Are atheists nobler than christians?

[ShieldAxe]

If an atheist and a christian perform the same exact good deed, is not the atheist more noble in his actions? The christian has a heavenly reward as motivation. The atheist doesn't. The christian's deed is cheapened by the selfish motivation. The atheist's deed is more selfless. (All other conditions being equal).

[ShieldAxe]

If an atheist and a christian perform the same exact good deed, is not the atheist more noble in his actions? The christian has a heavenly reward as motivation. The atheist doesn't. The christian's deed is cheapened by the selfish motivation. The atheist's deed is more selfless. (All other conditions being equal).

Not really... People do good deeds because it makes them feel good. Both Christians and atheists. It's wired into our personalities from an early age -- and that's a good thing, too, otherwise our society wouldn't be nearly as strong.

I agree a good person feels good when they do good deeds. But could a person also do good deeds because of outside motivation?

[ShieldAxe]

If an atheist and a christian perform the same exact good deed, is not the atheist more noble in his actions? The christian has a heavenly reward as motivation. The atheist doesn't. The christian's deed is cheapened by the selfish motivation. The atheist's deed is more selfless. (All other conditions being equal).

By what standard are you measuring nobility? Who decides who is more noble?

That's the point of the thread, to discuss who is more noble.

[ShieldAxe]

If an atheist and a christian perform the same exact good deed, is not the atheist more noble in his actions? The christian has a heavenly reward as motivation. The atheist doesn't. The christian's deed is cheapened by the selfish motivation. The atheist's deed is more selfless. (All other conditions being equal).

Well, the atheist could be doing good deeds for any number of reasons. The question, though, is why would an atheist feel the need to help others out if they truly believed that we are all dust existing in an infinitesimal period of time where everything that happens is ultimately meaningless?

Because that particular person is a good person.

[harvey1]

Because that particular person is a good person.

Morality is a subjective term to the atheist. It's like saying that someone has a good taste in Chardonney. In the ultimate sense of the term, why does it make any difference if someone has a good taste in Chardonney if their philosophy is based on nuclear destruction coming the day after next? Their priorities are messed up. They should be counting the seconds before doomsday--not sipping Chardonney for the best tasting wine.

[QED]

What do you mean by "meaning"? When I say the atheist view of the universe lacks ultimate meaning, I mean that there is no purpose or intent to the universe for one to grasp beyond the fact that it exists. That is, it's random data. For example, if a monkey typed on a computer the printed page would be meaningless. There wouldn't be anything you or I could read to understand what the monkey intended by the particular keystrokes that were selected when its finger hit the key. The data on the page should be considered for all practical purposes as random data. Non-meaningful. Without intent. Ultimately meaningless. The only really useful information is that the monkey typed it, and that's why it is meaningless.

If there were an infinite number of universes, and if in each universe a monkey typed a manuscript, perhaps in one of those worlds the monkey would have typed Hamlet. If so, it is still meaningless content since the monkey didn't intend to type Hamlet, it was a pure coincidence--a random consequence of there being an infinite number of universes with monkeys typing away.

Er, no Harvey. If someone was handed a manuscript like this it would make no difference to their appreciation of its content whether it was typed by a monkey or by Shakespeare. We would still read the prose and see a hero's struggle with the morality of avenging his father's murder. All we'd be missing in the case of the monkey's universe was the other works of the great bard. I think we ought to work this one through somewhere because it's another one of those misrepresentations that keeps cropping up.

So, this is why I say that an atheist view is ultimately meaningless. Since an atheist believes there is no intent to the universe's existence (i.e., no mind behind it all), the world is ultimately meaningless. All of our actions, small and great, are actually less meaningful than the "words" typed by a monkey typing happily away.

I thought I'd just quote that second bit because, as I have just pointed out, it makes no difference to our appreciation of the world just how it came about. The thing to be focussing on, as in the case of Hamlet, is how the part we can see resonates with us.

[palmera]

So, this is why I say that an atheist view is ultimately meaningless. Since an atheist believes there is no intent to the universe's existence (i.e., no mind behind it all), the world is ultimately meaningless. All of our actions, small and great, are actually less meaningful than the "words" typed by a monkey typing happily away.

Atheism, by it's very definition is the belief that God does not exist. For the theist God gives ultimate meaning, or is ultimate meaning; for the atheist, meaning has nothing to do with God. Nihilism on the other hand (which atheism is not) is defined as the belief that the world is intrinsically meaningless. It's not that an atheist doesn't believe that there is no intent in the universe, but simply that any meaning or intent does not stem from a divine presence. This doesn't mean that an atheist view is ultimately meaningless.

The concept of nobility therefore is not necessarily purely subjective to an atheist. Rather, "nobility" as a principle is simply not tied into a system of morality that is centered on belief in a deity. I think you're confusing nihilism with atheism- at least you're attributing qualities of one to another which is not necessarily the case and certainly not the cast by definition.

The more noble person is the atheist. She/he may not be "saved" but his/her actions are inherently more altruistic than that of one action under belief in cosmic reward from God.

