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]

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 see the misunderstanding. To have a moral code is to understand what morals are and how and why morals evolved and therefore live by them. Simply reading a book and following whatever the book says a god says is moral has nothing to do with morality. That is just simply pretending to be moral by following whatever your religious authority says is moral. Which is why religions evolved in the first place. A safety net to make people behave morally who are not naturally moral.

[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.

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."

I know of no political leaders who have wanted to force Deism as the national position on religious thought. Do you?

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?

Because in this case it's not misleading. The reasoning behind that is that THIS thread is about whether atheists (not anti-theists, but atheists) are potentially morally superior to theists.

The data shows us that theist leaders...who wish to establish one state religion and have the power to do so...may be nasty, but are not in any way as murderous in sheer body count as atheists who wish to establish "there is no God' as the official political stance of a nation, and have the power to do so.

The body counts are incontrovertible.

Since my point is that atheism has no moral code that would prevent a leader from killing everybody off, my position is that no, atheists (as a whole) are not potentially morally superior to theists," because there is nothing in atheism to stop a democidal leader from killing off 3 to 5% of his population if he wants to do so.

Whereas, the thing that makes one a theist IS the belief in one or more gods, and all such beliefs come with moral codes. Therefore there is something in theism that MIGHT mitigate against whole sale slaughter. At least, the theist leader has to get around the rules of the deity he claims to believe in, usually.....and usually has to temper his bloody mindedness at least a little bit.

An atheist can (and usually does) choose a positive (as most people would see it) ethical and moral code to live by; atheism certainly doesn't stop him. However,he isn't forced to do so.

A theist, however, is defined as a theist BECAUSE he has chosen a deity/deities....and every single one of those deity concepts comes with a moral code that must be dealt with.

Or...I'm a Mormon, and that's what makes me a theist. However, being an atheist is what makes someone an anti-theist, rather than an 'anti_everything but one theist belief."

That's why I put, for the purposes of this thread, 'atheist' as the adjective, rather than 'anti-theist,' or anything else.

[dianaiad]

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?

Yes. There is. the rules of the religion he claims will, in most cases, prevent that. There is a word for someone who has a completely unique relationship with a god that tells him to kill everyone...."insane."

For actual religions, though, the guy is dealing with the rules; changing them could be a problem for him. If HE doesn't pay attention to them, the folks that also believe in that God just might. He might not be prevented from killing a few, some...even a lot...but on the scale of Stalin or Mao--even proportionately to the population?

Well, that's never happened. Take from that what you will.

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

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."

I know of no political leaders who have wanted to force Deism as the national position on religious thought. Do you?

I don't see how that's relevant. If your point is that atheism has no moral code that would prevent an atheist leader from killing everyone off, it would seem misleading to not point out that deism also has no moral code that would prevent a deist leader from killing everyone off. Would you agree that according to your reasoning here we should view deism and atheism as equally dangerous?

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?

Because in this case it's not misleading. The reasoning behind that is that THIS thread is about whether atheists (not anti-theists, but atheists) are potentially morally superior to theists.

How is it not misleading? You didn't address my point. "Atheist leaders" literally means "leaders who are atheists." Why do you keep saying "atheist leaders" when you do not mean to refer to "leaders who are atheists", but "leaders who are atheists and also want to establish 'there is no God' as the official political stance of a nation, and have the power to do so"?

Since my point is that atheism has no moral code that would prevent a leader from killing everybody off, my position is that no, atheists (as a whole) are not potentially morally superior to theists," because there is nothing in atheism to stop a democidal leader from killing off 3 to 5% of his population if he wants to do so.

Whereas, the thing that makes one a theist IS the belief in one or more gods, and all such beliefs come with moral codes. Therefore there is something in theism that MIGHT mitigate against whole sale slaughter. At least, the theist leader has to get around the rules of the deity he claims to believe in, usually.....and usually has to temper his bloody mindedness at least a little bit.

Your point doesn't make sense. You clearly aren't claiming that theism itself has the power to do anything. You apparently admit that it is entirely possible for a theist to kill indiscriminately without any moral objections from their god(s). So why can you not recognize that it isn't "theism" itself that does anything? You aren't arguing that theism itself provides a moral framework, you are arguing that some theisms might provide a moral framework. When you talk about specific theisms, you're talking about religions, not theism itself. Your argument does not support that theism helps with anything, it supports that the specific religious beliefs of the theists might help prevent abuse (much like specific worldviews like secular humanism might help prevent abuse).

