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.

[Nickman]

We'll test one theory, that Christians get their morality from society ... sexuality.

Society say porn is acceptable, Christians do not.

Society says promiscuity is acceptable, Christians do not.

Society says that sexuality is immutable, but only for homosexuals. Christians do not.

Society says that divorce should be easy and common. Christians do not.

Society says that sex is the end all be all. Christians say that sex is best in marriage, and that it can take an unhealthy control in your life.

Please show me where society says any of what you claim.

Nickman, I have been through this with you before.

Do I need to prove that there is a lot of internet porn, indicating high demand and supply or can you just acknowledge a simple point?

No offense Nick, but the goal seems never to having to admit that you are wrong, and that goes right to heart of what I wrote.

Morality is not a zero sum game, and it your moral code is derived more in pointing out faults in others than in acknowledging your own ... well, you can see how that leads to both moral stagnation at best, and at worst hypocrisy.

Its a simple enough point, and the standard of evidence is called prima facie, as in its self evident.

Having to prove our society tolerate porn is simply a delaying tactic. Please deal with the resulting analysis.

It is very simple Stubborn. Show me where society says porn is acceptable as a whole? I wouldn't let my kids watch it and no matter what background or belief most of society wouldn't either. Porn is a personal choice. If you think it is ok then watch it in your own privacy. Our society doesn't allow it on public TV. It is therefore not acceptable in society as a whole. Its not just the religious trying to keep it off of TV. So show me where society claims that what you say is ok?

[Nickman]

If you get your morals from the bible then they are not objective. They are subjective to the bible.
.

See above Nickman, would YOU care yo prove that? Or are you simply taking the opposite view to take the opposite view?

If you get your morals from a book then it is not objective. It is in fact subjective plain and simple.

Indeed, how exactly is an entire community accepting a standard and holding each other to it subjective rather than objective?

Again, it doesn't even address the actual point being made partner.

And I really appreciate having another atheist shove slavery in my face so he can one up me? Having just blow off three threads and everything Christians said about it.

Now, would you like a better demonstration of why I think atheistic morality is entirely subjective and prone to fault finding in others rather than itself?

The discussion Nickman is about whether or not individual moral systems are better than community selected moral systems

You are free to disagree with my position, but please don;t through slavery and other common barbs in my face like its germane to the discussion to belittle someone. It isn't.

Slavery is in your book that you claim as "objective morality" when it is truly subjective. Slavery is not rebuked by your god and is given rules which allow beating slaves as long as they don't die. So forgive me if I don't adhere or accept your holy book as moral authority. If it were from an absolute law giver who is benevolent and has objective standards, then he would have rebuked such practice and placed it in the hearts of mankind that it was wrong. That is not the case. Mankind listened to the subjective morals on slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation and after. It wasn't until society decided as a whole or majority that slavery was completely wrong. Im sorry you have to deal with the baggage of your god not rebuking slavery, but that is a choice you have decided to defend.

[stubbornone]

....
The real issue comes in accountability. As each atheist has essentially created his own standards, some poor - others are greatly to be admired, how do you pull up the lower standard atheists?

Indeed, the first step of formulating morality is the same regardless of your belief system. Even if you base your beliefs on the Bible, there is tremendous disagreement about some of the finer points of the Bible, whereas the acceptance that murder is bad is probably about as uniform as it is among atheists and the opposite.

What about say, promiscuity? Adultery? Greed?

What mechanism in there in place to check the lower ones? For example, and I have seen this in both Christian and atheists, so don't take it personally, but when an atheist decides that promiscuity is OK, indeed, frequent use of prostitutes because its a victimless crime ... what then?

If you are part of a church community, a small town in and of itself, your actions will not remain a secret - at least not for long. You will be confronted with scripture and leaders, even peers, who will warn you, at a minimum, of the spiritual consequences of your choice and then the physical consequences. Indeed, refusal to mend your ways and return to the path can result in excommunication.

Can atheists be excommunicated?

(Barring that fact that not all excommunications are for legit reasons - an issue for a different discussion perhaps).

That is but one, but the biggest difference between the two systems is the atonement. A published set of COMMUNITY rather than individual standards that are weekly measured and improved.

And therein lies the rub. Atheists are often good people, but individual morality has its weaker points.

I guess I am beginning to see your point. I am not responsible for the conduct of other atheists. Are you responsible for the failings of your fellow Christians?

How often to you go to a Christian brother and tell him in person and tell him the error of his ways? I'm guessing it is not more often than the average atheist gives correction to his fellow man.

I guess I have to admit it is true, that atheists are not a unified force or team or congregation. There certainly are atheists who have done wrong. That does not make lack of belief in god wrong, does it?
Many Christians have failed. That does not mean God does not exist. ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The Christian community can forgive them, as their God can.

