I agree that atheism in itself is a response to one claim: disbelief in God. But there is certainly a worldview that accompanies that singular claim.

1. Truth is grounded in naturalism.
2. Everything can ultimately be explained with a natural reference point
3. Most things, if not everything, can ultimately be explained with a temporal reference point.
4. Significance and meaning, if there even are such things, are self-referent. There is no reference point outside of nature or oneself.
5. Purpose is self-derived.
6. Morality is a social construct.

> It always costs something to pursue a relationship. No benefit comes about without effort or a price.

for the premise of the question it does not. there is no cost.

> here is no justification for not pursuing the relationship for the benefit of person B—at least, not in a Christian worldview

ok great. thanks.

> In an atheist worldview,

this isn't a thing that exists. atheist just means disbelief in a god. it doesn't imply ANYTHING else about a person's worldview. it's the response to one singular claim and that's it.

> It would cost nothing to person A to pursue this relationship

It always costs something to pursue a relationship. No benefit comes about without effort or a price.

But in your hypothetical...

> Would it be objectively better for person A to put forth positive effort towards this relationship?

... Yes, it's good for person A to put forth positive effort towards this relationship. If there were no cost to person A (hypothetically), there is no justification for not pursuing the relationship for the benefit of person B—at least, not in a Christian worldview. In an atheist worldview, an a pure evolutionary environment, Person A might justify NOT pursuing the relationship if it didn't contribute to his/her survival or benefit, even if it would be of benefit to person B.

Let's say person A has a choice of whether or not to pursue a relationship with person B.. It would cost nothing to person A to pursue this relationship... and let's say that person A is the best most positive person that anyone could possibly imagine being friends with. Person B would benefit immensely from a good relationship between the two, and like i said.. there's no cost of any kind to person A.. Person A has plenty of time for a new relationship, and plenty of energy as well. They have no constraints that might keep them from pursuing the relationship with person B except potentially making the choice not to pursue the relationship.

Would it be objectively better for person A to put forth positive effort towards this relationship? Or is there some reason that person A could justify not pursuing that relationship which would benefit person B so greatly?

> no i don't think that's necessarily true

Correct. It's not necessarily true, but potentially true, and that's why I said "sometimes." I struggle to affirm that "putting forth effort in relationships" always ends up with a positive effect on the person trying.

> I'm just asking in general if the quality of a given relationship is higher if both parties are giving effort as opposed to only one party or no parties at all giving effort towards the relationship.

In general, probably, yes.

> Can someone be in a relationship with someone else if they never make any effort to reach out at all?

I don't think so. Healthy relationships can't be a one-way affair. A healthy relationship between at least two parties requires the positive engagement of both parties.

> Sometimes "putting forth effort in relationships" just makes me more codependent, more conforming, or fearful.

no i don't think that's necessarily true.. i think you can be codependent in a relationship, but i don't think "putting forth more effort" is ever the cause of being codependent.

> Some people are dysfunctional, and their relationships are also dysfunctional.

would it be BETTER if people/relationships weren't dysfunctional? Like, if two people are able to have a functional, non-co-dependent relationship, is that better than two people in a dysfunctional relationship, or two people giving different amounts of effort towards the same relationship?

i understand that nobody's perfect and nobody can be a perfect relationship partner. That's not what i'm asking. I'm just asking in general if the quality of a given relationship is higher if both parties are giving effort as opposed to only one party or no parties at all giving effort towards the relationship.

Can someone be in a relationship with someone else if they never make any effort to reach out at all? Or does a relationship require participation from both parties?

> It really seems like you're hedging here

You're right, I was hedging. Things need to sink in and be processed better than one reading to give a warranted agreement.

I re-read it, and it still seems solid to me.

> i meant "a better person" in the context of how i have relationships in general.

I'm still not sure I agree. Sometimes "putting forth effort in relationships" just makes me more codependent, more conforming, or fearful. I'm not convinced, in my present thought, that it necessarily makes one "a better person" just because one is putting effort into a quality relationship. Some people are dysfunctional, and their relationships are also dysfunctionaL. Am I making sense?

can you read it again and see if there are any problems underneath? It really seems like you're hedging here. If there's a problem with something i've said, i want to know what it is so i can adjust my thinking.

By the way, i meant "a better person" in the context of how i have relationships in general. i'm not asking if putting forth effort in relationships makes me a more moral person or more ethical or more generous or anything. Just in the context of my relationship skills, am i a better person if i put more effort towards building quality relationships?

From a first reading, I agree. I don't see any particular problems with what you've said, at least on the surface.

> Does making an effort to improve a relationship make ME a better person?

It depends on the other person. We tend to become like the people we hang out with. Some people make poor choices and it's actually of negative effect on themselves.

Regardless of any firm objective measurements,[b] would you agree that there is a spectrum of relationship quality? [/b]Imagine the far left side of the spectrum represents two people who have never met. The far right side of the spectrum represents two lifelong best friends who talk all the time and very much enjoy each other's company.

Now imagine somewhere near the middle of that spectrum, is a kind of relationship between a celebrity and a fan. The fan LOVES the celebrity.. watches all their content. tells other people how much they adore the celebrity.. Perhaps they'll even send the occasional anonymous gift. Alas, the celebrity does not know that that individual fan exists (because there are thousands of them).

As you move further right on the spectrum (towards the "best relationship" side) the amount of effort and interaction between the two parties increase, and as you move further left on the spectrum, the amount of effort and interaction between the two parties decrease.

The exact details aren't really important.. What I'm getting at is, [b]do you agree to the basic premise of this "spectrum of relationship quality" and the idea that an increased amount of positive mutual interaction between two parties represents an increase in relationship quality?[/b]

Or to put it another way, if i give more of my time/effort/care to my friend/family member, does that improve the quality of our relationship? [b]Does making an effort to improve a relationship make ME a better person?[/b] (not asking if it makes me good enough to earn salvation. just asking if it makes a person better).