It strikes me as obvious, and perhaps there is a string on this site that gets into the question, that when and if a given atheist's and a theist's morals were point for point equal, who has the high ground? It's my opinion that the atheist wins hands-down as he or she maintains a high standard of human morality without the fear of some invisible deity looking over everyone's shoulder with threats to behave in a moral fashion.
Speaking personally, I would put my moral standards side by side, point for point, tit for tat with any true believer. All the atheists I know personally have or place a high value on morality; in other words we do the proper thing or take the correct path because it is the proper thing to do in a human context and do so without the fear of some invisible big guy in the sky keeping score and receiving retribution at some future date before some stupid gate into paradise.
Ken i agree with you.
Ever heard the argument that atheists don't believe because they don't want to have to follow the rules and want to sin freely?
The other side of that is are you telling me if it wasn't for god that you rob, rape, and kill? The only thing stopping you is you would go to hell? Where is the moral ground in that?
If we don't sin, Jesus died for nothing
That's rich in irony, a myth dying for nothing; is that possible?
On the same plane I'm reminded of another question from somewhere years ago; If one microwaves instant coffee will it cause a rip in the space-time continuum?
Could a faith healer resurrect jesus?
Since Atheism as such has never written down what is moral, then realistically the theist has the higher ground IF it was possible to compare the theists written moral code to the moving target provided by the atheist.
This is why I wrote my Moral 21 Code. So I can compare it to the theists and show its superiority.
"Moral 21", WTF is that? Refer to the above and the cover-up and allowed continuance of those "holy" pedophiles getting away with their immorality and crimes with the connivance and apparent approval from the tom down, no not the Pope, the next "higher" step up, the invisible doG man himself.
If the great, invisible "He" is all that theists, especially the original Christians the Catholics, claim He is, i.e. omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent, would He not be the most accomplished voyeur in the cosmos, and if that's so He is guilty of criminal conspiracy and should be in that other place in which you clearly believe, hell.
Still, they have and do write down their moral judgements, right or wrong. You will not. You are a wisp in the air, there is nothing to point out that is immoral or moral about you when you have no concrete rules. That is why the theist, if all else is equal, has the high ground. The theist will stand by something "set in stone" that you can criticize. What can the theist say about your morals, it is like talking to the wind.
And as for the Pope and other theists please see Code 11.
"They" wrote them down; right, in a book of fairy tales and fantasy for adults. I "will not" write my morals down? Wow, doing the right think is easy, always take the part of doing no harm to others in any fashion for any reason, in any circumstance is all it takes. It isn't necessary to write more than that. Having the moral thing to do in a 21st century setting as determined and codified in a Bronze Age and Iron Age-written document hardly serves as a guide, and moreover the dietary strictures from those days are meaningless today.
The theist can never hold the high ground because he or she is always checking in with their invisible friend and checking their operator's manual as reference. Our moral decisions are easy.
To have a theist claiming we atheist "talk to the wind" when you theist talk to the bloody empty sky as commanded by a nefarious volume of weird commands is ludicrous in the extreme. As for Herr Benedict, I thought it was a hoot for someone who had chosen that name for themselves to be in the US or anywhere talking about sexual abuse of altar boys and others in their charge; bent-a-dick indeed! Too fully. Theism, the ultimate fantasy trip.
So, my Uncle Wally Garst (KIA Vietnam), my Uncle Pick Williams (WWII Combat Vet with medals), my brother Gene, (Vietnam Combat Vet), and myself (Cold War Combat Vet) are all immoral for killing people to help preserve your freedom.
This country, sir, is based on freedom for all, so I do not begrudge you your freedom to feel the way you do, but I also believe I have the right to my beliefs. And I think you are a slimy little fool.
And what makes you think I'm a theist?
I never knew your family and would never make a judgement about their morals in any case. I,too, an a veteran, 7-years, US Army Security Agency, '65 - '72 who was up close and personal with America's enemies in SIGINT, ELINT, HUMINT and electronic security counter measures on four continents. I also worked as a physical oceanographer on the SOSUS network about which Tom Clancy wrote in The Hunt For Red October. I have been under hostile fire, but the only military disability I suffered was a severe loss of hearing acuity for which I receive a small check every month from the VA, as well as all my medical services and medications. As if any of that is any business of yours.
I took and oath to uphold and protect the nation and the US Constitution and above all I support the First Amendment. Ergo, I do not begrudge anyone their freedom and to quote Francois-Marie Arouet, "I may not agree with what you say but will defend to the death your right to say it". So, you have no grounds to lecture me on the freedoms assured by our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. You do indeed have the right to your opinion, and nowhere in this exchange will you find me declaring otherwise.
"Slimy little fool" or not as you claim; however, you know me not and I'm neither slimy nor a fool.
Why do I suppose you are a theist? You demonstrate all the attributes thereof, and from the evidence I would also suspect you of being another Tea Party toot-head. Be that as it may, you, as well, as every other American, have the right to be and act stupid and the Tea-stained people take it to the ultimate limit.
This was posed as a simple question and you chose to make it something else far away from its original intent. As with the editorials I write all the time, that are decidedly from a liberal and atheist position, the respondents choose to attack me personally rather then argue about the points raised in my letters to the editor of our local Red-state Texas rag.
Obviously we atheists think we have superior morals, despite not having to share any particular one with each other. Likewise, theists undoubtedly think their morals are superior.
They do indeed, they do indeed and come off looking like "a slimy fool" in the process. ;-)
And you don't? You don't seem very open minded. And since you have everything figured out I have a question for you.
If we atheists don't have a written moral code, handed down to us from a "higher power" how should we go about figuring out what is moral and what is not. And since what we have no gold standard by which we can measure how great we are morally, how then can we even speculate that we are moral?
Just some thoughts I have been having lately. I thought that since you DON'T look like a "slimy fool" in the process of you trying to prove your moral superiority to Theists, you might have some great answers.