Are Atheists Potentially Morally Superior to Theists?

[Danmark]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right. Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

[dianaiad]

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.

I stopped reading with this post so that I could interject....

The proposition in the OP is a position I've seen taken rather frequently by atheists...generally just before they start criticizing theists for doing anything good. The idea is, the theist cannot do good works that mean anything because the THEIST is doing everything under coercion: heaven/hell.

However, the claim is that the atheist doing good is superior both morally and ethically, since the atheist can expect neither reward nor punishment; an atheist doing good only does so because the good needs doing.


Never mind what I think about this whole thing...I'm just letting you know that if there is (in my experience) one group that claims superiority over the other in terms of good works.....

It ain't the theists.

The truth is, Jesus stated that the man who performs good works and philanthropy openly in hopes of garnering praise isn't entitled to any heavenly rewards. "verily," He said "they have their reward" in the very earthly praise they get. Whether that is theist or a-, I think that maxim is true. If you do 'good works' in order to get a reputation, get honors, whatever, then your reward is IN that reputation and those honors.

However, (and this goes for theists and atheists alike) those people who help others simply because others need help, then their reward is greater. If the atheist doesn't figure on an afterlife sort of reward, feeling good that someone else's life is improved because of him is a pretty good reward, all things considered.

............and theists get that same reward. The thing is, Christianity (even the 'works based' versions) divorce salvation from 'works' anyway. As in...simply doing 'good works' doesn't get you the heavenly bennies. What gets you there is the reason BEHIND them.

However, either way I don't see a problem with doing good works just because they need doing. Even if part of the reason you are doing them is for recognition, or 'to earn your way to heaven,' it's still a good thing. Keep it up; practice makes a habit, and what's wrong with a habit of doing good things for other people?

[Danmark]

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.

I stopped reading with this post so that I could interject....

The proposition in the OP is a position I've seen taken rather frequently by atheists...generally just before they start criticizing theists for doing anything good. The idea is, the theist cannot do good works that mean anything because the THEIST is doing everything under coercion: heaven/hell.

However, the claim is that the atheist doing good is superior both morally and ethically, since the atheist can expect neither reward nor punishment; an atheist doing good only does so because the good needs doing.


Never mind what I think about this whole thing...I'm just letting you know that if there is (in my experience) one group that claims superiority over the other in terms of good works.....

It ain't the theists.

The truth is, Jesus stated that the man who performs good works and philanthropy openly in hopes of garnering praise isn't entitled to any heavenly rewards. "verily," He said "they have their reward" in the very earthly praise they get. Whether that is theist or a-, I think that maxim is true. If you do 'good works' in order to get a reputation, get honors, whatever, then your reward is IN that reputation and those honors.

However, (and this goes for theists and atheists alike) those people who help others simply because others need help, then their reward is greater. If the atheist doesn't figure on an afterlife sort of reward, feeling good that someone else's life is improved because of him is a pretty good reward, all things considered.

............and theists get that same reward. The thing is, Christianity (even the 'works based' versions) divorce salvation from 'works' anyway. As in...simply doing 'good works' doesn't get you the heavenly bennies. What gets you there is the reason BEHIND them.

However, either way I don't see a problem with doing good works just because they need doing. Even if part of the reason you are doing them is for recognition, or 'to earn your way to heaven,' it's still a good thing. Keep it up; practice makes a habit, and what's wrong with a habit of doing good things for other people?

I agree and have added emphasis to key parts of your post I think we can all agree to. I posed the the OP, [the word 'potentially' was very important] strictly as a hypothetical, and have commented subsequently about the same point you have made; that helping others for whatever reason is habit forming because we actually feel good for doing it.

I think this has a genetic basis, but whatever the basis, it works. We feel better for whatever reason and don't need extrinsic rewards (heavenly or monetary or whatever). Maybe we human folk can simply put religious arguments to the side for a moment (which I think D'iad is doing as well) and congratulate ourselves for just being good folks.

[TheTruth101]

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.

I stopped reading with this post so that I could interject....

The proposition in the OP is a position I've seen taken rather frequently by atheists...generally just before they start criticizing theists for doing anything good. The idea is, the theist cannot do good works that mean anything because the THEIST is doing everything under coercion: heaven/hell.

However, the claim is that the atheist doing good is superior both morally and ethically, since the atheist can expect neither reward nor punishment; an atheist doing good only does so because the good needs doing.


Never mind what I think about this whole thing...I'm just letting you know that if there is (in my experience) one group that claims superiority over the other in terms of good works.....

It ain't the theists.

The truth is, Jesus stated that the man who performs good works and philanthropy openly in hopes of garnering praise isn't entitled to any heavenly rewards. "verily," He said "they have their reward" in the very earthly praise they get. Whether that is theist or a-, I think that maxim is true. If you do 'good works' in order to get a reputation, get honors, whatever, then your reward is IN that reputation and those honors.

