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]

Theism postulates that there is a God ... and from that reference point certain inferences can be made. Its the whole Hegelian dialectic thingy ...

Sure, you can make all sorts of inferences about gods. But when you start making inferences you're talking about religion, not simply theism.

Second, if you are claiming that empowered atheism has no historical basis .. yet .. then I would invite you to check out the Paris communes, some of the natier bits of the French and Russian Revolution, Stalin, Moa, and good ol Kim Jung Il/Un.

I do not know what "empowered atheism" is, or what in my post led you to believe I have made a claim about it. Which point of mine is this meant to be in response to?

Atheism has its faults, so does religion. Only one has a defined mechanism that aids a person in the objective examination of their morality and an instrument to improve said morality.

It isn't atheism.

The distinction I was discussing was atheism/theism. Atheism/religion is not a dichotomy, and a fairly meaningless comparison as atheism is not a religion.

Not quite.

#1 - ONE of the inferences in believing that there is a God ... is the creation of religions.

#2 - I think you are being coy as, one, an atheist brought the subject up, two, its pretty clear on the historical record what atheists with access to power have done in a negative sense (not that all atheists have mind you) ... we get the opposite BTW, where atheists rip into religion based on similar genarlizations (See Hitchens). But the reality is that atheists, as we do, have too look at the systems they are creating and patch up the weaknesses to prevent those bad things from happening ... just as we did say ... after the Crusades, the 30 Years War, etc.

#3 - Atheists are going to have to figure out there own positions. Plenty of atheists claim that atheism is a religion, others disagree. Your personal opinion is noted, but not relevant to the reality that atheism IS organizing, and it IS taking policy decisions in the traditional areas of religion.

Once again, one cannot deny the short comings and outright mistakes of these polices simply because you want to have a semantic debate about whether or not atheism is a religion.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/10/a ... a-religion

And please bear in mind, there is a legal definition of atheism, accepted by the SCOTUS, that acknowledges that atheism is a religion - from atheists.

Once again, as I have pointed out, atheists in the case of definition are attempting to ply both sides of the religion coin - not a religion in terms of evidence and requirements, definitely a religion in terms of tax exempt status and legal protections.

Its not really relevant to what organized atheism is doing. And it has no bearing whatsoever on the moral basis of atheism.

[Artie]

Common sense indicates that when your claim requires GENETIC evidence, that is what you provide - a gene, or series of genes that CLEARLY CAUSE something in humanity. We do not have that in humanity. The animal behavior comes into the issue? Well, how do you explain, if morality is ingrained and embedded in us, why not ALL animals have this mysterious and utterly unable to find altruism gene?

Are you serious? Are you asking me why all animals don't have the same genes? Because they evolved to fill different niches of course where the morals are different if you are a single solitary predator on an African savanna or a human in New York.

Randomly dumping articles does not answer that question.

Nor do statements like, "Well, of course its that way because MORALITY EVOLVED!" Which not only does nothing to address the LACK or morality in criminals, who apparently have the same genetic code? Odd that.

All criminals have the same genetic code? You know, I never knew that all criminals have the same genetic code. I didn't even know that criminals and moral people had the same genetic code. I thought that only identical twins and triplets etc shared the same genetic code.

[otseng]

Its your eternity, not mine. Goodluck.

Oh, I see, an eternity in Hell for me for not believing you. How morally upright of you.

My morals stand with the bible. Not the false self righteousness way you fantasize of.
In other words, if you get damned for eternity, I will be right there with God Yahweh and Christ locking you up for all eternity. Because, just like the prison systems today, no one in heaven's will see you as the righteous, but rather a criminal for eternity, because, simply, true righteousness only belongs to the ones that obey Gods orders. Nothing else.

Like I said, an eternity in Hell for not believing you, how morally upright of you. Too bad non believers aren't burned at the stake anymore, you would have enjoyed your display of righteousness right here on earth.

Moderator Comment

OK, that's enough talking about hell. Please return to the topic.

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.

[stubbornone]

Common sense indicates that when your claim requires GENETIC evidence, that is what you provide - a gene, or series of genes that CLEARLY CAUSE something in humanity. We do not have that in humanity. The animal behavior comes into the issue? Well, how do you explain, if morality is ingrained and embedded in us, why not ALL animals have this mysterious and utterly unable to find altruism gene?

