And those who like to joke or make light of hell, by contending they are in it here on this earth show they have absolutely no true idea of what it is all about. Sadly many who consider themselves Christians (for all the wrong reasons) may get a shock when they die and Jesus turns them away from His presence. :(.

I’d be happy to discuss the atheist position, in my view, of “goodness”. Simply stated, anything that is positive from a particular point of view is “good”. Of course, that same event from another point of view may well be “bad”. “Good” cannot be evaluated in isolation, it requires a context to have meaning. There is always an implied “…from a particular point of view” after the word when an atheist says it.

In casual conversation, it is usually pretty clear what the point of view being discussed is from the context. For example, when speaking of broad topics — nuclear power, birth control, what have you — one infers the point of view to be something like, “to the net wellbeing of humanity.” When speaking of a sporting event, it would be, “to the team I prefer.” (Was it good when the Blue Jays won two World Series? Most people would probably say no, but I am serenely certain that they are wrong. (-; Interestingly, professional athletes who are religious often seem to unconsciously apply the same relative view of goodness, or they would not pray for victory!)

Atheists have nothing in their worldview from which to hang absolutes. We don’t believe in the universal yardstick by which Christians measure goodness. When entertaining a Christian worldview for the sake of discussion, we can take the implied rider on “good” to be, “to God,” and so still have something of a discussion without too much confusion. I still think this makes it impossible to tell good from bad, because of the law of mysterious ways, and so is not very useful. A Christian describing something as good or bad with this definition seems to be saying they know God’s plan.

However, if the other party is not willing to entertain other forms of goodness, the discussion quickly becomes tiresome and pointless. It is also considered bad form to rail against “moral relativism.” It is akin to saying, “I know the right way, the one way, the only way, and I don’t need to hear about any other way because they are all wrong.” What’s the point of talking to someone like that if they doesn’t have a halo and a chorus of angels accompanying them?

Relatedly, atheists have no problem describing something as “bad” because that is also relative. Many would not use the word “evil” in the same context, however, because it connotates absolute morality.

The motivation to do good or not do bad is often selfishness, directly or indirectly. Essentially a cost/benefit analysis. “I could take Julie’s last beer, but then she would be sad, and that would make me feel bad. Also, she might stop giving me beer in the future. I would enjoy a beer right now, but not enough to justify the risk.” We can ignore those cases as uninteresting. I think the quote you paraphrased provides a clue about the rest of the cases. Let us again ignore the selfish reasons to not keep killing (increasing risk of getting caught, for example). It appears to be a perfectly rational argument. So, for what rational reason wouldn’t we just keep killing everyone who annoyed us?

Answer: None at all. I am not saying there aren’t rational reasons to be discovered, I am saying they are irrelevant. Humans are not rational creatures. Logic requires perfect knowledge to give perfect results. If we depended on rationality to make our decisions, we would probably behave even crazier than we already do. Garbage in, garbage out. Rather, we rationalise decisions we come to through other means. Through our drives and emotions. Though they may be irrational, they’ve had about five hundred million years to find the voodoo that works. (”Voodoo” in the technical sense, meaning actions you perform to obtain a desired result without knowing how the actions produce the result.)

Why does someone jump into an icy river to attempt to save a single other person? The cost/benefit analysis says it doesn’t pay; now you have two people in imminent danger! You might say God makes them do it. I find that answer unsatisfactory, but I don’t have a complete answer of my own to substitute. I am content to say that most humans have a strong drive to try to preserve each other’s wellbeing, and leave it up to the evolutionary psychologists to discover how we came to possess that drive. The short answer is pretty obvious; humans who collaborate thrive, humans who do not struggle to survive.

This is strongly related to another common question, “why don’t athiests all just kill themselves?” Once you adjust for the impedance mismatch from the assumption that atheists think life is pointless, you’re still left with the reality that it is normally really, really hard for a person to kill themselves. Barring certain mental states, it takes an act of supreme will to overcome the drive to survive.

Anyhow, it’s a difficult subject, so I’ve just sort of rambled around hoping to hit on something that resonates. Thanks for your interest.

If you believe that you can live your life as you please with no consequences for your actions in the hereafter then why bother being “good”.

This is a common question posed to atheists. It is difficult to address because it is nearly nonsensical when removed from the assumption of an afterlife.

You seem to be presuming that either I am misrepresenting my beliefs and I do believe in an afterlife (and therefore am “good”) or that I am being truthful in my beliefs and therefore I must not be “good”. However, one does not logically follow from the other. It is quite possible to believe in the afterlife yet not be “good”, and likewise it is quite possible to be agnostic or disbelieving about an afterlife and also be “good”.

My actions have consequences. Right now. Right here. In this life. To me and the people around me. That is why I am good when I can be, and remorseful when I fail to be. I simply cannot follow why you would suggest I would think my actions do not have consequences. This is exactly the sort of distortion of thought that I was complaining about. You’re placing so much value on something that no one can know that you are failing to appreciate the value of this life.

Having said that, it sort of begs the question of why. That’s okay. I’m allowed to say, “I don’t know.” I have some shrewd guesses, though. Doing harm to others causes most humans to feel pain. We have empathy; the ability to model other people’s experiences and emotions. The kicker is, it’s really hard to turn it off. There are lots of tricks to do so, but for most people it takes a conscious act, and it keeps turning itself back on at the most inconvenient times. People who’s brain lacks the facility for empathy behave exactly as you cast the average atheist; someone with no concept of the consequences of their actions beyond how they will be directly affected. In a word, a sociopath. I hope you do not really think of atheists as sociopaths, but that is the outward appearance.

The truth is, “why are we good?” is a very difficult question. It is not obvious why humans (Christian or otherwise) should ever act altruistically, but it is obvious that they do. Its a fascinating area of current research. Religion loves difficult questions, because its much easier to take credit for them. “What makes the sun shine?” “What makes the stars sometimes fall?” “What makes men do good things?” Let’s just say God did it and get back to more immediate matters. When this happens, its referred to by atheists as “the God of the gaps”, a universal catch-all that fills the uncomfortable holes in human knowledge.

By the by, I’ve used “good” in quotes because I suspect if we got right down to it, we would have wildly different definitions. I think this is perhaps the source of your presumptions. You might say something like, “good is what comes from God, evil is what comes without God.” Given that definition, I can see how your questions would follow logically, but it’s not a very useful working definition given how damned ineffable God likes to be. We can’t use that definition to tell good from evil. The words become meaningless.