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.

[Artie]

D'd what you write is pretty much what I always believed, but there are some new studies that surprised even the researchers. I don't pretend to know, but

is worth a look.

And as I've mentioned before the Frans de waal lecture on primates is interesting. The ape rejecting cucumber slices when he sees his 'brother' getting grapes for the same task is a hoot.

Very interesting. So infants are hardwired for morality and knowing the difference between right and wrong, but they are also to some extent bigots. Evolutionary it makes perfect sense that even a toddler should be able to do this because of course it has tremendous survival advantages being able to differentiate between good guys and bad guys. But I didn't expect them to approve of punishment of the bad guys, or even "others". I have to see it a few more times to actually grasp fully exactly what the implications are.

[dianaiad]

[
D'd what you write is pretty much what I always believed, but there are some new studies that surprised even the researchers. I don't pretend to know, but

is worth a look.

And as I've mentioned before the Frans de waal lecture on primates is interesting. The ape rejecting cucumber slices when he sees his 'brother' getting grapes for the same task is a hoot.

I watched the video....amazing stuff! I guess we have some hardwiring after all. Or something.

I had two thoughts when I saw it.

First, that the Calvinists who think that everybody is born evil and has inherited 'original sin' and a tendency to simply do evil have got some explaining to do, and

Second...the Mormons believe that we existed as spirits before our births, with personalities and the ability to choose. Couple that idea with the fact that MOST of us are frank evolutionists, and we don't have to explain a thing!

The whole thing makes perfect sense to a Mormon, right down to the bit about it being around eight years old when children start becoming 'generous.'

Heh....I rather like when that happens. Doesn't often, y'know.

Now I think there's more to the whole thing, of course, but wasn't that fun?

[dianaiad]

Bushwah. We all have to be taught the golden rule. We are humans. Of all the critters on the planet, we are the ones born more helpless...and more dependent for longer..than all others. While most creatures have their basic natures and abilities to survive hardwired, humans must be taught. It's a trade off, according to evolutionists, for our increased brainpower.

Feral children don't know the golden rule. Children growing up in societies that go by other ethical systems (ever hear of the Spartans, for instance?) don't automatically know it.

While it is true that some form of the golden rule has appeared in almost every human society, it still must be taught. If it isn't, it doesn't get learned until somebody, some very smart person, figures it out. Then he teaches others...and this break through makes him a revered person in his society, because his discovery was so ground breaking, rare, and important.

And many smart people figured it out without needing to be taught by simply using logic, reason and common sense and observing how society functions. There is a big difference between living your life according to the Golden Rule because you understand why it is beneficial for you and everybody else, and living your life according to the Golden Rule because you think a deity says you should. The last doesn't make you a moral person, it just shows that you are good at doing what you think you are told to do by religious authorities because you have a brain wired for belief.

I wouldn't say 'many.' Given that EVERY child (except the rare feral child) has been raised and influenced by the society in which he lives, and since there are very, very few societies/ cultures in which the 'Golden Rule' does NOT exist in some form, you are going to have a problem supporting the claim you just made.

However, I am challenging you to try to do just that; prove that 'many people' (how many are 'many?" ) have 'figured it out for themselves,' without ever having been exposed to the notion, at any time during their lives.

[Artie]

However, I am challenging you to try to do just that; prove that 'many people' (how many are 'many?" ) have 'figured it out for themselves,' without ever having been exposed to the notion, at any time during their lives.

I see that I expressed myself unfortunately and I stand corrected. What I meant to say was "many people have figured it out by themselves or have been told by people who have figured it out by themselves as opposed to having to be told by deities." As in, no deities are necessary for people to be able to understand or come up with the Golden Rule.

[Nickman]

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?

Of course it is self serving. Thats the point.

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.

Can you show the research you claim? Can you show a medical journal that prescribes what you have wrote?

I know that there are some problems with porn in excess, but what you are describing is not anything I have ever experienced. Either way, claiming porn to be immoral would be a stretch. If you don't like watching gorgeous women naked then close your eyes.

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?

My woman is my everything. See her in the picture in the top left? Yeah thats my baby. Porn has not changed the way I look at her and I only watch porn when the desire arises. In my relationship we talk about it and what each person desires and if we like certain moves that the couples do on screen. It actually helps our sexual relationship.

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?

I value everyone I meet. Woman or not. I fail to see that watching porn will make me become a pig. It is only those who allow whatever they have in their lives to consume them. This goes with anything. If you use everything in moderation and for intended purposes then you will be fine. Examples; drinking, eating, any hobby, porn, smoking, or the like. Anything, when allowed to become your main focus, will become a vice and a problem. Porn is not exempt. Neither is eating.

