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.

[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.

I am going to reply to this from a former Christian perspective VS a now atheist perspective.



When I was a christian, I "did things" first and foremost with GOD in mind. The person actually needing help however, was a secondary thing. Promoting the GOD concept was FIRST priority and frankly if they didn't want to hear the "Good News" I had to tell them, then... I didn't care so much about them. I actually took a metaphorical leaf out of the Jesus stuff and had nothing but disdain toward those that did NOT care for "His" teachings. When I helped people AS a Christian is was completely on MY and my God's terms...which were those shown through selective NT verses.

Nowadays, as an atheist, the individual that requires help with the basic fundamentals in life (food, shelter..for example) IS the priority. They don't HAVE to believe in any god, but if they do, then they are welcome anyway. Interestingly though, some people I DO deal with have been turned away from "christian" affiliated soup kitchens and shelters, and ARE actually self-professed Christians. They were turned away purely because they did not want to buy into what another Christian denomination was spouting at them as the TRUTH "according to..."

As people are referring to the supposed teachings of "Jesus of Nazareth" of late on this thread, I wonder how "he" , that they claim to believe in, would be feeling about these different factions actually turning away "Christians" of other denominations. *shaking head*

Catalyst.

While many of the postings have been interesting, in terms of answering the original question, Catalyst's simple posting is worth more than all others combined.

Dan's proposition is shown to be true. Apparently no one else noticed, too busy continuing to whip each other with off-topic postings. Caaan yooouu heeaar meee peeoople - the topic is now resolved and closed, you can all stop arguing!!!

While Dan's proposition is shown to be true, there are some important things to note. Dan deliberately did not ask if atheists were morally superior in general to thesists, but instead asked if they were potentially superior, for the reasons he gave. Catalyst demonstrated that potentially they were, as she was just such an example.

However, this tells us little about whether atheists or theists are morally superior in general - to do that would probably be imposssible, requiring an impractically large data set, with a lot of doubtful personal judgement as well.

We could equally well ask if theists have the potential of being morally superior to atheists because (for example) atheists have to decide on their own morals, which some will not be able to do responsibly, while theists have the advantage of an agreed set of morals. I'll bet you could find a real-life example of a previously godless person whose moral behavior was improved by becoming a Christian, showing that this proposition is also potentially correct.

Is it really that hard for us all to find common ground, if we look for it?

You and Catalyst got it exactly right. And among other potentials for common ground would be there is nothing preventing the theist from also adopting as the prime motive, just doing right for right's sake; to help others. In fact, being somewhat contrary to my own proposition, I guess that, that is what frequently happens. What may have started as a duty, becomes something more, something internalized whether Christian or not.

[Divine Insight]

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.

I am going to reply to this from a former Christian perspective VS a now atheist perspective.



When I was a christian, I "did things" first and foremost with GOD in mind. The person actually needing help however, was a secondary thing. Promoting the GOD concept was FIRST priority and frankly if they didn't want to hear the "Good News" I had to tell them, then... I didn't care so much about them. I actually took a metaphorical leaf out of the Jesus stuff and had nothing but disdain toward those that did NOT care for "His" teachings. When I helped people AS a Christian is was completely on MY and my God's terms...which were those shown through selective NT verses.

Nowadays, as an atheist, the individual that requires help with the basic fundamentals in life (food, shelter..for example) IS the priority. They don't HAVE to believe in any god, but if they do, then they are welcome anyway. Interestingly though, some people I DO deal with have been turned away from "christian" affiliated soup kitchens and shelters, and ARE actually self-professed Christians. They were turned away purely because they did not want to buy into what another Christian denomination was spouting at them as the TRUTH "according to..."

As people are referring to the supposed teachings of "Jesus of Nazareth" of late on this thread, I wonder how "he" , that they claim to believe in, would be feeling about these different factions actually turning away "Christians" of other denominations. *shaking head*

Catalyst.

While many of the postings have been interesting, in terms of answering the original question, Catalyst's simple posting is worth more than all others combined.

Dan's proposition is shown to be true. Apparently no one else noticed, too busy continuing to whip each other with off-topic postings. Caaan yooouu heeaar meee peeoople - the topic is now resolved and closed, you can all stop arguing!!!