Are you serious? Are you asking me why all animals don't have the same genes? Because they evolved to fill different niches of course where the morals are different if you are a single solitary predator on an African savanna or a human in New York.

Randomly dumping articles does not answer that question.

Nor do statements like, "Well, of course its that way because MORALITY EVOLVED!" Which not only does nothing to address the LACK or morality in criminals, who apparently have the same genetic code? Odd that.

All criminals have the same genetic code? You know, I never knew that all criminals have the same genetic code. I didn't even know that criminals and moral people had the same genetic code. I thought that only identical twins and triplets etc shared the same genetic code.

No, I am asking you why all animals of the same species and apparently the same genetic 'altruism' gene do not display the same altruism?

Seems pretty clear.

For example, lions taking over a pride will often, but not always, kill the cubs of the previous dominant male to induce heat earlier in the females ... but not always. Why?

Why do some rodents risk themselves to save their kin ... while others do not?

I thought it was genetic and they had no choice?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 473:

No, I am asking you why all animals of the same species and apparently the same genetic 'altruism' gene do not display the same altruism?

1a : able or apt to vary : subject to variation or changes <variable winds> <variable costs>
1b : fickle, inconstant
2: characterized by variations
3: having the characteristics of a variable
4: not true to type : aberrant —used of a biological group or character

Seems pretty clear.

Only to those whose lenses are fogged up worse'n a bathroom mirror in the middle of winter and someone left the window open again, and who the heck opens the shower window in the middle of winter unless they're an old lady trying to play some power trip game, and here I am, I ain't powerful enough to try to get onto one so pretty, but that ought'n give her the right to open any danged window she pleases, but don't it beat all, I'm too much a dadgummed doofus to try to keep her from doing it, but that oughta stop, 'cause there's no dang need in having a shower window open in the middle of winter, and I need one of y'all to get onto her for it.

For example, lions taking over a pride will often, but not always, kill the cubs of the previous dominant male to induce heat earlier in the females ... but not always. Why?

1a : able or apt to vary : subject to variation or changes <variable winds> <variable costs>
1b : fickle, inconstant
2: characterized by variations
3: having the characteristics of a variable
4: not true to type : aberrant —used of a biological group or character

Why do some rodents risk themselves to save their kin ... while others do not?

1a : able or apt to vary : subject to variation or changes <variable winds> <variable costs>
1b : fickle, inconstant
2: characterized by variations
3: having the characteristics of a variable
4: not true to type : aberrant —used of a biological group or character

I thought it was genetic and they had no choice?

I think we just identified the problem.

[Artie]

No, I am asking you why all animals of the same species and apparently the same genetic 'altruism' gene do not display the same altruism?

Seems pretty clear.

Because even animals of the same species aren't clones and don't share the exact same set of genes and because of epigenetics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

For example, lions taking over a pride will often, but not always, kill the cubs of the previous dominant male to induce heat earlier in the females ... but not always. Why?

To answer that we would need to know the exact circumstances and the exact makeup of the dna and epigenetics involved. Unless you think all lions are clones and the circumstances are always exactly the same?

I thought it was genetic and they had no choice?

That would be because you apparently think that all animals are clones, that epigenetics work exactly the same in each animal and that circumstances are always exactly the same.

[Danmark]

I believe it is a principle of genetics that we inherit, among other things, general predispositions, possibilities and limitations rather than exact outcomes. In addition to tiny genetic variations (even identical twins do not share the exact genetic code after a few years, do to mutations) there is the effect of environment. One may inherit a predisposition to alcoholism due to certain genetic traits, but one twin may simply never drink or she may develop a belief system that inhibits the decision to drink, or to drink to excess.

Lower than average IQ may increase your chances of going to prison, but it does not guarantee it.
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/txp_media/h ... lide2.html

Having a high IQ correlates with better health, higher income and a host of things considered positive, but again, there are no guarantees, no absolutes.
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/i ... ation.html

[Nickman]

I will tell you what Atheists do, on another thread, Nickman brings up UFO's existence. Then, I simply debated with im as to its existence. (standing as dismissla of UFO's) Then, he debates back saying I'm a hypocrit because I waive off UFO's instantly because it's not said in the Bible. Then, another member brings in an article saying Angels of the Bible can be concluded as to being Aliens.
Then I change my position (I forgot about Angels) and debate from a perspective that Aliens do exist. Now, Nickman is nowhere to be found in that thread,lol.

