Reply #24: I think people are carrying grudges a bit here.

[dmallind]

I don't think the OP is or even was interested in demonizing the faithless. I just think he did not see why he needed to acknowledge their ethical foundation when he first appeared, but does so now. Yes it's still a bit grudgingly for my taste, and it seems like nothing good can be said about nonbelievers without, either explicitly or implicitly, claiming that believers are still better, but it's progress and it should be seen as such. It's after all difficult for believers, even and perhaps especially those who have spent some time studying the belief, to acknowledge that it is simply not necessary for a morally sound worldview. For unthinking Christians, nonbelievers are simply amoral at best and immoral at par. For thinking Christians, who see the at least proximal link between their own ethical system and their faith, nonbelievers missing that link will always be seen as handicapped ethically no matter how well they have adapted, and adopted, entirely secular moral foundations. It's like a "normal" athlete looking at an amputee with advanced prosthetics. No matter how fast the amputee can run, even if it's faster than the athlete can, there is still a perceived lesser status.

In short, nonbelievers simply cannot be merely equal, let alone better, moral agents regardless of how well this agency performs, because to belivers even at our best we have merely overcome a handicap that still leaves us less refined ethically than they are. I honestly think TMO is trying to do his best here, but he still sees the "artificial" morality of atheists no matter how successful it may be.