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.

[TheTruth101]

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?

Danmark,

I am Alpha and Omega, beggining and the end.
Genesis.



'"My Father and I are one.'

'Before Abraham was, I Am.'

[Nickman]

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.

The reality is that atheists, although has nothing to do with morality, have a moral "code" without gods which is a fact.

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.

I disagree, we all borrow morals from society as a whole no matter if you are Christian or atheist. If you were born in the OT times then slavery would be ok. If you were born in Iraq then you would follow that moral code. We all borrow and conform to social standards. I think however that atheists do set theirselves apart and rise above the social norm in many respects. If we feel something is wrong such as slavery or other actions then we stand against such. If the bible tells people that slavery is ok or doesn't rebuke such then people blindly accept it. This is evident in history. Chances are that any christian today would have owned slaves if they lived in the time when it was acceptable and justified by the bible.

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.

I examine myself without the ten commandments and without drinking and eating the communion.

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

As I stated above I can examine myself without your set of rules. You seem to not be able to do so without some book or a cracker and grape juice. Whatever it takes for you to be good I guess.

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.

I have my own standards which are completely independent from the bible and god and they bring me great joy and satisfaction as well as many friends. Its not impossible, all you have to do is realize that you don't have a monopoly on morals.

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.

My personal standards far exceed the bible. I am able to see the biblical standard for what it is. That biblical standard is far behind true morality. It only scrapes the surface. The biblical stands are also so primitive that they really have not much bearing on modern society. Lastly, nothing in the bible is original in terms of morality that wasn't already spoken of by other cultures. Jesus didn't really say anything unique that wasn't predated. Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster, and almost every other religion and culture came up with the same ideas long before Jesus. The ethnic of reciprocity or the Golden rule predate Jesus by 500 years. Your faith doesn't bring anything new to humanity.

[Danmark]

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.

The fact that atheists do not believe in god does not mean that they do not subscribe to the basic morality that most people believe in. To think otherwise would be like saying that because one is a Christian, he is not allowed to believe in modern science.

As an atheist, I do not claim a Christian cannot believe in or accept anything that is not in the Bible. Surely as a Christian, you will not deny an atheist the right to believe in something besides a lack of belief in God.

Is the Bible your sole source of knowledge? I hope not. And I would certainly not claim you cannot incorporate knowledge from other sources into your belief system.

Jesus said as much, when he made reference to men understanding the signs of the times.

It is clear that mankind has adopted a basic moral code long before Jesus and long before the Mosaic laws called the Ten Commandments. The Code of Hammurabi predates the Ten Commandments by up to 1000 years. Why do you deny secularists the right to access and believe in morals and beliefs and knowledge that is extra biblical. Atheism may be defined as simply not believing in God, but being an atheist does not restrict one from believing in science, including evolution, and the development of morality by natural means.

Atheism is better understood as simply not believing in the supernatural. As such it is a belief system that champions science, honesty, objective search for truth and reality. We simply deny supernatural 'gods' the same way we deny astrology and deny the belief that if we break a mirror we will have seven years of bad luck.

[Nickman]

I don't know Danmark, if you step on a crack you may break your mothers back. I wouldn't take the chance it is way too risky.

[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.

The reality is that atheists, although has nothing to do with morality, have a moral "code" without gods which is a fact.

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.

I disagree, we all borrow morals from society as a whole no matter if you are Christian or atheist. If you were born in the OT times then slavery would be ok. If you were born in Iraq then you would follow that moral code. We all borrow and conform to social standards. I think however that atheists do set theirselves apart and rise above the social norm in many respects. If we feel something is wrong such as slavery or other actions then we stand against such. If the bible tells people that slavery is ok or doesn't rebuke such then people blindly accept it. This is evident in history. Chances are that any christian today would have owned slaves if they lived in the time when it was acceptable and justified by the bible.

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.

I examine myself without the ten commandments and without drinking and eating the communion.

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

As I stated above I can examine myself without your set of rules. You seem to not be able to do so without some book or a cracker and grape juice. Whatever it takes for you to be good I guess.

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.

I have my own standards which are completely independent from the bible and god and they bring me great joy and satisfaction as well as many friends. Its not impossible, all you have to do is realize that you don't have a monopoly on morals.

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.

