What is atheism?

[Ophiolite]

For me, the standard unit for "good" is God. What is the standard unit for "good" for an atheist?

The diversity of atheists precludes offering a singular answer.

Your own answer, while it may seem to offer a solid standard fails to do so on two grounds:

1. The specific attributes of God are debated between and within Christian denominations. That is not the mark of a standard.

2. Even if these specifics were tied down it says nothing useful about how humans should conduct themselves. How would God decide in the trolley dilemma? Saying he is good, is of no value if you cannot answer that question.

 

[ZNP]

To me this question "how do you define good" is really essential. How can someone be good if they don't even have a definition for what that means? Also, if you define it as an improvement to human society, what exactly would be an improvement?

Take the current election, is Biden an improvement? Is Sanders an improvement? Was Trump an improvement? How do you chart a course forward for a society if you don't even have a clear definition of where it is you want to go?

 

[ZNP]

The diversity of atheists precludes offering a singular answer.

Your own answer, while it may seem to offer a solid standard fails to do so on two grounds:

1. The specific attributes of God are debated between and within Christian denominations. That is not the mark of a standard.

2. Even if these specifics were tied down it says nothing useful about how humans should conduct themselves. How would God decide in the trolley dilemma? Saying he is good, is of no value if you cannot answer that question.

I will respond to this so as not to be rude, but I fear going into this deeply would easily change this thread from a question about what is atheism to what is Christianity.

Jesus is the image of the invisible God. He expresses what it is to be "good". According to John He is the incarnated word. So we see the Bible expressed in Jesus.

Because the Bible has the book of Ruth it is not "ruthless". Without that book you would have a very lopsided view of the Bible being racist against Moabites. Yet Ruth is a Moabitess, she is also part of the lineage of King David and Jesus. So how do you reconcile this? According to this book she has two statuses, one is a Moabitess, the other is a widow of an Israelite. The book of Ruth shows that God judges according to the heart, not according to the outward flesh. In the very first few verses we see her heart when she say "your God will be my God and your people will be my people". The other widow returned to Moab showing what her heart was.

In the same way the Bible would appear to be without mercy if it were not for Jesus. According to Jesus the key rule is to judge others the way you want to be judged. Everyone wants to be judged with mercy, so the corollary of this law is that we must judge others with mercy.

So even though the answer "God is good" is short and sweet, it requires reading the entire Bible and it requires carefully looking into the life of Jesus and the Law of liberty to understand. His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways, so this indicates that none of us will "naturally get it" but will require revelation and transformation to get it.

 

[Ophiolite]

So even though the answer "God is good" is short and sweet, it requires reading the entire Bible and it requires carefully looking into the life of Jesus and the Law of liberty to understand. His thoughts are not our thoughts and His ways are not our ways, so this indicates that none of us will "naturally get it" but will require revelation and transformation to get it.

All of which failed completely to address my central point that different denominations, all claiming to have "got it", have each "got" something different. While there is much in common, there are also glaring, irreconcilable differences - else there would be only a single denomination. As such calling God a standard of goodness has no practical value. This is not a way of denying he is good, only that aspects of his goodness are a mystery to his followers, hence no value as a standard.

Can you answer the trolley question? Can you say what God would do? If not, you cannot use him as a standard, in that instance, to decide how to do a good thing? If you can provide the answer, are you really confident all other Christians will provide the same answer?

 

[ZNP]

All of which failed completely to address my central point that different denominations, all claiming to have "got it", have each "got" something different. While there is much in common, there are also glaring, irreconcilable differences - else there would be only a single denomination. As such calling God a standard of goodness has no practical value. This is not a way of denying he is good, only that aspects of his goodness are a mystery to his followers, hence no value as a standard.

Can you answer the trolley question? Can you say what God would do? If not, you cannot use him as a standard, in that instance, to decide how to do a good thing? If you can provide the answer, are you really confident all other Christians will provide the same answer?

I thought I answered this directly, I'll try it again.

God's ways are not our ways, God's thoughts are not our thoughts. Jesus when someone called Him good said only God is good. All of this says that none of us, Christian or Atheist or Buddhist or Muslim or Jew is good. So it is not a contradiction that all these different Christians and denominations have not yet arrived at the oneness of the faith.

I would say that we could spend hours talking about what Paul meant by "walking worthily of the Lord". I believe the book of James addresses this directly.

 

[Ophiolite]

I thought I answered this directly, I'll try it again.

