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.

[stubbornone]

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.

No, that is pretty much EXACTLY what you are saying.

You are saying two people, who are doing the same thing, albeit for different motivations (and humans have as many different motivations as there are humans) somehow YOUR motivation, which of course is not hubristic in slightest, is superior ... er, why?

Again, I strongly challenge atheists embarking on this line of reasoning to check into arrogance, or as its defined, the overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors.

I have no doubt that if a Christian started a thread about how Christian were morally superior ... why I bet not a single atheist would respond by asking said person to check their own arrogance?

Besides, perhaps we should be examining a DEFINED MORAL code that challenges people to pursue charitable ends, the service of others, FOR ANY REASON, because it not only helps others ... it helps you.

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."

You do.

Without it, we get silly questions like, "Why are MY good things better than yours?"

Indeed, with no God, we are left with the morality of evolution. The survival of the strongest, fittest, etc.

Indeed, some atheists seem to get this, and indeed challenge atheists to delve into the question of morality. Indeed, its not much of a surprise that I gave this to the author of the OP less than 24 hours ago.

Nietzsche understood how immense the consequences of the rise of Christianity had been, and how immense the consequences of its decline would be as well, and had the intelligence to know he could not fall back on polite moral certitudes to which he no longer had any right. Just as the Christian revolution created a new sensibility by inverting many of the highest values of the pagan past, so the decline of Christianity, Nietzsche knew, portends another, perhaps equally catastrophic shift in moral and cultural consciousness. His famous fable in The Gay Science of the madman who announces God’s death is anything but a hymn of atheist triumphalism. In fact, the madman despairs of the mere atheists—those who merely do not believe—to whom he addresses his terrible proclamation. In their moral contentment, their ease of conscience, he sees an essential oafishness; they do not dread the death of God because they do not grasp that humanity’s heroic and insane act of repudiation has sponged away the horizon, torn down the heavens, left us with only the uncertain resources of our will with which to combat the infinity of meaninglessness that the universe now threatens to become.

http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/201 ... -atheists/

And how does atheism respond? By giving us another grotesque misdirection of faith and claiming that their morality, which cannot even be spelled out, is somehow better ... for any little thing they do, it AUTOMATICALLY better?

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.

Or, perhaps you just don't understand.

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.

Do they?

And an atheist's high moral values, due to their own conviction alone mind, you is spelled out where? Where do we get some objectivity in the emotional and subjective world of humanity that WE KNOW is prone to rationalization? How do atheists, since everything is personal, hold each other accountable? How is, "Well, I think I am moral, therefore I am," anything but an exercise is futility?

Indeed, the story of narcissus points strongly toward the definitive downside of such thinking, and indeed, morality is not a concept that is personal, but intrinsically involves others ... and your conduct toward them. As morality is to an atheist, apparently whatever the hell they want it to be ... what prevent atheists from becoming scrooge? Instead of charity, they decide that reducing the surplus population and increasing the standard of living for others is best?

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.

No a religious person who accepts God's standards has done so voluntarily, because we examine them and find them to be 'true' and good. We follow them because they are right.

Once again, I realize its hard for some atheists to imagine that they are neither the first persons on the earth or the first to grapple with moral questions ... by your standard, if you accept that murder is bad, well, you are merely a slave to the American legal code and have no morality of your own!

We follow God because he is right, and because, exactly as he promises, there are great blessings and benefits in serving your fellow man. It is the right thing to do.

Indeed, your claim that religious people are unthinking only more strongly points to element of hubris in atheist moral thinking.

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.

You have made no case for a 'more genuine' morality in atheism. You have simply mischaracterized religious faith.

Indeed, with no God, what does it matter whether you are good or bad? Our lives are pointless, and all that awaits is ... nothingness. A return to rot. Therefore, as this is all you have, shouldn't the goal to be to reach the pinnacles of power? To experience all that there is - the embrace of hedonism?

After all, life is pointless, we are all corruption anyway.

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.

Indeed, that is the case you are claiming ... but not making. Yet somehow, it automatically makes atheism superior?

