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]

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.

Nickman,

Once again, debate is about an exchange of information in civil format to drive something forward. Demanding evidence constantly for every piece of information shown, and then claiming its all self serving anyway is silly.

The down sid eof pornography is well published, and, indeed, as we just went through this, several times in fact, I am left with no alternative other than to confront you on it.

If I pull some of what we both know is there, from the American Psychiatric institute, confirming the darker side of pornography, will you acknowledge the point?

Or we will get misdirection into slavery ... ?

Will we get excuses that it is 'biased Christian' stuff?

Its a simple point, and one that needs to be addressed - a discussion cannot move forward when you treat every FACT that does not agree with you as a knife fight. They are just facts, and we BOTH know that pornography has a significant dark side.

Would you care to highlight its positives? Do an actual comparative analysis? Because the best you can seem to do with it is to claim its harmless for you personally ... while dodging the downsides entirely.

And that is not how standards based morality works.

Indeed, in keeping with that trend comes the claim that religion somehow makes people treat others as lessers. Although it is true that arrogance effects many religious people, that particular claim is extraordinarily duplicitous - there are plenty of atheists who treat people absolutely horribly - from constant claims of irrationality to bland accusations of slavery and support for generic Crusades and violence based solely on your faith choices assessment of others faith choice.

Once again, if YOUR standard is that you hate it when people of a different faith look down at you for YOUR faith choice, you may want to take a very close look at how many members of your faith treat people of different faiths.

Worse, with no doctrinal standard to fall back on ... you really have nothing that will lead you to challenge or examine your own conduct. carping on other people is now not mean, but a defense of freedom ... whereas Christians, we can and do refer to the scriptures and indeed our larger community to receive feedback. And our standard begins with the acknowledgement that ALL men regardless of faith or creed were created in love by a caring Father.

Atheists have no such standards, and indeed that is why so much the debate about morality from atheists, and indeed you, is about finding fault in others as if this magically makes you moral and free of faults.

Once again, Teddy Roosevelt:

"“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls."

Not only is that a very poor system of establishing morality, its one prone to misdirection, rationalization, and excuses, it also makes for generally poor conduct period.

Just remember Nick, atheists owned just as many slaves as anyone else in ancient times, and the ancient fathers of atheism so often quoted by atheists are not just silent on slavery, they are often effusive in their support of the institution.

[TheTruth101]

I quoted your one sentence that went with the flow of your whole argument. What you quoted goes totally against the idea of my last paragraph.

I don't know what the idea of your last paragraph is supposed to be. Could you rephrase?

Independency and of dependency.

Independency from the physical aspects of life which the visible society is all about. Its the hardest thing one can achieve when the mass media is all about sex and alchohal, but one with faith refrains from it. Especially at my age.

Dependecy to the invisible force in the visible world we are sorrounded and work to be in order with. In due meaning, going against the society which is given with visible aspects of life. So in all, believing in something you cannot see and dedicating your life to it is the hardest thing one can achieve again.

So to conclude, it is the ones with faith that take on the life of living twofold in comparison with ones without a deity.

[TheTruth101]

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.'

[Danmark]

....
The down sid eof pornography is well published, and...

Well . . . 'well published maybe, but not well substantiated.

There are theories and prejudice and assumptions, but the big 'down side?' Not so sure. I AM sure it's not only off topic, but of of no interest as a topic of discussion.

[Nickman]

Nickman,

Once again, debate is about an exchange of information in civil format to drive something forward. Demanding evidence constantly for every piece of information shown, and then claiming its all self serving anyway is silly.

Saying that porn is self serving is a reality, but all that you wrote as side effects is not. That's why I asked for some evidence. You can't just claim something and expect me to just take your word for it.

There is a big difference between self serving, (ice cream can be self serving) and your claim that there is a risk of down playing rape because of pornography.

The down sid eof pornography is well published, and, indeed, as we just went through this, several times in fact, I am left with no alternative other than to confront you on it.

And I will again for the evidence of this well published downside. Danmark cited a website that said quite the opposite.

If I pull some of what we both know is there, from the American Psychiatric institute, confirming the darker side of pornography, will you acknowledge the point?

I've been asking you to do so.

Or we will get misdirection into slavery ... ?

I think we have went way to far on porn to begin with and if we wish to continue then we must make a new thread.

Will we get excuses that it is 'biased Christian' stuff?

If it is from a Christian biased cite, Yes.

Its a simple point, and one that needs to be addressed - a discussion cannot move forward when you treat every FACT that does not agree with you as a knife fight. They are just facts, and we BOTH know that pornography has a significant dark side.

Lets open another thread. Danmark has already made comment that he doesn't want his thread to be derailed.

Would you care to highlight its positives? Do an actual comparative analysis? Because the best you can seem to do with it is to claim its harmless for you personally ... while dodging the downsides entirely.

On another thread out of respect to Danmark, Yes.

And that is not how standards based morality works.

