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.

[Artie]

Nick, it is not your job to decide what is good for the whole of humanity. In fact, I believe that you have just made my point for me; a theist thinks that GOD decides what is good for humanity, and you think you do.

It's up to humanity to decide what's good for humanity and the Golden Rule is one moral code that's been accepted by religious and non-religious people practically everywhere as good for humanity. A theist believes that whichever god wrote or inspired their particular holy scriptures decides what is good for their particular segment of humanity which of course is irrational.

[TheTruth101]

TheTruth101 said:

"And thus they stand divided, not as one like Christ preached. They stand divided because they rely on morals from the society they stand , and all society's laws are differents from one another."

Talking about divided there are almost 40 000 different Christian denominations...

All carry the same Ten commandments.

Why not the other 603? Oh yeah because they have been deemed unnecessary and immoral. What You're doing is picking and choosing your morals from the bible which tells me you have a higher morality than the bible itself. If you can decide individually what you want to follow and what you don't then you are no different from atheists who decide our own morality. We see good and we incorporate it we see bad we rebuke it. It is simple. You're not getting some higher moral standard at all, if you are picking and choosing.

Because we are not Jews. We are Christians, we are not of the old convenants. Christ made things new. Actually gentile Christians are told to obey only four, read Acts 15.

Then the ten commandments are obsolete too, by your own admission here. They of the old covenant.

The Ten commandments were also given to Moses, Christ authorized the use of the Ten commandments over the 613. Jews do not believe in Christ, that is why they are stuck with 613.

Nevermind, we are getting off topic. So i am done with this part of the debate.

You are actually still engaging in the off topic, prove me wrong.

[stubbornone]

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].

The point is Dan, ours did not. When asked, we give moral principles that lead inevitably to the elimination of slavery. All men are created equal before God, treat EVERYONE with dignity and respect. And as these ideas permeate, and become not just popular but political, the systems that hold slavery together are torn down.

All because someone was wise enough to preach equality, rather than abolition, at a time when Rome would, and indeed did, persecute the former, and brutally crush the later.

Again, we are on the topic of slavery because one poster in particular wanted to co e in and shove it down people's throats while pretending he was interested in the subject.

You have conceded the requisite points, and I don't think it is a shock that the poster who declared it relevant five times can neither support his position, address actual Christian doctrine, and like his previous statements, is simply drifting off into another tangent.

The roots of atheistic views on morality ...derailed by another chortle of nihilism from from the far right of atheism.

[Nickman]

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.

Nick, it is not your job to decide what is good for the whole of humanity. In fact, I believe that you have just made my point for me; a theist thinks that GOD decides what is good for humanity, and you think you do.

The difference isn't all that important...until someone who thinks he has the right to decide 'what's good for humanity' without anybody else's input, gets the power to ENFORCE that opinion.

You are misinterpreting my words. I am speaking in generalities. I have no authority over others and don't think I know best for everyone. I do, however, decide how I am going to live to the benefit of myself and my fellow humans. No one is trying force atheism on you or my morals.

Christians have the idea that they have this book that everyone needs to adhere too because it has all the morals from a divine being. They go to the ends of the earth to force it on people by sword, by word, by targeting children (as one member on here said) however they can. It is not the atheists morality that is being spread and forced directly or indirectly by missionaries.

Atheists have their own morals and live good lives. We don't need a book and we don't think we are morally superior. We realize that morals are cultural, experiential, and societal. Not universal. This is understood if you will just take a trip to a different country. I have been to more cou tries than I can count and their morality is in fact due to their culture and then they also have some moral absolutists telling everyone they are morally deficient.

[TheTruth101]

Nick, it is not your job to decide what is good for the whole of humanity. In fact, I believe that you have just made my point for me; a theist thinks that GOD decides what is good for humanity, and you think you do.

It's up to humanity to decide what's good for humanity and the Golden Rule is one moral code that's been accepted by religious and non-religious people practically everywhere as good for humanity. A theist believes that whichever god wrote or inspired their particular holy scriptures decides what is good for their particular segment of humanity which of course is irrational.

