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.

[Danmark]

.... 'whatever... my opinion is all that counts.'

I like that. I may make it my new sig line.
If I do, should I give attribution to you or to Nickman?

[Divine Insight]

I was just reading this thread in general here and I'm not responding to any specific post. But I have seen a trend where many Christians are arguing that Christianity somehow represent high moral values.

IMHO, that's simply not true. I actually reject Christianity partly due to the fact that I totally disagree with many of its immoral positions on things.

IMHO, the Old Testament is a story of a highly immoral God. He curses women to have sorrowful conception and childbirth. He commands that they should be ruled over by their husbands. He hardens the heart of a pharaoh. He commands his people not to kill, yet then turns around and directs them to commit mass genocide telling them to kill even the women and children of the other culture.

In Christianity he supposedly has his own son beaten and nailed to a pole to pacify his own sadistic need to see an innocent person suffer before he can forgive anyone.

Christianity, IMHO, is one of the poorest examples we have of moral values. It's one of the most immoral religions on the face of the planet.

Holding up Christianity as an example of morality, is IMHO, a joke, and most certainly should not be taken seriously.

An egotistical God who throws temper tantrums, solves all his problems using violence and threats of violence, and also threatens to cast anyone who refuses to love and obey him into a pit of eternal hell fire and damnation is nothing more than an example of some of the most immoral principles I can even imagine.

Christianity doesn't have any patent on morality. On the contrary, it's a religion that degrades and vilifies the very concept.

Arguing for Christianity on principles of morality is utterly absurd.

A desire to hold a High Standard of Morality is actually a very sound reason to reject the religion.

[Divine Insight]

"He who begins by loving Christianity better than truth, will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."
__ Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Love your new sig line.

[Danmark]

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

This brings up an interesting point and one I try to make when asked to define 'atheist.' 'Atheism' is not necessarily a rejection of the divine or of a 'god' concept. It is the position [at least] that the popular orthodox version of theism, an all powerful god with a personality [or who is 'not less than personal], as believed in by Roman Catholic and most protestant versions of Christianity is unlikely.

By some definitions this would make me an agnostic. I eschew that label because it seems too 'wishy-washy,' and should be reserved for those who think many possibilities are relatively equal.

But back to atheism, it does not necessarily rule out the divine, or a god in some sense.

In one sense, it may be both accurate, but misleading to label Samkhya, for example, as 'atheism' since they do not rule out the divine:


The study of Indian philosophy and Metaphysics is incomplete without the study of Darshana Sastras.

Sanatana Dharma is so said because it seeks to realize. The paths are many, but the end is one and one only.There is nothing divine or infallible in paths.. only the goal is infallible and divine. Various paths have resulted in because of the human spirit of inquiry.

The Sastras, esp. the Samkhya, Nyaya and Vaisheshika, does not negate the Entity but sometimes questions statements that are found contradictory in the vedas.

Some say that Samkhya is ‘nirishwara’ sastra. It is not.

Originally the philosophies of both Sankhya and Vedanta stayed clear of religion proper, leaving such matters in the hands of the Brahmins or priests. Out of six classical systems, Samkhya forms one of the most important philosophical currents. It is based on two distinct principles, namely 1) Purusha, and 2) Prakriti. This dualism forms the basis of this philosophy. Secondly, Samkhya is precise, rational, and logical, and therefore does not deem it necessary to invoke the concept of God for explaining the manifest and non-manifest multifarious nature: the individual self and the objective universe. Samkhya nicely propounds the theory of the possibility and the need to realize our true Self so that the bondage of ignorance is broken and the individual self may attain liberation. Patanjali in his system of Yoga further elucidates the method and means to unite our lower self with the true Self. [emphasis mine]
http://www.indiadivine.org/showthread.php?t=32008

In any event, it's a fascinating tradition.

I wonder if they believed in slavery.

[Danmark]

"He who begins by loving Christianity better than truth, will proceed by loving his own sect or church better than Christianity, and end in loving himself better than all."
__ Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Love your new sig line.

What is interesting is where I came upon that quote for the first time. It was in the forward of a book by Elton Trueblood, The Company of the Committed, I think. Trueblood was a noted 20th century American Quaker author and theologian, and former chaplain both to Harvard and Stanford universities.

[stubbornone]

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?

Well, here we go again. The nihilism of atheism strike again. Another bald faced challenge wherein Christians are presented as living off in fantasy land, even though we are educated exactly the same as atheists.

So lets apply the rules of logic, common civility, and indeed this forum to the problem set.

#1 Your thesis: That Christians are clearly living in some made up fantasy land.

Your required proof - a proof that God is indeed just made up, not an accusation mind you - real and honest analysis based on evidence.

It is BTW, those atheists, in my experience, who scream loudest about the illogic of religion who have trouble with this aspect of their claim.

Rebuttal of common countering claims: This shows that, in the several millenia of hypothesis about God, that you are familiar with the actual debate and traded evidence of the sides ... remember, the intent here is to deal with the claims that are actually made by, in this case, Christians about the existence of God and an examination of them in way that is honest. (Again, those atheists who scream irrationality the loudest have a difficult time with this portion of the application of logic, usually resorting to highly inaccurate statements about faith.)

Case in point:

"Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be. If they were asked to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Asia, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could. When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster."

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagl ... ispunching

A conclusion which either confirms or denies your hypothesis.

However, its pretty low quality discussion when all one can do is disparage the intellect of the opposing side. I believe we call this the Newt Gingrich style of debate?

And whatever, given a discussion ion morality are we to respond with when someone s essentially saying, "You as a human being are stupid because you have faith!"