If either an atheist or a Christian 'sins', I can forgive him . . . or not. I personally would be inclined to because I have found my life to be easier and more cheerful if I can avoid being judgmental and can be quick to forgive. It makes it easier to forgive myself.

Is there some evidence that atheists break society's moral or legal code more than Christians do? Is there evidence that Christians violate their code more than atheists break a similar secular moral code? I don't know. I would be interested in seeing the evidence supporting either proposition.

I am willing to bet that if any of us were to choose a partner for a long camping trip together, it would NOT be on the basis of their religious beliefs.

I do not see this as a useful line of argument. I'd prefer to simply do my best according to the light I have. I aspire to have tolerance for others and not expect them to act beyond their abilities.

Maybe some become better people by becoming Christians. Others become less tolerant and more judgmental by joining that club. Maybe others become better by becoming atheists; maybe they get worse. Is there some data demonstrating either proposition?

I think we all, regardless of some religious or irreligious 'team' we belong to can benefit both ourselves and others by following the admonition to first look at the log in our own eye, before complaining about the speck in our brothers'.

First, we do.

Again, is there anything like the atonement in atheism? In individually selected systems of morality?

We are not responsible for the conduct but we clearly do things that atheists cannot do when behavior falters. DO atheists do penances? Do you have a church where you can receive private counseling? Can you be excommunicated for you moral decisions as an atheist?

Are there atheist clergy who will confront you? Whom you turn to for counseling and advice? To issue discipline for faltering moral decisions (even if they are within the law like adultery)?

Indeed, the Westboro Baptist Church is a good example of this trend, wherein many Christians are seeking to get the group branded as a hate group.

The trend, and again this is not universal, in atheism is that anything coming from atheism of late is branded as acceptable. The Santa Monica take over of Christmas displays? Was that necessary or simply kind of jerkish thing to do? So, at what point would atheists look at these kinds of antics and collectively call it too task? Can they? (Asked honestly, not accusingly).

Again that is not to say that atheists are bad people, and there are many who are indeed genuinely motivated to search and seek truth as best they can.

However, its been my experience that almost all journeys are best done with others - collaboration is key. So when a group is working toward a set of accepted goals, pushing each others, admonishing each other, you are going to get greater accountability to those standards in the aggregate.

That process too can be hijacked by the charismatic but unscrupulous as with David Koresh?

So perhaps the proper way forward is a combination of the two? Which would be in line with God telling us to seek wisdom rather than forms. Go figure he was ahead of my analysis yet again ...

[stubbornone]

If you get your morals from the bible then they are not objective. They are subjective to the bible.
.

See above Nickman, would YOU care yo prove that? Or are you simply taking the opposite view to take the opposite view?

If you get your morals from a book then it is not objective. It is in fact subjective plain and simple.

Indeed, how exactly is an entire community accepting a standard and holding each other to it subjective rather than objective?

Again, it doesn't even address the actual point being made partner.

And I really appreciate having another atheist shove slavery in my face so he can one up me? Having just blow off three threads and everything Christians said about it.

Now, would you like a better demonstration of why I think atheistic morality is entirely subjective and prone to fault finding in others rather than itself?

The discussion Nickman is about whether or not individual moral systems are better than community selected moral systems

You are free to disagree with my position, but please don;t through slavery and other common barbs in my face like its germane to the discussion to belittle someone. It isn't.

Slavery is in your book that you claim as "objective morality" when it is truly subjective. Slavery is not rebuked by your god and is given rules which allow beating slaves as long as they don't die. So forgive me if I don't adhere or accept your holy book as moral authority. If it were from an absolute law giver who is benevolent and has objective standards, then he would have rebuked such practice and placed it in the hearts of mankind that it was wrong. That is not the case. Mankind listened to the subjective morals on slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation and after. It wasn't until society decided as a whole or majority that slavery was completely wrong. Im sorry you have to deal with the baggage of your god not rebuking slavery, but that is a choice you have decided to defend.

There are three open threads on slavey right now Nickman.

I am telling you that I think your analysis is little more than flame bait. Please remain on topic.

The topic is whether individual or collective systems produce better moral conditions.

"My God" not denoucing slavery has been addressed at great detail in not less than three threads and studiously ignored by you. I believe you intention in dragging it in here is simply not germane to or conducive of a civil discussion.

[Nickman]

If you get your morals from the bible then they are not objective. They are subjective to the bible.
.

See above Nickman, would YOU care yo prove that? Or are you simply taking the opposite view to take the opposite view?

If you get your morals from a book then it is not objective. It is in fact subjective plain and simple.

Indeed, how exactly is an entire community accepting a standard and holding each other to it subjective rather than objective?

Again, it doesn't even address the actual point being made partner.

