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]

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.

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

One, tell me, how exactly does religion as a motivator work Dan? You see examples, teachings, and the results f things like charity, and you sign up and do. How does one arrive, except through a combination of arrogance and ignorance, to the idea that ONLY atheists choose to do what is right with no ulterior motive ... Except apparently to rub their charity in everyone else's face ... Because when they help people it's better?

And how many times does Jesus, for example, mention Hell? How many of his parables about serving others, healing others, extolling virtue?

So if religious people are driven to do right out ofnfearbof hell or deprivation of heaven, are atheist motivated to do good out of simple narcassism? A desire to rub their 'goodness' in the face of all those ... In the soup kitchen with them? My ladle of sp is better than yours?

http://de-conversion.com/2009/05/25/10- ... entalists/

Indeed the entire line of reasoning is in keeping with easily found prejudices in atheism.

It also doesn't take much to look beyond it, and noticing the absence of anything though provoking or informative in the OP, I offer this from a more reasonable atheist stab at ACTUAL morality rather than just snide condescension.


The fact is that very few atheists can coherently explain why their morality is better than Christian morality, instead of just different.


Atheists need to take morality seriously. They are using the same moral process as those who defended slavery, racism, sexism, tribal war, and the divine right of kings. We must do better than that. We must not simply attack bigoted religious morality. We need to offer a better alternative. An alternative that, like our beliefs, is grounded in reality, not moral feelings.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=127

Of course if the goal is simply to feel superior, anyone can find their reasons to love themselves in isolation. But I find it pretty amazing that atheism, for all it preaching about morality and the need to have beliefs grounded in reality, when pushed, come up with our moral code ... Which, offered by God thousands of years before science ... We find science proving correct anyway.

How is that for a dose of reality? A reminder that atheists still live down here on earth with everyone else?

Indeed, the question about what makes anyone good, appears quite subservient in the OP to the question of how atheism makes one magically superior when accomplishing the same tasks?

Perhaps an examination of hubris would be in order when addressing the later question?

[Danmark]

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.

[Goat]

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.

Well, does it matter what the motivation is, as long as the act has the desired effect?

[Danmark]

I have said and believed much the same thing, but I'm not sure we're right. I am going to suggest there is less difference between atheists and theists than either realize. I think I'll start a new subtopic about this. I've thought about this for a while, and tho' I'm going to give it a provocative title, I am uncomfortable with saying "Religious people have no moral values of their own at all."

I agree that saying "Religious people have no moral values of their own at all.", is incorrect.

The point that I was really trying to make is that if they actually have moral values of their own then they really don't need their religion.

What I should have said to be more correct is this, "Religious people who claim that they need religion and God to have moral values have no moral values of their own at all."

But that should be a self-evident tautology. If they claim that they need their religion and God to have moral values, then clearly without the religion and God they would have none. Therefore they have no moral values of their own by their very own demand that they would have no moral values if it wasn't for their God and religion.

I'm posting this here, altho' it is Divine Insight's because it is the post that spawned this subtopic.

What I suggest that runs counter to the proposition is that tho' technically there is merit to the proposition, in practice I'm not so sure.
Though it is not very sophisticated perhaps all of our fancy talk about motivations and sources of morality and motivation doesn't count for much. Our actions do.

A sincere kindness registers just as well and is of equal benefit no matter who it comes from.

[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.

Well, does it matter what the motivation is, as long as the act has the desired effect?

Our posts crossed, tho' yours was more concise.

Part of the point of the raising the subject was to suggest there may be no difference between moral atheists and moral theists. Or put another way, it is not the belief system that matters, but actions; at least when it comes to evaluating morals.

[stubbornone]

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.

Leave to an atheist to immediately claim the victim status when his hubristic no sense is challenged. Mine is left wondering how atheists can even claim to be rationalists when at the first sign of being called arrogant, they immediately whine like a second grader caught stealing.

I mean, by all means, why on earth wold someone walking into a room doing the exact same thing as everyone else have to explain their sudden epiphany that the same actions make THEM better than everyone else around them? No arrogance there, no need to examine the probable effects of hubris at all!

Why the very notion that someone exclaiming how much better they are has no potential arrogance at all, shocking to even consider it as such!