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.

Yes, atheism obviously causes everyone to be a deep and moral person magically.

No religious person could ever be genuinely moved by their faith and perform charity of service in anything that could EVER be called genuine.

Once again, I highly suggest atheists examine the effects of hubris on their positions.

The fact that you disparage religion and write off billions of people with a single sentence calls the very rational of your thinking into question in terms of morality.

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.

Hmmm ... what do we call it when the goal of morality seems to be inaccurately belittle other people to derive a sense of superiority ... without even conducting and service or charity? Indeed, you are better than Mother Theresa herself ... because she was not genuine! Her charity was but an intellectual shame.

Joel Osteen is, of course, merely a sock puppet?

CS Lewis was but a fraud.

William Wilburforce, using guts and intellect to free slaves in the British Empire was doing so out of a fake desire? Not genuine in slightest?

The early Christians, Quakers of all things, who used scripture to justify the removal of slavery, literally founding the abolitionist movement - while atheists in their superior morality (but not rationalization) are silent on the subject?

Martin Luthur King Jr. - Obviously a fraudulent train wreck?

And the moral atheists? Hitchens? Whose works are little more than lies of omissions? Dawkins? Seriously? A guy running around comparing Catholics to abuse victims?

And why do no atheists mention Gora of India? Why are their no threads on him from atheists? But plenty of chest thumping opinions backed by ... desultory opinions and deliberate micharacterization of faith?

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

Indeed he does:

"The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." 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.

Considering atheism, with all the gluttonous pretensions here, cannot even spell out a consensus based moral code, I would challenge that atheism morality is anything other than what is currently rationalized.

Indeed, atheists who advance this illogic would do well to see what happened when those who thought as they do ACTUALLY REMOVED RELIGION.

Who is North Korea going?

Have you read the histories of the Russia Revolution? Where service to Revolution replaced Orthodox Christianity? That a period of great moral superiority?

Indeed, there is great danger in thinking, without defining, that one is somehow gifted into moral insights that are 'better' than others. Its called narcissism, and I highly suggest those advocating it with 'opinions' take a gander at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_(mythology)

Indeed, you have spent all of your time here falsely defining religious positions, projecting your own sense of superiority onto something that you clearly do not understand - your sole goal, rather than in searching moral truth, appears to be to maintain a veneer of superiority.

Selflessness, the cornerstone of many moral precepts, humbleness, kindness ... your position ALREADY violates these. And yet you call it superior?

[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.

No, that is pretty much EXACTLY what you are saying.

You are saying two people, who are doing the same thing, albeit for different motivations (and humans have as many different motivations as there are humans) somehow YOUR motivation, which of course is not hubristic in slightest, is superior ... er, why?

Again, I strongly challenge atheists embarking on this line of reasoning to check into arrogance, or as its defined, the overbearing pride evidenced by a superior manner toward inferiors.

I have no doubt that if a Christian started a thread about how Christian were morally superior ... why I bet not a single atheist would respond by asking said person to check their own arrogance?

Besides, perhaps we should be examining a DEFINED MORAL code that challenges people to pursue charitable ends, the service of others, FOR ANY REASON, because it not only helps others ... it helps you.

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."

You do.

Without it, we get silly questions like, "Why are MY good things better than yours?"

Indeed, with no God, we are left with the morality of evolution. The survival of the strongest, fittest, etc.

Indeed, some atheists seem to get this, and indeed challenge atheists to delve into the question of morality. Indeed, its not much of a surprise that I gave this to the author of the OP less than 24 hours ago.