[harvey1]

Er, no Harvey. If someone was handed a manuscript like this it would make no difference to their appreciation of its content whether it was typed by a monkey or by Shakespeare. We would still read the prose and see a hero's struggle with the morality of avenging his father's murder. All we'd be missing in the case of the monkey's universe was the other works of the great bard. I think we ought to work this one through somewhere because it's another one of those misrepresentations that keeps cropping up.

It would of course have unintentional meaning, just like one of your posts might be unintentionally interpeted as being in support of creationism. But, that does not make your unintentional post as supporting creationism. The unintentional meaning was purely coincidental. It did not in fact support creationism no matter how it was interpreted. Similarly, a monkey typing Hamlet was not the monkey typing Hamlet, it was the monkey typing nonsensical prose that coincidentally could be understood by us as being Hamlet.

[harvey1]

Atheism, by it's very definition is the belief that God does not exist. For the theist God gives ultimate meaning, or is ultimate meaning; for the atheist, meaning has nothing to do with God. Nihilism on the other hand (which atheism is not) is defined as the belief that the world is intrinsically meaningless.

Atheism reduces to nihilism since meaning is due to the sender of a message, not the receiver of the message. If there is no conscious intent on the part of the message, then the message is meaningless. In the case of the universe, atheism must advocate non-intentional reasons as the ultimate cause that anything (anything at all) happens. The monkeys are typing, but they are not sending any messages with any intelligent intent for each word they type.

It's not that an atheist doesn't believe that there is no intent in the universe, but simply that any meaning or intent does not stem from a divine presence. This doesn't mean that an atheist view is ultimately meaningless.

Can an atheist brute fact provide an intent that can be understood as anything more meaningful than the brute fact itself? That is, can an atheist brute fact be anything more than random? I think not. If that were the case, then the more meaningful attribute of the brute fact would be the brute fact--not the atheist brute fact. And, in that case, the original brute fact is not a brute fact.

The concept of nobility therefore is not necessarily purely subjective to an atheist. Rather, "nobility" as a principle is simply not tied into a system of morality that is centered on belief in a deity. I think you're confusing nihilism with atheism- at least you're attributing qualities of one to another which is not necessarily the case and certainly not the cast by definition.

If atheism can show that the world has mindful intent without a mind, then I could see how nihilism can be avoided. However, that's not possible since mindful intent is intent that comes from a mind. And, without mindful intent, the sender's message cannot have any real meaning. It is a random stream of raw data.

The more noble person is the atheist. She/he may not be "saved" but his/her actions are inherently more altruistic than that of one action under belief in cosmic reward from God.

This is like saying that the person who reads the monkey's garbled typed pages is acting morally by following whatever moral edicts the person can understand and follow. There is no morality. There is no nobility. It's all garbled writings from a monkey who didn't know what they were doing by hitting keys on the keyboard.

[QED]

It would of course have unintentional meaning, just like one of your posts might be unintentionally interpeted as being in support of creationism. But, that does not make your unintentional post as supporting creationism. The unintentional meaning was purely coincidental. It did not in fact support creationism no matter how it was interpreted. Similarly, a monkey typing Hamlet was not the monkey typing Hamlet, it was the monkey typing nonsensical prose that coincidentally could be understood by us as being Hamlet.

Yes, I understand that Harvey. But I've just read that manuscript and it gave me a great sense of meaning. I could relate to the content and see myself in a different and more useful light. It had a message about morality that I could take away and apply should I wish to. That it was all sourced from a monkey, a mutant cash-dispenser or a 17th century bard is irrelevant. The content has it's own meaning. The meaning behind the creation of the manuscript might be as mundane as Shakespeare's next meal.

[harvey1]

Yes, I understand that Harvey. But I've just read that manuscript and it gave me a great sense of meaning. I could relate to the content and see myself in a different and more useful light. It had a message about morality that I could take away and apply should I wish to. That it was all sourced from a monkey, a mutant cash-dispenser or a 17th century bard is irrelevant. The content has it's own meaning. The meaning behind the creation of the manuscript might be as mundane as Shakespeare's next meal.

Okay. The creationist says, "but I've just read [QED's post] and it gave me a great sense of meaning. I could relate to the content and see [my views in his writings] in a different and more useful light. It had a message about [creationism] that I could take away and [use to argue against evolutionists] should I wish to. That it was all sourced from [QED's unimagined intentions] is irrelevant. The content has it's own meaning. The [real] meaning behind [the post] might be as [atheistic] as [Richard Dawkin's] next [prayer]."

Does the creationist here have any foundation in reality? I don't think so. The creationist here is just gone off mis-reading you and taking some kind of misguided delight from your prose. You didn't write what the creationist thinks of your writings. It is the creationist's own self-deception. You are an atheist. You reject creationism. There is no creationist meaning in anything you write. The creationist needs to come to grips with the meaningless of your posts with regard to their creationist beliefs. Don't you agree?