Survey: Atheists less likely to view key virtues as “very important”
posted at 3:51 pm on October 15, 2007 by Allahpundit
And with respect to some virtues, much less likely. The conclusion of Prof. Reginald Bibby, who conducted the study:
The reason for this, suggests Prof. Bibby, a prominent sociologist, is that those who are involved with religious groups are being exposed to a whole range of values that are not being propagated well by any other major source. “To the extent that people are not involved in religious groups … they’re not being exposed to those interpersonal values and they’re simply not holding them as strongly,” Prof. Bibby said in an interview…
He said people who are believers are encouraged — whether by a desire to please God, or because of a fear of God — to adopt these values. “If you don’t have that as a major source in the culture then what will be the source? I think that’s where we’ve been really superficial … we’ve really been underestimating the contribution religious groups can make.”… He acknowledged that many non-believers still place a high value on morality and ethics. But he said some of that is a legacy from previous generations who held deeper religious views.
The atheist spokesman interviewed for the piece tried to broaden the definition of virtue to include “scientific inquiry,” which is clever but a smidge lame. From Bibby’s press release, read it and gloat:
The gap in “family life” is something I’ve observed anecdotally, as I’m sure many of you have, but I think that’s less a case of causation than correlation between atheism and standard lifestyle patterns in places where you’re more likely to find nonbelievers (i.e., cities). Not sure how to explain the yawning chasm in some of the virtues further on down the list, though. It makes sense that Christians in particular would put more of a premium on forgiveness, but the spread on generosity, patience(?), and concern for others is shameful.
I’m going to chalk it up to Canadian cutural differences. Viva American atheism!
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Not taking ones self too seriously is an endearing quality.
Bravo Allahpundit.
Theworldisnotenough on October 15, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Heh. You rock, AP!
Splashman on October 15, 2007 at 3:56 PM
I think that for most atheists (not you AP) it is less about a disbelief in a God, and more about a narcissistic cry for attention, so those “selfish indicators” don’t surprise me.
Go read through slashdot comments sometime, and you’ll see what I mean. A lot of obviously insecure people looking for approval, and they tend to be “atheists”.
DaveS on October 15, 2007 at 3:58 PM
That is a really interesting survey. Thanks AP.
nailinmyeye on October 15, 2007 at 4:00 PM
Atheists have a huge uphill battle as it is. Coming across and cold and heartless really doesn’t help.
Hoodlumman on October 15, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Why? Atheism is the ultimate expression of narcissism. Generosity, patience, and concern for others are the antithesis of narcissism, hence it is no surprise that these virtues have so little meaning for Atheists.
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 4:02 PM
It actually surprises me that only 55% nationally value generosity.
nailinmyeye on October 15, 2007 at 4:03 PM
WHAT?
Not another Atheist post!?
No, not today buddy.
Talk amongst yourself..
Mcguyver on October 15, 2007 at 4:03 PM
This has actually been pointed out by many theologians and Christian apologists. They use the expression of “cultural capital”. With each successive generation, if new strides are not made to maintain that “capital”, it gets used up and diminishes. It is good to see those outside the theological realm realize this as well.
Weight of Glory on October 15, 2007 at 4:05 PM
Thanks.
Allahpundit on October 15, 2007 at 4:06 PM
This sort of poll is a massive oversimplification of the real world and is a prime example of how polls can be very misleading, IMO. I don’t think it’s escaped the attention of most people that the vast majority of atheists are liberals and that the most devout people tend to be more conservative. Does this poll address any discrepancies between the values of those on the left verses those on the right, regardless of religion? How many other factors have been overlooked which would skew the results?
FloatingRock on October 15, 2007 at 4:07 PM
It also is interesting to look at this, and then think of the sustained attacks against organized religion by those such as Dawkins, et. al. One argument offered by Christians/religious individuals, is “look at all the good religion has done.” Included under that heading must be actions measured in these values. However, if things such as kindness, family life, concern for others, are not as valuable to atheists, the argument is effectively null. Who cares if a religious system has promoted these things, if these things aren’t all that important.
Instead, scientific inquiry becomes a value highly held, that the religious side has not, to the atheist, adequately promoted/given attention to.
I find the whole thing very fascinating.
nailinmyeye on October 15, 2007 at 4:08 PM
No gloating. Thanks for the information.
Maxx on October 15, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Francis Schaeffer, and G.K. Chesterton come to mind.
