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.

[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.

[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.

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? ....

Yes, Stubb, I will not slyly but directly state that when we are talking about the alleged creator of the universe, who is supposedly loving, omniscient and omnipotent, and has given mankind a code of conduct as detailed as that in Leviticus and he fails to condemn slavery, he is indeed responsible for supporting it.

But we need not look at what that God supports by omission, we can look to Genesis 9:25, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."
[NIV]

[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.

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.

Yeah, if god is the moral standard then he would or should have rebuked slavery from the get go and set all the rules and morals straight. We as humans have a moral obligation if we are god's creation and if we see an injustice or something immoral, even in this holy book, then we have the obligation to call it as we see it.

If you are the creator god, who is the moral standard, and yet you fail to set the example on slavery thousands of years ago in your holy message to humanity, then your moral standard and authority is questionable.

[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.

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? ....

Yes, Stubb, I will not slyly but directly state that when we are talking about the alleged creator of the universe, who is supposedly loving, omniscient and omnipotent, and has given mankind a code of conduct as detailed as that in Leviticus and he fails to condemn slavery, he is indeed responsible for supporting it.

But we need not look at what that God supports by omission, we can look to Genesis 9:25, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

[NIV]

That's simple danmark. What joy would the Saints have in eternity if we don't have servants.

Kings of Kings, and all Kings had slaves or servants. God is of Power. Mens Power exists within hierarchy.

[Nickman]

@ Stubborone

Im not answering you. It is pointless. You fail to see the problem with your god not condemning slavery and actually endorsing it, then you have the audacity to claim you have a great moral code to use and atheists do not.

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.

I don't see atheists being slaves. What I see is the religious being slaves to their imaginary god and their holy books.

You make a blanket statement that God exists and then you provide a fallacy of appeal to popularity.

[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.

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? ....

Yes, Stubb, I will not slyly but directly state that when we are talking about the alleged creator of the universe, who is supposedly loving, omniscient and omnipotent, and has given mankind a code of conduct as detailed as that in Leviticus and he fails to condemn slavery, he is indeed responsible for supporting it.

But we need not look at what that God supports by omission, we can look to Genesis 9:25, "Cursed be Canaan! The lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers."

[NIV]

That's simple danmark. What joy would the Saints have in eternity if we don't have servants.

Kings of Kings, and all Kings had slaves or servants. God is of Power. Mens Power exists within hierarchy.

Any Christians out there care to comment on "theTruth's" assertion that slavery is just fine, since it benefits God and the 'Saints?'

[Nickman]

I used to have a hypothesis, before I became and atheist, that was a way to explain why there was so much bad in the bible. It was a last ditch effort to make sense of it and it went something like this.

I thought that maybe god made the bible an example of bad and if we can see the bad in it and not justify it, then we are fulfilling the purpose he made with his holy book. Those that justified it were lost and didn't see morallity for what it truly is.

[TheTruth101]

@ Stubborone

Im not answering you. It is pointless. You fail to see the problem with your god not condemning slavery and actually endorsing it, then you have the audacity to claim you have a great moral code to use and atheists do not.

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.

I don't see atheists being slaves. What I see is the religious being slaves to their imaginary god and their holy books.

You make a blanket statement that God exists and then you provide a fallacy of appeal to popularity.

I thought you believed in UFOs. I concluded it as to Angels.

Since within the bible, beasts are made and is evident by my dog, humans are made as evident by my friends, and Angels are made as evident by your belief in UFOs.

The things that I'm saying is not directed towards popularity, as evident by the responses that I got putting up Christians enslave atheists in the beggining about a month ago, all waved off the possibility and said it wasn't right.

Now its considered a popularity theory?

The things I'm saying is evident and spoken in the bible by all apostles and Christ himself.
The things I'm saying is frowned upon by even Christians because the idea is rather evident within the bible but is not with the current societys image of righteousness acts.
in America atleast.

But deep down, and it is our given nature, no one would deny or wave off having a servant or an errand boy.

[Danmark]

I used to have a hypothesis, before I became and atheist, that was a way to explain why there was so much bad in the bible. It was a last ditch effort to make sense of it and it went something like this.

I thought that maybe god made the bible an example of bad and if we can see the bad in it and not justify it, then we are fulfilling the purpose he made with his holy book. Those that justified it were lost and didn't see morallity for what it truly is.

Interesting. I see it much more simply. The Bible is a book written by men. They are hopelessly mired in their time and place. They do not speak for God. They speak for themselves and their necessarily limited perspective as they try to understand God.

As such, institutions like slavery and racism were not questioned. They were as much a part of their world as grass needing water and sunlight. They did not have an eternal perspective and projected that limited view on the God they tried to understand.

[stubbornone]

@ Stubborone

Im not answering you. It is pointless. You fail to see the problem with your god not condemning slavery and actually endorsing it, then you have the audacity to claim you have a great moral code to use and atheists do not.

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.

I don't see atheists being slaves. What I see is the religious being slaves to their imaginary god and their holy books.

You make a blanket statement that God exists and then you provide a fallacy of appeal to popularity.

Explaining the difference between the Low and High law is not a fallacy.

The fact that you were directed to this exact answer, which only would have required you to click on any of the three open threads on the subject, but you wanted it hand delivered to you and got it.

And now you have it and appear to have hurt feelings?

You seem to fail to understand that God did give us rules, they are called the ten commandments, Jesus gave us two ...

You however, being intellectually superior, need to have EVERYTHING explicitly spelled out for you. In short, you are incapable of using discernment and insight to ferret out moral and wise decisions.

And you think it is superior? Well, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but having hurt feeling because someone explains something to you isn't exactly the stuff of tremendously intellectual support.

Nor are MORE false allegations that explanations that do not comport to your thinking being fallacious.

So back up you claim cowboy, you claimed a discussion of the lower and higher law was fallacious ... I think the rules, as you are quick to point out, require you to support that claim.