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.

[joncash]

Is it necessary for a theist to believe in a God who punishes immorality?

No.
Being a theist only means you believe in a God who is not less than personal. I might add a God who is all powerful and the creator of the universe. I can't really disagree with Wikipedia's definition
Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and some forms of Hinduism.

EduChris could prob'ly give a more technical definition.

Your question has reminded me of an idea that I believe is pertinent to this discussion. A thought experiment if you will:

There is one God. He is the creator of the universe and everything within it. Let's suppose he has a moral code that he expresses to his creatures as an absolute [for the sake of this thought experiment it does not matter what he actually thinks is moral or not because He is beyond morality. To paraphrase Tillich, he is not a being at all. He is the very 'ground of being.' Whatever he proclaims as morality does not necessarily apply to Him].

So, the morality he suggests, rather 'he commands' his creatures follow is "Might Makes Right. Do whatever you want. " His commandments are written on a stone tablet:

1. I am God and the most powerful power in the universe. Worship me. Or not. Doesn't really matter because I am who I am and nothing you do, say or think can change a thing. Whatever I say is law.
2. As for what goes on between you, I'd like to see what happens. Kill yourselves off for all I care. I can start over whenever I want and make a bunch more of you. I want to see who is the strongest, the smartest. Do anything you like. Might makes right. If you can get away with it, fine. I don't give a fig. I just want to see how you folks work it out. Makes no nevermind to me. The one thing I want to say is, 'Don't any of you slimy little pathetic crawly creatures go about whining and claiming I told you what to do, because I am staying out of it.

OK, there we have it. The Two Commandments.

So what does man do? Naturally he goes for the might makes right thing right off the bat. Funny thing tho', after a few generations he realizes that if he teams up with his buddies, his chances for survival are better. This realization is shared by various cultures. The cultures that survive adopt it and triumph over the groups that are solely about 'might makes right.'

Through the centuries, for the most part, the might makes right individuals become fewer and fewer and most if not all surviving cultures call the MMR folks 'sociopaths' or 'criminals'.

Finally we get to the last 1000 years or so and some one says 'Morality only comes from God.' And everyone else says to him:

Are you nuts! We tried His morality. It sucks. For us, our morality of not stealing or killing and being honest and working together and acting like we love each other works MUCH better. Shut up and follow the rules. We do not want to go back to that MMR selfishness nonsense.

I've read this several times and I'm not seeing the thought experiment. Usually thought experiments involve multiple scenarios and controls just like real experiments, so my assumption is that you use the term very loosely. I don't take issue with the creative fiction above, but you're not comparing it with anything different, much less are you showing why your submission is preferable or more accurate than what anyone else thinks.

[JoeyKnothead]

Edit:

I got to thinking about it, and I guess I best 'pologize.

'Pologies to all affected. Or is it effected?

Infected?

[EduChris]

...The only will to believe that I have is the will to believe the truth...

If God were evil, then how would you know whether or if any of your beliefs were actually true?

And if ultimate reality were less than personal, how would you know whether or if any of your beliefs had any correlation to reality?

We must assume that our logic and our perceptions can and do correspond adequately to reality--but in the absence of a transcendent God who cares for us, there is no reason to suppose that we would or could ever develop such capacities.

Non-theism eviscerates any and all grounds for supposing our epistemic powers have any validity. It kicks the can of "truth" forever beyond our reach. Given a non-theistic framework, the supposition that we can ever find "truth" would require more faith than is available to even the most fervent theist.

...Your God is too Small...

Fabulous book.

[stubbornone]

From Post 157:

#1 - you are still missing the basis of my claim while claiming that I am not addressing your sources?

I accept the charge as a matter of I'm a doofus, though don't see where I've missed anything. "No moral gene" seems pretty straightforward to me (given previously presented qualifiers).

Either someone claiming that morality is based in geneticism has to support such a claim with genetic evidence or not.

"Geneticism" or not, I presented my definition, and my source. You have yet to directly address the data my source presents, other'n to just ostensibly say "nah-ah".

I made my claim, I offered my source. Will you address the data within my source, or will you continue to argue a rather tangential position?

Its a simple enough contention, and one you are not apparently even bothering to counter - your thesis is that apparently genetic claims do NOT require genetic evidence?

I presented a link to my evidence, in the form of a report by the National Academy of Sciences. That you continue to argue anything but the data within that report indicates to me you've either not read it, or just don't understand it.

I contend I have held to the rules of this site, and the (if undefined) rules of honorable debate. I'm fully prepared to support my source, and fully prepared to retract, but until you actually address or challenge my source, I contend you've done nothing to show my source is in error.

