Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Are Atheists Morally Superior To Theists?

page: 5
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
I guess as an atheist it is just easier to rationalize good behavior. Sorry but logic can most certainly include emotions. I get hit, it hurts, i feel bad. That sucks, I conclude logically that getting hit is no fun so hitting others will make them hurt too.

I dunno, maybe you need to flesh out your point a little better.


Alright let me be more specific, and you could go back in the thread and see the example Astyanax put, because it had a lie in it.

- basically put someone in a situation where a lie will save someone. If you tell the truth about the predicament, you are setting someone else up for failure, worst case - death, and remember you do not want them to die, and you have a chance to save their life. In this scenario, if the lie is exposed, it could be the death of both of you, if it is not, you could save someone. - what do you choose? logic again will only weigh which one makes more sense, not which one feels correct, or which one will do the most good.

- it is irrational to contradict with what you believe - so if you believe the lie is wrong, you could not use logic to save the persons life.

Morals are iffy - What will do good, may be wrong, and what may be right can do against what seems good.




posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero


Originally posted by Astyanax
...the early development of morality has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

Are you sure? All this is learned in a non-religious based society?

Yes, I am sure. Is this your chicken-and-egg argument again? I accept it. Don't forget that the original chicken-and-egg recursion goes back to a time when there were no chickens; likewise, your morality-and-religion recursion goes back to a time when there were no people. Apes exhibit moral behaviour but they do not worship. Dogs feel guilt but do not confess.

And are you seriously asserting that people did not love, care for, protect and cooperate with one another before religion was invented? One should beware lest religiosity overwhelm one's humanity.


…it called the anal retentive stage. …no morals there.

I fear you are quite mistaken. There is no such thing as an 'anal retentive stage'. And - as anyone who has ever done it will assure you - toilet training is conducted in much the same way as other forms of moral instruction.


You ever hear of the killing field in Cambodia? In a very short time Pol Pot the leader of the Khmer Rouge regime decided his morals needed to be put into place and he had everyone with an education above a typical farmer... you need to focus on what a society does when all framework of religion is removed….not very pretty…

These kinds of religious apologia grow very tiresome because one has heard and dealt with them so often before. The Cambodians are and have always been a violent, priest-ridden people. They are mostly Theravada Buddhists - a church whose adherents seem to have an inordinate fondness for mass murder and running bloodily amok in mobs, as may be seen from the histories of Burma and Sri Lanka as well as that of Cambodia. If you want to focus on a society from which 'all the framework of religion' is removed (if such a thing were even possible) you would be better off looking at a place like Japan or Sweden.

Pardon me if I do not address the rest of your post; it seems to me to contain nothing that has not already been discussed in the thread already. I think angel of lightangelo has already disposed quite convincingly of the points you are trying to make.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by juveous
Morals are iffy - What will do good, may be wrong, and what may be right can do against what seems good.


Nah, not buying. Your entire premise relies on the idea that all lies are irrational and wrong thus complicating the situation. A rational person would easily just see the problem through to the end and make the choices that lead to the best possible outcome. Yes, they may choose to lie. I have a feeling we could keep going like this so I will just say I do not agree.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by juveous
Morals are iffy - What will do good, may be wrong, and what may be right can do against what seems good.


Nah, not buying. Your entire premise relies on the idea that all lies are irrational and wrong thus complicating the situation. A rational person would easily just see the problem through to the end and make the choices that lead to the best possible outcome. Yes, they may choose to lie. I have a feeling we could keep going like this so I will just say I do not agree.


All right, agree to disagree.

just saying its that we tend to look at situations to adjust what we think is right or wrong. Its taking the general to specific. I don't know if something is right or wrong until I am affected by the situation, if that is the case, why tell anyone what is right or wrong, they must rationalize it themselves.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous
just saying its that we tend to look at situations to adjust what we think is right or wrong. Its taking the general to specific. I don't know if something is right or wrong until I am affected by the situation, if that is the case, why tell anyone what is right or wrong, they must rationalize it themselves.


