Are Athiests evil?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, God permitted slavery in Israel. Like He permitted divorce, and polygamy. Slavery was the economic system of the world, but not of God's approval. He regulated it amongst Israel, as He did divorce.

When the time came for God to send His Son to establish a new order, things like slavery, divorce and polygamy were set right.

According to the Old Testament God didn't simply permit slavery, he actively encouraged it. The Hebrews were told to take slaves from civilizations they destroyed, including taking wives (read sex slaves).

This is before one gets into the paradox of God permitting something ...

As for Jesus setting slavery right, I'm unaware that Jesus at any point condemned slavery, and in fact spoke of slavery in an approving manner in his parables, comparing the relationship between man and God like the relationship between a slave and his master. As did Paul.

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote: »

But you are happy about suppression of racism, for example?

You aren't reading my posts carefully enough. I said I have reservations about the suppression of racism. People are entitled to believe and say what they like, and besides, I don't think attempting to outlaw views and opinions will have the desired outcome.

What I am happy about is that we have moved on from the days when racist views attracted no attention. The more people oppose these attitudes and are prepared to say so, the more difficult it becomes for them to hold any currency. I'd like to see the same level of hostility towards your doctrine of human evil.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That is where I misunderstood you. I thought you were putting the docrine of inherent evil in the class of teachings that should be banned.

I am entirely opposed to censorship. I don't think any opinion should be banned. Can you say the same?

wolfsbane wrote: »

You will understand me jumping to that conclusion better when you realise that some countries already jail anyone who teaches homosexuality is immoral. The U.K. has already experienced such intimidation, but it has been successfully challenged by those who value liberty.

I have two problems with this statement:

1. What has morality to do with sexuality? and
2. What exactly do you mean by 'teaching'? There's a world of difference between two informed adults having a robust debate and a 'teacher' informing people their random opinion about the immorality of homosexuality. What has teaching to do with opinion-based moral judgements?

CDfm

anti-venom wrote: »

I'm not the most prolific of posters on this or the A&A forums but I've been around long enough to notice you and your posts. And I know you've been around long enough to know better than to post the garbage you've posted above. Do you ever carefully read and consider the posts by atheists concerning ethics and morals or does it all just go over your head? Honestly man you get my blood up with that inane drivel.

Anti-venom ya didnt half have a go

I wouldnt mind a bit if a debate on morals or ethics in that context -but dogmatic atheism in my book is like fundamentalism and it really is not my bag to get involved in those type of debates..

If there are any points on my posts that offend or you want me to clarify - I do tend to make the occasional sweeping generalisation.

wolfsbane

rockbeer said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But you are happy about suppression of racism, for example?

You aren't reading my posts carefully enough. I said I have reservations about the suppression of racism. People are entitled to believe and say what they like, and besides, I don't think attempting to outlaw views and opinions will have the desired outcome.

What I am happy about is that we have moved on from the days when racist views attracted no attention. The more people oppose these attitudes and are prepared to say so, the more difficult it becomes for them to hold any currency. I'd like to see the same level of hostility towards your doctrine of human evil.

Ok, I've no trouble with that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That is where I misunderstood you. I thought you were putting the docrine of inherent evil in the class of teachings that should be banned.
I am entirely opposed to censorship. I don't think any opinion should be banned. Can you say the same?

Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You will understand me jumping to that conclusion better when you realise that some countries already jail anyone who teaches homosexuality is immoral. The U.K. has already experienced such intimidation, but it has been successfully challenged by those who value liberty.
I have two problems with this statement:

1. What has morality to do with sexuality?

Sexuality forms a major part of mankind's identiy and behaviour, and the Bible teaches that God expects us to treat it with respect, to relate to another sexually only in His ordained manner: one man/one woman marriage.

Anything else is a violation of His law and hence immoral.

2. What exactly do you mean by 'teaching'? There's a world of difference between two informed adults having a robust debate and a 'teacher' informing people their random opinion about the immorality of homosexuality. What has teaching to do with opinion-based moral judgements?