Weight of Glory on October 15, 2007 at 4:09 PM
All of that was to say that in this you can see roots of at least some of the conflict between the two groups.
nailinmyeye on October 15, 2007 at 4:09 PM
So what’s with the recent and intense evangelization movement among atheists? The past month has shown a HUGE increase in unsolicited and off-topic religious preaching by atheists in several different areas which I frequent. Are some of y’all trying to meet some sort of numerical goal or something?
Darin on October 15, 2007 at 4:10 PM
AP, I wasn’t targeting you, as you expressed dismay at those results. I was just commenting on the results of the poll.
I really try not to paint with a wide brush. Sorry if I didn’t qualify that comment enough.
Hoodlumman on October 15, 2007 at 4:10 PM
The biggest thing I see is that atheists seemed to be more into themselves verus anything that might make them vulnerable. God gave us all a free will and the choices for reasoning. I think the more an atheist looks into his or her shortcomings is because they lack something in thier lives. God is the major factor, if they don’t belive in Him, then they lack a huge part of living.We were put here on this earth to make a difference. It is a question everyone should ask,”Am I making a difference in this world”. To what extent is the driving force behind us all.
bones47 on October 15, 2007 at 4:11 PM
WOW! the generosity number is very interesting, especially given the debate on socialized health care. A nation that is less generous but more demanding.
Weight of Glory on October 15, 2007 at 4:12 PM
I think it’s probably prompted by the various social changes spawned from 9/11, the resulting war, and the upcoming wartime election which could see both a Democratic controlled congress as well as White House.
Some people are looking for excuses why we should not fight a war against Islam: because all religions are equally bad, they claim. Other people see a chance to advance their leftist agendas: there is still a connection between communism and many atheism. I’m sure there are other factors, but those two leapt to mind.
FloatingRock on October 15, 2007 at 4:18 PM
I think it’s pretty darn narcissistic to think that there is an incredibly powerful, omnipotent being that actually cares what you think and listens when pray to it.
The whole concept of a “personal diety” is just overwhelming arrogance on the part of believers.
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 15, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Maybe so. No gloating from me. I really would have thought otherwise. I mean what’s there to lose from a survey? Why not claim generosity is important?
Then again, maybe I only feel that way because I was raised in church, where giving money and volunteering time is just a way of life. When I was a child, we’d fill little barrels with coins and bring them in. It wasn’t even usually our own money, and it couldn’t have been more than a couple dollars, but it made us feel like we were helping.
Esthier on October 15, 2007 at 4:23 PM
Well done AP.
So far as a healthy Republic is concerned, its all about percentages or ratios if you prefer.
In America the obvious percentage lost is Judeo-Christian as the necessary majority.
Atheists perform their necessary function as honest brokers of state as separate from a potentially dominating church of any denomination.
Not so much, Atheists are far more in tune with the current society environment.
Pragmatically they don’t see a reason to exaggerate any particular virtue or vice as determined by practical advantage.
Speakup on October 15, 2007 at 4:27 PM
People like you never do get it. Atheism=no god, no god=no accountability to any other than yourself. Theism=god, god=accountable to someone else for your actions. In Atheism the entire focus is on self. In theism the personal focus is on god. Now look up the definition of narcissism. A narcissist is totally focused upon self. Not others, but self. Hence the results of this poll.
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 4:29 PM
So because theists self-profess to be honest, generous, and friendly, that makes it true? I’ve known plenty of dishonest, unfriendly religious people in my life. If a pollster point-blank asks you if you think it’s important to be “concerned for others” of course the theist is going to say yes, regardless of how that person acts in his/her own life. Atheists don’t feel the need to put up such facades.
Dude, you’re getting soft. “Concern for others” is a pretty squishy thing. I care about the people that are close to me, but I don’t have any particular feeling of concern for nebulous “others.” Who are these “others?” If I don’t know them, I don’t feel concern for them. I don’t think that’s particularly shameful.
Enrique on October 15, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Christianity has always had at its root, death to self. That each day we are to do our best to die to our own selfish desires, and rather focus on that which God demands. If there is one concept completely at odds with the Christian, it is the idea of self-love, narcissism. The doctrine of God hearing our prayers and being interested in our lives, finds its root in the goodness of God, in His condescension; because we merit it and expect it due to our own beauty.
Weight of Glory on October 15, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Perhaps American atheists can contribute to finance a study on patience.
