If Atheism were proven to be the absolute truth, would that automatically make religious belief morally wrong?

Asked by: Ragnar
  • Yes of course

    It is immoral to believe the false, to indoctrinate children with the false is immoral. It is immoral to go around threatening the entire worlds population with eternal punishment in a fiery inferno even if it does not exist.

    It costs money to run religious centres, you know, which could be used else where.

  • Atheism has no proof

    Unlike religions which have fundamentals, believe in sciences, morals, and most importantly follow Jesus and trust in God. Atheism is wrong and will never be proven right. EVER. There is no way to completely prove it throughout our days because people will always have disbelief, so does that answer the question?

  • It's hard to judge why someone believes.

    Religious people if absolutely wrong, are silly. Good works they do as a group remain good works, even if silly. They gather for silly reasons like Christmas/Hanukkah.

    Rare is the moral outcry, against people for being a little odd.

    On the other hand bad things anyone does for any reason is equally bad, regardless of if religion is involved or not.

  • If atheism were proven to be true, that would only make religions false. That is all it would make it.

    In this situation, having a religion would not be immoral. Science would disagree with the beliefs of the religious, but that would not make the religious hated. If someone was to hold up an apple, and say with complete certainty "this is a mango," would you hate them? No, they would just be wrong. At the moment, we do not know whether or not atheism or a particular religion is true or false. For those of you who know about Schrodinger's Cat, you can apply that here as well. Is atheism true or false? Neither and both. We don't know for sure. So back to the question: Would they be morally wrong? Of course not.

  • If Atheism were the absolute truth, morality doesn't matter.

    If we are indeed the product of lightning hitting a mud puddle, than what is the point of being moral in the first place? I'll just be an insignificant pile of bones in less than 100 of those 4.5 billion years the earth has existed right? My life would be a short blip on the time line of existence, so what is the point of whether or not I am good to someone?

  • No, it would make a person ignorant,

    But not morally inept. It doesn't matter whether someone believes in a divine being or not. Unless that person violates other peoples rights to freedom of belief, by performing acts of terror to enforce their own. You can't label it as a moral offense if the person isn't inflicting any harm.

  • If Atheism were established as the ultimate truth, which it's not, then there wouldn't be such a thing as immorality.

    First off, if Atheism were "true", then it wouldn't be true because there would be no such thing as truth. Second, if there was no such thing as truth then there would be no such thing as morals which are inherently true. So in a general sense, Atheism can not be true because if it were then it wouldn't( Since there would be no such things as truth or absolutes.) In conclusion I just want to say that Atheism can not be true because if it were it wouldn't be!
    Thank you all for hearing me out on what may be a whacky answer but it's an insanity that I think is true. God bless you all

  • No, it would not.

    To believe in a religion is not morally wrong. Therefore if Atheism were proven to be true, to still believe in a religion would not be morally wrong. It would just mean people wouldn't be able to accept the facts laid bare before their eyes. So in answer to your question, no.

  • Atheism has nothing to do with morality.

    The religious right persists with these nonsensical questions, which in this case demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of atheism, and most likely morality.

    "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

    Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.E. Opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles. An example of a moral code is the Golden Rule which states that, "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

    Anyway, you can have morality without religion or a God, or multiple gods. Many people, including atheists, practice morality without the fear of punishment from a vengeful God, e.G., the Christian God. They treat their neighbors as they hope their neighbors will treat them; it is plain common sense.

    Many societies had moral codes before Christianity was invented, e.G., Predynastic Egyptian cultures 5500-3100 B.C.

  • The belief itself? No.

