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.

[Divine Insight]

Can't I just be grateful?

Whaassamatta you? Do you even have to argue about being happy?

I just don't understand how you can say...you are grateful....Just to say "grateful".
do you mean to your parents? Who gave you life.

You know...........Like: Thanks Mom and Dad for this great life you have given me.

If we are grateful for life, then we are automatically grateful to any creator that may have created it. Therefore to appreciate the creation is the same as appreciating the creator. The creator, if it exists, would know who it is.

What the Christians get all bent out of shape about is that people simply do not recognize their mythology as being the correct description of the creator.

The Biblical God portrayed in the Bible is a horrible picture. It's a picture of a God who would lower himself to things like having someone beaten and nailed to a pole to pay for something.

That alone right there makes him unworthy of worship.

If I'm going to assume that the Creator of this universe is intelligent I'm necessarily going to need to seek out an intelligent religion. Only intelligent religions can possibly be the correct picture of an intelligent God.

Religions where the God has someone beaten and nailed to a pole to make a point, clearly must be checked off the list of viable religions.

In fact, there's far more to it than even that. Even before Christianity was invented the original Abrahamic religions had this God instructing people to judge each other and stone sinners to death. So there was sufficient grounds for rejecting this religion long before the Christians put their spin on it.

I already have sufficient reason for rejecting the Old Testaments of these Abrahamic religion as being "ungodly".

You speak of being grateful, or showing appreciation for creation. But at what cost?

Would you worship and evil creator just because he was the creator?

That's not good enough for me. Just because an entity created life doesn't justify him to be an evil entity.

The truth is that there are far more righteous religions to be had than the evil religion of the ancient Hebrews.

If people truly want to show appreciation for our creator, why do they constantly insult him by proclaiming that the Hebrews correctly described him?

Especially when there are far better spiritual philosophies to be had.

After all, if you truly believe that God is the ultimate divine perfection, then shouldn't you seek out the ultimate divine religion?

Why choose a religion that has God supporting male-chauvinism, slavery, religious bigotry, and who casts the vast majority of souls he creates into eternal damnation?

There are actually spiritual philosophies where the God never loses so much as a single solitary soul. Nary a one. There is no need for any place of eternal damnation because this God never loses a soul. There is no evil demon who is out to get people. It's truly a perfect religion that portrays a truly perfect God.

So if you truly believe in a perfect and all-wise God why not chose a spiritual philosophy that actually portrays God as such. The Hebrew picture of God is necessarily a picture of a loser God. The whole story demands that this God loses the vast majority of souls that he creates. In short, it's a story of a God who shoots craps with human souls and loses the vast majority of the time.

Why chose a looser religion as your choice for a picture of God when far more intelligent pictures of God exist?

Why not choose a perfect religion if you believe that God should be Perfect?

Not only have you chosen a religion that demands that God is a loser, but you even argue continually that you feel other people should be choosing it as well.

Why would I want to insult my creator by choosing a religion that portrays him as being a totally inept loser?

[Tex]

Can't I just be grateful?

Whaassamatta you? Do you even have to argue about being happy?

I just don't understand how you can say...you are grateful....Just to say "grateful".
do you mean to your parents? Who gave you life.

You know...........Like: Thanks Mom and Dad for this great life you have given me.

If we are grateful for life, then we are automatically grateful to any creator that may have created it. Therefore to appreciate the creation is the same as appreciating the creator. The creator, if it exists, would know who it is.

What the Christians get all bent out of shape about is that people simply do not recognize their mythology as being the correct description of the creator.

The Biblical God portrayed in the Bible is a horrible picture. It's a picture of a God who would lower himself to things like having someone beaten and nailed to a pole to pay for something.

That alone right there makes him unworthy of worship.

If I'm going to assume that the Creator of this universe is intelligent I'm necessarily going to need to seek out an intelligent religion. Only intelligent religions can possibly be the correct picture of an intelligent God.

Religions where the God has someone beaten and nailed to a pole to make a point, clearly must be checked off the list of viable religions.

In fact, there's far more to it than even that. Even before Christianity was invented the original Abrahamic religions had this God instructing people to judge each other and stone sinners to death. So there was sufficient grounds for rejecting this religion long before the Christians put their spin on it.

I already have sufficient reason for rejecting the Old Testaments of these Abrahamic religion as being "ungodly".

