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.

[stubbornone]

(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.

Theism postulates that there is a God ... and from that reference point certain inferences can be made. Its the whole Hegelian dialectic thingy ...

Second, if you are claiming that empowered atheism has no historical basis .. yet .. then I would invite you to check out the Paris communes, some of the natier bits of the French and Russian Revolution, Stalin, Moa, and good ol Kim Jung Il/Un.

What is an atheist, believing we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, decides that life is pointless and goes on a the same gun rampage?

I fail to see how these hyperbolic situations allow anyone to arrive a position of morality rather than mutual bashing?

Atheism has its faults, so does religion. Only one has a defined mechanism that aids a person in the objective examination of their morality and an instrument to improve said morality.

It isn't atheism.

If you believe there is an ancient invisible god out there I would say that I don't believe you, that makes me an atheist. It says nothing of what I do believe so you can make all the accusations about atheists you like. If you think atheists are evil for not believing you, then that's your problem, rant all you like, besides, your rants tell us more about you and your so called morals than it does atheists.

I would say you are simply employing a well known argumentative style known as an argument from absurdity in which you aren't inerested much in evidence or logic, indeed you don;t use it at all in your position, and a healthy dose of arrogance to boot ... by unilaterally declaring YOURSELF to be the judge of everyone else's position in a highly generic and utterly dismissive way.

There is a point at which attempting to engage those obviously engaged in an argument from absurdity is simply pointless.

You have to support your cliams, not reject everyone else is some absurd (hence the title of the argumentative style) position that you are judge of all. Indeed, arguementation is about convincing others ... not yourself ... hence the argument from absurdity ...

Do you see the thread title? Why o why are you postulated your absurd position on evidence for God in two threads now? Did it occur to you to postulate the idea that whether or no God actually exists is irrelevant to the acceptance of his moral standards?

Is this to state that all the morality in atheism flows from the unevidenced and absurd rejection of everything but ones own opinion? Well, there are indeed many theologians, and indeed laity, who claim that atheism is simply self worship.

Would you care to address such criticism?

God is a faith belief. Why? Because there is no evidence to draw a conclusion from.

So is atheism. Which you have no problem with apparently?

Indeed, if yours is NOT faith, then it SHOULD have a great deal of obviously convincing evidence shouldn't it?

Well, as you just claimed that faith was terrible, we now have a definitive burden of proof on atheism to PROVE that there is no God as there can be NO faith aspect to atheism.

Now, morality is all about standards, as is this forum BTW, and I hereby demand you prove unequivocally that there is no God - or acknowledge that your position rests upon faith rather than evidence.

Go ahead.

I don't believe your claim of ancient invisible gods out there because you can't provide evidence. I have nothing to prove but it certainly appears that you do. BTW, does your invisible god coincidentally happen to have the same morals as you? Maybe you're just projecting.

You just claimed that there is no faith in atheism, and I DEMAND, as per the forum rules, that you prove, SCIENTIFICALLY, and with absolute precision and venerability that there is no God ... in accordance with your rejection of faith.

Indeed, I have provided evidence. Its you that is simply pulling an ostrich.

I can only conclude at this point that you have no intention of actually debating.

[d.thomas]

(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.

Theism postulates that there is a God ... and from that reference point certain inferences can be made. Its the whole Hegelian dialectic thingy ...

Second, if you are claiming that empowered atheism has no historical basis .. yet .. then I would invite you to check out the Paris communes, some of the natier bits of the French and Russian Revolution, Stalin, Moa, and good ol Kim Jung Il/Un.

What is an atheist, believing we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, decides that life is pointless and goes on a the same gun rampage?

I fail to see how these hyperbolic situations allow anyone to arrive a position of morality rather than mutual bashing?

Atheism has its faults, so does religion. Only one has a defined mechanism that aids a person in the objective examination of their morality and an instrument to improve said morality.

It isn't atheism.

If you believe there is an ancient invisible god out there I would say that I don't believe you, that makes me an atheist. It says nothing of what I do believe so you can make all the accusations about atheists you like. If you think atheists are evil for not believing you, then that's your problem, rant all you like, besides, your rants tell us more about you and your so called morals than it does atheists.

I would say you are simply employing a well known argumentative style known as an argument from absurdity in which you aren't inerested much in evidence or logic, indeed you don;t use it at all in your position, and a healthy dose of arrogance to boot ... by unilaterally declaring YOURSELF to be the judge of everyone else's position in a highly generic and utterly dismissive way.

There is a point at which attempting to engage those obviously engaged in an argument from absurdity is simply pointless.