Golden rule dosent get applied in North Korea. Therefore, you can't speak for the laws of humanity to begin with. However, I did hear the other year two Christians dying for the Word of the bible in North Korea. Therefore, its clearly understood here that life itself is being contemplated by the words of God. Isn't humanity about life anyway?

[TheTruth101]

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.

Nick, it is not your job to decide what is good for the whole of humanity. In fact, I believe that you have just made my point for me; a theist thinks that GOD decides what is good for humanity, and you think you do.

The difference isn't all that important...until someone who thinks he has the right to decide 'what's good for humanity' without anybody else's input, gets the power to ENFORCE that opinion.

You are misinterpreting my words. I am speaking in generalities. I have no authority over others and don't think I know best for everyone. I do, however, decide how I am going to live to the benefit of myself and my fellow humans. No one is trying force atheism on you or my morals.

Christians have the idea that they have this book that everyone needs to adhere too because it has all the morals from a divine being. They go to the ends of the earth to force it on people by sword, by word, by targeting children (as one member on here said) however they can. It is not the atheists morality that is being spread and forced directly or indirectly by missionaries.

Atheists have their own morals and live good lives. We don't need a book and we don't think we are morally superior. We realize that morals are cultural, experiential, and societal. Not universal. This is understood if you will just take a trip to a different country. I have been to more cou tries than I can count and their morality is in fact due to their culture and then they also have some moral absolutists telling everyone they are morally deficient.

Well if in this case, you stand alone with your moral codes. Billions stands together for their moral codes of the Bible. Shouldn't you be atleast a bit embarrassed as to talking of moral codes to begin with?

[Nickman]

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.

Nick, it is not your job to decide what is good for the whole of humanity. In fact, I believe that you have just made my point for me; a theist thinks that GOD decides what is good for humanity, and you think you do.

The difference isn't all that important...until someone who thinks he has the right to decide 'what's good for humanity' without anybody else's input, gets the power to ENFORCE that opinion.

You are misinterpreting my words. I am speaking in generalities. I have no authority over others and don't think I know best for everyone. I do, however, decide how I am going to live to the benefit of myself and my fellow humans. No one is trying force atheism on you or my morals.

Christians have the idea that they have this book that everyone needs to adhere too because it has all the morals from a divine being. They go to the ends of the earth to force it on people by sword, by word, by targeting children (as one member on here said) however they can. It is not the atheists morality that is being spread and forced directly or indirectly by missionaries.

Atheists have their own morals and live good lives. We don't need a book and we don't think we are morally superior. We realize that morals are cultural, experiential, and societal. Not universal. This is understood if you will just take a trip to a different country. I have been to more cou tries than I can count and their morality is in fact due to their culture and then they also have some moral absolutists telling everyone they are morally deficient.

Well if in this case, you stand alone with your moral codes. Billions stands together for their moral codes of the Bible. Shouldn't you be atleast a bit embarrassed as to talking of moral codes to begin with?

Well if those billions don't see the problem with a god who doesn't rebuke slavery then I am glad to be alone. Im not going to justify a wrong act because of a belief.

[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].

The point is Dan, ours did not. When asked, we give moral principles that lead inevitably to the elimination of slavery. All men are created equal before God, treat EVERYONE with dignity and respect. And as these ideas permeate, and become not just popular but political, the systems that hold slavery together are torn down.

"Ours?" Who is 'ours?' If you are talking about Christianity, your scripture at best does not condemn slavery. If I am wrong, point me to a relevant scripture.

There are numerous passages in the Bible that say absolutely that men are NOT created equal. For example there were strict laws about who could and could not be a Levite and serve in the temple. I agree that Jesus broke free of some of this based on the life he led according to the gospels. But the idea of equality does not spring naturally from the Bible. Else why so many Christian institutions for so long have supported gender and racial inequality?