While Dan's proposition is shown to be true, there are some important things to note. Dan deliberately did not ask if atheists were morally superior in general to thesists, but instead asked if they were potentially superior, for the reasons he gave. Catalyst demonstrated that potentially they were, as she was just such an example.

However, this tells us little about whether atheists or theists are morally superior in general - to do that would probably be imposssible, requiring an impractically large data set, with a lot of doubtful personal judgement as well.

We could equally well ask if theists have the potential of being morally superior to atheists because (for example) atheists have to decide on their own morals, which some will not be able to do responsibly, while theists have the advantage of an agreed set of morals. I'll bet you could find a real-life example of a previously godless person whose moral behavior was improved by becoming a Christian, showing that this proposition is also potentially correct.

Is it really that hard for us all to find common ground, if we look for it?

That was my position from the get-go. I stated, "Religious people who claim that they need religion and God to have moral values have no moral values of their own at all."

That's obvious from their position. They will often even confess that if they knew there was no God they would see no reason to behave morally at all thus proving the point beyond any shadow of a doubt.

This, of course, doesn't apply to all religious folk. Ironically though, (and this is the paramount conclusion), the religious folk who claim that they would have high moral values without religion or a God are then necessarily saying that they don't need God or religion for morality.

But that truly flies in the very face of many religious claims that people need God and religion to have good moral values.

So this just shows the paradoxical nature of many religions. Especially religions that claim to have some sort of patent on superior morality.

So for me, this is a very deep insight, because either way, it shows the total uselessness of religions when it comes to morality.

If a person needs religion in order to have good moral values, then they have no moral values of their own.

If they have moral values of their own, then they clearly don't need religion to have good moral values.

So their intention is a moot point. It matters not what their intentions are. They either have their own moral values in which case their religion is irrelevant, or they are totally dependent upon their religion for their moral values in which case that very claim demands that they have no moral values of their own.

There's no getting around it.

[Danmark]

....

That was my position from the get-go. I stated, "Religious people who claim that they need religion and God to have moral values have no moral values of their own at all."

That's obvious from their position. They will often even confess that if they knew there was no God they would see no reason to behave morally at all thus proving the point beyond any shadow of a doubt.

This, of course, doesn't apply to all religious folk. Ironically though, (and this is the paramount conclusion), the religious folk who claim that they would have high moral values without religion or a God are then necessarily saying that they don't need God or religion for morality.

But that truly flies in the very face of many religious claims that people need God and religion to have good moral values.

So this just shows the paradoxical nature of many religions. Especially religions that claim to have some sort of patent on superior morality.

So for me, this is a very deep insight, because either way, it shows the total uselessness of religions when it comes to morality.

If a person needs religion in order to have good moral values, then they have no moral values of their own.

If they have moral values of their own, then they clearly don't need religion to have good moral values.

So their intention is a moot point. It matters not what their intentions are. They either have their own moral values in which case their religion is irrelevant, or they are totally dependent upon their religion for their moral values in which case that very claim demands that they have no moral values of their own.

There's no getting around it.

Well put. This relates to the discussion 'Anti Christian, by what right?'
There, EduChris stated the following:

It is evident that most people--Christian or non-Christian--are philosophical and theological neophytes. Most people cannot credibly articulate any coherent worldview, whether theistic or non-theistic.
....

There is no finished, perfect, once-and-for-all understanding of Christian theology, just as there is no finished, perfect, once-and-for-all understanding of any area of human interest and endeavor.
....

There is no single "correct" version. As is the case in every area of human interest and endeavor, there is an ongoing and continual process of reflection, testing, and reformulating. Even to ask the question, "Which version is correct?" is to betray at least an aroma of the fundamentalist mindset.

I agree with him and replied:

Can't one be like the children Jesus spoke of when he said 'be as one of these'; that is, isn't there room for a simple Christian faith, that does not get all juiced up with complicated doctrine and that simple faith and demonstration of love be both 'correct' and not open to attack? I certainly think I could and do respect Christians who do not get hung up on whether obvious myths of the Bible really happend and are happy to simply and genuinely smile and say, 'all I know is that I love Jesus and want to follow his example and love my fellow man,' deflecting doctrinaire questions with this simple statement of faith.

