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.

[TheTruth101]

So, we are no longer debating, we are just pontificating ...

I think we were pretty much just ignoring you.

We can only conclude that you support mass murder, as Paul doing what you demand, would have resulted in Roman Legions crushing anything even remotely associated with the claim ...

Your own sect refuses to condemn slavery, putting the whole logic based approach to personal doings and whatever under the same faulty standard you judge others by.

You make no sense. Atheists do condemn slavery and I think we have been very verbal about that. It is people of your group that do not condemn it and one in particlar claims they will have slaves in heaven, atheist slaves.

Yet, exactly as charged, you ratioalize. You ignore the application of YOUR standard to your position, you selectively include and exclude facts (just like Wells and the Jesus Myth) and you call this deeply flawed intellectual process ... morality.

Why are you bringing Wells into this topic and the other thread called Jesus didn't exist?

I think its simple conciet, and need to denigrate others to derive a false sense of morality, and I cannot think of a better display of the faults in atheistic morality than the selective use of facts, the non-standard use of accusations (fallacious), and the insistance on stiking to a frankly rude position.

It is not about denigrating others. I never addressed anything toward you. I only addressed your holy book and you take it personal as if I just called your MOM a bad word. The bible doesn't rebuke, or punish slavery and that is supposed to be the work of a benevolent deity. I cannot believe that a god who is supposed to be so good and have a moral code for humanity would not rebuke slavery. You take offense to this for some reason when you should probably feel the same way. I understand though, as I was a Christian for most of my life.

All too often, this is exactly what we find in atheism, and a quick search of modern atheism's products makes this clear ... it little more than deliberately misunderstanding and misstating religious positions so they can find fault with their own strawmen.

We find fault with the morals of the bible and we address those and then you get upset about it.

Well atheists, you think Christians support slavery ... and if that is what your moral and intellectual processes reveal to you, then I think the OP has been answered ... there are clearly deep flaws in atheistic morality that finds slavery where it is not.

I don't think any atheist on here has claimed that Christians support slavery. What we have said is that your god does and the bible does. You just keep taking it personal. You didn't write the bible so why you get so upset? Its not your work in question. Atheists and other groups find slavery in the bible. We can point to each specific mention and we can conclude that god never once condemns it. Then theists have the audacity to claim that they have moral superiority because they have their morals from their god who is co-author of the bible. Not gonna buy it, Stubbornone. If god was moral he would have rebuked slavery from the get go. He has actually never rebuked it in human history and continues to hold out on doing so.

So now atheist do have a doctrine, eh? Where?

Go ahead and show me the doctrinal source accepted and signed off on as the official source of atheism's positions?

Your standard says you must have this as a source, openly condemning slavery, otherwise, the logic/genetic source of all atheist morality has failed miserably in regard to slavery. That is the standard you advocate with Christianity, but when applied to your precious position, suddenly it makes no sense?

See thesis about rationalization and subjective, ie changing, standards in atheism.

Indeed, thus far we have nothing but unsupported claims from you.

EVERYONE gets morality for culture ... Supported by? Right nothing.

Counting evidence presented, you scream for a source and get it.

You apparently get your position on porn from culture, no? So why is the Christian perspective different? No answer.

Now we are discussing why porn isn't bad, and you once again do not want to accept the evidence presented, and do nothing to support your apparently positive view of porn.

NOW, we are discussing at your behest how a failure to novelty condemn silvery when it would have lead to mass murder is the worst thing in the world, but atheists, in this day and age with no such dire consequences, cannot come together and reach enough consensus for even that.

In short, your position appears to be simply saying the opposite of everything, hurling thinly veiled insults, demanding but never providing evidence, and declaring everything you don't like a fallacy or nonsensical (despite your apparently superior intellectual ability to understand everything?).

In short, your entire prescience is emotional, not logical. And when actual evidence enters the discussion ... Well, slavery .... And what wonderful contributions you have made in enlightening us about the doctrinal positions of atheism that has no doctrine,

You're not understanding this Stubbornone. Atheists don't have a doctrine. We have just come to the understanding individually what is good and beneficial for society and what is not. There is no need for a book or a doctrine. We look at life and decide what is good for the whole of humanity. It is very simple.