You speak of being grateful, or showing appreciation for creation. But at what cost?

Would you worship and evil creator just because he was the creator?

That's not good enough for me. Just because an entity created life doesn't justify him to be an evil entity.

The truth is that there are far more righteous religions to be had than the evil religion of the ancient Hebrews.

If people truly want to show appreciation for our creator, why do they constantly insult him by proclaiming that the Hebrews correctly described him?

Especially when there are far better spiritual philosophies to be had.

After all, if you truly believe that God is the ultimate divine perfection, then shouldn't you seek out the ultimate divine religion?

Why choose a religion that has God supporting male-chauvinism, slavery, religious bigotry, and who casts the vast majority of souls he creates into eternal damnation?

There are actually spiritual philosophies where the God never loses so much as a single solitary soul. Nary a one. There is no need for any place of eternal damnation because this God never loses a soul. There is no evil demon who is out to get people. It's truly a perfect religion that portrays a truly perfect God.

So if you truly believe in a perfect and all-wise God why not chose a spiritual philosophy that actually portrays God as such. The Hebrew picture of God is necessarily a picture of a loser God. The whole story demands that this God loses the vast majority of souls that he creates. In short, it's a story of a God who shoots craps with human souls and loses the vast majority of the time.

Why chose a looser religion as your choice for a picture of God when far more intelligent pictures of God exist?

Why not choose a perfect religion if you believe that God should be Perfect?

Not only have you chosen a religion that demands that God is a loser, but you even argue continually that you feel other people should be choosing it as well.

Why would I want to insult my creator by choosing a religion that portrays him as being a totally inept loser?

Yes yes.....I already heard your preaching.
Are you to tell me that Danmark believes in a Creator then? Like you.

That he is grateful to a Creator. If so then I need not say more.

He then is not an atheist.

[East of Eden]

Everyone has pain and suffering in this world, it is how they meet those challenges that counts. These bodies of ours have not finished evolving from walking on all fours, so many of us suffer sciatica and other lower back issues, a fact I understand better than I would have liked. But I am grateful for what I have, rather than I consider what I lack.

grateful to who????????????????

Can't I just be grateful?

Whaassamatta you? Do you even have to argue about being happy?

Maybe you're grateful to random chance?

[East of Eden]

This speaks directly to two points in atheism: arrogance and ignorance.

As is the usual case with your posts, I choose not to read past the first line, because you have telegraphed:
A. You write as if you did not understand that this was a proposition, not a conclusion.
B. You prefer insults to analysis.

I'd prefer you not immediately try to derail the thread with insults.

Why start a thread is you're not going to bother responding to posts directed at you, such as stubbornones?

I disagree that atheists are potentially superior to theists, when the facts say they give less to charity than theists, and even donate blood less often. See the book "Who Really Cares".

My preference is to not respond to insults . . . in part because it is against the rules here to respond in kind. One of my many failings is to enjoy returning insults, but I'm trying to do better. It isn't easy, but thanks for noticing.

I still haven't seen where you were insulted. Perhaps you are too sensitive for a debate forum.

To answer the relevant part of your response, let's put aside theist and non theist categories: Would you agree that good works that have no extrinsic motivation are more laudable than good acts that are coerced?

I reject your premise that Christian good works are coerced.

[Divine Insight]

Yes yes.....I already heard your preaching.
Are you to tell me that Danmark believes in a Creator then? Like you.

That he is grateful to a Creator. If so then I need not say more.

He then is not an atheist.

No, I didn't say that.

I said that anyone who is grateful for life is necessarily grateful for the creator of life, if such a creator exists. That doesn't mean that the person themselves necessarily believes that a creator exists.

In fact, why are you trying to force Danmark (or anyone for that matter) to become a liar?

If Danmark sees no reason to believe in a God than that is his TRUTH.

So even if a God actually exists you wouldn't want Danmark to lie to that God and pretend to believe that God exists when the TRUTH is that Danmark doesn't believe he exists?

Why should Danmark lie about his disbelief in a God?

Also, what kind of a God would even expect or want for Danmark to lie?

If you ask me if I believe that Jesus was the demigod Son of the Hebrew God of Abraham, I must tell you the TRUTH. And the truth is that I don't believe it. I have a myriad of very sound reasons for rejecting those rumors.

