'No such thing as a good atheist'.

[Knight of Albion]

I've read many times of hoodlums who have found religion, been transformed by it and turned their lives around. And many have been inspired by it.
On the flip side, throughout history, man has murdered, pillaged and persecuted his fellow human beings because they worshipped the same God but by a different name, or even the same God by the same name but a different ideology.
So it is misplaced to make sweeping generalizations.

To varying degrees, and irrespective of religion, there is good (and bad) in everybody, and the potential for great good under the right motivation and circumstances.

 

[Sunstone]

Actually, objective good could still exist regardless of whether god exists.

What, please tell, do you mean by "objective", and precisely how would you go about acquiring knowledge of anything or everything that was "objective"? opcorn:

 

[Sunstone]

Good point! Those atheists without religion have philosophy which is the same but with no leader.

Thales just peed in his grave.

 

[savagewind]

Thales just peed in his grave.

Well....that's nice.

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that despite the atheist view of a random, meaningless universe they nevertheless live lives as if there is some meaning to them. Is this not a contradiction?

But why would you suppose it was a contradiction? Perhaps you should begin with "random universe" and demonstrate how the fact of it might lack meaning, significance, import, or implication.

Then perhaps move onto the concept of "living lives as if there is some meaning to them" and show how anyone who does not subjectively ascribe specific, but nevertheless indemonstrable, meaning to the cosmic order actually has any lesser grounds for subjectively ascribing meaning to their lives that someone who does indeed subjectively ascribe specific, but nevertheless indemonstrable meaning to the cosmic order.

opcorn:

 

[savagewind]

Did not God start with randomness? What meaning does God have for life? According to the New Testament it is to live and know. 1 Timothy 2:4 who wants all people to be saved* and to come to a knowledge of the truth. I know it is fact that there are religious orders which take people OUT of knowing about the natural world so they might be full time knowing the spiritual world. That would not be good if everyone did it. Atheists are working to know about the world. Some are.

*or, to live, I suppose.

 

[Sunstone]

There is certainly basis for ethics in religion.

Are you asserting there "is certainly [a] basis for ethics in religion"? If so, I have no quibble with that.

But are you actually meaning to assert something or other along the preposterous lines of "there is certainly an objective basis for ethics..."? Is the latter what you are really asserting?

If so, then please allow me to assert, with just as little evidence as you, the equally preposterous notion that my penis is eleven inches long and three inches thick. Of course, only a fool would believe those measurements without compelling evidence. But by no means should you allow your lack of compelling evidence to prevent you from being cocksure your notion is true.

 

[nilsz]

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?

I strongly disagree that there are no such things as good or bad people, and it is hard not to see your post as arguing normative moral relativism. We can have different ideas about what constitutes good morality, yes. We can also have different ideas about what constitutes true reality. If we reject there being anything true or good, we make ourselves apathetic and passive in the face of evil and falsehood.

 

[Koldo]

What, please tell, do you mean by "objective", and precisely how would you go about acquiring knowledge of anything or everything that was "objective"? opcorn:

Objective as in existing like the gravity.
Just like we perceive reality through our senses, it just might be case that we are perceiving morality through our moral compass. So, if there is a major agreement between humans on what is good ( or evil ) on any subject, it could be said that such is objectively good ( or evil ).

However, I don't subscribe to this view.
My point was that if such a thing as objective good exists it doesn't depend on the existence of a god.

 

[dawny0826]

If an atheist really had this type of worldview:

While some want to state that atheism is simply a disbelief in the existence of a god, there really is more to it. Every expression of atheism necessitates at least three additional affirmations:

1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural, and there is no such thing as the supernatural (e.g., gods or spiritual forces).

2. The universe is scientific. It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.

3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness or a will, nor is it guided by a consciousness or a will.

I could maybe buy this:

A good atheist -- that is, a consistent atheist -- recognizes this dilemma. His only reasonable conclusion is to reject objective meaning and morality. Thus, calling him "good" in the moral sense is nonsensical.

However, if morality is the result of socio-biological evolution (per Pastor), he presents a stupid case as to why atheists can't be "good" or moral. By his logic, atheists would be starving their own children because feeding them would serve purpose.