Why do you reject my source? For what data from within my referenced source do wish to raise an objection? What is it about my source, or the data within, that causes you concern?

Until I know your objection, beyond "nah-ah", I have no means of knowing how to explain, or support the data, and hence conclusions, my source presents.

Are you really stating that Joey?

#2 - DNA does NOT go away. The family in question can indeed be tested at any time. And if found ... and the point you dodged with several examples now is:

The "family in question" seems to be a reference to a source of your own. I will not now argue that data, but will reserve the right to do so.

a. What happens you if you have said gene ... but are not violent?

Indeed, only one such person from the family apparently went to such lengthy means to highlight his violent nature ... and that indicates a choice to do so ... not a genetic predisposition. Indeed, the family members who ARE NOT on deth row and yet have the gene ... what do we say of them?

I fully accept that your source should lead us to conclude your source couldn't find a "moral gene".

Such a condition says nothing about my source.

If I'm too drunk to find the kitchen, does that mean it ain't there?

What do we say to sociopaths who CHOOSE not to be violent?

'Preciate it?

Once again, we cannot simply ignore evidence when it confronts us with difficult questions.

Then why do you ignore my source?

I'm fully prepared to have this debate, but if you only wanna deal with your source, where I'm willing to concede your source fails to support whatever it fails to support, then I propose the observer is perfectly reasoned in concluding it is you who's doing the "ignoring evidence" here.


I will not further entertain arguments based on your source, at least where you and I both agree your source fails.


What I will do is defend my contention, and my source. That is if you actually can attempt to refute the National Academy of Sciences.

Lets clarify a few things:

#1 - I am not interested in your 'personal' definition of anything - I am interested in the science of genetics and the proofs that derive from it.

Some personal point of view may be interesting, but when we are changing definitions in an accepted science ... who cares?

Not me.

We already know your opinion, that you chose to define it differently, and then ignore the challenge you were given ... and upon which you chose to change the entire definition is irrelevant.

Those claiming genetic causation must LOGICALLY demonstrate the genetic basis of their claims ... not the possibility thereof, but proof. Again, its entirely possible that the FSM has a magic tea pot floating in space, but ... we don;t just change the definition of tea pot to to mean something else so that we cannot prove an assertion one way or another.

That is called an argument from absurdity.

Hence, genetic basis requires genetic proof ... not a changed 'personal' definition. Science does not operate around your opinion, it operates around facts.

#2 - I am glad that you dumped a source and demand I read it thinking I will find something in it somewhere that addresses what you are interested in?

However, thanks to goat, Nickman, and Danmark, I have been repeatedly informed through their incessant complaints to the moderation team that this is just not good enough.

As you are supporting their positions, kindly use their standard and back up what you say with a quote from your own source that supports your thesis statement.

Again, just provided multiple sources, already raised the issue with 'observed behavior' pointedly addressed supposed genetic causation of violence in court case, and in sociopaths ... and you respond with ... I want you to read my source and figure out what my thesis statement is for me!

No thanks.

Make a case, but if your case is that you are NOT avoiding evidence ... yes you are.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 162:

I note the poster in question prefers to make it so he doesn't even hafta see my commentary, much less read it, so the observer should consider all this in light of if he don't respond to the following, 'cause we don't wanna give the impression that an "eighth grader" might've 'one-upped' a 'scholar', when here the 'scholar' made it so his eyes, and thus his brain, weren't even discomforted with it...

If God were evil, then how would you know whether or if any of your beliefs were actually true?

How might we know they're true if he does?

And if ultimate reality were less than personal, how would you know whether or if any of your beliefs had any correlation to reality?

How can we know they had a correlation to reality if this "ultimate reality" were "personal"?

We must assume that our logic and our perceptions can and do correspond adequately to reality--but in the absence of a transcendent God who cares for us, there is no reason to suppose that we would or could ever develop such capacities.

Argument from ignorance.

Whether a god exists or not has little to no bearing on our ability to develop any capacity whatsoever. Except maybe the capacity to be a god, and then how 'bout that.

Non-theism eviscerates any and all grounds for supposing our epistemic powers have any validity. It kicks the can of "truth" forever beyond our reach. Given a non-theistic framework, the supposition that we can ever find "truth" would require more faith than is available to even the most fervent theist.
...

How can we know theism doesn't do it some eviscerating and can-kicking of its own?


I present this post in the full knowledge that placing folks on "ignore" is perfectly within the rules of this site. I will though, contend, that by ignoring challenges and refutations, we have a legitimate reason to question whether one has a full set of data at hand when they go to doing their deal here. I further contend it is perfectly legitimate to point out such a condition, so the observer can better understand what all's going on here.

