Are Atheists Morally Superior To Theists?

page: 6
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous
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.


OK but then what is the difference between falling back on religious dogma and simple learned traditions?




posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Originally posted by juveous
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.


OK but then what is the difference between falling back on religious dogma and simple learned traditions?

lol good question, and the answer can be there is no difference at all, but are you suggesting that the learned traditions have stayed the same? because they wouldn't be much of a tradition if they always changed, unless that of course is the tradition: constantly change.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous
lol good question, and the answer can be there is no difference at all, but are you suggesting that the learned traditions have stayed the same?


Yes, why not? Are you suggesting religion has stayed the same?


because they wouldn't be much of a tradition if they always changed, unless that of course is the tradition: constantly change.


Shellfish still an abomination?

If I come over, you will hand over your virginal daughter for my pleasure as I am your guest right?

You do not cut your hair or shave do you?

How about your clothes? Any made from more than one type of fabric?

You have killed anyone and everyone that has ever suggested you should not worship that god right?

Please, tell me all about how my traditions have changed but religion has been so constant in it's moral teachings.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo


Shellfish still an abomination?

If I come over, you will hand over your virginal daughter for my pleasure as I am your guest right?

You do not cut your hair or shave do you?

How about your clothes? Any made from more than one type of fabric?

You have killed anyone and everyone that has ever suggested you should not worship that god right?

Please, tell me all about how my traditions have changed but religion has been so constant in it's moral teachings.


this only is telling me the church has changed, and the traditions with it. The teachings have not changed, If anything translated. There are many beliefs out there, and some I do not agree with some I do. Religion is hard to define.



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous
this only is telling me the church has changed, and the traditions with it. The teachings have not changed, If anything translated. There are many beliefs out there, and some I do not agree with some I do. Religion is hard to define.




Ummmm.... no. That is from the bible. The book it is all based on to begin with. Has that religion changed what is right and wrong or not? The bible clearly states these things are wrong. It never ever clearly states they are now ok. They are not sins anymore though are they?



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 06:20 PM
link   

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]

And yet without a reason for a true outcome why have the discussion?



posted on Dec, 17 2008 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by GrndLkNatv
And yet without a reason for a true outcome why have the discussion?


Let me be the first to appologize for having our conversation somehow invade, against your will, your life or time or whatever is being damaged by our discussing this. I will do my best to make sure that from now on, the conversation stays on some website forum. That way, if you do not care for it, you will not be forced to read it and comment on how pointless it is. Please forgive me.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
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


Communism which is atheist based pretty much covers all the above, and is far in the lead with the most crimes against humanity.

How does one define an atheist, and one who might not proclaim they are an atheist, but has an absence of religious motivation, whose belief in gods does not motivate moral action, religious action, or any other form of action?



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 03:41 AM
link   
I don't believe morality is a theist or non-theist thing. One can have standards or morals based on any ideology, religious or not. History is filled with good people of both persuasions. Unfortunately, history is also filled with much evil from both. The Crusades or slaughter of the Cathars are two excellent examples of religion creating great evil. Josef Stalin can highlight the evil of an atheist. Ultimately, any ideology can breed fanaticism and horror. You can still see it in secularist North Korea or in those crazy, gun-totting, white supremacist Christians who are prepping for the "race war". While I am apologetic for the existence of a God, I am often saddened by how twisted certain theist groups, mostly fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, or Jewish groups for example, can be in their ideology of hate and intolerance of others. It's even here on this forum.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 03:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo

Ummmm.... no. That is from the bible. The book it is all based on to begin with. Has that religion changed what is right and wrong or not? The bible clearly states these things are wrong. It never ever clearly states they are now ok. They are not sins anymore though are they?


You are concerned if the book has changed what is right or wrong, and it hasn't. considering you are referring to the Pentateuch and the old testament. Things can get confusing I know, look up Exodus 34:27, to see why Jews don't eat shellfish and christians do. then look up Romans 15:4 to see how the mosaic law is followed as an admonition.

The Bible isn't clear on many things, can you imagine if it was 4000 pages long with great detail? its too bad, I think our literacy would have been better. but about the traditions, only in that specific time span 2000+ years ago was there a change in traditions, at least with this bible.

