This Discussion is feature more Psychology Babble. So if you think you're heads going to explode from too many technical terms, feel free to tune out. lol


Psychology has a "superstar" who made a HUGE impact on the psychological study of the development of human morality. His name was Kohlberg. Kohlberg's Theory sets out three levels of development in human morality... advancement indicates higher moral maturity. Let me say this now: I DO NOT agree with Kohlberg on some parts of his theory, but, in general I think he was fairly accurate.


The reason most atheists have a higher developmental level of morality is because we are [most of us] in the "last stage" - Postconventional Morality Reasoning. Whereas, the majority of traditional theists [esp. monotheists] fall into either the first or the secong stage. You will see this for yourself in a moment.



This stage is most often found in childhood, although it is not uncommon to find it in adolescents and even adults. This level of thinking is highly primitive in cognition development. At this stage the person [usually the child] bases their moral reasoning and decision making on rewards and punishments.

Among children, the most familiar of these is "should I take that cookie even though mom says 'no."

For many children this is a choice between being punished for taking one... or not being punished.

When it applies to logical reasoning, Pre-Conventional Moralizers base their distinction of right and wrong on this: If I am rewarded for action X, then action X is Right. If I am punished for action X, then action X is wrong.

Among Religious Adults this level of moral reasoning is common in those who ascribe to the doctrine of Hell.


How does this subscibe to this level?


The basic level of thinking of those who believe in Hell is...

"I should do what God asks because if I do, I will be rewarded in Heaven."


"If I don't do what God asks, then I will be punished in Hell... so therefore... I should do what God asks."

People who reason morality on this level do not think of whether what "God says" is consistent, or causes other people pain and suffering. To be perfectly honest, they don't think about or don't care about other people's suffering or injustice. They just want to be rewarded for their actions and not punished for disobedience. I don't know of ANY atheists that base morality on this... because if we did, we most likely wouldn't be atheists. lol.



Let it be noted that few adults get past this stage of moral reasoning.

At this stage the person bases moral judgements and actions on "what others think is right or wrong" and/ or upon what an AUTHORITY thinks is "right or wrong." Basicaly the thought process of this individual is like this: "If Authority Y thinks X is right, then X is right. If authority Y thinks X is wrong, then X is wrong."  Like Pre-Conventional thinking. These people are characterized by being unable to think for themselves.


Few atheists are at this level either because we tend to DEFY religious authority.


When it comes to religious morality, the Christian [or Muslim or Jew] is likely to base what is right and wrong on "what God says" but their reasoning has more to do with "what is written in the Bible" then "whether they get to heaven or hell." - although they still may try to use the doctrine of hell to convert people to believers.


They may quote the "Ten Commandments" as a basis for moral judgments.... and in this stage there is NO EXCEPTION TO THE RULES! The rules are viewed as absolute, so anyone who breaks them is wrong no matter what.




As said before, few adults ever reach this level.

This is the HIGHEST level of developmental moral reasoning.

The individual in this level bases moral judgements and reasoning on an internal moral compass. They are willing to break not only religious rules, but also government laws... if they deem that necessary to do the right thing. They are characterized by the ability to think for themselves and are more able to "put themselves in the other person's shoes." Also, some individuals at this level demonstrate a will to rebel against authority if authority members step out of line of what they consider "moral."


The individual at this stage tends to think like this: "If action X causes less suffering/ is more important then action Y, then it is right. If action X causes more suffering/ is less important then action Y, then it is wrong."



Views: 2632

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The historical Jesus is the topic of a completely different discussion of mine. If you wish to continue discussing that... I hope you will do it here:
But I also think you should check out this video:
It's a really intriguing clip from the documentary "the god who wasn't there"
BTW... The reason you should get into the discussion post I posted above is because the historicity [or not] of Jesus is hotly debated among atheists.
I personally do not think he existed, based on several books by new testament scholars I have read [check out books by Robert M. Price.. "Jesus is Dead" and "The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man"]

Epiphenom is skeptical site, so I would expect it to print studies that confirmed what it believes. I do not believe the article shows that there is more crime where there are more Christian churches. I grew up living across the street from an evangelical church. The kids in the neighborhood, including me, would sneak up and look in the windows at night to watch them. It was a form of entertainment for us. We humans can be led to believe most anything, expecially when told by a voice of authority to do so.
Yes, very weak. It is not necessary to find fault with believers in order to be an atheist. It is only a matter of believe. I don't find much comfort in any belief system.
I have been through these kinds of discussions for years, and don't want any more of them.

faith and belief are interchangable for describing what people believe in. There is knowing that comes from experience, and if we can't experience something then we have faith or belief in it or we have no faith or no belief in it or we just don't know.

