Are Atheists Potentially Morally Superior to Theists?

[Danmark]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right. Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

[TheTruth101]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right. Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

Looking at the foundation of the question, the answer should be said as to choice one makes. Beliving in hell is a choice, just like atheist helping out another is a choice.

Both are done under ones own merit. So, the answer should be said, Atheists just like Theists are making their own choices to belive in set of things that make one feel better. In case of an Atheist, feeling self accomplishment. And in case of a Theist, feeling of self accomplishment through Gods orders.

If divided this way, one can reflect that both are done under ones own merit and there is no difference and a big difference. One, eternity gets accomplished within theists, therefore, making it a wiser choice.

[Divine Insight]

That is funny, because its the atheists claiming they are morally superior in the OP.

I think you need to understand the intention of "morally superior".

This doesn't mean that atheists have superior morals. It simply means that whatever morality they do have is of a superior quality in terms of being sincere and truly belonging to them.

As I stated earlier in my quote posted by Danmark, this only applies to the following case, "Religious people who claim that they need religion and God to have moral values have no moral values of their own at all."

This is especially true of religious people who proclaim that without a God there would be no point in morality. Those people clearly have no sense of morality of their own.

An atheist who has high moral values yet doesn't even believe in a God, clearly has high moral values of their own. That's the only place their moral values can stem from. They don't even believe in a God. They hold their moral values purely as a matter of their own personal decision and conviction. Therefore there moral values are genuine.

A religion person who only holds moral values because they think it might either please, or displease some God has no moral values of their own. On the contrary all they are attempting to do is please some imagined God. And as I've pointed out already, many of them even proclaim that if they knew there was no God they would see no reason to even bother with maintaining any moral values.

So in this sense an atheist's moral values are clearly more genuine and sincere than a religious person who claims that morals are only meaningful if there exists a God.

And far more to the point, if a religious person were to confess that moral values would be important even if there was no God, then they would suddenly demonstrate why a God is not important when it comes to morality.

So the whole point of religion being important for morality is a false claim. At best religions can cause some people to behave superficially morally out of a fear of punishment or lust for divine reward, but if they have no moral values of their own, then this facade is a false facade anyway.

So a "superior" basis for morality would indeed be an atheistic basis. If people are behaving morally without any need to believe in a God who delves out punishments or rewards, then clearly they have a "superior handle" on morality and their morality is indeed far more sincere and genuine.

So ironically religions actually deteriorate morality for this very reason.

I think Albert Einstein said it quite well:

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein

My point is simple. If you need religion to have good moral values, then you have no moral values at all. On the other hand, if you can have good moral values without religion then you have no need for religion. Unless of course you have a fear of punishment or hope for reward. But that has nothing to do with morality.

[TheTruth101]

That is funny, because its the atheists claiming they are morally superior in the OP.

I think you need to understand the intention of "morally superior".

This doesn't mean that atheists have superior morals. It simply means that whatever morality they do have is of a superior quality in terms of being sincere and truly belonging to them.

As I stated earlier in my quote posted by Danmark, this only applies to the following case, "Religious people who claim that they need religion and God to have moral values have no moral values of their own at all."

This is especially true of religious people who proclaim that without a God there would be no point in morality. Those people clearly have no sense of morality of their own.

An atheist who has high moral values yet doesn't even believe in a God, clearly has high moral values of their own. That's the only place their moral values can stem from. They don't even believe in a God. They hold their moral values purely as a matter of their own personal decision and conviction. Therefore there moral values are genuine.

A religion person who only holds moral values because they think it might either please, or displease some God has no moral values of their own. On the contrary all they are attempting to do is please some imagined God. And as I've pointed out already, many of them even proclaim that if they knew there was no God they would see no reason to even bother with maintaining any moral values.

So in this sense an atheist's moral values are clearly more genuine and sincere than a religious person who claims that morals are only meaningful if there exists a God.

And far more to the point, if a religious person were to confess that moral values would be important even if there was no God, then they would suddenly demonstrate why a God is not important when it comes to morality.

So the whole point of religion being important for morality is a false claim. At best religions can cause some people to behave superficially morally out of a fear of punishment or lust for divine reward, but if they have no moral values of their own, then this facade is a false facade anyway.

So a "superior" basis for morality would indeed be an atheistic basis. If people are behaving morally without any need to believe in a God who delves out punishments or rewards, then clearly they have a "superior handle" on morality and their morality is indeed far more sincere and genuine.

So ironically religions actually deteriorate morality for this very reason.

I think Albert Einstein said it quite well:

"A man's ethical behaviour should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." - Albert Einstein

My point is simple. If you need religion to have good moral values, then you have no moral values at all. On the other hand, if you can have good moral values without religion then you have no need for religion. Unless of course you have a fear of punishment or hope for reward. But that has nothing to do with morality.

