely it was that the perpetrator was a religious believer, and the other half how likely he was an atheist. The team found that people were about twice as likely to assume that the serial killer was an atheist.

“It is striking that even atheists appear to hold the same intuitive anti-atheist bias,” the study’s co-author, Will Gervais, a psychology professor at the University of Kentucky in Lexington, said.


Distrust of atheists was “very strong in the most highly religious states like the United States, United Arab Emirates and India”, said Gervais, and lower in more secular countries.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/aug/07/anti-atheist-prejudice-secularity

Even Atheists consider their fellow Atheists to be more immoral than any other religious group.
 
Is this because humans have an intense distrust of other humans being left to their own devices rather than following the edicts of a higher power?
 
Always knew even the hardcore atheists have no confidence in their beliefs. Very confused people believing in a twisted ideology.
 
'Religious' people have 'moral' boundaries set by the religion they follow, even though these boundaries will vary from religion to religion. Even when they fail to adhere to these boundaries, most, deep down, will still feel they are doing 'wrong' by going against their faith.

In the case of atheists, there are no guidelines to follow (other than local and national laws). Each and every atheist decides for themselves as to what is 'moral' and what is not. Or even if there is such a thing as 'morality'.

Atheists are more easily suspected of evil deeds than Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Buddhists – even by fellow atheists, according to the authors of a new study.

For atheists how can there even be such a concept as 'evil' (or 'good'), since it's a religious concept? That alone questions the authenticity of the study!
 
Always knew even the hardcore atheists have no confidence in their beliefs. Very confused people believing in a twisted ideology.

It isn't an ideology. It's an absence of one.

Do you disbelieve in pink unicorns galloping across the frozen ammonia seas of Neptune? No? By your line of thinking, you have just assumed an ideological position.
 
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION]

Where to athiests get their morals from?

I.e Why is murder immoral? If you are hungry and someone else has food but wont share and your life is on the line is it then wrong to kill another human? Why?
 
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION]

Where to athiests get their morals from?

I.e Why is murder immoral? If you are hungry and someone else has food but wont share and your life is on the line is it then wrong to kill another human? Why?
In my opinion, 'morality' is a man-made and religious concept (religion itself being man-made as a means of explaining what cannot be explained due to limited knowledge). Same goes for 'wrong', 'good' and 'evil'.

Atheists, in my opinion, get their 'morals' from the society around them, which in turn has evolved over time as to what does, and does not, benefit the group (ie society) to survive and flourish, by creating sets of rules ('religion' in times gone by, local and national laws nowadays)..

It's not different to, say, why some animals eat their own young whilst others do not. They don't think in terms of 'right' or 'wrong', but simply the best way of survival to pass their genes along.
 
I find atheists to be just fine and normal people. Rejecting any concept of God does not render them sub human. They are often highly intelligent and intellectual people. By denying any superior being they sin openly without feeling any guilt. It is those who believe in any God who are hypocrites, preaching one thing whilst doing the exact opposite.
 
It comes down to whether somebody is a good person or not. There have been plenty of good people who followed a religion and plenty who did not. There have also been plenty of dreadful people who followed a religion and plenty who did not.
 
A thug is a thug, whether he;s religious or not shouldn't matter to anyone. In fact I've often found religious people to be more thuggish than atheists, though there are exceptions.
 
A person who does good deeds because his religion says so can also do bad deeds if his religion says so, and he won't know the difference.
 
[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION] [MENTION=4930]Yossarian[/MENTION]

Where to athiests get their morals from?

The observation that if you treat people kindly, in the way you want to be treated, they tend to reciprocate. Even apes have figured this out!

You can then go on to say that what other people do, as long as nobody gets hurt, is simply not your business.
 
In India probably coz atheists here are more vocal against only the majority religion.

Atheists need to speak against every religion thereby having no soft spot for any,only then should they be termed atheists,wonder how its in India.
 
The article itself highlights that the belief was highest in religious countries like UAE, US and India; and lower in secular countries like Netherlands.

The point of the article is being misinterpreted -- it is not about the morality of atheists but the stigma associated with atheism. People tend to believe that atheists are immoral.
Not surprising considering people tend to associate religion with morality. I would be more interested in a study that compared crime rates of religious people against atheism after controlling for socioeconomic class. I suspect it's probably similar.
 
In my opinion, 'morality' is a man-made and religious concept (religion itself being man-made as a means of explaining what cannot be explained due to limited knowledge). Same goes for 'wrong', 'good' and 'evil'.

