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.

[micatala]

From Post 193:

Once again, as you preach about ignorance, I will explain it once again.

It is my contention that the ignorant'll be the last one to know there they sit sufferin' from it.

I will not entertain any argument from you that fails to directly address the source I presented.

You had the temerity to claim I didn't support my claim.

When you can combine your temerity with the gonads to report my failure, I'll be happy to address such.

Until such time, it is my contention you're an accusatory coward.

REPORT ME YOU ACCUSATIONAL SONOFABISCUITEATER.

YOU COWER IN ACCUSATION AGAINST ME WHILE REFUSING TO ACT ON THAT ACCUSATION!

YOU DARE ATTEMPT TO IMPUGN MY INTEGRITY, WHILE SHOWING YOU HAVE NONE OF IT YOURSELF! YOU SLIMY, SCUMBALL OF AN ACCUSTORY COWARD!

PUSH THE GOL-DANGED BUTTON, OR HAVE THE DECENCY TO ADMIT YOU'RE TOO DANGED IGNORANT OR JUST TO DANGED STUPID TO FIND IT!

UNTIL YOU DO SO, I WILL DECLARE YOUR METHOD OF DEBATE IS A COWARDLY ACT OF AN IGNORANT INDIVIDUAL WHO IS INCAPABLE OF ANYTHING BEYOND HIDING BEHIND YOUR OBVIOUS IGNORANCE, AND YOUR COWARDICE IN ADMITTING THERE YOU SIT WITH A CASE OF IT!

I will NOT have you repeatedly accuse me of failure to support my claims, when it is obvious to all by now that YOU HAVE FAILED TO FIND THE ONE DANGED BUTTON THAT MIGHT EVER POSSIBLY HELP YOUR CASE.


PUSH THAT BUTTON, YOU IGNORANT, ACCUSATORY COWARD!

PUSH IT, GOLDANGIT.

You cowardly, accusational son of a motherless goat.

Moderator Warning



This post is very uncivil and provocative. Frustration with the behavior of another member is not grounds for this kind of incivility.



Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[micatala]

How you are incapable of that, and need to twist it into "Atheism is no God, and nothing else!" No friggin duh.

Moderator Warning


You have been repeatedly warned about profanity, and trying to skate this close to the line after a final warning is not really appropriate. The post is also quite sarcastic in tone.

Congrats Joey, for proving that taking issue with the dumping of a source without comment or apparently even relevance to the claims on making ... results in a mental melt down?

Its clear that attempting to engage you civilly is simply not possible. In addition to reporting the post, I would also like to congratulate you on being the first person to earn the coveted ignore feature.

This amounts to taunting. The post is entirely personal and there is never any reason to declare in a thread you are ignoring someone.

We are to conclude that you are incapable of making a relevant point. Thus are treated accordingly.

You seem to have a personal fixation, Really, its entirely one sided.

Again, this may not be egregious, but it is personal and seems to serve no other purpose than to poke at another member.






Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Danmark]

Well, there is the rub Dan, the science is anything but clear, and in the later serotonin levels and implications of harm ... doesn't really point to morality. As it happens, my life has been spend having to grapple with that very question as a Soldier ... and the end result of that exploration ... well, its changed. Indeed, renowned Samurai Miyamoto Musashi, had a similar journey with violence. He began as a younger man persecuting his duels and battles with extreme prejudice (i.e. he killed his adversaries without exception). In the later portion of his life, he gentled quite a bit, and simply fought his duels to the point where the other man realized he had no chance of defeating him and simply quit. Arguably, the later is a significantly greater demonstration of skill.

That is a personal example of the use of violence in morality. Unfortunately, the use of violence, beyond simple criminality (where it is hard to use an excuse to justify such behavior as moral), there is the reality that violence is sometimes necessary - incredibly so. In fact, it begins with the oft heard phrase:

The Only Thing Necessary for the Triumph of Evil is that Good Men Do Nothing - Edwin Burke

And there is indeed truth to this, truth that is no doubt born out in history. What is men had not decided to stand up to Hitler and Stalin? What a different world we would live in today. What if Protestants were unwilling to stand up to the sins and excesses of the Catholic Church? Not only would the Catholic Church be a rotten core of corruption, the message of Jesus lost to all Catholics in excuse of corruption, but it is doubtful that the very modern state would exist ... which flowed out of the Treaty of Westphalia in which the foundations of the modern Nation state, and indeed secularism (freedom of conscience) was made pre-eminent.

One must literally avoid these events entirely if one is to conclude that violence in ALWAYS immoral.

