'No such thing as a good atheist'.

[Mycroft]

An opinion piece in the Huff Post I stumbled across.

Why There Is No Such Thing as a Good Atheist | Pastor Rick Henderson

Please discuss!

 

[Levite]

An opinion piece in the Huff Post I stumbled across.

Why There Is No Such Thing as a Good Atheist | Pastor Rick Henderson

Please discuss!

This whole argument he presents is utterly foreign to Jewish thought, which judges actions, not beliefs.

Whether one believes in many gods, one god, or no god, a person is good if they treat others well, try to create a just society without oppression and poverty, give charity and help the vulnerable.

Goodness is not something innate, or acquirable by belief: it is the sum total of one's actions and behaviors. Whether a person may be in error about a couple of philosophical points-- even important ones like the existence of the One God who created the universe-- has nothing to do with how that person treats others, gives and helps those who need, furthers fairness and justice in the world around them.

I have met a number of atheists who were truly good people, and my disagreement with them about God changed nothing about my respect for their goodness. And I have also met many theists, who profess great religious faith, who were appalling people-- mean, greedy, selfish, bigoted, and oppressive-- and my agreement with them on the one matter of there being a God changed nothing about my revulsion with them as awful people.

 

[Revoltingest]

Rambling & short on reason.
Not you....the preacher's article.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I think it is worth mentioning That the founder of RF was an Atheist who had a vision of world peace.

Myself, I think there are many good people who do not believe in a god.

 

[steeltoes]

I am an atheist and I don't claim to be morally superior, so sue me.

 

[Sunstone]

The good pastor Henderson neglects to mention that, following his approach, there can be no such thing as a good theist either. All morality is ultimately subjective, even if and when some intellectually incompetent dolt reasons that his or her morality is made objective by his or her belief in a supernatural entity that sanctions it.

For, in the first place, there is no means whereby a theist can escape the fact they are basically guessing when they assert (1) there exists a supernatural entity and (2) that supernatural entity sanctions a certain morality.

Second, even if 1 and 2 above could be demonstrated to be true, that would not in itself lead to the conclusion that morality was objective because it could still remain the case that the supernatural entity sanctions not only the morality in question, but several or even all human moralities at once.

Last, even if 1 and 2 above could be demonstrated to be true, and it were also true that the supernatural entity sanctioned one and only one morality, it would still not be the case that that morality was an objective morality in any meaningful sense of the word "objective". After all, what does it mean to have an objective morality?

Surely, an objective morality would in theory be the same as an objective fact about the natural world. But facts about the natural world do not necessarily exist ontologically. Instead, they are ultimately subjective facts that are inter-subjectively verifiable, which might give them the appearance of existing ontologically.

So is there objective morality in the sense of an inter-subjectively verifiable morality? Apparently not, given the diversity of opinions regarding what is moral and immoral. Or, if there is a consensus, the consensus might be due to other factors rather than to the allegedly ontological existence of morality. Hence, the notion there is an objective morality in the same sense that there are objective facts seems very likely to be vapid and devoid of genuine meaning.

But I suspect that Henderson would fail to understand any of that even though -- so far as I can see -- it is little more than a logical extension of his own basic approach.

 

[savagewind]

Either you're hoping that I'm right or you know that I'm wrong.

The man lost ten points right away as I clicked for neither reason. I read stupid stuff to make myself look smarter to myself. I don't know why.

A young girl is rescued from sexual slavery.....These are all actions that can be known and explained but never given any meaning or value.

A child rescued from the sex slave trade is not valuable?

There is no morally good atheist, because there really is no objective morality. At best, morality is the mass delusion shared by humanity, protecting us from the cold sting of despair.

How about feeling good about one's self? How about causing another human being to feel good about her self?

 

[savagewind]

"Modern science directly implies that there ... is no ultimate meaning for humans."
--William Provine

Well, that might be true but who really cares about the ultimate meaning? Even Jesus believes in humility.

 

[savagewind]

"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. ... DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music."
--Richard Dawkins

"No species, ours included, possesses a purpose beyond the imperatives created by its genetic history."
--Edward O. Wilson

Based on the nonnegotiable premises of atheism, these are the only logical conclusions.

