Are Atheists better people?

Comment by: TXatheist

Jim said”

Rick or any other atheist/free thinker etc etc could one of you take a crack at responding to TX claim that he

perceive us as the cream of the crop in humanity.

I don’t want to be the first to jump on that statement…

Maybe he is joking (which he should be)

I should be joking about atheist being more moral and such? I wasn’t.

#2

I find it hard to believe that there are no (0) atheists other atheists fin difficult,embarassing or irritating

Jim, it’s not that hard to believe to me. Irritating I could agree to though.

#3

Help me believe you’re human

Human or better behaved and intellectually honest are not one in the same.

Jim,
It wasn’t an attack on you but as Tom of Sacramento couldn’t understand I have yet to meet an atheist that is bad. Yes, I know more than 1:)

Comment by: TXatheist

Lisa,
I clearly said I’m not arrogant but proud of my fellow atheists. I ain’t backpeddling at all from that. As far as the delusion comment I’ll add you to the “not part of the cream of crop xian list”. I suggest you go to our discussion is Hemant getting soft concerning your person of reference and his perpetuating a fraud.

Comment by: Lisa W.

TX -
ok. This is what the dictionary says about delusion of grandeur:
delusion of gran·deur (grnjr, -jr)
n.

A delusion in which one believes oneself possessed of great importance, power, wealth, intellect, or ability.

I dont’ think it is a stretch to equate that definition with a comment like “I percieve us as cream of the crop in humanity”.
Hemant also agrees that it is not a good idea to position oneself this way. It is one thing to be proud of a group you belong to. It is different to espouse a certain superiority. It just rubs me the wrong way. I encourage you to take it to the discussion area if you like. Maybe others have more to say about your comment or Hemants. And perhaps a common ground can be found.

Comment by: TXatheist

Uh, are you frickin kiddin me? Do you even see the irony that xians in general find themselves as the moral elite? That the U of M study shows atheists the least trusted. To date, with the exception of the late Madalyn O’Hair and possibly Larry Darby who is a bad atheist? I’m asking again as I asked before. Tell me Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and the other leaders don’t perpetuate the idea that to be moral you must be xian. (Yes, I agree some xians will say they are sinners and need improvement but they say we all are sinners so they bring me DOWN to their level on morality). My point is even more relevant to the perception of atheists getting a positive you in your statement.

It is different to espouse a certain superiority. It just rubs me the wrong way.

Why should it rub you the wrong way? It’s true or you don’t like it? You are free to elaborate but I am still waiting on a bad representative of atheism beside O’Hair.

Comment by: skikid

I think everyone gets the short end of the stick sometimes… I get it every day in my college science classes, it is implied at least once a day that anyone who has any sort of theistic belief is intellectually inferior. I don’t say anything because I just don’t see the point, and I am tired of feeling like the only one. It seems like arguing over who is worse or who is better is just a waste of time.

So Non-believers… here’s my silly thought. The next time someone says something derogatory about non-believers I commit to intervening in a non-confrontational manner and portraying non-believers in a positive with the hope that this person will at least re-consider their beliefs.

Comment by: Lisa W.

Bravo, SkiKid!

Comment by: Stephan

TX, a few people have pointed out individuals that they thought were bad apples in the Atheist camp, and you told them they were wrong. That kinda shuts the conversation down.

I’m sure if you asked Pat Robertson to identify a radical fundamentalist he would have a hard time finding one. He would look to his right, and, seeing no one, would assume that there are no radicals fundamentalists. If you asked Ted Kennedy to identify radical liberals, he probably couldn’t do it. He would look to his left, and, seeing no one, would conclude that there are no radical liberals.

Perhaps the reason you can’t identify any radical Atheists is that you’re the one sitting on the end of the bench.

Comment by: Rick

TX - I know its Tuesday afternoon, but you seriously need to chill out here with a beer or two. Showing someone as right or wrong isn’t scoring any points for anyone. Imperfection is hallmark of human beings, no exceptions. Rather than stress on imperfections, isn’t it a better idea to see the best in each other? Dude, its gonna get us nowhere as humans.

Take a deep breath, close your eyes and chug down that can of (organic) beer ;) Later you can read about this new thing called Metrospirituality.

Comment by: Jayson B.

