Staunch atheists show higher morality than the proudly pious, from the pandemic to climate change - They are one step away from calling us "sinners" at this point


Two recent events have shed an illuminating light on who is and who isn't moral in today's world.

First, Cardinal Raymond Burke, a leader in the U.S. Catholic Church and a staunch anti-masker/vaxxer, was put on a ventilator as a result of his suffering from COVID-19. Second, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the United Nations released its latest data-rich report, warning that "unless there are rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5 degrees Celsius or even 2 degrees Celsius will be beyond reach."

The global pandemic and the rapidly warming of our planet — these dire phenomena are, above all, deeply moral matters in that they both entail care for the well-being of others and a desire to alleviate misery and suffering.

Now, while most people assume that such a morality is grounded in religious faith, and while it is certainly true that all religions contain plenty of moral ideals, in our nation today, it is actually the most secular among us who are exhibiting a greater moral orientation — in the face of deadly threats — than the most devout among us, who are exhibiting the least.

Before proceeding, let me make it clear: When I say the "most secular among us," I mean atheists, agnostics, people who never attend religious services, don't think the Bible is the word of God, and don't pray. Such self-conscious and deliberatively irreligious people are to be distinguished from the lackadaisically unaffiliated — often called "nones" — who simply don't identify with a religion.

And by the "most devout among us" I mean religious fundamentalists who believe in God without any doubts, who attend church frequently, who consider the Bible the infallible word of God, who pray a lot, and who insist that Jesus is the only way, the only truth, and the only life. These strongly religious folks are to be distinguished from moderately religious Americans, who are generally liberal and tolerant.

Think of it like two ends of a spectrum, with one end representing the staunchly secular and the other end representing the deeply devout. Most Americans fall somewhere in the middle; both the "nones" and the moderately religious together comprise the majority of Americans. But as to those who occupy the end points of the spectrum, it is — as stated above — the affirmatively godless who are exhibiting greater moral proclivities in our nation today than the proudly pious.

We can start with the global pandemic. COVID-19 is a potentially deadly virus that has caused — and continues to cause — dire woe. Surely, to be moral in the face of such a dangerous disease is to do everything one can — within one's limited power — to thwart it. No moral person would want to willfully spread it, bolster it, or prolong its existence. And yet, when it comes to the battle against COVID-19, it is the most secular of Americans who are doing what they can to wipe it out, while it is the most faithful among us, especially nationalistic white Evangelicals, who are keeping it alive and well. Taking the vaccine saves lives and thwarts the spread of the virus. So, too, does sheltering in place as directed and wearing protective face masks. And yet, here in the U.S., it is generally the most religious among us who refuse to adhere to such life-saving practices, while it is the most secular who most willingly comply. For example, a recent Pew study found that while only 10% of atheists said that they would definitely or probably not get vaccinated, 45% of white Evangelicals took such a position.

Consider climate change. The best available data shows that — as a direct result of human activity — we are destroying our planet. The results are already manifesting with greater and deadlier frequency: poisoned air and water, massive wildfires, stronger hurricanes, brutal mudslides, quickly melting glaciers, rising sea levels, the wanton disappearance of forests and coral reefs. Such developments do not bode well for the future; more suffering and death are on the rapidly approaching horizon. And, yet again, what do we see? It is the most staunchly secular among us who understand the science behind climate change and want to do what needs to be done in order to prevent it, while it is the most pious among us who dismiss the science and don't want to address the dire threat. For example, a recent PRRI study found that over 80% of secular Americans accept the evidence that human activity is causing climate change — and they place addressing climate change at the top of the list of their political priorities — while only 33% of white Evangelicals accept such evidence, and thus place is towards the bottom of their list of political priorities.