That is if y’all don’t mind waiting for the results…
infidel4life on October 15, 2007 at 4:29 PM
Should say
Weight of Glory on October 15, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Maybe you’ll feel better if you focus on those virtues where the atheists scored higher than the theists, like…..umm…..nevermind.
RedWinged Blackbird on October 15, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Perhaps the stats regarding family life, patience, forgiveness and concern for others are interconnected. After all, having kids is what has caused my patience to grow exponentially over the past ten or so years. Needless to say, my kids also give me endless opportunities to forgive them.
SailorDave on October 15, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Concern for others 75 82 63
Forgiveness 75 84 52
Politeness 74 77 65
Friendliness 73 79 66
Patience 61 72 39
Generosity 55 67 37
Moral of the story: if one should find oneself in legal ‘troubles’ make sure to remove as many atheists as possible from the jury pool…
elgeneralisimo on October 15, 2007 at 4:36 PM
You don’t have to believe in God to care about other people. You can, but you don’t have to.
Jim Treacher on October 15, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Not to mention that this omnipotent being seems to be obsessed with sex. Despite all of His glorious power, the one thing the He is most interested in – the human vagina. If that doesn’t indicate God is man-made, I don’t know what does.
You say that like it’s a bad thing. The 9/11 hijackers were accountable to God. Maybe they should have been accountable to themselves.
Enrique on October 15, 2007 at 4:38 PM
The more one narrows their vision upon themselves the less any of those virtues have any pragmatic value. Religion asserts that yes, indeed you are your brothers keeper and you will be held accountable to that standard to one degree or another. Atheism asserts that their is neither eternal reward nor punishment for your deeds here on earth.
Hence for the atheist the only logical or pragmatic actions worthy of initiation are those whose consequences bear affirmative results to the individual. Beyond that all other considerations descend in direct proportions to secondary and tertiary impact to the individual.
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Well stated. You nailed it.
ulyses on October 15, 2007 at 4:43 PM
All this is very alien to me…I’ve never felt any ‘need’ to accept fantastical explanations for reality.
My view is – whatever makes you happy, just don’t waste my time
Ochlan on October 15, 2007 at 4:43 PM
I’m not saying its good or bad, thats for each individual to decide.
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 4:44 PM
There is no such thing as “extra imperfect”, you’re either perfect or you’re not.
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 4:46 PM
I think it just re-enforces that atheists are really just nihilists, doesnt it?
lorien1973 on October 15, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Your completely discounting environment to which theists are not immune either.
Also your assuming that being immoral is some kind of advantage and its not, no one gets very far by themselves.
Kindness, generosity, the golden rule applies just the same, Atheists just don’t exaggerate, as much.
You should assume Atheists act a lot like people, they the way they do just as Theists act in all their varied forms.
Speakup on October 15, 2007 at 4:56 PM
they the way they do just as Theists act in all their varied forms.= the way they do just as Theists act in all their varied forms.
One too many theys.
Speakup on October 15, 2007 at 4:58 PM
You seem to be having a reading comprehension problem. Where does the study say anything about theists “self-professing” to be honest, etc?
The survey asked about the value you place on the virtue.
Think of an example where someone gather 100 people together and asked them, “do you think it’s valuable/worthwhile to workout 3 times a week for 30 minutes each session?” If 75% of the people said they place a “high value” on that it doesn’t mean they’ll all be in phenomenal physical condition.
You’ve really nailed the narcissism image. Now the only thing that makes a person worthwhile is being Enrique or knowing Enrique?
Well, at least now we know where the center of the Universe is located.
12thman on October 15, 2007 at 4:59 PM
I think the sample may include a dipropotionate number of libs.
Also think about this:
If you ask a liar to rate the importants of honesty you will always wind up with skewed data.
Game over
TheSitRep on October 15, 2007 at 5:05 PM
man I suck at spelling
TheSitRep on October 15, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Sorry but the evidence just does not bear that out. San’s a deity to either reward or punish an individual there is simply no advantage to be gained from secondary and tertiary acts of altruism.
A secondary or tertiary act of altruism is an act that does not specifically benefit members of your blood, clan or immediate social order. A secondary or tertiary act of altruism in atheistic terms serves only to diminish the capacity to protect or enrich members of your blood, clan or immediate social order, hence has no virtue and no benefit.