I wouldn’t consider it superior, because morality is pretty subjective, but I think the statistics are pretty telling:

.00012% of the prison population is Atheist. Approximately 176 out of 75,000 inmates in the U.S., and in many countries they literally have *zero* atheists in prison.

Atheists divorce far less than any other group.

Unplanned pregnancies are lowest among atheists.

Atheists statistically have higher educations.

personally, I consider all of those pretty telling things, but to someone who believes that drug use, premarital sex, homosexuality, cursing, and the like are graver signs of immorality obviously they aren’t. But I guess that would show a more open mind too?

And no, I’m not being mean or sarcastic about that.

We’re blamed for the world’s woes. Is it hard to see why we wouldn’t lash just a *little* bit when the numbers tell a different tale?

Comment by: TXatheist

Home > Quizzes

Related articles
Riding the Metrospiritual Wave

Are You a Metrospiritual?

You scored 12, on a scale of 0 to 36. Here’s how to interpret your score:
0 - 9
You are not at all metrospiritual. You probably don’t live in a city, and your religious life much more rooted in traditional forms and practices than in lifestyle and consumer choices. You model your values on what’s most important to you, not on what celebrities are promoting, and you don’t stay up to date with the latest trends.
10 - 18
You may lead a spiritual life, but your interests are more 1969 than 2005. You prefer an earthy lifestyle to the city chic way of life that metrospirituals follow. Metrospiritual values like preserving the earth and using natural or organic products are probably important to you, but you’re more conservative about the way you reveal these values.
19 - 27
You are almost metrospiritual but you need a few more notches on the hipness meter before you can consider yourself a true metrospiritual. Your values are in line with metrospiritual thinking, but your lifestyle choices don’t always match up. Either that, or you just can’t afford a hybrid Lexus.
28 - 36
You are a true metrospiritual. Your buying power reflects your inner spirit–whether it’s through the places you travel to, the clothes you buy, or the car you drive. You feel responsible for the world around you and try to make sure your consumption habits match up with your values. You’re also always on the lookout for the latest trend.

I don’t have a hybrid yet. that’s coming in a few months to a year and I don’t buy cosmetics but I accidently clicked that.

Comment by: skikid

TX, Ive never read much about any of them, they have never come up in class. If they have any peer reviewed papers Id be happy to read them however evolutionary biology is not my concentration. To answer your question if someone claiming to be a scientist puts forth an I hyptohesis, that is then not peer reviewed I would critique that very heavily.

Comment by: Jim Henderson

TX

To quote your fellow atheist, Hemant after visiting Moody Church - (When I read your stuff)

 ” I’ve never felt more relieved to be a chrisitan”

And I will take you up on your offer for you to take this to a discussion group or form one if you can’t find one.

Comment by: Ir

Over the last few years I’ve posted a lot on IIDB, a heavily trafficked discussion board for nontheists. Based on my experiences there I would say that some atheists are the cream of the crop and some aren’t.

I would say the same about Christians - some are the cream of the crop and some aren’t.

I think that a person who is the ‘cream of the crop’ lives out the belief/non-belief they hold in the best possible way it can be lived out. I don’t think the belief/non-belief a person holds determines whether they are the cream of the crop or not.

Comment by: Lisa W.

There is something about when any person declares or perceives that they are the cream of the crop of humanity that suddenly they aren’t. IMO, regardless of your belief system humility is valued.

Comment by: Mike C

I am still waiting on a bad representative of atheism beside O’Hair.

Vladimir Lenin
Joseph Stalin
Mao Tse Tung
Pol Pot

I’m guessing these are famous atheists that wouldn’t exactly be considered the cream of the crop and that no atheists here at this board would really want to be lumped in together with?

Comment by: Ir

One more thought: perhaps atheists aren’t better people, but I suspect it is less of a social faux-pas for atheists to make factual statements to other atheists about what is good about them/their gifts/their achievements, than it would be for Christians to make such statements to other Christians.

Comment by: Julie Marie

TX asks

is it really hard to fathom that almost all atheists are upright citizens?

No, Tx, its not hard to fathom. Beneath the passion on the discussion board I see morally and intellectually strong atheists. The above statement, however, is different from your opening statement, which read

atheists are morally, intellectually and better humans in general? I’m being blunt but I think we get the short end of the stick on image when I perceive us as the cream of the crop in humanity.