My mother burned herself on the stove. As a child, she warned me not to touch it so it will not happen to me. She learned a rationality from experience and then passed it on. Since humans live in societies, certain experiences happen, buildup, add to each other over time. Undoubtedly, I will burn myself so that when I hear that the stove burns, I know exactly what that means. Growing old enough to understand that it heats up and what that would mean helps too. See. Why is this not rational to you?

Maybe it is semantics that is standing between us. Perhaps you need to try a different word and see how that explanation goes. Maybe I need to, let me know.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


It depends on the individual Theist. If they fall victim to the Catholic Church's interpretation of the Bible rather than their own individual interpretation of the Bible then they will most likely hate homosexuals. This is most definitely a trait of an immoral human being, and I am glad you made this connection for us.

It also depends on the individual Atheist. Stalin was an atheist, but so was Benjamin Franklin.



posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 10:24 PM
link   
[edit on 16-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Growing old enough to understand that it heats up and what that would mean helps too. See. Why is this not rational to you?

Maybe it is semantics that is standing between us. Perhaps you need to try a different word and see how that explanation goes. Maybe I need to, let me know.


when you experience it, then you rationalize, if not, you are merely putting your faith in someone else's experience. Because no one in particular experiences the same, there is no one-size fits all to base what is right and what it wrong, rationalizing always goes, "experience it yourself, if you don't believe me".

when you listened to your mother, it was no different than when people trust in how God attends for them to act. your parents take care of you, you have bonded into a trusting relationship, even being obedient when you don't understand.

Isn't it strange how so many trust in things in the Bible, even when they don't fully understand them. maybe they feel comfort knowing that it will all be taken care of, given their faith, in this life, or the next.

calling them all God's children is a possible hint, unsure...

edit: don't get me wrong, we are going to figure things out, curiosity is in our nature, so we will undoubtedly experience and still rationalize into creating memories of rights and wrongs, but if you don't take the input of someone else's experience, you are on your own, knowing what is right and wrong for you - and those beliefs could be anything.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by juveous]



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 06:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by juveous
when you experience it, then you rationalize, if not, you are merely putting your faith in someone else's experience.


Belief can be rational.

I have never been shot to death. Is it not rational for me to fear being shot at?



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by juveous
when you experience it, then you rationalize, if not, you are merely putting your faith in someone else's experience.


Belief can be rational.

I have never been shot to death. Is it not rational for me to fear being shot at?




the same. You are relying on another's experience. until you witness aka experience the affects can you rationalize. If I have never seen a gun, nor seen it's affects it is completely rational to not be afraid of it, but I am assuming you have seen an action movie or 2 in your time.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by juveous
the same. You are relying on another's experience. until you witness aka experience the affects can you rationalize. If I have never seen a gun, nor seen it's affects it is completely rational to not be afraid of it, but I am assuming you have seen an action movie or 2 in your time.


Right, so I am rational to be afraid of being shot at

even though my only reference is from other people and faith?

I think you just told me I was right.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 07:44 AM
link   
Religion is immoral -

Q.E.D.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Right, so I am rational to be afraid of being shot at

even though my only reference is from other people and faith?

I think you just told me I was right.


lol no, it was not just belief, you experienced it. I just said, if you are unaware of the effects of a gun, the it is rational to not be afraid.

You said you could be afraid with only the belief in trust of someone else.

Don't mix them up, If you've seen the effects, then you have witnessed and have (partly) experienced the situation.

Now, could someone vividly describe in detail the affects of something I have never seen? could they implant these images of fear, so that I am aware of the situation without ever seeing it? can I rationalize off of this belief, of only a description? - I guess that depends on the individuals efforts of understanding...



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by juveous
lol no, it was not just belief, you experienced it. I just said, if you are unaware of the effects of a gun, the it is rational to not be afraid.

You said you could be afraid with only the belief in trust of someone else.

Don't mix them up, If you've seen the effects, then you have witnessed and have (partly) experienced the situation.


OK, I can deal with that. I cannot say you do not have a point.


Now, could someone vividly describe in detail the affects of something I have never seen? could they implant these images of fear, so that I am aware of the situation without ever seeing it? can I rationalize off of this belief, of only a description? - I guess that depends on the individuals efforts of understanding...