And thus they stand divided, not as one like Christ preached. They stand divided because they rely on morals from the society they stand , and all society's laws are differents from one another.

[Nickman]

Hallelujah. Let's see if you can hang onto that.

I have never said anything to the contrary. It is Christians who insist that we must have a doctrine or a book to think morally, and this simply is false.

Really? Care to explain why, during NT times, slavery was practiced WHOLE sale by most of the world. (that's 'secular' or at least 'non-Christian)...and that in most places where slavery ceased, the Christians were the ones who fought it first and hardest?

Christians practiced slavery all the way until the Emancipation Proclamation and even after for some time.

The 'underground railroad' was neither conceived, nor run, by atheists.

It was run by slaves for fellow slaves.

Goodness, I would have thought, as a former Christian, that you would have remembered the New Testament. Did that half of the bible become invisible and I not know?

Christians had a moment when they were the persecuted but when they gained control they became the oppressors and continued even until present day.

[otseng]

And this is what happens when we allowed the unskilled, uncivil, and emotional to derail a thread with vacuous charges of slavery

Im not answering you. It is pointless.

Moderator Comment

Comments like these that cast a negative light on other posters are best left unsaid.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[TheTruth101]

Slavery is promoted nor condoned in the bible simply because it is the way of life. It's evident this is the way of life and slavery is related heavily with hierarchy. We followed rules of our parents when we were children, hierarchy is established here as well. From birth we are under hierarchy of nature.

God is calling and admitting hierarchy of nature himself, simply by announcing he's existence is above all.

And he does this, and hierarchy of nature is only evident because we are a creation. Creator and a creation is admittence of hierarchy of nature on its own.

Slavery is only a label for one under hierarchy, stop trying to point out moral codes of nature when your moral codes only stand within your own given space, and you can't be everywhere at once, therefore your moral codes only reflect a small portion of the world.

Slavery is not wrong, simply because all are under hierarchy, and slavery and hierarchy are simply the laws of nature.

Slavery back in the days consisted of moral codes within the system of slavery, such as, paying for a slave or a person that will be under your hierarchy, it is the same thing as a person working under a corporate ladder. They are enslaved to their mind, their sorroundings, and their corporate dream.

Be an Athesist like Nickman and be condemened to the laws of society that gets broken on a daily basis, or be condemened to the bible that gets keeped on a daily basis.

In either case, moral codes spoken by the bible stands stronger from the foundation in any case.

[d.thomas]

And of course, us Christians, in addition to the higher law, we have no logic, reason and common sense, empathy, altruism, compassion, love, my good upbringing, my conscience, morals, ethics, respect for others, the Golden Rule.

You said and I quote: "So, a couple of points - you have no doctrinal positions whatsoever, by your standard you have NOTHING to call slavery immoral." I am simply explaining to you what we have to call slavery immoral and since you call "logic, reason and common sense, empathy, altruism, compassion, love, my good upbringing, my conscience, morals, ethics, respect for others, the Golden Rule." NOTHING then I can only assume you don't have those or that you think these are worth NOTHING. So all you have left is belief in a 2000 year old book supposedly inspired by a god telling you slavery is wrong.

I have major problems with both sides of this issue. However, I would like to point something out to you; atheists almost invariably (and make that invariably when their debate opponent tries to attribute negative qualities to 'atheism') fall back on the old "atheism is a disbelief in a deity or deities, and that's all it is" argument.

Equally invariably, when atheists want to tout their own moral superiority, they start talking about their 'logic, reason and common sense, empathy, altruism, compassion, love, my good upbringing, my consience, morals, ethics, respect for others, the Golden Rule" as WHY they are superior to all others, as if these qualities are both intrinsic and unique to atheism.

You can't have this both ways.

So, as odd as I find some of stubbonone's positions, I have to agree with him on one thing; there is nothing in athiesm that provides a standard for calling slavery immoral. In fact, atheists have owned slaves in the past...there is absolutely nothing in atheism itself to prevent it, to regulate it, to soften it...or, yes, to practice it. The word is 'nothing.'

