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.

[Clownboat]

@ 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.

I find it amusing that a poster would repeatedly dump offensive statements into the middle of the discussion, get called to back them up .... fail repeatedly do do, and now publically state, after a warning from the moderators, that he paced the person calling him on his antics on ignore ... because he is a victim?

And yes, when one looks at actual history, it was very much Christian groups who made the difference.

But why let facts interrupt a perfectly good bash?

And therein lies the problem with atheists and their so called morality, nothing but bland double standards and tawdry accusations. Thankfully, its a type of morality mostly rejected in our society.

A reminder Nick, this thread was just fine until you repeatedly dumped and then failed to support a number of statements that were highly accusatory and derogatory.

I have never once put anyone on ignore, nor have I ever made a report to a mod in all my time here. However, I have come close to putting you on ignore in this thread a couple times due to IMO, very poor replies.

I don't feel like a victim and nothing you have ever said has been challenging, I just hate how you respond to a post without actually responding to the points brought up in said post. I could only guess Nickman feels much like I do.

[dianaiad]

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.

Actually, humanism seems to be pretty good at 'shaping morality.' I speak only of those atheists who's political agenda includes a forced atheism, and compare THOSE to leaders who, historically, have political agendas that include forcing a specific religion on everybody.

The difference in body count THERE is...well...'exponential' really isn't an exaggeration.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I speak only of those atheists who's political agenda includes a forced atheism, and compare THOSE to leaders who, historically, have political agendas that include forcing a specific religion on everybody.

If you are only speaking of atheists whose political agenda includes forced atheism, it might be a good idea to use more precise terminology than "atheist leaders." Perhaps "anti-religious leaders" or "anti-theist leaders" would more accurately communicate what you're trying to say?

[Artie]

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.

I don't want to get into a debate with a moderator on the finer points of etiquette and what different people can construe a post to be analogous to. That would be completely up to the subjective mindset of the person. If I had gotten such a post I wouldn't for a second consider it a violation of any rules or report it or anything. I would have reread my post, figured out what didn't make sense and was irrational and corrected it in my next. I am waiting for the original poster to do that so we can resume the debate and stop this sidetracking of the thread. I have nothing more to say about moderator comments.

[dianaiad]

I speak only of those atheists who's political agenda includes a forced atheism, and compare THOSE to leaders who, historically, have political agendas that include forcing a specific religion on everybody.

If you are only speaking of atheists whose political agenda includes forced atheism, it might be a good idea to use more precise terminology than "atheist leaders." Perhaps "anti-religious leaders" or "anti-theist leaders" would more accurately communicate what you're trying to say?

Well, one cannot be anti-theist without being atheist. If one is a theist, all one can pull off is "anti-every OTHER theist."

By referring to 'atheist' leaders...by using that specific adjective...I am referring to the preferred state of the nation this leader wants.

My point is a counter argument against those who claim that religion is the cause of all that is evil in the world, and that religion has caused most of the wars, death and misery. Specifically, it is that atheism does not have a moral base. At all. Not good morals, not bad morals...just none. There is nothing in atheism that would prevent an anti-theist from doing whatever he wanted to do. There is no 'moral potential' in atheism, positive or negative. There is, however, a moral potential in theism, because in order to BE a theist, one must believe in a deity. Deities have rules. They may not be wonderful rules, or rules most of the rest of us see as good ones, but rules they will have. Atheism does not require that the atheist believe anything at all, or subscribe to any moral code.

It's true; the VAST majority of atheists have moral codes, and most of those moral codes would be considered 'good by almost anybody looking.

However, unlike a theist....there is no requirement that an atheist have one. A moral code, that is. So when an atheist leader without such a code gets the power to enforce his preferred atheistic world view on his people, there is nothing in atheism to stop him.

Hence 'atheist,' not 'anti-theist."

However, you have a point, and in any other discussion I should use 'anti-theist." In THIS one, however....it's about whether atheists are intrinsically more likely to be 'moral' than are theists. See the problem?

[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.

I find it amusing that a poster would repeatedly dump offensive statements into the middle of the discussion, get called to back them up .... fail repeatedly do do, and now publically state, after a warning from the moderators, that he paced the person calling him on his antics on ignore ... because he is a victim?

And yes, when one looks at actual history, it was very much Christian groups who made the difference.

But why let facts interrupt a perfectly good bash?

And therein lies the problem with atheists and their so called morality, nothing but bland double standards and tawdry accusations. Thankfully, its a type of morality mostly rejected in our society.

A reminder Nick, this thread was just fine until you repeatedly dumped and then failed to support a number of statements that were highly accusatory and derogatory.

I have never once put anyone on ignore, nor have I ever made a report to a mod in all my time here. However, I have come close to putting you on ignore in this thread a couple times due to IMO, very poor replies.

I don't feel like a victim and nothing you have ever said has been challenging, I just hate how you respond to a post without actually responding to the points brought up in said post. I could only guess Nickman feels much like I do.

It is pretty easy to see why I have him on ignore. I di this before I got in trouble. I like this website and enjoy being here.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

I speak only of those atheists who's political agenda includes a forced atheism, and compare THOSE to leaders who, historically, have political agendas that include forcing a specific religion on everybody.

If you are only speaking of atheists whose political agenda includes forced atheism, it might be a good idea to use more precise terminology than "atheist leaders." Perhaps "anti-religious leaders" or "anti-theist leaders" would more accurately communicate what you're trying to say?