The other side is readily made plain as well. As previously addressed simple criminality points to the immorality of violence. Indeed, many of the wars we humans have fought have been anything but just, and, unfortunately, some of the wars we have fought even for the best of intentions have been so badly mismanaged that the resulting killing could perhaps accurately be called murder.

Clearly a case for avoiding unnecessary violence can be made quite clearly.

And these moral questions continue to hit us:

Is violence OK when protecting ones family? I would clearly think so, as there is nothing more precious to us anywhere.

Is violence to protect property OK? Depends doesn't it? If someone is picking a tomato from your garden, it may be your property, but violence is probably not the best answer. Yet our homes and livelihoods, as with the LA riots, plainly points in the other direction.

Is violence OK is protecting personal choices? Arguably it is when protecting the freedom of choice, but to use violence to extend your choice on others is almost universally wrong.

I guess that is along version of stating that the study in SA is flawed from a moral standpoint. the use of violence is not a moral imperative. I for one would be more impressed if those serotonin levels produced a demonstrably different attitudes on something like adultery (which, though justified by some - not me - is clearly damaging), clear cut cases of lying, or stealing.

Serotonin is also something that our choices effect greatly. There is a genetic component to it, but there are also may choices involved that effect the levels as well - levels of activity, gender, etc. etc. Thus making a clear indicative moral question based on the such a fluctuating level would be a very difficult case to make.

In analogy, when I ride my bike, my overall opinion on the use of violence does not shift based on higher serotonin levels. What may shift is mood and opinion, and anyone who has ever been crotchety knows that there are reasons for crotchetiness that goes well beyond our genetic code.

I also find myself deeply philosophically opposed to such notions. Not only do they have a profound potential effect on our jurisprudence, that effect is something I take quite seriously - we are all responsible for our actions and choices - and their consequences good and bad.

I simply see no other way to BE moral?

And having our choices predispositioned by our genes is little different from Calvinist approaches to God's preordination of events.

That being said, there are clearly things on a genetic level that CAN effect the difficulty of making choices. An example would be alcohol, some of us are pre-disposed to alcoholism - and alcoholism is wrecker. It is something that being aware of will help us and those around us make better choices in terms of morality ... but all the susceptibility to alcoholism in the world doesn't prevent you from deciding to not drink ...

Therein is the crux, whether we are moral or not ... its our choice. Not God's, not our upbringing, not even our genes force us to make the choices we make.

Just a quick note to indicate I want to get back to this when I've given it more thought and am not so sleepy . . . well . . . not to mention a lovely Hendricks Gin & Tonic with cucumber and lime.

The issue I want to explore is natural predisposition that has a genetic or chemical basis v. choice. This is an interesting area because of the interplay of material and 'spiritual' or volition. I suspect it is an insoluble issue, but that may be what makes it fascinating, not to mention important to explore.

[Artie]

“Finally, in the development of morality as elsewhere, nature creates very little that is absolutely new. It works up again what already exists. That is the path of all evolution.�
So according to Cohen, the moral feeling came first, then evolved into rules. But just as Darwin refused to address First Life and the origin of the mind, so Cohen does not address the origin of the “moral feeling�, which might be called conscience. And Cohen’s model does not refute that separate populations might develop antithetical codes for their “morality�. His model simply states that for evolutionary success, people learned to get along by doing mutually compatible things. Or at least not getting bashed.

But is the concept of “If you touch my wife, I’ll bash you!� really a moral precept? From the offender’s view point there are two possible points of perception:

(a) I shouldn’t touch his wife because he will hurt me;

(b) I shouldn’t touch his wife because it is wrong.

The first is entirely pragmatic, and could be circumvented when the wife is alone. The second is conscience based, and works under all conditions. Is it likely that (a) will evolve into (b)? No, because evolutionary theory demands the perpetuation of one’s own genetics over all other activities. Perception (a) is the only possible result of the theory of evolution. The concept of “wrongness� could not have evolved, under the definition of survival of the fittest. Just as the existence of selflessness falsifies Darwinian evolution, so it falsifies Cohen’s evolutionary theory of morality, “Evolving Morality� is seen to be another evolutionary crutch for propping up Atheism.

Well of course a evolved into b. "I shouldn’t touch his wife because he will hurt me;" therefore touching his wife is wrong. "The first is entirely pragmatic, and could be circumvented when the wife is alone." Yes, that is how an immoral idiot would think. But an intelligent moral person would of course be able to deduce that "I shouldn't touch his wife because somebody else might see me going into his house or he might surprise us or she might tell him and he will hurt me or she might get in trouble with him" or any number of other negative consequences. So intelligent moral people don't do it and idiotic immoral people do it. And since morality is a result of evolution moral people don't need to consciously reflect whether it is moral or not, they just get a bad conscience if they consider doing it.