But it's not just the pandemic and climate change that illustrate this widening religious/secular moral divide. Take gun violence. Currently, more Americans die annually from firearms than automobile accidents; since 2009, there have been 255 mass shootings in the U.S.; every few hours, a child or teen dies from a gun wound. When the founders of the country passed the Second Amendment, they couldn't have imagined the instantaneous devastation a semi-automatic rifle can do in the hands of one vicious person. And there is no question that Jesus — who taught an unmitigated message of non-violence — would denounce the existence of such weapons. And yet, who is more pro-gun in today's America? Not the hardest of atheists. Rather, it is the most fervent of Christians. For but one example: While 77% of atheists are in favor of banning assault rifles, only 45% of white Evangelicals are.

In terms of who supports helping refugees, affordable health care for all, accurate sex education, death with dignity, gay rights, transgender rights, animal rights; and as to who opposes militarism, the governmental use of torture, the death penalty, corporal punishment, and so on — the correlation remains: The most secular Americans exhibit the most care for the suffering of others, while the most religious exhibit the highest levels of indifference.

But wait — what about the rights of the unborn? While many people oppose abortion on decidedly moral grounds, it is also the case that many others support the right of women to maintain autonomy over their own reproductive capacities, on equally moral grounds. Hence, the deep intractability of the debate. And yet, most Americans — both religious and non-religious — do not see the abortion of a non-viable fetus as being akin to the murder of a living human being. And let's be frank: It is impossible to square the assertion that the strongly religious are "pro-life" while they simultaneously refuse to get vaccinated, to wear a mask, to fight climate change, to support universal healthcare, or to support sane gun legislation. To characterize such an agenda as "pro-life" renders the label rather insincere, at best.

Admittedly, how morality plays out in the world is always complex, with numerous exceptions to the correlations above. For example, African Americans tend to be highly religious and yet are also extremely supportive of gun control. The Catholic Church, which has deftly overseen the most extensive pedophile ring in history, and continues to ban the life-saving use of condoms, also happens to morally oppose the death penalty. One study has found that Evangelicals actually get vaccinated at higher rates than the religiously unaffiliated (though not at a higher rate than agnostics). And members of religious congregations tend to donate more money to charity, on average, than the unaffiliated. And of course, the 20th century has witnessed the immoral, bloody brutality of numerous atheist dictatorships, such as those of the former USSR and Cambodia.

However, despite such complexities, the overall pattern remains clear: When it comes to the most pressing moral issues of the day, hard-core secularists exhibit much more empathy, compassion, and care for the well-being of others than the most ardently God-worshipping. Such a reality is necessary to expose, not simply in order to debunk the long-standing canard that religion is necessary for ethical living, but because such exposure renders all the more pressing the need for a more consciously secular citizenry, one that lives in reality, embraces science and empiricism, and supports sound policies — not prayer — as a way to make life better, safer and more humane.
 
Subjective morality is no morality at all.
Allow me to explain then.

What's considered "moral" varies from person to person, from culture to culture, and from era to era. Take the gun issue for example. One person might be against civilians owning guns because they're dangerous weapons that kill people, while others might be in favor of gun ownership because they value personal freedoms. Capital punishment is another example, as a hundred years ago hanging was considered an acceptable means to execute criminals, while today it's considered cruel and unusual. Or if you travel internationally, what might be considered acceptable behavior in your home country could be horribly offensive in the other.

Generally speaking, however, the things agreed upon that's "moral" are what allows the continued peace and prosperity of a given community, which is why tenants like "don't murder" and "don't steal" are nigh universal among cultures. The issue here is that the author of this piece is pushing his own idea of morality onto people with a completely different sense of morality, thinking his own is vastly superior. Personally, I find it highly ironic, since as much as these types claim to be against religious indoctrination, they sure do love to proselytize.
 
Phil Zuckerman
Hmmm....

1629653856954.png

1629653794281.png

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.
Okay, atheist shlomo-kun. Tell me all about the bad goys.
When the founders of the country passed the Second Amendment, they couldn't have imagined the instantaneous devastation a semi-automatic rifle can do in the hands of one vicious person.
Smooth-brained, ahistorical take. First, the Danish Kalthoff Repeater (effectively a semi-automatic flintlock/wheel-lock rifle) was over a century old before the American Revolution. Due to the intricacy of the weapon it was never mass produced, but it was pretty famous in its time, as the Kalthoff gunsmiths were commissioned armorers for several of Europe's royal courts.

