What is atheism?

[civilwarbuff]

You assure me there is nothing hostile in your replies. I note that if you were to choose not assist me directly to understand where and how my replies may be incorrect that would look suspiciously like passive aggressive behaviour. By all means reference specific verses of Corinthians to specific errors on my part, but specificity is the likely key to getting your point across.

Here is a good example:

In short, to declare "God is good" represents a standard by which we may assess goodness is nonsense.

God is good is the standard that is set for us and the tools we use to measure our progress to being more like God:
In Mark 12:30-31, Jesus said, “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength. The second is equally important: Love your neighbor as yourself.No other commandment is greater than these.”
Do unto others.....
Love your enemies.....
Love those that persecute you....
Luke 10:25-37: The Good Samaritan
So maybe you can see it is not 'nonsense'.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

My point was about people not being able to tell a pretending Christian to a true Christian.

You can tell if you have Holy Spirit discernment. Ultimately, only God knows the heart. In His words:

Isaiah 55:8-9
“For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Now, IIRC this thread is about atheism and not Christianity so returning to the subject at hand.....

 

[Ophiolite]

Here is a good example:

God is good is the standard that is set for us and the tools we use to measure our progress to being more like God:
In Mark 12:30-31, Jesus said, “You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength. The second is equally important: Love your neighbor as yourself.No other commandment is greater than these.”
Do unto others.....
Love your enemies.....
Love those that persecute you....
Luke 10:25-37: The Good Samaritan
So maybe you can see it is not 'nonsense'.

Thank you for the detailed reply. This is what I was looking for. However, this does not address my objections to ZPN. If ZPN had used the word standard in the colloquial sense I would have no objections to his replies. But that is not the case. He specifically used standard in the sense of a scientific standard. That requires precision.

You are offering specifics; you are offering precision; ZPN waffled around that point and failed to deliver. Thus the standard is not "God is good", but "God is good in these specific ways".

I note that you have failed to include in that the specific that good includes our stewardship of the planet. Have you decided to exclude that? You seemed in favour of it earlier, which led me to say:

And so it seems that you agree with me that the Golden Rule does not define all that is good, but that we should include the Stewardship of the planet as well.

And this you objected to . I don't see why.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Thank you for the detailed reply. This is what I was looking for. However, this does not address my objections to ZPN. If ZPN had used the word standard in the colloquial sense I would have no objections to his replies. But that is not the case. He specifically used standard in the sense of a scientific standard. That requires precision.

You are offering specifics; you are offering precision; ZPN waffled around that point and failed to deliver. Thus the standard is not "God is good", but "God is good in these specific ways".

I note that you have failed to include in that the specific that good includes our stewardship of the planet. Have you decided to exclude that? You seemed in favour of it earlier, which led me to say:

And this you objected to . I don't see why.

John 21:25 should answer that.......

 

[Ophiolite]

John 21:25 should answer that.......

No mate. I'm not playing that game with you. If you wish to support your argument with Scripture go right ahead, but I want to hear your responses directly. You've proven you can do it with your previous post, so I won't accept your post here as anything other than a cynical form of goading.
We are done.

 

[civilwarbuff]

And so it seems that you agree with me that the Golden Rule does not define all that is good, but that we should include the Stewardship of the planet as well. So we have refined and improved the definition of the standard of "good". Perhaps there are other concepts from the NT that should be added? Can you think of any?

Maybe you can explain how good stewardship is not 'doing unto others'.....you kinda lose me on that concept.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I repeat, I have no problem with you saying "God is good" provides a foundation for your ethics. I do have a problem with your assertion , made in the post quoted above, that it represents a standard in the scientific sense.

Sorry, I thought we were talking about God not science......

 

[civilwarbuff]

No mate. I'm not playing that game with you. If you wish to support your argument with Scripture go right ahead, but I want to hear your responses directly. You've proven you can do it with your previous post, so I won't accept your post here as anything other than a cynical form of goading.
We are done.

And so it seems that you agree with me that the Golden Rule does not define all that is good,

Hmmm, maybe you didn't understand my point. No one has the time to include all the things about God that is good which seems to me what you are asking for....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Now back to the topic of this thread.......

 

[Ophiolite]

Sorry, I thought we were talking about God not science......

You should raise that with ZPN. He is the one who introduced the notion of scientific standards.

Maybe you can explain how good stewardship is not 'doing unto others'.....you kinda lose me on that concept.

