"Is atheistic morality superior to theistic or religious morality?"

Morality is the ability to differentiate between right and and wrong behaviours. I wonder if you could explain to me how a completely unevidenced belief in a deity enhances this innate ability in animals that have evolved to live in societal groups? All of whom display this ability, as it is a necessary prerequisite of all societal animals.

@Ricardo: There is no such thing as "atheist" morality? Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Atheism does not lead anyone to morality. A better question might be "On what do atheists base their sense of morality."

I have several sources. My parents, the culture around me, my ethics as a psychotherapist and university professor. My acceptance of personal responsibility for my own actions which came from my readings of existential philosophies, my understanding of life worlds, and numerous counseling techniques.

Some atheists are also "Secular Humanists." Secular humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion or belief in a deity. ... Many secular humanists derive their moral codes from a philosophy of utilitarianism, ethical naturalism, or evolutionary ethics, and some advocate a science of morality.

Further, morality based on commandments from god or Gods are not moral. Think about it. God makes moral dictates. Does he make them because they are moral or are they moral because he makes them? Arguing the God of the Bible is moral is a completely indefensible condition. God butchers 25,000,000 people in the bible.

God and the Bible make moral dictates. Do this and you will go to heaven. Do that and you will burn in hell. Imagine a father telling his son, "If you do not hit your brother today, I will give you a cookie." The son does not hit the brother and at the end of the day, dad gives the son a cookie.

Has the son behaved morally? Absolutely not. It was greed and desire for the cookie that motivated his behavior. Can you not see the kid learning to bargain from this system of morality? "What will you give me if I don't beat the hell out of you?"

Imagine the same boy being told "If you hit your brother I will whip you with the belt when I get home." The boy does not hit his brother and so he is not whipped with the belt. Has the boy acted morally?

The boy has not acted morally. The boy has acted out of self preservation. (Pascal's Wager). The father has only taught the boy the use of force and power; how to use fear to intimidate others and control their behavior.

Morality can not be learned in a system of reward and punishment from an external dictate. Morality is an internal sense of justified thinking and actions. It is based on care and empathy for our fellow human beings. People were moral before the bible and the Christian God were invented. People who never heard of the Bible or the Christian God are also moral. Morality is, in no way at all, connected to moral dictates.

@Ricardo: Is atheistic morality superior to theistic or religious morality?

If you're talking about the religious morality expressed in the Bible, then just about anything is superior. Look at the story of Lot, or the atrocities inflicted on the Midianites. Fortunately most Christians don't follow the teachings of the Bible. Instead they get their morality from the same places that atheists get it--our innate instincts as social primates, and a sense of empathy refined through our experience of growing up in families, and our experience in society.

If Christians really believed in the Bible, the Geneva Conventions would simply mandate that invading armies kill all men, boys, and grown women and keep preteen girls as sex slaves (Numbers 31).

RE: **Is atheistic morality superior to theistic or religious morality?
____________________________________________________

Response:
**The problem is "BELIEF" being required to ever "BELIEVE" any so-called evil (ie. "morally wrong) is so-called good (ie. morally right).*

derived thus:

It is a presumptuous question re: "morality".

Recall LORI: Law of Relative Inference - can not infer an unknown from/by an unknown.
Try: "Morality" as defined by who and/or what? Themselves? Their own "belief"? In relation to others?
Test: begs better question which removes 'morality' as a hinge point of comparison.
What is the defining characteristic(s) of atheism?
Known: Lack of "BELIEF" in a god/deity.

Try:
Is the atheistic lack of "belief" in a god/deity superior to theistic or religious so-called "morality" as derived from there *being* a belief in a god/deity?

Test:
Are there any benefit(s) and/or drawback(s) to "belief" as compared to a lack thereof?
Is it possible to "believe" something that is false? (yes)
Is it possible to "know" *not* to believe? (yes)
Would "knowing" any/all *not* to believe constitute as "knowledge"? (yes)
Would any all-knowing god(s) and/or deity(s) know any/all of what *not* to "believe"? (must certainly)
How does a "believing" theist "know" their "belief"-based god is actually all-knowing? (either do, or do not, else is belief)
Would any/all all-knowing god "know" that so-called satan *requires* "belief"-in-and-of-itself would that "believers" "believe" that evil is good? (this question collapses "belief"-based theology entirely)
...to believe so-called satan is so-called god? (this question collapses "belief"-based theology entirely)
...to believe "BELIEF"-IN-AND-OF-ITSELF is a VIRTUE? (this question collapses "belief" entirely)

The problem is "BELIEF"-in-and-of-itself.

Some fruit:
The "belief"-based theological absurdity: this is the first warning of the book of Genesis - to *not* eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thus to "BELIEVE" to "KNOW" it. The "BELIEVERS" are necessarily ignorant of this warning, and so they eat accordingly. If there is an all-knowing god(s) and/or deities, they certainly do not each from this tree, because they are *necessarily* all-knowing of good and evil (according to the text) thus know not to eat, thus never confusing them. Without a need for "belief", it can be known *not* to "believe". This is a knowledge-in-and-of-itself which defines the primordial dichotomous dipole of knowing-*not*-to-believe/belief(-based ignorance).

Challenges present-day philosophy:

"All knowing is belief, but not all belief is knowing."

as ABSOLUTELY ABSURD!

Try again:
Is the atheistic lack of "belief" in a god/deity superior to theistic or religious so-called "morality" as derived from there *being* a belief in a god/deity?