Well, I believe such sentiments say more about the utterer than they do about the person being spoken to. IMHO anyways ...

[stubbornone]

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

This brings up an interesting point and one I try to make when asked to define 'atheist.' 'Atheism' is not necessarily a rejection of the divine or of a 'god' concept. It is the position [at least] that the popular orthodox version of theism, an all powerful god with a personality [or who is 'not less than personal], as believed in by Roman Catholic and most protestant versions of Christianity is unlikely.

By some definitions this would make me an agnostic. I eschew that label because it seems too 'wishy-washy,' and should be reserved for those who think many possibilities are relatively equal.

But back to atheism, it does not necessarily rule out the divine, or a god in some sense.

In one sense, it may be both accurate, but misleading to label Samkhya, for example, as 'atheism' since they do not rule out the divine:


The study of Indian philosophy and Metaphysics is incomplete without the study of Darshana Sastras.

Sanatana Dharma is so said because it seeks to realize. The paths are many, but the end is one and one only.There is nothing divine or infallible in paths.. only the goal is infallible and divine. Various paths have resulted in because of the human spirit of inquiry.

The Sastras, esp. the Samkhya, Nyaya and Vaisheshika, does not negate the Entity but sometimes questions statements that are found contradictory in the vedas.

Some say that Samkhya is ‘nirishwara’ sastra. It is not.

Originally the philosophies of both Sankhya and Vedanta stayed clear of religion proper, leaving such matters in the hands of the Brahmins or priests. Out of six classical systems, Samkhya forms one of the most important philosophical currents. It is based on two distinct principles, namely 1) Purusha, and 2) Prakriti. This dualism forms the basis of this philosophy. Secondly, Samkhya is precise, rational, and logical, and therefore does not deem it necessary to invoke the concept of God for explaining the manifest and non-manifest multifarious nature: the individual self and the objective universe. Samkhya nicely propounds the theory of the possibility and the need to realize our true Self so that the bondage of ignorance is broken and the individual self may attain liberation. Patanjali in his system of Yoga further elucidates the method and means to unite our lower self with the true Self. [emphasis mine]
http://www.indiadivine.org/showthread.php?t=32008

In any event, it's a fascinating tradition.

I wonder if they believed in slavery.

Well Dan, much as I love you, this is one of the points in atheism that I find particularly chaffing.

What is the definition of theist? Clearly someone who believes in God or Gods.

Why therefore is atheism ... not really the rejection of God at all?

And, in context of morality, these shifting foundations of the very definition of atheism make morality tough to hold down.

The basis of the discussion begins with, I believe God is real, therefore .... insert argumentation.

Its tough when, I believe do NOT believe in God, but not really, or maybe, maybe not ... and from that we can't really garner anything because we have no thesis - we have no logical process for the Hegelian dialectic cannot proceed as a clearly defined position is not possible.

[Danmark]

Well, here we go again. The nihilism of atheism strike again. Another bald faced challenge wherein Christians are presented as living off in fantasy land, even though we are educated exactly the same as atheists.

I object to your repeated assertions that equate nihilism with atheism.
Tho' there are different types of nihilism, it basically says that life is devoid of meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism
Atheists do not automatically reject the idea that life can have meaning. A theist may believe that life without his idea of God would have no meaning. I reject that.

We can make our own meaning. I feel my life has meaning by teaching, or helping or defending people. I get satisfaction or meaning simply by being cheerful, or making a little joke that makes someone smile. Simply listening to someone in pain can be a source of meaning.

But there is more, much more.

There are forms of Hinduism and Buddhism that are certainly not theistic, and may be considered atheistic, but their adherents have meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samkhya recently cited in this forum is an example.

[catalyst]

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

Hello R34LITY and welcome to the forum.

I can in some way understand your position. One thing though, I wonder if the structuring of your mindset "in the day" (protestant christian) was through instruction of what it was supposed you "should" do, despite your own conscience nagging at you to actually "do" otherwise? I ask as when I was a Christian, there was a huge difference between what I had been taught (told, instructed) to do, and what I felt was the right thing to do. For me, all my christianity did was create roadblocks, so much so, I lost WHO I was prior. It now makes me ponder about WHY so much of christianity rely on feelings of guilt. AFAIC the concept of "sin" is IN the teaching, rather than what's in our CORE.

Catalyst.

[Danmark]

Well Dan, much as I love you, this is one of the points in atheism that I find particularly chaffing.

What is the definition of theist? Clearly someone who believes in God or Gods.

Why therefore is atheism ... not really the rejection of God at all?

And, in context of morality, these shifting foundations of the very definition of atheism make morality tough to hold down.

The basis of the discussion begins with, I believe God is real, therefore .... insert argumentation.

Its tough when, I believe do NOT believe in God, but not really, or maybe, maybe not ... and from that we can't really garner anything because we have no thesis - we have no logical process for the Hegelian dialectic cannot proceed as a clearly defined position is not possible.

I understand the frustration [for those who may be mystified by some of this, Stubb and I have had private PM's that bore good fruit. I suggest everyone here follow that path if you find yourself less than friendly with a fellow member of this forum]

I can't really do more than tell you what I understand atheism to mean. As I've said, technically I prob'ly am more of an agnostic.

Maybe it helps to think of atheism as something like Christianity, in that it means different things to different people.

But back to your frustration, it reminds me of what some former Mormons say about arguing with Mormons, "It's like trying to nail Jell-o to the wall."

Perhaps it helps to remember that more important than 'winning' the argument, we serve each other well if we help each other learn. To that end, we must accept each person's different understanding of what it is he believes . . . and that as he grows, that belief may change.