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]

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?

Perhaps in each and every case, the "atheists" WERE the slaves?

Also, atheism is not a relatively new idea. It comes down to anyone not katowing to the "god models" promoted by the government of the time, being considered atheists, even if they had a god model (or several) of their own.

That said, the concept of slavery as per the OT writings (as to the Hebrews being "slaves" in Egypt), doesn't show anywhere but IN the biblical writings. It may well be literary "fact" but it isn't actual HISTORICAL fact.

In fact the workers in Ancient Egypt seemed to be relatively well looked after if you look behind the face value representation. These so called "slaves" had it better than modern times employees tend to.

I suppose though it is ingrained to believe such things happened, like "slaves in egypt" or even "christians thrown to the lions", or even Columbus in 1492 sailing the ocean blue ...etc... He didn't.. He discovered the West Indies. (so named because of his stuff up). The Americas (specifically what is now considered the continental USA, was "discovered" by a viking voyager circa 1100CE.

Crikey peeps. Explore more than the face value crock.

Catalyst.

[dianaiad]

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?

Perhaps in each and every case, the "atheists" WERE the slaves?

Also, atheism is not a relatively new idea. It comes down to anyone not katowing to the "god models" promoted by the government of the time, being considered atheists, even if they had a god model (or several) of their own.

That said, the concept of slavery as per the OT writings (as to the Hebrews being "slaves" in Egypt), doesn't show anywhere but IN the biblical writings. It may well be literary "fact" but it isn't actual HISTORICAL fact.

In fact the workers in Ancient Egypt seemed to be relatively well looked after if you look behind the face value representation. These so called "slaves" had it better than modern times employees tend to.

I suppose though it is ingrained to believe such things happened, like "slaves in egypt" or even "christians thrown to the lions", or even Columbus in 1492 sailing the ocean blue ...etc... He didn't.. He discovered the West Indies. (so named because of his stuff up). The Americas (specifically what is now considered the continental USA, was "discovered" by a viking voyager circa 1100CE.

Crikey peeps. Explore more than the face value crock.

Catalyst.

Oh this is silly. Of course atheists owned slaves if they were members of a culture that supported slavery. Anaxagoras, who may well have been the 'first atheist' (denying the idea of gods and claiming that the sun was actually a very big burning rock) was a property owner and fairly wealthy. At least he started off that way. If one lived in Greece, and had property and wealth, one owned slaves. That was the culture and the way things were done.

Euripedes and Aristophanes were also, probably, atheist (judging by the dialogue in their plays)...and they were slave owners. If you lived in Greece and had money, you owned slaves.

So what IS this about atheists never having owned slaves, anyway? There's nothing in atheism that prohibits slave ownership.

[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 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.

It is well known that the religious believe that believing in God is morally superior than not believing in God, what's moral about that? Is that not simply rubbing a sense of moral superiority in someone's face?

I haven't noticed that the religious are morally superior to the non religious and the same goes for the reverse, so what is going on here?

[stubbornone]

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?

Perhaps in each and every case, the "atheists" WERE the slaves?

Also, atheism is not a relatively new idea. It comes down to anyone not katowing to the "god models" promoted by the government of the time, being considered atheists, even if they had a god model (or several) of their own.

That said, the concept of slavery as per the OT writings (as to the Hebrews being "slaves" in Egypt), doesn't show anywhere but IN the biblical writings. It may well be literary "fact" but it isn't actual HISTORICAL fact.

In fact the workers in Ancient Egypt seemed to be relatively well looked after if you look behind the face value representation. These so called "slaves" had it better than modern times employees tend to.

I suppose though it is ingrained to believe such things happened, like "slaves in egypt" or even "christians thrown to the lions", or even Columbus in 1492 sailing the ocean blue ...etc... He didn't.. He discovered the West Indies. (so named because of his stuff up). The Americas (specifically what is now considered the continental USA, was "discovered" by a viking voyager circa 1100CE.

Crikey peeps. Explore more than the face value crock.

Catalyst.

Wow, have you considered a life as a fiction writer?

