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.

[d.thomas]

Its your eternity, not mine. Goodluck.

Oh, I see, an eternity in Hell for me for not believing you. How morally upright of you.

My morals stand with the bible. Not the false self righteousness way you fantasize of.
In other words, if you get damned for eternity, I will be right there with God Yahweh and Christ locking you up for all eternity. Because, just like the prison systems today, no one in heaven's will see you as the righteous, but rather a criminal for eternity, because, simply, true righteousness only belongs to the ones that obey Gods orders. Nothing else.

Like I said, an eternity in Hell for not believing you, how morally upright of you. Too bad non believers aren't burned at the stake anymore, you would have enjoyed your display of righteousness right here on earth.

[stubbornone]

Here you go, let me show you how this works:

"we reached the conclusion that happiness is the ultimate value and we should strive to increase it. This result can be formalized into a secular ethical system I call universal utilitarianism"

http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/ ... y-iii.html

So we have atheists claiming it happiness that drives morality?

Well of course it does. Morality evolves. Following evolved morality leads to a good conscience and happiness for all concerned so people formulate the result of following evolutionary morality, happiness, into a secular ethical system making happiness a value. Perfectly logical.

http://www.thecommentfactory.com/if-ath ... ates-1784/

Nope, morality is clearly cultural ... also argued and not supported on this thread.

I don't quite see the point of this article. Of course morality is cultural. Different cultures have different moralities just depends where in the world they evolved or which religions they evolved.

Our own intuition guides our morality.

Yes it does. Morals evolved and intuition about what's right and wrong is simply the subconscious telling us.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 142545.htm

"Haidt shows how evolutionary, neurological and social-psychological insights are being synthesized in support of three principles:"

http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/morality.htm

"This is in keeping with the writings of Paul the Apostle, who points out that even those who do not believe in God frequently obey God's laws as given in the Ten Commandments: "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them" (Romans 2:14-15 (NKJV))." Paul says "the law written in their hearts, their conscience" which of course are the morals evolved by evolution which people attributed to gods in their different holy scriptures.

In short, I can google too ... so please ACTUALLY make an argument.

My argument is that logic, reason and common sense tells us that morals evolved, were formulated into words and incorporated into legal systems and religions so as to make people more likely to follow the evolutionary moral codes. Can you use logic, reason and common sense and show me otherwise?

Common sense indicates that when your claim requires GENETIC evidence, that is what you provide - a gene, or series of genes that CLEARLY CAUSE something in humanity. We do not have that in humanity. The animal behavior comes into the issue? Well, how do you explain, if morality is ingrained and embedded in us, why not ALL animals have this mysterious and utterly unable to find altruism gene?

Randomly dumping articles does not answer that question.

Nor do statements like, "Well, of course its that way because MORALITY EVOLVED!" Which not only does nothing to address the LACK or morality in criminals, who apparently have the same genetic code? Odd that.

And without actual evidence, or deliberately scoped evidence, what we have is called the fallacy of questionable cause, wherein simply because YOU associate something with another does NOT mean that they are indeed associated.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... cause.html

Indeed, from a former atheist, in reference to your claims.

f. Statement of Evil
As with any cult, evil is seen everywhere in the form of other religious faiths. In a stunning twist of logic, the purveyors of the ethical code that protects the Atheist (Christianity, the Bible and the Ten Commandments) are deemed evil. And any attack on the Sacred Precepts of Absolutist Darwinism are evil. The credo is that “science is not to be corrupted by the inroads of ’religion’ in the classroom�. So the denial of the next Godel level and the internal Type 2 (b) paradox are institutionalized.

http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/20 ... heism.html

In short, there are serious intellectual and evidential shortcomings in your argument.

[stubbornone]

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

Sure, you can make all sorts of inferences about gods. But when you start making inferences you're talking about religion, not simply theism.

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.

I do not know what "empowered atheism" is, or what in my post led you to believe I have made a claim about it. Which point of mine is this meant to be in response to?