Is it a scholar who ignores disagreement, or a scholar that refutes it?

[stubbornone]

From Post 162:


Argument from ignorance.

Whether a god exists or not has little to no bearing on our ability to develop any capacity whatsoever. Except maybe the capacity to be a god, and then how 'bout that.
?

That is indeed an argument from ignorance Joey - yours.

You just claimed that God's existence has no bearing on anything whether he exists or not.

Guess what you get to do now? Support your thesis statement.

Otherwise, not only are you engaging in an argument from ignorance, but clear double standards as well.

I mean, attempt to show us how atheism 'saves' people? Especially as it claims moral superiority? Tell me, how many atheists suddenly discover that they are atheist ... and stop drinking? have jail house conversions to ... nothing? How many atheists have epiphanies that drive them to serve missions and charity in Africa?

How many atheists are called, like Mother Theresa, to found enormous charity organizations? Indeed, without a calling, how do atheists, without a God - even get inspiration?

The lot of atheism is perfectly contend to just keep doing whatever it justifies as kosher, with NO outside standards or leaders to shove them outside their comfort zone.

Indeed, what do atheists do when they are actually facing a crisis? Certainly don't pray? You have no doctrine of coping? So what do you do?

You made the claim ... apparently in ignorance, without thinking ... so please back it up with something that looks like an argument meant to convince others.

[Danmark]

...The only will to believe that I have is the will to believe the truth...

If God were evil, then how would you know whether or if any of your beliefs were actually true?

And if ultimate reality were less than personal, how would you know whether or if any of your beliefs had any correlation to reality?

We must assume that our logic and our perceptions can and do correspond adequately to reality--but in the absence of a transcendent God who cares for us, there is no reason to suppose that we would or could ever develop such capacities.

Non-theism eviscerates any and all grounds for supposing our epistemic powers have any validity. It kicks the can of "truth" forever beyond our reach. Given a non-theistic framework, the supposition that we can ever find "truth" would require more faith than is available to even the most fervent theist.

...Your God is too Small...

Fabulous book.

Well . . . you are making me think, I have to confess that much. I'm tempted to start a response with the almost reflexive "If God were good, then how would I know whether or if any of my beliefs were actually true?" But instead I think I will just sleep on it. In part because of other statements you made such as 'Non-theism eviscerates any and all grounds for supposing our epistemic powers have any validity.' I simply do not understand why you would say that, but I have enough respect for you that I am going to let in sink in over night. Not sure that will do me any good, but it's worth a try.

_________________________________
I'm just a work in progress too, but after 60+ years, I expected more than this.

[Danmark]

....
Indeed, what do atheists do when they are actually facing a crisis? Certainly don't pray? You have no doctrine of coping? So what do you do?

It's a fair question, an important question. I'll try to answer in a non argumentative way that I won't pretend is exclusive to atheists. These are things I have actually done, or recommended .

Have another drink and go to bed. Things are always better in the morning. This one is especially important if you have a loaded gun in the house and are considering the easy way out.

Talk to a friend. He is likely to say something funny that puts things in perspective and lets you know you are not the first person to deal with this issue.

Think of your father, remembering that he went through a lot worse than you ever have and considered his situation a 'mere inconvenience' while you are thinking it's the end of the world. I don't recommend this one unless you have a sense of humor and can make fun of yourself, because otherwise comparing yourself to your father could make things worse.

Find someone who needs help and go DO IT! It will take the focus off of yourself and you're likely to find out you have it pretty good compared to the next guy.

Remember the last time you had a crisis, or the last several times. Remember how well things turned out, and how hopeless it seemed at first. Then have that drink and go to bed.

Go down to the nearest 'old folks home' and walk around for a while. Try not to think about how this is how you're going to end up. Focus on the idea that you are not there yet. If you already live in an old folks home . . . then . . . uh . . . well, you could tell me to shut the #@&* up, or you could plan an escape. You don't actually have to go to the trouble of escaping. Just planning it could be fun. Then have a drink and go back to bed. . . but first load up a bed pan and put it where that ##@#%%#$'ing night nurse you hate is likely to step in it.

Sometimes nothing will work. That's ok. It's an excuse to just be alone somewhere and cry and wallow in self pity and hopelessness. Pretty soon you'll get tired of that and get up and kick yourself where it will do the most good and get on with life.

Picture a Marx Bros. routine, then remember W.C. Fields who said,
'It's a funny old world. Man's lucky if he gets out of it alive.

[stubbornone]

....
Indeed, what do atheists do when they are actually facing a crisis? Certainly don't pray? You have no doctrine of coping? So what do you do?