God's ways are not our ways, God's thoughts are not our thoughts. Jesus when someone called Him good said only God is good. All of this says that none of us, Christian or Atheist or Buddhist or Muslim or Jew is good. So it is not a contradiction that all these different Christians and denominations have not yet arrived at the oneness of the faith.

I would say that we could spend hours talking about what Paul meant by "walking worthily of the Lord". I believe the book of James addresses this directly.

And that still fails to address my central point.
You claim that God provides the standard for goodness. You liken that to the precise, agree upon standards scientists use for measurements.

If we are to attempt to be as good as possible then such a standard would be useful and yet simply saying God is good does not give a precise standard, nor have Christians agreed upon what it is about God that constitutes goodness.

You mention the Book of James again. You previously noted that my list of actions that I considered good, that would improve things was similar to what he said.

From my point of view that is easy to explain. Christian morality and my morality are both sourced from the evolutionary character of an intelligent, social animal.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

It is clear to me that many Christians (though certainly not all) seem to do good things because they are afraid not to, they are afraid of missing out on eternal life, or worse, being consigned to eternal hell. On the other hand, many atheists do good things because this is the only opportunity we shall ever have to do good and we do not want to miss out on it.

Certainly not all. Thanks for pointing that out. I would hate to think that Christians only do good things because they don't want to go to hell. That would be disingenuous and God would catch that motivation off the bat. He warns us against that in scripture.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

A Christian may be doing good because of their nature or because they fear Hell.

Christians (true one's) are led by the Holy Spirit. It is like a "super conscience" inside of you that guilds you to do the right thing. It is like a gnawing feeling that won't go away until it is addressed. Some are more "in tune" with the Holy Spirit and some quench the Holy Spirit. So the fear of hell plays no part in the good works of a Christian, it is more like a heavy hearted awareness.

 

[ZNP]

And that still fails to address my central point.
You claim that God provides the standard for goodness. You liken that to the precise, agree upon standards scientists use for measurements.

If we are to attempt to be as good as possible then such a standard would be useful and yet simply saying God is good does not give a precise standard, nor have Christians agreed upon what it is about God that constitutes goodness.

Treating others with mercy as a rule is a good thing, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is a good thing. I have given two examples. Again, to go into great detail about what is meant by "walk worthily of the Lord" or "be a doer and not a hearer only" would hijack this thread. I feel that all the threads on this forum are centered on the Christian faith and practice and thought that the atheists who frequent this forum regularly would like an opportunity to have the spotlight on them.

You mention the Book of James again. You previously noted that my list of actions that I considered good, that would improve things was similar to what he said.

From my point of view that is easy to explain. Christian morality and my morality are both sourced from the evolutionary character of an intelligent, social animal.

Does that mean that atheists embrace Christian morality?

Yes you gave me a list, not a definition, and the source of this list. Do all Atheists agree?

(Even though Christians disagree on the interpretation of the Bible receiving the Bible as the word of God is an item of the Christian faith, all Christians would agree that God is good and that Jesus is the image of the invisible God).

 

[Ophiolite]

Treating others with mercy as a rule is a good thing, doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is a good thing. I have given two examples. Again, to go into great detail about what is meant by "walk worthily of the Lord" or "be a doer and not a hearer only" would hijack this thread. I feel that all the threads on this forum are centered on the Christian faith and practice and thought that the atheists who frequent this forum regularly would like an opportunity to have the spotlight on them.

There seems little point in continuing this aspect of the discussion. You have made an absurd statement, but are unable to see, or acknowledge its absurdity. Your associated statements are contradictory or irrelevant.
In short, to declare "God is good" represents a standard by which we may assess goodness is nonsense.
To declare "God is Good" and we should seek to honour this through our actions is a reasonable statement for Christians.
You continue to equivocate the two.

Does that mean that atheists embrace Christian morality?

No it means that the two moralities have much in common because both are sourced from our instinctive behaviours as a social animal. I've said this in a couple of different ways already and you keep asking the same questions of me. Why?

Yes you gave me a list, not a definition, and the source of this list. Do all Atheists agree?

The list is an implicit definition. I don't recall giving you a source of the list. I've repeatedly told you that atheists have diverse views, that not all would necessarily agree with mine. Why do you keep asking? Are you expecting a different answer.

Here is what I said before:

"That depends on which atheist you speak to. Take a look at some threads in CF and it is clear that a similar diversity exists within Christianity, or certainly in the minds of Christians.

Cooperation; selflessness; care for the young, the infirm, the old, the weak; honesty; loyalty; open-mindedness; sincerity. It's the usual list, and apart from those notions that relate to a God, there would be no meaningful difference between a Christian's view of good and that of an atheist."