If the morality of the Atheists of their good deeds is said as to being more genuine in nature, it can also be argued that the morality of the Christians preaching to another, lets say Africa, for them not to get locked into eternity of hell is genuine in nature as to eternity.

[Danmark]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right. Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

Looking at the foundation of the question, the answer should be said as to choice one makes. Beliving in hell is a choice, just like atheist helping out another is a choice.

Both are done under ones own merit. So, the answer should be said, Atheists just like Theists are making their own choices to belive in set of things that make one feel better. In case of an Atheist, feeling self accomplishment. And in case of a Theist, feeling of self accomplishment through Gods orders.

If divided this way, one can reflect that both are done under ones own merit and there is no difference and a big difference. One, eternity gets accomplished within theists, therefore, making it a wiser choice.

I think I understood some of that, but at the moment I can't say exactly what.

I would like to point out an important qualifier in the proposition, the word 'potential.' What actually counts is prob'ly what how we act, tho' I recall something about the 'Lord loveth a cheerful giver.' That's what was printed on the envelopes we were supposed to put in the offering plates. I once saw I guy make change with the offering plate, but I digress.

Anyway I'm taking a cue from the cheerful giver example. Isn't it better if we do good things because we want to, as opposed to being coerced by threat of hell?

[Nickman]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right. Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

Looking at the foundation of the question, the answer should be said as to choice one makes. Beliving in hell is a choice, just like atheist helping out another is a choice.

I don't think that belief in hell has anything to do with atheists. Thats the point. Hell has consequence. Helping people voluntarily doesnt , well not like hell does.

Both are done under ones own merit. So, the answer should be said, Atheists just like Theists are making their own choices to belive in set of things that make one feel better. In case of an Atheist, feeling self accomplishment. And in case of a Theist, feeling of self accomplishment through Gods orders.

No, atheists, theists, pantheists, agnostics and every other humans all make choices based on two things. Those things are benefit vs consequence. Make a list of the choices you make. And line them up with the bible. You will quickly see that you make choices that are either for you or for you. Every choice you make gives you a benefit. You can make choices that benefit others but you will also receive something.

If divided this way, one can reflect that both are done under ones own merit and there is no difference and a big difference. One, eternity gets accomplished within theists, therefore, making it a wiser choice.

No, some theists don't go to heaven.

[Nickman]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right. Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

Looking at the foundation of the question, the answer should be said as to choice one makes. Beliving in hell is a choice, just like atheist helping out another is a choice.

I don't think that belief in hell has anything to do with atheists. Thats the point. Hell has consequence. Helping people voluntarily doesnt , well not like hell does.

Both are done under ones own merit. So, the answer should be said, Atheists just like Theists are making their own choices to belive in set of things that make one feel better. In case of an Atheist, feeling self accomplishment. And in case of a Theist, feeling of self accomplishment through Gods orders.

No, atheists, theists, pantheists, agnostics and every other humans all make choices based on two things. Those things are benefit vs consequence. Make a list of the choices you make. And line them up with the bible. You will quickly see that you make choices that are either for you or for you. Every choice you make gives you a benefit. You can make choices that benefit others but you will also receive something.

If divided this way, one can reflect that both are done under ones own merit and there is no difference and a big difference. One, eternity gets accomplished within theists, therefore, making it a wiser choice.

No, some theists don't go to heaven.

[Danmark]

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Danmark on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Danmark, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell....



... perhaps you could grace with a demonstration of that supposedly superior intellect and cut ally support you silly thesis with something that looks like an argument?

I appreciate your reference to, as you put it my "superior intellect", but must demur. I also have to object to your elevation of my status to that of Richard Dawkins. And frankly Stub, comparing me to Bertrand Russell, really Stubby, you make me blush.

In an effort to dispute your undeserved praise let me confess I was completely at a loss as to how to decipher your "...and cut ally support you silly thesis...." So, you see I am unworthy of your applause.

[Divine Insight]

If the morality of the Atheists of their good deeds is said as to being more genuine in nature, it can also be argued that the morality of the Christians preaching to another, lets say Africa, for them not to get locked into eternity of hell is genuine in nature as to eternity.

All they'd be doing in that case is spreading their own fears of hell to other people.

Moreover, they'd be teaching the Africans a horrible lesson about morals. Because instead of teaching them morality for morality's sake, all they are doing is spreading their superstitious fears that if they don't behave according to certain rules they'll be sent to hell by a hateful God.

The whole thing is all wrong.

Also, if they teach people to be "moral" merely because some hateful God will be mean to them if they aren't, then what happens when they became genuinely educated and start to realize that these superstitions about an vengeful God are most likely false?

Having a religious foundation for morality is a flimsy foundation in any case.

Having good moral values for the sake of good moral values is a rock solid foundation.