My personal standards far exceed the bible. I am able to see the biblical standard for what it is. That biblical standard is far behind true morality. It only scrapes the surface. The biblical stands are also so primitive that they really have not much bearing on modern society. Lastly, nothing in the bible is original in terms of morality that wasn't already spoken of by other cultures. Jesus didn't really say anything unique that wasn't predated. Confucius, Buddha, Zoroaster, and almost every other religion and culture came up with the same ideas long before Jesus. The ethnic of reciprocity or the Golden rule predate Jesus by 500 years. Your faith doesn't bring anything new to humanity.

We'll test one theory, that Christians get their morality from society ... sexuality.

Society say porn is acceptable, Christians do not.

Society says promiscuity is acceptable, Christians do not.

Society says that sexuality is immutable, but only for homosexuals. Christians do not.

Society says that divorce should be easy and common. Christians do not.

Society says that sex is the end all be all. Christians say that sex is best in marriage, and that it can take an unhealthy control in your life.

This is an example of what I am talking about Nick. Real Morality requires objective standards, and, frankly, the biggest issue with atheistic morals is that there are often none at all.

Your claim that 'everyone' gets their morality from culture is meant as a platitude or a equalizer. But its not the case when we have a Holy Book, a clear and established set of principles and standards, and clergy and peers that hold us to task.

So I ask you in all seriousness, and again highlighting what I have come to see as the biggest difference in atheistic morals and theistic morals ... do your moral principles remain the same? Or do they shift in context?

To some extent that is necessary, as no one thinks that context doesn't matter nor that it should not be weighed in judgement. However, and though this is not relevant to you, I have often debated atheists who will, on one hand deride Christians who go to war as fulfillment of the Crusading tendencies in religion, while in the next breath chastise a pacifist as a coward who will send atheists off to fight for them.

That is ... difficult to follow.

Indeed, as a Soldier, there is plenty of room for exploration on the subject of violence. But, from those who adopt contrarian positions, a reasoned or wise discourse on the use of violence in morality is ... well, I have never seen it.

That does not mean that there are atheists who have not had cogent thoughts on the subject or that their thoughts have not been either insightful or though provoking. However, when looking at moral systems, the failure to have an objective set of standards, a community consensus position that allows help in policing ourselves ... I see that behavior, as referenced in the example above, quite commonly.

Again, and to be clear, that is not saying that atheists are immoral. It is that there is, based on not having a doctrine or established set of standards, a huge potential of amorality, wherein the goal is less about moral thoughts and actions and more about pointing out the faults in others through a series of standards (it's something that is common in Wells, Hitchens (the mother Theresa rant), Dawkins, etc.)

IMHO, it is a serious weakness.

That doesn't mean other moral positions don't have their own, as in having rules and standards can sometimes bring about slavish devotion to rules over results (the difference between the lower and higher law), but ... as a minimum, atheists should be aware of the down side of their moral systems if for no other reason then to be aware of them and on guard to prevent exploitation.

Its kind of like knowing you have a genetic predilection for alcoholism when head off to the party .... you are aware of what to watch for and able to manage the consumption of alcohol rather than waking up one day, naked on the floor with a terrible hang over and realizing you are an alcoholic.

In short, if the goal is to claim that atheistic morality has no down side, I think that is a ... self serving rationalization? Not quite sure that has the correct right to it ... but gets the message across.

Standards allow us to look at ourselves ... though shalt not lie and I lied ... dang!

Vs. justifying ones morality, which means ... you never get to that dang moment, but I assure you, the people around you will be aware of those moments when we should be saying 'DANG' and doing something about it.

[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.

The fact that atheists do not believe in god does not mean that they do not subscribe to the basic morality that most people believe in. To think otherwise would be like saying that because one is a Christian, he is not allowed to believe in modern science.

As an atheist, I do not claim a Christian cannot believe in or accept anything that is not in the Bible. Surely as a Christian, you will not deny an atheist the right to believe in something besides a lack of belief in God.

Is the Bible your sole source of knowledge? I hope not. And I would certainly not claim you cannot incorporate knowledge from other sources into your belief system.

Jesus said as much, when he made reference to men understanding the signs of the times.