And I really appreciate having another atheist shove slavery in my face so he can one up me? Having just blow off three threads and everything Christians said about it.

Now, would you like a better demonstration of why I think atheistic morality is entirely subjective and prone to fault finding in others rather than itself?

The discussion Nickman is about whether or not individual moral systems are better than community selected moral systems

You are free to disagree with my position, but please don;t through slavery and other common barbs in my face like its germane to the discussion to belittle someone. It isn't.

Slavery is in your book that you claim as "objective morality" when it is truly subjective. Slavery is not rebuked by your god and is given rules which allow beating slaves as long as they don't die. So forgive me if I don't adhere or accept your holy book as moral authority. If it were from an absolute law giver who is benevolent and has objective standards, then he would have rebuked such practice and placed it in the hearts of mankind that it was wrong. That is not the case. Mankind listened to the subjective morals on slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation and after. It wasn't until society decided as a whole or majority that slavery was completely wrong. Im sorry you have to deal with the baggage of your god not rebuking slavery, but that is a choice you have decided to defend.

There are three open threads on slavey right now Nickman.

I am telling you that I think your analysis is little more than flame bait. Please remain on topic.

The topic is whether individual or collective systems produce better moral conditions.

"My God" not denoucing slavery has been addressed at great detail in not less than three threads and studiously ignored by you. I believe you intention in dragging it in here is simply not germane to or conducive of a civil discussion.

When you claim that your bible is an objective standard for morality then the issue of slavery comes up. So don't claim it is objective. If you do then I will bring up the argument of slavery. You claimed that your bible is objective morally. I showed it is subjective and wrong.

[Nickman]

@ Stubborn

If your bible is the objective moral standard then we should adhere to its standards pertaining to slavery. If you claim that we do not need to adhere to the OT law then it proves my point that those laws were subjective since they are discarded. If you then claim that the 10 commandments are objective then you need to show why the other 603 are no longer necessary and that your god has said so.

If there are moral laws given in your bible that are no longer necessary then you prove my point that your bible is not objective morally and is subjective. It is also amended due to society and modern thinking.

[stubbornone]

If you get your morals from the bible then they are not objective. They are subjective to the bible.
.

See above Nickman, would YOU care yo prove that? Or are you simply taking the opposite view to take the opposite view?

If you get your morals from a book then it is not objective. It is in fact subjective plain and simple.

Indeed, how exactly is an entire community accepting a standard and holding each other to it subjective rather than objective?

Again, it doesn't even address the actual point being made partner.

And I really appreciate having another atheist shove slavery in my face so he can one up me? Having just blow off three threads and everything Christians said about it.

Now, would you like a better demonstration of why I think atheistic morality is entirely subjective and prone to fault finding in others rather than itself?

The discussion Nickman is about whether or not individual moral systems are better than community selected moral systems

You are free to disagree with my position, but please don;t through slavery and other common barbs in my face like its germane to the discussion to belittle someone. It isn't.

Slavery is in your book that you claim as "objective morality" when it is truly subjective. Slavery is not rebuked by your god and is given rules which allow beating slaves as long as they don't die. So forgive me if I don't adhere or accept your holy book as moral authority. If it were from an absolute law giver who is benevolent and has objective standards, then he would have rebuked such practice and placed it in the hearts of mankind that it was wrong. That is not the case. Mankind listened to the subjective morals on slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation and after. It wasn't until society decided as a whole or majority that slavery was completely wrong. Im sorry you have to deal with the baggage of your god not rebuking slavery, but that is a choice you have decided to defend.

There are three open threads on slavey right now Nickman.

I am telling you that I think your analysis is little more than flame bait. Please remain on topic.

The topic is whether individual or collective systems produce better moral conditions.

"My God" not denoucing slavery has been addressed at great detail in not less than three threads and studiously ignored by you. I believe you intention in dragging it in here is simply not germane to or conducive of a civil discussion.

When you claim that your bible is an objective standard for morality then the issue of slavery comes up. So don't claim it is objective. If you do then I will bring up the argument of slavery. You claimed that your bible is objective morally. I showed it is subjective and wrong.

Its objective in the sense that I did not create it potentially to serve my own predilections, its public, and its there where others can see it and hold me accountable.

In reverse, YOU can decide that promiscuity is bad, but when tempted by a hot young tart, can abandon that standard and simply change your standard with no one being the wiser.

That isn't to say YOU are doing it, but if you tell me its not happening in the atheist community at all I will simply call bullocks on the statement.

And if you bring up the argument of slavery, not only will I remind you that it is off topic, I will assume tat you are simply flame baiting and looking to get emotional rather than civil ... I assume that if I brought up Stalin and through him randomly in your face you would assume the same thing as well.

Standard are effective when they apply to BOTH sides.