I work hard at being slow to offense. I don’t always succeed. When I allow offense to close my ears to the underlying message, communication stops.

I work even harder at making my points clearly but diplomatically. The two are not mutually exclusive. I do this because I don’t want to be shut out on the basis of how I communicate. If I’m shut out because of what I communicate…well, that is not something I have control over. But my language skills are sufficient for me to control the how of my message.

I don’t always succeed, but I earnestly try.

Comment by: Julie C.

curious - I can’t seem to understand if the issue here is that you think nonatheists don’t think atheists can be good people or that nonatheists won’t admit that atheists are the best people out there - you go back and forth.
also, just because we can’t name “bad atheists” that meet your criteria for a bad atheists does not necessarily mean they dont exist. we know of the “bad christians” because they are given media coverage and are out there condemning others for all to see. Perhaps as/if atheism gains credence in the media and grows there might be more to choose from, both good and bad. Any type of hated that condemns/ridicules other’s beliefs gets one labeled as bad. I just can’t seem to believe that there would be no atheist ever who acts that way…

Comment by: Jim Henderson

TX Why is this so important to you - it really makes you sound insecure

Comment by: Rick

TX - there is a standard rule in arguments. Never make blanket statements. You can say that most atheist are upright citizens, and you have a wiggle room to accomodate for a few bad apples.

I gave you some examples from our own freethought society of people that me myself as a freethinker wouldn’t like to be associated with. If your definition of bad only means killing and robbing, that raises a bar pretty high, but if you look at normal things on a day to day level, you’d find that freethinkers can be equally guilty of holding prejudices and spreading false propaganda as some of extremist religious people.

Look, we are trying to find a shared ground here and bringing up this “us Vs them” every now and then seems kinda uncool.

Comment by: Ir

I’m not sure how ‘bad apples’ is being defined. I find Richard Dawkins unnecessarily vitriolic (and mocking, sometimes) when he talks about religions/religious people. I would hesitate to call him ‘the cream of the crop’ given his choice to talk and write the way he does about religions and religious people. I think of the ‘cream of the crop’ as people who choose against being as disrespectful as I find Dawkins when he gets on any topic to do with religion/religious people.

Comment by: TXatheist

Ir,
I know you’ll handle this gently so fire away. How do we handle nonsense? If someone says they have a dragon in their garage or every night they see UFO’s in the Roswell area of NM do we just say ok? If they start selling books and your kid wants one is it still ok to promote that?

Comment by: Hifi

Oops! That last paragraph is mine. It was mistakenly pasted in at the end the article as a quote.

Comment by: Ir

Ir,
I know you’ll handle this gently so fire away. How do we handle nonsense? If someone says they have a dragon in their garage or every night they see UFO’s in the Roswell area of NM do we just say ok? If they start selling books and your kid wants one is it still ok to promote that?

No, we don’t just say ‘ok’ if it’s not ok. :)

I think Siamang is wonderful at articulating atheist objections in a way which is clear without being inflammatory. So - whatever Siamang’s response would be to the situations you described - that’s how I’d like to respond!

Comment by: Mike C

Oops, just for the record that last post (#50) was by me, not my wife Julie. That’s what happens when you share a computer. :)

-Mike

Comment by: TXatheist

Welcome Hifi.

Comment by: Ir

Let’s say we lined up all Americans in a straight line shoulder to shoulder facing the same direction. We then said everyone who is divorced take one step back. Now everyone who does not have a college education take on step back. Finally everyone who has been in jail or convicted of a felony take one step back. We’d have 4 rows of people. As a percentage of the population there would be a greater percentage of atheists in the row that didn’t move. Overall yes there would be more xians in the front row but they’re also 75% of the population so of course there is more as a number, but not percentage.

Yes BUT - it doesn’t mean anything unless you can prove that being an atheist causes people to be better role models. You need to establish cause and effect.

Comment by: Julie Marie

Ir:

Re female behavior: some of the ‘rules’ of female behavior suck and some of the ‘rules’ of Christian female behavior mega-suck.