I think Chris might agree, and Strider does. But frequently we get both theist and non theist responses that are more like football fans shouting, ranting for their 'teams.' And the ranting and vile bullying can be of the most unChristlike, mean spirited character and intrinsically argues against the merits of the very position the ranter is advocating for. Whereas, as Strider says, who can argue with a simple declaration of faith, that one wants to be Christlike and ultimately does not need science or arcane logic to support that faith? And the last thing the person with that simple faith will do is to ridicule and call into question the honesty of those he disagrees with.

[catalyst]

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.

I am going to reply to this from a former Christian perspective VS a now atheist perspective.



When I was a christian, I "did things" first and foremost with GOD in mind. The person actually needing help however, was a secondary thing. Promoting the GOD concept was FIRST priority and frankly if they didn't want to hear the "Good News" I had to tell them, then... I didn't care so much about them. I actually took a metaphorical leaf out of the Jesus stuff and had nothing but disdain toward those that did NOT care for "His" teachings. When I helped people AS a Christian is was completely on MY and my God's terms...which were those shown through selective NT verses.

Nowadays, as an atheist, the individual that requires help with the basic fundamentals in life (food, shelter..for example) IS the priority. They don't HAVE to believe in any god, but if they do, then they are welcome anyway. Interestingly though, some people I DO deal with have been turned away from "christian" affiliated soup kitchens and shelters, and ARE actually self-professed Christians. They were turned away purely because they did not want to buy into what another Christian denomination was spouting at them as the TRUTH "according to..."

As people are referring to the supposed teachings of "Jesus of Nazareth" of late on this thread, I wonder how "he" , that they claim to believe in, would be feeling about these different factions actually turning away "Christians" of other denominations. *shaking head*

Catalyst.

While many of the postings have been interesting, in terms of answering the original question, Catalyst's simple posting is worth more than all others combined.

Dan's proposition is shown to be true. Apparently no one else noticed, too busy continuing to whip each other with off-topic postings. Caaan yooouu heeaar meee peeoople - the topic is now resolved and closed, you can all stop arguing!!!

While Dan's proposition is shown to be true, there are some important things to note. Dan deliberately did not ask if atheists were morally superior in general to thesists, but instead asked if they were potentially superior, for the reasons he gave. Catalyst demonstrated that potentially they were, as she was just such an example.

However, this tells us little about whether atheists or theists are morally superior in general - to do that would probably be imposssible, requiring an impractically large data set, with a lot of doubtful personal judgement as well.

We could equally well ask if theists have the potential of being morally superior to atheists because (for example) atheists have to decide on their own morals, which some will not be able to do responsibly, while theists have the advantage of an agreed set of morals. I'll bet you could find a real-life example of a previously godless person whose moral behavior was improved by becoming a Christian, showing that this proposition is also potentially correct.

Is it really that hard for us all to find common ground, if we look for it?

You and Catalyst got it exactly right. And among other potentials for common ground would be there is nothing preventing the theist from also adopting as the prime motive, just doing right for right's sake; to help others. In fact, being somewhat contrary to my own proposition, I guess that, that is what frequently happens. What may have started as a duty, becomes something more, something internalized whether Christian or not.

Although my comments were appreciated (thank you ytrewq) I was trying to show something significant. In christianity, my morality, to me at least and what I believed god wanted, was in the right place. What "higher" morality is there than to promote the "all mighty" to those not knowing "him"? I truly thought at that time in my life I was doing the RIGHT THING, even when turning those that didn't want to know my god understanding away. As such, as a christian I felt morally superior to non-christians as I knew god and what "he" wanted. That is why I also understand why other christians may believe they too have it the right way around, when they do things in their "God's name", they are doing what they deem as being "right" for right's sake.

I just see things differently now, but I don't see myself as being morally superior nor morally inferior. These days I just would not turn anyone away that thinks differently to me, as what they believe or don't believe is not my call to make.

As such, I see the former christian me as being far more arrogant and intolerant of others.

