Perhaps a rephrrasing of the question is in order.
When I saw the thread title, my assumption was something along the lines of “Do athiests display more of the positive ethical values christianity espouses as a fundamental virtue of its membership than many christians who are assumed to have those values because they are self described christians.”
Edit for bad grammar:
An oval is not a circle; however, an oval makes a better circle than does a triangle.
The bible does not day God is unknowable. Quite the contrary.
That undermines your simplistic, and out of context, premise.
“Jewish tradition teaches that the true aspect of God is incomprehensible and unknowable”
You mentioned the bible and then cited wiki. Please make your case with the bible and not google/wiki. (and there are numerous bible translations at biblegateway.com that you can cite)
But even from your own site it says,
"Incomprehensibility
The incomprehensibility of God means that he is not able to be fully known. Louis Berkhof states that “the consensus of opinion” through most of church history has been that God is the “Incomprehensible One”. Berkhof, however, argues that “in so far as God reveals Himself in His attributes, we also have some knowledge of His Divine Being, though even so our knowledge is subject to human limitations.”
Highlighting mine
I’m not going to argue wiki, but your own site notes (correctly, in my view) that this “knowledge” of God is both relative and contextual.
All Christians are sinners.
None are righteous, no, not one.
Being a Christian is about openining your heart to the Lord, not compehending God.
Tris
It doesn’t make a better circle than a circle. A Christian is a Christian.
You didn’t give your definition of non-theistic nor did you provide a cite for it.
Jesus said pretty clearly that the heart of his teachings was simply loving other people as yourself. I don’t think that either Christians or atheists are more or less apt to do this.
Diogenes and Triskadecamus, the point is that making truth claims before one has evidence seems to be pridefully claiming one has knowledge of god’s will. It seems pretty impossible from our limited human knowledge to prove that the bible wasn’t written by Satan, for example. I doubt we “know” what Jesus said. We do not “know” that god wants us to open our hearts. With an assumption that god is not “fully known”, wouldn’t one have to be skeptical of everything? The bible, god, jesus, and so on, or else be likely to be making a prideful claim? If god is not fully known, and we have limited understanding, we cannot claim to know anything about god. To not be prideful and risk getting sent to Hell, shouldn’t our answer to the existence of god be “I do not know?”
You are correct. An oval doesn’t make a better circle than does a circle. You are also correct, a Christian is a Christian. I do not disagree.
You are correct here as well. As I said before, I wouldn’t disagree with your definition. It is one way to define it. Are there other nuances and hair-splitting of the terms? Yep, seems so. I like to make the distinction myself as you have seen. I’m just not wanting to derail this thread when there are other threads talking about this very issue. If you wish, for this conversation, you may consider me to have said “weak atheism” and not to have said “strong atheism”.
You did when you said an atheist makes a better Christian than a Christian.
It doesn’t seem so. If you think so, show me.
You never said “strong atheism”. Are you forgetting what you wrote?
Yes, I likely did. You are probably right.
I recall reading an article a while ago that I found interesting, when I come across it again, I’ll come back and post it here.
You are correct, I didn’t say that; however, I’m clarifying what I meant for you since this seems to be a sticking point that I’m hoping to move beyond. If you wish, you may replace “non-theist atheism” with “weak atheism”. In any case, perhaps the simplest is just to say “atheists who do not claim that there is no deity”. I’m willing to revise to that, unless you feel that is also unacceptable.
I do like that you are questioning the terms, if I weren’t in here trying to falsify my initial argument, I would give the definitions more attention. I do appreciate your questioning.
I believe that the sins against the Holy Spirit is the only unforgivable sin(what ever that is)!
It’s specifically blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. And, yes, no one seems to agree what that means.
And, no, atheists do not make better Christians, as they fail the first and greatest commandment (bolding mine):
Have atheists ever banded together under that banner to support slavery? Oppose desegregation? Support the death penalty? Ban books? Burn books? Censor movies, radio or television? Propose or support legislation that discriminates?
Atheism exists outside the US, and yes, some atheists have done similar or worse things in the last century in other places. The various communist regimes come immediately to mind.
That God’s #1 demand is to worship him I think is the #1 reason to doubt God really said it.
No, and on average, we also know more about religion than religious people*, but, since we don’t believe in any of the elements of the Christian faith we’re trivially non-Christian on that count.
However, there are two other ways to be ‘Christian’ that I’ve noticed: Virtue and Culture. Culture is obvious, so I’ll focus on virtue.
Virtue needs to be defined. If it means ‘Helping people and doing good by the standards of the real world’ (Temporal virtue), atheists are certainly no worse at it than religious people, on average. If it means ‘Leading people to the True Faith and getting them to the best possible afterlife’ (Religious virtue), atheists obviously don’t do that at all.
Christians certainly preach Temporal virtue a lot in sermons and a number of them practice it in their lives, as well. You can even take some of Jesus’ words and use them to defend the idea that Temporal virtue is most of what Christianity is. If you take that notion, atheists, on average, make pretty fair Christians.
On the other hand, other Christians focus a lot more on the afterlife and, therefore, Religious virtue. Deathbed and death row conversions are all about Religious virtue, as is Jack Chick and everyone else of his ilk. Getting Creationism into public schools, or any other introduction of religion into politics and government, is Religious virtue at the expense of Temporal virtue. Atheists see Religious virtue as a complete load and, therefore, we don’t practice it.
(My notion of separating Religious and Temporal virtue is an atheist idea in any region dominated by Abrahamic religions, at least. The idea you can have Temporal virtue without Religious virtue is heresy to the most religious among the followers of those faiths. The fact atheists do have Temporal virtue without Religious virtue, that we’re “Good Without God”, drives some religious people nuts., and they invent all kinds of awful lies about us and all our Darwinists and Secular Humanists to compensate for all the things we don’t do even though we don’t consider them sinful.)
*(We’re within spitting distance of the Jews and Mormons, and a more comfortable margin above ‘White evangelical Protestant’. The clustering really kinda stands out.)
Probably not what the OP had in mind but IMO, some atheists live what Jesus taught much better than Christians.
IN the NT Jesus repeatedly stresses that it’s the inner person that is reflected in your deeds concerning others that make you one who truly follows him rather than one who only pays lip service.
If you look at the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matt 25:31-46 you see the righteous didn’t even realize they were following Christ until he explained it to them.
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
I’ve heard this interpreted as people who live lives of compassion and caring toward others that do not worship Jesus.
In my experience I know atheists who are genuinely more thoughtful kind and giving of themselves than people I know who give lip service to JC as Christians.