Religious people are not more moral than atheists

Link

Shocker! There is no freaking difference... It was a very thorough study on the subject that had over 1200 people from all different religions and did daily research on them.

"Wisneski and his fellow researchers found that religious and nonreligious people commit similar numbers of moral acts. The same was found to be true for people on both ends of the political spectrum. And regardless of their political or religious leanings, participants were all found to be more likely to report committing, or being the target of, a moral act rather than an immoral act. They were also much more likely to report having heard about immoral acts rather than moral acts."

You don't say.

True, but we don't tend to view people like Sam Harris or thunderf00t as great thinkers, either.

hate to admit, but the world we live in today, your semi/kinda-right.

I call into question the religions that the participants specifically and individually identified with in the duration of that study. Furthermore, I call into question the credibility of any Christian who reveled in their pride after first recognizing its influence. In addition, I call into question the OP's implications asserting that all non-religious individuals are atheist by default and the study findings implying people identifying as "religious," an ambiguous term, all have similar morals, overall as well.

Although I'm guessing there is some truth in the thread title, the actual implementation of this study is really terrible.

It was pretty obvious. Religion just gives a bigger meaning to those morals. It doesn't boost your morality.

Being religious in itself doesn't mean much because different religions have different rules. For example, there are plenty of Christians who, despite being married, have engaged in fornication and adultery. With Islam, different interpretations result in different actions, such as small things like women who don't wear hijabs or big things like blowing up a market full of people just to kill a handful of nonbelievers.

The main thing you need to get out of that statement is not all people who are religious are created equal. While I'm not saying you do it, I've seen a few atheists who claim that the WBC is how ALL Christians act, which is just as false as the idea that ALL Muslims are extremists who want to kill anybody who doesn't pray to Allah.

Organized religion and their "holy" scriptures...

Having 'morals' because someone tells you to isn't having morals, really. It's just conforming to a set of ideas for fear of what may happen if you don't. Who is more moral between two people, one who doesn't kick you in the shins because he thinks it's wrong to hurt another person, or the one who doesn't because he thinks it's wrong to hurt another person because jesus said so and if you don't listen to jesus you're going to hell?

That's all fine and well, but don't neglect to mention how much secular morality is also based on self-interest. I'm an atheist who tries to be good, but I've gotta be honest here: a lot of my incentive for being good is due to the fact that feeling like I did the right thing gives me a sense of satisfaction. When I avoid being an asshole to strangers, it accomplishes two goals that have a very clear benefit to me: I stay on their good side and avoid conflict with them, and I get to feel like I'm better than all the assholes who I tend to meet in the course of a day. Sure, I don't try to be good because of some heavenly reward, but one of the things I hope to accomplish by being good is the ability to go to sleep at the end of the day without feeling like I'm a huge piece of shit. And...is that really THAT different?

This is just pure speculation, but I'd wager money on it being EXTREMELY rare for people to knowingly and repeatedly engage in "good" behavior that doesn't in their minds benefit themselves in some way. I could dedicate my life to bettering humanity and then getting consistently beaten up for it, but I still get the satisfaction of knowing that I'm the good guy.

water is wet

Only between 0° and 100° at ~1bar

If anyone thinks that being religious makes you a better person then chances are you are a horrible person.

Yeah? I didn't need a study to figure that out.

If doing bad things didnt felt bad and i wouldnt get its results (getting some kind of punishment) i think i would steal/kill/rape etc. (if i could obvsly) morality is meaningless imo.

well most of the religions are saying people to do good things, im not saying they are making people better, however its normal for a person to think a religious people would do more good compared to non-religious people.

Why is it normal to assume they do more good? Lots of atheists do good things and many religions encourage absolutely horrible behaviour from their followers.

Well maybe a lot of religions encourages horrible behaviour, but more popular religions (christianity,islam, i dont know anything about it but i think judaism too) encourages good things, such as helping poor people, being glad for what you have (these are good things in my opinion, i think morality is relative however we are generalising, so i dont think that matters). So in short, religious people have a reason to do something good, while atheist are doing something just for being a good person. So for a person looking from outside, it is easy to think that a religious person would do more good since he/she has a reason . Well there are fanatics, who hate people just because they are not believing the thing they believe. Or people who kills others just because of their religions. But im just saying its easy to get that impression.