I know of one Christian who frequented these boards often way back,but unfortunately, he has now passed away. His username was Joer and he was such a lovely, warm and compassionate chap. I know for a fact he would help ANYONE and know that he did. Even when he was very ill himself, he took a homeless man into his own home and shared with him and cared for him, until his health would not permit him to do so anymore. They even grew a community fruit and veg patch together, so that even those with little money could get nourishment. For me at least, this man truly understood the concept of finding that common ground.

Many, christians and non-christians could take a leaf out of Joer's life book.

Catalyst.

[Divine Insight]

Can't one be like the children Jesus spoke of when he said 'be as one of these'; that is, isn't there room for a simple Christian faith, that does not get all juiced up with complicated doctrine.

I think that's a very good point. Jesus often referred to being "childlike" as a requirement to enter into heaven.

Mark.10:15 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.

A little child can't be obeying all manner of complicated commandments. Neither would a little child have any understanding of Jesus supposedly being a demigod, or having died to pay for their sins, etc.

So the whole idea that Jesus had anything at all to do with demanding that people obey or believe complex commandments or ideas of a sacrificial lamb doesn't even match up with what the man taught.

If a little child is eligible for Heaven, then so necessarily must be an atheist who has the same innocence as a child. A demand that they worship any specific religion or obey any specific commandments can't apply.

Our moral values "must be our own", just as they would be for a little child.

Anything short of that is pretentious.

[joncash]

Is it necessary for a theist to believe in a God who punishes immorality?

[TheTruth101]

Throgh the latest of posts on this thread many are rather believing in to thinking morals themselves are rather broght on by oneself. The truth of the matter is, morals cannot be established by within, but all morals are learned from either the society rules and laws one is living under, or from a textual book of references that morals consist of, like the Bible.

Another mentiond that one was a former christian however, through being an atheist, one learned of true giving. Problem here is, one is not aware of the people she gave to might belive in God, and from the recieving perspective of religious nature of the person, they will thank both the Creator and the atheist giver initially but ultimately, recieved one will establish comfort within thanking God the creator, for working in his myterious ways.

Perhaps one should note that there are ones that are born atheists and were murderes, thievs, and liars, however turned to a born again chritian, hence repeanted of his ways and is now a giver of christianity with wholeheardtedness to others.

The morality of atheist being higher than of a religious one is faulted to say the least. The truth of it is, the efforts one put out to support another, in this case an atheist, is ultimately known to an atheist that they will get back something from giving, which is self fullfilment of joy and self accomplishment to say the least. The point here is again, one gives to recieve on their own, thus concluding it to be rather an act of selfishness. The genuine way of giving is not to recieve or want in any way or from oneself, but rather giving from within and in midst, not reciving any sort of self fulfilment but rather directs it to another, God. It is a genuine way of giving indeed.

The reason morals are broght up and taught by the society is due for one to get adapted to the society. If one is belived to have earned self morals, then it can be said that the beliver is infact in awareness that the world evolves around oneself, not the other way around. It again, concludes to one being prideful and egotistic and one rather wants the freedom to lead, but cannot due to the reality of circumstances. If a president of a nation were to say the things divine insight have said, the president indeed would be frowned upon internally by many egotitstical ones sorrounding him. Like the past cabinet, or the congress, or the ones that funded his presidential campaign. The inistial start of everything in life is to adhere to the rules of the given sorrounding, therefore, acknowledging that the other is interested, not the other way around. Interest of the higher people of society comes from a notion of understanding and making others feel good, not the other way around. In all, it is called charisma of the higher society, and to accept the other first before one is accepted. The mentality stated here is what gets one to pass all the tests of life, and ultimately be made preseident of today by the declaration of serving the people, not being served by the people.

[catalyst]

Hi the Truth101,

I realse you were referring to me in this so please let me clarify.

You wrote:

Another mentiond that one was a former christian however, throgh being an atheist, one learned of true giving, however one is not aware of the people she gives to might belive in God, and from the recieving perspective, thanks both the Creator, God and the atheist giver. In ultimate the one that is religious establishes comfort within thanking the God creator for working in his myterious ways.

I am completely aware of the religious affiliations (or lack there of) of all those walking through our doors and realise full well that those that are Christians are more likely than not thanking their God for the help they are receiving, just as any Muslims that come in are probably thanking Allah. Does it bother me? NOPE not one little bit as I am not in this in the hope to be thanked by anyone. I saw a need that was not being met, in fact such a plight was all but ignored and avoided with bandaid only "solutions", so I decided that the void had to be filled, so I put myself up for that "job". It's that simple.