Are you asserting that wild animals are equivalent to humans? Proper stewardship of the planet would require restricting the actions of humans to benefit wildlife. Some humans would "suffer" to some extent thereby, yet I would certainly consider it good and that view seems echoed in the "stewardship of the planet" concept. How are you squaring that circle?

On second thoughts, don't bother answering any of those questions. Rightly or wrongly I think we are a lot closer than you believe. It is as if you are disagreeing with me simply because you would be embarrassed to admit an atheist had, from a practical standpoint, very similar morals to yourself. Since this could go on interminably, I am bowing out. To avoid temptation - and not as a reflection on yourself - I'm popping you on Ignore for a week.

 

[Ophiolite]

Hmmm, maybe you didn't understand my point. No one has the time to include all the things about God that is good which seems to me what you are asking for....

Then don't equate it to a scientific standard. (Said with an exasperated, frustrated, disappointed, disbelieving tone.)

 

[ZNP]

Post #16

This is the relevant portion:
"So I have another question, and again I expect there is an answer, so this is simply to help me understand. In science we are very precise in our measurements. There is an interesting history on the standard unit for the kilogram, it has changed repeatedly from a measure of water, to a certain amount of platinum, to a certain amount of iridium, until now it is defined by an even more complicated approach. The reason for this is that we found our previous standards were changing their mass over time. Likewise the standard unit for a meter has changed multiple times as well. The reason is that scientists need standard units so that when an experiment is done using 1 kg of a substance everyone knows exactly what that means. The Chinese scientists don't have their opinion about what a kg is, which is different from the Russian kg, or the US kg. We all have exactly the same understanding of what one kg is and it doesn't matter who or where the the person is.

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

In this you very clearly and succinctly describe scientific standards, emphasising their precision and likening them to your standard for "good". I have been challenging this, over multiple posts, because their is no precision in God is good. It lack specificity. None of your numerous replies (for which I appreciate the effort you have made) got anywhere near addressing that point.

I repeat, I have no problem with you saying "God is good" provides a foundation for your ethics. I do have a problem with your assertion , made in the post quoted above, that it represents a standard in the scientific sense.

The fact that you challenge this does not make your opinion the defacto correct one.

An atheist wrote an essay titled "you can be good without God" that is a clear reference to the Bible verse where Jesus says there is none good but God. Clearly Christians and Atheists don't agree on this. So the question is "how does an atheist define "good"? You have not given me the definition that this particular atheist was working off of, you continually qualify your answers as not applying to others and therefore not being a standard. How could I possibly judge if it is possible to be "good without God" if you won't tell me what "good" means?

You have even gone so far as to say that your definition of good is essentially the same as mine, even though you say you definitely do not believe in the God that Christians believe in. That is insulting. I believe that only God is good, though I also agree that that is not a definition, only a qualification and that the definition is quite involved and would be completely off topic for this thread. I have agreed to go into detail on a thread where such a definition was appropriate.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Then don't equate it to a scientific standard. (Said with an exasperated, frustrated, disappointed, disbelieving tone.)

I didn't (Said with the same exasperated, frustrated, disappointed, disbelieving tone.) Sheesh.......

 

[civilwarbuff]

Are you asserting that wild animals are equivalent to humans?

Never implied any such thing. If I did please post it.

Some humans would "suffer" to some extent thereby,

How would they suffer?

It is as if you are disagreeing with me simply because you would be embarrassed to admit an atheist had, from a practical standpoint, very similar morals to yourself.

No more than you would be embarrassed to admit to similar morals to a Christian....who gets his morality from God.

Since this could go on interminably, I am bowing out.

I have twice suggested we return to the thread subject but.......

 

[Ophiolite]

The fact that you challenge this does not make your opinion the defacto correct one.

It is not an opinion. It is a logical consequence of your chosen usage of "Standard"

An atheist wrote an essay titled "you can be good without God" that is a clear reference to the Bible verse where Jesus says there is none good but God. Clearly Christians and Atheists don't agree on this. So the question is "how does an atheist define "good"? You have not given me the definition that this particular atheist was working off of, you continually qualify your answers as not applying to others and therefore not being a standard. How could I possibly judge if it is possible to be "good without God" if you won't tell me what "good" means?

1. How could I give you the definition that "this particular atheist was working off of" since you have never told me who the atheist was, or provided a link to his essay?

