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.

[jimvansage]

I don't plan on getting to involved in this debate, but this is a pet peeve of mine, so I think some things need to be considered.

1. It's unfair to hold what the Bible condones or condemns (I don't see the Bible doing either as far as slavery, but see point #3 for that), by 20th century standards. Are there any writings before the 1800s, or even the 1600s, that push for an end to slavery?

2. We have to divorce what Americans mean when they say "slavery" and the manner of slavery that we read about in the Old and the New Testament. Anyone who says we should outlaw what the Bible refers to as slavery, no one would be permitted to sign a contract to work for an individual/corporation for X number of years. Oftentimes, to become a slave/servant in biblical times was voluntary.

3. What the Bible regulates, God does not necessarily condone. For example: "Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted" (Gal. 6:1). Is is not God's will that a Christian be overtaken with a fault (i. e. sin), but He gives guidelines on how the matter should be handled. God may not have desired that slavery existed, but if it did, there are guidelines (treat a slave like a brother, also antithetical to Egyptian slavery and certain abuses of slaves in the US. Some Christians went against the US civil law and educated slaves so they could read secular writings and the Bible as well).

4. What are we to make of ethical issues the Bible neither condones nor condemns?
Take alcohol and drunkenness for instance. The New Testament condemns drunkenness, but one would be hard-pressed to find an absolute ban on alcohol consumption.
Not all ethical issues that would arise would have been explicitly addressed in a 1st century document, word of God or otherwise (a chapter on genetic engineering and bioethics would have been pointless and meaningless to include in the canon; biblical principles and human reason must determine certain issues.
For the Bible to outright condemn and "outlaw" alcohol consumption at would put many people in a predicament where they would mostly die from not having fresh water - alcohol was mixed with most drinking water to fight off contamination. Now that there is no such need, we have to wonder if there are implications that would demand that where alcohol is no longer necessary to fight of disease (possibly as in 1 Timothy 5:23; though scholars are divided if the wine here mentioned is alcoholic or not) if it being unnecessary and obsolete, there is nothing in the New Testament condoning consumption of alcohol (and perhaps an implication not "to begin" to be drunk in Eph. 5:18).
I'm not saying that slavery was ever necessary, but what would it mean for the New Testament to ban all slavery. What then? Could Christians live in a Roman Empire that practiced slavery (it is not Christianity's role to overthrow the government, I take a balanced view of the separation of church and state, that if Christianity is set up by God it can exist under any form of government as long as it does not involve itself with certain unethical practices. In a democracy, I do believe Christians have a right to stand up for what is right whether they derive it from their religious convictions or not).
I firmly believe that when mankind grew in wisdom and conscience collectively, and it realized the true nature of slavery, that one could better understand the true nature of Christian principles though the Bible was silent of either condoning or condemning (I see an implication in the book of Philemon, how Paul could command Philemon to welcome Onesimus back as a brother, but he desired for Philemon to make the decision of his own free will so to speak; see Philemon 1:14).

5. History tells us that the church early on, who didn't have church buildings much less cathedrals, took their collections to the auction and freed slaves.

That's all I have to say about that.

[dianaiad]

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.

Really? You aren't moving the goalposts? Please read what YOU wrote.

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.

Hmnn. And yet you wrote..."We look at life and decide what is good for the whole of humanity. It is very simple."

You did NOT write 'we look at life and decide what is good for us." Nor did you write 'I look at life and decide what is good for me."

You WROTE "We look at life and decide what is good for the whole of humanity" Either you meant what you wrote, or it was one HECK of a Freudian slip. No matter what, it wasn't me misreading or misinterpreting.

Now I COULD let you off the hook.....

But I don't think I will, just yet.

[Nickman]

@Dianaiad

The ideas of equality did not come from the bible. Danmark has shown just a couple of instances where your idea is false. I will bring up Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman.

A woman whose daughter had an unclean spirit heard about [Jesus], and came and fell down at his feet. The woman was a Greek, by race a Phoenician from Syria. And she started asking him to drive the demon out of her daughter. He responded to her like this: "Let the children first be fed, since it isn't good to take bread out of children's mouths and throw it to the dogs! [kynaria]" But as a rejoinder she says to him: "Sir, even the dogs under the table get to eat scraps dropped by children!" Then he said to her: "For that retort, be on your way, the demon has come out of your daughter." She returned home and found the child lying on the bed and the demon gone (Mk. 7:25-30).

