This might be being picky but if I understood Payton's remarks from your post, he was quoted as saying:

“No. I do not ask God for salvation by faith, nor do I confess my sins to Him. I personally believe there is no afterlife. I do however believe in and practice many Christian values.”

I think a true atheist would have said God doesn't exist, not that he doesn't ask for salvation or confess his sins to Him. That implies to me that he assumes there is a divine being there that he doesn't want to interact with and that he wants to pick and choose his tenets. Otherwise come right out and say there is no God.

 

My guess is that he was brought up to believe in God and has some religious training like he went to Sunday school every week or some such which would explain why he knows Christian beliefs. However, like many young adults he probably started to question what he was taught and has rejected the whole heaven/hell concept but still hasn’t come to the natural conclusion that the idea of a divine being is bull shit. He’s working towards atheism but isn’t quite there yet.

I also get how the teachings of Jesus are just plain common sense for living peacefully and compassionately with/for others sans the spiritual references. Sooooo what I don’t understand is how he could claim to follow even some Christian values and then go out and murder 10 innocent people in cold blood. He wouldn’t have found that in any thing Christ taught.

 

I believe that’s a faulty premise. There are many people who are “moral” but who do not profess a belief in some supernatural puppet master. Morality is not exclusive to religion although it is obvious that “religious” people would like to think so. Gives them an air of superiority.

Here’s an interesting article:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210224143306.htm

A new study suggests that, while atheists and theists share moral values related to protecting vulnerable individuals, atheists are less likely to endorse values that promote group cohesion and more inclined to judge the morality of actions based on their consequences. Tomas Ståhl of the University of Illinois at Chicago presents these findings in the open-access journal PLOS ONE on February 24, 2021.


These findings suggest that the widespread idea that atheists are immoral may arise in part from their weak endorsement of moral values that promote group cohesion and their consequence-based, case-by-case moral judgment of actions.

Ståhl adds: "The most general take-home message from these studies is that people who do not believe in God do have a moral compass. In fact, they share many of the same moral concerns that religious believers have, such as concerns about fairness, and about protecting vulnerable individuals from harm. However, disbelievers are less inclined than believers to endorse moral values that serve group cohesion, such as having respect for authorities, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity... It is possible that the negative stereotype of atheists as immoral may stem in part from the fact that they are less inclined than religious people to view respect for authority, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity as relevant for morality, and they are more likely to make moral judgments about harm on a consequentialist, case by case basis."

Crimes are being committed daily by people who profess to believe in “God” and we haven’t gotten into the great divider of whole populations when it comes to whose religion is the right one. Wars have been fought over this question.

People have an innate sense of morality honed by eons of having to live together. From Neanderthals and other early groups of humans right up to today it doesn’t take much to realize that if you steal your companions things, kill for unjustifiable reasons, sleep with someone who is someone else’s mate etc. etc. there’s gonna be trouble.

As groups of people increased, behaviors and their consequences became codified for peaceful cohabitation. Without scientific knowledge of how the earth operates it was only natural to look around them and ascribe what they couldn’t understand to a superior “God” or “Gods”.

Humans are funny creatures. They have used and abused religion to justify any number of aberrant and beneficial behaviors throughout time but with or without religion there will be those who can’t live and let live with their fellow man. On a general basis, I really believe the world would be a better place if what is considered part of the Hippocratic oath, First do no harm, was applied to all aspects of life.

 

The article I cited was taken from Plos and summed it up nicely, thank you.
I think the main point was once again:
"The most general take-home message from these studies is that people who do not believe in God do have a moral compass. In fact, they share many of the same moral concerns that religious believers have, such as concerns about fairness, and about protecting vulnerable individuals from harm. However, disbelievers are less inclined than believers to endorse moral values that serve group cohesion, such as having respect for authorities, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity... It is possible that the negative stereotype of atheists as immoral may stem in part from the fact that they are less inclined than religious people to view respect for authority, ingroup loyalty, and sanctity as relevant for morality, and they are more likely to make moral judgments about harm on a consequentialist, case by case basis."

Murder is generally frowned on by just about everyone. The consequences of murder, however, needs to be examined on a case by case basis. What about wars. Are the soldiers committing murder or defending themselves and their country...unless they're the aggressors. Then are the enemy soldiers murderers? What if they deliberately kill non combatants. We consider it a war crime even if committed by our own troops. What about domestic violence. That's why women will sometimes be acquitted of killing their husbands after years of physical and emotional abuse. Case by case.

Authority. Just because those in authority decide whether people will live or die can be subject to question. Was it right for Roman Emperors to throw Christian converts to the lions? Ceasars were the Roman Empire's absolute leaders. Did church leaders have the right to burn women they thought were witches? Was that moral? Those poor defenseless women. Was it really right for slave owners to be able to kill their slaves at their own whim? Why did England and the Northern States outlaw slavery before the South? Did they have a greater sense of morality? Were the Cambodian people killed by the Khmer Rouge, who were at that time that country's government, right? It was a massacre of their own citizens...mainly the educated ones. Take it up to today. A jury found that Derek Chauvin, a policeman who represented the authority of the local government, murdered George Floyd. On and on and on throughout time. We're always evolving as to what we consider acceptable. We should always scrutinize whether authority is being used or abused.

