this post was submitted on 09 Dec 2023

86 points (93.0% liked)

Atheism

4232 readers

1 users here now

Community Guide

Archive Today will help you look at paywalled content the way search engines see it.

Statement of Purpose

This is a support and conversation community for people who don't believe in gods.
Superstition hucksters have no reason to subscribe or post here at all.
If you are looking to debate or proselytize, options will be linked lower in the sidebar.

Acceptable

Honest questions or conversations.
Discussions on parenting or advice.
Struggles, frustrations, coming out.
Atheist memes. We can have fun!
News headlines relevant to atheism.

Unacceptable

Depending on severity, you might be warned before adverse action is taken.

Anything against site rules.
Illegal and/or NSFW material.
Troll posts and comments. There will be no attempt to explain what that means.
Leading questions, agenda pushing, or disingenuous attempts to bait members.
Personal attacks or flaming.

Inadvisable

Self promotion or upvote farming.
Excessive shitposting or off-topic discussion.

Application of warnings or bans will be subject to moderator discretion. Feel free to appeal. If changes to the guidelines are necessary, they will be adjusted.

If you vocally harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a group that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of any other group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you you will be banned on sight.

Provable means able to provide proof to the moderation, and, if necessary, to the community.

 ~ /c/nostupidquestions

If you want your space listed in this sidebar and it is especially relevant to the atheist or skeptic communities, PM DancingPickle and we'll have a look!

Connect with Atheists

Matrix: #atheism:envs.net

Help and Support Links

Streaming Media

This is mostly YouTube at the moment. Podcasts and similar media - especially on federated platforms - may also feature here.

Orgs, Blogs, Zines

Mainstream

Bibliography

Start here...

...proceed here.

Proselytize Religion

Convince an Atheist

From Reddit

As a community with an interest in providing the best resources to its members, the following wiki links are provided as historical reference until we can establish our own.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Rhynoplaz

Are Religious People more Moral than Atheists? Here are the Facts | Phil Zuckerman - Feddit (feddit.de)

submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by [email protected] to c/atheism

56 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Crosspost from [email protected].

An overview of studies which investigate correlations between morality and religious vs. secular / atheist ideologies presented by Phil Zuckerman who is a professor of sociology and secular studies at the Claremont colleges in California, USA.

Summary: Atheists / secular people not only have morals but are even more moral than religious people.

Note: Of course moral is a matter of perspective. In this context we agree that compassion and empathy are our foundations of moral.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Morally good behavior is not a logical consequence of empathy.

Agreed. I didn't say that. I try to convey that empathy and compassion can and do serve as the roots of more complex ethical frameworks by which morally good or bad behaviour is then judged by.

Therefore measuring empathy will not tell you anything about morally good behaviour.

That depends on your ethical framework, e.g. whether behaviour is even relevant for a moral judgement.

for your argument

What argument? That I tried to shortly outline the moral frameworks which are used as basis for the classifications made in the studies reviewed in the video?

Yes.

No.
It seems to me that you are interpreting too much into this.

Secondly, I can’t claim clairvoyance (you might just be lying)

If you approach this conversation under the assumption that I'm lying we can stop talking right now, since nothing I say will have any value to you. I'm telling you that I don't see myself as an individualistic moral relativist, take it or leave it, I don't care.
More importantly, I don't see how the ethical framework I live by is relevant for our issue here.

That issue, as I'm seeing it, started by two things:

you claimed that empathy and compassion are "widely rejected [...] in moral philosophy" which is not true and can already easily be disproven by simply hitting some keywords into a search engine of your choice.
You seem to have a problem with my note on which moral frameworks the scientists (whose work is reviewed in the video) used to classify their data.

I prefer to focus on that and clear this up instead of derailing the conversation towards irrelevant topics. (I invite you to explain how this matters to you with respect to our issue here, though.)

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

Agreed"

So you recognise that it is therefore irrelevant, and the conclusion does not follow from the premises (it is invalid). So why are you so slavishly defending it?

"I don't see myself as a moral relativist... I don't see how my ethical framework is relevant"

Ok, you are literally too stupid to have this conversation.

The idea that moral judgements come from synthetic frameworks,is moral relativism. You deny that you are a moral relativist (good for you) but the reason I call you one is because the assumptions you make require that moral systems be synthetic. (Since you read a philosophy article you must know what this means).

So either you are a moral relativist or you are lying. I'm a rational person and cannot prove that you are lying so I defer to believing you to be a moral relativist who simply doesn't understand what it entails.