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]

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

I don't need someone to tell me directly that rape is bad. I would like to know why you need a Bible and a god to tell you directly rape is bad.

1. Evolution evolves the principle of the Golden Rule.
2. Smart humans using logic, reason and common sense figure out it's a good principle to live by.
3. Smart humans express the principle in words as the Golden Rule.
4. Moral humans with logic, reason and common sense live by the Golden Rule.
5. How to make not so smart humans without logic, reason and common sense adhere to the Golden Rule?
6. Evolve brains wired for religion.
7. Attribute the Golden Rule to gods and make people believe in those gods and their holy scriptures.
8. Problem solved. Immoral people without logic, reason and common sense follow their gods and miscellaneous holy scriptures and live by The Golden Rule anyway.
9. People with logic, reason and common sense who haven't figured out the Golden Rule by themselves listen to non-religious moral teachers, understand the point and live by the Golden Rule.

[Bust Nak]

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.

Well, I think it is my job to decide what is good for the whole of humanity. Shame I don't have the power to enforce my opinion, I'll have to make do with voting.

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.

That's only a problem if you disagree with that person about what is good. There is nothing inherently problematic with dictatorship.

P.S. a side remark about your eariler point. I don't think anyone on our side has ever implied that atheism is anything more than not believing in gods. No one is crediting atheism with empathy, logic, morality etc.

[Bust Nak]

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 - There you go again with more silly false accusations. Please demonstrate even one time when your words have been deliberately misquoted?
#2 - You have made MANY claims on here, all unsupported. You have claimed that slavery is such a moral absolute, can't be a moral absolute because morality is the result of culture and is subjective ... so no moral absolutes.

In short, you are wrong, not misquoted. You are wrong, not a victim of deliberate misquoting. You simply made a mistake.

And when you are all over the place with claims because you have no set of standards that you can explain and adhere too ... what we see is the effects of individual morality, not you being misquoted.

The claims are yours. If you are wrong, say so, but please no more false accusations.

He didn't say misquoted, he said you twisted his words. So your very post would qualify as an example of you twisting his words.

What I get offended at is when atheists pull ostrichs, ignore ALL of it, and continue to essentially call people, based solely on a faith choice, slavers and rapists.

So why exactly is calling anyone slavers and rapists? There is a huge difference between "the Bible condones slavery and rape" and "your support slavery and rape." and "your are slavers and rapists."

Yes, there is a need to support that, because that is a claim - and claims require support. Its your OPINION as to how they arise, but, if you have been to as many countries as I have, then you know that within any society there is a range of opinions and stances ... and, like the porn issue you took offense with, but no longer want to discuss either, there is a clear cut case of the differences, within the same culture, arising about sexuality and the treatment of women.

Not my claim originally, but I too think society is the most important factor in morality. You stand on porn for example, matches closely with our society's view.

I claim that slavery is a moral absolute in that it is ALWAYS wrong. Regardless of culture. So is lying, rape, adultery, etc. Whether is it culturally acceptable or not. That is the difference between OBJECTIVE standards, and SUBJECTIVE - culturally derived standards of morality.

Our come from a set of principles that Jesus gave us, and we are lead to make determinations accordingly. Yours? Well, yours are clearly all over the place, subjective, fickle, and seem, IMO, aimed solely at insulting other beliefs with strawmen positions that you can deride.

Buzzz. The first thing to understand about the debate between moral objectivism vs subjectivism is this: Either objectivists are correct and moral is objective whether anyone agrees or not, or subjectivists are correct and morality is subjective. There is no my morality is objective where as yours is subjective.

Slavery. Explain your position. Because now you are saying that there are times and places where it IS acceptable are you? And yet you were just preaching that not spelling out that specifically was .... irredeemably wrong in Christianity?

Maybe you should stop for a second, define a position, and then attempt to support it. You will discover that being wrong isn't the worst thing in the world ... simply put, you are all over the place, and appear to be making no statement whatsoever - even as you make one contradictory statement after another.

I'll let Nick explain his position. But I would point out that it is a common misconception to think a subjectivist cannot say XYZ is wrong under any circumstances.

[Nickman]

@ Bust Nak

I put Stubbornone on ignore due to obvious reason so I won't see any of his posts and also won't be answering any.

I find it amusing that people are taking offense as if they are being called immoral or slavers and rapers when no one has done such. Since Christians get their morals from the bible, when we point out bad things in that book they get all bent out of shape. No one is calling anyone immoral from the atheists side. We are just pointing out that the bible is inconsitent with a benevolent absolute moral giver. If god's bible is the moral standard and the law was given to bring forth the recognition of sin then a rebuke of slavery would have been nice. We atheists don't need a rebuke of slavery to understand it is bad, and from our current culture we are moving forward morally.

It is also funny that when you list all of these morals they are in agreement with our society. Just as slavery was once condone in our society and accepted, now it is not and Christians and non alike have changed together. The whole society changed. It wasn't one group who changed and everyone else followed. We see this in every society.

[Bust Nak]

I find it amusing that people are taking offense as if they are being called immoral or slavers and rapers when no one has done such.