Indeed, in keeping with that trend comes the claim that religion somehow makes people treat others as lessers. Although it is true that arrogance effects many religious people, that particular claim is extraordinarily duplicitous - there are plenty of atheists who treat people absolutely horribly - from constant claims of irrationality to bland accusations of slavery and support for generic Crusades and violence based solely on your faith choices assessment of others faith choice.

First, slavery is black and white in the bible and clearly not condemned. Second, the Crusades were not generic.

Once again, if YOUR standard is that you hate it when people of a different faith look down at you for YOUR faith choice, you may want to take a very close look at how many members of your faith treat people of different faiths.

Its called reciprocity. If you treat others bad they may do the same to you.

Worse, with no doctrinal standard to fall back on ... you really have nothing that will lead you to challenge or examine your own conduct. carping on other people is now not mean, but a defense of freedom ... whereas Christians, we can and do refer to the scriptures and indeed our larger community to receive feedback. And our standard begins with the acknowledgement that ALL men regardless of faith or creed were created in love by a caring Father.

I do have something that I can fall back on....Myself. I do challenge my own conduct everyday. I lay down to rest each night and ponder my actions, my happy moments, stressful times, memories and the like. I assess how I am gonna do better or repeat the same if I approve. I don't need a book, and I don't think you do either. You just think you do.

Atheists have no such standards, and indeed that is why so much the debate about morality from atheists, and indeed you, is about finding fault in others as if this magically makes you moral and free of faults.

No no no, I do have standards which don't come from a book written over 2000 years ago. I find certain standards in your book as lacking and impractical. I also find some abhorrent. I do find some good but not all. I never claim to be free of faults. All you have to do is hang out with me on a drunken night back in college and you would know that.

Once again, Teddy Roosevelt:

"“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls."

I apply this in my life even though I have never read it. This is the first time. It is worth remark that I do so individually without a god or a book. Thats where true morality comes from, within. Not from a book. Doesn't the bible say this? I know it does

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Not only is that a very poor system of establishing morality, its one prone to misdirection, rationalization, and excuses, it also makes for generally poor conduct period.

No, when we police ourselves and not worry about policing others then we are doing what is best. Experience is sufficient enough.

Just remember Nick, atheists owned just as many slaves as anyone else in ancient times, and the ancient fathers of atheism so often quoted by atheists are not just silent on slavery, they are often effusive in their support of the institution.

Can you provide evidence that atheists had slaves? Are you sure they weren't the slaves? Please provide evidence to support this claim.

[silliamwigler]

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.

I am not religious.

I would say most Christians (because I don't really know many Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc.) do not do acts of kindness because of religious necessity. As human beings I think being naturally kind is important to our well-being. Yes, Christians do do things solely for the sake of the church or god, but far more things for themselves. Correct me if i'm wrong

[silliamwigler]

Nickman,

Once again, debate is about an exchange of information in civil format to drive something forward. Demanding evidence constantly for every piece of information shown, and then claiming its all self serving anyway is silly.

Saying that porn is self serving is a reality, but all that you wrote as side effects is not. That's why I asked for some evidence. You can't just claim something and expect me to just take your word for it.

There is a big difference between self serving, (ice cream can be self serving) and your claim that there is a risk of down playing rape because of pornography.

The down sid eof pornography is well published, and, indeed, as we just went through this, several times in fact, I am left with no alternative other than to confront you on it.

And I will again for the evidence of this well published downside. Danmark cited a website that said quite the opposite.

If I pull some of what we both know is there, from the American Psychiatric institute, confirming the darker side of pornography, will you acknowledge the point?

I've been asking you to do so.

Or we will get misdirection into slavery ... ?

I think we have went way to far on porn to begin with and if we wish to continue then we must make a new thread.

Will we get excuses that it is 'biased Christian' stuff?

If it is from a Christian biased cite, Yes.

Its a simple point, and one that needs to be addressed - a discussion cannot move forward when you treat every FACT that does not agree with you as a knife fight. They are just facts, and we BOTH know that pornography has a significant dark side.

Lets open another thread. Danmark has already made comment that he doesn't want his thread to be derailed.

Would you care to highlight its positives? Do an actual comparative analysis? Because the best you can seem to do with it is to claim its harmless for you personally ... while dodging the downsides entirely.

On another thread out of respect to Danmark, Yes.

And that is not how standards based morality works.

Indeed, in keeping with that trend comes the claim that religion somehow makes people treat others as lessers. Although it is true that arrogance effects many religious people, that particular claim is extraordinarily duplicitous - there are plenty of atheists who treat people absolutely horribly - from constant claims of irrationality to bland accusations of slavery and support for generic Crusades and violence based solely on your faith choices assessment of others faith choice.

First, slavery is black and white in the bible and clearly not condemned. Second, the Crusades were not generic.

Once again, if YOUR standard is that you hate it when people of a different faith look down at you for YOUR faith choice, you may want to take a very close look at how many members of your faith treat people of different faiths.