NONE of the qualities you state, above, are because of your atheism. Theists can and do have them all. They are all the result of philosophical standards allowed by your atheism, but they are not, in and of themselves, atheist.

Danmark made a great point about the bible, in saying that since the bible (OT) did not condemn slavery when it would be logical (in our view) to do so, that it reflects the men who wrote it and the times they lived in.

He's absolutely right.

So is the argument that there were two levels of law here; the Mosaic Law and the 'Higher Law" of Christ.

Free will is a very big problem--and when you are teaching someone something important, you start from where they are, not from where you think they should be; I don't care HOW much math a ninth grader SHOULD know, if he can't add four and four and come up with eight, you begin with arithmetic. I don't care HOW much a culture SHOULD know and understand about morality and culture....you lead them to enlightenment in small steps.

As for slavery, first...you tell them who they can, and cannot, enslave, and oh, by the way, you don't have the right to just out and out kill 'em. Then you give the rules by which slaves may gain their freedom. Yes, the OT Israelites kept slaves. Their slaves were treated considerably better than everybody ELSE'S slaves were, and they had to live in a world where slavery was, well....everywhere accepted and simply 'the way things were done."

So...lead 'em out gently. By the time Christ came along, the Jews were not major slave owners, even though everybody ELSE around them relied on them.

It took a very long time to defeat slavery...and btw, it was the Christians who worked the hardest to eliminate it, just so you know.

Anyway, that's what I think.

Atheism means without theism, it's not an ism in and of itself so of course there is nothing that provides a standard for calling slavery immoral, or anything else for that matter.

Yes, Christians worked hard to eliminate slavery and at the same time it was Christians that worked hard to maintain slavery. Due to the industrial revolution it was no longer necessary to employ slaves, unfortunately some didn't want to break with the tradition of being slave owners.

[Artie]

TheTruth101 said:

"And thus they stand divided, not as one like Christ preached. They stand divided because they rely on morals from the society they stand , and all society's laws are differents from one another."

Talking about divided there are almost 40 000 different Christian denominations...

[TheTruth101]

TheTruth101 said:

"And thus they stand divided, not as one like Christ preached. They stand divided because they rely on morals from the society they stand , and all society's laws are differents from one another."

Talking about divided there are almost 40 000 different Christian denominations...

All carry the same Ten commandments.

[Nickman]

TheTruth101 said:

"And thus they stand divided, not as one like Christ preached. They stand divided because they rely on morals from the society they stand , and all society's laws are differents from one another."

Talking about divided there are almost 40 000 different Christian denominations...

All carry the same Ten commandments.

Why not the other 603? Oh yeah because they have been deemed unnecessary and immoral. What You're doing is picking and choosing your morals from the bible which tells me you have a higher morality than the bible itself. If you can decide individually what you want to follow and what you don't then you are no different from atheists who decide our own morality. We see good and we incorporate it we see bad we rebuke it. It is simple. You're not getting some higher moral standard at all, if you are picking and choosing.

[Artie]

TheTruth101 said:

"And thus they stand divided, not as one like Christ preached. They stand divided because they rely on morals from the society they stand , and all society's laws are differents from one another."

Talking about divided there are almost 40 000 different Christian denominations...

All carry the same Ten commandments.

No they don't.
http://www.biblicalheritage.org/bible%2 ... dments.htm

[TheTruth101]

TheTruth101 said:

"And thus they stand divided, not as one like Christ preached. They stand divided because they rely on morals from the society they stand , and all society's laws are differents from one another."

Talking about divided there are almost 40 000 different Christian denominations...

All carry the same Ten commandments.

Why not the other 603? Oh yeah because they have been deemed unnecessary and immoral. What You're doing is picking and choosing your morals from the bible which tells me you have a higher morality than the bible itself. If you can decide individually what you want to follow and what you don't then you are no different from atheists who decide our own morality. We see good and we incorporate it we see bad we rebuke it. It is simple. You're not getting some higher moral standard at all, if you are picking and choosing.

Because we are not Jews. We are Christians, we are not of the old convenants. Christ made things new. Actually gentile Christians are told to obey only four, read Acts 15.