I meant pastors who teach in their pulpits that homosexuality is immoral have been imprisoned for doing so:
http://lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jul/04070505.html

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

According to the Old Testament God didn't simply permit slavery, he actively encouraged it. The Hebrews were told to take slaves from civilizations they destroyed, including taking wives (read sex slaves).

This is before one gets into the paradox of God permitting something ...

As for Jesus setting slavery right, I'm unaware that Jesus at any point condemned slavery, and in fact spoke of slavery in an approving manner in his parables, comparing the relationship between man and God like the relationship between a slave and his master. As did Paul.

God regulated both slavery and divorce in the OT, and prescribed how to deal with enemy nation who waged war against them. That did not imply God favoured slavery or divorce.

Jesus rightly used the example of the current slave/master relationships in His parables, for our relationship to God is absolute like that. But that is not to support man/man slavery. The principles He laid down for love of our neighbour must lead to the end of slavery or any system of exploitation.

Paul was faced with a society that had slavery as a big part of its structure. He told the slaves not to worry about their condition, but to get their freedom if they could. That meant slavery was not the ideal state, nor something we would impose on others. It was a fact of life and had to be lived with, until God would remove it.

studiorat said:

So you are saying Wolfs, that as long as slavery is good for the economy it's ok? As long as slaves are treated correctly? How exactly does that work?

No, slavery is always bad. But if it is the system society operates, then we must treat any slaves kindly. However, unlike NT times, we the citizens now have a voice in what society allows - so that voice must act to prohibit slavery. In democratic society, that is the only way to impliment the command to love our neighbour as ourselves. In imperial Roman society, the Christian did not have that power, and the best he could do was treat any slaves well.

wolfsbane

studiorat said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane

Indeed, just as I said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It says nothing of the sort. It deals with adults who do evil and says the son who sees the evil his father did and refrains from it will not be held guilty for his father's evil:


Er, yes, that is what I said.
And I said if that's the case how then can original sin be passed through the generations? The debated point is this not a biological or other means transference of guilt, but a transference of guilt full stop. Which I've said already, there is no original sin.

The Bible makes it clear that death, both physical and spiritual, is the consequence of sin. Adam is our ultimate human father and the origin of our human nature. When he sinned, death came to him and all his descendants. They were born with his rebel heart. That is why we all sin: we are not sinners because we sin, we sin because we are sinners by nature.

That is the nature of our original sin - a sinful nature, a nature that became so when Adam sinned.

That's why we need to be given the nature of another Adam, One who came to be our new head:
Romans 5:18 Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

wolfsbane

CDfm wrote: »

dogmatic people of any variety are painful.

a core belief is the obligation to be sound to others and you dont have to be a christian to do that.

Are you being dogmatic about that, or do you only think it might be right?

ironingbored

wolfsbane wrote: »

Jesus rightly used the example of the current slave/master relationships in His parables, for our relationship to God is absolute like that.

This is what I just cannot understand. How can any human being prostitute their dignity by willingly accepting that they are pawns in an intergalactic war between angels and demons?

ironingbored

wolfsbane wrote: »

Adam is our ultimate human father and the origin of our human nature.

This kind of badly-written fairytale may have cut it thousands of years ago amongst the illiterate tribes of the Middle East, but how any human being in 2008 can even remotely believe the above beggars belief.

A lot has been spoken about here about atheists and agnostics. the reason i am a fervent anti-theist is because I wouldn't want this to be true. An eternity of fawning adulation to a celestial egomaniac is the epitome of hell in my opinion.

Please, please, please refrain from quoting "scripture" as if it were a somehow a verifiable source of truth. It's a fairytale.

PDN

ironingbored wrote: »

Please, please, please refrain from quoting "scripture" as if it were a somehow a verifiable source of truth. It's a fairytale.

If you don't like people quoting Scripture as a source then it's probably better that you avoid the Christianity forum.

ironingbored

PDN wrote: »

If you don't like people quoting Scripture as a source then it's probably better that you avoid the Christianity forum.

You're right. I actually though we were in A+A here!

Bring forth thy heavenly scripture.