Yes, I agree. I was going to say that too, but my Christian female rules wouldn’t let me ;)

Comment by: Ir

Yes, I agree. I was going to say that too, but my Christian female rules wouldn’t let me ;)

See? Like I said, those Christian female rules mega-suck!!

Hanging out with women who don’t give Christian female rules the time of day can be very freeing :)

Comment by: Ir

If being atheist had no effect, then the population statistics should match up evenly: the same percentage of atheists would be found in any given statistical population in the World. If 2% of the population is atheist, then 2% of divorced people would be atheist, 2% of the prison population would be atheist, and on down the road. Additionaly, the percentage of atheists with a given label (divorce, prison, etc) would be identical or near identical to other statistical populations.

But they’re not. In fact, they’re not even close.

.00012% of the prison population in the U.S. is atheist. That’s 176 for every 75,000. That is HUGE! And it’s not just the u.s………many countries don’t even have ANY atheists in prison.

Yes but - it’s not that simple. Isn’t the theist/atheist split likely to be wrong since some atheists don’t admit that they’re atheists?

Someone above posted the statistics links showing that countries than lean closer to non-theism have higher levels of societal health.

But again, you need to demonstrate that the greater non-theism causes the greater societal health.

I know that you’re implying that other factors might be at play here, and that’s certainly true. But there is at least an indirect corrolation. It’s hard to deny.

I can’t affirm it though, because to do so seems way too simplistic to me. I would feel like I was using statistics inappropriately.

It’s a tricky issue though, because xtians and other theists also think that drug use, premarital sex, and other subjective moralities are more important than the ones listed above……but IMO, sin against another human is far more grave than taking risks with yourself.

Your point is well-taken that peoples’ beliefs/nonbeliefs affect their choices. I don’t deny that :)

What would cause this? This isn’t a hypothesis, but I would posite to say that the concept of salvation gives people a justification for the things they do. yes, this goes against the teachings, I understand that on a theological level. But I wonder if people do bad things because they think god will forgive them and vindicate them in the end (this tends to happen especially with sex and drugs).

I think this happens but I don’t think it’s intentional. It’s a well-known maxim in the insurance industry that people are more careless when the consequences of carelessness minimal. In other words, you don’t want to overinsure people because it will increase the number of claims. Not because they deliberately initiate claims but because subconsciously they know they don’t need to be so careful.

I think that applies to Christians/Jesus-followers. I think every Christian/Jesus-follower would have made somewhat different choices today if they didn’t believe that God would forgive everything simply if they ask.

Whereas with us atheists, we understand this is all we got. One shot. Nothing else. So we better make it count.

That viewpoint makes sense to me; but I don’t believe that “this is all we got” prevents all atheists from doing risky irresponsible things with their lives.

Comment by: Julie Marie

Lisa wrote:

At the moment of reading these last few entries a plaque (an old award) came flying off my shelf and smashed into a picture called “serenity” sending shards of glass everywhere. No kidding. Draw your own conclusions.

Lisa, I don’t just deal with “Christian Female Rules” I live in the deep south. So add a serving of sexism with a southern charm gravy on it for me. And I think a shard of your serentiy glass is sticking in my *oops can’t say such things* :)

Comment by: Lisa Wellington

Oh somebody help Julie with the glass in her ass!
Yep, I said it. see this article for more on cussing christians.
I’m so sorry for the shard of sexism down there in the south. Bad stuff and not even tasty with collard greens!

Comment by: Mike C

There’s one big problem with all these statistics, which is the assumption that 75% or whatever of the US population are actually practicing Christians. These statistics don’t take into account that the vast majority of people who call themselves “Christian” are really Christian in name only. In other words, they don’t make their faith a guide or basis for how they live their lives. Personally I know dozens of people who would probably check “Christian” on a survey but who don’t have any further commitment to the faith in their practices or lifestyle or even beliefs.

In studies that compare committed Christians to the general population findings have shown that Christians are in most categories no better and no worse than anyone else. But this doesn’t surprise me at all either. The whole premise of Christianity is that we are sinners saved by grace, so it doesn’t surprise me that you would tend to find an average amount of “sinners” among groups of Christians. Perhaps it’s not so much that Christianity encourages sin as that it is welcoming to sinners.