Why is my name being thrown around in this thread? Nickman decided not to debate anymore with you because it became unfruitful. I won't remark on this post more than this because it would derail the thread.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Theism postulates that there is a God ... and from that reference point certain inferences can be made. Its the whole Hegelian dialectic thingy ...

Sure, you can make all sorts of inferences about gods. But when you start making inferences you're talking about religion, not simply theism.

Second, if you are claiming that empowered atheism has no historical basis .. yet .. then I would invite you to check out the Paris communes, some of the natier bits of the French and Russian Revolution, Stalin, Moa, and good ol Kim Jung Il/Un.

I do not know what "empowered atheism" is, or what in my post led you to believe I have made a claim about it. Which point of mine is this meant to be in response to?

Atheism has its faults, so does religion. Only one has a defined mechanism that aids a person in the objective examination of their morality and an instrument to improve said morality.

It isn't atheism.

The distinction I was discussing was atheism/theism. Atheism/religion is not a dichotomy, and a fairly meaningless comparison as atheism is not a religion.

Not quite.

#1 - ONE of the inferences in believing that there is a God ... is the creation of religions.

Right. But like I said, then you're talking about religion, not theism.

#2 - I think you are being coy as, one, an atheist brought the subject up, two, its pretty clear on the historical record what atheists with access to power have done in a negative sense (not that all atheists have mind you) ... we get the opposite BTW, where atheists rip into religion based on similar genarlizations (See Hitchens). But the reality is that atheists, as we do, have too look at the systems they are creating and patch up the weaknesses to prevent those bad things from happening ... just as we did say ... after the Crusades, the 30 Years War, etc.

I do not understand what any of this has to do with anything I wrote. Can you be more explicit about which point of mine you are attempting to respond to?

I don't know what you are referring to when you say "an atheist" (who?) "brought the subject up" (what subject?).

#3 - Atheists are going to have to figure out there own positions. Plenty of atheists claim that atheism is a religion, others disagree. Your personal opinion is noted, but not relevant to the reality that atheism IS organizing, and it IS taking policy decisions in the traditional areas of religion.

Can you name some atheists who claim that atheism is a religion? I've never met or heard of one.

What are your definitions of "atheism" and "religion"? I have a feeling they are going to be quite different from mine.

Once again, one cannot deny the short comings and outright mistakes of these polices simply because you want to have a semantic debate about whether or not atheism is a religion.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/10/a ... a-religion

Is there some evidence provided or argument made in that link that you would like to share?

And please bear in mind, there is a legal definition of atheism, accepted by the SCOTUS, that acknowledges that atheism is a religion - from atheists.

What definition of "religion" is being used so that atheism may be included in it?

(also bear in mind that the decisions of your country's legal system aren't of importance to the rest of us earthlings)

[Nickman]

I had a meetup last night at my place and a variety of topics came up. One in particular was atheist morality vs theist morality. A few point from that discussion among atheists was this;

1) Atheists don't have set standards of morality, we just do what we feel is good for us and others.

2) We don't do good for others with any circumstances attached. The only incentive is the way we feel by doing good for others and for ourselves.

3) We don't use a book from the Bronze Age to guide us. Our morality surpasses the morality contained in these ancient texts. The characters in the text were actually being as moral as they knew how due to the time and circumstances of their cultures. We have slowly evolved to a better understanding culturally.

4) Christians don't seem to realize that their morals are pretty much the same as society as a whole. What is acceptable to society and the culture is what shapes Christian morals as well as Atheist morals.

5) Doing good is doing good no matter what the motive, but a purer way to think is without a hidden agenda or ulterior motive. If it takes a god story or gospel to make us want to do good then what does that say about us?

6) Are atheists potentially more moral than theists? No, we all have the same potential to be good. Motives for doing such don't provide us with a standard to judge who is more moral. The best thing we can say is that doing good is optimal and those who do so, no matter their motive, are exhibiting beneficial behavior and character.

7) Lastly, when we start to get into a pissing match about who is more moral than the other, we create a divide in society and between each other and our morality is diminished. If we fight about who is more moral, we become immoral.