Selflessness simply evolved because to be selfless is to our advantage in a social context. Let me put it excruciatingly simple for you:

I am "selfless" because I am "selfish". If I help others they might help me in return which might increase my own chances of survival which is in my own "selfish" interest. The more I help others the more they are likely to help me in return and the more my chances of survival increases. Therefore the ones who help others are the ones who are the "fittest" and are selected for by evolution simply because being selfless enhances the chances of survival for both the individual and the community. Blindingly simple isn't it? Of course when I help others I not only reap the benefit of being helped in return, there are untold other positive side effects such as achieving a stable society which also enhances my and everybody else's chances of survival. So who will perpetuate their genes? Those who are selfless of course. That is why selflessness evolved.

[99percentatheism]

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.

The goofiness of thinking a Theist (and OBVIOUSLY that term means a Christian) does "good works" for threat of hell or deprivation of heaven is obvious only when a person decides to read about history without the mind-conditioning of today's political and social agenda's goading knee-jerk response.

Are Atheists potentially more morally superior to Theists?

Not if one uses the record of history to decide the matter. Without Christians and Christian morality leading the way to justice and decency and the ever-vigilant contending against the chaos and oppression that follows the modern record of a godless society, atheists would have no role models other than the true pitiless product of survival of the fittest to drive the agenda forward.

What do we see now from a purely materialist group-think?

Pregnancy and and a long list of Sexually Transmitted Diseases as a by-product of lust and debauchery of the relativism that is always the bottom-line outcome of godlessness. Life as a product to be used and discarded at whim and will. And violence and mental illness as ubiquitous as the violence and mental illness we see daily in the modern western world.

And our godless school systems?

A dumbed down populace, a religious community that looks more like a Country Music and Hip Hop Dance Club and the commonality of the low information voter deciding the fate of humanity . . . certainly shows the decidely low worth of grasping and applying materialism through and through to ones real life.

Reality is a harsh judge, but one that rarely hides the truth.

[Artie]

Not if one uses the record of history to decide the matter. Without Christians and Christian morality leading the way to justice and decency and the ever-vigilant contending against the chaos and oppression that follows the modern record of a godless society, atheists would have no role models other than the true pitiless product of survival of the fittest to drive the agenda forward.

Atheists or not, many people have logic, reason and common sense, empathy and compassion, morality and ethics, altruism and love, conscience and live by the Golden Rule and many don't. Many religions are safety nets to catch those who don't have these qualities and have to be explained morals and provided with role models for moral lives. Then you have those who have neither these qualities nor good religious role models and many of those are stopped by the safety net of the justice system. If everybody had logic, reason and common sense, empathy and compassion, morality and ethics, altruism and love, conscience and lived by the Golden Rule we wouldn't need the safety nets of neither religion nor justice systems.

[99percentatheism]

Artie

Not if one uses the record of history to decide the matter. Without Christians and Christian morality leading the way to justice and decency and the ever-vigilant contending against the chaos and oppression that follows the modern record of a godless society, atheists would have no role models other than the true pitiless product of survival of the fittest to drive the agenda forward.

Atheists or not, many people have logic, reason and common sense,

Where?

empathy and compassion,

Both cause immense strife for the populace at large. Logic and reason stand against empathy and compassion.

morality and ethics,

Both are soundly mocked by a materialistic world and worldview. Both exist supernaturally.

altruism and love,

Love is supernatural. Altruism is supernatural as well. Unless of course symbiosis is the guide. But in that case, ridding the environment of the sick and weak is true alturism.

conscience and live by the Golden Rule and many don't.

The Golden Rule includes genocide in a truly materialstic nature. You can't have evolutionary forces and the health care system in union.

Nature shows us that doing unto others as they would do to you is to kill and eat the weak and helpless. That's an immutable fact.

Many religions are safety nets to catch those who don't have these qualities and have to be explained morals and provided with role models for moral lives.

OK. Otherwise all of my positions come to fruition about the true nature of nature. Atheism hangs on a perfect materialism. That contradicts atheistic altruism etc., etc.. There is no such thing as goodness or badness in a perfect atheistic universe. Only lucky lifeforms until they meet an unlucky demise. No murder, no justice, no Golden Rule for sure.

Logic and reason applied appropriately.