2. I would not presume to speak for others on this. It would be dishonest. Consequently it is necessary to qualify my answers. I perceived this as especially important as you appeared to have the view that there was a near universal opinion amongst atheists on such matters. I was at pains to point out where my views were my own and to suggest where I thought they might be held more widely. I did this in order to help furnish you with the answers you were seeking.
I am disappointed that you now seem to decry this effort as somehow evasive. I was under no obligation to respond to your OP at all. I did so for a variety or reasons that I set out here:

• To meet your need for a clearer understanding of atheist views.
• To clarify my own thinking on such matters
• To learn something from your responses
• To remove misconceptions that might be present in some other members thoughts regarding atheist viewpoints.

3. I have told you, from the outset, what "good" means to me:

Post # 3
Cooperation; selflessness; care for the young, the infirm, the old, the weak; honesty; loyalty; open-mindedness; sincerity.

Post #30
I repeated the above definition.

4. Not only have I told you what good means, I have pointed out, in multiple posts, that Christian morality and the morality of many atheists are very similar. That is, their understanding of what constitutes a good action are similar and in many cases identical.

You have even gone so far as to say that your definition of good is essentially the same as mine, even though you say you definitely do not believe in the God that Christians believe in. That is insulting. I believe that only God is good, though I also agree that that is not a definition, only a qualification and that the definition is quite involved and would be completely off topic for this thread. I have agreed to go into detail on a thread where such a definition was appropriate

1. For all practical purposes our definition of good is the same. i.e. if we both do good things according to our respective definitions our actions will generally be the same or very similar. If you deny that I think the you may be the one offering the insult.

2. It's a bit rich of you to ask what an atheist thinks and then claim to be insulted when we tell you. Perhaps this is why so few atheists have been willing to share their beliefs with you: they were smarter than me and saw where it would lead.

3. If you felt that a definition of good was not appropriate then you should not have offered one and not asked me for one.

4. Those actions, along with the character of other of your responses in this thread, make it unlikely that you have the remotest chance of understanding me and I have lost nearly all interest in understanding you.

I recommend, though I doubt you will heed the advice, that when you next ask these questions you first reflect long and hard on what would constitute a good open mind.

Thank you for the time and effort you put into your replies. I regret it was largely wasted.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Finis

 

[ZNP]

Thank you for the detailed reply. This is what I was looking for. However, this does not address my objections to ZPN. If ZPN had used the word standard in the colloquial sense I would have no objections to his replies. But that is not the case. He specifically used standard in the sense of a scientific standard. That requires precision.

You are offering specifics; you are offering precision; ZPN waffled around that point and failed to deliver. Thus the standard is not "God is good", but "God is good in these specific ways".

I note that you have failed to include in that the specific that good includes our stewardship of the planet. Have you decided to exclude that? You seemed in favour of it earlier, which led me to say:

And this you objected to . I don't see why.

You said that your definition of good is essentially the same as in the Book of James and that I agreed with that. Not what I said. What I said is that James definition of "pure religion" seems similar to your definition of good.

James talks about doing a "perfect work". So, how can we know if our "work" is perfect. James also talks about it lacking something, how can we know if it is lacking something? Paul talks about a work of the flesh rather than a work of the spirit. In the New Testament they lay out the "standard unit" for a perfect work. Every Christian will agree that the work Jesus did on the cross was perfect. The four gospels present Jesus work from 4 different angles: as a king, as a servant, as a man, and as the incarnated son of God. Those are the four standard units by which we can measure a perfect work. If you claim to be "good" then you can measure yourself against this standard. According to Paul every one of us comes short in two ways, we have all sinned and we have all fallen short of the glory of God. Simply being sinless doesn't mean you have risen to the level of the glory of God.

Compare this with the Atheist definition of "good". Oh, right, there is no such thing. Every atheist has their own definition. So of course, when an Atheist writes it is possible to be good without God, of course it is, because you get to define what that means. But here is the thing, no one could care less. Why do Atheists come to this forum? No one wants to visit their forum. When invited to share on their understanding of the world, when asked to enlighten us all about what they think, it is incredibly silent. Repeatedly they ask us to talk about what a Christian believes.

After 76 posts what have we learned about atheists and what they believe? They agree on one thing: "the Christian God is not God". They can't even bring themselves to say that Jesus is not God. They avoid saying that Jehovah Savior, the anointed one, did not come in the flesh. But that is truly the only thing they agree on as far as I can tell.

Think of the hypocrisy. They will portray themselves as scientific, they will arrogantly attack anyone who does not use their special definitions, but ask them for their definition of "good" and they are silent. The title of the article was obviously based on Jesus word that only God is good. Attacking the Bible and contradicting the word of God is the one thing they are comfortable doing.

