Are Atheists Morally Superior To Theists?

Originally posted by Pericle
An atheist is a person who is one step closer to the real source of what we call God. You have to deny God before you can rediscover him/it/she.

This ussualy happens when previously you had some religious God then you became atheist.

That is true, you get to regain consciousness of him that way, maybe atheism is the best fase to regain consciousness of whom He truly is.

Logic leads to as many atrocities as any faith ever could, especially when you look at things like eugenics or seeing things in terms of economics and discounting peoples humanity. The only way to be morally superior is to have empathy it has nothing to do with your belief system, you have to understand others belief system. If you are empathic or even if you just follow the "golden rule" it is very hard not to be moral.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by miraclerock]

I THINK ATHIESTS ARE MORALLY STRONGER BECAUSE IF WE JUS DIED AN HAVNT LIVED A STRONG LIFE....WELL WHAT WAS THE POINT AN CAN ANY1 TELL ME HOW TO MAKE A SIGNITURE PLZ

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Welfhard
OK so lets just ignore it. Let's allow "human nature" to have it's beloved front for evil agendum, religion. I think it's something that we both can and should do something about on principle - not so much religion but dogma. Any thing that evil people can use, and tool, we should do what we can to remove from them, and as they have less and less to fool people with, they more we can unmask them.

You suggest I might be on your side......

The point is, even though religious dogma may not always be the source of violence, that doesn't justify letting it be.

reply to post by miraclerock


The golden rule has it's limits. To assume that other people want to be treated how I want is fairly selfcentered. What would a masochist do following the golden rule?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Russia outlawed religion and in a few years one man killed 40 million to keep fear as his motivator of control.

Not quite what i would call atheist. Stalin replaced religion with his own brand of hero worship... a communist cult. In 1931, he ordered that the largest Orthodox Christian cathedral in the world be leveled so he could build a temple to communism... the “Palace of the Soviets”... bigger than the Empire State Building, and capped with a gilded statue of Lenin taller than the Statue of Liberty.

The demolition of the cathedral was the first phase completed but the construction phase never broke ground... as necessary resources were diverted to WWII.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f835ab8395e.jpg[/atsimg]

As for Pol Pot & Mao Zedong, they both shared similar views to Stalin... under their direction people of any religion were killed/silence/converted... unless they worshipped them. These men were essentially gods, we refer to them as dictators with totalitarian rule, but in shorthand... they were gods. Atheists don't believe in god, nor believe that they are god, so therefore to claim these demi-gods and their flock are atheists, would be folly.

[edit on 13-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]

reply to post by The All Seeing I


What an awesome looking building, evil notwithstanding.

So these guys were more contemporary historical figures emulating the Xerxes persona?

reply to post by Welfhard


Interesting reflection, Stalin as a King Xerxes of Persia, thinking of himself as God and not human... i'd say that's an accurate depiction... and i think it's safe to say that Kim Jong Il & Kim Il Sung also fit this bill.

Note for following propaganda poster: white banner reads "We must make the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung revolutionary ideology our faith and make his instructions our creed"... anyone have a translation for the books?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/f3411a02fc35.jpg[/atsimg]

Former President Kim Il Sung is named the Eternal Sun. As the leader of North Korea from its founding in 1948 until his death, when he was succeeded by his son Kim Jong-il. He was also the General Secretary of the Workers Party of North Korea. He is designated in the constitution as the country's Eternal President. You can see his face everywhere in the country.

...

The main principles of North Korea's workers party:

1. We must give our all in the struggle to unify the entire society with the revolutionary ideology of the Great Leader Kim Il Sung.

2. We must honor the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung with all our loyalty.

3. We must make absolute the authority of the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung.

4. We must make the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung revolutionary ideology our faith and make his instructions our creed.

5. We must adhere strictly to the principle of unconditional obedience in carrying out the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung's instructions.

6. We must strengthen the entire partys ideology and willpower and revolutionary unity, centering on the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung.

7. We must learn from the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung and adopt the communist look, revolutionary work methods and people-oriented work style.

8. We must value the political life we were given by the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung, and loyally repay his great political trust and thoughtfulness with heightened political awareness and skill.

9. We must establish strong organizational regulations so that the entire party, nation and military move as one under the one and only leadership of the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung.

10.We must pass down the great achievement of the revolution by the Great Leader comrade Kim Il Sung from generation to generation, inheriting and completing it to the end.
North Korea

...

North Korea runs on its own calendar, based on the Juche. 2009 for example, in Juche years, is year 98! The Juche is the official state ideology of North Korea and the political system based on it. The doctrine is a component part of Kimilsungism, the North Korean term for Kim Il-sung's family regime. Juche literally means "main body" or "subject"; it has also been translated in North Korean sources as "independent stand" and the "spirit of self-reliance".