It's a fair question, an important question. I'll try to answer in a non argumentative way that I won't pretend is exclusive to atheists. These are things I have actually done, or recommended .

Have another drink and go to bed. Things are always better in the morning. This one is especially important if you have a loaded gun in the house and are considering the easy way out.

Talk to a friend. He is likely to say something funny that puts things in perspective and lets you know you are not the first person to deal with this issue.

Think of your father, remembering that he went through a lot worse than you ever have and considered his situation a 'mere inconvenience' while you are thinking it's the end of the world. I don't recommend this one unless you have a sense of humor and can make fun of yourself, because otherwise comparing yourself to your father could make things worse.

Find someone who needs help and go DO IT! It will take the focus off of yourself and you're likely to find out you have it pretty good compared to the next guy.

Remember the last time you had a crisis, or the last several times. Remember how well things turned out, and how hopeless it seemed at first. Then have that drink and go to bed.

Go down to the nearest 'old folks home' and walk around for a while. Try not to think about how this is how you're going to end up. Focus on the idea that you are not there yet. If you already live in an old folks home . . . then . . . uh . . . well, you could tell me to shut the #@&* up, or you could plan an escape. You don't actually have to go to the trouble of escaping. Just planning it could be fun. Then have a drink and go back to bed. . . but first load up a bed pan and put it where that ##@#%%#$'ing night nurse you hate is likely to step in it.

Sometimes nothing will work. That's ok. It's an excuse to just be alone somewhere and cry and wallow in self pity and hopelessness. Pretty soon you'll get tired of that and get up and kick yourself where it will do the most good and get on with life.

Picture a Marx Bros. routine, then remember W.C. Fields who said,
'It's a funny old world. Man's lucky if he gets out of it alive.

Well, let me share a story from a friend and see if it clarifies the 'with' and 'without' God portion of the equation. My friend was a operator to a crisis call line, the last line of defense in many cases. In fact, the line she worked at in Alabama was decidedly secular, with professional counselors who pushed that the LAST thing that you should attempt in a crisis was to preach about God.

Indeed, with or without God, just got dumped and feeling suicidal? Preaching that its OK, God will fix it all ... isn't either helpful or true.

However, she got a particularly tough call one night, wherein the caller, disabled, abandoned by his family due to expense, time, etc., no friends, was literally on his last line and literally in tears on the brink of suicide as she tried each and every line that you did ... and this guy ... he truly had NOTHING. The last friend he talked to basically chewed him out and called him worthless. No family, fired from his place of employment, goals blocked by administrators who viewed his 'needs' as a disabled person as excessive ... tied up in courts, and pretty much spit out by the entire world.

She went through the entire list of tips to use and strategies to attempt and the guy had a cogent response to each and every one of them. In her words, the guys genuinely had no reason to live - and this is from someone used to dealing with people at the end of their rope ...

So she, being Christian, tried the only thing she had left. She offered to pray with the guy, not knowing what else to do ... and literally out of bullets so to speak.

So she prayed with them about his feelings, and asked for his guidance. And then hung up with nothing left to do. And then prayed again.

The next day, he called back. Something happened as a direct result of the prayer - as he put it - and his hope was rekindled, his burden lightened, and his purpose re-energized. He found faith.

When reason unanimously considered him worthless, faith gave him purpose. God found him relevant and important. One person, whose reason faltered as equally as his was left only with a desperate and humble appeal to God ... and the result was a saved life.

(She, BTW, got a butt chewing by the center director, who, beyond the butt chewing let it slide because even he was left dumbstruck and out of alternatives short of praying).

That is the difference of 'with' God rather than 'without God'. Though I realize that to doubters there are many who dismiss it as theatrics and pitiful stuff, but the reality is that it is true.

There are literally millions of people with a testimony of God and his efforts, and THAT is the difference between 'with' and 'without' God.

Indeed, science it seems further back up these stories. Indeed, those with faith seem, in the aggregate, to be much better in dealing with the stressors then those without faith.

So the 'without' God is an important piece of the puzzle that should be addressed.

That is not to say that those without God are suicidal or that they are prone to disaster when pushed ...

... but is a testimony of what we preach: that God created each any every one of us and that he loves each and every one us far more than any of us can comprehend. And when everything we hold dear is stripped away from us, when we are left with little more than literally ourselves and the sometimes futile struggles we engage in. It is then that this love is both most relevant, and most felt and appreciated.

Indeed, a marriage based on love without trails can be an enjoyable thing, but when trouble hits and your spouse stands by you, when they support you when no one else will - then you know not just that you love, but that you are really loved in turn.