Last but not least RELIGION. Religion can cause people to look at others as if they are less valuable and more so than porn, if it is used in excess. Religion can cause people to kill and do the craziest things. I find this comparison quite amusing, and very true.

[dianaiad]

However, I am challenging you to try to do just that; prove that 'many people' (how many are 'many?" ) have 'figured it out for themselves,' without ever having been exposed to the notion, at any time during their lives.

I see that I expressed myself unfortunately and I stand corrected. What I meant to say was "many people have figured it out by themselves or have been told by people who have figured it out by themselves as opposed to having to be told by deities." As in, no deities are necessary for people to be able to understand or come up with the Golden Rule.

"No deities are necessary."

Hmmn. There are all sorts of responses I could make to that one. I think I'll go with:

I don't think the question is about whether we need a God any more, as if we were discussing whether we should keep the training wheels on our kid's bicycle. If He IS, then having created everything, then He is necessary. If He isn't, then of course He is not necessary, even if some think that they can get along without Him.

But claiming that He is not necessary, and that this proves His non-existence? There's something wrong with that argument. Rather like claiming that air isn't necessary in order to go diving. You may well be able to dive without air...but only for a moment or two.

[catalyst]

However, I am challenging you to try to do just that; prove that 'many people' (how many are 'many?" ) have 'figured it out for themselves,' without ever having been exposed to the notion, at any time during their lives.

I see that I expressed myself unfortunately and I stand corrected. What I meant to say was "many people have figured it out by themselves or have been told by people who have figured it out by themselves as opposed to having to be told by deities." As in, no deities are necessary for people to be able to understand or come up with the Golden Rule.

"No deities are necessary."

Hmmn. There are all sorts of responses I could make to that one. I think I'll go with:

I don't think the question is about whether we need a God any more, as if we were discussing whether we should keep the training wheels on our kid's bicycle. If He IS, then having created everything, then He is necessary. If He isn't, then of course He is not necessary, even if some think that they can get along without Him.

But claiming that He is not necessary, and that this proves His non-existence? There's something wrong with that argument. Rather like claiming that air isn't necessary in order to go diving. You may well be able to dive without air...but only for a moment or two.

Hello Dianiad,

Even though Artie may have phrased his comment "unfortunately", I actually see the point he was perhaps wanting to make.

I will refer to the CBS link that Danmark provided and take it further.

It is not only human beings that have the capacity of knowing "right from wrong", in fact, it has been shown that this "hardwired" trait exists across many species. It has been clearly shown in multiple mammals for example: ranging from the great apes, through to elephants, mice and rats, as well as whales, dolphins and porpoise.

Given that such a trait is also found across the board in this way, clearly shows that the TAUGHT to humans only "golden rule" supposedly handed down to "man only" by some demi-deity IS unnecessary, unless of course you reckon whales, elephants et al, are all engrossed in the NT writings as well?

Links to support the above, not only as to human beings but also as to other species.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3163302/

(apart from the main article there are 100+ additional articles cited and linked on that page alone)

http://philosophynow.org/issues/79/Wild ... ica_Pierce

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildli ... wrong.html

http://www.namahn.com/resources/lecture/frans-de-waal

If you want more, just ask. This, from a psychological perspective is something I have studying for years, so have a lot more if you want them.

Catalyst.

[dbohm]

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?

Of course it is self serving. Thats the point.

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.

Can you show the research you claim? Can you show a medical journal that prescribes what you have wrote?

I know that there are some problems with porn in excess, but what you are describing is not anything I have ever experienced. Either way, claiming porn to be immoral would be a stretch. If you don't like watching gorgeous women naked then close your eyes.

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?

My woman is my everything. See her in the picture in the top left? Yeah thats my baby. Porn has not changed the way I look at her and I only watch porn when the desire arises. In my relationship we talk about it and what each person desires and if we like certain moves that the couples do on screen. It actually helps our sexual relationship.

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?

I value everyone I meet. Woman or not. I fail to see that watching porn will make me become a pig. It is only those who allow whatever they have in their lives to consume them. This goes with anything. If you use everything in moderation and for intended purposes then you will be fine. Examples; drinking, eating, any hobby, porn, smoking, or the like. Anything, when allowed to become your main focus, will become a vice and a problem. Porn is not exempt. Neither is eating.

Last but not least RELIGION. Religion can cause people to look at others as if they are less valuable and more so than porn, if it is used in excess. Religion can cause people to kill and do the craziest things. I find this comparison quite amusing, and very true.

I think what stubborn one was listing, was the possible symptoms and side-effects of pornography not so much why it could be wrong. I agree that excessive use of anything even innocent things turns into vice. It is the vice of intemperance and gluttony. But that is blurring the line between right and wrong.