CiDeRmAn

Steady on with the "intergalactic war" that talk has the stink of scientology about it....

Folk who believe in the bible seem to take from it that it's the one and only guide the human race must follow to have a moral life.
This, of course, is a supremely arrogant position as each religion, no matter what the scale has had a "holy book", one that provides for the various "moral" choices someone has, a book with if not all the answers, but at least examples of moral living that the qualified can "interpret" and dispense wisdom.
Of course all that itself demonstrates is that human are very social, desire direction from a group leader and are willing to submit to the will of said leader for the good of the group, even if the direction sometimes involves suffering.
This can, obviously, be used by less scrupulous individuals to control a population effectively, and allows a group to be wielded like a weapon or exploited like a resource.
The size of the group can vary, depending on the needs and vision of it's leaders, be it a church hall, a village, country, collection of aligned nations, it seems to be readily scaleable.
And the above is as applicable to the religious as it is to the secular, from the allied states making war on Iraq over control of oil, to allied states sending their young on the crusades, to the Nazis trying to exterminate a people, the Stalinists and Maoists causing untold suffering to their own people.

So, it would seem that atheists are no more moral than Christians or any other person who subscribes to a faith, we all have a code or credo we follow, we all bury our own good judgement to allow our leaders, be they leaders of state, leaders of communities and commitees to make decisions for us that are not always "moral"

The distinction of evil is also purely subjective, there is, of course, a level of behaviour that is counter to the smooth running of a society, but where the line is between acceptable and unacceptable, between good and evil, seems far more indistinct, and open to "interpretation", a dangerous place where we place our trust in our leaders to decide for us what side of the aforementioned subjective line an individual lies.

I suppose history would say that whenever a subgroup arises whose behaviour is contrary to the codes and rules of a given group, they break away and form a new group elsewhere, I suppose thats where Utah comes from!

CerebralCortex

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

...And the above is as applicable to the religious as it is to the secular, from the allied states making war on Iraq over control of oil, to allied states sending their young on the crusades, to the Nazis trying to exterminate a people, the Stalinists and Maoists causing untold suffering to their own people....

I hope you aren't flagging the above as examples of atheist leaders with atheist ideologies and using it as an example of how atheists do wrong in groups much like the religious? These guys just planted in their societies ideologies like any other religion and their followers followed with faith.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I hope you aren't flagging the above as examples of atheist leaders with atheist ideologies and using it as an example of how atheists do wrong in groups much like the religious? These guys just planted in their societies ideologies like any other religion and their followers followed with faith.

It is an example of how some atheists did wrong just as some religious people have done wrong.

CiDeRmAn

What I'm trying to say is, regarding the moral vs the immoral, we are all as liable to be each or rather praise or condemn someone for being either regardless of being religious or secular, or in the context of this thread, Christian or an atheist.
I am pretty sure this line of thinking is matched amongst most folk of either persuasion.

We are set to find comfort in groups of similarly minded folk, we operate in large groups who co-operate to make a smooth running society.
We seem to have arrived at the 21st century with a variety of different ways of achieving this goal, each method with a traceable history of development from it's roots in a movement to it's dominance or influence in different parts of the globe, be it in a Judea/Christian philosophy, a capitalist freemarket belief or perhaps a socialist or even a liberal mindset.
The common thread through all of these methods of structuring society, of managing a large mass of population, is people, people and their inner most drives and needs, things that don't change from place to place, those foundations to human psychology that are immune to regional change or even conditioned responses.
The need to protect our families, to preserve the following generation and impart in them our learned techniques that have looked after us and kept us safe thus far.

None of these techniques seem anymore able to be more or less moral than the other, nor any less prevalent to accuse another of being immoral or degenerate, to accuse another of being less enlightened then their own way of thinking.

