Are atheists better people?

[KennyJC]

Israesl is bombing innocents for the same reason

I presume the logic is thus:

The people keep those who are in power in power, thus if you cause damage to the people then they will themselves damage the 'power' by withdrawing their support.

Does Hezbollah still have support of the lebonese people?

I don't claim Israel can hold their head up high, but I don't think you would see islamic jihad dropping leaflets to warn of a forecoming suicide bomb...

 

[S.A.M.]

They'd need the US and UN to sanction them first, so they could bomb with impunity.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

I don't claim Israel can hold their head up high, but I don't think you would see islamic jihad dropping leaflets to warn of a forecoming suicide bomb...

they don't warn at all do they, is no warning at all demonstrable of being 'better' in some way?

 

[perplexity]

They'd need the US and UN to sanction them first, so they could bomb with impunity.

they don't warn at all do they, is no warning at all demonstrable of being 'better' in some way?

This is terrible.

Somebody should start a dating service to introduce prospective bombers to appropriate victims.

--- Ron.

 

[Teg]

Yes

 

[Crunchy Cat]

1)Atheists are good without the 'fear' of God's wrath, so does that make them genuinely good as oppose to 'forced to be good'?

Considering that 'good' and 'evil' don't really objectively exist, I'll answer the question in a different way as it pertains to me. My behavior is not influenced by the threat of punishment from 'God'.

2) Are atheists less likely to be bound by 'law' and normal cultural conventions in the absence of their ability to be 'influenced' or 'controlled'?

Atheists can be influenced and controlled just like any human being. Their behavior in the context of law and culture will be affected by the same positive and negative reinforcers that affect everyone with the exception of imaginary divinity.

May they be thus more anti convention, rebellious ...anarchists?

If the atheist is from the U.S. then they are certainly more of a risk taker as there can be severely negative family / friend / community consequences for not sharing a 'belief' in a country dominated by 'belivers'.

3)Is the fact their moral code is self determined mean it is stronger and less likely to deviate than that of a theist who has been indoctrinated with fear based goodness?

I would presume the atheist can dynamically adapt their moral code whereas the theist has very little wiggle room.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

This is terrible.

Somebody should start a dating service to introduce prospective bombers to appropriate victims.

--- Ron.

Hey honey-buns, I'll be your BALALALA *KABLOOOIE!* tonight.

 

[(Q)]

I have been pondering this recently:

Note, although I believe in God, I have no religion, thus am not indoctrinated as such, so I follow my own personal moral code.

The definition of religion IS the belief in gods. And unless your parents were atheists themselves, most likely you have been indoctrinated. Could you validate your non-indoctrination?

In fact I am in many ways less flexible in my morals than the average religious. I don't for example consider it proper for children to be allowed to play in graveyards, yet I note that the congregation often allow their chidlren to do so.

But, you still possess many of the traits most theists demonstrate in regards to believing that which hasn't been shown to exist, in fact, more so with many of the psuedosciences you pursue.

Most religions seem to possess a fair amount of 'God fearing' which guides peoples actions (for the greater good generally) but I wonder how much genuine goodness is possessed or demosntrated by these individuals or how much is based on fearing the consequences if they did otherwise?

The concepts of good and evil were created by theists and have no meaning in the real world. These concepts, unfortunately, have pervaded our societies for generations and have become integrated such that society has now validated them as real concepts. However, since these concepts are not valid, they can be construed and manipulated such that ones good is anothers evil. They are therefore impossible to guage. The stories of Abraham and his son and the stories of Job and Noah are perfect examples of how good and evil are represented in this way.

I guess this could also apply generally to the law, ie. how many of us would steal if it was legal to do so.

That doesn't really make sense. Stealing would be doing harm to others, hence reprobate, legal or not.

Atheists
1)Atheists are good without the 'fear' of God's wrath, so does that make them genuinely good as oppose to 'forced to be good'?

Atheists understand that to do harm to others intentionally does not benefit anyone, which is the ultimate goal of humanity if it is to survive. If this concept was common amongst everyone, then the atheist would have no reason to 'turn the other cheek' or provide 'killing for defence' as part of their way of life. The atheist would simply live their lives prospering and growing along with everyone else.

2) Are atheists less likely to be bound by 'law' and normal cultural conventions in the absence of their ability to be 'influenced' or 'controlled'?
May they be thus more anti convention, rebellious ...anarchists?

Perhaps there would be no need for laws if everyone shared the concept of not doing harm to others intentionally. Unfortunately, we have the concepts of good and evil for which laws have become quite necessary.

3)Is the fact their moral code is self determined mean it is stronger and less likely to deviate than that of a theist who has been indoctrinated with fear based goodness?

Of course, that is self-evident.

Theists
4) Are theists as result of their early compliance with 'rules' more susceptible in general to other forms of law abiding or worse manipulation?

Both. Theists will validate their actions based on their doctrines, regardless of whether or not it does harm to others or benefits them. And since the theist is intolerant of those outside their belief system, they could care less of benefitting anyone but themselves.

 

[perplexity]

The definition of religion IS the belief in gods.

No it is not.

The definition of "Religion" includes "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Religion

Most people accept that Buddhism is a religion and treat it as such, but with no God involved, nor would the Buddhists that I have known be too impressed to be regarded as worse because of it.

--- Ron.

 

[Godless]

When will you fools realize that what makes you better person has little to do with whether you're atheists or not

I concur!

I don't judge a person by his/her's beliefs, outside of this forum that is!

