[powerslacker]

Values concerning sexual purity, obscenity, drug use, the transcendence of the almighty God, the material and immaterial parts of mankind, and the complementary roles of men and women are inherent in Biblical teaching. Some of these can be present among atheists, and they may be regarded as good. The difference is these values (and more) are present and regarded as good in varying degrees in every Abrahamic religion.

Sure there are atheists who are altruistic. But fundamentally there is little common ground, because an atheist does not believe in a divine being who is the source of all morality.

The question I would ask an atheist is: what is good and who defines it?

[jleyank]

This gets into old, old discussions we had at school in the 70's. There are ethics, which are fundamental properties of humans, and morals, which are constructs built on top of ethics. Ethics are shared amongst humans - don't kill, try to help, raise the next generation, preserve the last generation. These are the default conditions picked by the evolutionary pressure that got us here.

Morals, on the other hand, are constructs. Given by $GOD, constructed to understand why ethics exist, why there are certain trends that are shared - these were cited forming govts, etc.

Not saying these are grounded in the definitions of language or sociology, merely that these kinds of discussions were everpresent when people get together with time to think. In this case, it was uni. In Ancient Greece, it was the marketplace. To try again, consider ethics things which are done and morality is an attempt to explain WHY they are done. Fear of consequence, desire to gain, justification, ...

[nitrogen]

But fundamentally there is little common ground

This is the lie we are all told to preserve the walls between "us" and "them," to divide and conquer our society. We are told to focus on the superficial differences between groups.

We are told to flip our shared humanity on its head and treat the superficial as fundamental, and the fundamental as irrelevant, to the point where we react viscerally to even the suggestion that someone who doesn't share tribal value X can still be a good person. But there is a lot of common ground between all human groups, if only we would focus on what we share instead of what we don't.

What defines good is our shared picture of empathy, consent, maximizing joy, minimizing suffering, reciprocity, etc. Basic golden rule stuff that's built into most of us and within reach of all of us.

[powerslacker]

I appreciate you taking the time to read my post and making a coherent and thoughtful reply.

> to the point where we react viscerally to even the suggestion that someone who doesn't share tribal value X can still be a good person.

I'm not arguing that anyone is a good person. The New Testament teaches that there are exactly zero good people apart from Jesus. It's not that I or other religious people are 'good'. However, Abrahamic faiths have enough in common that a shared government where the religious privileges of each group are protected is theoretically possible. I don't see that as a possibility with atheists, agnostics, or polytheistic. Most first world nations are operating under the idea that we can all get along but the reality is that we cannot because our worldviews are diametrically opposed in several areas.

> What defines good is our shared picture of empathy, consent, maximizing joy, minimizing suffering, reciprocity, etc. Basic golden rule stuff that's built into most of us and within reach of all of us.

First, I do not agree that this is built into most of us. That's one of the core tenets of Christianity (Orthodox Judaism as well...but I'm not as well versed there) and I think this is obvious. It seems you and I disagree here, but I think the evidence, especially looking back at various civilizations proves that mankind does not generally follow 'the golden rule'.

Second, most of the values you've listed are not our shared values but are simple utilitarianism.

I certainly do not regard 'consent' as a shared value. Consent is the framework that replaced the marital framework after the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Certainly, the idea of consent existed before that, but using it as a legal framework is a relatively modern development.

I also don't place value of minimizing suffering. People occasionally need to suffer. Using suffering reduction as a framework for moral action would lead to the destruction of the rich so that their wealth can be liquidated and redistributed in the form of food and housing. This is a 'for the greater good' type of thinking, and while I can see why someone might choose to subscribe to such an ideal, it certainly isn't part of how I define morality or good.

In summary: Abrahamic faiths have more in common with each other, despite their disagreements than they do with any primarily materialist position including atheism and utilitarianism.

[gaganyaan]

Positing the existence of a deity doesn't get you anywhere. Why is it moral to do what that deity says to? Absolute morality does not exist.

Now, you can quite easily construct a practical morality system: I think murder is bad because I don't want to be murdered. I want stealing outlawed because I don't want things stolen from me. It's really that simple.

This is natural behavior that has proven evolutionarily advantageous for our species, but religion strangely came along after the fact and tried to take credit for it.

[nautilius]

If the only thing keeping you from being a bad person (TM) is the threat of eternal damnation and suffering through some divine almighty being - how are you then not a bad person?