Truth:
Yes. Conscious justification:

1. It takes "BELIEF"-in-and-of-itself to ever "BELIEVE" evil is good (if they exist - not necessary to define).
2. Any/all "BELIEF(S)" can be certainly false (ie. a belief is defined by any degree(s) of uncertainty).
3. Atheism *rejects* "BELIEF" as a viable basis upon which to construct a 'state': individual and/or otherwise, thus is certainly less prone to the "BELIEF" problem. However, atheism is not without "ideology" that renders it as potentially as problematic as any/all theism, and thus should collapse/reform under an ideology-*less* 'state' that advances a model which serves to try/test/falsify and/all "BELIEF"-based assertions for potentially "unknown" ignorance(s) which lead to suffering/death. "Belief"-based religion(s) seem to be able to manufacture suffering/death, so atheism should be able to consciously justify just why that is, which it can, to no degree(s) of uncertainty.

Try:
"BELIEF"-in-and-of-itself is a problem, thus
"KNOWLEDGE"-in-and-of-itself is a solution.

against LORI: (impossible to infer an unknown from an unknown)

Test:
is it possible to infer any true solution to any problem
if the PROBLEM *itself* is UNKNOWN?

True:
It is impossible to infer a solution to a problem that is, itself, UNKNOWN.

Recommended:
Atheism knows "belief" is problematic, but knows not it is *the* problem-of-all-problems to which it must consciously justify itself as a solution for, which must begin with: KNOWING the PROBLEM itself.

The problem is: "BELIEF" is required to ever "BELIEVE" any evil (ie. "MORALLY WRONG/UNJUST) is good (ie. MORALLY RIGHT/JUST).

Which addresses:

RE: **Is atheistic morality superior to theistic or religious morality?

The problem is: "BELIEF" is required to ever "BELIEVE" any so-called evil (ie. "MORALLY WRONG/UNJUST) is so-called good (ie. MORALLY RIGHT/JUST).

**RE: yES YES, WE ALL HAVE IT BACKWARDS. TRUTH IS INSIDE. IF YOUR TRUTH IS TO KILL JEWS LIKE HITLER THEN BE TRUE TO YOUR TRUTH.
___

That was both Muhammad and Adolph Hitler: commit genocide against Jews.

That is a problem the LORI model acknowledges and addresses: "BELIEF" that the Jews are a/the problem.

This is not true. It has nothing to do with Jews/Christians/Muslims etc. because any/all have a common root: BELIEF.

Genocide is not a solution, it is a problem.
Belief is not a solution, it is a problem.

See the relationship? Or deny it, as a "believer" would deny the reality.
______________________________________

**RE: Whatever you feel inside and experience in your internal reality is your truth. Don't judge others for expressing their truth. Embrace that pedophile rapist pope for his efforts in bringing his truth to us.

None of this involves your mind. Just go with feelings. You feel like robbing a bank. raping your sister. it's all good. Satanism 101/ Experience is all that matter. Increase your perception. These are not beliefs by the way. I have no beliefs. I want to make that perfectly clear.
___

What terrible advice.

i. Why would any embrace a pedophile rapist unless they worshiped Muhammad (while "believing" to not worship Muhammad)?
ii. Just go with feelings? They are the very things that may lead one to "believe" something(s) that is (are) not true, thus are associated with satan: the expression of being bound (to be angry, jealous, envious etc.) in an ongoing state.
iii. Enhancing ones perception is precisely what yoga is all about: enhancing perception to transcend ignorance.
______________________________________

**RE: Knowledge has replaced belief in my lie f because I know these things to be true. They are not belief. YOu are blind assholes for not agreeing with me and G'nostic. Change your ways. Repent. Give up belief. You know what is real inside yourself. Perception is everything. I have made no assertions. I have no belief. I am special and free from your delusional state of being. Don't believe me. I am not here to convince you. This is all absolutely true. Not Belief. Belief is the problem.
___

I don't want anyone "believing" me, or in me, or anything I say. Whatever is true is true, as has been, and will be, and always will be. If something I say is true, it will prove itself, and the same will be proof to those who, if/when they are ready to see for themselves, they will. Else: "belief"-based ignorance either way. If they believe me, that is ignorance. If they believe not, that is better: if true, it will prove itself to them, and they will remember me and say "he was right" but it means nothing. What matters is: what is true? Not who or where it comes from (ie. idol worship).

I can point to it: look there. But you look not there, you look at me, and focus on me, and only me, and attempting to attack, slander, undermine etc. when all I do is use your ignorance to make example.

The expression of being bound to MEN in an ongoing state. This is religion. You are very religious to focus on me, and not the hundreds of millions (including the Jews Hitler and Muhammad committed genocide against) dead due to "belief"-based theology/ideology.

And you attempted to slander me as psychologically unwell? See how projection works yet? Look in the mirror and understand your choice to focus on me, rather than the people who are dead and may die due to this religious "belief"-based BULLSHIT on the planet. You are just as much a part of the problem as any theist: focusing on men.

The same goes to any/all who do the same nonsense. Either grow up, or grow down "believing" you are growing up. Choice is yours to make, not mine.

It takes a "believer" to "believe" nothing into something. Yet they ask "how to have something come from nothing?" not knowing they do it everyday and this is what births each successive "universe": as defined by ignorance, rather than knowledge.