Let's suppose that this Hebrew God actually exists. Does this change my TRUTH?

No it doesn't. I'd still be convinced that based upon all the information I have to date it makes no sense to me to believe in either Jesus or the God of Abraham.

So even if the Hebrew God were to actually exist, I would still need to be TRUTHFUL with that God and explain precisely why I feel that the Biblical account makes no sense.

Moreover, if the Biblical account of this God were indeed "TRUE", then I would have to confess to this God that based on my understanding of those stories this God is indeed a jerk.

Why lie to God? If the truth is that I feel that he's a jerk based on the Biblical description of him, then why not speak the TRUTH?

Doesn't this God care about TRUTH?

This God would need to explain to me how I ever have it all wrong (In which case it would have been God's fault for not having properly communicated with me in the first place), or he would need to explain all his excuses of why he was restricted to acting like such a jerk.

In fact, many of the most devout Christian Clergy are themselves expecting precisely that. They often claim that they themselves do not understand why God had done the things he has done. So they simply have FAITH that when they finally meet this God, this God will explain to them why he had to be the jerk he was thus giving justification for his actions.

So even the most devout Christian Clergy are in the same boat with me.

The only difference is that they are willing to lie before hand and claim that God already has all these excuses. But they don't know that.

I'm just being honest and saying, "Hey, until I hear these excuses I simply reject these fables as being absurd".

After all, why should a God need to excuse itself after the fact? If the fables themselves can't justify the actions of this God, then the fables should be dismissed. Why sit around hoping on FAITH that this God will someday be able to explain himself at a later date.

Just toss out the fables in the first place as being ignorant, and move on to a spiritual philosophy that needs no excuse.

That's my approach.

Danmark's approach is to simply say, "Hey, I'm not even going to bother to pretend there is a God until I have solid reason to believe that one might actually exist".

Danmark is simply being totally honest.

Yet the Christians then chastise him for being HONEST.

Any atheist who sincerely does not believe in a God is being HONEST by confessing this TRUTH.

How can you condemn honesty?

Yet the whole Christian religion demands the condemnation of this kind of honesty.

To me this is just yet another RED FLAG of why the religion necessarily has to be false. How can a religion that condemns honesty in the name of its supposedly righteous God be true? It has to be false. It condemns people for merely being HONEST. There's no righteousness in that.

[Tex]

Yes yes.....I already heard your preaching.
Are you to tell me that Danmark believes in a Creator then? Like you.

That he is grateful to a Creator. If so then I need not say more.

He then is not an atheist.

No, I didn't say that.

I said that anyone who is grateful for life is necessarily grateful for the creator of life, if such a creator exists. That doesn't mean that the person themselves necessarily believes that a creator exists.

In fact, why are you trying to force Danmark (or anyone for that matter) to become a liar?

If Danmark sees no reason to believe in a God than that is his TRUTH.

So even if a God actually exists you wouldn't want Danmark to lie to that God and pretend to believe that God exists when the TRUTH is that Danmark doesn't believe he exists?

Why should Danmark lie about his disbelief in a God?

Also, what kind of a God would even expect or want for Danmark to lie?

If you ask me if I believe that Jesus was the demigod Son of the Hebrew God of Abraham, I must tell you the TRUTH. And the truth is that I don't believe it. I have a myriad of very sound reasons for rejecting those rumors.

Let's suppose that this Hebrew God actually exists. Does this change my TRUTH?

No it doesn't. I'd still be convinced that based upon all the information I have to date it makes no sense to me to believe in either Jesus or the God of Abraham.

So even if the Hebrew God were to actually exist, I would still need to be TRUTHFUL with that God and explain precisely why I feel that the Biblical account makes no sense.

Moreover, if the Biblical account of this God were indeed "TRUE", then I would have to confess to this God that based on my understanding of those stories this God is indeed a jerk.

Why lie to God? If the truth is that I feel that he's a jerk based on the Biblical description of him, then why not speak the TRUTH?

Doesn't this God care about TRUTH?

This God would need to explain to me how I ever have it all wrong (In which case it would have been God's fault for not having properly communicated with me in the first place), or he would need to explain all his excuses of why he was restricted to acting like such a jerk.

In fact, many of the most devout Christian Clergy are themselves expecting precisely that. They often claim that they themselves do not understand why God had done the things he has done. So they simply have FAITH that when they finally meet this God, this God will explain to them why he had to be the jerk he was thus giving justification for his actions.