I've got many friends, most R religiuos of one denomination or another, none are fanatics, and don't hold such a zeal for their "indoctrinated" beliefs. So the subject of me being an atheist hardly ever comes up.

A person is either a shithead or a cool person I don't think beliefs determine their true character. I've met some shity atheists even in these here boards.

Godless

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Considering that 'good' and 'evil' don't really objectively exist, I'll answer the question in a different way as it pertains to me. My behavior is not influenced by the threat of punishment from 'God'.



Atheists can be influenced and controlled just like any human being. Their behavior in the context of law and culture will be affected by the same positive and negative reinforcers that affect everyone with the exception of imaginary divinity.



If the atheist is from the U.S. then they are certainly more of a risk taker as there can be severely negative family / friend / community consequences for not sharing a 'belief' in a country dominated by 'belivers'.



I would presume the atheist can dynamically adapt their moral code whereas the theist has very little wiggle room.

thank you for answering the questions

 

[(Q)]

No it is not.

The definition of "Religion" includes "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Religion

I noticed you left out this, conveniently:

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

So, it appears your statement, "No it is not" has been refuted by your own source.

Most people accept that Buddhism is a religion and treat it as such, but with no God involved, nor would the Buddhists that I have known be too impressed to be regarded as worse because of it.

--- Ron.

"In both the Pali suttas and the Mahayana sutras, the Buddha does teach the existence of "gods" (devas). These are not, however, "God" but merely heavenly beings who temporarily dwell in celestial worlds of great happiness. Such beings are not eternal in that incarnational form and are subject to death and eventual rebirth into lower realms of existence.

While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe power for creation, salvation or judgment to them. Like humans, they are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events and so some Buddhist schools associate with them via ritual. All supernatural beings, as living entities, are a part of the six-part reincarnation cycle."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

Refuted, again.

 

[patty-rick]

I get the whole point ToR is getting at and i guess i agree, but isnt its possible that atheists arent good people, and that religious people would engage in the same acts of goodness whether they had religious pressure or not???

 

[geeser]

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” Steven Weinberg

 

[patty-rick]

*swish* nice quote

 

[perplexity]

“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” Steven Weinberg

William Ross Ashby long since gave the reason for this:

"A man can be a pure logician only if it makes him feel good."


--- Ron.

 

[perplexity]

I noticed you left out this, conveniently:

"Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe."

So, it appears your statement, "No it is not" has been refuted by your own source.

Yes, indeed, for is as long you conveniently forget the original contention it would indeed appear to be refuted, while as a matter of fact the source confirmed my objection:

The definition of "religion" evidently extends beyond the mere belief in gods.

"In both the Pali suttas and the Mahayana sutras, the Buddha does teach the existence of "gods" (devas). These are not, however, "God" but merely heavenly beings who temporarily dwell in celestial worlds of great happiness. Such beings are not eternal in that incarnational form and are subject to death and eventual rebirth into lower realms of existence.

While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (e.g., the devas, of which many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe power for creation, salvation or judgment to them. Like humans, they are regarded as having the power to affect worldly events and so some Buddhist schools associate with them via ritual. All supernatural beings, as living entities, are a part of the six-part reincarnation cycle."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_in_Buddhism

Refuted, again.

Huh?

LOL

I wrote *with no God involved.*

You wrote *These are not, however, "God"*

"supernatural" is a red herring, (Q), a straw man, whatever you want it to mean. I am disappointed by the poor quality of your disingenuity.

Buddhism began as a deliberate antidote to theism, which was the subject of this thread. Buddhists regard it all as perfectly natural, albeit with some effort required to gain a full understanding, just as a scientist would.

Read the Dhammapada. The practice of Buddhism specifically requires to be better because of your own effort, your mindfulness, not because of the fear or the love a god.

--- Ron.

 

[(Q)]

Yes, indeed, for is as long you conveniently forget the original contention it would indeed appear to be refuted, while as a matter of fact the source confirmed my objection:

The definition of "religion" evidently extends beyond the mere belief in gods.

After going through a number of sources in which all define religion as the belief in the supernatural, some do offer additional definitions such as:

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

"supernatural" is a red herring, (Q), a straw man, whatever you want it to mean. I am disappointed by the poor quality of your disingenuity.

I am equally disappointed in yours if you think supernatural is a straw man.

Buddhism began as a deliberate antidote to theism, which was the subject of this thread. Buddhists regard it all as perfectly natural, albeit with some effort required to gain a full understanding, just as a scientist would.

Read the Dhammapada. The practice of Buddhism specifically requires to be better because of your own effort, your mindfulness, not because of the fear or the love a god.

There is still belief in the supernatural and reincarnation, which is myth and superstition. Why would Buddhism require such concepts?

 

[c7ityi_]

maybe atheists are gods.

 

[perplexity]

There is still belief in the supernatural and reincarnation, which is myth and superstition. Why would Buddhism require such concepts?

It doesn't, not necessarily.

While dedicated Buddhists do subscribe to particular disciplines (the guys in the orange robes) the essence of it is the way, the method to find out for yourself.

At the one extreme a good number of people who would call themselves Buddhist do not subscribe to the extra superstitions, as you call them, and at the other extreme there is Tibetan Buddhism, rampantly superstitious, and even such a thing as a monotheistic Buddhist, for Buddhism neither confirms nor contradicts theism. As with science it rather regards all that as hypothetical, superfluous to the actual practice which matters.

If you go to a Buddhist online forum it is quite amusing to see the various sects argue vehemently amongst themselves over matters such as who is the more tolerant of them.

--- Ron.