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.

[Artie]

I quoted your one sentence that went with the flow of your whole argument. What you quoted goes totally against the idea of my last paragraph.

I don't know what the idea of your last paragraph is supposed to be. Could you rephrase?

[stubbornone]

Oh, so fundamentally sound moral codes are the result of logic ... which atheists claim ... but results in zero applicable published standards or doctrines?

You then turn around and claim that one that WAS created, and widely revered by many very intelligent people, is worthless ... because of its very act of creation?

Well, then, as you have declared it both easy to do and so poorly done in every other moral code in the world, I believe you have just set a rather high bar for yourself.

Good luck in creating the perfect moral code, one that will doubt be glorified as the THE SOLUTION to mankinds torment, and ... well, no doubt every knee will bow before the standards you are about to quite breathlessly and with apparent ease lay before us?

By all means, I await the enrapturing display of your logic that exceeds that all other attempts.

Fire away cowboy.

But why would I need to do that when it has already been done?
https://www.tanenbaum.org/blog/04/11/ce ... n-rule-day
The Golden Rule is a result of evolution and has been incorporated into practically every religion and other moral system in the world as a universal code for human moral behavior in societies. I don't need a god to tell me that The Golden Rule is a good rule to live by I can figure that out for myself. You need a god to tell you. Which is the difference between us in a nutshell.

Agh, so the basics of morality boils down to a single day?

And which Golden Rule do you speak of? Do onto others as they do unto you? Or do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

The later is Biblical.

It wasn't created by a logical atheist, it found in the Synoptic Gospels and apparently given to us at a minimum by the Apostles.

And yet you just rejected this teaching as the unthinking acceptance of a duty old tome? And now you quote it as if its the highlight of logic? Who indeed is unthinking?

[Danmark]

And which Golden Rule do you speak of? Do onto others as they do unto you? Or do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

The later is Biblical.

It wasn't created by a logical atheist, it found in the Synoptic Gospels and apparently given to us at a minimum by the Apostles.

And yet you just rejected this teaching as the unthinking acceptance of a duty old tome? And now you quote it as if its the highlight of logic? Who indeed is unthinking?

The 'golden rule' is essentially the law or the morality of reciprocity. It is a component of morality and law in virtually all religions, and certainly predates the NT.

Even non human primates seem to understand and expect this kind of fairness.

The Frans de Waal TED talk is fascinating and amusing. I've mentioned it several times and highly recommend it.

[stubbornone]

To ask a higher being of moral codes establishes a dependency as well as independency.

Precisely my point. People who understand and live by moral codes such as the Golden Rule because they have figured out themselves that it is in their and everybody's best interest don't need to ask a higher being for moral codes do they? Only those who don't have the mental capacity to figure this out for themselves need to ask some higher being for guidance. Which is why evolution evolved brains wired for belief. So that some people would believe in religious authority figures and do what they say and follow their guidance and behave morally.

Nor apparently can they create them themselves ... so being bereft of a moral code and usuping a portion of Christian code, while rejecting Christianity is considered logical is it?

You will forgive me brother, but many atheists consider being preached to as highlu offensive, and much of what you write above comes off as exactly that. The entire basis appears to, as its basis, usurp logic as the sole domain of atheism ... and that is, quite frankly, silly.

Additionally, you keep making the claim that our brains are hard wired genetics for X or Y without any proof whatsoever. If indeed that is the case, then atheism should be highly uncommon - that is not the case.

Indeed, from a former atheist:

Sacred Legacies
a. Texts, documents, unquestionable absolute truths.
The theory of Evolution, being the only hope for the Atheist, is the holiest of absolute, unquestionable truths. In fact, by way of contradiction and paradox, the completely relativistic universe of the Atheist is interrupted by one Holy, Absolute, Unquestionable, Unassailable Truth: Evolution.

Without Evolution, the Atheist has no logic at all because everything else in the Atheist world is relative; only Evolution is Absolute Truth. With Evolution, the Atheist need only deny a few details here and there, such as in Darwin’s Dodge, and Darwin’s Horrid Doubt, along with the other Darwinian falsifications. Then all the rest of life is free of all restrictions.