So even the most devout Christian Clergy are in the same boat with me.

The only difference is that they are willing to lie before hand and claim that God already has all these excuses. But they don't know that.

I'm just being honest and saying, "Hey, until I hear these excuses I simply reject these fables as being absurd".

After all, why should a God need to excuse itself after the fact? If the fables themselves can't justify the actions of this God, then the fables should be dismissed. Why sit around hoping on FAITH that this God will someday be able to explain himself at a later date.

Just toss out the fables in the first place as being ignorant, and move on to a spiritual philosophy that needs no excuse.

That's my approach.

Danmark's approach is to simply say, "Hey, I'm not even going to bother to pretend there is a God until I have solid reason to believe that one might actually exist".

Danmark is simply being totally honest.

Yet the Christians then chastise him for being HONEST.

Any atheist who sincerely does not believe in a God is being HONEST by confessing this TRUTH.

How can you condemn honesty?

Yet the whole Christian religion demands the condemnation of this kind of honesty.

To me this is just yet another RED FLAG of why the religion necessarily has to be false. How can a religion that condemns honesty in the name of its supposedly righteous God be true? It has to be false. It condemns people for merely being HONEST. There's no righteousness in that.

The condemnation only comes...When they try to tell me that God doesn't exist.
They can say: they don't believe.....Great! But why come here and call me a loser for believing in what they don't ? They are suppose to be superior to me the myth believer

[ytrewq]

... many of us suffer sciatica and other lower back issues, a fact I understand better than I would have liked. But I am grateful for what I have, rather than I consider what I lack.

grateful to who????????????????

Can't I just be grateful?

This raises an interesting question. Can we ‘just be grateful’, without being grateful to some particular person or God?

I acknowledge that in practice the word ‘grateful’ often is used as in ‘grateful to someone’, but not always.

Consider the case where someone has just had a car accident. By good fortune, no one is injured, but it could have been so much worse, a real chance for serious injury or even fatality. Very often in situations of this type, we you hear an utterance like ‘I’m just so grateful that no one was injured’. Grateful to who??? No one or no thing in particular, just grateful of the outcome, that luckily no one was injured.

Maybe technically the word ‘glad’ would be better, but surely we are embarking here on semantic nit-picking.

I don’t have a problem with Dan being grateful for what he has, in fact, I think it to his credit.

I don't mean this as a barb, but if typical evidence for existence of a God is picking up on Dan saying he is grateful for what he has, then the case for God must be very weak indeed. There are so many much-more-persuasive and beautiful arguments for the existence of a God (and I use the term God in the broadest possible sense), so how about we all stop the nit-picking.

[Divine Insight]

The condemnation only comes...When they try to tell me that God doesn't exist.
They can say: they don't believe.....Great! But why come here and call me a loser for believing in what they don't ? They are suppose to be superior to me the myth believer

Is the name of this form called "Debating Tex & Religion"?

I don't think so.

Christianity, as a religion, holds out the notion that anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is already condemned.

In fact, here it is from the scriptures directly:

Mark.16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

So when it comes to Christianity (the religion) people are pointing out that these claims are unreasonable.

Paul also says things like,

Rom.1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This is an attempt to claim that there is no excuse for not believing in a God. And Paul takes this much further in his gospels because he applies this directly to his belief that Jesus was the Christ.

But we know today that Paul is wrong. There are legitimate reasons to believe that there is no God.

Paul also states horrible things like this about non-believers:

Rom.1:

[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


This is utter nonsense. Yet this is in these scriptural writings.

It is these assertions that are being made by the authors of the New Testament (and therefore the Christian religion) that these atheists are rejecting.

You seem to be taking this stuff personally.

If you want to believe in Christianity and not debate it, then why even bother coming here at all? Just believe in your religion and leave it at that.

These people are arguing against "Christianity", not your own personal beliefs.

These scriptures try to make out non-believers as being immoral people. This thread is offering reasons why non-believers who hold high moral values of their own are actually superior to the people who wrote these rumors.

Paul had no right to condemn everyone who doesn't believe like him as being "backbiters, haters of God, disobedience of their parents, etc,".

Paul had a filthy mouth! He was making horrible accusations against people he didn't even know. He had no right to do that.