It is clear that mankind has adopted a basic moral code long before Jesus and long before the Mosaic laws called the Ten Commandments. The Code of Hammurabi predates the Ten Commandments by up to 1000 years. Why do you deny secularists the right to access and believe in morals and beliefs and knowledge that is extra biblical. Atheism may be defined as simply not believing in God, but being an atheist does not restrict one from believing in science, including evolution, and the development of morality by natural means.

Atheism is better understood as simply not believing in the supernatural. As such it is a belief system that champions science, honesty, objective search for truth and reality. We simply deny supernatural 'gods' the same way we deny astrology and deny the belief that if we break a mirror we will have seven years of bad luck.

I don't. Indeed, what you are saying is exactly what I said, only with more detail.

The problem is ... and potentially solution as well ... is that who does the picking and choosing? The individual of course.

That could include bits of Pagan thoughts, a little Nietzsche (but not Hitchens), some Christian beliefs, a couple of Hindu beliefs, some personal thoughts, etc.

Really there is no issue there, particularly if these are honestly held positions. In most cases they are.

The real issue comes in accountability. As each atheist has essentially created his own standards, some poor - others are greatly to be admired, how do you pull up the lower standard atheists?

Indeed, the first step of formulating morality is the same regardless of your belief system. Even if you base your beliefs on the Bible, there is tremendous disagreement about some of the finer points of the Bible, whereas the acceptance that murder is bad is probably about as uniform as it is among atheists and the opposite.

What about say, promiscuity? Adultery? Greed?

What mechanism in there in place to check the lower ones? For example, and I have seen this in both Christian and atheists, so don't take it personally, but when an atheist decides that promiscuity is OK, indeed, frequent use of prostitutes because its a victimless crime ... what then?

If you are part of a church community, a small town in and of itself, your actions will not remain a secret - at least not for long. You will be confronted with scripture and leaders, even peers, who will warn you, at a minimum, of the spiritual consequences of your choice and then the physical consequences. Indeed, refusal to mend your ways and return to the path can result in excommunication.

Can atheists be excommunicated?

(Barring that fact that not all excommunications are for legit reasons - an issue for a different discussion perhaps).

That is but one, but the biggest difference between the two systems is the atonement. A published set of COMMUNITY rather than individual standards that are weekly measured and improved.

And therein lies the rub. Atheists are often good people, but individual morality has its weaker points.

[Nickman]

We'll test one theory, that Christians get their morality from society ... sexuality.

Society say porn is acceptable, Christians do not.

Society says promiscuity is acceptable, Christians do not.

Society says that sexuality is immutable, but only for homosexuals. Christians do not.

Society says that divorce should be easy and common. Christians do not.

Society says that sex is the end all be all. Christians say that sex is best in marriage, and that it can take an unhealthy control in your life.

Please show me where society says any of what you claim.

This is an example of what I am talking about Nick. Real Morality requires objective standards, and, frankly, the biggest issue with atheistic morals is that there are often none at all.

If you get your morals from the bible then they are not objective. They are subjective to the bible.

Your claim that 'everyone' gets their morality from culture is meant as a platitude or a equalizer. But its not the case when we have a Holy Book, a clear and established set of principles and standards, and clergy and peers that hold us to task.

You deny some of the things in the bible that were ok back when it was written such as slavery because your society says they are wrong. If you didn't you would be the minority. Everything you hold as moral from your holy book is also acceptable by society. If we were to follow the bible then selling our daughters at the age of 12 years and 1 day would be an acceptable practice. That practice that was acceptable by society when the bible was written is no longer acceptable and immoral. In earlier times before and after Christ, slavery was acceptable and was justified by the bible.

So I ask you in all seriousness, and again highlighting what I have come to see as the biggest difference in atheistic morals and theistic morals ... do your moral principles remain the same? Or do they shift in context?

As society grows morals grow and change. We are becoming more and more moral as society gets even closer and closer together. As society has changed through history, the acceptable parts of the bible have been slowly discarded i.e. slavery, selling children, and stoning.

[Danmark]

....
The real issue comes in accountability. As each atheist has essentially created his own standards, some poor - others are greatly to be admired, how do you pull up the lower standard atheists?

Indeed, the first step of formulating morality is the same regardless of your belief system. Even if you base your beliefs on the Bible, there is tremendous disagreement about some of the finer points of the Bible, whereas the acceptance that murder is bad is probably about as uniform as it is among atheists and the opposite.

What about say, promiscuity? Adultery? Greed?