Its called reciprocity. If you treat others bad they may do the same to you.

Worse, with no doctrinal standard to fall back on ... you really have nothing that will lead you to challenge or examine your own conduct. carping on other people is now not mean, but a defense of freedom ... whereas Christians, we can and do refer to the scriptures and indeed our larger community to receive feedback. And our standard begins with the acknowledgement that ALL men regardless of faith or creed were created in love by a caring Father.

I do have something that I can fall back on....Myself. I do challenge my own conduct everyday. I lay down to rest each night and ponder my actions, my happy moments, stressful times, memories and the like. I assess how I am gonna do better or repeat the same if I approve. I don't need a book, and I don't think you do either. You just think you do.

Atheists have no such standards, and indeed that is why so much the debate about morality from atheists, and indeed you, is about finding fault in others as if this magically makes you moral and free of faults.

No no no, I do have standards which don't come from a book written over 2000 years ago. I find certain standards in your book as lacking and impractical. I also find some abhorrent. I do find some good but not all. I never claim to be free of faults. All you have to do is hang out with me on a drunken night back in college and you would know that.

Once again, Teddy Roosevelt:

"“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls."

I apply this in my life even though I have never read it. This is the first time. It is worth remark that I do so individually without a god or a book. Thats where true morality comes from, within. Not from a book. Doesn't the bible say this? I know it does

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Not only is that a very poor system of establishing morality, its one prone to misdirection, rationalization, and excuses, it also makes for generally poor conduct period.

No, when we police ourselves and not worry about policing others then we are doing what is best. Experience is sufficient enough.

Just remember Nick, atheists owned just as many slaves as anyone else in ancient times, and the ancient fathers of atheism so often quoted by atheists are not just silent on slavery, they are often effusive in their support of the institution.

Can you provide evidence that atheists had slaves? Are you sure they weren't the slaves? Please provide evidence to support this claim.

Honestly, wow. Are you joking with some of these answers? Provide atheists had slaves? Are you trolling?

[Bourne20]

I don't mean to change the line of thought. If anyone wants to continue with the thoughts in the reply above, please do.

I wanted to throw an idea out there. The topic is "Are Atheists Potentially Morally Superior to Theists?"

This is a really great (and essential) question. If a person only treats others morally out fear of hell or reward of heaven, than what credit is it to them? If a person only acts morally for their own selfish gain (heaven), then they are no better for it than if they commit any other action to benefit only themself. I definitely think this is true.

This is the morally questionable side of religion in general. However, I believe their can be a morally positive side to religion.

Let just say for a minute religion never existed. Each person would have to determine their morals solely for him or herself. Since their is no religion (I'll venture to say no deity as well) no one believes there is a higher authority regarding morals. By a "higher moral authority" I mean a code of behavior beyond any one person, a purpose of life, so to speak. This does not necessarily have to be instituted by God.

With no higher authority in matters of morals, one man's opinion is no greater than another's. Joe Blo might say, "Do good to those who hate you." John Doe might reply, "That's crap, decapitate those who hate you."

I might say, "Joe Blo is right, and John Doe is wrong." But if, in reality, their is no higher moral authority (whether it is a deity or not), John Doe is as right as Joe Blo. Morals are then relative. If John Doe does what he believes is "moral" (in accordance to others) than he is a moral person, if Joe Blo does what he thinks is "moral" (in accordance to others) than he is a moral person.

Anyway, I realize this may be a narrow analysis of morals in a world without religion. I'm sure there would be some benefits to people recognizing that everyone forms there own set of moral beliefs. However, I do feel religion can unite people under a common moral system.

If you believe Jesus comes from God (the creator of the universe) it lends weight to his words, "love your enemy, do good to those who hate you." This proves to the believer that this is true moral behavior. If Joe Blo said the same thing, it has no more weight than anyone else's (John Doe's) opinion. Followers of Jesus, in theory, are united under a common moral authority.

2 main problems potentially come about by the unification under a moral code:
1) The moral code could be flawed, causing the followers to have flawed moral compasses. Homosexuality in the bible, anyone?
2) People interpret the code differently. For example, many Christians feel compelled to condemn gays rather than love their enemies. Also, people always feel their interpretation is the only true one, and thus condemn other's interpretations as corruption.

Anyway, that is just what I think though. I'm sure I'm missing a lot of points. But this is a really interesting thread, such an important thing to consider.

[Nickman]

Honestly, wow. Are you joking with some of these answers? Provide atheists had slaves? Are you trolling?

Excuse me? What do you think I am joking about?

[silliamwigler]

Just remember Nick, atheists owned just as many slaves as anyone else in ancient times, and the ancient fathers of atheism so often quoted by atheists are not just silent on slavery, they are often effusive in their support of the institution.

Can you provide evidence that atheists had slaves? Are you sure they weren't the slaves? Please provide evidence to support this claim.

This is the main thing i have a problem with. Are you trying to strengthen your point that atheists are morally superior to Christians because they did not have slaves?