The problem with this is those are not conclusions but are observations and the observations are mostly true.

 

[savagewind]

The question is how we make sense of moral claims if we play by the rules that atheism demands.

It seems to me atheists make no demands except maybe to be understood, and what's wrong with that? Religious leaders are they who are making demands, I guess.

In the strict framework of atheism outlined above, what reason is there to ever assume human dignity?

It feels good is good enough reason for me.

 

[LuisDantas]

I feel bad for theists when I see people offering that kind of sayings. It is reflects badly on them.

 

[Mycroft]

I think that the author is right about much of what he says. But is overshadowed by his poorly attempted quasi-attack on atheists. What he should have said, in my opinion, is that there's no such thing as good or bad people.

What I mean by this is that the morality of, say, one country is not the morality of another. In Saudi Arabia a man can have as many wives as he can afford. In America you may only have one wife, and having more than one wife is considered illegal and immoral. In America (growingly) homosexuality is considered okay, where as in Saudi Arabia homosexuality is considered immoral.

In the above examples Religion was the prime dictator in those particular moralities. Particularly in the case of homosexuality, which is why it is now undergoing review and revolution.

I think what the reverand should have said instead is that there is 'no such thing as a good or a bad person'. In that everyone is normal according to the country, society or culture they grow up in. You grow up to consider the goings on of your country, society or culture to be normal behaviour. If you lived in Ancient Maya where the people sacrificed someone (often children) to appease the gods every day, and if that was your only experience of life, being within that culture, then that behaviour would seem normal to you.

If you grew up in Nazi Germany and your only influences in life were Nazi propaganda, you would become a Nazi, that would seem quite normal to you. Your whole family would be Nazi, your friends, friends of friends. It would just seem like the normal and natural thing to do to be a Nazi.

What about religious people in different countries. I am sure that the western Christian considers himself right and moral, going about his business in his idea of what he thinks is good and moral but never once stopping to consider that his iPhone may have been made using slavery and sweatshops, and that his clothes may have been made using forced labour, and so on. Is it moral to use goods made by force labour or slavery?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

There are moral and immoral atheists. There are moral and immoral Christians. There are moral and immoral Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Pagans, etc., not dependent on any supernatural agency. This implies, to me, that morality is at least subjective, and probably situational. Atheists can be just as moral, and at times more moral, than theists. It doesn't depend on belief, but one's personal choices.

 

[LuisDantas]

Morality is certainly situational and subject to the limitations of individual people's rational and acting power. But it is hardly subjective nor arbitrary in the usual senses of thosee words.

 

[savagewind]

I think he assumes the foundation is God so an atheist has no foundation. I am a God believer. I believe the foundation I stand on is righteousness. I think most atheists' foundation is also righteousness. Is Rick Henderson saying there is no righteousness apart from belief in God? How does that work?

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it is worth mentioning That the founder of RF was an Atheist who had a vision of world peace.

That's just what he told you.
Booowhahhahahhahhahhhh, etc!

 

[Mycroft]

I think he assumes the foundation is God so an atheist has no foundation. I am a God believer. I believe the foundation I stand on is righteousness. I think most atheists' foundation is also righteousness. Is Rick Henderson saying there is no righteousness apart from belief in God? How does that work?

The trouble is the Romans, Egyptians and Chinese had laws against murder, stealing, adulteration and suchlike many hundreds of years before the ten commandments or the Bible were written.

 

[savagewind]

The trouble is the Romans, Egyptians and Chinese had laws against murder, stealing, adulteration and suchlike many hundreds of years before the ten commandments or the Bible were written.

"The trouble is". What does it mean please? What trouble? Is it just a figure of speech placed in the wrong place?

 

[Mycroft]

"The trouble is". What does it mean please?

The trouble with some (not all) religious folk trying to claim a monopoly on morality.

 

[savagewind]

The trouble with some (not all) religious folk trying to claim a monopoly on morality.

OK. The trouble is not their claim on morality. Their trouble is their claim on God. Like the moon. We got here first, it's ours.