Putting aside lust and virtual infidelity which is probably not going to be an argument of much sway for someone who has rejected Christian belief, I think the core wrong of pornography is slavery. You are objectifying someone for your own personal desire. At the time, the people you watch are not people with whom you give any regard for except that they titillate you in the way you want. You might be able twist this to include normal sexual relations or exceptions even within pornography but I think it is a strong reason why pornography should be discouraged in the secular world as much as among those who call themselves believers.

I don't think many people will have trouble seeing that excessive use of pornography has deleterious effects on people's character.

[Danmark]

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?

Of course it is self serving. Thats the point.

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:

[long list of alleged 'evils' redacted]

Can you show the research you claim? Can you show a medical journal that prescribes what you have wrote?

I know that there are some problems with porn in excess, but what you are describing is not anything I have ever experienced. Either way, claiming porn to be immoral would be a stretch. If you don't like watching gorgeous women naked then close your eyes.

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?

My woman is my everything. See her in the picture in the top left? Yeah thats my baby. Porn has not changed the way I look at her and I only watch porn when the desire arises. In my relationship we talk about it and what each person desires and if we like certain moves that the couples do on screen. It actually helps our sexual relationship.

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?

I value everyone I meet. Woman or not. I fail to see that watching porn will make me become a pig. It is only those who allow whatever they have in their lives to consume them. This goes with anything. If you use everything in moderation and for intended purposes then you will be fine. Examples; drinking, eating, any hobby, porn, smoking, or the like. Anything, when allowed to become your main focus, will become a vice and a problem. Porn is not exempt. Neither is eating.

Last but not least RELIGION. Religion can cause people to look at others as if they are less valuable and more so than porn, if it is used in excess. Religion can cause people to kill and do the craziest things. I find this comparison quite amusing, and very true.

I think what stubborn one was listing, was the possible symptoms and side-effects of pornography not so much why it could be wrong. I agree that excessive use of anything even innocent things turns into vice. It is the vice of intemperance and gluttony. But that is blurring the line between right and wrong.

Putting aside lust and virtual infidelity which is probably not going to be an argument of much sway for someone who has rejected Christian belief, I think the core wrong of pornography is slavery. You are objectifying someone for your own personal desire. At the time, the people you watch are not people with whom you give any regard for except that they titillate you in the way you want. You might be able twist this to include normal sexual relations or exceptions even within pornography but I think it is a strong reason why pornography should be discouraged in the secular world as much as among those who call themselves believers.

I don't think many people will have trouble seeing that excessive use of pornography has deleterious effects on people's character.

You guys are all WAY off topic here with your porn tangent, not to mention likely being wrong.

...[N]ew research out of the University of Montreal suggests that pornography is so widely digested, and with such a seemingly low correlation to "pathological" behavior, that it is grossly over-demonized. The research is funded by the Interdisciplinary Research Center on Family Violence and Violence Against Women.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-27083_3-10407102-247.html
I'm as guilty as the next guy for derailing topics, but turning this thread into a porno debate leaves me cold. Or is it hot? Anyway, you wanna talk about the evils of porn or other 'church lady' stuff, start your own subtopic.

Nickman is candid and now gets jumped for it. Besides:

The experimenters in the study '...set out to examine the effects of pornography on men, which would involve studying men in their 20s who've never consumed pornography. "We couldn't find any," he says.'

[Nickman]

After watching some porn and contemplating the topic, I realized we did go off on a side topic.

The topic of porn doesn't bring anything to the OP that would suggest that Atheists or Theists are more moral. All I think it has done is shown that atheists are honest and are not ashamed to admit that they watch porn. Christians watch porn too but don't want to admit it.

Back on topic. I think we all, religious and non, are gathering our morals from the same source, for the majority of what we think is right. Those who use their bible prohibit themselves from certain things that have nothing to do with actual morality. Those things are vestigial beliefs that are remnants of a past culture that did not deem such things as acceptable. Many of those remnant beliefs have been discarded but some remain. The problem is that a person does not have the moral high ground because they adhere to the beliefs of a more primitive culture. It is a fact that some things such as slavery, stoning and the like have been discarded while other ideas such as divorce or adultery have remained. Evolution explains this very well, and I don't think anyone truly has a moral high ground. Evolution has dropped slavery and stoning because they are not good for society, while keeping ideas such as no adultery and no divorce as being optimal. It is not some god. It is society evolving to become more civilized and in the process, we drop what is not conducive to society and keep what has benefit. Today we have some groups who claim that these continued beneficial traits are the morals of god, without recognizing that society has unconsciously maintained thise which are beneficial while discontinuing those that are not.