However, (and this goes for theists and atheists alike) those people who help others simply because others need help, then their reward is greater. If the atheist doesn't figure on an afterlife sort of reward, feeling good that someone else's life is improved because of him is a pretty good reward, all things considered.

............and theists get that same reward. The thing is, Christianity (even the 'works based' versions) divorce salvation from 'works' anyway. As in...simply doing 'good works' doesn't get you the heavenly bennies. What gets you there is the reason BEHIND them.

However, either way I don't see a problem with doing good works just because they need doing. Even if part of the reason you are doing them is for recognition, or 'to earn your way to heaven,' it's still a good thing. Keep it up; practice makes a habit, and what's wrong with a habit of doing good things for other people?

As clearly stated by Christ, God is all and everything. If one is doing good in recognition of God, then one is doing good in recognition of nature, in all due meaning, one is doing good in recognition of mankind.

[Nickman]

I stopped reading with this post so that I could interject....

The proposition in the OP is a position I've seen taken rather frequently by atheists...generally just before they start criticizing theists for doing anything good. The idea is, the theist cannot do good works that mean anything because the THEIST is doing everything under coercion: heaven/hell.

However, the claim is that the atheist doing good is superior both morally and ethically, since the atheist can expect neither reward nor punishment; an atheist doing good only does so because the good needs doing.

I don't claim one is superior per se. I claim both are drawing morals from the same source, yet one does not realize where their morals come from and invoke god as their source.

Never mind what I think about this whole thing...I'm just letting you know that if there is (in my experience) one group that claims superiority over the other in terms of good works.....

It ain't the theists.

I disagree. I have debated many theists on here and have heard ad infinitum that atheists have no morals without god and no source to draw them from. I also hear that atheists cannot claim that anything is good or bad because we have no god. This is a false idea. I fail to see the atheist community claiming that theists are morally deficient in the same manner that theists claim.

The truth is, Jesus stated that the man who performs good works and philanthropy openly in hopes of garnering praise isn't entitled to any heavenly rewards. "verily," He said "they have their reward" in the very earthly praise they get. Whether that is theist or a-, I think that maxim is true. If you do 'good works' in order to get a reputation, get honors, whatever, then your reward is IN that reputation and those honors.

No one does one thing without some sort of reward. Even if that reward is the silent inner feeling of helping others which brings happiness. There is always a motive and reward.

However, (and this goes for theists and atheists alike) those people who help others simply because others need help, then their reward is greater. If the atheist doesn't figure on an afterlife sort of reward, feeling good that someone else's life is improved because of him is a pretty good reward, all things considered.

Exactly, there is always a reward, but the reward of seeing others happy which brings you happiness is noteworthy.

............and theists get that same reward. The thing is, Christianity (even the 'works based' versions) divorce salvation from 'works' anyway. As in...simply doing 'good works' doesn't get you the heavenly bennies. What gets you there is the reason BEHIND them.

Well heavenly bennies in the LDS church come from temple attendance and following the commandments and really has no bearing in helping others. In christianity, helping others is based on conversion to save them from hell. Although genuine in some cases, it really has no real substance. It may be done with concern of the recipient's eternal predicament but if that person rejects this "salvation" then they are swine. The pearls were cast before them and they trampled them. They are no good until they accept the proposition.

However, either way I don't see a problem with doing good works just because they need doing. Even if part of the reason you are doing them is for recognition, or 'to earn your way to heaven,' it's still a good thing. Keep it up; practice makes a habit, and what's wrong with a habit of doing good things for other people?

I agree that doing good is good no matter what, but if we are to be genuine people who care about others then we must do so with genuine motives. Lets remove the religious agenda.

[Danmark]

As clearly stated by Christ, God is all and everything. If one is doing good in recognition of God, then one is doing good in recognition of nature, in all due meaning, one is doing good in recognition of mankind.

Perhaps Truth you could give the ref. where Jesus says this. I recall Paul saying this, not Jesus, but then my memory of scripture is . . . is. . . uh. . . what was I saying?

[TheTruth101]

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.

I stopped reading with this post so that I could interject....

The proposition in the OP is a position I've seen taken rather frequently by atheists...generally just before they start criticizing theists for doing anything good. The idea is, the theist cannot do good works that mean anything because the THEIST is doing everything under coercion: heaven/hell.

However, the claim is that the atheist doing good is superior both morally and ethically, since the atheist can expect neither reward nor punishment; an atheist doing good only does so because the good needs doing.


Never mind what I think about this whole thing...I'm just letting you know that if there is (in my experience) one group that claims superiority over the other in terms of good works.....

It ain't the theists.

The truth is, Jesus stated that the man who performs good works and philanthropy openly in hopes of garnering praise isn't entitled to any heavenly rewards. "verily," He said "they have their reward" in the very earthly praise they get. Whether that is theist or a-, I think that maxim is true. If you do 'good works' in order to get a reputation, get honors, whatever, then your reward is IN that reputation and those honors.

However, (and this goes for theists and atheists alike) those people who help others simply because others need help, then their reward is greater. If the atheist doesn't figure on an afterlife sort of reward, feeling good that someone else's life is improved because of him is a pretty good reward, all things considered.