He calls her a dog, literally, because she is not Jewish. That is not equality. It is not until she begs that he smugly heals her child.

So if you are not getting equality from the bible then where does it derive? Could it possibly be a cultural thing, or is that not something you are willing to accept?

[Nickman]

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. Christs words are timeless.

If the Son of god and god himself are not gonna stand for what is right then are they worthy of any worship? Apparently Christ's words had nothing to say about abortion, slavery, rape, stem cell research, the environment, animal life, or any other important issue. He also didn't condemn slavery and clarify the nonchalance of god in the OT pertaining to slavery, selling children, and rape.

[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.

"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.

Once again, I am forced to point out the differences between the Old and New Testament. We are followers of Jesus, not ancient Jews.

And teh simple fact of the matter is that is was an atheist who claimed that not expressly condemning slavery in an absolute way was wrong, bad, and clear case of moral deficiency. Well, atheism does not do that, and indeed cannot do that as a collective entity. And so now we are attempting to support this tactic by completely ignoring the New Testament, and all the analysis tat was presented, so we can quote the OT?

If this tactic is valid, well, then I should be able to select partial quotes from atheist documents, devoid of context, and say, here, this is what atheism is!

And yet not only are the points about slavery being avoided, as well as the intent behind dragging them into this discussion, but we are also avoiding any discussion about a potential serious weakness in atheism ... specifically, that not having a doctrine, a public set of standards to provide objectivity, individual morality, is a system that is prone to rationalization.

We have porn which apparently the poster who drug that in doesn't want to talk about.

We have slavery, which the poster who deliberately drug that is doesn't want to talk about anymore.

We have our scripture, which we are supposed to pretend only has a OT.

We have the ten commandments, which are reaffirmed in the NT, being declared as outdated by an atheist poster.

And yet the, even as we basically have atheists display one alarmingly unfamiliar critique of the Bible after another, we have perfect display of exactly the weakness I am talking about.

At what point will an atheist stop and consider, "Wow, I just totally slandered the Bible, how does that make me a good and moral person?"

Indeed, when we have an atheist demanding that slavery be an absolute with one breath, and then turn around and claim that there are no absolutes because morality is cultural and we have different cultures ... Whatever are we supposed to take of such tomfoolery?

[TheTruth101]

@Dianaiad

The ideas of equality did not come from the bible. Danmark has shown just a couple of instances where your idea is false. I will bring up Jesus and the Syrophoenician Woman.

A woman whose daughter had an unclean spirit heard about [Jesus], and came and fell down at his feet. The woman was a Greek, by race a Phoenician from Syria. And she started asking him to drive the demon out of her daughter. He responded to her like this: "Let the children first be fed, since it isn't good to take bread out of children's mouths and throw it to the dogs! [kynaria]" But as a rejoinder she says to him: "Sir, even the dogs under the table get to eat scraps dropped by children!" Then he said to her: "For that retort, be on your way, the demon has come out of your daughter." She returned home and found the child lying on the bed and the demon gone (Mk. 7:25-30).

He calls her a dog, literally, because she is not Jewish. That is not equality. It is not until she begs that he smugly heals her child.

So if you are not getting equality from the bible then where does it derive? Could it possibly be a cultural thing, or is that not something you are willing to accept?

,

Ideas of equality is stated with I am Alpha and Omega, beggining and the end. All and everything. Man and Woman. Slave and the Enslaved.


Bible is an idea with sole purpose of God.

[stubbornone]

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. Christs words are timeless.

If the Son of god and god himself are not gonna stand for what is right then are they worthy of any worship? Apparently Christ's words had nothing to say about abortion, slavery, rape, stem cell research, the environment, animal life, or any other important issue. He also didn't condemn slavery and clarify the nonchalance of god in the OT pertaining to slavery, selling children, and rape.

Once again, Higher Law, principle based morality. You apparently need someone to tell you directly that rape is bad?

So what happens when, as stem cell research didn't exist in the time of Christ, why the Bible would spell out an ethical position on it?

Right, he wouldn't. He would give us a sense of principles that consensus among believers would arrive at positions upon.

Now, will tell you explain to us how ignoring these points, and slamming the Bible for not solving a problem the WAY YOU WANT TO, equates to anything other than self worship?

'I' wouldn't do it that way?

Well, maybe you should explain how you WOULD do it? And go ahead and start with stem cell research ... make sure the rule you write is appropriate enough to address ALL ethical points and considerations.