I still maintain that humankind innately knows the boundaries of moral behavior even if it takes thousands of years to refine it. Look, even the Code of Hammurabi predates the 10 Commandants. If these few items, mentioned in the above paragraph, are an example of how we're "designed" to be moral there's a serious flaw in the blueprint.

Unless you're some sort of sociopath everyone would agree that the killing of people in a grocery store who are quietly shopping is wrong, evil and is one hell of an example of mass murder. Do no harm outside of medical circles is a generalized principle such as treat people the way you would want to be treated (Matthew 7: 12). It's practically common sense but not everyone will follow those words Christian or not.

That includes abortion. I don't believe the growing cells in a woman 's uterus are truly living until what's developing can survive outside her body. Until then, the woman's needs come first. If a medical issue arises that threatens the mother's life, she comes first even if it's later in the pregnancy. That translates to my belief that women should have a good measure of autonomy over their own bodies and that doctors have an ethical obligation to treat the one who is actually breathing on their own first. What did the founding fathers think? One example:

Founding father James Wilson, a signatory of the Declaration of Independence and original U.S. Supreme Court justice, taught his law students that,

“With consistency, beautiful and undeviating, human life, from its commencement to its close, is protected by the common law. In the contemplation of law, life begins when the infant is first able to stir in the womb. By the law, life is protected not only from immediate destruction, but from every degree of actual violence, and, in some cases, from every degree of danger.”


Quickening is when a pregnant person starts to feel their baby's movement in their uterus (womb). It feels like flutters, bubbles or tiny pulses. Quickening happens around 16 to 20 weeks in pregnancy, but some people may feel it sooner or later.Apr 22, 2022

Like I said earlier....make the cut off 20 weeks unless the mother's life is in danger or we have a case of rape or incest.

Are you serious about this?
"Does it REALLY make sense to say that people would make up that if you hear thunder it's because some glorified man is hammering on an anvil? No."
Uh yeah...but I'm sure they believed it ....it's just a matter of where you lived as to what "God" you thought was responsible for the thunder and lightning because without scientific knowledge there HAD to be someone up there making the heavens roar.

 

It's a controlling point too. Morality being exclusive to religion is a selling point of most faiths. If you aren't a a full Christian, Muslim etc then you are not true in the more doctrinaire forms of each religion.

But like you said, this has no basis on morality or we wouldn't have the scandals we've had with priests, or people using their faith for acts of terrorism or to start wars.

As you mentioned it seems like the Buffalo killer believes in God. An atheist wouldn't be saying "him" or referring to God in the way he did. He also claims to accept certain Christian beliefs. None of this is shocking.

While I think the biggest problem with religion is that most try to create a sense of exclusivity, that their way is the right way and everyone else is sacrilegious, this is in no way an excuse for evil acts committed in the name of any particular faith. I just think it's been a real polarizing force in the world that keeps people from coming together, simply because they have a different few of God or religion.

 

Hmmmm…..I think the following articles give a plausible explanation as to how religious thought originated and it’s purpose. It’s a human construct that allowed our primitive ancestors a means to understand their world and to create cohesion as small groups of Hunter gatherers became larger.

https://www.livescience.com/52364-origins-supernatural-relgious-beliefs.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/which-came-first-society-or-a-fear-of-god

The world is indeed an ever changing place. Morality has evolved through time. We hone our beliefs of what’s right and wrong by the society and time period we live in. While religion today can give one a sense of community it also causes many to leave the fold who don’t feel rigid and outdated precepts define who they are now. It tends to be exclusionary rather than inclusive and rather judgy as Stealth pointed out. Whose God is the right God?

Besides it can give people an excuse and/or a shelter for bad behavior….I.e. pedophile priests who bugger their alter boys or the Southern Baptist Council being called out for not protecting women from predators within their ranks as two prominent examples.

if religion feels right for someone there’s nothing wrong with that until they use it as a cudgel to force their beliefs on others.

 

Like Purriwinkle mentioned, religion is a human construct. It started out with many deities. The Egyptians, Greeks and Romans had various Gods. Even in later times it was something the Vikings still believed. Religion has evolved through the years. And no one has any proof that a single faith, if any, has the answers.

Buddhists and most Hindus believe in reincarnation. Christians and Muslims reject this idea. Can Buddhists and Hindus prove reincarnation? No. Can those that oppose it definitively refute it? No. And that's the case with religion. It's based on belief and not cold hard facts, like a criminal forensics investigation.

Overall it would be great if people didn't try to force their own religious beliefs, or lack thereof, on others. But unfortunately that has not been the history of the world, and there are no signs of it changing.

Actually, it's getting worse in the sense that reality is being called into question now. There are things that we can actually prove, that people refuse to believe. There are psychos out there that think the Sandy Hook mass shooting didn't occur, that they were child actors. Holocaust denial has become infamous.

So when such truths are doubted how can we even begin to debate religion which is a more personal thing, and not one that can be declared for any faith?