But if Jesus work on the cross is the standard by which we measure all other words of faith and what it is to be "good", could anyone really measure up apart from God? Of course not.

 

[ZNP]

So the atheist said his definition of good was essentially the same as James. What he meant was that his definition of good was essentially the same as James definition of pure religion.

So let's look at James. In this book he talks about putting bits into the mouths of horses and trying to control where they go. This is precisely what the false prophets do, they try to control where you go. Why is the only goal of these atheists to hijack threads? They are not interested in being the horse, they are interested in controlling where you go. Likewise, he talks about the rudder controlling where the ship goes. and he talks about how a tiny spark can burn down a forest. All of those are compared to the tongue and then he says "no man can tame man's tongue".

They are not interested in doing the work of the horse, or the work of the ship, or even of planting the forest. Simply steering the horse into calamity, steering the ship onto the rocks or burning the forest down.

 

[keith99]

Atheists are often portrayed as being anti religion, or anti Christian. I suppose this is a stereotype that does not apply to all just as there are many stereotypes concerning Christians that don’t apply to all. But if you do not believe in a God that governs the universe, don’t believe soul is eternal and don’t believe that there will be a judgement, does that mean that atheists feel

Some Christians claim that anytime an atheist says religion is foolish that we are anti religion or anti Christian, often in a sense that implies we are cruel evil people. Those very same Christians are the ones most apt to call atheists (or for that matter those of any other faith) fools.

Yes I am anti that sort of Christian. I am anti those of any faith that insist others have to follow the rules of their faith. I am anti Westboro Baptist.

But calling me anti Christian is more than a bit off. I'm pro Dansbury Baptists and The Confessing Church. I am even more in favor of the Society of Friends and own them a debt because they were willing to help me and others like me when few others would.

I admire Dietrich Bonhoeffer, C.S. Lewis and Bishop Bernard Sheil as much or more than any other 3 men.

I tend to think many Christians say we hate them because we are willing to hit back, they have become quite used to a gross double standard where they expect others to simply absorb their hate. It almost seems like their Scriptures say that others are not allowed to strike them back instead of telling them not to strike back and return good for evil.

 

[NeedyFollower]

I am agnostic to the possibility of God, Gods, or gods, but atheistic in regard to the Christian God (and all others Gods claimed by humans that I have heard of.)

Many of the things humans have believed, do and will believe are true are believed on the basis of insufficient, zero, or contradictory evidence. I don't place a high value on the skeptical ability of most humans most of the time, and on no humans all of the time.

I have no certainty about anything. I suspect certainty is a dangerous commodity in this world. I was a Christian hence, I periodically review my rejection of Christianity, expose myself to the thoughts and experiences of Christians and generally try to keep an open mind. My conclusion, one that moves asymptotically closer to certainty, is that the Christian God does not exist.

I'm not sure we are getting smarter, it's just that the giants whose shoulders Newton stood on to see much further, are way larger today.

Your grace/humility reasoning is clever, though I'm not sure it isn't a circular argument.

Is wisdom different to knowledge? I used to have a signature line on another forum that went:

data > information > knowledge > wisdom

Wisdom points us towards the right thing to do with knowledge. I sometimes ponder wisdom > ?

Wisdom is an emergent property made possible by language in a social milieu. If we had a little more of it most of the Amazon rain forest would still be in place.

It is nice of you to say so. The more common description of my posts or personality read: arrogant; close-minded; rude; offensive; ignorant; hateful; blind; etc.

You have, therefore, either made a major error of judgement, or (and this is the hypothesis I favour) you've seen what I'm actually trying to say, or (I'm not so keen on this one) you haven't read enough of my posts.

I am agnostic to the possibility of God, Gods, or gods, but atheistic in regard to the Christian God (and all others Gods claimed by humans that I have heard of.)

I guess it stands to reason that I consider myself a believer. I do not know if I have faith not having anything to compare it with and understanding that many people believe lots of things . I do believe that I have a better understanding than when I was a godless believer . ( I was a godless believer despite being "orthodox " , church-goer , etc. ) Regarding your being an atheist to the christian God , who is the christian God ? I probably understand your reasoning of the God of the Bible . There are many things I just do not understand . I do observe that there are many things in this world with which I do not agree but that does not keep them from being true . Similarly , I would speculate that there are things from a limited human standpoint which limit me from understanding God's way of seeing things . I put myself in the place of a cancer cell . I just want to be left alone and replicate . From that point of view , a surgeon would be my enemy and probably considered genocidal by my fellow cancer cells . ( Our vision ...our goals ...are different than the Father of the healthy cells . )

Many of the things humans have believed, do and will believe are true are believed on the basis of insufficient, zero, or contradictory evidence. I don't place a high value on the skeptical ability of most humans most of the time, and on no humans all of the time.