Nietzsche understood how immense the consequences of the rise of Christianity had been, and how immense the consequences of its decline would be as well, and had the intelligence to know he could not fall back on polite moral certitudes to which he no longer had any right. Just as the Christian revolution created a new sensibility by inverting many of the highest values of the pagan past, so the decline of Christianity, Nietzsche knew, portends another, perhaps equally catastrophic shift in moral and cultural consciousness. His famous fable in The Gay Science of the madman who announces God’s death is anything but a hymn of atheist triumphalism. In fact, the madman despairs of the mere atheists—those who merely do not believe—to whom he addresses his terrible proclamation. In their moral contentment, their ease of conscience, he sees an essential oafishness; they do not dread the death of God because they do not grasp that humanity’s heroic and insane act of repudiation has sponged away the horizon, torn down the heavens, left us with only the uncertain resources of our will with which to combat the infinity of meaninglessness that the universe now threatens to become.

http://santitafarella.wordpress.com/201 ... -atheists/

And how does atheism respond? By giving us another grotesque misdirection of faith and claiming that their morality, which cannot even be spelled out, is somehow better ... for any little thing they do, it AUTOMATICALLY better?

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.

Or, perhaps you just don't understand.

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.

Do they?

And an atheist's high moral values, due to their own conviction alone mind, you is spelled out where? Where do we get some objectivity in the emotional and subjective world of humanity that WE KNOW is prone to rationalization? How do atheists, since everything is personal, hold each other accountable? How is, "Well, I think I am moral, therefore I am," anything but an exercise is futility?

Indeed, the story of narcissus points strongly toward the definitive downside of such thinking, and indeed, morality is not a concept that is personal, but intrinsically involves others ... and your conduct toward them. As morality is to an atheist, apparently whatever the hell they want it to be ... what prevent atheists from becoming scrooge? Instead of charity, they decide that reducing the surplus population and increasing the standard of living for others is best?

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.

No a religious person who accepts God's standards has done so voluntarily, because we examine them and find them to be 'true' and good. We follow them because they are right.

Once again, I realize its hard for some atheists to imagine that they are neither the first persons on the earth or the first to grapple with moral questions ... by your standard, if you accept that murder is bad, well, you are merely a slave to the American legal code and have no morality of your own!

We follow God because he is right, and because, exactly as he promises, there are great blessings and benefits in serving your fellow man. It is the right thing to do.

Indeed, your claim that religious people are unthinking only more strongly points to element of hubris in atheist moral thinking.

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.

You have made no case for a 'more genuine' morality in atheism. You have simply mischaracterized religious faith.

Indeed, with no God, what does it matter whether you are good or bad? Our lives are pointless, and all that awaits is ... nothingness. A return to rot. Therefore, as this is all you have, shouldn't the goal to be to reach the pinnacles of power? To experience all that there is - the embrace of hedonism?

After all, life is pointless, we are all corruption anyway.

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.

Indeed, that is the case you are claiming ... but not making. Yet somehow, it automatically makes atheism superior?

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.

Yes, atheism obviously causes everyone to be a deep and moral person magically.

No religious person could ever be genuinely moved by their faith and perform charity of service in anything that could EVER be called genuine.

Once again, I highly suggest atheists examine the effects of hubris on their positions.

The fact that you disparage religion and write off billions of people with a single sentence calls the very rational of your thinking into question in terms of morality.

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.

Hmmm ... what do we call it when the goal of morality seems to be inaccurately belittle other people to derive a sense of superiority ... without even conducting and service or charity? Indeed, you are better than Mother Theresa herself ... because she was not genuine! Her charity was but an intellectual shame.

Joel Osteen is, of course, merely a sock puppet?

CS Lewis was but a fraud.

William Wilburforce, using guts and intellect to free slaves in the British Empire was doing so out of a fake desire? Not genuine in slightest?

The early Christians, Quakers of all things, who used scripture to justify the removal of slavery, literally founding the abolitionist movement - while atheists in their superior morality (but not rationalization) are silent on the subject?

Martin Luthur King Jr. - Obviously a fraudulent train wreck?

And the moral atheists? Hitchens? Whose works are little more than lies of omissions? Dawkins? Seriously? A guy running around comparing Catholics to abuse victims?

And why do no atheists mention Gora of India? Why are their no threads on him from atheists? But plenty of chest thumping opinions backed by ... desultory opinions and deliberate micharacterization of faith?

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

Indeed he does:

"The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection." 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.