Besides the whole evangelical thing is nothing more than a distrust in God. If you feel that you need to do something to "save" the soul of another person, all that says is that you don't trust your God to have a righteous and just system of judgment already in place.

If the salvation of anyone's soul depends on you that only shows that your God's justice system is dramatically flawed and untrustworthy.

That's a whole different topic of course.

But still, if you're preaching to people in Africa that they need to fear some God in order to be a good person you're not doing anyone any favors. In fact, you'd actually be misleading them into believing that they can't even have good moral values on their own merit, which we know for certain if false. There are too many examples of highly moral atheists to counter that claim. This in fact, proves that the Bible is false because it also makes the claim that non-believers are immoral people which we know to be false. So the Bible contains falsehoods for certain.

So, no, if you're pushing your religion onto people in Africa all you're doing is spreading your own fears and superstitions. You may believe that's a moral cause, but only because you've been taught that it's your duty to do this and if you fail to do it your mean cruel God might end up hurting you for not obeying him and spreading his "word".

Evangelism is nothing more than a fear-based reaction carried out be people who don't even trust the righteousness of their own God to save souls on his own.

[TheTruth101]

If the morality of the Atheists of their good deeds is said as to being more genuine in nature, it can also be argued that the morality of the Christians preaching to another, lets say Africa, for them not to get locked into eternity of hell is genuine in nature as to eternity.

All they'd be doing in that case is spreading their own fears of hell to other people.

Moreover, they'd be teaching the Africans a horrible lesson about morals. Because instead of teaching them morality for morality's sake, all they are doing is spreading their superstitious fears that if they don't behave according to certain rules they'll be sent to hell by a hateful God.

The whole thing is all wrong.

Also, if they teach people to be "moral" merely because some hateful God will be mean to them if they aren't, then what happens when they became genuinely educated and start to realize that these superstitions about an vengeful God are most likely false?

Having a religious foundation for morality is a flimsy foundation in any case.

Having good moral values for the sake of good moral values is a rock solid foundation.

Besides the whole evangelical thing is nothing more than a distrust in God. If you feel that you need to do something to "save" the soul of another person, all that says is that you don't trust your God to have a righteous and just system of judgment already in place.

If the salvation of anyone's soul depends on you that only shows that your God's justice system is dramatically flawed and untrustworthy.

That's a whole different topic of course.

But still, if you're preaching to people in Africa that they need to fear some God in order to be a good person you're not doing anyone any favors. In fact, you'd actually be misleading them into believing that they can't even have good moral values on their own merit, which we know for certain if false. There are too many examples of highly moral atheists to counter that claim. This in fact, proves that the Bible is false because it also makes the claim that non-believers are immoral people which we know to be false. So the Bible contains falsehoods for certain.

So, no, if you're pushing your religion onto people in Africa all you're doing is spreading your own fears and superstitions. You may believe that's a moral cause, but only because you've been taught that it's your duty to do this and if you fail to do it your mean cruel God might end up hurting you for not obeying him and spreading his "word".

Evangelism is nothing more than a fear-based reaction carried out be people who don't even trust the righteousness of their own God to save souls on his own.

The whole idea of this post stems from one not acknowledging God.

Hell is one of the obstacle that make on believe in faith and it is indeed a truthful one. for all one can note, a person of faith can crossover to Afica and simply preach of love that stemmed from Christ. Without awareness of punishment however(hell), one dictates ones own orders and way of life.

It can be as simple as one not going out to a party because one is afraid of being grounded. Same method applies here within religion. One should be feared of being grounded for all eternity if one does not belive in Gods rules, or in this case, Father and parent of all human beings.


The foundation of one building morals from within is not rock solid. It is rather soft to say the least. It can viewed from history if one relies on self morals, which really means one made a choice to accept a certain moral behavior by the society, then it will change tommorow if the laws of the society change tommorow.
By all means, gay marriages are being accepted now, there are ones that still go against it causing a rebellious effort, however, in two thousand years from now, all would understand it as to be a right of a being. Although I am not against gay marriages myself, it is simply because Bible dosent say anything about going against gay people. Thus, my laws and morals are never changing, making me a person of a rock solid foundation of morals. Since whoever adds another word to this will never be forgiven and cursed for all eternity as stated in revelations, the morals that i hold will be for all eternity, in turn, making a foundation of one that blieves in Christ to be a rock themselves.

[joncash]

Is it not a shortcut in reasoning to say that the theist cannot do good because they want to as you claim the atheist can? The founding prophet of Christianity, Jesus of Nazareth made doing good for its own sake primary staple of his message.

He called them hypocrites those who did good in action but kept their motives evil and selfish. He said that they "washed the outside of the cup, while inside they are full of greed." (Matt 23:25) He warned people against this type of behavior. He said, "when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." (Matt 6:2)

I think you should take this idea back to the drawing board.