 

Well, I tried to give you a varied sample of how early civilizations incorporated religion as a means to achieve an end, not because any “God” actually existed. With all the various religions even in existence today, no one can prove definitely whose deity is the right one and certainly not whether that deity even actually exists. People believe but it’s NOT PROOF based on empirical evidence.

Morality is defined as the principles regarding right and wrong or good and bad behaviors have changed over time in many regards. I feel that modern society has been headed in a more lenient direction whereas we now have trouble with those segments of society (of which religion is the major factor) that cling to rigid and restrictive concepts better suited to by gone eras.

For example, if a human behavior exists on an increasing level, and it doesn’t harm anyone we have begun to recognize and accommodate those behaviors so that people can live comfortably in modern society. That’s compassionate. I think your mention of trans people and bathroom is an excellent example. How they view themselves is of no business to anyone else and providing appropriate bathroom facilities for their use is not hurting anyone else. From personal experience, I can tell you my family benefitted from the use of single all gender bathrooms when my mother was deteriorating as it took both myself and my father to assist her in the lavatory when we were out in public. That gave us the room and privacy we needed to attend to her needs. I am forever thankful as I could never have handled her by myself in a traditional ladies room. If the trans movement forced venues to provide those single use, private rest rooms, GOOD on them.

Same sex couples can openly love, even marry. People of difference races are afforded that opportunity as well which wasn’t always the case. Women have babies out of wedlock and don’t have to wear the scarlet A. Conversely, husbands beating their wives and the concept of marital rape is no longer tolerated as is sexual harassment in the workplace. I could go on and on but the point is that we recognize certain behaviors as not being the abhorrent “sin” they once were and we’re cracking down on others. If someone feels differently due to their religious beliefs, fine, don’t engage in those behaviors yourself but don’t try to make others into your image.

The examples of religious misconduct were given not as an example of individual misconduct, after all as the Christian religion states, all have sinned and come short of the glory of god, but given as an example of the INSTITUTIONS who turned a blind eye on the perpetrators in their midst, shielding them rather than rooting out the “evil doers” among them. Hypocrisy that would still be a dirty hidden secret if not for the victims speaking out demanding justice.

Also, I would proffer that religious fervor is the driving force behind the movement to prevent women from having safe abortions. Oh, they have that power by electing officials that don’t have a good concept of the idea of the separation of church and state,

 

The denial of factual information in favor of wild conspiracy theories is an extremely worrisome phenomena that we’re seeing a lot of, especially when our elected representatives either believe them themselves or are just using the misguided beliefs of their constituents to further their political careers.

The misuse of modern technology and the general dumbing down, IMO, of society in general is a major contributing factor.
For instance, you used to be able to say I’ll believe it when I see it, but you can’t even trust that anymore. The ability to “photoshop” images and the pervasive use of social media which again, IMO, has the ability to brainwash susceptible individuals into believing the most outlandish things even in the face of verifiable evidence to the contrary is basically f*cking nuts.

When it comes to religion, people have believed in something, that has never been proven factually since the dawn of civilization. Maybe it’s the original conspiracy theory, lol.

 

Sorry but as the definition of religion is:

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

I will have to abstain from that belief until somebodies god makes an appearance or whatever to prove their existence. Considering the recent congressional hearings on UFOs I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if “God” turned out to be visiting aliens giving a boost to primitive beings who had potential and needed a helping hand, lol.

Well of course. This fits in with Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. For those who may be unfamiliar it’s basically:
The hierarchy is diagramed as a pyramid starting at the bottom with basic needs that must be satisfied for an individual to be able to progress to addressing more secondary needs. It’s understood that a person who has to struggle to survive doesn’t think as much about or attain self-actualization as a person whose survival is relatively assured.

If populations are struggling with their basic needs they tend to pull inward reverting to the more primitive aspects of survival. Gaining affluence, if that’s the right word, allows people to loosen up a bit and think more progressively. When every segment of society is lifted up we all benefit. The US is basically an experiment that has so far been an example for the rest of the world. We’ve become that shining city on the hill that much of the world wishes to emulate. Of course nothing runs smoothly all the time but one would think in this day and age rather than descending back into forms of hate mongering and discrimination we could think outside the box for solutions to our problems. If that runs contrary to human nature perhaps it confirms we’re just animals with big brains cause if we’re supposedly made in god’s image he/she has some definite problems, IMO.

I would tend to disagree. If the leaders of the institutions fail to up hold the tenets of their faith then the rot comes from the head down. It contaminates the whole.

Is that why abortion rights are supported by a majority of US citizens but abortion bans and even now talk of banning birth control are coming from elected officials who are using their personal beliefs to force something down the throats of the rest of the population. You don’t like abortion? Don’t have one but don’t make decisions for your neighbors that is none of your business.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/

 

We’ve already established that “religion” has been associated with mankind from prehistoric times although we differ as to why that was. It’s only been since the end of the 19th century into the 20th century that the majority of our scientific breakthroughs, innovations and understandings have come about. It would only make sense to me that with scientific know how informing us as to the physical nature of our world that people wouldn’t have the necessity to rely solely on religion to give them explanations so traditional religious beliefs would tend to fade.