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]

So, we are no longer debating, we are just pontificating ...

I think we were pretty much just ignoring you.

We can only conclude that you support mass murder, as Paul doing what you demand, would have resulted in Roman Legions crushing anything even remotely associated with the claim ...

Your own sect refuses to condemn slavery, putting the whole logic based approach to personal doings and whatever under the same faulty standard you judge others by.

You make no sense. Atheists do condemn slavery and I think we have been very verbal about that. It is people of your group that do not condemn it and one in particlar claims they will have slaves in heaven, atheist slaves.

Yet, exactly as charged, you ratioalize. You ignore the application of YOUR standard to your position, you selectively include and exclude facts (just like Wells and the Jesus Myth) and you call this deeply flawed intellectual process ... morality.

Why are you bringing Wells into this topic and the other thread called Jesus didn't exist?

I think its simple conciet, and need to denigrate others to derive a false sense of morality, and I cannot think of a better display of the faults in atheistic morality than the selective use of facts, the non-standard use of accusations (fallacious), and the insistance on stiking to a frankly rude position.

It is not about denigrating others. I never addressed anything toward you. I only addressed your holy book and you take it personal as if I just called your MOM a bad word. The bible doesn't rebuke, or punish slavery and that is supposed to be the work of a benevolent deity. I cannot believe that a god who is supposed to be so good and have a moral code for humanity would not rebuke slavery. You take offense to this for some reason when you should probably feel the same way. I understand though, as I was a Christian for most of my life.

All too often, this is exactly what we find in atheism, and a quick search of modern atheism's products makes this clear ... it little more than deliberately misunderstanding and misstating religious positions so they can find fault with their own strawmen.

We find fault with the morals of the bible and we address those and then you get upset about it.

Well atheists, you think Christians support slavery ... and if that is what your moral and intellectual processes reveal to you, then I think the OP has been answered ... there are clearly deep flaws in atheistic morality that finds slavery where it is not.

I don't think any atheist on here has claimed that Christians support slavery. What we have said is that your god does and the bible does. You just keep taking it personal. You didn't write the bible so why you get so upset? Its not your work in question. Atheists and other groups find slavery in the bible. We can point to each specific mention and we can conclude that god never once condemns it. Then theists have the audacity to claim that they have moral superiority because they have their morals from their god who is co-author of the bible. Not gonna buy it, Stubbornone. If god was moral he would have rebuked slavery from the get go. He has actually never rebuked it in human history and continues to hold out on doing so.

[Nickman]

Some may be pontificating, others are arguing. I'll let others judge.

We have previously gone down this road of treating atheism as a religion and blaming atheism for what some people do. It is unfair in life and against the rules here to make blanket statements as if all atheists have the moral code of the worst mass murderers because of what one person has done.

We don't judge all Christians on the basis of one 'witch' burner.

We shouldn't say all Jews or Christians are mass murderers because in the Bible there are claims that god told them to commit mass murder.

The argument at issue is that slavery was officially supported in the Bible and was not condemned when it would be logical to do so.

Atheism itself does not speak to slavery and more than physics does. It is inapposite to expect it to. Moral people who happen to be either Christian or atheist abhor slavery and murder and torture and a host of other evils.

That is EXACTLY what you are doing.

You are taking the failure to OUTRIGHT condemn slavery as a standard that makes all Christians flawed.

No. A more careful reading of the argument is simply that since the Bible fails to condemn slavery when it would be expected to, and otherwise supports the institution, the Bible reflects the thoughts and morality of men at the time it was written. It does not reflect a perfect morality that came from God.

This does not necessarily reflect badly on the morality of Christians today. It is simply an argument against the divine inspiration of the Bible.

I would add that one of these adherents to this "morality" in the bible has taken this endorsement of slavery to heart and advocates the idea that atheists will be slaves in heaven. Thats what happens when a benevolent god doesn't condemn and rebuke such ideas from the get go.

[Nickman]

So, as odd as I find some of stubbonone's positions, I have to agree with him on one thing; there is nothing in athiesm that provides a standard for calling slavery immoral. In fact, atheists have owned slaves in the past...there is absolutely nothing in atheism itself to prevent it, to regulate it, to soften it...or, yes, to practice it. The word is 'nothing.'