Well he was careful enough with his wording to avoid stating he was actually offended because one of us here called him or implied that he is a slaver or rapist.

Since Christians get their morals from the bible, when we point out bad things in that book they get all bent out of shape. No one is calling anyone immoral from the atheists side. We are just pointing out that the bible is inconsitent with a benevolent absolute moral giver. If god's bible is the moral standard and the law was given to bring forth the recognition of sin then a rebuke of slavery would have been nice. We atheists don't need a rebuke of slavery to understand it is bad, and from our current culture we are moving forward morally.

Well apparently appeasing angry Romans slave owners was the most effective way of stopping the mass murder of Jewish slaves.

It is also funny that when you list all of these morals they are in agreement with our society. Just as slavery was once condone in our society and accepted, now it is not and Christians and non alike have changed together. The whole society changed. It wasn't one group who changed and everyone else followed. We see this in every society.

*Nods*

[dianaiad]

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.

Well, I think it is my job to decide what is good for the whole of humanity. Shame I don't have the power to enforce my opinion, I'll have to make do with voting.

(grin) Be careful....have you actually been reading my exchange with Nickman? What happens to atheists who get the power to enforce their opinions?

Or rather, what happens to the people atheists enforce their opinions upon?

Not that I think you would have this problem, of course.

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.

That's only a problem if you disagree with that person about what is good. There is nothing inherently problematic with dictatorship.

P.S. a side remark about your eariler point. I don't think anyone on our side has ever implied that atheism is anything more than not believing in gods. No one is crediting atheism with empathy, logic, morality etc.

Then you haven't been reading the posts. In fact, almost all of you do exactly that.


To put the point I am attempting to make in as simple and short a manner as possible, I think it is obvious that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely....but no theist ever gets absolute power. If he is a believer, he will be tempered by the rules of his belief. If he isn't, he is tempered by those who ARE true believers of the religion he is using. His power is never, quite, absolute.

An atheist, however, put in the dictator's chair, CAN have absolute power, since of course there is nothing (and no-one) to whom he needs to answer.

I think that this is true whether or not there is a God. Atheists (most atheists) solve this problem when they discover humanism, or another philosophy that gives them something 'bigger' to believe in and to answer to; a set of ethics or morals that work in the place of religion.

[Clownboat]

Edited to remove entirely.
I believe my point valid, but it would probably still get me a warning.

[dianaiad]

Edited to remove entirely.
I believe my point valid, but it would probably still get me a warning.

Hmmn....was that a comment about my post, immediately above yours?

I can guess what it was.

Consider the telepathic message received and understood.

but think about it a minute;

If one is a theist, one must, BY DEFINITION, believe that there is Someone or Something to Whom you will answer. Even if you believe that Someone will give you an 'attaboy' for killing a bunch of people.

If there isn't a god, then there is STILL that 'bigger thing,' because other people DO believe, and if God won't step in, they will.

But who can but the brakes on someone who doesn't think he needs to answer to Anyone...or anyone? If he can talk others into putting HIM in the place of deity....well...

As I mentioned, the vast majority of atheists do have that 'something bigger' to whom they answer; certainly humanist philosophies have us answer to each other, if Nobody else.

But if you aren't a humanist, or have some other set of ethical standards, then what?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

(grin) Be careful....have you actually been reading my exchange with Nickman? What happens to atheists who get the power to enforce their opinions?

Or rather, what happens to the people atheists enforce their opinions upon?

I'm an atheist with the power to enforce my opinion on others through voting. I don't think anything too terrible has happened to the people affected by my exercise of power, but perhaps I'm not powerful enough yet?

I also agree with Bust Nak that it is up to me (along with every other individual) to decide what is good for the whole of humanity.

P.S. a side remark about your eariler point. I don't think anyone on our side has ever implied that atheism is anything more than not believing in gods. No one is crediting atheism with empathy, logic, morality etc.

Then you haven't been reading the posts. In fact, almost all of you do exactly that.

I challenge you to quote statements by other posters to this effect. If you cannot, please withdraw your blanket accusation.

To put the point I am attempting to make in as simple and short a manner as possible, I think it is obvious that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely....but no theist ever gets absolute power. If he is a believer, he will be tempered by the rules of his belief. If he isn't, he is tempered by those who ARE true believers of the religion he is using. His power is never, quite, absolute.

What if someone believes in a god that wants to do everything that they want to do? What if someone believes in a god that wants them to annihilate the human race?

Your point fails because theism is simply the opposite of atheism. Theism in and of itself provides nothing in the way of moral guidelines.

[Artie]

I think that this is true whether or not there is a God. Atheists (most atheists) solve this problem when they discover humanism, or another philosophy that gives them something 'bigger' to believe in and to answer to; a set of ethics or morals that work in the place of religion.

That would be the other way around of course. Religion and belief in the teachings of some religious moral teacher or scriptures makes people behave morally to catch those who aren't moral or don't understand how and why morals evolved in the first place and why it's important to be moral as I explained earlier. Animal altruism existed long before any religions.