We do good when we cooperate, behave in a selfless manner, care for the young, infirm, the old and the weak, when we exhibit loyalty, act honestly, are open-minded and sincere. Goodness is what flows from such actions and attitudes.

 

[Hawkins]

God is the standard. There's a reason that it is so.
God's goal is to build an eternity for Him and angels and humans to live together happily. That's why Law is needed to be set, such that only those willing to abide by the Law defined by God can live with Him in such an eternity, especially when it is said God is completely sin-incompatible.

The analogy is, you are going to build a large mansion then invite all your friends and relatives to live in. You then set up rules for them to follow in order to live in peace with you, such as you shouldn't shout at night or train up your kids to be the criminals. You rules now becomes a standard.

Christianity is about the advocate that our conscience and moral code is delivered from God, more importantly there will be a Final Judgment to follow. Such a judgment simultaneously means a standard exists in one way or another. The Bible is about two of the standards to be illustrated, namely in OT and NT respectively. The term righteousness is an assessment measured against such a standard, especially in the process of the Final Judgment. "Good" from this perspective means you passed or potentially can pass the judgment of such a standard.

That's the concept of 'good' in terms of Christianity. When it is said that "no one is righteous, not even one", that's the situation when a human is measured against Law which is a standard only 2/3 angels can pass but not a single humans (that's where Jesus is needed for the redemption of humans).

That's why in Christianity 'good' or righteous is judged based on a covenant a human is subject to. While humans may see it a bit differently. When we say a person is good we measure his past behavior using our conscience or moral code as a standard. However, our conscience and moral code are affected by the various factors such as the moral values of our society. Thus humans' conscience and moral code are more or less an educated one (say, by parents, culture of society etc.) which may deviate from the version designed by God to judge our behavior on the Judgment Day.

When this deviation becomes significant, a new standard thus is needed for a more precise judgment. That's why the New Covenant will assess our faith instead of our behavior. To this standard, only people with the correct kind of faith will be deemed as good or righteous. This simultaneously says an even larger gap to what humans refer to as a 'good' man. Humans use their conscience and moral code (an altered one) as a standard to evaluate one's past behavior (can be very inaccurate as you can't be with a person 24/7 to tell who he is). While God's standard has been changed to evaluate faith instead of behavior.

 

[grasping the after wind]

An atheist who does good is doing good because that is their intrinsic nature.

Why would an atheist believe in an intrinsic nature?

 

[Larniavc]

Christians (true one's) are led by the Holy Spirit. It is like a "super conscience" inside of you that guilds you to do the right thing. It is like a gnawing feeling that won't go away until it is addressed. Some are more "in tune" with the Holy Spirit and some quench the Holy Spirit. So the fear of hell plays no part in the good works of a Christian, it is more like a heavy hearted awareness.

So what test is there to detect a true Christian from a false one?

 

[Larniavc]

Why would an atheist believe in an intrinsic nature?

I can think of no reason why an atheist would not believe in an intrinsic nature.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I can think of no reason why an atheist would not believe in an intrinsic nature.

Lack of evidence that such a thing exists perhaps?

 

[grasping the after wind]

I can think of no reason why an atheist would not believe in an intrinsic nature.

How about no evidence that such a thing exists?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

So what test is there to detect a true Christian from a false one?

Motivation.

 

[civilwarbuff]

In short, to declare "God is good" represents a standard by which we may assess goodness is nonsense.
To declare "God is Good" and we should seek to honour this through our actions is a reasonable statement for Christians.
You continue to equivocate the two.

I thought he made it pretty clear: 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.' A command from God.
So, do you desire people to do evil to you?....or do you desire to have others do good unto you? It is not only the standard set by God it is also the measuring stick He uses.

 

[Ophiolite]

I thought he made it pretty clear: 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.' A command from God.
So, do you desire people to do evil to you?....or do you desire to have others do good unto you? It is not only the standard set by God it is also the measuring stick He uses.

Excellent. Now let's hope ZPN reads your post, understands, understands its relevance to this discussion and returns with the declaration that he wishes to consider this as his standard.

That said, would you agree that there are some things we might both consider good that are not covered by "Do unto others . . "? If that is the case then it kind of loses its role as a standard. Great guidance, but as a universal standard of "good", not so good.

 

[civilwarbuff]

That said, would you agree that there are some things we might both consider good that are not covered by "Do unto others . . "? If that is the case then it kind of loses its role as a standard. Great guidance, but as a universal standard of "good", not so good.

Such as......?