What mechanism in there in place to check the lower ones? For example, and I have seen this in both Christian and atheists, so don't take it personally, but when an atheist decides that promiscuity is OK, indeed, frequent use of prostitutes because its a victimless crime ... what then?

If you are part of a church community, a small town in and of itself, your actions will not remain a secret - at least not for long. You will be confronted with scripture and leaders, even peers, who will warn you, at a minimum, of the spiritual consequences of your choice and then the physical consequences. Indeed, refusal to mend your ways and return to the path can result in excommunication.

Can atheists be excommunicated?

(Barring that fact that not all excommunications are for legit reasons - an issue for a different discussion perhaps).

That is but one, but the biggest difference between the two systems is the atonement. A published set of COMMUNITY rather than individual standards that are weekly measured and improved.

And therein lies the rub. Atheists are often good people, but individual morality has its weaker points.

I guess I am beginning to see your point. I am not responsible for the conduct of other atheists. Are you responsible for the failings of your fellow Christians?

How often to you go to a Christian brother and tell him in person and tell him the error of his ways? I'm guessing it is not more often than the average atheist gives correction to his fellow man.

I guess I have to admit it is true, that atheists are not a unified force or team or congregation. There certainly are atheists who have done wrong. That does not make lack of belief in god wrong, does it?
Many Christians have failed. That does not mean God does not exist. ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God. The Christian community can forgive them, as their God can.

If either an atheist or a Christian 'sins', I can forgive him . . . or not. I personally would be inclined to because I have found my life to be easier and more cheerful if I can avoid being judgmental and can be quick to forgive. It makes it easier to forgive myself.

Is there some evidence that atheists break society's moral or legal code more than Christians do? Is there evidence that Christians violate their code more than atheists break a similar secular moral code? I don't know. I would be interested in seeing the evidence supporting either proposition.

I am willing to bet that if any of us were to choose a partner for a long camping trip together, it would NOT be on the basis of their religious beliefs.

I do not see this as a useful line of argument. I'd prefer to simply do my best according to the light I have. I aspire to have tolerance for others and not expect them to act beyond their abilities.

Maybe some become better people by becoming Christians. Others become less tolerant and more judgmental by joining that club. Maybe others become better by becoming atheists; maybe they get worse. Is there some data demonstrating either proposition?

I think we all, regardless of some religious or irreligious 'team' we belong to can benefit both ourselves and others by following the admonition to first look at the log in our own eye, before complaining about the speck in our brothers'.

[stubbornone]

We'll test one theory, that Christians get their morality from society ... sexuality.

Society say porn is acceptable, Christians do not.

Society says promiscuity is acceptable, Christians do not.

Society says that sexuality is immutable, but only for homosexuals. Christians do not.

Society says that divorce should be easy and common. Christians do not.

Society says that sex is the end all be all. Christians say that sex is best in marriage, and that it can take an unhealthy control in your life.

Please show me where society says any of what you claim.

Nickman, I have been through this with you before.

Do I need to prove that there is a lot of internet porn, indicating high demand and supply or can you just acknowledge a simple point?

No offense Nick, but the goal seems never to having to admit that you are wrong, and that goes right to heart of what I wrote.

Morality is not a zero sum game, and it your moral code is derived more in pointing out faults in others than in acknowledging your own ... well, you can see how that leads to both moral stagnation at best, and at worst hypocrisy.

Its a simple enough point, and the standard of evidence is called prima facie, as in its self evident.

Having to prove our society tolerate porn is simply a delaying tactic. Please deal with the resulting analysis.

[stubbornone]

If you get your morals from the bible then they are not objective. They are subjective to the bible.
.

See above Nickman, would YOU care yo prove that? Or are you simply taking the opposite view to take the opposite view?

Indeed, how exactly is an entire community accepting a standard and holding each other to it subjective rather than objective?

Again, it doesn't even address the actual point being made partner.

And I really appreciate having another atheist shove slavery in my face so he can one up me? Having just blow off three threads and everything Christians said about it.

Now, would you like a better demonstration of why I think atheistic morality is entirely subjective and prone to fault finding in others rather than itself?

The discussion Nickman is about whether or not individual moral systems are better than community selected moral systems

You are free to disagree with my position, but please don;t through slavery and other common barbs in my face like its germane to the discussion to belittle someone. It isn't.