This is understandable considering the strong history of racism and cultural exclusion in the Bible. It is ludicrous to claim All men are created equal before God is a Biblical teaching. One of many examples of the opposite teaching in the Bible:

From Deuteronomy, Chapter 23:
1 No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord.

2 No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.

3 No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation. 4 For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim[c] to pronounce a curse on you. 5 However, the Lord your God would not listen to Balaam but turned the curse into a blessing for you, because the Lord your God loves you. 6 Do not seek a treaty of friendship with them as long as you live.

7 Do not despise an Edomite, for the Edomites are related to you. Do not despise an Egyptian, because you resided as foreigners in their country. 8 The third generation of children born to them may enter the assembly of the Lord.

Many Christians today pick and choose what scriptures they like and act as if the others do not exist. How do they make their choice? Apparently it is not from what is actually written in the Bible.

[TheTruth101]

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.

Nick, it is not your job to decide what is good for the whole of humanity. In fact, I believe that you have just made my point for me; a theist thinks that GOD decides what is good for humanity, and you think you do.

The difference isn't all that important...until someone who thinks he has the right to decide 'what's good for humanity' without anybody else's input, gets the power to ENFORCE that opinion.

You are misinterpreting my words. I am speaking in generalities. I have no authority over others and don't think I know best for everyone. I do, however, decide how I am going to live to the benefit of myself and my fellow humans. No one is trying force atheism on you or my morals.

Christians have the idea that they have this book that everyone needs to adhere too because it has all the morals from a divine being. They go to the ends of the earth to force it on people by sword, by word, by targeting children (as one member on here said) however they can. It is not the atheists morality that is being spread and forced directly or indirectly by missionaries.

Atheists have their own morals and live good lives. We don't need a book and we don't think we are morally superior. We realize that morals are cultural, experiential, and societal. Not universal. This is understood if you will just take a trip to a different country. I have been to more cou tries than I can count and their morality is in fact due to their culture and then they also have some moral absolutists telling everyone they are morally deficient.

Well if in this case, you stand alone with your moral codes. Billions stands together for their moral codes of the Bible. Shouldn't you be atleast a bit embarrassed as to talking of moral codes to begin with?

Well if those billions don't see the problem with a god who doesn't rebuke slavery then I am glad to be alone. Im not going to justify a wrong act because of a belief.

And thus you attempt to resemble yourself as the sole warrior that stand for your definition of dignity above God and Christ.
Here proven again through scripture of revelation of the one sitting higher than the Son and God itself as the voice of the nation's.

Indeed Christs words are timeless.

[stubbornone]

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.

Nick, it is not your job to decide what is good for the whole of humanity. In fact, I believe that you have just made my point for me; a theist thinks that GOD decides what is good for humanity, and you think you do.

The difference isn't all that important...until someone who thinks he has the right to decide 'what's good for humanity' without anybody else's input, gets the power to ENFORCE that opinion.

You are misinterpreting my words. I am speaking in generalities. I have no authority over others and don't think I know best for everyone. I do, however, decide how I am going to live to the benefit of myself and my fellow humans. No one is trying force atheism on you or my morals.

No, that is pretty much exactly what you are saying. Through a deliberate double standards about slavery.

Atheists have their own morals and live good lives. We don't need a book and we don't think we are morally superior. We realize that morals are cultural, experiential, and societal. Not universal. This is understood if you will just take a trip to a different country. I have been to more cou tries than I can count and their morality is in fact due to their culture and then they also have some moral absolutists telling everyone they are morally deficient.

#1 - You don't think you are morally superior, but you participate in this discussion making just that case?

#2 - You make several unsupported claims - you claim your morals are cultural, but when teh discussion turns the actual differences between Christian morality and our culture ... you have nothing to add, and indeed simply avoid the points being made.

You are also making clais about foreign countries and essentially asking us to trust you? Why not back it up with something besides an appeal to your own authority.

First you tell us there are moral absolutely, like slavery, but morality is culture ... which produces no moral absolutes. A perfect demonstration of circular logic.