Perhaps there is no escape from our base drives, our suspicion of those different, or likelyhood to condemn others as immoral simply because they don't choose to conform.
Is a person "evil" because, while they don't subscribe to a christian church or god, they do follow the laws and rules of their chosen society and are productive members of said group?
Is a person "foolish" because they are a member of a christian church, and are accepting of their neighbours beliefs, regardless of if it is contrary to their own?
And that last statement is as true for atheists, as they are as likely to peer down their noses at religious folk who have a faith in a god, a most arrogant position, truely, it's none of their business what someone else believes, unless they want to follow Dawkins path and become some sort of horrible chimera, a terrible hybrid of evangelical atheism.

CDfm

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

What I'm trying to say is, regarding the moral vs the immoral, we are all as liable to be each or rather praise or condemn someone for being either regardless of being religious or secular, or in the context of this thread, Christian or an atheist.

I dont believe that atheists are evil any more than i belive unbaptised babies are evil( which I dont).

To be an atheist you require belief that there is no God. Nothing and never was. So you need some faith in that belief. But its pure dumb to label somone evil because they dont believe in God.

Some atheists are moral and very moral others are not. Some believers are moral and some not.

Being a Christian doesnt make me any more moral then the next guy if he is atheist - its just like that.

CiDeRmAn

So, that should wrap up the debate on the opening posts question, are atheists evil, no?

Húrin

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

What I'm trying to say is, regarding the moral vs the immoral, we are all as liable to be each or rather praise or condemn someone for being either regardless of being religious or secular, or in the context of this thread, Christian or an atheist.
I am pretty sure this line of thinking is matched amongst most folk of either persuasion.

We are set to find comfort in groups of similarly minded folk, we operate in large groups who co-operate to make a smooth running society.

Christianity does not exist to offer a code of ethics. What we think of as Christian morality generally is not unique to that religion nor was it invented by Jesus or St. Paul.

Christianity is God's plan to restore our relationship with him for eternity. Reducing Jesus to the status of a great moral teacher is the result of ignorance.

CDfm

Húrin wrote: »

Christianity does not exist to offer a code of ethics. What we think of as Christian morality generally is not unique to that religion nor was it invented by Jesus or St. Paul.

Christianity is God's plan to restore our relationship with him for eternity. Reducing Jesus to the status of a great moral teacher is the result of ignorance.

eh - He could be a bit reductive at times itself and broke it down to love God and love your neighbour.So ethics and morals form a big part of Christianity.There is a duality.

I havent read anything anywhere of Jesus whipping out a bunch of scriptures scrolls and doing and all thatI seem to think there was something about tolerance and respect for civil laws in the multi-cultural times he lived in.

The reationship with God is there for the faithful - but that doesnt take away from the good works or moral behavior of non- christians.He came back to this theme in the Good Samaritan and in other teachings time and again.I dont recall anything in this about the guys beliefs but I seem to see good works coming up again and again as a recurrent theme.

So I imagine that a lot of the faithful were illiterate and relied on priests etc to interpret the law and scripture. Not a lot of cherrypicking.

I dunno if this suits people but its how I read it.

CiDeRmAn

If we get on to discussing/debating the true function of faith based religions then I'm afraid this could turn into a slagging match.
From my perspective the function of religion in general, including christianity, is one of social cohesion, very powerful in a time when personal rights were poor, democracy was little more than a paper exercise and people were iliterate.
The root of a given faith is typically evident in the type of stories represented in it's texts, and the day to day life of it's inital target audience, why, otherwise, would christianity, juadism and islam all have a rural, middle eastern theme? The types of men are fishermen, shepherds, carpenters and money lenders, common folk of that time and place.
If "the good book" was meant for all, for all time, why was it so uniquely representitive of a particular location and period?
Is it not more likely that the things some like to view as true and factual accounts in the bible, events that when interpreted have led to some questionable positions taken by various christian and islamic sects, are in fact simply stories that were supposed to illustrate points, to show men of good character doing good deeds, not always to their immediate advantage but ultimately creating a wholistic picture of a people of strong character and beliefs?
I suppose this is one of the key differences between the mainstream Catholic church and the low christian churches, with their rather odd literal take on the bible.