I'm not going to get into the discussion about the many other theistic beliefs out there, that have changed or not, some probably have, some probably change every 30 years, some probably have a new book with new authors every century, I'm not a theologian I don't know.

edit: now IMHO the progressive society aka "learned traditions" will always adjust what is right or wrong over time, and I think it will come down to who has the ability to persuade value, the ones that do not want to be convinced wrong - so society will adjust value for their account. It might be hard to see if that is even in a bad thing, It might be absolutely great for that society, and they might look back and say how ridiculous everyone was before....(kind of how things have changed in America regarding race) or they ask, what will things look like if this continues...and this goes back to what I mentioned before about how "facts" can create "values", and then those who make the facts will make the values - also via persuasion. I don't know, I just see things as possibly worse than better as a whole.



[edit on 18-12-2008 by juveous]

[edit on 18-12-2008 by juveous]



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by VicSage
I am often saddened by how twisted certain theist groups, mostly fundamentalist Christian, Muslim, or Jewish groups for example, can be in their ideology of hate and intolerance of others. It's even here on this forum.


There will be extremists in all categories. And I hate it too, but I mostly hate our "guilty by association". What ever category you are in, (even if you don't consider yourself a category, guess what someone does, and they will put you in it) there is an extremists in your category, and you are guilty by association, for possessing similar beliefs - that is absolute ignorance. That is how this hate erupts to begin with, we judge and judge and judge some more, And that is what I see on these forums alot.



posted on Dec, 18 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by juveous
You are concerned if the book has changed what is right or wrong, and it hasn't.


No. What I said was that the religion had changed what is a sin, not that the book changed anything. As far as the book, well that has changed everyt time a new king had it re-translated no?

considering you are referring to the Pentateuch and the old testament. Things can get confusing I know, look up Exodus 34:27, to see why Jews don't eat shellfish and christians do. then look up Romans 15:4 to see how the mosaic law is followed as an admonition.

I know why, because Christians made up their own meaning for "fulfill"
Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. Somehow Christians took that to mean that the old laws do not count anymore.


The Bible isn't clear on many things, can you imagine if it was 4000 pages long with great detail? its too bad, I think our literacy would have been better. but about the traditions, only in that specific time span 2000+ years ago was there a change in traditions, at least with this bible.

I'm not going to get into the discussion about the many other theistic beliefs out there, that have changed or not, some probably have, some probably change every 30 years, some probably have a new book with new authors every century, I'm not a theologian I don't know.


But you are the one that said the difference between traditions and religion is that traditions change and religion does not. Right?


edit: now IMHO the progressive society aka "learned traditions" will always adjust what is right or wrong over time, and I think it will come down to who has the ability to persuade value, the ones that do not want to be convinced wrong - so society will adjust value for their account. It might be hard to see if that is even in a bad thing, It might be absolutely great for that society, and they might look back and say how ridiculous everyone was before....(kind of how things have changed in America regarding race) or they ask, what will things look like if this continues...and this goes back to what I mentioned before about how "facts" can create "values", and then those who make the facts will make the values - also via persuasion. I don't know, I just see things as possibly worse than better as a whole.


I am not sure how any of that differentiates tradition from religion other than the purpose of the tradition.


[edit on 18-12-2008 by angel of lightangelo]



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 06:59 AM
link   
Originally posted by angel of lightangelo



No. What I said was that the religion had changed what is a sin, not that the book changed anything. As far as the book, well that has changed everyt time a new king had it re-translated no?


What? religion can do what ever it wants, , I'm not talkin bout that, the book says what it says, as far as re-translations that is an iffy subject, which is controversial and takes scholarly work, but is no different than understanding any ancient text that has been translated and re-translated, I am sure you have the same suspicion towards Sumerian, Egyptian, Mayan, and many other texts out there, no? - I am not denying the book couldn't have been altered through translation, but that is something that is still in the discovery and for another thread.



I know why, because Christians made up their own meaning for "fulfill"
Jesus said he came to fulfill the law. Somehow Christians took that to mean that the old laws do not count anymore.


we can turn this into a Jesus debate...but I don't want to, and it will derail the OP, likewise you put the title christians to oversimplify things as if they all believe the mosaic laws just don't count, it is not as simple as you put it.



But you are the one that said the difference between traditions and religion is that traditions change and religion does not. Right?


