I think atheists definitely have a better understanding of morality. We act morally because it's the right thing to do, not out of fear that some God will punish us if we don't.

(April 1, 2012 at 9:31 am)Phil Wrote:

(April 1, 2012 at 9:26 am)Gooders1002 Wrote:

(April 1, 2012 at 9:08 am)Phil Wrote:

(April 1, 2012 at 7:50 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: we are better then the religious and we have God.

We have god???????????????

sorry typo We don't have God. Somebody fix that please.

---

there fixed it.

But your quote is there and going to remain forever. How much you gonna pay me not to put it in a large red scrolling marquee and then promote it on Google and Yahoo and possibly a shout on Facebook?

This is reason #1 in the top 10 list of advantages of being a deist over an atheist. We CAN reject Christianity and Islam in the name of God.

(April 2, 2012 at 3:09 pm)Matt231 Wrote: I think atheists definitely have a better understanding of morality. We act morally because it's the right thing to do, not out of fear that some God will punish us if we don't.

What's worse is the theists who claim that they'd be out living a life of crime if not for their belief in god.

(April 2, 2012 at 3:26 pm)tobie Wrote:

(April 2, 2012 at 3:09 pm)Matt231 Wrote: I think atheists definitely have a better understanding of morality. We act morally because it's the right thing to do, not out of fear that some God will punish us if we don't.

What's worse is the theists who claim that they'd be out living a life of crime if not for their belief in god.

The vast majority of atheists I know were former believers. Ask for a show of hands as to who's an ex-Christian and nearly every hand goes up at my local atheist meetup.

Ask how many of them went on a crime spree after losing their faith and you'll only get laughter.

(April 2, 2012 at 3:26 pm)tobie Wrote:

(April 2, 2012 at 3:09 pm)Matt231 Wrote: I think atheists definitely have a better understanding of morality. We act morally because it's the right thing to do, not out of fear that some God will punish us if we don't.

What's worse is the theists who claim that they'd be out living a life of crime if not for their belief in god.

They really are laying their moral cards on the table, aren't they? I agree with the point that fundie Christians who act out of fear of God really are just doing the coerced thing, not the right or moral thing. Beyond that I'm not interested to hear most of what Penn has to say. His philosophy, like his rhetoric, are from the blow hard school.

I'm not being sarcastic or anything, but how is it possible to claim the 'high moral ground' while asserting that morality is just a set of arbitrary conventions for behavior?

(April 2, 2012 at 5:11 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I'm not being sarcastic or anything, but how is it possible to claim the 'high moral ground' while asserting that morality is just a set of arbitrary conventions for behavior?

It all depends on why you have those morals. If you do something because you think it is right, you would probably claim the "high ground" over someone who does something because they want to get into heaven ( or various other reasons)

However, this doesn't work in practice as there are no truly selfless actions, so the whole thing is moot.

1) Compelling someone to be "selfless" in order to avoid the pains of hell and win the joys of heaven is in no way compelling someone to be selfless! It is the pinnacle of selfishness!

2) It is a brand of moral absolutism that contradicts just about every natural impulse of humanity! Not to mention the tiresome argument that whatever god commands is in-itself "good" simply because god commanded it!

3) Divine command rests heavily on the fact that actions are good in an absolute sense but not in a self-evident sense. It appears to me that an action that was dictated by god would be self-evidently good (i.e. a reward in itself) and that this would make the idea of heaven or hell superfluous. Those who were virtuous would be happy and those who were wicked would be unhappy. I have to thank Aristotle for this argument.

(April 2, 2012 at 5:11 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I'm not being sarcastic or anything, but how is it possible to claim the 'high moral ground' while asserting that morality is just a set of arbitrary conventions for behavior?

That's a good point. I wouldn't say that atheists are more moral nor more immoral than religious people. It is all relative. I think a moral philosophy is good to loosely hold on to but it definitely does not have to be connected to God or Jesus or even Buddha. Yet atheists may become clueless when put into an ambiguous position. If a born atheist has NEVER recieved any kind of ethical guidance, or moral role model in the family, and any sense of responsibilty (to the extreme) than the possibility of moral decadence is greatly enhanced. I think any one of us who lives in a city, esp. larger city, can agree that there is a whole population of human waste roaming around the streets, sucking up welfare while smoking meth in the alley ways.

Is this atheism's fault? NO, of course not, it is actually more of Christianity's fault, but what other help is out there to bring youth to the "moral high ground". It is NOT television or the media, it is NOT the church, it is not their deadbeat parents, it is not the government, it is not technology, it is not their friends, it is not presciption drugs, it is not atheist forums, but then what is it? Their own dumbed down, culturally conditioned intellects? I think not. America is headed toward the garbage dump within a generation or two.

How arrogant it is to say that atheists take the moral high ground over religious people. That is not always true, only sometimes.

(April 2, 2012 at 5:11 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I'm not being sarcastic or anything, but how is it possible to claim the 'high moral ground' while asserting that morality is just a set of arbitrary conventions for behavior?

Valid question.

I, for one, believe in a moral theory more based upon rights and freedom as opposed to "moral principles". There are some nearly universal precepts that inform human conduct but have individual cultural manifestations as they are put into practice. The foremost of which is that "people should be treated as ends in themselves", as in, a person should never be used to achieve another persons end. Actions are generally acceptable if they do not harm others and are the freely chosen actions of those capable of making such decisions. Homosexuality for instance if it is a consensual action between adults performed in the privacy of their own home harms no one and therefore people have a right to do. Humans, and animals in my case (that is perhaps an argument for another time), have certain rights applicable to them on the basis of them having sentience, that is a nervous system capable of supporting consciousness and the ability to suffer in some meaningful way. Suffering is self-evidently bad and therefore each human, by the requirements above, has the right not to have suffering inflicted upon them. Conversely a person has the right to pursue their own happiness provided it does not cause another person to suffer, provided that person has not violated the rights of another person. The last category relates to those things that promote the overall functioning of society by increasing happiness and reducing suffering on a societal and cultural level. That is my view in a nutshell for the rational basis of ethics.

Once again, this system requires one to care more about humans themselves than adhering to principles from a book on threat of heaven and promis of hell.