Indeed, when that arrogance is further backed up by yet another gross misrepresentation of faith, and over simplified, totally unsupported notions that are almost insulting of Christians in their ignorance, why once again ... How dare someone call the gross guessing at the motivation of the faithful to be ignorant? Why that is again just silly for someone to find atheist caricatures of religion to be off, indeed ignorant.

Indeed, a reminder:

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Danmark on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Danmark, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster. These days, theology is the queen of the sciences in a rather less august sense of the word than in its medieval heyday.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagl ... ispunching

Nah, once again rebuttal to atheism is bigotry and insults, rather that just another is play pseudo-intellectual babble to justify some obvious arrogance.

Indeed, if you can stop with the victim card mentality, perhaps you could grace with a demonstration of that supposedly superior intellect and cut ally support you silly thesis with something that looks like an argument?

By all means, explain how you doing the same thing makes you better than people doing the same thing?

See if your analysis can grapple with the reality that religious people ate not monolithic in action, thought, or motivation. Indeed, given your constant victimization about over generalization, I believe your own supposed standards compell you to disregard our own talking points and cuslly debate ... Assuming that was even the intent of starting his thread.

[Nickman]

I would say your right that atheists learn morals from society, but I would add that theists do too. Our morals are no different from each other. The difference is that one of these groups claims supremacy for what they learned in society as if they are more righteous and they learned from god. They don't acknowledge the societal influence on their own morals.

[stubbornone]

I would say your right that atheists learn morals from society, but I would add that theists do too. Our morals are no different from each other. The difference is that one of these groups claims supremacy for what they learned in society as if they are more righteous and they learned from god. They don't acknowledge the societal influence on their own morals.

That is funny, because its the atheists claiming they are morally superior in the OP. In fact, Christian theology reminds us that we are all I perfect and to avoid the exact hubris you claim.

So you dodge the atheist claiming superiority by erroneously claiming that Christians do it? Even as atheists do it?

Indeed, would you care, given what Christians are saying about sexuality, for example, about how you concluded that Christians say culture doesn't effect us?

Indeed, as a former Mormon, would you care to explain your position in light of former President Hinkley's admonition to avoid r rated movies? To establish a train of thought in keeping with the harmony of Christ?

Of courses even as you claim cultural basis for atheism, I'll bet you chafe at the idea that watching violent movies effects your morality? Interesting given the latest gun violence in Connecticut wouldn't you say?

Indeed, the random speculation of atheist who raise these questions is deeply informative to the intellectualism of atheism.

[Nickman]

That is funny, because its the atheists claiming they are morally superior in the OP. In fact, Christian theology reminds us that we are all I perfect and to avoid the exact hubris you claim.

I recall Danmark stating that he would make a thread like this with a controversial twist just for fun. So don't take it to heart. It was designed to give the awe factor. You got hooked, speaking as a fisherman.

Do you mean to say that we are not the same? Are you segregating humans based on beliefs? Thats worse than segregation by color. You think that what you believe is right and I am wrong because you have a book that says so. Oh, wait that book also segregates color. Oh me oh my.

So you dodge the atheist claiming superiority by erroneously claiming that Christians do it? Even as atheists do it?

Never said as you say. I left it open to interpretation. I do however claim we are superior in morality, because we understand where morality comes from and realize that the opposition has the same morality but they place a stumbling block in their way. Some of the opposition actually lack in the morality.

Indeed, would you care, given what Christians are saying about sexuality, for example, about how you concluded that Christians say culture doesn't effect us?

Indeed, as a former Mormon, would you care to explain your position in light of former President Hinkley's admonition to avoid r rated movies? To establish a train of thought in keeping with the harmony of Christ?

Of courses even as you claim cultural basis for atheism, I'll bet you chafe at the idea that watching violent movies effects your morality? Interesting given the latest gun violence in Connecticut wouldn't you say?

Indeed, the random speculation of atheist who raise these questions is deeply informative to the intellectualism of atheism.

Sexuality is great. Do it. And keep in mind the consequences. These are the same consequences that exist for Christians. You're not exempt. You can sustain from sex but you're just missing out. Learn how to do it safely without cutting yourself off from what you actually need in life.

I watch R rated movies and have never had one consequence of doing so. I watch porn by myself and with my woman and there has never been a problem. Why do you think there would be? Oh, you were taught that. I understand.

Watching violence movies and committing violence have no connection. Can you back yourself up?