The teachings are consistent, and it is hard for people to not accept that theistic beliefs must be with religion. symbolism, rituals, miracles, worship, and sacrifice, sound like religion, but those commonalities can be semantically found on a secular scale without God. Now the biblical teachings didn't stay in similar fashion, as metaphors were much different two millennia ago, and will change with language.

what you are trying to differentiate is the difference between religion and traditions, and what I am telling you is the teachings from the text haven't always lined up the actions man has used them in...what is considered religion can change, but the teachings of the foundation, just do not add up with what that religion has done, the actions have contradicted the teachings many times. one can call that the fall of man, and the nature of sin and corruption as it is against what God attends, you can call it what ever you want - again, this does not account for other theistic beliefs


Let's skip all that and get to the jist of things...

I'll just put it this way

- using an outside source (theism) as an authoritive moral compass, attempts to conserve a way of conduct to proper living.

vice

- using an inside source that will adapt its conduct given the lesson in the situation of its environment for its survival.
( I have a link that is an example of this lesson if you want it)

on the macro scale both systems are objective guides.

If you don't like my outlook please provide your own.


this does not account the individual, but only the common social guidance. I'm not trying to define morality: I already mentioned on the first page that morality was psychologically subjective.
- which really means both systems are right and wrong, but the real question is why you would defend either one?

I am still curious why you believe that in the nurture of common behavior that, what you consider wrong today, will not be considered right tomorrow? Do you agree or disagree that the "wrong nows" can be "right laters"?

[edit on 19-12-2008 by juveous]

[edit on 19-12-2008 by juveous]



posted on Dec, 19 2008 @ 07:23 AM
link   
Sorry for jumping in without reading the thread fully, but I figured I'd reply to the OP, then get caught up


I can't see how anyone can be morally superior to anyone... Realistically, morals can vary wildly between each individual, and each will act according to his/her own morals. Just because someone's actions do not fit your own personal ideals of right and wrong, does not mean that they aren't acting in accordance to their own understanding of right/wrong.

However, there are some people who do act amorally... this means, that while they do have a sense of what is right and wrong, that they intentionally act against what they personally believe is "right". These people will do what they want when they want, and come from all theistic/non-theistic backgrounds... however they are the minority, and I dont' believe these individuals were what the OP was discussing...

With this being said, the only "superiority" claim atheists have is the fact that their morals aren't dictated to them by a third party. Each atheist is free to develop their own moral dictates according to what they believe is right/wrong. Being free of the "moral collective" to make your own decisions often leads to a deeper understanding of who you are, and why "x" is right or wrong...



[edit on 19-12-2008 by nj2day]



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:30 PM
link   
Well apparently Indiana believers think/feel you can't be good without god... so much so they have rejected an atheist group's right to promote themselves:




posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:33 PM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 



Holy Bump...





posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Are Atheists Morally Superior To Theists?


Is grouping all people that have one belief in common as 100% the same morally superior? Was Hitler morally superior for believing all people of Jewish heritage the same? Just asking.



posted on May, 9 2009 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


hmmm interesting proposition, let's see...
the ad campaign reads
YOU CAN BE GOOD WITHOUT GOD
(click to see bus ad)

For the believers to group anyone who doesn't believe in god as being bad and then deny them their right to freedom of speech, shows a somewhat similar parallel to your crude racist characterization. Therefore in this example one could conclude that theists have a moral deficiency/blind-spot.

[edit on 10-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
The only thing I have against the no-God hypothesis, is that it does not make rational sense and is not logical.



posted on May, 10 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
reply to post by Ferris.Bueller.II
 


hmmm interesting proposition, let's see...
the ad campaign reads
YOU CAN BE GOOD WITHOUT GOD
(click to see bus ad)

For the believers (All of them, right?) to group anyone who doesn't believe in god (All of them, right?) as being bad and then deny them their right to freedom of speech, shows a somewhat similar parallel to your crude racist characterization (When the shoe fits.). Therefore in this example one could conclude that theists (All of them, right?) have a moral deficiency/blind-spot.


I consider anyone who groups all people by single categories as not morally deficient, but more mentally deficient. This condition shows a real lack of understanding as to how complex a real person's beliefs and morality is, and how it shapes their personality.

[edit on 5/10/09 by Ferris.Bueller.II]





new topics
top topics
 
3
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join