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.

[catalyst]

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.

I don't know if this is of any help here Dan and Stubbornone, but just from this atheists perspective... I am an atheist as to the god models (whether it be that of Christianity or otherwise) that I KNOW of, as in having researched a heck of a lot of them. I realise that none of them, as per their description and as per their capacities, do not "ring true" perhaps of what I understand within myself, a GOD "should" be. I DO see that all of those which I have researched tend to "be" quite pedantic and frankly incapable of being "higher" in understanding than we "mere mortals" are. All of them tend to have evolved from LACK of knowledge, rather than this concept of "all knowing". As such, I have removed all of the god models shown to me from ANY "god" equation. Does that mean that there is NOT some "higher power" out there? No it doesn't. I am just not willing to settle.

As such, I am atheist to the KNOWN(of) and agnostic to the unknown (perhaps) BY ALL.

Catalyst.

[d.thomas]

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.

Atheists claiming the moral high ground, now that's a switch.

People do good works regardless of or in spite of their religion or non religion, I don't see all atheists doing good works because they are atheists, they do whatever it is they do because they want to, I'm sure it's the same for Christians. Some people want recognition for the works they do regardless of belief or non belief, at least that's the way I see it.

[TheTruth101]

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.

Edit.

[TheTruth101]

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?

Pretty much summed it up right there, except that its not a fantasy but a reality that you just fail to see.

[TheTruth101]

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]."

The world is of money. Money brings greed,lies,pride,lust, and atheists.

[TheTruth101]

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.

I don't know if this is of any help here Dan and Stubbornone, but just from this atheists perspective... I am an atheist as to the god models (whether it be that of Christianity or otherwise) that I KNOW of, as in having researched a heck of a lot of them. I realise that none of them, as per their description and as per their capacities, do not "ring true" perhaps of what I understand within myself, a GOD "should" be. I DO see that all of those which I have researched tend to "be" quite pedantic and frankly incapable of being "higher" in understanding than we "mere mortals" are. All of them tend to have evolved from LACK of knowledge, rather than this concept of "all knowing". As such, I have removed all of the god models shown to me from ANY "god" equation. Does that mean that there is NOT some "higher power" out there? No it doesn't. I am just not willing to settle.

As such, I am atheist to the KNOWN(of) and agnostic to the unknown (perhaps) BY ALL.

Catalyst.

Christ was not only crucified but battled inner demons his whole entire life. He was annointed to be the Son of God, however, being a Son of God is not of glamour and joy, but of suffering.

He lived 33 years of life under chastity and condemnation from God. In due meaning, to compare it to the real world, Christ was born in a prison and was under condemnation for all his life. Upon his his death you can compare it to him being beaten to death by the prison guards under crucifixion terms.
(God is Alpha and Omega, all and everything. Everything Christ did he was under condemnation from the creator) He was half flesh/half God while on earth and walkin, therefore, one can conclude he carried his own thoughts as well.

Picture this.

Every thought he made he was rejected, tortured for it, and was told by God to go the other way. In due meaning, if he felt like washing, he was told not to. If he felt like eating pizza, he was told to fast, etc... Simply picture your boss behind your back and going against your every thought you ever made, all day long, for 33 years straight. Hence, I have no place to lay my head and rest scripture can be met for these reasons here.

Knowing God is Alpha and Omega, all and everything, he is both evil and good as well. The pharicees calling him demon possesed was not a joke, but spoke of reality.

Son taking the Creators (God the Father) wrath upon himself for our sin ,indeed it was not metaphoric, but of reality as well. Refer to the symptoms of Satan possession,


Demonic Oppression - www.eternaldestiny.com/DDemons.html

Symptoms of Demonic Oppression

abnormal, irrational fear
abnormal, irrational anxiety
abnormal, irrational loneliness
lack of self control
conflicts with authority figures
aimlessness; the feeling that life is void of any meaning or purpose
depression that is not physiologically induced.
outburst of hatred
violent behavior
loss of the fear of God
selfish ambition (appetite for power)
irrationality, inability to detect or correct contradictions or other fallacious reasoning
headaches
nausea




Lot of the things listed were done and said by Christ. For example, he didnt fear God (loss of the fear of God), he said he was God. Or another, he broke the table and started going around whipping the traders in the church ( violent behavior )
Or another, speaking in parables which not many understood (irrationality, inability to detect or correct contradictions or other fallacious reasoning ) or the rebeliousness to his teachers pharicees (conflicts with authority figures ) Or,as listed, (outburst of hatred) For I come not to bring peace, but a sword..,
the list goes on....


