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.

[Nickman]

Just remember Nick, atheists owned just as many slaves as anyone else in ancient times, and the ancient fathers of atheism so often quoted by atheists are not just silent on slavery, they are often effusive in their support of the institution.

Can you provide evidence that atheists had slaves? Are you sure they weren't the slaves? Please provide evidence to support this claim.

This is the main thing i have a problem with. Are you trying to strengthen your point that atheists are morally superior to Christians because they did not have slaves?

Did you just jump into this thread without reading everything that was written? That would explain why you may think that.

If you care to look, Stubborn claims that in ancient times atheists owned as many slaves as religious. So I am need to see some evidence.

[silliamwigler]

If you care to look, Stubborn claims that in ancient times atheists owned as many slaves as religious. So I am need to see some evidence.

Seems a little unnecessary. I did care to look, sorry that I randomly jumped in on this. I do not think you can prove weather or not atheists had slaves, because atheism wasn't very outspoken at that time and it's irrelevant to almost any conversation except this one so it would be very hard to find a document related to that. Also, saying atheists were possibly slaves is quite outrageous. Not worth mentioning in this debate at all. I don't want to think for you, but a white man who could at any point just say he believed in god and do a bit of acting, becoming a slave to another white man, defies all logic.

[Nickman]

If you care to look, Stubborn claims that in ancient times atheists owned as many slaves as religious. So I am need to see some evidence.

Seems a little unnecessary. I did care to look, sorry that I randomly jumped in on this. I do not think you can prove weather or not atheists had slaves, because atheism wasn't very outspoken at that time and it's irrelevant to almost any conversation except this one so it would be very hard to find a document related to that. Also, saying atheists were possibly slaves is quite outrageous. Not worth mentioning in this debate at all. I don't want to think for you, but a white man who could at any point just say he believed in god and do a bit of acting, becoming a slave to another white man, defies all logic.

In ancient times, slavery was not directed toward just the African race. Anytime someone conquered another nation, the subordinate country usually became slaves. Atheists would definitely be the minority and there probably were not very many of us back then either in such superstitious times. So I am not arguing that there was some sort of atheist discrimination and slavery back then. My argument, is that Stubborn is claiming atheists had slaves in ancient times, yet atheists were not prominent. They are pretty much void from the record. Since I know that Stubbornone cannot support his point, I ask for the evidence

[stubbornone]

....
The down sid eof pornography is well published, and...

Well . . . 'well published maybe, but not well substantiated.

There are theories and prejudice and assumptions, but the big 'down side?' Not so sure. I AM sure it's not only off topic, but of of no interest as a topic of discussion.

Unfortunately, it becomes a topic of discussion when someone states that EVERYONE gets their morality from culture, and then blows off the differences between commonly accepted morality and Christian view on it.

Again, pornography was simply the FIRST demonstration of the difference. Again, if there is any doubt that there is indeed a difference, that the atheists are siding with the commonly held position vs. Christians ... I believe that point is now crystal clear.

Whether that is right or wrong? The case that porn comes with a price, that it is degrading to women in particular, that it causes relationship issues and an unhealthy fixation on sexuality in our lives?

I don't think much 'research' needs to be done to prove these things.

Just remember, that chic in the picture is someone's daughter. So next time you are dining with friends and their daughter walks in ... well, now you know how its acceptable to treat her.

[stubbornone]

Nickman,

Once again, debate is about an exchange of information in civil format to drive something forward. Demanding evidence constantly for every piece of information shown, and then claiming its all self serving anyway is silly.

Saying that porn is self serving is a reality, but all that you wrote as side effects is not. That's why I asked for some evidence. You can't just claim something and expect me to just take your word for it.

There is a big difference between self serving, (ice cream can be self serving) and your claim that there is a risk of down playing rape because of pornography.

The down sid eof pornography is well published, and, indeed, as we just went through this, several times in fact, I am left with no alternative other than to confront you on it.

And I will again for the evidence of this well published downside. Danmark cited a website that said quite the opposite.

If I pull some of what we both know is there, from the American Psychiatric institute, confirming the darker side of pornography, will you acknowledge the point?

I've been asking you to do so.

Or we will get misdirection into slavery ... ?

I think we have went way to far on porn to begin with and if we wish to continue then we must make a new thread.

Will we get excuses that it is 'biased Christian' stuff?

If it is from a Christian biased cite, Yes.