Second, private volunteer military companies were organized and armed at their own expense in America since at least the early 17th century, including artillery. So yeah, you and the boys bring your own guns, then pass the hat around to buy an equal, undivided share in an even bigger gun that could inflict 'instantaneous devastation' on massed combatants.

And there is no question that Jesus — who taught an unmitigated message of non-violence — would denounce the existence of such weapons.
Ask the temple moneychangers about Jesus' 'unmitigated message of non-violence'. Also, Jesus neither rebukes nor denounces the Roman centurion for his profession when he comes to Jesus to ask that his slave be healed.

I can't wait for the day when Xtians stop falling for this meme of allowing non-believers and apostates to lecture them about their own religion.
 
Allow me to explain then.

What's considered "moral" varies from person to person, from culture to culture, and from era to era. Take the gun issue for example. One person might be against civilians owning guns because they're dangerous weapons that kill people, while others might be in favor of gun ownership because they value personal freedoms. Capital punishment is another example, as a hundred years ago hanging was considered an acceptable means to execute criminals, while today it's considered cruel and unusual. Or if you travel internationally, what might be considered acceptable behavior in your home country could be horribly offensive in the other.

Generally speaking, however, the things agreed upon that's "moral" are what allows the continued peace and prosperity of a given community, which is why tenants like "don't murder" and "don't steal" are nigh universal among cultures. The issue here is that the author of this piece is pushing his own idea of morality onto people with a completely different sense of morality, thinking his own is vastly superior. Personally, I find it highly ironic, since as much as these types claim to be against religious indoctrination, they sure do love to proselytize.
Morality is absolute, interpretations of moral virtue are at the mercy of attitudes and cultures. It is not about the tribalistic consensus of what is utilitarian to the collective when one is to strive for impartiality in arbitrating a life or death scenario. Morality must be absolute for flawed lawbringers to execute a flawless code of ethics. If morality is subject to the whims of the people, then no legal system on the planet can ever claim to be just. If a code of laws fails to uphold justice, then one is justified in revolting against the system. If morality is subjective, then lawlessness is as justified as lawfulness.
 
Staunch Athiests are fart-sniffing morons.

"Hurr durr you believe in flying beardy God person who sits on a cloud, and yet you can't prove they exist!"
"Can you prove they don't exist?"
"Angry NPC noises"

How can you be so sure that something doesn't exist when you have no proof and then laugh at others who have no proof for believing it does exist? They're two sides of the same retarded coin.
I have long since realised that nonbelievers getting mad when they can't prove God is real is proof enough that he is indeed real.

I have no other way to explain how they keep getting so mad after all this time other than divine comedy.
 
Well it is not that we Atheists are more morale then people. It is more the fact that the more a religious a person is the more fucked in the head that person is.

Look at Muslims murdering and raping in the name of god, youth preachers who get a bit to handsy with there underage charges, the Catholics nothing else is needed, Buddhist and Hindus murdering Muslims because of there faith in Asia, Muslims murdering every one else because of faith in the middle east, Jihads, Crusades, televangelist who pray on the sick and the vulnerable, to every dam cult who took advantage of mentality ill to do terrible crimes.

I have long since realised that nonbelievers getting mad when they can't prove God is real is proof enough that he is indeed real.

I have no other way to explain how they keep getting so mad after all this time other than divine comedy.

If we are getting so mad about it. Then why is it you believers keep killing in your gods name?.
If God exist, why are you so happy to rape, murder, slaughter, genocide through the ages in his name. Why are you believers like that?
 
I guess being easily brainwashed by media companies owned by billionaires you pretend to hate makes you morally superior.

I'm agnostic and I absolutely hate how leftoids think you have to be one of them to be agnostic or atheist.

Also are they even atheists when worship of the state has become their religion?
 
Back