Logically and pragmatically having no positive value and only detrimental affects makes such an action a undesirable and foolish action to be avoided.
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Firefox browser, auto spell check, way cool.
Speakup on October 15, 2007 at 5:11 PM
And – therein lies one of the differences between Christianity and atheism, which this poll happens to point up.
nailinmyeye on October 15, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Christians are just perfected atheists, anyways.
nailinmyeye on October 15, 2007 at 5:15 PM
I see a slight bias in the values being listed. Perhaps part of the picture is that nonbelievers tend to value other traits, traits that have not been listed in the survey. Some items that come to mind are
- rational thinking
- critical thinking
- reliance on facts
- respecting others’ right to be left alone
- curiosity
- ability to see things from others’ point of view
- self-reliance
- respecting privacy
- questioning authority
- questioning widely-held assumptions
I, as a nonbeliever, rate these values very highly. I imagine most of you will find at least the majority of them positive. Yet I suspect believers will tend to rate these values as less important than non-believers.
Then again, maybe I’m wrong. It would be interesting to see a survey.
factoid on October 15, 2007 at 5:15 PM
Yeah But I have problems getting it close enough for the spell checker to know what I am trying to spell.
TheSitRep on October 15, 2007 at 5:16 PM
LOL me too, that’s when I either paste it in word or open a new tab and let the www help.
I also like Firefox because its not top heavy with commercial apps and it gets around faster.
Speakup on October 15, 2007 at 5:22 PM
As a believer, I would rate most of those quite highly (all,actually, except possibly self-reliance).
One broad difference I see between what you have listed here, and the “values” listed in the survey, is that the believers’ values tend to be centered upon other people, and yours tend to be, largely but not entirely, centered upon the individual.
I wonder what, for the sake of this survey, was the working definition of “value.” I don’t know if I would necessarily categorize your list as specifically “values,” even though they are character traits/activities that one might personally value.
nailinmyeye on October 15, 2007 at 5:23 PM
Allahpundit already dealt with that false flag.
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 5:24 PM
Actually our atheists (and liberals) are nicer than yours. If it makes you feel better Im Christian and I’d have said “No” to at least half of those.
Darth Executor on October 15, 2007 at 5:25 PM
You’re forgiven.
OOOOOOPPPPS! I can’t believe I said that!
/52 percenter
RushBaby on October 15, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Hint…It is amazing how well Google is able to figure out what word you are trying to spell, almost frightening.
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Interesting comment.
1) Just because you don’t feel the “need” for something doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
2) I can’t think of a single explanation for existance (or perceived existance, aka reality) that isn’t fantastical. Can you?
12thman on October 15, 2007 at 5:32 PM
Reciprocal altruism doesn’t exist ?
elgeneralisimo on October 15, 2007 at 5:33 PM
As an American living in Canada, that just hasn’t been my experience. Sure, Canadians on the whole are wicked nice, and it is a great place to live – but the liberals I know get ticked, and condescending, especially when it comes to issues of politics, and faith. It is an interesting place! Thanks for having me.
nailinmyeye on October 15, 2007 at 5:36 PM
If you are doing it for a reciprocal effect, is it still altruistic?
nailinmyeye on October 15, 2007 at 5:37 PM
People’s self-reporting about many issues is utterly meaningless, as Socrates pointed out about 2500 year ago. People respond how they think should respond, without much thought. For instance, they poll people on whether they are happy or not in various countries and the someone issues a report on this poll. I don’t know many people who spend much time pondering whether they are happy, and so I would guess about zero correlation about reported level of happiness and actual level of happiness.
Anyway, they ask the happiness and they find that Belgians are less happy than Italians or some other bogus result and they report. I though I would do the same. I picked out the ten most unhappy, nasty human beings that I knew and asked them if they were happy. 70% reported being happy.
In short, I would just include this in your list of meaningless research with the sexy feminists who are great sexual partners.
thuja on October 15, 2007 at 5:39 PM
That’s just silly and a little vain.
Even the person who might completely devoid their life of emotional influence learns that in order to gain cooperation from others that give and take is absolutely necessary.
To function in every day life earning the respect of others is vitally important.
Are you now promoting Islam? Is every aspect of society not open to variation?
Society strongly promotes conformation, while I fully acknowledge that as a healthy component, Theism should provide the majority but by no means does that preclude all others outside of Theism as evil.
San’s a limiting influence every religion (other than Buddhism) has shown strong tendency towards deepening fundamentalism and can become totalitarian so the balance has to be there.