There is no set standard in atheism Dianaiad. We get our morals from society, experience, culture and life in general. Which is my argument. There is no set standard even for Christians. As time goes by Christianity has dropped the "morals" that are no longer acceptable in society. If it were not for the secular ideologies, slavery would probably still be practiced and justified by the bible. The bible was written in a different time and different place. Most of its morals are no longer useful or accepted. Examples; it is no longer moral or acceptable to sell your daughter at the age of 12 years old and 1 day, it is no longer acceptable to have the rapist marry the victim, it is no longer acceptable to condone slavery and practice it. It is no longer acceptable to perform sacrifice, or to stone people for adultery, it is no longer acceptable to kill homosexuals. The list goes on and on. As time went by only the things which are now acceptable remain. In latter times more will drop off of the list. Our morals today are completely different from the bronze age or the stone age or even back a hundred years ago. It is called evolution. Morals evolve with time and with culture. No one has a moral set standard as is evidenced by history. Today every culture has its own set of morals that may or may not agree with our western culture and vice versa. There is no absolute morality or a well from which to draw such. If there was an absolute morality then god would have condemned slavery in the bible and not have let it go as far as it did. He either doesn't exist or he is morally deficient. You choose.

[Artie]

No art, that is what Nickname said about the Bible. I simply applied it too the atheist position, and we find that atheism has the same problem ... even worse, as you have no doctrine of principle based morality do you?

Are you saying that if you don't have logic, reason and common sense, empathy, altruism, compassion, love, good upbringing, conscience, morals, ethics, respect for others, the Golden Rule and is a moral person, then it's vitally important that you follow some doctrine of principle based morality such as the Bible, Koran or the Hindu scriptures so you at least behave the way your religious moral teacher says you should? If so, we are in agreement.

Yet if we apply all the things you posted, its a fairly obvious conclusion. The questions then are, why do you think atheists should NOT apply those things to other faiths as Nickman did, and then why did it take applying that standard to atheism for you to care at all?

?

Now I believe the larger point is that individual morality is prone to exactly those double standards correct. Every atheist denied it, and yet here we have a practical demonstration of exactly the point being made.

?

Being atheist doesn't magically male you moral,

True. And an immoral person doesn't magically become moral by simply believing and obeying what a supposedly moral deity says is moral.

[dianaiad]

So, as odd as I find some of stubbonone's positions, I have to agree with him on one thing; there is nothing in athiesm that provides a standard for calling slavery immoral. In fact, atheists have owned slaves in the past...there is absolutely nothing in atheism itself to prevent it, to regulate it, to soften it...or, yes, to practice it. The word is 'nothing.'

There is no set standard in atheism Dianaiad.

Hallelujah. Let's see if you can hang onto that.

We get our morals from society, experience, culture and life in general. Which is my argument. There is no set standard even for Christians. As time goes by Christianity has dropped the "morals" that are no longer acceptable in society. If it were not for the secular ideologies, slavery would probably still be practiced and justified by the bible.

Really? Care to explain why, during NT times, slavery was practiced WHOLE sale by most of the world. (that's 'secular' or at least 'non-Christian)...and that in most places where slavery ceased, the Christians were the ones who fought it first and hardest?

The 'underground railroad' was neither conceived, nor run, by atheists.

The bible was written in a different time and different place. Most of its morals are no longer useful or accepted. Examples; it is no longer moral or acceptable to sell your daughter at the age of 12 years old and 1 day, it is no longer acceptable to have the rapist marry the victim, it is no longer acceptable to condone slavery and practice it. It is no longer acceptable to perform sacrifice, or to stone people for adultery, it is no longer acceptable to kill homosexuals. The list goes on and on.

Goodness, I would have thought, as a former Christian, that you would have remembered the New Testament. Did that half of the bible become invisible and I not know?

As time went by only the things which are now acceptable remain. In latter times more will drop off of the list. Our morals today are completely different from the bronze age or the stone age or even back a hundred years ago. It is called evolution. Morals evolve with time and with culture. No one has a moral set standard as is evidenced by history. Today every culture has its own set of morals that may or may not agree with our western culture and vice versa. There is no absolute morality or a well from which to draw such. If there was an absolute morality then god would have condemned slavery in the bible and not have let it go as far as it did. He either doesn't exist or he is morally deficient. You choose.

You do like the false dichotomies.

