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.

[dianaiad]

@Danmark
I would agree that this not acrros the board. When I was raised in Tennessee it was. When I was stationed in NM it was a bit lighter. When I went to KOREA even more so, Italy more so still, and Okinawa it was nonexistent. Now that I am in Utah it is even worse than TN.

With all due respect, Nickman...you are making what may very well be a false correlation. Are you getting this reaction because you are atheist...or because you are an ex-Mormon and rather aggressively so?

I spent quite a bit of time up thataway, y'know, and I don't remember that simple atheists got a whole lot of grief. It was only when they went gunning for the theists...especially the Mormons...that the walls went up. People tend not to be all that friendly to the contemptuous.

How many atheists did you hang with D? Im sure that since you are mormon that you were not kickin it on the sinful trail with the atheists.

Quite a few, Nickman. I lived in a university town. The LDS to everybody else (especially to atheists) is lower there, it being a highly ranked university town and all. My main hobbies were theater and fiber arts. Both avocations (spinning and performing) attracted the 'different.'

What I am claiming here is my own experience with such. I wasn't an atheist in TN but atheism was looked down on. I ended on Utah, where I live everyday now, and atheism is hated. We have had Christians look up our meetups online and go to our coffee and discussion meetings to tells us we are going to hell. I didn't say they were mormons now did I? You just flew off the cuff in offense and assumed I was speaking of mormons. Wow

it wasn't "offense.' It was a rather mild pointing out that you carry other baggage besides simple non-belief.

As to whether non-Mormon Christians gave you grief, well...big whoop. They do that to everybody. Er....did you MEAN to give Mormons as big a compliment as you just handed us?

I mean, I appreciate it very much, but...are you certain you know what you just typed?

[Nickman]

@Danmark
I would agree that this not acrros the board. When I was raised in Tennessee it was. When I was stationed in NM it was a bit lighter. When I went to KOREA even more so, Italy more so still, and Okinawa it was nonexistent. Now that I am in Utah it is even worse than TN.

With all due respect, Nickman...you are making what may very well be a false correlation. Are you getting this reaction because you are atheist...or because you are an ex-Mormon and rather aggressively so?

I spent quite a bit of time up thataway, y'know, and I don't remember that simple atheists got a whole lot of grief. It was only when they went gunning for the theists...especially the Mormons...that the walls went up. People tend not to be all that friendly to the contemptuous.

How many atheists did you hang with D? Im sure that since you are mormon that you were not kickin it on the sinful trail with the atheists.

Quite a few, Nickman. I lived in a university town. The LDS to everybody else (especially to atheists) is lower there, it being a highly ranked university town and all. My main hobbies were theater and fiber arts. Both avocations (spinning and performing) attracted the 'different.'

What I am claiming here is my own experience with such. I wasn't an atheist in TN but atheism was looked down on. I ended on Utah, where I live everyday now, and atheism is hated. We have had Christians look up our meetups online and go to our coffee and discussion meetings to tells us we are going to hell. I didn't say they were mormons now did I? You just flew off the cuff in offense and assumed I was speaking of mormons. Wow

it wasn't "offense.' It was a rather mild pointing out that you carry other baggage besides simple non-belief.

As to whether non-Mormon Christians gave you grief, well...big whoop. They do that to everybody. Er....did you MEAN to give Mormons as big a compliment as you just handed us?

I mean, I appreciate it very much, but...are you certain you know what you just typed?

I wasn't out attacking mormons in my post. The gist of my post was the intolerance. Frankly, mormons and atheists alike get a lot of flack here. Christians pounce around the Conference center every year like it is Jericho, blowing their horns so to speak and being disrespectful. They look up atheist meetings at coffee houses in order to preach to us and condemn us. The topic and OP is about theists and atheists, not mormons and atheists. However, mormons are theists right?

[Bust Nak]

Actually, humanism seems to be pretty good at 'shaping morality.' I speak only of those atheists who's political agenda includes a forced atheism, and compare THOSE to leaders who, historically, have political agendas that include forcing a specific religion on everybody.

The difference in body count THERE is...well...'exponential' really isn't an exaggeration.

I agree with your observation on the body count, but my point was, if body count is not a function of morality, why bring it up in the first place?

I still think you are doing more than just pointing out the body count - you are using body count to judge the success of theism in regulating behaviour.

[dianaiad]

Actually, humanism seems to be pretty good at 'shaping morality.' I speak only of those atheists who's political agenda includes a forced atheism, and compare THOSE to leaders who, historically, have political agendas that include forcing a specific religion on everybody.

The difference in body count THERE is...well...'exponential' really isn't an exaggeration.

I agree with your observation on the body count, but my point was, if body count is not a function of morality, why bring it up in the first place?

I still think you are doing more than just pointing out the body count - you are using body count to judge the success of theism in regulating behaviour.