You have to support your cliams, not reject everyone else is some absurd (hence the title of the argumentative style) position that you are judge of all. Indeed, arguementation is about convincing others ... not yourself ... hence the argument from absurdity ...

Do you see the thread title? Why o why are you postulated your absurd position on evidence for God in two threads now? Did it occur to you to postulate the idea that whether or no God actually exists is irrelevant to the acceptance of his moral standards?

Is this to state that all the morality in atheism flows from the unevidenced and absurd rejection of everything but ones own opinion? Well, there are indeed many theologians, and indeed laity, who claim that atheism is simply self worship.

Would you care to address such criticism?

God is a faith belief. Why? Because there is no evidence to draw a conclusion from.

So is atheism. Which you have no problem with apparently?

Indeed, if yours is NOT faith, then it SHOULD have a great deal of obviously convincing evidence shouldn't it?

Well, as you just claimed that faith was terrible, we now have a definitive burden of proof on atheism to PROVE that there is no God as there can be NO faith aspect to atheism.

Now, morality is all about standards, as is this forum BTW, and I hereby demand you prove unequivocally that there is no God - or acknowledge that your position rests upon faith rather than evidence.

Go ahead.

I don't believe your claim of ancient invisible gods out there because you can't provide evidence. I have nothing to prove but it certainly appears that you do. BTW, does your invisible god coincidentally happen to have the same morals as you? Maybe you're just projecting.

You just claimed that there is no faith in atheism, and I DEMAND, as per the forum rules, that you prove, SCIENTIFICALLY, and with absolute precision and venerability that there is no God ... in accordance with your rejection of faith.

Indeed, I have provided evidence. Its you that is simply pulling an ostrich.

I can only conclude at this point that you have no intention of actually debating.

I have made no claims at all, on the other hand you have provided unsupported claims of invisible gods out there.

[Artie]

Theism postulates that there is a God ... and from that reference point certain inferences can be made. Its the whole Hegelian dialectic thingy ...

True. Theism postulates that there is a god or that there are gods. And then people can postulate that these gods have the authority to tell people what to do or how to behave.

Second, if you are claiming that empowered atheism has no historical basis .. yet .. then I would invite you to check out the Paris communes, some of the natier bits of the French and Russian Revolution, Stalin, Moa, and good ol Kim Jung Il/Un.

What is an atheist, believing we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, decides that life is pointless and goes on a the same gun rampage?

What stops a theist going on some murderous rampage? http://www.religioustolerance.org/relviol.htm

Atheism has its faults, so does religion. Only one has a defined mechanism that aids a person in the objective examination of their morality and an instrument to improve said morality.

Which is why religions evolved. To teach morality to people who don't understand how and why it evolved and why it's important to be moral. The big problem is that if a person isn't moral in the first place and have to be taught what morality is by religious teachers the person is capable of anything if told by religious authorities that his god says it's moral.

[TheTruth101]

(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.

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.

Theism postulates that there is a God ... and from that reference point certain inferences can be made. Its the whole Hegelian dialectic thingy ...

Second, if you are claiming that empowered atheism has no historical basis .. yet .. then I would invite you to check out the Paris communes, some of the natier bits of the French and Russian Revolution, Stalin, Moa, and good ol Kim Jung Il/Un.

What is an atheist, believing we are nothing but a random collection of molecules, decides that life is pointless and goes on a the same gun rampage?

I fail to see how these hyperbolic situations allow anyone to arrive a position of morality rather than mutual bashing?

Atheism has its faults, so does religion. Only one has a defined mechanism that aids a person in the objective examination of their morality and an instrument to improve said morality.

It isn't atheism.

If you believe there is an ancient invisible god out there I would say that I don't believe you, that makes me an atheist. It says nothing of what I do believe so you can make all the accusations about atheists you like. If you think atheists are evil for not believing you, then that's your problem, rant all you like, besides, your rants tell us more about you and your so called morals than it does atheists.

I would say you are simply employing a well known argumentative style known as an argument from absurdity in which you aren't inerested much in evidence or logic, indeed you don;t use it at all in your position, and a healthy dose of arrogance to boot ... by unilaterally declaring YOURSELF to be the judge of everyone else's position in a highly generic and utterly dismissive way.

There is a point at which attempting to engage those obviously engaged in an argument from absurdity is simply pointless.

You have to support your cliams, not reject everyone else is some absurd (hence the title of the argumentative style) position that you are judge of all. Indeed, arguementation is about convincing others ... not yourself ... hence the argument from absurdity ...

Do you see the thread title? Why o why are you postulated your absurd position on evidence for God in two threads now? Did it occur to you to postulate the idea that whether or no God actually exists is irrelevant to the acceptance of his moral standards?