This is the problem with Christianity, because of these writings of Paul Christianity is often used to condemn anyone who refuses to believe in Christianity.

And that is a horrible accusation.

The Muslims do the same think with their believe in Allah. If you don't worship Allah, your a heathen!

Both of these religions are based on the same jealous-God concept.

You either worship their Gods or your branded as an immoral heathen.

And that's what people are objecting to.

It's simply false. People of other religions, and even atheists as well, are not automatically evil immoral people. Those are lies that stem from these jealous-God religions.

According to the Christians the Muslims are immoral people because they refuse to accept Jesus as The Christ. According to the Muslims the Christians are immoral people because they put Jesus ahead of Allah.

So even these religions that are ultimately based upon the same original jealous-God fables are at each others throats because of this kind of mentality.

And then decent people like you, me and Danmark get sucked into hating each other all because of these jealous God religions.

It's almost hilarious when you stop and think about it.

[Divine Insight]

There are so many much-more-persuasive and beautiful arguments for the existence of a God.

Have you started a thread yet with your beautiful arguments for the existence of a God?

I'd be interesting in hearing them. Although I should add that I wouldn't hesitate to point out any apparent weakness they may contain.

[Tex]

The condemnation only comes...When they try to tell me that God doesn't exist.
They can say: they don't believe.....Great! But why come here and call me a loser for believing in what they don't ? They are suppose to be superior to me the myth believer

Is the name of this form called "Debating Tex & Religion"?

I don't think so.

Christianity, as a religion, holds out the notion that anyone who denies that Jesus is the Christ is already condemned.

In fact, here it is from the scriptures directly:

Mark.16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John.3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

So when it comes to Christianity (the religion) people are pointing out that these claims are unreasonable.

Paul also says things like,

Rom.1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

This is an attempt to claim that there is no excuse for not believing in a God. And Paul takes this much further in his gospels because he applies this directly to his belief that Jesus was the Christ.

But we know today that Paul is wrong. There are legitimate reasons to believe that there is no God.

Paul also states horrible things like this about non-believers:

Rom.1:

[28] And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
[29] Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
[30] Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
[31] Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
[32] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.


This is utter nonsense. Yet this is in these scriptural writings.

It is these assertions that are being made by the authors of the New Testament (and therefore the Christian religion) that these atheists are rejecting.

You seem to be taking this stuff personally.

If you want to believe in Christianity and not debate it, then why even bother coming here at all? Just believe in your religion and leave it at that.

These people are arguing against "Christianity", not your own personal beliefs.

These scriptures try to make out non-believers as being immoral people. This thread is offering reasons why non-believers who hold high moral values of their own are actually superior to the people who wrote these rumors.

Paul had no right to condemn everyone who doesn't believe like him as being "backbiters, haters of God, disobedience of their parents, etc,".

Paul had a filthy mouth! He was making horrible accusations against people he didn't even know. He had no right to do that.

This is the problem with Christianity, because of these writings of Paul Christianity is often used to condemn anyone who refuses to believe in Christianity.

And that is a horrible accusation.

The Muslims do the same think with their believe in Allah. If you don't worship Allah, your a heathen!

Both of these religions are based on the same jealous-God concept.

You either worship their Gods or your branded as an immoral heathen.

And that's what people are objecting to.

It's simply false. People of other religions, and even atheists as well, are not automatically evil immoral people. Those are lies that stem from these jealous-God religions.

According to the Christians the Muslims are immoral people because they refuse to accept Jesus as The Christ. According to the Muslims the Christians are immoral people because they put Jesus ahead of Allah.

So even these religions that are ultimately based upon the same original jealous-God fables are at each others throats because of this kind of mentality.

And then decent people like you, me and Danmark get sucked into hating each other all because of these jealous God religions.

It's almost hilarious when you stop and think about it.

I hate no one....I believe the so called crap you don't want to believe in. Now if Lord Jesus is who he says he is....Then you going against him, is your problem.
I am no judge. I have no power. Lord Jesus is the only person I know who has been confessed to saying he is the SON of GOD. PLus his Apostles believed him...so much so they changed the world they knew. No other man has done this.

You want to roll the dice with your life go right ahead. Even Mohammed made sure he put Lord Jesus in his notes.....He wasn't stupid. Even he knew what Lord Jesus did.