[stubbornone]

@ Stubborn

If your bible is the objective moral standard then we should adhere to its standards pertaining to slavery. If you claim that we do not need to adhere to the OT law then it proves my point that those laws were subjective since they are discarded. If you then claim that the 10 commandments are objective then you need to show why the other 603 are no longer necessary and that your god has said so.

If there are moral laws given in your bible that are no longer necessary then you prove my point that your bible is not objective morally and is subjective. It is also amended due to society and modern thinking.

Once again, I will direct you ... for the third time, to any of the open threads on the subject.

I assume this is little more than flame bait.

[Nickman]

Its objective in the sense that I did not create it potentially to serve my own predilections, its public, and its there where others can see it and hold me accountable.

In reverse, YOU can decide that promiscuity is bad, but when tempted by a hot young tart, can abandon that standard and simply change your standard with no one being the wiser.

That isn't to say YOU are doing it, but if you tell me its not happening in the atheist community at all I will simply call bullocks on the statement.

And if you bring up the argument of slavery, not only will I remind you that it is off topic, I will assume tat you are simply flame baiting and looking to get emotional rather than civil ... I assume that if I brought up Stalin and through him randomly in your face you would assume the same thing as well.

Standard are effective when they apply to BOTH sides.

I watch porn but I do so in my own privacy. I find nothing wrong with it. I don't involve myself in promiscuity because I know the risks, there is no need to have a moral standard or someone watching you. It is personal preference with the knowledge that there are real here and now consequences. If there were a god who didn't want promiscuity then the reason wouldn't be because god doesn't like it, it would be because it has underlying consequences that affect a great many. I don't need a god to decide that I don't want to fool around. All I need is the science behind it.

I am not flame baiting whatsoever. If you claim your bible is the moral standard then I will show that it is a horrible moral standard due to the fact that your god had thousands of years to rebuke such behavior but never did. Ill also point out that he also said it was ok to beat slaves as long as they don't die. Im sure you don't wanna go down that road.

In the end, morals are determined by society. If you were living in Japan then you would adhere to their standards and if you didn't you would be in violation. Same goes for every place you go. Im in the military and I have set standards but if I go to another country, those standards are trumped by the host nations. If I disobey the host nations laws then there is nothing the military can do. Your standards are molded by your society. What is acceptable in the USA is not in another country. Have you ever lived outside of the USA?

[stubbornone]

Its objective in the sense that I did not create it potentially to serve my own predilections, its public, and its there where others can see it and hold me accountable.

In reverse, YOU can decide that promiscuity is bad, but when tempted by a hot young tart, can abandon that standard and simply change your standard with no one being the wiser.

That isn't to say YOU are doing it, but if you tell me its not happening in the atheist community at all I will simply call bullocks on the statement.

And if you bring up the argument of slavery, not only will I remind you that it is off topic, I will assume tat you are simply flame baiting and looking to get emotional rather than civil ... I assume that if I brought up Stalin and through him randomly in your face you would assume the same thing as well.

Standard are effective when they apply to BOTH sides.

I watch porn but I do so in my own privacy. I find nothing wrong with it.

Well, there you go,. We could have conceeded that point a few posts back.

Now, is there any chance your acceptance of porn just might be self serving?

Pornography use is a life-damaging habit that affects not only the user but also the user's family and friends. There are many good reasons to avoid it. For example, pornography has been proven to cause or contribute to the following:

Decreased sensitivity toward women and girls
Decreased sensitivity and increased tolerance of sexually graphic material
Increased risk of being exposed to incorrect information about human sexuality
Increased risk of developing unhealthy views about sexuality
Increased risk of believing rape is not a serious crime
Increased risk of becoming aggressive or violent in sexual practices
Increased risk of becoming sexually abusive toward others
Increased risk of experiencing difficulties in intimate relationships
Increased risk of getting involved in sexual behavior that is risky, unhealthy, or illegal
Decreased desire to eventually marry
Decreased trust in your boyfriend, girlfriend, or spouse
Increased risk of becoming sexually dissatisfied with your spouse
Increased risk of cheating on your spouse
Increased risk of separation or divorce
In addition to the research-based consequences listed above, pornography use may cause feelings of guilt, inadequacy, and shame. It will keep one from living a spiritual life and will interfere with reaching one's potential. It is a saboteur of hopes, dreams, and aspirations.

So there is the why. From a church source, whose ascribing to said standard in voluntary but binding.

Obviously, you are free to disagree.

However, I may not agree with you often, but I can say that I know you well enough to know that you don't generally seek to disparage of degrade people. Yet, when viewing porn, do you think this highlights your awarness of women as human beings? Or as sexual objects?

And indeed, is viewing it in keeping with what we both know is a desire to respect and value people as human beings?

And there is the larger point - how long before you would have asked that question yourself?