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.

[Nickman]

@ TT
If two scientists get together to talk about science related subjects is that a religion too?

If two or more people get together to talk politics are we supposed to think like you that this is a religious meeting.

Besides we had pizza, beer and rock music which would make it nonreligious in nature. Unless the beer is the blood, the pizza and pepperoni are the body and the rock music is the hymn.

Well, its related to religion because you are together for existence non existence of religion to begin with.

Not really. It is more just people talking. God actually didn't come up as a topic on its own. We spoke more about everyday topics.

Anyway, back on topic.

[Lux]

Moderator Comment

That's understandable.


.

Please avoid posting one-liners that don't contribute to the debate.

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.

[Bust Nak]

(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?

Which atheists do you have in mind? For the ones I have in mind, secularism happens to the people they have power over.

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

I have been reading the posts, I just came to the opposite interpretation to yours.

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.

Granted.

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.

Right, I just think you underestimate the effectiveness of philosophical ethics and overestimate the effectiveness of religious tempering.

[Artie]

Nevtheless, here you are claiming a genetic cause and then telling us that DNA, which isn't entirely random, it's 99.99% the same, and yet you are claiming its so different that we can't identify a genetic cause ... Which is nevertheless there anyway.

In short, your evidence doesn't support your claim. An Honest man with that gene, coild never lie, and a liar could never tell the truth.

Morality cannot be genetic based on what you show and claim.

Just so you know that I haven't ignored your post it's just so irrational that I can't answer it.

[LiamOS]

Moderator Comment

Just so you know that I haven't ignored your post it's just so irrational that I can't answer it.

Please avoid making posts like this, as they are neither productive nor civil.

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.

[Artie]

As you can see I have gotten a moderator comment which severely limits my debating options. If a post is directed at me which I feel doesn't make any sense or is irrational I am not allowed to say so and give the person a chance to rephrase. And I can't answer it because I don't understand what the person is trying to say. So all I'm left with is no answer at all. I don't know if this post is against some rule but I just have to explain this because I don't want forum members to think I'm just ignoring their posts especially if they are directed at me specifically. I have written a pm to the moderator and this is not a moderator challenge it's an explanation to other forum members why I might not be able to answer posts they have specifically directed at me.

[dianaiad]

(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?

Which atheists do you have in mind? For the ones I have in mind, secularism happens to the people they have power over.

There is a difference between a secular leader and an atheist leader. Secularism is apart from religion; religion isn't addressed, either positively or negatively, in a secularist state, except to ensure freedom to believe or not to believe. A secular leader may be atheist, but the 'getting rid of religion' isn't a part of his/her political agenda. Ensuring freedom to believe--or not believe--is.

When the leader makes atheism the state stand on things, however...that's fatally different.

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

I have been reading the posts, I just came to the opposite interpretation to yours.

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.

Granted.

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.

Right, I just think you underestimate the effectiveness of philosophical ethics and overestimate the effectiveness of religious tempering.

I do neither. I simply point to the difference in body counts.

[Bust Nak]

There is a difference between a secular leader and an atheist leader. Secularism is apart from religion; religion isn't addressed, either positively or negatively, in a secularist state, except to ensure freedom to believe or not to believe. A secular leader may be atheist, but the 'getting rid of religion' isn't a part of his/her political agenda. Ensuring freedom to believe--or not believe--is.

Yes, as I've hinting at, the atheists I have in mind are secular humanists.

When the leader makes atheism the state stand on things, however...that's fatally different.

Right, which is exactly why I asked you which atheists you had in mind.

Right, I just think you underestimate the effectiveness of philosophical ethics and overestimate the effectiveness of religious tempering.

I do neither. I simply point to the difference in body counts.

I think you are doing more than that, you are concluding body count is a function of how effectiveness of said philosophical ethics are in shaping morality.

[LiamOS]

Moderator Clarification

As you can see I have gotten a moderator comment which severely limits my debating options. If a post is directed at me which I feel doesn't make any sense or is irrational I am not allowed to say so and give the person a chance to rephrase. And I can't answer it because I don't understand what the person is trying to say. So all I'm left with is no answer at all. I don't know if this post is against some rule but I just have to explain this because I don't want forum members to think I'm just ignoring their posts especially if they are directed at me specifically. I have written a pm to the moderator and this is not a moderator challenge it's an explanation to other forum members why I might not be able to answer posts they have specifically directed at me.

The reason for the comment was not that you think the post was irrational, but that you merely said so without asking for any further debate or elaboration on the subject. This appears uncivil and unnecessary.

It is perfectly acceptable - even advisable - to ask for elaboration from other posters if you are unclear on what they are trying to say. Your earlier post did not explicitly do this; perhaps you can see how your post could be construed as being analogous to "You make no sense; bye".


______________

Moderator clarifications do not count as a strike against any posters. They serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received and/or are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels a clarification of the rules is required.

[Clownboat]

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?

I assure you, my post was not directed at you.

Either way, to answer your question
I'm still a good Christian man, much like my parents raised me to be, I just no longer have the beliefs, but that does not stop me from being me.