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/20 ... heism.html

Well Art, that seems befittingly apt in your case, as evolution appears to be the magic silver bullet that fixes everything? Even as it would be exceedingly hard to claim that evolution itself forms the basis of our decisions and ethos within the confines of a single lifetime. Our genetic code does not change within the span of our lives (at least not appreciably) our moral codes have tremendous capacity to do so ... and evolution does not solve that portion of the equation.

[Artie]

Agh, so the basics of morality boils down to a single day?

No it doesn't. What an irrational question...

And which Golden Rule do you speak of? Do onto others as they do unto you? Or do unto others as you would have them do unto you?

The Golden Rule have two variants:

"The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,[1] ethical code, or morality[2] that essentially states either of the following:
(Positive form of Golden Rule): One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.[1]
(Negative form of Golden Rule): One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated.

It wasn't created by a logical atheist, it found in the Synoptic Gospels and apparently given to us at a minimum by the Apostles.

No it wasn't created by a logical atheist, it is a basic evolutionary moral code and many atheists and others understand this.

"The Golden Rule existed among all the major philosophical schools of Ancient China: Mohism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Examples of the concept include:
"Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word that may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not reciprocity such a word?" – Confucius[13][14]
"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius[15]"

Confucius lived from 551–479 BCE.

"An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."[18] An example from a Late Period (c. 664 BCE – 323 BCE) papyrus: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."[19]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

And yet you just rejected this teaching as the unthinking acceptance of a duty old tome? And now you quote it as if its the highlight of logic? Who indeed is unthinking?

You are. I never rejected "this teaching." I simply explained that "this teaching" is an ancient moral code evolved by evolution and adopted into many religions and other moral systems. What is sad is that some people actually have to be "taught" the morality of the Golden Rule by some religious moral authority or have it explained by religious scriptures instead of being able to figure it out themselves. Of course, moral people don't need to be "taught" the Golden Rule.

[dianaiad]

[Of course, moral people don't need to be "taught" the Golden Rule.

Bushwah. We all have to be taught the golden rule. We are humans. Of all the critters on the planet, we are the ones born more helpless...and more dependent for longer..than all others. While most creatures have their basic natures and abilities to survive hardwired, humans must be taught. It's a trade off, according to evolutionists, for our increased brainpower.

Feral children don't know the golden rule. Children growing up in societies that go by other ethical systems (ever hear of the Spartans, for instance?) don't automatically know it.

While it is true that some form of the golden rule has appeared in almost every human society, it still must be taught. If it isn't, it doesn't get learned until somebody, some very smart person, figures it out. Then he teaches others...and this break through makes him a revered person in his society, because his discovery was so ground breaking, rare, and important.

[Danmark]

[Of course, moral people don't need to be "taught" the Golden Rule.

Bushwah. We all have to be taught the golden rule. We are humans. Of all the critters on the planet, we are the ones born more helpless...and more dependent for longer..than all others. While most creatures have their basic natures and abilities to survive hardwired, humans must be taught. It's a trade off, according to evolutionists, for our increased brainpower.

Feral children don't know the golden rule. Children growing up in societies that go by other ethical systems (ever hear of the Spartans, for instance?) don't automatically know it.

While it is true that some form of the golden rule has appeared in almost every human society, it still must be taught. If it isn't, it doesn't get learned until somebody, some very smart person, figures it out. Then he teaches others...and this break through makes him a revered person in his society, because his discovery was so ground breaking, rare, and important.

D'd what you write is pretty much what I always believed, but there are some new studies that surprised even the researchers. I don't pretend to know, but

is worth a look.

And as I've mentioned before the Frans de waal lecture on primates is interesting. The ape rejecting cucumber slices when he sees his 'brother' getting grapes for the same task is a hoot.

[Artie]

Nor apparently can they create them themselves ... so being bereft of a moral code and usuping a portion of Christian code, while rejecting Christianity is considered logical is it?