Considering atheism, with all the gluttonous pretensions here, cannot even spell out a consensus based moral code, I would challenge that atheism morality is anything other than what is currently rationalized.

Indeed, atheists who advance this illogic would do well to see what happened when those who thought as they do ACTUALLY REMOVED RELIGION.

Who is North Korea going?

Have you read the histories of the Russia Revolution? Where service to Revolution replaced Orthodox Christianity? That a period of great moral superiority?

Indeed, there is great danger in thinking, without defining, that one is somehow gifted into moral insights that are 'better' than others. Its called narcissism, and I highly suggest those advocating it with 'opinions' take a gander at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissus_(mythology)

Indeed, you have spent all of your time here falsely defining religious positions, projecting your own sense of superiority onto something that you clearly do not understand - your sole goal, rather than in searching moral truth, appears to be to maintain a veneer of superiority.

Selflessness, the cornerstone of many moral precepts, humbleness, kindness ... your position ALREADY violates these. And yet you call it superior?

Serving others is the foundation of what Gods people do. It is within every minute of our life. In case point, we are serving God. Therefore, if one refers to good moral deeds equalling to serving another in good nature, we are doing it all the time. Go figure..

[stubbornone]

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.

Wow, in response to a claim of hubris, you embrace it like no other.

Apparently unable to grasp that your analysis of religion is an spot on as Dawkins (which, given that sarcasm does not appear your strong suit, I must spell it out) which is to say its well wide of the mark - typical.

So, instead of finger pointing with gross generalizations, which we KNOW you hate, and deliberate mischaracterization, how about you explain how atheism, which cannot even define a moral code based on consensus, is somehow morally superior to those who are, publish it, and demand to be held to it?

By all means, explain to me how you arrive at the overly simplistic characterization, though hell is barely mentioned in the Bible, how it is that religious people are ... driven through fear to be selfless?

Not only would I say that this demonstrates a gross ignorance about faith, but about the emotional state that actually drives selflessness and humbleness.

After all, you complain when I reduce a plethora of atheist law suits (mostly utterly frivilous), and a great collection of nihilistic atheist prattle .. er, I mean books, into the succinct term atheist ... and yet here you prattle on about how billions of people are all driven by fear rather than conviction that what they read an studied was indeed correct.

What an amazing lack of bigotry and generalization in finding that so many people are bereft of the their ability to use their brain and free will ... except atheists of course.

From Dawkins to Danmark, we just cannot seem to grasp ... even the simplest aspects of religion?

Somehow, that makes atheist both intellectually AND morally superior?

[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.

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?

I myself am a Christian as you can clearly see. I didn't belive in God for the sake of not being thrown into hell. I belived in Christ for the sake of finding true values to life. In my case, what you say here goes against my belief in trinity.

By all means, it is not better one does good under ones own merit.

That mentallity only builds self importance and pride, it does more harm than good in the long run.

[stubbornone]

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?

I myself am a Christian as you can clearly see. I didn't belive in God for the sake of not being thrown into hell. I belived in Christ for the sake of finding true values to life. In my case, what you say here goes against my belief in trinity.

By all means, it is not better one does good under ones own merit.

That mentallity only builds self importance and pride, it does more harm than good in the long run.

Truth,
There is also something to be said of simple obedience. We humans are, despite our prejudices, and, as you put it, pride, are not always aware of the reality of things.

There are many examples of things that we do not understand until we do them. For example, tithing. It is commanded in the Bible. It is something that many atheists routinely complain about.

Yet when I started tithing, a couple of things happened that genuinely surprised me. I began knowing that the charity the church does, the building upkeep, etc. all require funding, and that, in a practical sense, tithing was meant for those functions.

Yet the Bible also states that tithing brings great blessings. And what it brings very often surprised me. I was worried about tithing when I started, because, the budget was tight and 10% was a stretch. SO I redid my budget, and made tithing a priority. Surprisingly, at the end of the month, after giving away 10% ... I had more disposable income. Odd.