#1 - given that many of the ancient atheists that atheists routinely site in their material were slave owners, your proposition that ALL ancient atheists just MIGHT have been the slaves is patently silly.

Indeed, its a non-starter.

#2 - Claiming that the ancient Jews were never enslaved has multiople problems - namely that the Jews claim they were, and that Egypt did indeed both routinely capture and enslave weak neighbors.

Indeed, there are several Exodus like events in RECORDED Egyptian History.

"In his Against Apion, the 1st-century AD historian Josephus Flavius debates the synchronism between the Biblical account of the Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, and two Exodus-like events that the Egyptian historian Manetho apparently mentions."

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

We also have the fact that Pharaohs weer considered God Kings, and not too many people would be willing to write the inglorious record of successful slave revolt into the recorded hieroglyphs when his empowered and angry father looking over your shoulder to make sure you recorded the event in the best light of your father or simply slip through it entirely.

It leaves a couple of questions unanswered.

#1 - Why would the Jews make this event up?

#2 - Why is at least 4,000 years later before atheists decide it is a fabrication? With no actual evidence of fabrication?

#3 - How exactly DID Israel come to pass then? Why was it that the Jews, on the border of Egypt and apparently easily swallowed by their neighbor survived? Its right on a critical strategic axis, and yet ... there it is.

Indeed the wandering through the desert could have been as much punishment as it was the reality of fighting an insurgency, and constantly having to be on the move to stay ahead of Egyptian Armies.

Its pretty easy to make claims based on a lack of evidence, but when you claim no evidence in one place (which is misleading, its really more about attempting to reconcile dates of claims), that it is therefor false? That we should ignore other evidence?

That my friend is called confirmation bias.

So ... Crikey peeps. Explore more than the face value crock.

BTW - we are named after Amerigo Vespucci. So perhaps your tone should be less directed and more ... acknowledging that other people just might know a thing or two as well.

[Nickman]

The Crux of the matter is that religions, such as Christianity and Judaism, have slavery in their religious books which is not condemned by god. It is not rebuked, or given a bad connotation at all and anyone professing to get their beliefs and morals from such literature and then claim the moral high ground is not thinking morally at all.

[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.

It is well known that the religious believe that believing in God is morally superior than not believing in God, what's moral about that? Is that not simply rubbing a sense of moral superiority in someone's face?

I haven't noticed that the religious are morally superior to the non religious and the same goes for the reverse, so what is going on here?

Not when one side can say, I believe I am more moral than you because ...

1. Here is my moral code.

2. Here are all the tools and people that help me meet those standards.

3. Those same systems prevent me from drifting too far from those standards by rationalizing or by applying those standards differently to others than I do myself.

Its a community set of standards vs one that is individual, private, and often inexplicable.

Please bear in mind, it was atheists who decided to claim that the later was actually better - pretty much so they could rub our faces in it.

Saying, well brother, not so fast ... the path you have chosen has some pretty serious weaknesses. Not that mine if perfect, but yours looks to be no better and possible much worse.

[Danmark]

The Crux of the matter is that religions, such as Christianity and Judaism, have slavery in their religious books which is not condemned by god. It is not rebuked, or given a bad connotation at all and anyone professing to get their beliefs and morals from such literature and then claim the moral high ground is not thinking morally at all.

Mmmmm. . . You mean that if religion should stand for anything it should stand for universal, objective standards for right and wrong? That it should be beyond the temporal and culturally determined 'morals' of humans? That since it comes from God, from the creator of the universe and the only true standard of right and wrong and that, that standard of behavior should be unchanging that God should have condemned slavery and race prejudice ab initio?

I think you've got a point there.

[stubbornone]

The Crux of the matter is that religions, such as Christianity and Judaism, have slavery in their religious books which is not condemned by god. It is not rebuked, or given a bad connotation at all and anyone professing to get their beliefs and morals from such literature and then claim the moral high ground is not thinking morally at all.

I wonder why I wrote this a forth time when its just going to be ignored by atheists who are intent on accusing, slyly or directly of claiming that a failure to condemn slavery means you support it?

Guess what Nick, neither did atheists - ergo, you all have slaves in your basement?