For example, I know plenty of people who come to the Christian faith after a struggle with alcoholism or drug addiction, or while in prison, or after a family-wrecking affair. It’s not that Christianity encouraged these behaviors, it’s that Christianity offered hope for forgiveness and second-chances to people suffering from the results of their mistakes.

So I’m glad that you find a lot of “sinners” among Christians, because frankly I’m a sinner. I need grace. Why would I want to hang out with a bunch of self-satisfied atheists if they’re all so much better than me? ;)

-Mike

Comment by: TXatheist

We can even do it here on the blog. I said fundamentalist and no one presumed they were. Now let’s ask if anyone here is not really a xian. (no, atheists don’t say yourself I know that). I am talking about xians. Who here is not really a practicing xian? Anyone who is not please speak up.

Comment by: TXatheist

There are no beliefs in atheism. Do you believe in any gods? No=atheist. Do you believe Jesus is the son of god or died for your sins or offers me salvation? yes=christian. I appreciate your comparison but demons and gods are one in the same in atheism. I don’t believe in either one or they are basically the same thing to me as a category. I think the statistics are valid, you don’t. I just people by their actions so it doesn’t matter if their christian. I may disagree with an action and their religious beliefs:)

Comment by: Mike C

Mike, why would you assume that people claiming to be atheists don’t lie along a spectrum just as those claiming to be Christians do - where people at one end don’t really associate that claim with how they live and people at the other have it affect almost every aspect of their lives? Why wouldn’t at least some atheists make every effort to ‘live’ their values just as some Christians do?

Is an atheist’s values and lifestyle and behavior directly related to their intellectual belief that there is no God? I don’t know enough about atheists to answer that question. But generally I find that values and behaviors are based on one’s positive beliefs, not on what one doesn’t believe in. I don’t order my life based on my non-belief in Islam or Hinduism or whatever, I order my life based on my positive belief in Jesus. So what are the positive beliefs that atheists order their lives around?

When I asked Hemant that question he said it was simply “Do what pleases you as long as it doesn’t hurt others.” That’s fine, but it doesn’t seem like that principle is directly connected to the belief in no gods. For example, Wicca is based on almost exactly the same principle.

And on what basis do you claim to have the definition of what a ‘true’ Christian is? What makes you right and them wrong?

It’s not for me to judge who’s in and who’s out. I wasn’t speaking theologically. I’m just speaking sociologically. I mean c’mon people, is it really so hard to recognize that in any religion there are those who take their beliefs seriously and those who merely go through the motions? This can’t be that strange of a concept to all of you.

Is there a difference between a Mother Theresa or a Billy Graham and someone who was baptized as an infant and hasn’t been back to church since and hasn’t ever made any effort to even understand what it means to live like a Christian? I don’t know the eternal state of their souls or what their definition of a “true Christian” is, but just on a purely objective/sociological level, one can say that there is a difference between “committed” and “nominal” adherents to a religion.

In my experience, most people in this country, even in places like the deep south or the conservative Midwest, are Christians mostly in name only. That is, to them being a Christian is something you are born into. It’s like a fact of your culture or ethnicity, but never goes beyond that in any way. In fact most of those people, if you ask them about their actual beliefs are probably closer to atheists than to Christians. Most that I know anyway would probably say something like, “Well I don’t really know if there is a God or not, I just try to be a good person.” And yet on a survey they still check the “Christian” box because that’s what they were born into (like being Irish, or Mexican or something). So if that’s the case then I guess whether or not you think the stats are accurate depends on whether you think there’s more to being a Christian than simply checking a box.

I guess what gets me is that both atheists and evangelical Christians seem to think that they are a minority in this country. Why is that? I think they are both right, because the vast majority of people in America are neither atheists nor committed Christians, but simply vaguely agnostic nominal Christians (again, that’s not a judgment or value statement, just a statement of a sociological reality). In fact, one person has described America’s truly dominant religion as “moral therepuetic deism” which seems a very different thing than Christianity.

And it’s possible to be an atheist and follow Jesus’ teachings because they seem the best way to live. Shall we call such a person a ‘true’ Christian even though they might well deny they are, since they are an atheist?

Maybe not a “Christian” in the sense that you seem to be using that term, but I would call them a Christ follower.

Mike, with all due respect I thought you would been criticized enough yourself for not being a ‘true Christian’ not to do that to others.

