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.

[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.

[dianaiad]

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.

I read 1, 2, and 3, and thought...yep, that's pretty typical; a bunch of atheists sitting around congratulating themselves for being unholier than everybody else.

Then I read 4, and thought...wait. What? We have some thinking going on here? (Of course, the idea that a culture that is mostly run by theists is somehow handing standards TO those theists rather than getting them FROM them makes me go 'hmnnn')

5 started out impressing me, then did this giant 180 back to back patting.

6 and 7, though.....not bad. Not bad at all. Some actual thought and discussion went on in that meeting.

[stubbornone]

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.

And therein lies the rub. Cystic fibrosis is genetic because we find the gene both in carriers of the gene, and those who suffer from it. That is genetic evidence.

Nevtheless, here you are claiming a genetic cause and then telling us that DNA, which isn't entirely random, it's 99.99% the same, and yet you are claiming its so different that we can't identify a genetic cause ... Which is nevertheless there anyway.

In short, your evidence doesn't support your claim. An Honest man with that gene, coild never lie, and a liar could never tell the truth.

Morality cannot be genetic based on what you show and claim.

[stubbornone]

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

A genetic predisposition in no way defines our choices, whether to drink or not, has nothing to do with predisposition. If anything knowing that genetic basis allows young make better choices in regard to alcohol use. Same goes for sociopaths and violence.

Predisposition is not predescional.

[TheTruth101]

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.

You guys actually get together like we get together to worship God on Sabbath? That's pretty weird actually.

It's like a group of unbielevers getting together to preach God dosent exist. Anti Christs?
I mean if more then one get together to voice their ideas of Gods non existence, its like a religion on its own almost. Pretty sad.

[Nickman]

You guys actually get together like we get together to worship God on Sabbath? That's pretty weird actually.

It's like a group of unbielevers getting together to preach God dosent exist. Anti Christs?
I mean if more then one get together to voice their ideas of Gods non existence, its like a religion on its own almost. Pretty sad.

We get together to have interaction with like minds since in our individual lives we are surrounded by those that fancy fairy tales as if they are real. We need the moments of sanity.

[Nickman]

@ TT
If two scientists get together to talk about science related subjects is that a religion too?

If two or more people get together to talk politics are we supposed to think like you that this is a religious meeting.

Besides we had pizza, beer and rock music which would make it nonreligious in nature. Unless the beer is the blood, the pizza and pepperoni are the body and the rock music is the hymn.

[d.thomas]

You guys actually get together like we get together to worship God on Sabbath? That's pretty weird actually.

It's like a group of unbielevers getting together to preach God dosent exist. Anti Christs?
I mean if more then one get together to voice their ideas of Gods non existence, its like a religion on its own almost. Pretty sad.

We get together to have interaction with like minds since in our individual lives we are surrounded by those that fancy fairy tales as if they are real. We need the moments of sanity.

That's understandable.


.

[TheTruth101]

@ TT
If two scientists get together to talk about science related subjects is that a religion too?

If two or more people get together to talk politics are we supposed to think like you that this is a religious meeting.

Besides we had pizza, beer and rock music which would make it nonreligious in nature. Unless the beer is the blood, the pizza and pepperoni are the body and the rock music is the hymn.

Well, its related to religion because you are together for existence non existence of religion to begin with.