[Danmark]

So, as odd as I find some of stubbonone's positions, I have to agree with him on one thing; there is nothing in athiesm that provides a standard for calling slavery immoral. In fact, atheists have owned slaves in the past...there is absolutely nothing in atheism itself to prevent it, to regulate it, to soften it...or, yes, to practice it. The word is 'nothing.'

There is no set standard in atheism Dianaiad.

Hallelujah. Let's see if you can hang onto that.

We get our morals from society, experience, culture and life in general. Which is my argument. There is no set standard even for Christians. As time goes by Christianity has dropped the "morals" that are no longer acceptable in society. If it were not for the secular ideologies, slavery would probably still be practiced and justified by the bible.

Really? Care to explain why, during NT times, slavery was practiced WHOLE sale by most of the world. (that's 'secular' or at least 'non-Christian)...and that in most places where slavery ceased, the Christians were the ones who fought it first and hardest?

The 'underground railroad' was neither conceived, nor run, by atheists.

The bible was written in a different time and different place. Most of its morals are no longer useful or accepted. Examples; it is no longer moral or acceptable to sell your daughter at the age of 12 years old and 1 day, it is no longer acceptable to have the rapist marry the victim, it is no longer acceptable to condone slavery and practice it. It is no longer acceptable to perform sacrifice, or to stone people for adultery, it is no longer acceptable to kill homosexuals. The list goes on and on.

Goodness, I would have thought, as a former Christian, that you would have remembered the New Testament. Did that half of the bible become invisible and I not know?

As time went by only the things which are now acceptable remain. In latter times more will drop off of the list. Our morals today are completely different from the bronze age or the stone age or even back a hundred years ago. It is called evolution. Morals evolve with time and with culture. No one has a moral set standard as is evidenced by history. Today every culture has its own set of morals that may or may not agree with our western culture and vice versa. There is no absolute morality or a well from which to draw such. If there was an absolute morality then god would have condemned slavery in the bible and not have let it go as far as it did. He either doesn't exist or he is morally deficient. You choose.

You do like the false dichotomies.

I'm not sure why there is so much disagreement on areas we can agree upon.
This subtopic started out as merely wanting to explore the idea that if someone does what we all agree is good, just because s/he wants to, because of inner reasons that might be better than if they just do it to avoid punishment or for a reward.

I think the point has been conceded that Christians are very likely to do good things for the same reasons, that is, not to avoid punishment or for reward.

We got on the the slavery issue as an example of immoral behavior. D'd you make a good point that I don't think there is disagreement with that, in Biblical times, people of all sorts of religions and secularists thought slavery was just fine, just a part of the cultures.

The only point that is recent is to make the argument that because those religions simply went along with the cultural norms and did not speak out against slavery, that that establishes that the religion is man made, and not god made, since supposedly a true god would have said no to slavery, [and genocide].

[stubbornone]

No art, that is what Nickname said about the Bible. I simply applied it too the atheist position, and we find that atheism has the same problem ... even worse, as you have no doctrine of principle based morality do you?

Are you saying that if you don't have logic, reason and common sense, empathy, altruism, compassion, love, good upbringing, conscience, morals, ethics, respect for others, the Golden Rule and is a moral person, then it's vitally important that you follow some doctrine of principle based morality such as the Bible, Koran or the Hindu scriptures so you at least behave the way your religious moral teacher says you should? If so, we are in agreement.

Yet if we apply all the things you posted, its a fairly obvious conclusion. The questions then are, why do you think atheists should NOT apply those things to other faiths as Nickman did, and then why did it take applying that standard to atheism for you to care at all?

?

Now I believe the larger point is that individual morality is prone to exactly those double standards correct. Every atheist denied it, and yet here we have a practical demonstration of exactly the point being made.

?

Being atheist doesn't magically male you moral,

True. And an immoral person doesn't magically become moral by simply believing and obeying what a supposedly moral deity says is moral.

Are you having trouble with my thesis statement? That individual morality,the claiming of everything above while citing zero of it, is a system that is particularly vulnerable to hypocrisy resulting from rationalization.

Indeed, do YOU think it's a good idea to claim that Christians have none of those things? Because that is essentially what Nickman is saying but utterly refusing to even acknowledge principle based morality also called the higher law in Christianity.

So all the atheists say yes to this, I apply said standard to atheism ... And ... Suddenly you are all victims of low brow generalization?

Well, why do you say nothing when Nickman did it? But when done to you!? Horrible.

Please check thesis statement.

