Non Believers Predominate Heaven? Just Maybe.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
I am on record as saying that the existence of punishment for crimes is only necessary to stop very bad people from committing them. And I do mean very bad. Worse than the criminals themselves. Pure common sense. Any man who refrains from raping a woman because he doesn't want to spend ten years in jail, is no better and probably worse, than an actual rapist. Any person who would rob a bank if they were sure they could get away with it, but doesn't because they aren't, is at least as bad a person as an actual bank robber. The only difference between them is that the bank robber is crazy or less worried about jail. Their disregard for others is totally equal.


[/ QUOTE ]

I forgot to mention another point in my first reply...

I disagree that the hypothetical person who refrains from, say raping, only due to fear of going to jail, is "worse" than an actual rapist.

The reason is as follows. Both the actual rapist and the potential rapist share the irrational (and evil) desire to rape. However, the potential rapist is more rational in one aspect: he at least recognizes and desires to avoid the negative consequences that raping someone would bring to him. This not only makes him less dangerous to others, but slightly morally superior to the actual rapist.

[Lestat]

<font color="blue"> The reason is as follows. Both the actual rapist and the potential rapist share the irrational (and evil) desire to rape. However, the potential rapist is more rational in one aspect: he at least recognizes and desires to avoid the negative consequences that raping someone would bring to him. This not only makes him less dangerous to others, but slightly morally superior to the actual rapist.
</font>

Please expound on this, because it doesn't make sense to me if you flip it around.

If person A does a good deed out of no other reason than wanting to help someone, and person B does a good deed mainly because of some perceived gain, does this not make person A morally superior to person B?

I fail to see how an act based on fear of personal repurcussions can ever be morally superior to an act based on one's own rationality.

How can those who believe in God and base their actions mainly out of fear for their perceived repurcussions of non-belief, be morally superior to those who simply base their actions on what is rational to them?

[Edit:] Hold off. Many flaws above. I wrote too hastily. But perhaps you can see what I'm getting at anyway.