Ha! Yes . There have been a very few times in my life where I knew I was making a bad decision but continued on for various reasons ...many if not all because of being short sighted. The rest of the bad
ideas and concepts were a result of delusion . I had no idea and genuinly thought I was right . So , I learned that I am capable of self delusion and will not know it at the time .

I have no certainty about anything. I suspect certainty is a dangerous commodity in this world. I was a Christian hence, I periodically review my rejection of Christianity, expose myself to the thoughts and experiences of Christians and generally try to keep an open mind. My conclusion, one that moves asymptotically closer to certainty, is that the Christian God does not exist.

Good luck on exposing yourself to thoughts and experiences of Christians for there are so many variations . I would agree on the advantage of revisiting my decisions and beliefs though . Personally I think the politicizing of Christianity , mixed with an inordinate amount of "data" or influence from centers of shallowness like hollywood , has pretty much tainted any semblance of christian thought to which one can expose themselves . I feel very badly for those who explore christianity ...particularly in America .
Ironically , one of the repetitions that gives some credence to the truth of christiainty is not unlike the believers in the Old Testament ...their predicted falling away . Just for kicks , take a look at Micah , the third chapter . It is frequently attested that God's name is blasphemed among the unbelievers because of believers . ( This also happened in Jesus day,i.e. the money changers in the temple . _

I'm not sure we are getting smarter, it's just that the giants whose shoulders Newton stood on to see much further, are way larger today.

Well yes ..I agree . Of course one of the dangers is the hubris which happens when youth is given great wealth . For example , it would be difficult to convince Mark Zuckerburg that he is still a child in regards to wisdom . ( Henry the 8th was calling his handlers knaves and fools at age 4 . ) America is Henry the 8th . Immature and wealthy with lots of power . Our currently leader is a perfect poster child for this country . ( I believe the case can be made to where we are today by referencing the first three chapters of Isiah .

Your grace/humility reasoning is clever, though I'm not sure it isn't a circular argument.

Well yes , it is a circular argument but of course that does not negate it from being a working principle and it does have some validity from a standpoint of reason ...without humility , a person can not be wrong so therefore additional teaching or learning is shut to them .

Is wisdom different to knowledge? I used to have a signature line on another forum that went:

data > information > knowledge > wisdom

Wisdom points us towards the right thing to do with knowledge. I sometimes ponder wisdom > ?

Wisdom is an emergent property made possible by language in a social milieu. If we had a little more of it most of the Amazon rain forest would still be in place.

Yes ..regarding the rain forest and the rest of the planet ...to solve it , human nature would have to be changed ...we have had our inherent vanity stoked by advertising ...the trophy wife ..the BMW , the palatial house ...wealth , fame , etc. And since we are so self absorbed , we only see our own trash and consumption ...not the aggregate . And every CEO is going to make their numbers because we have allowed our careers to define us in addition to our competitiveness ( not to mention our appearances ...so that means selling more stuff .) What a shame no one got the lesson from Isiah that Christ was hideously ugly ..maybe deformed and repulsive ..thus signifying a change from the outward to the inward perfectness . ( I think He was beautiful inwardly and in his humility which is soooo contrary to humans ...another truth in the paradox . ) We are such an "outward " society and America really promotes this culture to the rest of the world but it's good for the economy and my stock portfolio ( I say that In jest ..I no longer chase wealth . ) That is why it will not get better ...does not matter who is in the WH.

It is nice of you to say so. The more common description of my posts or personality read: arrogant; close-minded; rude; offensive; ignorant; hateful; blind; etc.

You have, therefore, either made a major error of judgement, or (and this is the hypothesis I favour) you've seen what I'm actually trying to say, or (I'm not so keen on this one) you haven't read enough of my posts.

No , you struck me as very kind and civil . I am instructed to " speak every man truth with his neighbor for WE ARE ALL MEMBERS ONE OF ANOTHER" ..I like that last part for it is true ..in this boat together ....also as a believer, I am the one who is supposed to endeavor for the meekness of Christ ...even if you ever fail in that , why would I hold that against you ? And if I am not civil or kind , it is a clear indication that my wisdom is earthy, sensual and devilish because I read that the wisdom from above is first peaceable , gentle and easily entreated . I am setting my affections of things above .