Then you have those who have neither these qualities nor good religious role models and many of those are stopped by the safety net of the justice system.

If atheism were a good role model, we would still all be living in tribal orders.

If everybody had logic, reason and common sense, empathy and compassion, morality and ethics, altruism and love, conscience and lived by the Golden Rule we wouldn't need the safety nets of neither religion nor justice systems.

You just explained God's ways in the beginning.

The Golden Rule is a supernatural event anywhere it is exercised.

That is IF everybody had logic, reason and common sense, empathy and compassion, morality and ethics, altruism and love and a conscience.

But reality proves otherwise.

"Love?"

Prove it.

[Artie]

OK. Otherwise all of my positions come to fruition about the true nature of nature. Atheism hangs on a perfect materialism. That contradicts atheistic altruism etc., etc.. There is no such thing as goodness or badness in a perfect atheistic universe. Only lucky lifeforms until they meet an unlucky demise. No murder, no justice, no Golden Rule for sure.

This whole post is so illogical and irrational I can't answer every point. I would just like to refer you to my post 201 and if you have any specific questions or points you would like explained just ask.

[Danmark]

OK. Otherwise all of my positions come to fruition about the true nature of nature. Atheism hangs on a perfect materialism. That contradicts atheistic altruism etc., etc.. There is no such thing as goodness or badness in a perfect atheistic universe. Only lucky lifeforms until they meet an unlucky demise. No murder, no justice, no Golden Rule for sure.

This whole post is so illogical and irrational I can't answer every point. I would just like to refer you to my post 201 and if you have any specific questions or points you would like explained just ask.

Correct Artie. The first statement of his [emphasized] essentially boasts 'I am always right.' 99's 2d in essence declares 'atheists are always wrong., To ignore the purely materialistic, evolutionary forces that could [and in the opinion of experts on the subject] do account for morality, including altruism even in animals is to announce one has no imaginative ability whatsoever AND is ignorant of the mechanisms involved. His statements are not worth rebuttal. This is why I never read the gay bashing subtopic anymore. Facts, compassion, refutation, science and Christian love will not dissuade some from their daily rounds of prejudice. They are doomed to learn nothing except how to dig their ruts deeper.

[Danmark]

...If God were good, then how would I know whether or if any of my beliefs were actually true?...

Let's suppose, for a moment, that Ultimate Reality is not less than personal, and that Ultimate Reality is not arbitrarily constrained in any way (spatio-temporal dimension, causal efficacy, and capacity to handle and process information). This is just a more precise (and less baggage-laden) way to describe the more conventional "personal God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent." And grant for a moment that all of this does in fact entail that God is good. Can you think of any other explanation for our universe and our selves that is more likely to result in our developing the capacity to seek and find actual truth?

[FOULED UP THE BBCODE, BUT THIS IS DANMARK in italics:]
OK. Great way to put the hypothetical [don't know why I missed this earlier].
I somewhat regret that my answer is as simple as it is, but whether or not God is good and personal and omniscient and omnipotent, I suggest that in any event, any creature evolves and has a better chance to survive if he does a better job than the competition in evaluating facts accurately. Thus he would come to prize this ability personally as well as surviving as a species because of it. I do not understand why having a god in the equation changes things. [I probably am missing some point you were making so please clarify, but I really don't see why adding or subtracting a god changes the formula.

...because of other statements you made such as 'Non-theism eviscerates any and all grounds for supposing our epistemic powers have any validity.' I simply do not understand why you would say that...

Let's do a little thought experiment. Suppose that we knew our earth was going to explode exactly 50 million years from now. And suppose that we had the technology to send out into space a thousand spaceships, each containing a thousand people (matched for gender and other compatible traits). Our technology was such that each ship was targeted toward a different but promising solar system, but it would take twenty million years to arrive at their destination, a few years to colonize the new planet(s), and twenty million years to return and rescue more people from our doomed earth. Let's also suppose that during the time each spaceship is away from the earth, evolutionary pressures operate on each respective population, such that their ability to discern and know truth is altered in some way, whereas the truth-discerning ability of the people who remain on earth is not significantly changed.

When all of these respective and isolated populations return to earth after some 40 million years, is it reasonable to assume, ceteris paribus, that some of them will have become significantly better at discerning truth than their earthbound counterparts? If so, what would that tell us about our present capacity to know and comprehend truth?

Yes, it makes sense that some of the groups would be better able to discern truth, tho' we cannot say which ones. But we cannot say that any of the diverse groups would necessarily be better able to do this than those of us today can.

As I say, I may have missed something in your hypothetical, so please advise.