I'm kind of learning English on the way (is this how you say it? lol), and im also kind of dizzy, i hope what i wrote makes sense

@humanistpotato: Your English is fine =)

And yeah, you are probably right in what you wrote, but sadly the vast majority of Christians (don't have much experience with other religions) I know believes that going to church every day, ending every other sentence with "God willing..." and asking for forgiveness after committing the "sin" they knew fully well beforehand they shouldn't commit (according to their own religion) is enough to grant them access to Heaven, since we (I was a Christian once too) are taught that God rejoices more when a sinner repents before death than for a man who was good for all of his/her life...or so is the interpretation that is easiest to live by.

Christianity, Islam and Judaism also encourage homophobia, sexism and racism.

For every good thing the bible or Quran tells you to do there is also a bad thing it tells you to do, so it cancels itself out.

Well i havent read their books however i dont think for a person to be raise his children to not to be gay is a bad thing, but some religious people takes it like if we should punish gay people. I dont know if the religions actually says that, but i think its people twisting religions like we did to start wars. I dont think any religion encourages racism (i know islam doesnt at least). Well sexism part is somewhat true.

By the way when i said its ok for a person to think he/she shouldnt be homosexual, i meant, that being homosexual, or not being one doesnt hurts anybody. However general public would like to raise their children as normal, generic as possible , so its like being asocial, you dont want your kid to be asocial but if he is, you dont/shouldnt hate him/her for it. If you think being asocial is a horrible disease you probably wont agree with me. But i dont think it is, its like something in your nature, you can overcome it to some extent, but you wont completely get over it. It's like pushing down your feelings. So i thought it is somewhat similiar subject.

Would you say a person could "overcome" its homosexuality?

This is exactly my point. It's impossible to raise a child to not be gay, by attempting to do so all you're doing is harming the child.

You're letting your religion blind your common sense and are causing harm to people.

Sorry what i meant was acting against your own nature, and after a while it gets natural. Even tho it isnt. I think i used the wrong word

Well, i think if a kid was raised around homosexual people while, everybody tells him being homo is the way to go. It's more likely for him/her to be a homosexual. But that wasnt a part of my first post.

I just said its ok for a person thinking being homosexual is a sin. As long as he/she doesnt tries to imply his thougts to others.

Anyway i dont think being gay, religous, or whatever you want to be can be accused as good nor bad, i might have my thoughts you might has yours, but some atheists acts like they are the ultimate being and being a traditional people is being a bad person or whatever. Making a moral point as if being traditional is wrong, is just wrong Some people are like acting like popes of 1400s while saying its wrong to force others to think as same as you. Im not saying you are one of them (since i dont even know you in real life i cant anyway)

Due language barrier, i cant exactly say what i want to say sometimes, sorry about that

So does being raised around black people make someone black?

Like I said you can't raise a child to not be gay. I know people who's parents tried that on them and it's nothing more than psychological torture. You can't say that torture is ok simply because "you have your thoughts and I have mine"

Luckily most religious people I've met don't have false ideas that they are better people for their beliefs

Without getting into a discussion of the topic of the study......I will say the study does not seem very well done.

Well i dont thing your sexual choice is like your race, you cant change your race in time, but you can change your sexual choice as your thoughts and feelings changes in time. If you thing they wont and what we feel is %100 our nature and not our thoughts ok you are right in your logic yes. However i dont think our thoughts are %100 ours, we simply get most of them from what we see, what we told, what we read.

I think a lot of people makes their important decisions just because others does and its a normal thing. And since a person wont make his/her sexual choices before puberty, what he/she hears/sees/reads since that age is going to effect his/her choice. Well there are hormones that are in effect, and obviously some people will have different feelings and forcing them to be someone else than what they want to be is painful for that person, you are right. But, it's normal for general public to think and act something is normal. And as a side note i dont think my sexual choice was %100 my nature yes.

Anyway i think we should agree to disagree

Religious people and atheists are equally annoying. Especially atheists.

The religious folks really think that non-religious ppl have no morals? Morons...

I was thinking the same thing. I too think there is truth in the findings but the experiment failed to eliminate all secondary variables. For example each persons morality varies. If you ask 2 people to record moral and immoral acts they may have different views of morality and thus view the same event differently. Also people are far less likely to report the immoral acts that they commit than the moral ones.

Bolded: This is my problem with any study revolving around this issue.

If you don't have any beliefs you are in fact an atheist. There weren't only christians, there were other religions aswell. They covered their basics

duh

An individual can be a Christian, but not go to church. That would make them non-religious, but not atheist.

There are also churches which tolerate homosexuality, promote equality of both sexes, and support all races.

What do you have to say about them?