[stubbornone]

So, we are no longer debating, we are just pontificating ...

I think we were pretty much just ignoring you.

We can only conclude that you support mass murder, as Paul doing what you demand, would have resulted in Roman Legions crushing anything even remotely associated with the claim ...

Your own sect refuses to condemn slavery, putting the whole logic based approach to personal doings and whatever under the same faulty standard you judge others by.

You make no sense. Atheists do condemn slavery and I think we have been very verbal about that. It is people of your group that do not condemn it and one in particlar claims they will have slaves in heaven, atheist slaves.

Yet, exactly as charged, you ratioalize. You ignore the application of YOUR standard to your position, you selectively include and exclude facts (just like Wells and the Jesus Myth) and you call this deeply flawed intellectual process ... morality.

Why are you bringing Wells into this topic and the other thread called Jesus didn't exist?

I think its simple conciet, and need to denigrate others to derive a false sense of morality, and I cannot think of a better display of the faults in atheistic morality than the selective use of facts, the non-standard use of accusations (fallacious), and the insistance on stiking to a frankly rude position.

It is not about denigrating others. I never addressed anything toward you. I only addressed your holy book and you take it personal as if I just called your MOM a bad word. The bible doesn't rebuke, or punish slavery and that is supposed to be the work of a benevolent deity. I cannot believe that a god who is supposed to be so good and have a moral code for humanity would not rebuke slavery. You take offense to this for some reason when you should probably feel the same way. I understand though, as I was a Christian for most of my life.

All too often, this is exactly what we find in atheism, and a quick search of modern atheism's products makes this clear ... it little more than deliberately misunderstanding and misstating religious positions so they can find fault with their own strawmen.

We find fault with the morals of the bible and we address those and then you get upset about it.

Well atheists, you think Christians support slavery ... and if that is what your moral and intellectual processes reveal to you, then I think the OP has been answered ... there are clearly deep flaws in atheistic morality that finds slavery where it is not.

I don't think any atheist on here has claimed that Christians support slavery. What we have said is that your god does and the bible does. You just keep taking it personal. You didn't write the bible so why you get so upset? Its not your work in question. Atheists and other groups find slavery in the bible. We can point to each specific mention and we can conclude that god never once condemns it. Then theists have the audacity to claim that they have moral superiority because they have their morals from their god who is co-author of the bible. Not gonna buy it, Stubbornone. If god was moral he would have rebuked slavery from the get go. He has actually never rebuked it in human history and continues to hold out on doing so.

So now atheist do have a doctrine, eh? Where?

Go ahead and show me the doctrinal source accepted and signed off on as the official source of atheism's positions?

Your standard says you must have this as a source, openly condemning slavery, otherwise, the logic/genetic source of all atheist morality has failed miserably in regard to slavery. That is the standard you advocate with Christianity, but when applied to your precious position, suddenly it makes no sense?

See thesis about rationalization and subjective, ie changing, standards in atheism.

Indeed, thus far we have nothing but unsupported claims from you.

EVERYONE gets morality for culture ... Supported by? Right nothing.

Counting evidence presented, you scream for a source and get it.

You apparently get your position on porn from culture, no? So why is the Christian perspective different? No answer.

Now we are discussing why porn isn't bad, and you once again do not want to accept the evidence presented, and do nothing to support your apparently positive view of porn.

NOW, we are discussing at your behest how a failure to novelty condemn silvery when it would have lead to mass murder is the worst thing in the world, but atheists, in this day and age with no such dire consequences, cannot come together and reach enough consensus for even that.

In short, your position appears to be simply saying the opposite of everything, hurling thinly veiled insults, demanding but never providing evidence, and declaring everything you don't like a fallacy or nonsensical (despite your apparently superior intellectual ability to understand everything?).

In short, your entire prescience is emotional, not logical. And when actual evidence enters the discussion ... Well, slavery .... And what wonderful contributions you have made in enlightening us about the doctrinal positions of atheism that has no doctrine,

[Artie]

Are you having trouble with my thesis statement? That individual morality,the claiming of everything above while citing zero of it, is a system that is particularly vulnerable to hypocrisy resulting from rationalization.

Can you rephrase? I am having trouble understanding your thesis statement.

Indeed, do YOU think it's a good idea to claim that Christians have none of those things? Because that is essentially what Nickman is saying but utterly refusing to even acknowledge principle based morality also called the higher law in Christianity.