Again, I’m not passing judgment on who I specifically think is in or out, just making a seemingly obvious (to me) statement about the levels of commitment that you find in any religion.

Peace,

-Mike

Comment by: Ir

Thanks for responding, Mike.

Mike wrote: Is an atheist’s values and lifestyle and behavior directly related to their intellectual belief that there is no God? I don’t know enough about atheists to answer that question. But generally I find that values and behaviors are based on one’s positive beliefs, not on what one doesn’t believe in. I don’t order my life based on my non-belief in Islam or Hinduism or whatever, I order my life based on my positive belief in Jesus. So what are the positive beliefs that atheists order their lives around?

When I asked Hemant that question he said it was simply “Do what pleases you as long as it doesn’t hurt others.” That’s fine, but it doesn’t seem like that principle is directly connected to the belief in no gods. For example, Wicca is based on almost exactly the same principle.

Mike, thanks for responding to my comments.

I don’t know enough about Wicca to comment on their principles.

What I can say is that “Do as you please as long as it doesn’t hurt others” is a principle that only a person who is not subject to the will of a Higher Authority can hold. Followers of Jesus - for example - are to take up their cross and follow him, not to do as they please. Therefore I would say Hemant’s principle is directly derived from the worldview of an atheist.

The worldview of an atheist does affect their values and lifestyle and behavior. I don’t agree that a lack of belief can have no effect. A lack of belief in a God who bans same-sex relationships will enable a gay person to have a same sex partner if he/she chooses.

In my experience, most people in this country, even in places like the deep south or the conservative Midwest, are Christians mostly in name only. That is, to them being a Christian is something you are born into. It’s like a fact of your culture or ethnicity, but never goes beyond that in any way. In fact most of those people, if you ask them about their actual beliefs are probably closer to atheists than to Christians. Most that I know anyway would probably say something like, “Well I don’t really know if there is a God or not, I just try to be a good person.” And yet on a survey they still check the “Christian” box because that’s what they were born into (like being Irish, or Mexican or something). So if that’s the case then I guess whether or not you think the stats are accurate depends on whether you think there’s more to being a Christian than simply checking a box.

I guess what gets me is that both atheists and evangelical Christians seem to think that they are a minority in this country. Why is that? I think they are both right, because the vast majority of people in America are neither atheists nor committed Christians, but simply vaguely agnostic nominal Christians (again, that’s not a judgment or value statement, just a statement of a sociological reality). In fact, one person has described America’s truly dominant religion as “moral therepuetic deism” which seems a very different thing than Christianity.

I think you’re probably right that many people who check the ‘Christian’ box haven’t put thought into “since I’m a Christian, what ought my values and principles to be in light of that?” Which means that it’s not correct to say their behavior is what results from intentionally following some sort of ‘Christian’ principles.

And you may well be right that there are two minorities in this country - atheists and Christians who intentionally based their values on some definite Christian beliefs they hold - and then a lot of people ‘in the middle’ who end up in the Christian count because they check the ‘Christian’ box.

Again, I’m not passing judgment on who I specifically think is in or out, just making a seemingly obvious (to me) statement about the levels of commitment that you find in any religion.

I expect there is a parallel to that among non-religious people, in that some have really thought about what their values should be, in light of their worldview, and some haven’t.

Comment by: Mike C

I think you’re probably right that many people who check the ‘Christian’ box haven’t put thought into “since I’m a Christian, what ought my values and principles to be in light of that?” Which means that it’s not correct to say their behavior is what results from intentionally following some sort of ‘Christian’ principles.

Yep, that’s pretty much the only point I was trying to make. Thanks for putting it a lot more clearly. :)

Comment by: Mike C

But that is still my point. The alleged good behavior attached to the idea of ‘christian principles’ is too simplistic. Instead of saying some is well behaved they can say they are a christian and that has the same implications. That’s why people say they are xian many times, it’s an automatic assumption.

You’re absolutely right. People shouldn’t throw around the word “Christian” and just assume that it means that they are good people. But you’re right, too often they do. It frustrates me too.

You rarely hear humanist principles though we all try to live by them. Well, except some of us honor a god and that’s not a humanist principle necessarily so that point is negotiable.

Actually the some of the first humanists were Christians. (click here and here)