Well, body count would seem to be one fairly obvious measure, yes. Perhaps not of the morality of the character doing the killing, but more of the system he is using (or not) to justify the killing, and of those who share his beliefs.

I think that the difference between a hand saw and a saw mill is one of efficiency rather than intent, and the difference between the guy who kills ten and the guy who kills millions is also one of efficiency. The "moral" part doesn't come into play in judging the killer...killing ONE person because of political/religious differences makes one immoral. The measure here is of the system being used/misused. Or whether there IS one.

The question is "are atheists potentially more moral than theists?" The answer is a resounding no. Consider; if there is no deity, then theists are making their moral decisions for the same reasons atheists are; they are no different. If God does not exist, then we are ALL 'without God,' aren't we? If He does not exist, then ALL moral constructs are man-made, and equally likely to imbue...or not...morality on their adherents.

If God does not exist, then theists are 'morally controlled' by exactly the same things atheists are: their own opinions and the opinions of the folks who share their belief systems.

But...the thing that makes a theist a theist is that he has chosen a philosophical system that includes a deity...and those ALL have rules that enforce some form of moral code. WE may not recognize that code as 'good,' but it is a code.

The thing that makes an atheist an atheist is that he has NOT chosen a theistic belief system; has no belief in deity. There is no requirement in atheism that he choose anything else.

Therefore there is no reason to suppose that an atheist will automatically choose a system that will make him 'more moral' than a theist...and (back to the body count) there is no indication that if he chooses a nastier one, as Stalin did, or Mao did, or Jeffrey Dahmer did, that "atheism" will prevent him, or prompt any OTHER atheist to stop him.

ARE there extremely honorable and moral atheists? Sure. Are there really nasty theists? Also sure. But the potential for either end of the spectrum is there for both ideas. The only difference, in MORALITY, is that it's a little harder for a theist to realize his more murderous ambitions, I think...because a theist can't really take the place of God. He has to work around the concept that there IS one Who may just disapprove of his actions.

I guess it's like that sawmill, again; an atheist sawmill is a sole proprietorship, and a theist sawmill has to answer to a bureaucracy. Makes it just that much harder to get things done.

[Bust Nak]

Well, body count would seem to be one fairly obvious measure, yes. Perhaps not of the morality of the character doing the killing, but more of the system he is using (or not) to justify the killing, and of those who share his beliefs.

I think that the difference between a hand saw and a saw mill is one of efficiency rather than intent, and the difference between the guy who kills ten and the guy who kills millions is also one of efficiency. The "moral" part doesn't come into play in judging the killer...killing ONE person because of political/religious differences makes one immoral. The measure here is of the system being used/misused. Or whether there IS one.

Surely what is measure here is the efficiency of the method and not the underlying system. A theistic despot could just as easily use man made famine and the like to rack up the numbers that Stalin did.

The question is "are atheists potentially more moral than theists?" The answer is a resounding no. Consider; if there is no deity, then theists are making their moral decisions for the same reasons atheists are; they are no different. If God does not exist, then we are ALL 'without God,' aren't we? If He does not exist, then ALL moral constructs are man-made, and equally likely to imbue...or not...morality on their adherents.

If God does not exist, then theists are 'morally controlled' by exactly the same things atheists are: their own opinions and the opinions of the folks who share their belief systems.

Kudos for acknowledging this. Either we atheists and theists alike get our moral from upbringing, society, empathy; or we all have our moral written in our hearts by God. There would never be a situration where theists get their moral from God and atheists get ours from society etc.

But...the thing that makes a theist a theist is that he has chosen a philosophical system that includes a deity...and those ALL have rules that enforce some form of moral code. WE may not recognize that code as 'good,' but it is a code.

The thing that makes an atheist an atheist is that he has NOT chosen a theistic belief system; has no belief in deity. There is no requirement in atheism that he choose anything else.

Therefore there is no reason to suppose that an atheist will automatically choose a system that will make him 'more moral' than a theist...and (back to the body count) there is no indication that if he chooses a nastier one, as Stalin did, or Mao did, or Jeffrey Dahmer did, that "atheism" will prevent him, or prompt any OTHER atheist to stop him.

Granted. Which is exactly why atheism cannot neither be blamed for any wrong doings, nor be credited for any good deeds.

On the flip side, theists often credit religion for good deeds while brushing off wrong doings as flaws of an individual.

ARE there extremely honorable and moral atheists? Sure. Are there really nasty theists? Also sure. But the potential for either end of the spectrum is there for both ideas. The only difference, in MORALITY, is that it's a little harder for a theist to realize his more murderous ambitions, I think...because a theist can't really take the place of God. He has to work around the concept that there IS one Who may just disapprove of his actions.

I guess it's like that sawmill, again; an atheist sawmill is a sole proprietorship, and a theist sawmill has to answer to a bureaucracy. Makes it just that much harder to get things done.

I am not sure that it is harder for a theist to convince himself that he is doing God's will than for an atheist to concincing himself that he is doing the right thing.