An atheist can (and usually does) choose a positive (as most people would see it) ethical and moral code to live by; atheism certainly doesn't stop him. However,he isn't forced to do so.

A theist, however, is defined as a theist BECAUSE he has chosen a deity/deities....and every single one of those deity concepts comes with a moral code that must be dealt with.

And we generally call these moral codes "religions", do we not?

[Nickman]

I don't know of any atheists that want religion to go away completely. There may be some but even from friends and people who I know who have huge hate for religion due their background, they still don't think it should be non-existent.

On the OP, this is a clip from the Morgan Spurlock produced show called 30 Days. In this episode he placed an atheist in a Christian home. She went to church with them and everything. On one night out of the whole 30 days, she went on meetup.com and had the couple meet with atheists. You can see the morality difference here.

[youtube][/youtube]

A couple key points from the clip.

1) The Christian male shows intolerance
2) The atheist makes a very good point about tolerance in reference to our dollar bill.
3) The Christian male is seething inside as seen by his expressions.

[Danmark]

I don't know of any atheists that want religion to go away completely. There may be some but even from friends and people who I know who have huge hate for religion due their background, they still don't think it should be non-existent.

On the OP, this is a clip from the Morgan Spurlock produced show called 30 Days. In this episode he placed an atheist in a Christian home. She went to church with them and everything. On one night out of the whole 30 days, she went on meetup.com and had the couple meet with atheists. You can see the morality difference here.

[youtube][/youtube]

A couple key points from the clip.

1) The Christian male shows intolerance
2) The atheist makes a very good point about tolerance in reference to our dollar bill.
3) The Christian male is seething inside as seen by his expressions.

I think a key issue will be the location of these kind of interviews, or polls or what have you. The more rural, Southern, Red State you go, the more likely atheists will get this kind of reaction.

I never run into this kind of thing. Partly it may be because I don't start conversations with, "Hi, I'm an atheist and I'd . . . ."

Frequently I will use any hint toward religion in the conversation to disclose my atheist leanings and I've never had a hostile reaction. The 'worst' I've ever received was 'Why?' or 'How?'

[Nickman]

@Danmark
I would agree that this not acrros the board. When I was raised in Tennessee it was. When I was stationed in NM it was a bit lighter. When I went to KOREA even more so, Italy more so still, and Okinawa it was nonexistent. Now that I am in Utah it is even worse than TN.

[dianaiad]

@Danmark
I would agree that this not acrros the board. When I was raised in Tennessee it was. When I was stationed in NM it was a bit lighter. When I went to KOREA even more so, Italy more so still, and Okinawa it was nonexistent. Now that I am in Utah it is even worse than TN.

With all due respect, Nickman...you are making what may very well be a false correlation. Are you getting this reaction because you are atheist...or because you are an ex-Mormon and rather aggressively so?

I spent quite a bit of time up thataway, y'know, and I don't remember that simple atheists got a whole lot of grief. It was only when they went gunning for the theists...especially the Mormons...that the walls went up. People tend not to be all that friendly to the contemptuous.

[Nickman]

@Danmark
I would agree that this not acrros the board. When I was raised in Tennessee it was. When I was stationed in NM it was a bit lighter. When I went to KOREA even more so, Italy more so still, and Okinawa it was nonexistent. Now that I am in Utah it is even worse than TN.

With all due respect, Nickman...you are making what may very well be a false correlation. Are you getting this reaction because you are atheist...or because you are an ex-Mormon and rather aggressively so?

I spent quite a bit of time up thataway, y'know, and I don't remember that simple atheists got a whole lot of grief. It was only when they went gunning for the theists...especially the Mormons...that the walls went up. People tend not to be all that friendly to the contemptuous.

How many atheists did you hang with D? Im sure that since you are mormon that you were not kickin it on the sinful trail with the atheists.

What I am claiming here is my own experience with such. I wasn't an atheist in TN but atheism was looked down on. I ended on Utah, where I live everyday now, and atheism is hated. We have had Christians look up our meetups online and go to our coffee and discussion meetings to tells us we are going to hell. I didn't say they were mormons now did I? You just flew off the cuff in offense and assumed I was speaking of mormons. Wow

[Nickman]

D, you seem to be making the stereotype that Utah only has mormons. Why so defensive?