IMHO America is out of balance but none of us needs public flogging to know right from wrong or to do right from wrong either.
Speakup on October 15, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Moral of the story: if one should find oneself in legal ‘troubles’ make sure to remove as many atheists as possible from the jury pool…
If you your logic of believing that this poll has some meaing, people who like law and order should love atheist judges.
thuja on October 15, 2007 at 5:43 PM
How ’bout this: a “value” is an attitude about type of behavior that ultimately helps me form an opinion about the world around me and helps shape my own behavior.
For instance, generosity is a value. It’s a value I tend to rate highly, so when I hear about Bill Gates donating billions to charity, that improves my appreciation of him. By the same token, curiosity is a value, so when the President tells me he doesn’t read the papers it doesn’t enhance his image in my eyes.
I’d say in that sense, every trait I’ve listed is a value: if you have them, I’ll be more likely to appreciate you, and if you lack them I’ll be less likely to appreciate you.
factoid on October 15, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Sorry for my last post. I click before I was ready to post.
If you follow your logic of believing that this poll has some meaing, people who like law and order should love atheist judges.
thuja on October 15, 2007 at 5:43 PM
thuja on October 15, 2007 at 5:45 PM
Because only people who hold themselves accountable to God would do such a thing?
That statement is not grounded in fact.
Esthier on October 15, 2007 at 5:48 PM
1) That wasn’t my point at all.
2) That very much depends on your mentality.
I actually agree with your characterization of “reality” as “perceived”. I perceive heat and cold, and my sensation of same can save me from being burned or frozen, whatever the ultimate ‘truth’ behind these two physical phenomena is.
I can apply a mathematicalyl correct model to understand simple Newtonian physics, and this gives me something tangible I can ‘use’ within my ‘perceived reality’…I would not be content with an explanation that “angels carry things down to earth” when I could instead mathematically understand acceleration due to gravity.
It wasn’t so long ago that the rising of the sun, the changing of the seasons, and the success of a harvest, was attributed to God, spirits or whatever. Astronomy, Astrophysics, Biology etc have lead us to have more valuable understandings of these things. To me, as we have advanced scientifically, the ‘resolution’ with which we perceive reality has sharpened. Some still derive value from the mystical view of life, and that’s fine – whatever makes you happy.
Just don’t waste my time with it…it is of no value to me.
Ochlan on October 15, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Well, why would people be generous if they think we’re all monkeys locked in a “survival of the fittest” battle?
RightWinged on October 15, 2007 at 5:52 PM
No, but it nicely illustrates the absurdity of holding yourself accountable to a God that doesn’t bother to clarify these kinds of details.
Maybe God wants us to suicide bomb Jews. “God, if you don’t want me to suicide bomb Jews, show me a sign.”
See?
Enrique on October 15, 2007 at 5:54 PM
Read the Bible, you’ll see the sign.
Speakup on October 15, 2007 at 5:58 PM
Fine, but someone could just as easily decide that without an afterlife life itself is meaningless and burn themselves alive.
And that’s not a hypothetical.
Esthier on October 15, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Some surveys are so obvious. Never met an atheist who didn’t think of themselves first.
Good idea, have God give you a sign to bomb his chosen people…That is why atheist can be laughed at, they can’t argue intellectually. You represent the majority of atheists.
God if you want me to think most atheists who think like Enrique are stupid, post this comment.
right2bright on October 15, 2007 at 6:03 PM
What you are describing is not altruism, it’s called reciprocity. Altruism unlike reciprocity is an action with no beneficial causality effects attached to it. Reciprocity is give and take, altruism is not. Society depends upon reciprocity, without it you have no society.
Atheists are perfectly capable of reciprocity because it serves their interest to engage in it. Whereas altruism does not. As to Islam, no Islam is a dangerous political ideology masquerading as a religion. It was invented to justify murder rape plunder and oppression.
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 6:03 PM
I think pain might be a natural barrier to a large number of people taking that kind of action.
If your not worried about an afterlife living this one fully could become a priority, if you leave out fear.
Speakup on October 15, 2007 at 6:06 PM
Where would you say Altruism stems from?
Atheists are hardly exempt from generosity, they just aren’t as likely to exaggerate or use an illogical reasoning for it. That has nothing to do with narcissism.
BTW coincidentally the worst NPD afflicted individuals I have ever known are devout Christians.