Knowing that God came to accuse sin of mankind onto Christ alone, he lived with these symptoms all his life.

God is the Father of all beings, not just the begotten Son. One must remember and recognize that fact. Therefore, God chose a method to enslave and accuse and batter a being (Christ) emotionally and physically for 33 years of his life, every day, every minute, every second in trade for making him a King of all.

In turn, the ones that see his life when they enter heavens(which all who enter eternity do) can be summed up into two sentences to the almighty King.

Joe: Oh my God, if this is what it takes (suffering) to become a King, I don't want it. Please have it.

Instead of,

Joe: Now I saw your life , and I will call you my King, except I could have done the same thing if I was just born lucky.

This is somehwat of a higher wisdom of God, that is different from our knowledge of things and life.


Performing miracles, and going around with a smile? Thats what the mainstream picture of him is like nowadays, in his times, it was alot darker and alot more suffering was involved to be announced a King.

God is the Father of all beings, this is the only way God could have done it.

Therefore, we are the lucky ones of not being annointed as the King and we should all mourn for him as stated in the Revelations because of the suffering he has taken for us to rid of our sins.


Christ took much more suffering than the crucifixion to pay for the wage of mankinds sin. Anyone who actually thinks that is actually pretty ignorant to say the least.

Even now many normal beings go under more suffering than the crucifixion. By all means, Crucifixion was just a small part of the deal.

Through it all, he's the biggest mountain that know of adversity, making him the King of all for all eternity.



Everything that have been written here can be shown under biblical scriptures, let me know if anyone wants supporting scriptures.

[Bust Nak]

Atheists claiming the moral high ground, now that's a switch.

People do good works regardless of or in spite of their religion or non religion, I don't see all atheists doing good works because they are atheists, they do whatever it is they do because they want to, I'm sure it's the same for Christians. Some people want recognition for the works they do regardless of belief or non belief, at least that's the way I see it.

I would say you are accurate with your vision. However, the heart of the debate is, do you think that someone who does good because they want to, is morally superior to someone who does good expecting a greater reward, or avoiding a punishment?

[d.thomas]

Atheists claiming the moral high ground, now that's a switch.

People do good works regardless of or in spite of their religion or non religion, I don't see all atheists doing good works because they are atheists, they do whatever it is they do because they want to, I'm sure it's the same for Christians. Some people want recognition for the works they do regardless of belief or non belief, at least that's the way I see it.

I would say you are accurate with your vision. However, the heart of the debate is, do you think that someone who does good because they want to, is morally superior to someone who does good expecting a greater reward, or avoiding a punishment?

Do people really do this or do they just make the odd showing of doing good for the recognition? I don't know but I think the people that really care and look after others can't fake that sort of thing. On the other hand, an extreme case, Fred Phelps et al, they believe they are doing good, and maybe they are trying to avoid punishment. Anyways, claiming the moral high ground for any given group is not something I would consider.

[stubbornone]

Atheists claiming the moral high ground, now that's a switch.

People do good works regardless of or in spite of their religion or non religion, I don't see all atheists doing good works because they are atheists, they do whatever it is they do because they want to, I'm sure it's the same for Christians. Some people want recognition for the works they do regardless of belief or non belief, at least that's the way I see it.

I would say you are accurate with your vision. However, the heart of the debate is, do you think that someone who does good because they want to, is morally superior to someone who does good expecting a greater reward, or avoiding a punishment?

Do you think people, who list zero good works they are doing, but making grotesque and inaccurate generalizations about people who are doing good works are headed down a righteous path? And the generalization go BOTH ways on that statement above do they not?

If the only reason you are doing good works is to run your sense of moral superiority in someone's face ... are your morals as pure as you might think?

I do like that several atheists, not all mind you, that rather than defend their position, or explain their irrational perception of religion, simply dump it out there without any ability to recognize the consequences of their unsupported statement.

Again, not all, but ... well here ya go.

[silliamwigler]

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.

sure if there weren't many atheists, then they didn't own many slaves. i think the person who said they owned slaves was just using common sense or what he thought, as i do, is common sense. why wouldn't they have?