Who is the better person?

[Lightning Waltz]

If you embrace sentence # 1, and exclude Jesus, Buddah, Confucious, Reverend Moon, Jung, Freud, etc.., what is the basis of your being right, and others that do reference one or more of these notable figures as their authority not have the truth?

Again, irrelevent. For the purposes of the question that I asked, you can assume that through whatever means, both "know".

It may be possible that both are believers in some sort of higher morality, both are atheists, or some mix. It doesn't matter for the purposes of the quesiton.

It's possible that person 1 believes in whatever "God" or set of gods, and in that religion, people's actions don't matter on this earth, what matters is that one believes in that higher power to go to "heaven".

It's possible that person 2 is an atheist, but is afraid of concequences due to society (long arm of the law).

As one who takes/embraces an atheistic view, does right and wrong rest in your own, so-speak, home-grown position and not any alleged god, prophet, notable human being, but only yourself as final authority or validation?

Again, irrelevent. But to answer you, there is no higher morality. Again, see above. CLAIMING a higher morality is convenient, but seems completely arbitrary... People seem to justify their morals on religion, rather than defining their morality on "God's ulitmate moral authority".

Let me ask of you...do you have any morals that your "god" disagrees with? Or, does it so happen that everything you believe morally, coincidentally, your "God" believes as well?

I personally have met very few Christians, that live in a state of fear of making a mistake concerning decision making on ethics/morals, on a day to day basis, unless they have some mental/emotional handicap that isn't religion based but is organic or learned from living in a dysfunctional family environment. That bane can be plight of religious or non-religious alike in that case.

People, historically and in a contemporary sense, disagree morally yet claim that their morals come from "God". Believers claim to know what is right to do, but often don't do it. They resort to excuses like, "not perfect, just forgiven". Do you suppose that your "God" is just a bad teacher of morality?

The first sentence, just seemed to say........"One believes to be right about things",........and no other explanation?

It's a hypothetical. There are assumeds in hypotheticals. Get over it.

[5stringJeff]

To attempt to answer your question directly:

Assuming that both people in your OP are of the same belief system, are acting in the same manner, but from different motivations, I find it hard to say whether one's motivations are 'better' than the other, without knowing more about the belief system. For example, in Christianity, there are some people who initially convert because of a fear in hell. However, as they come to understand the Gospel, they realize that God not only wants to save them from hell, but also to change their lives to be more holy, and so the Christian begins to act in the same way, but with a different motivation. In this sense, acting because you know it's the right thing to do is 'better' in the sense that the person has matured in their faith.

[Lightning Waltz]

In this sense, acting because you know it's the right thing to do is 'better' in the sense that the person has matured in their faith.

When, in your opinion, would it be better for a person to do the right thing because they fear the consequences of an external force to doing the right thing because they know it's the right thing to do?

[Lightning Waltz]

Oh, and thanks for at least trying to answer the question directly. Truly, it's refreshing. I'll give props to manu1959 (even though no explanation was given) and glockmail, as well.

EDIT: Forgot to add Gunny answered as well.

[Gunny]

Er...what? I didn't get that at all.

You attempted to post two separate reasons for doing the right thing, when in fact, not doing the right thing when you know it is right carries with it the consequences for not doing the right thing.

[glockmail]

Oh, and thanks for at least trying to answer the question directly. Truly, it's refreshing. I'll give props to manu1959 (even though no explanation was given) and glockmail, as well.

EDIT: Forgot to add Gunny answered as well.

This doesn't mean that we'll be taking long hot showers together.

[Lightning Waltz]

This doesn't mean that we'll be taking long hot showers together.

I give credit where credit is due. Mostly, I just credit you for being a twit.

[Lightning Waltz]

You attempted to post two separate reasons for doing the right thing, when in fact, not doing the right thing when you know it is right carries with it the consequences for not doing the right thing.

Assuming that there are consequences for motivations on actions, but, I see what you're saying, anyway.