Actually, personally, I don’t know any Atheists that fit the definition of Narcissistic.
Logic does not preclude morals, morals is knowing right from wrong and altruism can fall into that right column for an Atheist just as well as for a Theist.
Speakup on October 15, 2007 at 6:19 PM
It’s not the capacity that is in question, its the propensity. Altruism springs from a dedication to ideas far greater than oneself, ones blood relations or ones immediate social order. From a purely atheistic point of view anything that is detrimental to oneself, ones blood relations or ones immediate social order is in fact an immoral and unethical act.
That atheists engage in any sort of altruism is as the author of this study said.
It’s easy to be generous when reciprocity is in play. Thats the difference between altruism and reciprocity. Reciprocity knows that in some fashion its act will be rewarded. In contrast altruism knows that its act not only will not be rewarded, but that it will have negative connotations for the individual engaging in altruism.
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 6:35 PM
Bingo, an attribute completely in line with Atheist logic.
Speakup on October 15, 2007 at 6:42 PM
Amen !
Maxx on October 15, 2007 at 6:44 PM
No its not, nothing could be further from the truth. Atheism is the objectification of self as the center of reality. Descartes “I think therefore I am” codifies the absolute epicenter of atheistic thought.
Atheism devoid of any center of mass greater than self revolves around self. All of the precepts and tenants of atheism predicate upon progenesis of self and rely upon reciprocity to achieve this end.
This is not to say that atheists are incapable of morals or ethics, but that their morals and ethics of necessity are based upon self interest and the reciprocity required to secure those self interests.
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 7:02 PM
One or the other Dorian. Morals or amoral, I cannot be the epicenter and not break moral boundaries.
Narcissism excludes the moral of accepting good for others, which of itself is illogical.
Speakup on October 15, 2007 at 7:10 PM
Do you not realize that “not long ago” astronomers, physicists, biologists etc. believed some pretty “crazy” things? You would be hard pressed to find Christians today who believe that angels bring apples down from trees and not gravity.
In other words, don’t compare religious views of how the world works from a thousand years ago with scientific views of today.
Why is it that atiests allow for the fact that science is continually refining its understanding of the physical universe yet they never allow for theists and religions to grow in their undestand of the spiritual universe and God?
None of this, as interesting as it is, answers #2 anyway.
Refresher:
Explanation for existance itself, not gravity, anatomy, the distributive property or any such thing.
12thman on October 15, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Reciprocity my friend, reciprocity. The entire concept of reciprocity is I will do for others because I benefit by doing so. Only in the narrowest sense does looking out for number one exclude looking out for others.
Looking out for number one demands that a significant effort be dedicated to looking out for others because it is absolutely impossible for a single individual to ensure their survival and the survival of their progeny entirely one their own.
doriangrey on October 15, 2007 at 7:30 PM
Honest atheists have to admit they’re standing on the backs of theists. It’s quite annoying the atheists who act like they came up with virtue all on their lonesome.
frankj on October 15, 2007 at 7:35 PM
Perhaps anyone could logically see the benefit in the greater good.
Production of ideas greater than ourselves does not require theism.
For Atheists to be narcissistic they would also need to incorporate the emotion of jealousy, the envy of someone else’s benefit and obviously, that’s not logical.
Atheists have every bit as much capability for morals, anyone who is moralistic is also willing to accept the concept of altruism.
Besides, who is the perfect Theist and who is the perfect Atheist?
People are people, they act a lot like people, no matter where you put them.
Speakup on October 15, 2007 at 7:47 PM
Which is tough, considering how slippery angel wings are.
Jim Treacher on October 15, 2007 at 8:14 PM
frankj on October 15, 2007 at 7:35 PM
No, honest atheists would admit to having to clean up the mess that you theists create.
I wonder what the divorce rates are comparing atheists and theists. Also, robbery, murder, etc. We all know a giant majority of mass murderers in history have been theists, although people still try and argue against the evidence. Trying to paint atheists as sub-human through some stupid poll is quite stupid.
muyoso on October 15, 2007 at 8:17 PM
Um, actually the biggest mass murderers have been social Darwinists. Admittedly, some claimed (for the sake of gaining support) to be religious, though it wasn’t evidenced in their behavior and they didn’t act based on their religion.
As for painting atheists as “sub-human”, etc. etc…. What!? It’s elitist atheists fancy themselves “intellectuals” and superior to these simple believers.