............and theists get that same reward. The thing is, Christianity (even the 'works based' versions) divorce salvation from 'works' anyway. As in...simply doing 'good works' doesn't get you the heavenly bennies. What gets you there is the reason BEHIND them.

However, either way I don't see a problem with doing good works just because they need doing. Even if part of the reason you are doing them is for recognition, or 'to earn your way to heaven,' it's still a good thing. Keep it up; practice makes a habit, and what's wrong with a habit of doing good things for other people?

Here goes,


If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'

Jesus said to her, "I am the one who comes from what is whole. I was granted from the things of my Father."


Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; he is there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find him there."

As far as what I've been saying in regarding heavens. It's the same Words of Christ that I've been speaking. And the parable that fits of what others are saying to me so far is...,


Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.



Im telling you, what i've been saying is the Truth and reality of heavens and Atheists.

[TheTruth101]

Re edited above post danmark. Please refer to it. Phone is alittle weird.

[Danmark]

If they ask you, 'What is the evidence of your Father in you?' say to them, 'It is motion and rest.'

Jesus said to her, "I am the one who comes from what is whole. I was granted from the things of my Father."


Jesus said, "I am the light that is over all things. I am all: from me all came forth, and to me all attained. Split a piece of wood; he is there.
Lift up the stone, and you will find him there."

As far as what I've been saying in regarding heavens. It's the same Words of Christ that I've been speaking. And the parable that fits of what others are saying to me so far is...,


Jesus said, "Those who seek should not stop seeking until they find. When they find, they will be disturbed. When they are disturbed, they will marvel, and will reign over all.



Im telling you, what i've been saying is the Truth and reality of heavens and Atheists.

Does your phone prevent you from being able to cite chapter and verse?
And could you find something from one of the synoptic gospels?

[stubbornone]

I disagree. I have debated many theists on here and have heard ad infinitum that atheists have no morals without god and no source to draw them from. I also hear that atheists cannot claim that anything is good or bad because we have no god. This is a false idea. I fail to see the atheist community claiming that theists are morally deficient in the same manner that theists claim.
.

That is interesting because I have debated many atheists on many forums, and time and time again that all atheism is the belief that there is no God and nothing else. Ergo, how can 'nothing else' equate to a fundamentally sound moral code?

The answer is ... it doesn't. Indeed it cannot.

At best, all an atheist can do, at least on claiming that all atheism is is a single conclusion, is borrow from others. However, the problem here is that what makes morality really effective is a clear set of objective standards by which one can judge oneself.

Indeed, that is exactly what the ten commandments do for the faithful every Sunday when they walk in and take communion and receive the atonement of Jesus Christ - it is an examination of our actions against those standards and an honest assessment of how we are doing against them. Over time, goal setting, initiative, effort, etc. can result in real change for people against those standards.

Atheism has nothing like that, indeed cannot have anything like that because it has no set of standards upon which to compare itself.

That is not to say that individual atheists have not done this themselves ... but the source for those standards in ... them, and we all know that humans are prone to rationalization.

Indeed, the lack of standards in the claim is paramount, something can be a mere a conclusion AND a morale code and system - it simply is not possible.

As for the later, if you don't think atheists disparage the morality of Christians, then how do you explain Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, etc. and their constant stream of vitriol that religion causes pretty much everything bad?

That is again a demonstration of the lack of standards in atheism. Atheists are so moral they would never castigate religion? Even as it happens frequently form atheists?

A demonstration of standards would be that the inequitable estimation the worth of others based is wrong. No issues there. But the correct answer should not be, "I am clearly being unjustly criticized, and atheists rarely do that to others."

The correct answer should be, "I am clearly being unjustly criticized, and here is why. However, I acknowledge that its human to characterize oneself through unhealthy comparisons to others ... and atheism is not better or worse at that than many others."

Again, such a sentiment then allows you to explain yourself and how indeed morality is derived in atheism ... a stand that would have to include even your coreligionists who assure us that atheism is merely the belief that there is no God and nothing more.

I guarantee you that an examination of the moral system you create, or believe atheism creates, would point out the grave difficulty in doing so ... not only would it boost the appreciation of the system you fought (not literally obviously) to establish, but I would wager it would give you insight and appreciation to the moral systems and justifications in support of the major religions.

[stubbornone]

“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.

If such were the case, than selflessness would be common in the animal kingdom .. it isn't. Indeed, it isn't even that common in humanity. Sortta puts that claim to rest.

And who has the best chance of reproducing? The selfless guy? No, the strongest guys - who beat down the weaker guys and control the females ... behavior that is QUITE common in even in our nearest ancestors.

And again, claiming that behavior is passed on is not the same thing as claiming a basis of genes or evolutionary origins. Behavior is passed along in many way, not the least being through parents and education. Culture is a huge influence on humanity.

The theories are fine, but the onus is on proof. And the origins and sustainability of morality is about as easy to nail down as anything else in religion.