Its a simple point, and one that needs to be addressed - a discussion cannot move forward when you treat every FACT that does not agree with you as a knife fight. They are just facts, and we BOTH know that pornography has a significant dark side.

Lets open another thread. Danmark has already made comment that he doesn't want his thread to be derailed.

Would you care to highlight its positives? Do an actual comparative analysis? Because the best you can seem to do with it is to claim its harmless for you personally ... while dodging the downsides entirely.

On another thread out of respect to Danmark, Yes.

And that is not how standards based morality works.

Indeed, in keeping with that trend comes the claim that religion somehow makes people treat others as lessers. Although it is true that arrogance effects many religious people, that particular claim is extraordinarily duplicitous - there are plenty of atheists who treat people absolutely horribly - from constant claims of irrationality to bland accusations of slavery and support for generic Crusades and violence based solely on your faith choices assessment of others faith choice.

First, slavery is black and white in the bible and clearly not condemned. Second, the Crusades were not generic.

Once again, if YOUR standard is that you hate it when people of a different faith look down at you for YOUR faith choice, you may want to take a very close look at how many members of your faith treat people of different faiths.

Its called reciprocity. If you treat others bad they may do the same to you.

Worse, with no doctrinal standard to fall back on ... you really have nothing that will lead you to challenge or examine your own conduct. carping on other people is now not mean, but a defense of freedom ... whereas Christians, we can and do refer to the scriptures and indeed our larger community to receive feedback. And our standard begins with the acknowledgement that ALL men regardless of faith or creed were created in love by a caring Father.

I do have something that I can fall back on....Myself. I do challenge my own conduct everyday. I lay down to rest each night and ponder my actions, my happy moments, stressful times, memories and the like. I assess how I am gonna do better or repeat the same if I approve. I don't need a book, and I don't think you do either. You just think you do.

Atheists have no such standards, and indeed that is why so much the debate about morality from atheists, and indeed you, is about finding fault in others as if this magically makes you moral and free of faults.

No no no, I do have standards which don't come from a book written over 2000 years ago. I find certain standards in your book as lacking and impractical. I also find some abhorrent. I do find some good but not all. I never claim to be free of faults. All you have to do is hang out with me on a drunken night back in college and you would know that.

Once again, Teddy Roosevelt:

"“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; because there is not effort without error and shortcomings; but who does actually strive to do the deed; who knows the great enthusiasm, the great devotion, who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement and who at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly. So that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls."

I apply this in my life even though I have never read it. This is the first time. It is worth remark that I do so individually without a god or a book. Thats where true morality comes from, within. Not from a book. Doesn't the bible say this? I know it does

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the LORD. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people.

Not only is that a very poor system of establishing morality, its one prone to misdirection, rationalization, and excuses, it also makes for generally poor conduct period.

No, when we police ourselves and not worry about policing others then we are doing what is best. Experience is sufficient enough.

Just remember Nick, atheists owned just as many slaves as anyone else in ancient times, and the ancient fathers of atheism so often quoted by atheists are not just silent on slavery, they are often effusive in their support of the institution.

Can you provide evidence that atheists had slaves? Are you sure they weren't the slaves? Please provide evidence to support this claim.

Once again Nick, you are doing the same thing. You are demanding that I support my position, and then trying to play coy by not listing any positives (supporting your positions) and pretending that it is out respect to Danmark - its an excuse to dodge again.

You asked for examples of cultural vs. Christian morality and you got them - and promptly rejected them ... now your own answers bear out the reality of what I stated ... and you still haven't provided a SINGLE EXAMPLE of how EVERYONE get their morality from culture, indeed, you just demanded and ignored evidence, and then proved the observation correct anyway ...

Now you demand evidence that porn is bad, get a list of the downsides supported by research and justifying the church position, you reject that anyway. Demand more evidence? Once again, you fail entirely to support your position.

Is there any point in pretending that this discussion is hinging on evidence? Because it appears to be little more than you stating your opinions followed by 'whatever... my opinion is all that counts.'

Enough with the demands that everyone do what you are not doing - particularly when its done and you simply find another random standard to excuse it away ...

Which goes directly back to the point I was making, that individual morality is prone to rationalization ... and that is EXACTLY what we have here isn't it?

[R34L1TY]

I like this Site quite a bit so far, seems to have some very interesting users and threads.

Well if I may, I don't think people can be more superior than one another. Perhaps more knowledgeable upon a certain subject but even that can be debated upon.