Thanks.

[glockmail]

I give credit where credit is due. Mostly, I just credit you for being a twit.

Glockmail = 1
LW = 0

We can see who is the better person between you and I then, can't we?

[Lightning Waltz]

Glockmail = 1
LW = 0

We can see who is the better person between you and I then, can't we?

Heh...my post was a joke. You would note the I added...

But, even so, you are no judge so your "scorekeeping" is absolutely worthless.

[glockmail]

Heh...my post was a joke. You would note the I added...

But, even so, you are no judge so your "scorekeeping" is absolutely worthless.

So If I call you an ass while winking that makes it OK? I think not.

I found that the scorekeeping works to limit the number of insults, preventing thread closer. It has even worked on a "queer thread".

[Lightning Waltz]

So If I call you an ass while winking that makes it OK? I think not.

I'm sure you'll be up all night crying over the fact that I called you a twit...especially when I explained that I was joking.

This medium isn't perfect. There is going to be miscommunication. Deal with it.

Again, as for your score keeping, I really couldn't care less.

[eighballsidepocket]

I give credit where credit is due (Thank you, thank you oh Sage an wise one. . Mostly, I just credit you for being a twit Awe spoiled it all.

Glockmail: Consider the reply a plus.

At least you weren't branded as "irrelevant" to the discussion by the all-knowing one. I don't think I'll earn my gold sticky star on the forehead very soon from this person

[Lightning Waltz]

Glockmail: Consider that reply a plus.

At least you weren't branded as "irrelevant" to the discussion.

I answered you in detail. You still have not answered my original question.

[eighballsidepocket]

I answered you in detail. You still have not answered my original question.

Oh, I did, it just shot right over your head, and your keen open mind.
****
You might consider the possiblity that you didn't accept my explanation that also came with some probing questions too.
****
Of course since your the one giving out the "yeahs" and "nays" as to what is acceptable or inline with what your trying to get out of your initial post, there might be a teeny weeny little bit of contention in your "irrelevant" comments. Actually, my question/inquirey, and answer, wasn't any different than Jeffs or others, but long-winded I'll admit.
****
I've just noticed that often these questions or scenarios are, "strawmen" questions as others have mentioned too.

They aren't always innocent little probes to find out other's takes, as much as they are subtle little covert ways of moving or projecting one's agenda of philosophical, religious or non-religious leanings/ beliefs into a "question" format that appears to be innocent at first glance.

I believe in good old transparency. Lay it out there. If you think bible folks are brainless slugs, stuck in narrow-mindedness, be brave and say it. Don't flower-up your reasons for rejecting a person's reply by "irrelevant" etc.. To most its a very thinly veiled smoke screen.
****
I answered your question according to my view, and or intelligence, and wisdom, and also included a probing question as to what makes "one" right. Where does the referencing authority come from to say, "I know I'm right.". This is not unlike what 5string mentioned when he said that the first sentence was rather incomplete......as it ended in just being "right". Right, because? Why?
*****
I think that my probing hit a sore spot, as I think many of us are right, and it isn't because we've evaluated our motives, the information that we've based our "right" on, etc.. We've got a "I'm right.", based on other influences to us, that aren't very strong or substantially foundational. In essence, our being right is based on our own criteria, and not on a reliance on other possible credible, respected sources. It's rather narcissistic in nature.

I suffer or fall into the category myself at times. I have pre-determined beliefs that I adhere to that I'm hesitant to allow myself or anyone to challenge. That's not good for me, and I must face these obstacles to my maturation as an adult with inner courage, and not withdraw from confronting these.

To "blow off" ones opinions as I suspect they challenged something in your systematic mode of believing or non-believing your "right" just because you "are", is not conducive to your's or anyones growth or seeking in the important areas of personal wisdom and truth.
****
Lightnign Waltz: Transparency is the "key". Facing those big old windmills with Sancho Panza at your side is paramount for all of us.