Atheists, in my opinion, get their 'morals' from the society around them, which in turn has evolved over time as to what does, and does not, benefit the group (ie society) to survive and flourish, by creating sets of rules ('religion' in times gone by, local and national laws nowadays)..

It's not different to, say, why some animals eat their own young whilst others do not. They don't think in terms of 'right' or 'wrong', but simply the best way of survival to pass their genes along.

The observation that if you treat people kindly, in the way you want to be treated, they tend to reciprocate. Even apes have figured this out!

You can then go on to say that what other people do, as long as nobody gets hurt, is simply not your business.

So according to both of you morals are evolve over time and society figures these out.

If one group of people believe it's ok to pilllage, rape, loot etc , why are they wrong?
 
So according to both of you morals are evolve over time and society figures these out.
Not quite. Yes, morals evolve, based upon experience plus society's need at the time, and not because "society figures these out". And that is then encapsulated in laws (aka morals), religious laws in times gone by, and civil laws in modern times. Atheists, despite their claims, simply cherry pick from these same laws (morals) already created by society.

That's why an Atheists living in one society will have 'morals' that will sometimes be very different, even contrasting, with morals of Atheists living in a different society. Because each has taken their 'morals' from the society in which they live.

If one group of people believe it's ok to pilllage, rape, loot etc , why are they wrong?
I didn't say they were wrong - according to members of that society, including Atheists. It's only 'wrong' from the point of view of members of another society if that society has eradicated such practices from within itself over time.

A simple case is incest. Some countries laws still make incest legal, thereby implicitly saying it's not 'wrong' per se. Other countries have made the practice illegal, deeming it to be immoral. So which society is 'right and which is 'wrong'?
 
religious people dont have boundaries.

atleast atheist don't act like hypocrites.

I hate people who are into religion because at one hand they violate religions rule and everything and yet they tell others how we should be muslims, be proud of it etc.
 
So according to both of you morals are evolve over time and society figures these out.

If one group of people believe it's ok to pilllage, rape, loot etc , why are they wrong?

Because the Golden Rule is violated, and violence begats violence. They are ultimately sowing the seeds of their own downfall.
 
Not quite. Yes, morals evolve, based upon experience plus society's need at the time, and not because "society figures these out". And that is then encapsulated in laws (aka morals), religious laws in times gone by, and civil laws in modern times. Atheists, despite their claims, simply cherry pick from these same laws (morals) already created by society.

That's why an Atheists living in one society will have 'morals' that will sometimes be very different, even contrasting, with morals of Atheists living in a different society. Because each has taken their 'morals' from the society in which they live.

I didn't say they were wrong - according to members of that society, including Atheists. It's only 'wrong' from the point of view of members of another society if that society has eradicated such practices from within itself over time.

A simple case is incest. Some countries laws still make incest legal, thereby implicitly saying it's not 'wrong' per se. Other countries have made the practice illegal, deeming it to be immoral. So which society is 'right and which is 'wrong'?

I mostly agree with your post.

What's your personal view being a non-religious person? How do you decide what's right or wrong?
 
Because the Golden Rule is violated, and violence begats violence. They are ultimately sowing the seeds of their own downfall.

It may not be the case, many armies have pillaged without issues and went on to become empires. Societies laws have some sort of religious historical context anyway. If the world was full of atheists only you can imagine the confusion.
 
It may not be the case, many armies have pillaged without issues and went on to become empires. Societies laws have some sort of religious historical context anyway. If the world was full of atheists only you can imagine the confusion.

Many religious societies behave like that. The Caliphs were imperialists. Richard Lionheart took the cross, then slaughtered all those prisoners at Acre, absolved by the Pope. The British Empire rationale was of bringing Christian stability to the world.
 
How can a person who believes that this life is all they have and they are totally unaccountable for anything they do hidden from other people live an ethical and moral life? There is absolutely no rational reason to give charity or do anything that doesn't ppositively impact oneself or the people that he or she loves. It's a sad, empty existence and helluva (pun intended) risky according to rationality.

religious people dont have boundaries.

atleast atheist don't act like hypocrites.

I hate people who are into religion because at one hand they violate religions rule and everything and yet they tell others how we should be muslims, be proud of it etc.

Because of course, we should obey the laws of our country 100% or emigrate, otherwise we are hypocrites. Hope you never got a speeding ticket or disposed of your chewing-gum wrapper by the side of a road.
 
A person who does good deeds because his religion says so can also do bad deeds if his religion says so, and he won't know the difference.

Which is why you don't follow a religion that asks you to do "bad deeds".
 
Back
Top