Morality and logic are often relative.

 

[steeltoes]

We atheists are no good, what else is new?

 

[Sunstone]

We atheists are no good, what else is new?

Well, of course not. Atheists are the competition. The competition is never really good. The average theist might not care, but asking a preacher like Henderson who earns his living off theism for his unbiased opinion of the morals and virtues of his ideological competitor, atheism, is like like asking the CEO of Toyota Motor Company for his unbiased opinion of the CEO of Ford Motor Company, or vice versa. You might get a little lip service to the effect that everyone "admires and respects" each other, but after that's out of the way, you're most likely going to hear some the most biased spin on earth, even if and when that spin is a little too subtle for most of us to pick up on.

By the way, I'm not saying you shouldn't consider Henderson's arguments on their merits, but merely that you might want to have your spin meter out and its batteries fresh.

 

[sandandfoam]

Well, of course not. Atheists are the competition. The competition is never really good.

On the up side you should appreciate that he removed his head from his butt for long enough to notice the competition

 

[Sunstone]

On the up side you should appreciate that he removed his head from his butt for long enough to notice the competition

Well, yes, there's that.:yes:

 

[ChristineES]

It's always something we have to deal with: The fact that someone will generalize an entire group of people. I think what we, as individuals, need to try and ignore such things. Telling the person who is doing the generalizing probably will be ineffective. I suppose what a person can do is live proving otherwise. Maybe if the person who believes those stereotypes sees the opposite in a lot of those who belong to a group, he or she MIGHT (there is never any guarantee) change his or her mind down the road.

 

[Willamena]

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!

The three "additional affirmations" of atheism are not actually crucial to atheism.

1. The universe is purely material. It is strictly natural, and there is no such thing as the supernatural (e.g., gods or spiritual forces).

It's not necessarily the case that if you think of the universe as diverse of god or gods, you think that the universe is entirely material. Not all atheists subscribe to materialism.

2. The universe is scientific. It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.

This is incorrectly worded, it should be, "The universe can be studied." Scientific is us examining the universe; it's not something the universe is.

3. The universe is impersonal. It does not a have consciousness or a will, nor is it guided by a consciousness or a will.

While many atheists might hold this, atheism does not fall if we dismiss it. In fact, some would hold that because you are a person and not distinct from the universe, the universe is personable.

PS: I don't understand the conclusions of the rest of the article. I guess I'm not a good atheist.

 

[Sunstone]

It might or might not be relevant to this thread to bear in mind that the notion that at least somethings can be "objectively verified" is operationally meaningless sewage most likely pumped out in the hopes those dear folks who either did not take their university's sophomore philosophy of science class, or who somehow managed to flunk out of an introductory level philosophy class, will foolishly take their bath in it.

In fact, there is no such thing as "objective verification". All verification in necessarily subjective, as should be quite obvious to anyone who is themselves a subject and who experiences perception from a point of view -- which means every person on this planet with a functioning brain and senses. i.e. everyone but Rush Limbaugh.

There is, of course, inter-subjective verification, and that, in most practical ways, gives the appearance of what some people mean by "objective verification".

Just thought I'd mention all that before the next person comes along to assert that "we can know with certainty of an objective morality". For, if that's so, then how are they going to verify that?

And it usually turns out at that point that they've never really taken a moment to think through the fact that, if there exists an objective morality, and it cannot be objectively verified for the simple reason that there is no such thing as objective verification, but instead can only be subjectively verified, then for all practical purposes and intents -- for all we or they can know -- that objective morality of theirs might just as well be a subjective morality.

Moral of the story: Never flunk an introductory philosophy of science class. Never! Unless you're Rush Limbaugh, and then, well maybe you couldn't help it.

 

[Willamena]

Just thought I'd mention all that before the next person comes along to assert that "we can know with certainty of an objective morality". For, if that's so, then how are they going to verify that?

It's not so hard. Just restore the word "objective" to its natural sense, that being "of or about the object."

 

[InChrist]

I think the biblical perspective is that not only are there no good atheists, but there are no good people at all...for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23).

 

[averageJOE]

And here I thought the article was going to be about atheists who either killed or committed other serious crimes in the name of atheism.