    People believe a host of things that just aren't true. That doesn't make them immoral, it just makes them mistaken.
    While it is true that religion promotes many immoral acts and beliefs, the simple act of believing in a god or gods of some type is not one of them.
    While there is no evidence any gods exist, the majority of believers are not immoral, just mistaken.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Sivanandini says2013-05-17T11:14:41.477
The universe turning out to not be an intelligent being or have an intelligent being behind it, or superior beings in it (Gods) is something I think is unlikely to be provable. It would involve proof that the Universe had no sentiments about the actions of people, but the majority of people (not all!) feel that the universe does have sentiments about the behavior of people. When a person does something wrong, they feel in a heart-felt way, certain feelings which are objective for their situation. For example if someone steals something, they feel frightened and guilty. If someone accidentally set fire to something/place, they feel terrorfied and afraid. Those feelings are about our relationship to people, and whether we have hurt other people. And those feelings feel sanctioned and ordained by the universe especially, whether we believed the Universe to be an intelligent being or not. If someone proved that it was irrational to have the sentiment that the universe has sentiments, they would generally speaking, be arguing against morality, ethics, human kindness and so forth. No being would ever wish to argue that the universe didn't have sentiments about human behavior, if they felt these sort of emotions/feelings which were described above had meaning and value, and were proliferative for life, and not against life, wholesomeness and humanity. Some atheists argue that they can be just as moral as other people, without believing in God, and that suggests that they believe that they still have a Human Conscience, independant of a believe in the Universe being an Intelligent Place (a being). So those people must believe that they consider other people to be important, even though they may not consider those people to be created by an Intelligent Being. I would argue that human conscience comes from the sense/feeling that others are part of the same universe, and have minds which relate to the universe in subtle ways also, which feel Reciprocated by the Universe. For example: someone is alive, and they feel its "innately cool" to be alive because of the wonderment of how a being could be created/come into existence. And how that reflects how Awesome the universe is. That person, I feel is acknowledging the relationship between theirself and the Universe, feeling the universe to have a lot of intelligence in it, even if that intelligence is not just only the human mind, but Natural Systems/Nature.
GeekiTheGreat says2013-05-17T18:54:10.170
Moral: is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong). The philosophy of morality is ethics. A moral code is a system of morality (according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code. Morality may also be specifically synonymous with "goodness" or "rightness." Immorality is the active opposition to morality (i.E. Opposition to that which is good or right), while amorality is variously defined as an unawareness of, indifference toward, or disbelief in any set of moral standards or principles.

Morals change from person to person, you cannot have much of a debatable question if everyone's morals are different.
Magic8000 says2013-05-17T20:49:34.553
What does this question even mean? What's it meant by "morally". It would be morally wrong to teach kids lies, but someone choosing such a position wouldn't be wrong.
Ragnar says2013-05-17T22:01:49.997
Not a question I thought I'd find myself asking, but I interacted with one too many Atheists who are hard to describe without using the term "bible-thumping." You know the type of person, they insist they know the truth, and are offended if someone has different beliefs. Thus since people actually get emotionally worked up over how wrong religious belief is, I came up with this question to hopefully understand it.

This is intentionally open ended, as it's an opinions question, not a debate in need of clear standards for measurement.
Ragnar says2013-05-18T03:10:07.413
Perhaps I should have put "offensive" in the place of "morally wrong."
Sivanandini says2013-05-18T11:56:53.780
If an atheist is also an individual who believes in Morality, and they also a sense of morality which is Internal to them, then, they must then feel some Innate Truth is connected with what they are believing in. And they have convictions about stuff. In that way, they demonstrate that they have beliefs about the Universe. That is, to my mind Religious. For example, they might believe that stealing is immoral, and in that way, they must feel that there is a pricinple of life which "ordains" or "sanctions" that stealing is wrong. If they didn't believe that stealing is wrong, or didn't acknowledge that stealing is hurtful, they would be denying some moral feeling. By acknowledging Moral Feeling exists, they sanction that the universe has some moral meaning. In that way: they are sanctioning that the Universe is sacred or meaningful. So they must believe in the Universe, and that the universe has principles, even if they deny any thought about a future birth/afterlife, they believe that life has meaning which is deep and internal to the self. The original question "would the proof of atheism mean that religiosity was morally wrong" also points to how an atheist might feel religiosity is morally wrong, such as Dawkin who believes that it is child abuse. And Nietchze who I think said that belief in an afterlife was nihilistic. Those moral judgements/sentiments come from an Inner Self. So that person is saying they have sentiments about what is right or wrong, in the domain of the inner self. That ground is normally covered by the term "religiosity". But, in their case they are saying "life is wasted if people post-pone life to a future life or to preserve a possible future life". So, they believe in preserving this life. And that is the ethics, upon which they determine that certain religious beliefs are wrong. Their belief that this one life is more important than possible future lives is also a belief. Since it is based on a notion of things that an afterlife isn't possible. If someone said they weren't sure if there was an afterlife or not, since it isn't provable, that is most honest I think. And acknowledge that for whatever reason, anxiety about an afterlife exists as part of the human condition, I think that's more compassionate. But then, they might say "its wrong to indulge that anxiety". That is possibly what many atheists mean.
leojm says2013-05-18T18:53:17.677
Wow, no one said yes. :/
GeekiTheGreat says2013-05-20T23:53:14.697
People just need to know the definition of morrally wrong lol.