Is this to state that all the morality in atheism flows from the unevidenced and absurd rejection of everything but ones own opinion? Well, there are indeed many theologians, and indeed laity, who claim that atheism is simply self worship.

Would you care to address such criticism?

God is a faith belief. Why? Because there is no evidence to draw a conclusion from.

So is atheism. Which you have no problem with apparently?

Indeed, if yours is NOT faith, then it SHOULD have a great deal of obviously convincing evidence shouldn't it?

Well, as you just claimed that faith was terrible, we now have a definitive burden of proof on atheism to PROVE that there is no God as there can be NO faith aspect to atheism.

Now, morality is all about standards, as is this forum BTW, and I hereby demand you prove unequivocally that there is no God - or acknowledge that your position rests upon faith rather than evidence.

Go ahead.

I don't believe your claim of ancient invisible gods out there because you can't provide evidence. I have nothing to prove but it certainly appears that you do. BTW, does your invisible god coincidentally happen to have the same morals as you? Maybe you're just projecting.

You just claimed that there is no faith in atheism, and I DEMAND, as per the forum rules, that you prove, SCIENTIFICALLY, and with absolute precision and venerability that there is no God ... in accordance with your rejection of faith.

Indeed, I have provided evidence. Its you that is simply pulling an ostrich.

I can only conclude at this point that you have no intention of actually debating.

I have made no claims at all, on the other hand you have provided unsupported claims of invisible gods out there.

I will tell you what Atheists do, on another thread, Nickman brings up UFO's existence. Then, I simply debated with im as to its existence. (standing as dismissla of UFO's) Then, he debates back saying I'm a hypocrit because I waive off UFO's instantly because it's not said in the Bible. Then, another member brings in an article saying Angels of the Bible can be concluded as to being Aliens.
Then I change my position (I forgot about Angels) and debate from a perspective that Aliens do exist. Now, Nickman is nowhere to be found in that thread,lol.

God made 3 Kinds according to the Bible.

1.Beasts
2.Humans
3.Angels


Beasts are evident.
Humans are evident.
Angels are evident now, (Aliens)

Now, are there any other species that the world is in question of? No, all have been covered and is in accordance with Gods created kinds.


The point here is, Athesists do not back up their claims when confronted. They just ignore the issue and pretty much, let live.

The same thing you are doing.

[Artie]

Do you see the thread title? Why o why are you postulated your absurd position on evidence for God in two threads now? Did it occur to you to postulate the idea that whether or no God actually exists is irrelevant to the acceptance of his moral standards?

If He doesn't exist how can He have any moral standards?

[d.thomas]

I have made no claims at all, on the other hand you have provided unsupported claims of invisible gods out there.

I will tell you what Atheists do, on another thread, Nickman brings up UFO's existence. Then, I simply debated with im as to its existence. (standing as dismissla of UFO's) Then, he debates back saying I'm a hypocrit because I waive off UFO's instantly because it's not said in the Bible. Then, another member brings in an article saying Angels of the Bible can be concluded as to being Aliens.
Then I change my position (I forgot about Angels) and debate from a perspective that Aliens do exist. Now, Nickman is nowhere to be found in that thread,lol.

God made 3 Kinds according to the Bible.

1.Beasts
2.Humans
3.Angels


Beasts are evident.
Humans are evident.
Angels are evident now, (Aliens)

Now, are there any other species that the world is in question of? No, all have been covered and is in accordance with Gods created kinds.


The point here is, Athesists do not back up their claims when confronted. They just ignore the issue and pretty much, let live.

The same thing you are doing.

Now you are just rambling on about something else to avoid the fact that I have made no claims whereas you have, unsupported ones at that of invisible gods out there.

[TheTruth101]

I have made no claims at all, on the other hand you have provided unsupported claims of invisible gods out there.

I will tell you what Atheists do, on another thread, Nickman brings up UFO's existence. Then, I simply debated with im as to its existence. (standing as dismissla of UFO's) Then, he debates back saying I'm a hypocrit because I waive off UFO's instantly because it's not said in the Bible. Then, another member brings in an article saying Angels of the Bible can be concluded as to being Aliens.
Then I change my position (I forgot about Angels) and debate from a perspective that Aliens do exist. Now, Nickman is nowhere to be found in that thread,lol.

God made 3 Kinds according to the Bible.

1.Beasts
2.Humans
3.Angels


Beasts are evident.
Humans are evident.
Angels are evident now, (Aliens)

Now, are there any other species that the world is in question of? No, all have been covered and is in accordance with Gods created kinds.