The same applies for God. He tells us that all of this, including his distance is for us and created out of love. And when it is stripped away bare ... then, in humbleness and often in desperation, we can see it clearly. And we appreciate it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 163:

Lets clarify a few things:

#1 - I am not interested in your 'personal' definition of anything - I am interested in the science of genetics and the proofs that derive from it.

So there's no objection to the definition I provided, just a not being interested? How might one be disinterested in a definition that relates to a set of scientific or genetic data, while at the same time being interested in the science of genetics and the proofs of all that?

Some personal point of view may be interesting, but when we are changing definitions in an accepted science ... who cares?

I contend that if you had any real objection to the definition I presented, you'd explain why it fails.

Not me.

We already know your opinion, that you chose to define it differently, and then ignore the challenge you were given ... and upon which you chose to change the entire definition is irrelevant.

Those claiming genetic causation must LOGICALLY demonstrate the genetic basis of their claims ... not the possibility thereof, but proof. Again, its entirely possible that the FSM has a magic tea pot floating in space, but ... we don;t just change the definition of tea pot to to mean something else so that we cannot prove an assertion one way or another.

I didn't define it "differently", except to place a definition on an example.

Do you contend that in a social species it is not moral to be pro-social?

Would you define being social as "all that which it ain't"? What is your objection?

That is called an argument from absurdity.

Is my presenting a definition any more absurd than your refusal to address or challenge the data I present in defense of that definition?

Hence, genetic basis requires genetic proof ... not a changed 'personal' definition. Science does not operate around your opinion, it operates around facts.

Which I offered, though you -ahem- stubbornly refuse to address.

#2 - I am glad that you dumped a source and demand I read it thinking I will find something in it somewhere that addresses what you are interested in?

I don't "demand" you read it.

I expect you to be able to refute it, or at least tell us what you disagree about it, if you're to convince the observer my contention is in error, and how proud would we all be if you actually did read it for to do all that.


I claim no intellectual superiority to anybody, and that ain't just trying to fluff up your feathers. I've got an eighth grade education and I would enjoy it, and be proud for the being enlightened here. I make no overt claims to having this right - beyond saying I'm proud I think I do. I do NOT seek to be dogmatic here. I do NOT seek to disagree for the sake of disagreement.

School me dude. Teach me the error of my ways. But if you're to do so, you've got to address my source. Tell me where my source fails.

However, thanks to goat, Nickman, and Danmark, I have been repeatedly informed through their incessant complaints to the moderation team that this is just not good enough.

I challenge you to to report my Post 130 to the moderators, so they can tell you I've offered what I contend is my evidence (such a condition of course doesn't mean my source has it right, only that I can point to something, anything, and with a reasoned bit of dialogue declare, "well how 'bout that").

1st challenge to what I contend is an uncivil, unwarranted attack on my character.

Do it man! Click that report button! Ya know ya wanna! Let the mods know you're upset I linked to my source, but here you declare I have no source!

I further challenge you to show anywhere in this thread where you've addressed that source, other'n to just dismiss it.


Have some danged honor dude.

Answer my source. Heck challenge my source! What don't ya like? What don't ya get? What can you refute? What can you accept?


Quit carrying on like my source is a link to an empty page. And don't it beat all, here after fifteen years of trying to get you to address it, it danged well may be empty by now!

Dangitallman! Copy and paste a single phrase from it so's we can know you've at least set eyes on it!

I'm fully prepared to admit my source has it wrong. What I ain't prepared to do is retract my claim, and my source, simply 'cause you refuse to read, answer, address, challenge, understand, or otherwise give us one inkling of a reason to conclude you're aware of the data that source presents.


On that note, I request the observer see my source, and hop in here with their own questions. I ain't scared. And I ain't too proud to admit I mighta got it all wrong.

As you are supporting their positions, kindly use their standard and back up what you say with a quote from your own source that supports your thesis statement.

I will NOT be bound to support the claims of others. I have offered support for my claim, only to have you refuse to address the data I've presented in support of my claim - beyond your hand-waving dismissal of that data.

Again, just provided multiple sources...

Frankly, I'm tired of begging you to address the source I did present.


It would seem that "debate by anything but actually addressing the data presented" has won the day. What is the term for "debate by refusing to address the data, but danged if I didn't wear that sonofabiscuiteater down"?


Let this be a lesson to the observer - where there is misunderstanding, where there is ignorance, where there is confoundment, any and all of that will be placed within the "god box". It will be stored there, unchallenged, unquestioned, unanswered.


And woe be upon those who attempt to crack that nut!