By things you mean? What is principle based morality? There is no higher law. There are just those evolutionary evolved qualities I listed earlier which different religions and moral systems attribute to different gods or moral teachers.

[Nickman]

So, we are no longer debating, we are just pontificating ...

I think we were pretty much just ignoring you.

We can only conclude that you support mass murder, as Paul doing what you demand, would have resulted in Roman Legions crushing anything even remotely associated with the claim ...

Your own sect refuses to condemn slavery, putting the whole logic based approach to personal doings and whatever under the same faulty standard you judge others by.

You make no sense. Atheists do condemn slavery and I think we have been very verbal about that. It is people of your group that do not condemn it and one in particlar claims they will have slaves in heaven, atheist slaves.

Yet, exactly as charged, you ratioalize. You ignore the application of YOUR standard to your position, you selectively include and exclude facts (just like Wells and the Jesus Myth) and you call this deeply flawed intellectual process ... morality.

Why are you bringing Wells into this topic and the other thread called Jesus didn't exist?

I think its simple conciet, and need to denigrate others to derive a false sense of morality, and I cannot think of a better display of the faults in atheistic morality than the selective use of facts, the non-standard use of accusations (fallacious), and the insistance on stiking to a frankly rude position.

It is not about denigrating others. I never addressed anything toward you. I only addressed your holy book and you take it personal as if I just called your MOM a bad word. The bible doesn't rebuke, or punish slavery and that is supposed to be the work of a benevolent deity. I cannot believe that a god who is supposed to be so good and have a moral code for humanity would not rebuke slavery. You take offense to this for some reason when you should probably feel the same way. I understand though, as I was a Christian for most of my life.

All too often, this is exactly what we find in atheism, and a quick search of modern atheism's products makes this clear ... it little more than deliberately misunderstanding and misstating religious positions so they can find fault with their own strawmen.

We find fault with the morals of the bible and we address those and then you get upset about it.

Well atheists, you think Christians support slavery ... and if that is what your moral and intellectual processes reveal to you, then I think the OP has been answered ... there are clearly deep flaws in atheistic morality that finds slavery where it is not.

I don't think any atheist on here has claimed that Christians support slavery. What we have said is that your god does and the bible does. You just keep taking it personal. You didn't write the bible so why you get so upset? Its not your work in question. Atheists and other groups find slavery in the bible. We can point to each specific mention and we can conclude that god never once condemns it. Then theists have the audacity to claim that they have moral superiority because they have their morals from their god who is co-author of the bible. Not gonna buy it, Stubbornone. If god was moral he would have rebuked slavery from the get go. He has actually never rebuked it in human history and continues to hold out on doing so.

So now atheist do have a doctrine, eh? Where?

Go ahead and show me the doctrinal source accepted and signed off on as the official source of atheism's positions?

Your standard says you must have this as a source, openly condemning slavery, otherwise, the logic/genetic source of all atheist morality has failed miserably in regard to slavery. That is the standard you advocate with Christianity, but when applied to your precious position, suddenly it makes no sense?

See thesis about rationalization and subjective, ie changing, standards in atheism.

Indeed, thus far we have nothing but unsupported claims from you.

EVERYONE gets morality for culture ... Supported by? Right nothing.

Counting evidence presented, you scream for a source and get it.

You apparently get your position on porn from culture, no? So why is the Christian perspective different? No answer.

Now we are discussing why porn isn't bad, and you once again do not want to accept the evidence presented, and do nothing to support your apparently positive view of porn.

NOW, we are discussing at your behest how a failure to novelty condemn silvery when it would have lead to mass murder is the worst thing in the world, but atheists, in this day and age with no such dire consequences, cannot come together and reach enough consensus for even that.

In short, your position appears to be simply saying the opposite of everything, hurling thinly veiled insults, demanding but never providing evidence, and declaring everything you don't like a fallacy or nonsensical (despite your apparently superior intellectual ability to understand everything?).

In short, your entire prescience is emotional, not logical. And when actual evidence enters the discussion ... Well, slavery .... And what wonderful contributions you have made in enlightening us about the doctrinal positions of atheism that has no doctrine,

You're not understanding this Stubbornone. Atheists don't have a doctrine. We have just come to the understanding individually what is good and beneficial for society and what is not. There is no need for a book or a doctrine. We look at life and decide what is good for the whole of humanity. It is very simple.