There is also participation on the church programs, the missionaries that are funded and grow, the emergency funds that help people in times of dire need, and the the acknowledgement that something as trifling as 10%, something in this modern age that we can give away before it even hits our accounts, does tremendous good.

All because, one obeys to learn rather than sits back and rationalizes.

Indeed, the atheists who have called themselves so moral, not a one has invited anyone to ACTUALLY conduct a 'good' thing. Not one.

And yet, here you are as a single Christian stating quite correctly, that we are challenged repeatedly to serve our fellow man. That Charity is the greatest form of love.

Indeed, charity appears to some to be the greatest form of self love as well

How right Jesus was in so many different ways.

[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.

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?

I myself am a Christian as you can clearly see. I didn't belive in God for the sake of not being thrown into hell. I belived in Christ for the sake of finding true values to life. In my case, what you say here goes against my belief in trinity.

By all means, it is not better one does good under ones own merit.

That mentallity only builds self importance and pride, it does more harm than good in the long run.

Truth,
There is also something to be said of simple obedience. We humans are, despite our prejudices, and, as you put it, pride, are not always aware of the reality of things.

There are many examples of things that we do not understand until we do them. For example, tithing. It is commanded in the Bible. It is something that many atheists routinely complain about.

Yet when I started tithing, a couple of things happened that genuinely surprised me. I began knowing that the charity the church does, the building upkeep, etc. all require funding, and that, in a practical sense, tithing was meant for those functions.

Yet the Bible also states that tithing brings great blessings. And what it brings very often surprised me. I was worried about tithing when I started, because, the budget was tight and 10% was a stretch. SO I redid my budget, and made tithing a priority. Surprisingly, at the end of the month, after giving away 10% ... I had more disposable income. Odd.

There is also participation on the church programs, the missionaries that are funded and grow, the emergency funds that help people in times of dire need, and the the acknowledgement that something as trifling as 10%, something in this modern age that we can give away before it even hits our accounts, does tremendous good.

All because, one obeys to learn rather than sits back and rationalizes.

Indeed, the atheists who have called themselves so moral, not a one has invited anyone to ACTUALLY conduct a 'good' thing. Not one.

And yet, here you are as a single Christian stating quite correctly, that we are challenged repeatedly to serve our fellow man. That Charity is the greatest form of love.

Indeed, charity appears to some to be the greatest form of self love as well

How right Jesus was in so many different ways.

Tithing was done and made under the religious principals of charity. And also, self sacrifice.

It was done under a notion being spoken from the Apostles of God to give to others, that they are your brothers. Indeed the faithful people of christ are following his footsteps, as christ have clearly said "there is no greater love than giving your life for a brother". Christ was not speaking of "dying" for another, althogh it can be said that way, but it was also in refernce to "feeding" the church, or the kingdom of God, in turn, giving life to another, and sacrificing your own luxury of life.

Also, 10% was ordered by God because it resembeles excellence, or perfection, as in God. And from God was made society, you can simply look at our general grading system. 100 to 90 percent being A, or excellence, indeed it is a note of supremacy noting 10 percentism.

Charity along with self sacrifice was the given prinipal of Christs teachings, indeed the people of christianity will be placed highest in the level of heavens.

[Artie]

Hi stubbornone

The only thing all atheists generally can be said to have in common is that they don't believe in gods. Personally I hold the view that morality is a logical result of evolution. Organisms started cooperating. Cooperating organisms survived better than those who didn't. Cooperation automatically produced a common set of codes called morals that improved cooperation and therefore chances of survival. So we have logic, reason, common sense, compassion, empathy, altruism, love, the Golden rule etc etc. I know why we have these and why they are important to follow. For those who don't understand we evolved justice systems and religions. Justice systems protect immoral people from the rest of us, and for example Christianity teaches morality and tell people if they are moral they'll survive forever which of course is just a way of taking the concept that if you follow evolved morality you enhance your chances of survival one step further so as to entice as many people as possible to behave morally.