@BranKetra said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@BranKetra said:

I call into question the religions that the participants specifically and individually identified with in the duration of that study. Furthermore, I call into question the credibility of any Christian who reveled in their pride after first recognizing its influence. In addition, I call into question the OP's implications asserting that all non-religious individuals are atheist by default and the study findings implying people identifying as "religious," an ambiguous term, all have similar morals, overall as well.

If you don't have any beliefs you are in fact an atheist. There weren't only christians, there were other religions aswell. They covered their basics

An individual can be a Christian, but not go to church. That would make them non-religious, but not atheist.

...um, that is not how it works. If they identify as Christian, then they are religious, church attendance or not.

It is.

Relgious:

"relating to or believing in a religion."

"(of a belief or practice) forming part of someone's thought about or worship of a divine being."

"belonging or relating to a monastic order or other group of people who are united by their practice of religion."

"treated or regarded with a devotion and scrupulousness appropriate to worship."

Many go to church in order to perform their regular worship, an important trait of being a Christian. If one does not associate (relate) with a church, it can be said that one might not be religious, though not objectively applicable to all non-attending Christians.

@BranKetra said:

@SaintLeonidas said:

@BranKetra said:

@The_Last_Ride said:

@BranKetra said:

I call into question the religions that the participants specifically and individually identified with in the duration of that study. Furthermore, I call into question the credibility of any Christian who reveled in their pride after first recognizing its influence. In addition, I call into question the OP's implications asserting that all non-religious individuals are atheist by default and the study findings implying people identifying as "religious," an ambiguous term, all have similar morals, overall as well.

If you don't have any beliefs you are in fact an atheist. There weren't only christians, there were other religions aswell. They covered their basics

An individual can be a Christian, but not go to church. That would make them non-religious, but not atheist.

...um, that is not how it works. If they identify as Christian, then they are religious, church attendance or not.

Not quite.

Some response... If someone is Christian then they are religious. There is no debating that. The very definition of "religious" is relating to/believing in a religion. Christianity is a religion. You can believe in god and be non-religious, but you CAN NOT believe in Christianity and be non-religious. Pretty simple actually.

Some response, indeed. See edit.

@SaintLeonidas: I guess it depends on individual definitions then since to various religious people the term means someone actively involved in the religion...not just saying they are a specific religion.

Christians go to church, but going to church does not make you Christian. Christianity is a religion...if you believe in that religion, and identify as such, then you are religious. Anyone who says other wise is not being true to their religious beliefs. A Christian who says they are non-religious is either not actually a Christian or they aren't really non-religious.

The bolded is not similar to what I was talking about. The important point is perspective. Someone can be baptized as an infant, but not ever consciously practice Christianity. I do not believe that makes them a Christian. People are entitled to their opinions, though. Also, I am Pentecostal Christian, so I do not believe in representatives speaking on my behalf to the Most High.

How many times are we going to have this same conversation? Why are you so insecure about your believes?

Just because someone didn't mention something that doesn't mean they don't think it exists. Yes there are a lot of Christians that aren't homophobic, racist or sexist. But that's not relevant, if you read the bible it is clearly racist, sexist and homophobic.

What you are doing is slander. Stop it.

Religion keeps you thinking about what God would want rather than just yourself. In essence this makes religious people more trustworthy when it comes to doing the right thing where as atheists largely tend to be more sneaky and only consider doing what is right for them.

Whether that makes religious people more likely to be moral comes down to how one defines morality I suppose, but I'll stick with groups who tend to be more trustworthy.

Do you even know what that word means? What I said is clearly not slander, who am I slandering?

Clearly.

It would not be slander. However, you are very repetitive in your mission to demonize Abrahamic religions using half-truths. Good luck with that when users confront you.

If someone was baptized as a Christian, but grows up and doesn't identify as being a Christian, then they aren't one. It isn't something you are born into. YOU decide whether you are one or not. If you choose to be a Christian, then you are a Christian. There isn't some test you have to take. Their aren't "set" standards that you MUST follow. Many practice Christianity (and other religions) in their own way - but at the end of the day they still all identify themselves as being a part of that religion. Which makes them religious, just by varying degrees.

That being said, your original post was: "An individual can be a Christian"... if someone IS a Christian (as your post stated) then it means they identify as such. Doesn't matter how "consciously" they practice the religion; if that is their belief, and how they identify themselves, then they ARE a Christian - which is a religion, making them religious (based on its established definition).

You can believe in god but not be religious - but you can not believe in a religion and be non-religious (it would be a complete contradiction).