Well, one cannot be anti-theist without being atheist. If one is a theist, all one can pull off is "anti-every OTHER theist."

By referring to 'atheist' leaders...by using that specific adjective...I am referring to the preferred state of the nation this leader wants.

If that is the case, then please use more accurate terminology. Every time you type "atheist leaders", please realize that this literally means "leaders who are atheists." If you are only referring to leaders who wish to eliminate theism, say "anti-theist leaders", not "atheist leaders."

My point is a counter argument against those who claim that religion is the cause of all that is evil in the world, and that religion has caused most of the wars, death and misery.

Has anyone in this thread actually made the claim that religion is the cause of all that is evil in the world? If not, by making a counter-argument against that position you are constructing a strawman argument.

Specifically, it is that atheism does not have a moral base. At all. Not good morals, not bad morals...just none. There is nothing in atheism that would prevent an anti-theist from doing whatever he wanted to do. There is no 'moral potential' in atheism, positive or negative. There is, however, a moral potential in theism, because in order to BE a theist, one must believe in a deity. Deities have rules. They may not be wonderful rules, or rules most of the rest of us see as good ones, but rules they will have. Atheism does not require that the atheist believe anything at all, or subscribe to any moral code.

This argument fails because theism is the same as atheism in this regard. Theism, like atheism, provides no moral guidelines in and of itself.

It's true; the VAST majority of atheists have moral codes, and most of those moral codes would be considered 'good by almost anybody looking.

However, unlike a theist....there is no requirement that an atheist have one. A moral code, that is. So when an atheist leader without such a code gets the power to enforce his preferred atheistic world view on his people, there is nothing in atheism to stop him.

Hence 'atheist,' not 'anti-theist."

However, you have a point, and in any other discussion I should use 'anti-theist." In THIS one, however....it's about whether atheists are intrinsically more likely to be 'moral' than are theists. See the problem?

No, I do not. Just like the atheist, there is no requirement for a theist to have any sort of moral code. Just like the atheist, when the theist gets the power to enforce his preferred theistic worldview on his people, there is nothing in theism to stop him.

[dianaiad]

No, I do not. Just like the atheist, there is no requirement for a theist to have any sort of moral code. Just like the atheist, when the theist gets the power to enforce his preferred theistic worldview on his people, there is nothing in theism to stop him.

Ah, but...and I addressed this very point...that's the thing. While it is true that atheism does not require the non-believer to have any sort of moral code, good or bad, theism most definitely does.

One cannot be a theist without believing in a deity. Belief in deities come with moral codes attached. They may not be "good" codes, or complicated ones, but moral/ethical codes there WILL be.

One can be a DEIST and not have one...and one can be an agnostic and not have one...but to be a straight out THEIST? Sorry, some moral/ethical code is in there, because having one (that is attached to a deity) is what makes one a theist in the first place.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

No, I do not. Just like the atheist, there is no requirement for a theist to have any sort of moral code. Just like the atheist, when the theist gets the power to enforce his preferred theistic worldview on his people, there is nothing in theism to stop him.

Ah, but...and I addressed this very point...that's the thing. While it is true that atheism does not require the non-believer to have any sort of moral code, good or bad, theism most definitely does.

One cannot be a theist without believing in a deity. Belief in deities come with moral codes attached. They may not be "good" codes, or complicated ones, but moral/ethical codes there WILL be.

One can be a DEIST and not have one...and one can be an agnostic and not have one...but to be a straight out THEIST? Sorry, some moral/ethical code is in there, because having one (that is attached to a deity) is what makes one a theist in the first place.

I gather that you are using "theist", then, in its narrower sense. This also creates problems for your terminology: why are you talking about "atheist leaders", when you believe deist leaders to suffer from the same disadvantages? Please stop saying "atheist leaders" when you are referring to "anti-theist leaders", or "atheist and deist leaders."

Still, I don't see that your point stands. Theism in and of itself provides no check on the actions of the individual, just like atheism. What if you believe in a god that wants you to destroy the human race? What if you believe in a god that wants to do all the same things that you want to do?

I would like you to address my point that "atheist leaders" literally means "leaders who are atheists." Would it not be to your advantage to avoid such misleading terminology?

[Artie]

My point is a counter argument against those who claim that religion is the cause of all that is evil in the world, and that religion has caused most of the wars, death and misery. Specifically, it is that atheism does not have a moral base. At all. Not good morals, not bad morals...just none. There is nothing in atheism that would prevent an anti-theist from doing whatever he wanted to do. There is no 'moral potential' in atheism, positive or negative. There is, however, a moral potential in theism, because in order to BE a theist, one must believe in a deity. Deities have rules. They may not be wonderful rules, or rules most of the rest of us see as good ones, but rules they will have. Atheism does not require that the atheist believe anything at all, or subscribe to any moral code.

True. Which is why evolution evolved justice systems to put immoral people in jail away from the rest of us, and why religions evolved to take evolutionary moral codes such as the Golden Rule and ascribe them to deities to put some authoritarian weight behind them so some people are more likely to live by them.

It's true; the VAST majority of atheists have moral codes, and most of those moral codes would be considered 'good by almost anybody looking.

However, unlike a theist....there is no requirement that an atheist have one. A moral code, that is. So when an atheist leader without such a code gets the power to enforce his preferred atheistic world view on his people, there is nothing in atheism to stop him.

Sure. And if a theist gets it into his head that the morals of his god demands that he slaughter his neighbors including infants and cattle there's nothing to stop him?