The point here is, Athesists do not back up their claims when confronted. They just ignore the issue and pretty much, let live.

The same thing you are doing.

Now you are just rambling on about something else to avoid the fact that I have made no claims whereas you have, unsupported ones at that of invisible gods out there.

Oxygen is invisible, however our life is only maintained because of oxygen,

God is invisible, and it is said eternal life is only gained if one maintained faith..


Both are evident in my eyes, just cant see.

[d.thomas]

I have made no claims at all, on the other hand you have provided unsupported claims of invisible gods out there.

I will tell you what Atheists do, on another thread, Nickman brings up UFO's existence. Then, I simply debated with im as to its existence. (standing as dismissla of UFO's) Then, he debates back saying I'm a hypocrit because I waive off UFO's instantly because it's not said in the Bible. Then, another member brings in an article saying Angels of the Bible can be concluded as to being Aliens.
Then I change my position (I forgot about Angels) and debate from a perspective that Aliens do exist. Now, Nickman is nowhere to be found in that thread,lol.

God made 3 Kinds according to the Bible.

1.Beasts
2.Humans
3.Angels


Beasts are evident.
Humans are evident.
Angels are evident now, (Aliens)

Now, are there any other species that the world is in question of? No, all have been covered and is in accordance with Gods created kinds.


The point here is, Athesists do not back up their claims when confronted. They just ignore the issue and pretty much, let live.

The same thing you are doing.

Now you are just rambling on about something else to avoid the fact that I have made no claims whereas you have, unsupported ones at that of invisible gods out there.

Oxygen is invisible, however our life is only maintained because of oxygen,

God is invisible, and it is said eternal life is only gained if one maintained faith..


Both are evident in my eyes, just cant see.

However, one can provide facts about oxygen.

[TheTruth101]

I have made no claims at all, on the other hand you have provided unsupported claims of invisible gods out there.

I will tell you what Atheists do, on another thread, Nickman brings up UFO's existence. Then, I simply debated with im as to its existence. (standing as dismissla of UFO's) Then, he debates back saying I'm a hypocrit because I waive off UFO's instantly because it's not said in the Bible. Then, another member brings in an article saying Angels of the Bible can be concluded as to being Aliens.
Then I change my position (I forgot about Angels) and debate from a perspective that Aliens do exist. Now, Nickman is nowhere to be found in that thread,lol.

God made 3 Kinds according to the Bible.

1.Beasts
2.Humans
3.Angels


Beasts are evident.
Humans are evident.
Angels are evident now, (Aliens)

Now, are there any other species that the world is in question of? No, all have been covered and is in accordance with Gods created kinds.


The point here is, Athesists do not back up their claims when confronted. They just ignore the issue and pretty much, let live.

The same thing you are doing.

Now you are just rambling on about something else to avoid the fact that I have made no claims whereas you have, unsupported ones at that of invisible gods out there.

Oxygen is invisible, however our life is only maintained because of oxygen,

God is invisible, and it is said eternal life is only gained if one maintained faith..


Both are evident in my eyes, just cant see.

However, one can provide facts about oxygen.

Read the Bible, facts are provided there.

How about the wind? Its invisible, however it exists as well.

[d.thomas]

I have made no claims at all, on the other hand you have provided unsupported claims of invisible gods out there.

I will tell you what Atheists do, on another thread, Nickman brings up UFO's existence. Then, I simply debated with im as to its existence. (standing as dismissla of UFO's) Then, he debates back saying I'm a hypocrit because I waive off UFO's instantly because it's not said in the Bible. Then, another member brings in an article saying Angels of the Bible can be concluded as to being Aliens.
Then I change my position (I forgot about Angels) and debate from a perspective that Aliens do exist. Now, Nickman is nowhere to be found in that thread,lol.

God made 3 Kinds according to the Bible.

1.Beasts
2.Humans
3.Angels


Beasts are evident.
Humans are evident.
Angels are evident now, (Aliens)

Now, are there any other species that the world is in question of? No, all have been covered and is in accordance with Gods created kinds.


The point here is, Athesists do not back up their claims when confronted. They just ignore the issue and pretty much, let live.

The same thing you are doing.

Now you are just rambling on about something else to avoid the fact that I have made no claims whereas you have, unsupported ones at that of invisible gods out there.

Oxygen is invisible, however our life is only maintained because of oxygen,

God is invisible, and it is said eternal life is only gained if one maintained faith..


Both are evident in my eyes, just cant see.

However, one can provide facts about oxygen.

Read the Bible, facts are all there.

They're stories, get over it.