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.

The distinction I was discussing was atheism/theism. Atheism/religion is not a dichotomy, and a fairly meaningless comparison as atheism is not a religion.

Not quite.

#1 - ONE of the inferences in believing that there is a God ... is the creation of religions.

#2 - I think you are being coy as, one, an atheist brought the subject up, two, its pretty clear on the historical record what atheists with access to power have done in a negative sense (not that all atheists have mind you) ... we get the opposite BTW, where atheists rip into religion based on similar genarlizations (See Hitchens). But the reality is that atheists, as we do, have too look at the systems they are creating and patch up the weaknesses to prevent those bad things from happening ... just as we did say ... after the Crusades, the 30 Years War, etc.

#3 - Atheists are going to have to figure out there own positions. Plenty of atheists claim that atheism is a religion, others disagree. Your personal opinion is noted, but not relevant to the reality that atheism IS organizing, and it IS taking policy decisions in the traditional areas of religion.

Once again, one cannot deny the short comings and outright mistakes of these polices simply because you want to have a semantic debate about whether or not atheism is a religion.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/03/10/a ... a-religion

And please bear in mind, there is a legal definition of atheism, accepted by the SCOTUS, that acknowledges that atheism is a religion - from atheists.

Once again, as I have pointed out, atheists in the case of definition are attempting to ply both sides of the religion coin - not a religion in terms of evidence and requirements, definitely a religion in terms of tax exempt status and legal protections.

Its not really relevant to what organized atheism is doing. And it has no bearing whatsoever on the moral basis of atheism.

[Artie]

Common sense indicates that when your claim requires GENETIC evidence, that is what you provide - a gene, or series of genes that CLEARLY CAUSE something in humanity. We do not have that in humanity. The animal behavior comes into the issue? Well, how do you explain, if morality is ingrained and embedded in us, why not ALL animals have this mysterious and utterly unable to find altruism gene?

Are you serious? Are you asking me why all animals don't have the same genes? Because they evolved to fill different niches of course where the morals are different if you are a single solitary predator on an African savanna or a human in New York.

Randomly dumping articles does not answer that question.

Nor do statements like, "Well, of course its that way because MORALITY EVOLVED!" Which not only does nothing to address the LACK or morality in criminals, who apparently have the same genetic code? Odd that.

All criminals have the same genetic code? You know, I never knew that all criminals have the same genetic code. I didn't even know that criminals and moral people had the same genetic code. I thought that only identical twins and triplets etc shared the same genetic code.

[otseng]

Its your eternity, not mine. Goodluck.

Oh, I see, an eternity in Hell for me for not believing you. How morally upright of you.

My morals stand with the bible. Not the false self righteousness way you fantasize of.
In other words, if you get damned for eternity, I will be right there with God Yahweh and Christ locking you up for all eternity. Because, just like the prison systems today, no one in heaven's will see you as the righteous, but rather a criminal for eternity, because, simply, true righteousness only belongs to the ones that obey Gods orders. Nothing else.

Like I said, an eternity in Hell for not believing you, how morally upright of you. Too bad non believers aren't burned at the stake anymore, you would have enjoyed your display of righteousness right here on earth.

Moderator Comment

OK, that's enough talking about hell. Please return to the topic.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[stubbornone]

Common sense indicates that when your claim requires GENETIC evidence, that is what you provide - a gene, or series of genes that CLEARLY CAUSE something in humanity. We do not have that in humanity. The animal behavior comes into the issue? Well, how do you explain, if morality is ingrained and embedded in us, why not ALL animals have this mysterious and utterly unable to find altruism gene?

Are you serious? Are you asking me why all animals don't have the same genes? Because they evolved to fill different niches of course where the morals are different if you are a single solitary predator on an African savanna or a human in New York.

Randomly dumping articles does not answer that question.