I believe that Non Theists have a better appreciation of their and other creatures existence and perhaps are more morally confident with their actions. But I stress on classifying a group, that in no way is every Atheist nor Theist the same and that we have to keep an open mind about this.

I do everything I do in regards to being a "Good, Moral Human Being" out of the interest of helping another animal (in the context of my words, specifying; Humans), same reasons I do so when helping another animal (specifying; Dogs / Cats / Chipmunks etc..). I don't do anything righteous out of the interest of cookie points from an entity. From certain positions that sounds quite comical.

When I was a practicing Protestant Christian, I never really understood or wanted to understand life. Why? Because I used God as an escape goat and just laid all of the "work" on the idea that "God did it." I also structured my mindset to believe that I should act out goodness because I want to serve God (of course everybody experiences everything quite differently). When I drifted away from Religion and became Agnostic I quickly realized and hungered for the factual reasons of my existence. And everyday since, educating myself slightly on different grounds and it made me more Morally conscious and proud to be an Evolved Primate that can do everything that I can do.

Sorry for the long read

[Artie]

Independency and of dependency.

Independency from the physical aspects of life which the visible society is all about. Its the hardest thing one can achieve when the mass media is all about sex and alchohal, but one with faith refrains from it. Especially at my age.

Dependecy to the invisible force in the visible world we are sorrounded and work to be in order with. In due meaning, going against the society which is given with visible aspects of life. So in all, believing in something you cannot see and dedicating your life to it is the hardest thing one can achieve again.

So to conclude, it is the ones with faith that take on the life of living twofold in comparison with ones without a deity.

So to escape from the real world which is all about sex and alcohol you escape into an invisible fantasy world of deities and dedicate your life to living in this fantasy world?

[Danmark]

If you care to look, Stubborn claims that in ancient times atheists owned as many slaves as religious. So I am need to see some evidence.

Seems a little unnecessary. I did care to look, sorry that I randomly jumped in on this. I do not think you can prove weather or not atheists had slaves, because atheism wasn't very outspoken at that time and it's irrelevant to almost any conversation except this one so it would be very hard to find a document related to that. Also, saying atheists were possibly slaves is quite outrageous. Not worth mentioning in this debate at all. I don't want to think for you, but a white man who could at any point just say he believed in god and do a bit of acting, becoming a slave to another white man, defies all logic.

In any event it would behoove you to read thru an entire subtopic or thread before you post, particularly if you are going to make a critical remark, and particularly if you want to make it in anyway personal [which BTW is prohibited by the rules here].

As an aside, there are many references in the Bible to slavery, and to the 'chosen people' being directed to make slaves of the ones they conquered and did not kill. This was a common practice by most cultures in the area at that time.

Almost all cultures had religions [I've read a report that there may have been a pygmy tribe in Africa that had no religion, but I don't know the details] and atheism is a relatively new idea, even newer than monotheism, so the case could be made, without knowing specific incidents that, far fewer atheists had slaves.

Slavery (particularly against black Africans) has long been justified [even by Christians in the U.S. ] by a misinterpretation of Genesis.

[Danmark]

Independency and of dependency.

Independency from the physical aspects of life which the visible society is all about. Its the hardest thing one can achieve when the mass media is all about sex and alchohal, but one with faith refrains from it. Especially at my age.

Dependecy to the invisible force in the visible world we are sorrounded and work to be in order with. In due meaning, going against the society which is given with visible aspects of life. So in all, believing in something you cannot see and dedicating your life to it is the hardest thing one can achieve again.

So to conclude, it is the ones with faith that take on the life of living twofold in comparison with ones without a deity.

So to escape from the real world which is all about sex and alcohol you escape into an invisible fantasy world of deities and dedicate your life to living in this fantasy world?

Artie, you deserve an award just for deciphering the T's remarks.

And tT, you overstate the case by a wide margin when you claim "...the mass media is all about sex and alchohal [sic]."

[Artie]

atheism is a relatively new idea, even newer than monotheism, so the case could be made, without knowing specific incidents that, far fewer atheists had slaves.

"Atheistic schools are found in early Indian thought and have existed from the times of the historical Vedic religion.[124] Among the six orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy, Samkhya, the oldest philosophical school of thought, does not accept God, and the early Mimamsa also rejected the notion of God."

"Western atheism has its roots in pre-Socratic Greek philosophy, but did not emerge as a distinct world-view until the late Enlightenment.[129] 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]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#History