If by "a portion of Christian code" you mean the Golden Rule the Golden Rule was known long before Christ was even born.

You will forgive me brother, but many atheists consider being preached to as highlu offensive, and much of what you write above comes off as exactly that. The entire basis appears to, as its basis, usurp logic as the sole domain of atheism ... and that is, quite frankly, silly.

No, logic isn't the sole domain of atheism. Logic, reason and common sense are employed by many theists and atheists alike.

Additionally, you keep making the claim that our brains are hard wired genetics for X or Y without any proof whatsoever. If indeed that is the case, then atheism should be highly uncommon - that is not the case.

Have I forgotten to supply links? Here:

"Scientists say they have located the parts of the brain that control religious faith. And the research proves, they contend, that belief in a higher power is an evolutionary asset that helps human survival."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/scien ... 41022.html

You will find a lot more information if you google "neurotheology".

Indeed, from a former atheist:

Sacred Legacies
a. Texts, documents, unquestionable absolute truths.
The theory of Evolution, being the only hope for the Atheist, is the holiest of absolute, unquestionable truths. In fact, by way of contradiction and paradox, the completely relativistic universe of the Atheist is interrupted by one Holy, Absolute, Unquestionable, Unassailable Truth: Evolution.

Without Evolution, the Atheist has no logic at all because everything else in the Atheist world is relative; only Evolution is Absolute Truth. With Evolution, the Atheist need only deny a few details here and there, such as in Darwin’s Dodge, and Darwin’s Horrid Doubt, along with the other Darwinian falsifications. Then all the rest of life is free of all restrictions.

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/20 ... heism.html

"The 5th-century BCE Greek philosopher Diagoras is known as the "first atheist",[130] and is cited as such by Cicero in his De Natura Deorum.[131] ... Critias viewed religion as a human invention used to frighten people into following moral order"

You quoted "Without Evolution, the Atheist has no logic at all" so between Diagoras and Darwin no atheist had any logic. This is a very interesting view but hardly believable... you see, it's perfectly possible to use logic, reason and common sense to deduce that following the Golden Rule is morally sound without referring to evolution. As you can see if you read about the Golden Rule in Wikipedia quite a lot of people managed that.

Well Art, that seems befittingly apt in your case, as evolution appears to be the magic silver bullet that fixes everything? Even as it would be exceedingly hard to claim that evolution itself forms the basis of our decisions and ethos within the confines of a single lifetime. Our genetic code does not change within the span of our lives (at least not appreciably) our moral codes have tremendous capacity to do so ... and evolution does not solve that portion of the equation.

Solve which portion of the equation? That moral codes change?

[Clownboat]

Do you understand how a thesis statement and support works?

Do you understand how to address my points line by line? It appears not and I choose at this time to no longer waste my time with trying to have a discussion with you and will once again become an observer of this thread for the time being.

Hopefully next time we can be more productive.

[Artie]

Bushwah. We all have to be taught the golden rule. We are humans. Of all the critters on the planet, we are the ones born more helpless...and more dependent for longer..than all others. While most creatures have their basic natures and abilities to survive hardwired, humans must be taught. It's a trade off, according to evolutionists, for our increased brainpower.

Feral children don't know the golden rule. Children growing up in societies that go by other ethical systems (ever hear of the Spartans, for instance?) don't automatically know it.

While it is true that some form of the golden rule has appeared in almost every human society, it still must be taught. If it isn't, it doesn't get learned until somebody, some very smart person, figures it out. Then he teaches others...and this break through makes him a revered person in his society, because his discovery was so ground breaking, rare, and important.

And many smart people figured it out without needing to be taught by simply using logic, reason and common sense and observing how society functions. There is a big difference between living your life according to the Golden Rule because you understand why it is beneficial for you and everybody else, and living your life according to the Golden Rule because you think a deity says you should. The last doesn't make you a moral person, it just shows that you are good at doing what you think you are told to do by religious authorities because you have a brain wired for belief.