Sources: en.wikipedia.org... & www.flickr.com...


[edit on 15-5-2009 by The All Seeing I]

Originally posted by The All Seeing I

Are Atheists Morally Superior To Theists?

My personal opinion is that morals have nothing to do with theism or atheism.

I think morals and decency are ingrained into the human psyche and people just intrinsically "know" what is right and what is wrong.

Now obviously there are cases that are exceptions to the rule...is there are in just about everything in the universe, but generally speaking, i don't think that being religious or not being religious has any bearing on morals whatsoever.

reply to post by blupblup


That's because morals are a by product of an evolving socially dependant species. Moral codes make the individuals inclined to protect one another, the young and the sick/weak.

We know this because all species of animal with higher brain function exhibit what we can call morals. It's incredibly apparent in other great apes.

reply to post by Welfhard


A very revealing insight you touched on...

Monkeys have a sense of morality, say scientists

Monkeys and apes have a sense of morality and the rudimentary ability to tell right from wrong, according to new research.

In a series of studies scientists have found that monkeys and apes can make judgments about fairness, offer altruistic help and empathize when a fellow animal is ill or in difficulties. They even appear to have consciences and the ability to remember obligations.

The research implies that morality is not a uniquely human quality and suggests it arose through evolution.

reply to post by Welfhard




Oh yeah for sure.

And yet religion would have you believe that without god (or man's/religions interpretation of god), we cannot know the right way to behave and only by following this, that and the other....can we ever be moral or decent people...


makes ya laugh huh?

[edit on 17/5/09 by blupblup]

Originally posted by blupblup
reply to post by Welfhard

 

Oh yeah for sure.

And yet religion would have you believe that without god (or man's/religions interpretation of god), we cannot know the right way to behave and only by following this, that and the other....can we ever be moral or decent people...


makes ya laugh huh?

What makes me laugh is how little the religious will think this stuff through to a logical conclusion.

Originally posted by Welfhard

The point is, even though religious dogma may not always be the source of violence, that doesn't justify letting it be.

I think the violence is always there, it is what we are as humans and with or without religion it would still be there in force. To be an Atheists doesn't instill some kind or moral value, and being your one and only life why worry about morals and just get the most out of it?

reply to post by Xtrozero


Surprisingly, for most, getting the most out of one's one and only life tends to involve morality. Part of being human is having a ready formed moral complex, that when not followed will make an individual feel "bad" and to follow it makes the individual feel "good"; the conscience.

Ofcourse there are always those who are absent of a conscience.

Originally posted by Welfhard

Surprisingly, for most, getting the most out of one's one and only life tends to involve morality. Part of being human is having a ready formed moral complex, that when not followed will make an individual feel "bad" and to follow it makes the individual feel "good"; the conscience.

Ofcourse there are always those who are absent of a conscience.

I disagree to a point for children will push the morality limits and set their own limits based on those pushes. Children who grow up with zero restraints tend to have zero restraints in life, or until some life changing event affects them.

We don’t start with a moral foundation in the least, but I do agree with being happy or sad is a stimulus that affects us.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Yes it is true. Part of child development is how their sense of right and wrong matures. Children at impulsively and when they get told off, they remember it. Taking a cookie = bad. Sharing = good (reward imminent). But it's not until about the age of 7 the a child begins to understand 'why' certain things are good or bad and they start to consider perspectives other than their own.

But it's not all nurture, it never is. You see a very similar morality system in other animals. The general moral system that we have it the most common because it's probably the most successful.

Religion tends to jimmy with the system. For instance the "turn the other cheek" be-a-doormat philosophy of religion is quite a destructive one, not standing up to the unjust and putting them in their place doesn't help the greater good.

My personal experience of this was a friend who would be nice and smiley at all times. When I did things to annoy him or upset him, he didn't do anything about it and I never knew and our friendship suffered. It's like fear of criticizing - it's part of a balanced social system, be it between friends or a large group.

I would have to say neither are morally superior as saying something like this one way or the other would be making a generalization about two large groups of individuals. And generalizations with such things are almost always wrong.

reply to post by The All Seeing I


You're bending semantics here, quite dishonestly. They wished to be worshiped "as gods" they didn't believe they were gods and just because they wished to be worshipped "as gods" doesn't make them not atheists as they were because they did not believe in gods.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child."

Excerpt from the notebooks of Lazarus Long, from Robert Heinlein's Time Enough for Love

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
You're bending semantics here, quite dishonestly. They wished to be worshiped "as gods" they didn't believe they were gods and just because they wished to be worshipped "as gods" doesn't make them not atheists as they were because they did not believe in gods.

A bit presumptuous and misguided. Whether they believed they were gods or not... or were atheists or not... doesn't change the fact that their populous was governed by a political cult... where the leader is embraced as a messiah/god. No bending of semantics are required to come to these conclusions.