See, it gets all blurry again. Given the above logic, a blind person can never be rational since they will never see the effects of anything. I know that is myopic but where do we draw these lines of perception? Do you not see some gray area between my seeing a bullet do damage and someone explaining it to me in such a way as to make so much sense that it is just rational to take their word?



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 08:25 AM
link   
Atheists are not morally superior to Theists and vice-versa. There are more
Theists then Atheists so it is easier to look around and see more problems
caused by believers. Atheists have their share of immoral people just as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and etc.

Your morals are set by the place you come from, your experiences, and what you are taught. You could come from a broken home and learned from those experiences to better yourself as a human being. You could come from a religious home and be a hate monger.

This question is virtually impossible to answer.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Equinox99
Atheists are not morally superior to Theists and vice-versa. There are more
Theists then Atheists so it is easier to look around and see more problems
caused by believers. Atheists have their share of immoral people just as Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and etc.


I totally agree. All you have to do is look up all the atheist crimes, atheist murders, atheist terrorist attacks, atheist oppressions of entire peoples, atheist genocide, atheist suicide cults, atheist sacrifices, atheist inquisitions, atheist witch trials, atheist organization mass molestation charges.

It is all right there in black and white for y'all.

Now days are fun



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by juveous
lol no, it was not just belief, you experienced it. I just said, if you are unaware of the effects of a gun, the it is rational to not be afraid.

You said you could be afraid with only the belief in trust of someone else.

Don't mix them up, If you've seen the effects, then you have witnessed and have (partly) experienced the situation.


OK, I can deal with that. I cannot say you do not have a point.


Now, could someone vividly describe in detail the affects of something I have never seen? could they implant these images of fear, so that I am aware of the situation without ever seeing it? can I rationalize off of this belief, of only a description? - I guess that depends on the individuals efforts of understanding...


See, it gets all blurry again. Given the above logic, a blind person can never be rational since they will never see the effects of anything. I know that is myopic but where do we draw these lines of perception? Do you not see some gray area between my seeing a bullet do damage and someone explaining it to me in such a way as to make so much sense that it is just rational to take their word?


of course I see the gray area, and I can't predict outcomes, nothing is as it seems sometimes. I am not going to go throw around titles and associate circumstances given per title, we are all human. I am only curious of what one another use as their moral compass. yes, we can rationalize in our experiences or put faith in others, but I am looking for what convinces one to believe they are wrong - I guess education could be the key, but using statistics and analysis only account for a probability, and doesn't really apply to every individual.

To me it just seems the ones with better persuasive abilities, could change a person's desires, spreading corruption a little easier, vice those who wish to follow a direct set of morals that, for the most part do not change. Progression comes from change, so I think change is necessary, but I think there are a few universals in morality, much like their are universal laws in the universe - the major difference, we don't know those universals, at least, it is hard to place a conviction on them, because we are only human, and we have been wrong many times.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
reply to post by juveous
 


But I made what I thought was a pretty solid case for how people decide to be right or wrong, bad or good. It seems really simple to me. Is it only deists that have this problem? Not to discount your beliefs but it certainly seems that if we can decide write and wrong without our imaginary friends to tell us, religion will lose it's last tenuous grip on relevance. That seems to be scary to people so they want it to be necessary since they could not get it to be true.

[edit on 17-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 04:18 PM
link   
The only being who could judge this topic is one that is not believed in by one of the parties and therefore this argument is null and void..



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo


But I made what I thought was a pretty solid case for how people decide to be right or wrong, bad or good. It seems really simple to me. Is it only deists that have this problem?


I didn't at one point ever commit to saying that a theist could not do the things an atheist does to understand right and wrong, I simply was saying theists have an understanding of universal morals, codes of conduct to fall back on when things are white, black or gray.


Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
The only being who could judge this topic is one that is not believed in by one of the parties and therefore this argument is null and void..


A discussion is a discussion, the audience is the judge, not me or you.



[edit on 17-12-2008 by juveous]






top topics



 
3
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join