Nor do statements like, "Well, of course its that way because MORALITY EVOLVED!" Which not only does nothing to address the LACK or morality in criminals, who apparently have the same genetic code? Odd that.

All criminals have the same genetic code? You know, I never knew that all criminals have the same genetic code. I didn't even know that criminals and moral people had the same genetic code. I thought that only identical twins and triplets etc shared the same genetic code.

No, I am asking you why all animals of the same species and apparently the same genetic 'altruism' gene do not display the same altruism?

Seems pretty clear.

For example, lions taking over a pride will often, but not always, kill the cubs of the previous dominant male to induce heat earlier in the females ... but not always. Why?

Why do some rodents risk themselves to save their kin ... while others do not?

I thought it was genetic and they had no choice?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 473:

No, I am asking you why all animals of the same species and apparently the same genetic 'altruism' gene do not display the same altruism?

1a : able or apt to vary : subject to variation or changes <variable winds> <variable costs>
1b : fickle, inconstant
2: characterized by variations
3: having the characteristics of a variable
4: not true to type : aberrant —used of a biological group or character

Seems pretty clear.

Only to those whose lenses are fogged up worse'n a bathroom mirror in the middle of winter and someone left the window open again, and who the heck opens the shower window in the middle of winter unless they're an old lady trying to play some power trip game, and here I am, I ain't powerful enough to try to get onto one so pretty, but that ought'n give her the right to open any danged window she pleases, but don't it beat all, I'm too much a dadgummed doofus to try to keep her from doing it, but that oughta stop, 'cause there's no dang need in having a shower window open in the middle of winter, and I need one of y'all to get onto her for it.

For example, lions taking over a pride will often, but not always, kill the cubs of the previous dominant male to induce heat earlier in the females ... but not always. Why?

1a : able or apt to vary : subject to variation or changes <variable winds> <variable costs>
1b : fickle, inconstant
2: characterized by variations
3: having the characteristics of a variable
4: not true to type : aberrant —used of a biological group or character

Why do some rodents risk themselves to save their kin ... while others do not?

1a : able or apt to vary : subject to variation or changes <variable winds> <variable costs>
1b : fickle, inconstant
2: characterized by variations
3: having the characteristics of a variable
4: not true to type : aberrant —used of a biological group or character

I thought it was genetic and they had no choice?

I think we just identified the problem.

[Artie]

No, I am asking you why all animals of the same species and apparently the same genetic 'altruism' gene do not display the same altruism?

Seems pretty clear.

Because even animals of the same species aren't clones and don't share the exact same set of genes and because of epigenetics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics

For example, lions taking over a pride will often, but not always, kill the cubs of the previous dominant male to induce heat earlier in the females ... but not always. Why?

To answer that we would need to know the exact circumstances and the exact makeup of the dna and epigenetics involved. Unless you think all lions are clones and the circumstances are always exactly the same?

I thought it was genetic and they had no choice?

That would be because you apparently think that all animals are clones, that epigenetics work exactly the same in each animal and that circumstances are always exactly the same.

[Danmark]

I believe it is a principle of genetics that we inherit, among other things, general predispositions, possibilities and limitations rather than exact outcomes. In addition to tiny genetic variations (even identical twins do not share the exact genetic code after a few years, do to mutations) there is the effect of environment. One may inherit a predisposition to alcoholism due to certain genetic traits, but one twin may simply never drink or she may develop a belief system that inhibits the decision to drink, or to drink to excess.

Lower than average IQ may increase your chances of going to prison, but it does not guarantee it.
http://www.laits.utexas.edu/txp_media/h ... lide2.html

Having a high IQ correlates with better health, higher income and a host of things considered positive, but again, there are no guarantees, no absolutes.
http://anepigone.blogspot.com/2008/03/i ... ation.html

[Nickman]

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.

Why is my name being thrown around in this thread? Nickman decided not to debate anymore with you because it became unfruitful. I won't remark on this post more than this because it would derail the thread.