Your challenge. Support it.

Indeed, we are right back to moral absolutes above, but previous post .. morality is cultural, so ... if rape is tolerated, its good? Its what you claimed.

But then, when all you are looking for is to take teh opposite position on something ... it will happen that you arrive with two standards that are fundamentally opposed. Slavery and Rape and absolutely in term of morality, but all morality is the result of different cultures ... so there are no absolutes.

Welcome to the downside or individualistic morality.

[Nickman]

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

No, you are twisting me words and don't understand morality from my POV. You have a book you get morals from and I don't need a book to behave properly in this world. My morals come from me, society, experience and culture. Plain and simple. Don't twist my words again.

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

No, I make a point about the source from which you get your morals and you can stand it. So you get defensive. The bible is not a good source of morals and it is definitely not a good representation of a benevolent god, when this god condones slavery by not rebuking it. He also supposedly sent his son to make things right, yet Jesus doesnt clear the whole slavery mess up. Then this god employs Paul who tells slaves to obey masters. A simple, "slavery is wrong you humans" would have been sufficient. Not a "if a man beats his slave and the man dies he shall be punished, but if the man revives after a few days everythings gonna be alright, resume life, as you were."

#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.

My morals are from culture and there is no need for support for that, it is self admission. If you were born a muslim you would have their cultural morals not Christianity's. Its a very simple concept. In a society that has many beliefs and religions and open ideas, their is a melting pot of culture and ideas which we all draw from. Another point is if you were born in 12000 b.c. long before Judaism or Christianity even existed, what would your morals be? The same as that culture. Viola its magic.

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.

Do you admit that cultures are different? Do you admit that different countries have different cultures? Do you admit that these different cultures are different from the one we live in here in the USA? I sometimes feel bad for those who have never left the USA. It seems that they are stuck in a one way mentality and will never be able to realize that the way we do things here is not the same all over the world. They have different morals its very simple.

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.

When did I ever say there were moral absolutes? Please stop making stuff up and putting words in my mouth.

[TheTruth101]

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. Christs words are timeless.

If the Son of god and god himself are not gonna stand for what is right then are they worthy of any worship? Apparently Christ's words had nothing to say about abortion, slavery, rape, stem cell research, the environment, animal life, or any other important issue. He also didn't condemn slavery and clarify the nonchalance of god in the OT pertaining to slavery, selling children, and rape.

Weather you like it or not, it is only because it is the nature. And like I have said repeatedly here, 'Suffering' of one is the only way to get redemption.
Now do you see why Christ didn't say anything with the examples of 'suffering' mentioned with your post?

Are they worthy of praise?

We are humans, what do we know? The Fathers ways are above ours.

For an example, rape. The reason why God said to it is better to marry the one that rapped is strictly due for two reasons.

One, the child that is born from rape wil have no Father or any guidence as to how to survive in a man's world. And yes, back in the day ,females did not know of ways of the society simply because they were cook wives. All of them.

Two, exactly what I said above. Without a Man supporting a family, the women will not be able to feed the child simply because at the time, she has no place in the society for waged jobs.

You speak of environment and stem cell, all are said in the bible, as well as evolution of the beasts that is evident by Lot mixing of sheep's to make colored sheep's.

[TheTruth101]

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. Christs words are timeless.

If the Son of god and god himself are not gonna stand for what is right then are they worthy of any worship? Apparently Christ's words had nothing to say about abortion, slavery, rape, stem cell research, the environment, animal life, or any other important issue. He also didn't condemn slavery and clarify the nonchalance of god in the OT pertaining to slavery, selling children, and rape.

Weather you like it or not, it is only because it is the nature. And like I have said repeatedly here, 'Suffering' of one is the only way to get redemption.
Now do you see why Christ didn't say anything with the examples of 'suffering' mentioned with your post?

Are they worthy of pratise?

We are humans, what do we know? The Fathers ways are above ours.

For an example, rape. The reason why God said to it is better to marry the one that rapped is strictly due for two reasons.

One, the child that is born from rape wil have no Father or any guidence as to how to survive in a man's world. And yes, back in the day ,females did not know of the society or the ways of nature simply because they were cook wives. All of them.

Two, exactly what I said above. Without a Man supporting a family, the women will not be able to feed the child simply because at the time, she has no place in the society for waged jobs.

You speak of environment and stem cell, all are said in the bible, as well as evolution of the beasts that is evident by Lot mixing of sheep's to make colored sheep's.