[TheTruth101]

Hi stubbornone

The only thing all atheists generally can be said to have in common is that they don't believe in gods. Personally I hold the view that morality is a logical result of evolution. Organisms started cooperating. Cooperating organisms survived better than those who didn't. Cooperation automatically produced a common set of codes called morals that improved cooperation and therefore chances of survival. So we have logic, reason, common sense, compassion, empathy, altruism, love, the Golden rule etc etc. I know why we have these and why they are important to follow. For those who don't understand we evolved justice systems and religions. Justice systems protect immoral people from the rest of us, and for example Christianity teaches morality and tell people if they are moral they'll survive forever which of course is just a way of taking the concept that if you follow evolved morality you enhance your chances of survival one step further so as to entice as many people as possible to behave morally.

One that put up the way of evolution goes strongly against the moral behaviors of religious establishments. Moral codes that we know now were done and said under christianity only after Moses. Before him, the moral codes were not so distinct, thus, God killing all in Sodom and Gommorah. If the rules were not set by Moses, then by all means, people can be left with an impression that Killing is right in sacrifice of bigger picture. As evident by the crusaders and what not, it was done in reality.

The religious prioncipals begins before the threory of evolution, so in short, you have no argument.

[stubbornone]

Hi stubbornone

The only thing all atheists generally can be said to have in common is that they don't believe in gods. Personally I hold the view that morality is a logical result of evolution. Organisms started cooperating. Cooperating organisms survived better than those who didn't. Cooperation automatically produced a common set of codes called morals that improved cooperation and therefore chances of survival. So we have logic, reason, common sense, compassion, empathy, altruism, love, the Golden rule etc etc. I know why we have these and why they are important to follow. For those who don't understand we evolved justice systems and religions. Justice systems protect immoral people from the rest of us, and for example Christianity teaches morality and tell people if they are moral they'll survive forever which of course is just a way of taking the concept that if you follow evolved morality you enhance your chances of survival one step further so as to entice as many people as possible to behave morally.

Then why do most animals not follow our same moral code? Why to lions, when taking over a pride, kill the cubs to induce heat into the female lions earlier? Why do bull seals, in their competitions of rutting, often trample new borns? Why are some species of duck, so prone to rape, have special genitalia the allows females to block insemination as a result of frequent rape? The list goes on ...

Indeed evolution all about survival of the fittest, not morality in the slightest. There cannot be a greater difference in morality then what is animal and what is human.

Again, if the goal ala animals is to spread genes, than I have no business as a man being married or behaving morally do I? I just have to screw as many women as possible and block other men from doing the same ... which is what happens in the animal world.

Indeed, there are no written treatises on morality that animals study and adopt are there?

And brother, no offense, I hear all the time that atheists 'just don't believe in God', but I challenge you to take a garner at this very forum and see if 'just not believing in God' is all atheists talk about. Indeed, this very thread is case in point, how does 'just not believing in God' make one charity superior?

Indeed, humanity never stops at a simple conclusion. If you honestly believe that there is no God, then you must live accordingly ... and that has all kinds of different possibilities, choices, and actions.

At it simplest, Christianity is JUST the acceptance of the teachings of Christ ... yet I doubt anyone would even attempt the claim that this single sentence properly encapsulates what Christianity is ... and I believe that atheism is no different.

Some atheists do it well, many, unfortunately these days ... start threads that are a mark of arrogance rather than intellect, or even seeing an inconclusive evident situation differently.

Again, I am struck by the very premise of threads like these, wherein, cannot prove or disprove God, but ... somehow MY morality is better from that basis?

This need not be what atheism is.

[Artie]

One that put up the way of evolution goes strongly against the moral behaviors of religious establishments. Moral codes that we know now were done and said under christianity only after Moses. Before him, the moral codes were not so distinct, thus, God killing all in Sodom and Gommorah. If the rules were not set by Moses, then by all means, people can be left with an impression that Killing is right in sacrifice of bigger picture. As evident by the crusaders and what not, it was done in reality.

The religious prioncipals begins before the threory of evolution, so in short, you have no argument.

I can't comment on this post because I don't follow your reasoning and have trouble with your English. Could you rephrase?