Religiously unaffiliated people most strongly believe that empathy is a foundational moral value. Note that doesn't necessarily mean atheists; people who believe in God but don't associate with any particular religion would be in that group. In fact, I can't find any information about whether atheists are included in this survey, or if this was exclusively a survey of religious people.

Interesting (but not exactly surprising) results here. Makes me glad that "religiously unaffiliated" is the fastest growing religion in the U.S.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 week ago* (3 children)

Listen, I am not a big fan of religeous people either, but I think that whole 'calling them all delusional' thing most internet atheists do is kind of not ok. First of all, delusions are a very real psychology term, which, to some degree would apply to religious beleifs, but also not, because technically the arguement that all of their bullshit can't be disproved is actually valid.

And then secondly, it is only said to insult them. It adds no helpful insights, and just sounds edgy for the sake of it.

But besides all that, I was really just trying to say that of course they would choose "God" over "Empathy". We would all choose our own "gods" over any single virtue, because we all consider our "gods" to be the most virtuous things, whatever they may be to you.

If you don't pick your "God" over "Empathy", then it is NOT your "God".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (2 children)

    'If God exists, why does he behave like a narcissistic absentee landlord with a flair for blood rituals and dietary restrictions? The Abrahamic deity, revered across continents, seems less like a cosmic architect and more like a Bronze Age tribal chieftain with anger management issues. Yet billions genuflect before him daily. Religious faith is often praised as a virtue. But what other domain celebrates belief without evidence? Would you board a plane built by someone who “just felt” the wings would hold? Would you trust a surgeon who prays instead of sterilizing instruments? Richard Dawkins famously called faith “a process of non-thinking.” Yet society elevates it above reason, as if ignorance were a badge of honour. Why is faith exempt from the scrutiny we apply to every other claim? Religion thrives not because it is true, but because it is comforting. It offers immortality, cosmic justice, and a celestial surveillance system that rewards obedience. Freud called religion “a universal obsessional neurosis.” Is it any wonder that belief correlates strongly with existential insecurity? Consider: If you were guaranteed eternal life through science, would you still need God? Or is belief merely a coping mechanism dressed in sacred robes? The Bible commands love, yet sanctions genocide (see Deuteronomy 20:16). It preaches humility yet demands worship. It forbids murder yet glorifies divine slaughter. If morality comes from God, why does it resemble the ethics of a medieval warlord? Sam Harris argues that morality predates religion and is better served by reason and empathy than by scripture. So why do we outsource ethics to ancient texts? Enter the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Church of the SubGenius, and the Invisible Pink Unicorn parody religions that expose the absurdity of faith by mimicking its structure. Ethan Quillen’s “The Satirical Sacred” explores how these mock faiths challenge religious privilege and reveal the arbitrary nature of belief. Ask yourself: If a belief system is indistinguishable from parody, should it be taken seriously? Religion is not benign. It fuels sectarian violence, suppresses scientific progress, and enforces archaic social norms. From the Crusades to anti-vaccine movements, faith has often been a force of regression. Shouldn’t beliefs be judged by their consequences? Religion persists not because it is rational, but because it is ritualized, institutionalized, and incentivized. It is a cultural fossil revered, untouchable, and absurd. The atheist does not merely reject God; he rejects the intellectual laziness that sustains Him. Do you believe because it is true, or because you were told to? And if the answer is the latter, what else might you be wrong about?'

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 days ago (1 child)

    Ummm, yes? You aren't incorrect?

    I don't beleive in a god other then the univese/physics/the natural processes themselves.

    I was just saying that it is absolutely not surprising that if you beleive in something in a religeous way, you'd choose it over what you consider lesser virtues.

    I would rather, for instance, stop global warming then end world hunger. This is entirely because I revere the planet itself more then human life in a very spiritual feeling way.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

    The most common impediment to clear thinking that non-believer must confront is the idea that the burden of proof can be fairly placed on his shoulders: "How do you know there is no God? Can you prove it? You atheists are just as dogmatic as the fundamentalists you criticize." This is nonsense: even the devout tacitly reject thousands of gods, along with the cherished doctrines of every religion but their own. Every Christian can confidently judge the God of Zoroaster to be a creature of fiction, without first scouring the universe for evidence of his absence. Absence of evidence is all one ever needs to banish false knowledge. And bad evidence, proffered in a swoon of wishful thinking, is just as damning. But honest reasoning can lead us further into the fields of unbelief, for we can prove that books such as the Bible and the Quran bear no trace of divine authorship. We know far too much about the history of these texts to accept what they say about their own origins. And just imagine how good a book would be if an omniscient Being had written it.

  • source
  • parent