The Human Beast

I object to the characterization that it was Catholics who wanted houses that Protestants already had. The larger point stands, but why throw such a bomb?

Being an Athiest means you need to use philosophy to work out your moral code. In that case, the welfare of other people will trump religious dogma, which is a boon to society. Religion is detrimental in all ways.

This is a pedestrian essay with ridiculous observations. E.g, "The fact that some of the worst people can be so religious implies that religiosity is no guarantee of ethical behavior."

Well duh? That's why Christians call themselves "sinners".

And the author makes the dopier mistake of confusing religious affiliation with actual belief. Try reading the essay "On the Meaning of Contemporary Atheism" by Jacques Maritain. It was written in 1949, but is even more incisive today. Maritain fully elucidates both the nature of "practical atheism" and the failure of committed Christians to live up to Christianity's ideals. I.e., the church is populated by both sinners and saints.

And finally, public policy expert Arthur C. Brooks has demonstrated clearly that religious people are more generous than secular people in almost every dimension and income level. See his book, "Who really cares..." BTW, he has no ax to grind one way or another.

Being an atheist is fine by me. It's just nothing to write home about...

And OBTW, for your next essay, do your homework first...

The religionist is mainly dependent upon dogma and social approbation to resolve his moral conflicts, whereas the atheist must use reason, contemplation, and meditation to decide his moral issues. The religionist must only toe the line of religious authority to be moral, whereas the atheist must live with himself and his own feelingss.

For the religionist, a moral life is an almost automatic process, arrived at by passive acceptance of authority, whereas the atheist must ask constant questions and live in a condition of watchfulness to monitor his own behaviour so that it does least hurt and confers maximum benefit upon others.

It is not surprising that religionists are frequently "caught out" for their pecadillos and their respective societies punish them for their transgressions, as the morality of religions is almost totally dependent on following a set of rules unquestioningly. The violation of these rules, frequently by oversight, is a forgone certainty implicit in the very necessity for the rules in the first place.

The atheist operates without this handicap, assuming initially that all people are good, that only their motives may be bad, and moves from there to build his own moral being through experience and human empathy.

This is not to say that the religionist is inherently immoral or that the atheist is not, but only that the atheist must put conscious thought into the effort, thereby for most, being more frequently in a consciously moral state.

Perhaps the major immorality of religionists is their intolerant attitude against "non-believers", and the belief that the "non-believers" do not deserve to share in the bounty of the world or the grace of their god. In other words, for the religionist it is moral to treat the unbeliever in callous fashion, after all, he is not on the "right" side.

This latter attitude may have had some import in the studies quoted, as many religionists consider scientists and such as foes to their faith, consequently it is OK to lie to them and not cooperate.

i bet the author was expecting an uproar. way to not disapoint.

i believe in the point of the blog; religion or lack there of does not have any affect on whether or not someone is moral or ethical.
good people are good people and the athiest only shows that you don't necessarily need god to be a good person. people do bad things whether god is present or not. if you are a good person (at least for the most part) who is religious, your reason might be god. if you are a good person who is an athiest, then you simply have another reason for it. maybe you genuinely empathise with other people. maybe it just makes you feel good.

i guess what i'm trying to say is that a moral person will try to make moral decisions, period. it does not matter what thier reason is.

either way, the point of the blog still stands; no religion or religious affiliation has any influence people's behavior ingeneral.

"Religious texts exhort people to behave charitably and with compassion but social scientists over the decades find little evidence of this affecting actions. Among the research findings assembled by sociologist Alfie Kohn"

You've got to be kidding. Look, I'm an atheist and a huge fan of EP, but you aren't being very honest. There's recent and repeatable data sets that show you to be wrong. How could you miss this? You can look into the work of Arthur Brooks, a recent study done by Google, or the book "Philanthrocaptialism" for some evidnece. These are data that control for other variables, which is a goal any research should do when trying to isolate causes or robust correlations.

I'm discounting this entire piece unless you can begin either reading before writing or start being more honest (or perhaps both).

Nor am I addressing the other fallacious points you make. This piece is so bad it's not worth any more of my time.

Or how about the recent empirical work from the universally respected evolutionary theorist David Sloan Wilson on prosociality and religion? You really aren't aware of this?

It's one thing to write outside one's expertise and get nearly everything incomplete or incorrect, but to not be familiar with the writings of Wilson, who is from your own field? Huh?

Or see what former president of the APA, Martin Seligman, has written on this. I'm not going to cite book and page numbers for you with either of these recommendations (or the others), since it would appear to serve you better if you spent more time reading generally.

Apologies for the typos in my original comment.