One man's superstition is another's faith. Judging others and condemning their beliefs is to not take the moral high road. At the least proof must be shown, before taking such an action. Finding fault and condenming without solid proof ties you to the same tree as your enemies.
Atheism isn't a belief system.
I do not agree. When people have had their thought process tampered with in order to believe the ridiculous then they are working on faulty reasoning. Hypocrisy, suppressed violence and self delusion are standard mind sets for evangelical types. This is backed up by a fairly comprehensive body of research and is discussed and explained (with all sources cited) in a free book that can be downloaded here:

Such faulty reasoning is bound to lead to a rise in crime when the victims of such serious mental disorders are also subjected to the additional pressures applied by life in poverty.
If you take the research I have cited and place it in context with the stuff doone cited then I believe there is a very compelling case that the religion is a major factor in causing crime in poor areas.
Religion does not cause crime, people cause crime. Everyone on this earth has a belief system they use to traverse it. Whether it is a belief in God or not belief in God such belief does not cause crime. To say that all beliefs, or faith is ignorance it to ignore reality. I think most will agree with the belief that the food we buy at the supermarket is ok to eat even when we have no prove of that fact.

Oh, my, didn't mean to start a war. I again say everyone has a belief system. I just don't think Atheists are any different. We humans have faith in a multitide of things. If you set your alarm clock, you have faith there will be another day and you will be here to live it. We could not live without faith.


Now it may be true that you have never got anything bad from shopping at the supermarket. But that does not prove, or is not a fact, that you won't. Many have got bad things from buying food. It is not a sure thing. That is why when we shop we have faith.


Now it is OK to have faith. Nothing wrong with it. Atheists don't have to put down religion in order to be atheists. No rule that says such thing. Let me explain that I am not religious, but I have seen some wonderful things done by religious people, feeding the hungry, providing shelter for the homeless, etc., etc.




Everyone may have a belief system, but atheism itself is not a belief system; it's a lack of belief in one thing. Now, I'll agree, there are atheists who have belief systems... but those beliefs are positive, such as humanism or what have you. All humans have the ability to construct their own systems of belief, and atheists differ very much in their approach to the world. We (atheists) don't actually, nor necessarily, have much in common.

But I think you misunderstand faith, or there's a disagreement about what it is between you and the rest of us on the site. Faith is belief without evidence. Repetitious occurrences give us good reason to assume that our food will not be poison, or that our alarm will go off, or that the world will continue spinning on its axis. I do assume these things will continue because they have done so for so long.

If there were contrary evidence, however, I would change my stance. Faith does not allow you to change your stance in light of new evidence. You must believe that the god you believe in is good; you have faith that he is, and you dismiss anything that might suggest otherwise. You ignore facts like Yahweh is guilty of genocide and infanticide. You rationalize atrocities because you must in order to keep your faith.

There's nothing in this world I wouldn't be willing to change my mind about, including the "rising" of the sun or the fact that my alarm will go off, if there were evidence to suggest a change in what I take for granted. Faith is inflexible and immune to facts. No, it is not okay to have faith. It's foolish. But apparently foolishness is a virtue, according to the Bible. Faith and foolishness go hand-in-hand, and if you deny that, you're denying what the Bible plainly states.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil. But for good people to do evil -- that takes religion." - Steven Weinberg
By definition good people become bad people when they do bad regardless of whether they are religious or not. I think from reading the posts you and the others hate religion, would like to ask if you also hate the people that are religious because if you do this could be call a hate group. Not by me, of course. Anyway it is not taking the moral highground to condemn and hate others because of their beliefs. If I were an atheist I would not be able to join a group that didn't love their enemies. Enemies that they have chosen to label such.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service