Disclaimer: the following post is emotionally changed and impolite. If you do not want to deal with being called morally suspect. Stop here. There nothing you can get from what follows. To the question of “who am I to judge?” The answer is no-one special. Your life is your own, but I also think there is something more to this original question worth arguing about and worth saying imperfectly.
Are there any theists here who believe religious skeptics ( agnostics,atheists ) are inherently less moral than theists simply because they question and/or reject all God claims. If YES, on what basis do theists give themselves the higher moral ground ?
My direct answer is in post #18, but I think based on some other replies it is worth exploring a more controversial but related question:Are the Atheists posting here inherently less moral than the Theists posting here by way of them rejecting all claims of god?
I would say based on the sentiments expressed in the replies, yes you seem less moral. Don’t get me wrong, I am sure you're all nice intelligent people, but by expressing such ignorance to the role religion plays in one persons moral development you reveal your own introspective deficits and indirectly display amoral tendencies.
Before going on, I must highlight I am choosing to show respect that atheists do not believe there is proof nor faith of the supernatural/eternal/heavenly. For this reason I will be careful to explain my reasoning absent any assumption of this being required.
Second, as I say in my disclaimer. I am no one special. We do not know the absolute moral standard. To determine what is more or less moral from our current position of relative comparison is difficult and can only be determined by principles and patterns. It is imperfect. This is speculative.
One problem with a view that assumes inherent mortality is it ignores we do not live in isolation of our environment. Society has its own moral calibrations. Are our laws just? Do we isolate amoral people? Do we ignore our less fortunate? Does our majority value morally?
America is far from perfect but in comparison to rest of the world and history our society as a whole is obviously quite moral. So if ignoring levels of amorality to the point of the satanic, someone of a relatively low moral character here likely still seem quite behaved by comparison to one who is more developed but who participates norms in their less moral foreign societies or at historic times.
For this reason I think it is only fair to judge the merit of ones true moral character relative to the general society of which they are apart. To be morally courageous and grounded in Afghanistan, India, Libya, China, Congo or Historic may seem radical different from those same characteristics manifest in The U.S. or Belgium. Moral behaviour = society moral development plus personal moral development.
Due to this principle I also think it is not fair to judge an individual on their relative moral behaviour at all. Only personal moral development is in their control. It is the only measure of any merit.
You'll notice people bring up to these sorts of characteristics in these conversations: empathy, compassion, sensitivity, kindness & politeness which are no doubt some of the worst ways to measure this internal morality having more to do with personality or circumstance. How easy it is to be polite when you're not fighting the majority opinion or were born that way by temperament.
No, the types of characteristics that universally represent moral character[in relation to ones societal norm] are things like delayed gratification, uncomfortable honesty, grit, optimistic mindset, pro-social relationships or problem solving ability. Learned proven pro-social traits.
"