And the simple fact of the matter is that we have something called the Low Law and Higher Law in Christian doctrine. The Lower Law, commonly known as the Mosaic Law, was given to the ancient Jews as a stepping stone to TEACH THEM THE VERY BASICS OF MORALITY.

Have you read the laws in Deuteronomy? Do you wonder why it spells out so many explicitly sexual no nos? Because when, like children, when you first learnm you need to be shown. So, no sleeping with mom, dad, sister, brother, cousin, ... or the family mule.

As Jews begin to understand this ... they reach the same level of moral sophistication that you are at.

Well, Moses didn't say not to sleep with a Jelly Fish ... so I am good! Ow that stings, why didn't Moses warn me about that!

It's the part where rationalization kicks in and the rules become the wickets of morality rather than actual moral thought. So you see morality more like a misery old lawyer than you do like lifestyle.

In comes Jesus, and gives us the Higher Law, which is that the standards explicitly spelled out are the MINIMUM standard. If you follow them all perfectly, you get a D-. You know a lot of people who practice the Law of Moses perfectly?

So we have this concept where morality is less about following rules than it is about the implementation of principles, i.e. all men are children of God, we shoudl strive to treat others as our neighbors, etc. Well, what he deuce, that requires brain power! Interpretation! Wisdom! Its hard!!! (True morality is hard).

So what happens when you are Jesus and teaching this new standard to people and are asked about slavery? One, you know that saying get ride of it now will just invite Rome to utterly crush Judea and those who incite Servile Insurrection, so you are basically advocating murder rather than slavery? Nice moral position?

But you preach the standard and know that eventually those who get it will figure out that slavery really is bad. And guess what happens? Right, those seeking to earnestly follow the Higher Law and apply it suddenly discover that slavery, in their midst, is really wrong and that entire systems will have to change to truly free men. And that is exactly what happened.

Atheists as we see, are apparently still stuck in the moral situation from over 2,000 years ago. So, there is that.

Worse, its ignored over 2,00 years of development to basically say, "Christians suck because you didn't explicitly ban slavery, because that would have lead to genocide which is much better. So nanner nanner ..."

If it helps you sleep better at night thinking every Christian in the world owns slaves, more power to ya - but its not us who is wounded by such silliness. Its you.

I mean just imagine how many people shut you off as soon as you say, "Slavery, Slavery!"?

[stubbornone]

The Crux of the matter is that religions, such as Christianity and Judaism, have slavery in their religious books which is not condemned by god. It is not rebuked, or given a bad connotation at all and anyone professing to get their beliefs and morals from such literature and then claim the moral high ground is not thinking morally at all.

Mmmmm. . . You mean that if religion should stand for anything it should stand for universal, objective standards for right and wrong? That it should be beyond the temporal and culturally determined 'morals' of humans? That since it comes from God, from the creator of the universe and the only true standard of right and wrong and that, that standard of behavior should be unchanging that God should have condemned slavery and race prejudice ab initio?

I think you've got a point there.

I disagree, see above.

And why does logic not allow atheists to produce such a claim as well? The last atheist on the subject stated that there were no moral absolutes.

The Christians pointedly disagreed.

And after declaring this subject out of bounds for the topic, I am left bereft of understanding at how you could now pat someone on the back after the FOURTH time they drug it in, after ignoring a directed challenge to partake in a discussion where many of his points have already been exposed as false?

Irrelevant and Redundant, and yet still atheists think slavery makes them good?

[TheTruth101]

The Crux of the matter is that religions, such as Christianity and Judaism, have slavery in their religious books which is not condemned by god. It is not rebuked, or given a bad connotation at all and anyone professing to get their beliefs and morals from such literature and then claim the moral high ground is not thinking morally at all.

Now do you see the possibility of my interpretations as to Atheists or unbielvers being enslaved by the Saints in eternity ?

I speak the truth, I'm not making things up. Sorry to say, Hebrew God does exist, and knowing half the world hold faith as to Christianity, indeed it is evident here the personality of God as the Hebrew God holds the most truth as to his true nature.