RightWinged on October 15, 2007 at 9:50 PM
What surprises me is not that generosity and patience are so low but that honesty is so high. I can understand, if you believe that this life is all there is, that you would be averse to wasting time that you will never get back and wasting resources that will never pay off. But what is the value of honesty if honest people are just as dead as dishonest ones at the end of the day? That is something I could never figure out a good answer to when I was an atheist.
I used to admire people like Friederich Nietzsche, Jean Paul Sartre and Algernon Swinburne because they seemed to be bravely looking into a world made of crap and calling what it was. But after you are gone, who the hell is going to care? Certainly not you, and the posterity that you may affect, even if they do care, they will soon be dead too. I have always had a love of the truth, but I could never explain it satisfactorily to myself without recourse to some external standard which simply doesn’t exist in an atheist scenario.
JackOfClubs on October 15, 2007 at 10:20 PM
So, is there such a thing as theistic altruism if said theist is only doing it to avoid eternal damnation? That smacks of self-centeredness to me.
If they are not doing it for that reason, then why?
MikeZero on October 15, 2007 at 10:57 PM
All right already, we get it. Atheists good, theists bad.
ZK on October 15, 2007 at 11:13 PM
Watch what they do, not what they say, especially if what they say comes from one poll done by one sociologist.
A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.
- Albert Einstein
MB4 on October 15, 2007 at 11:20 PM
I’ve corrected you countless times on this before and you still lay out this fallacious argument in attempts that people will gloss over it and accept what you’re saying as truth. Look up Thomas Hobbes, look up social contract theory. People who don’t believe in God don’t simply do whatever they want, and there’s a reason for this.
Nonfactor on October 16, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Then Hillary doesn’t really care for us? How to convey this to the millions who plan to vote for her?
Entelechy on October 16, 2007 at 1:45 AM
And atheists wonder why Christians warn them that they are going to Hell.
BTW look at the word atheist. It amazes me that for those that do not believe in God should identify themselves by their relationship or rather lack of relationship to him.
- The Cat
MirCat on October 16, 2007 at 3:11 AM
Atheists?
What’s an atheist?
William
William2006 on October 16, 2007 at 3:39 AM
No. No atheist wonders that.
Keep in mind that atheists don’t just not believe in your god, we don’t believe in anyone’s god.
Nonfactor on October 16, 2007 at 5:50 AM
It all comes down to reciprocity, without honesty, you have no reciprocity. Reciprocity is the art of compromise and negotiation. Without good faith or honesty no negotiated compromise is of any value.
doriangrey on October 16, 2007 at 10:39 AM
Are we going to get a post on this blog from the big “A” on What’s so great about Christianity?
I’m holding my breath. It would help you get your I-phone, AP. You might want to think about it.
Some points from the book:
*Why Christianity explains what modern science tells us about the universe and our origins–that matter was created out of nothing, that light preceded the sun–better than atheism does.
*How Christianity created the framework for modern science, so that Christianity and science are not irreconcilable, but science and atheism might be.
*Why the alleged sins of Christianity–the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Galileo affair (“an atheist’s fable”)–are vastly overblown.
*Why atheist regimes are responsible for the greatest mass murders of history.
*Why evolution does not threaten Christian belief, but actually supports the “argument from design”.
*Why atheists fear the Big Bang theory and the “anthropic principle” of the universe, which are keystones of modern astronomy and physics.
*How Christianity explains consciousness and free will, which atheists have to deny.
*Why ultimately you can’t have Western civilization–and all we value from it–without the Christianity that gave it birth.
Dinesh D’Souza (Author) is doing a book tour right now.
Mcguyver on October 16, 2007 at 11:37 AM
He shoots, he scores!
Loundry on October 16, 2007 at 4:47 PM
A Christian telling an atheist that their god is going to torture them for all eternity? What a glorious example of “Christian love”!
Here comes the “personal relationship” garbage! (Christians to this as part of the “Christianity isn’t a religion, it’s a relationship” trope.) Show me chapter and verse in which a “personal relationship” is mentioned in scripture.
I agree with you, Enrique. Christians are typically much better at talking than they are at doing, and when they’re asked, “Are you kind/humble/loving?” then I expect them to enthusiastically gush, “Oh, yes!” despite the fact that their actions tell an entirely different story.
Loundry on October 16, 2007 at 4:53 PM