Is it nice to see that people are eventually back on their feet on their own terms? You betcha...and again, if they are thanking their God for that as well.. I don't mind one little bit.

Catalyst.

[TheTruth101]

Hi the Truth101,

I realse you were referring to me in this so please let me clarify.

You wrote:

Another mentiond that one was a former christian however, throgh being an atheist, one learned of true giving, however one is not aware of the people she gives to might belive in God, and from the recieving perspective, thanks both the Creator, God and the atheist giver. In ultimate the one that is religious establishes comfort within thanking the God creator for working in his myterious ways.

I am completely aware of the religious affiliations (or lack there of) of all those walking through our doors and realise full well that those that are Christians are more likely than not thanking their God for the help they are receiving, just as any Muslims that come in are probably thanking Allah. Does it bother me? NOPE not one little bit as I am not in this in the hope to be thanked by anyone. I saw a need that was not being met, in fact such a plight was all but ignored and avoided with bandaid only "solutions", so I decided that the void had to be filled, so I put myself up for that "job". It's that simple.

Is it nice to see that people are eventually back on their feet on their own terms? You betcha...and again, if they are thanking their God for that as well.. I don't mind one little bit.

Catalyst.

Hello Catalyst ,

Yes, it was both directed at you and the Atheists in general. There few Atheists that belive what you belive, I will categorize them as the Good Samaritan, but there are also ones that do not think the way you do. They typically belive that they are doing the good out of their own, and in turn, realize there is something to be gained for.

Anyway, I re-edited the post where you quoted, I rough draft it and edit it after I read it once.

Talk to you later.

[Danmark]

Is it necessary for a theist to believe in a God who punishes immorality?

No.
Being a theist only means you believe in a God who is not less than personal. I might add a God who is all powerful and the creator of the universe. I can't really disagree with Wikipedia's definition
Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the world and the universe. As such theism describes the classical conception of God that is found in Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism and some forms of Hinduism.

EduChris could prob'ly give a more technical definition.

Your question has reminded me of an idea that I believe is pertinent to this discussion. A thought experiment if you will:

There is one God. He is the creator of the universe and everything within it. Let's suppose he has a moral code that he expresses to his creatures as an absolute [for the sake of this thought experiment it does not matter what he actually thinks is moral or not because He is beyond morality. To paraphrase Tillich, he is not a being at all. He is the very 'ground of being.' Whatever he proclaims as morality does not necessarily apply to Him].

So, the morality he suggests, rather 'he commands' his creatures follow is "Might Makes Right. Do whatever you want. " His commandments are written on a stone tablet:

1. I am God and the most powerful power in the universe. Worship me. Or not. Doesn't really matter because I am who I am and nothing you do, say or think can change a thing. Whatever I say is law.
2. As for what goes on between you, I'd like to see what happens. Kill yourselves off for all I care. I can start over whenever I want and make a bunch more of you. I want to see who is the strongest, the smartest. Do anything you like. Might makes right. If you can get away with it, fine. I don't give a fig. I just want to see how you folks work it out. Makes no nevermind to me. The one thing I want to say is, 'Don't any of you slimy little pathetic crawly creatures go about whining and claiming I told you what to do, because I am staying out of it.

OK, there we have it. The Two Commandments.

So what does man do? Naturally he goes for the might makes right thing right off the bat. Funny thing tho', after a few generations he realizes that if he teams up with his buddies, his chances for survival are better. This realization is shared by various cultures. The cultures that survive adopt it and triumph over the groups that are solely about 'might makes right.'

Through the centuries, for the most part, the might makes right individuals become fewer and fewer and most if not all surviving cultures call the MMR folks 'sociopaths' or 'criminals'.

Finally we get to the last 1000 years or so and some one says 'Morality only comes from God.' And everyone else says to him:

Are you nuts! We tried His morality. It sucks. For us, our morality of not stealing or killing and being honest and working together and acting like we love each other works MUCH better. Shut up and follow the rules. We do not want to go back to that MMR selfishness nonsense.