Jesus was a rabbi after all, a teacher first and foremost, who brought good news, a fresh interpretation of Gods love, one that was incredibly different from the vengeful God of the Old Testament, this was quite a revolutionary point of view, and made him plenty of enemies.
Now, as an atheist I can easily accept that Jesus existed, that he preached a good message of tolerance and that he died at the hands of those who wanted the status quo to continue. The message of Jesus is still one worth hearing, even if we discount the spiritual and metaphysical aspects of it. Just as one can appreciate Socrates and Jung without having to slavishly follow either man as the holder of the one truth.

CDfm

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

From my perspective the function of religion in general, including christianity, is one of social cohesion, very powerful in a time when personal rights were poor, democracy was little more than a paper exercise and people were iliterate.

Now, as an atheist I can easily accept that Jesus existed, that he preached a good message of tolerance and that he died at the hands of those who wanted the status quo to continue. The message of Jesus is still one worth hearing, even if we discount the spiritual and metaphysical aspects of it. Just as one can appreciate Socrates and Jung without having to slavishly follow either man as the holder of the one truth.

And it might - you do get a sense of community within churches and whats wrong with that. Dawkins debates attract the faithful too.

However - part of the tradition of religious theology goes much further than atheists like to give it credit for.

That doesnt mean that people in that era were any less capable of sophisticated thinking than us. They may not have had the technology but man could they build pyramids and the Romans did public water supply in ways that were unrivalled until the 20th century.So why couldnt they be capable of very sophisticated thought.

When you look at scripture in detail - a lot of the issues covered are very sophisticated. Modern philosophers such as Sartre have wriiten on Abrahams ethical dilemma and the historical facts or stories and allegories used are a device to hang complex moral and ethical issues on.

Dismissing its influence on the development of philosophy and ethics is equally is well stupid.

You have lots of people who are not true atheists but who dont believe in the concept of a Christian God.


That its not for you is ok with me. Good post BTW.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

As for Jesus setting slavery right, I'm unaware that Jesus at any point condemned slavery, and in fact spoke of slavery in an approving manner in his parables, comparing the relationship between man and God like the relationship between a slave and his master. As did Paul.

I dont understand this- but I see the point coming up again and again -can you explain slavery relevance. Pre- democracy slavery was kinda prisoner of war stuff.

In cant get this.

wolfsbane

ironingbored wrote: »

This kind of badly-written fairytale may have cut it thousands of years ago amongst the illiterate tribes of the Middle East, but how any human being in 2008 can even remotely believe the above beggars belief.

A lot has been spoken about here about atheists and agnostics. the reason i am a fervent anti-theist is because I wouldn't want this to be true. An eternity of fawning adulation to a celestial egomaniac is the epitome of hell in my opinion.

Please, please, please refrain from quoting "scripture" as if it were a somehow a verifiable source of truth. It's a fairytale.

I understand you wouldn't want this to be true - no unbeliever does. They are enemies of God in their hearts, even if many would not admit to it. You at least face it with honesty.

But I encourage you to be even more honest: your assertion that it is a fairytale is given as a fact, while it more accurately should be expressed as a hope. You cannot know it to be false. You don't want it to be true, but that doesn't alter the reality one way or the other.

Regarding our use of the Scripture, as PDN points out, this is the Christianity forum and it is a basic premise that the Christian case has to be validated by the Bible.

wolfsbane

ironingbored wrote: »

This is what I just cannot understand. How can any human being prostitute their dignity by willingly accepting that they are pawns in an intergalactic war between angels and demons?

Who said we are pawns?

We are in fact the most precious thing in God's sight. He gave His Son to suffer for our sins, sent His Holy Spirit to live in our hearts, is going to bring us to His immediate presence forever.

Our relationship to God is described in several ways, eg. Master/slaves; Shepherd/sheep; Father/sons; Bridegroom/bride. All express His infinite love for us.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

I dont understand this- but I see the point coming up again and again -can you explain slavery relevance. Pre- democracy slavery was kinda prisoner of war stuff.

In cant get this.

What do you not get? The Hebrews had slaves. They took slaves from surrounding civilsations, including taking women for the male soldiers who were forced to marry (ie sex slaves). God not only provided laws to regulate this but told the Hebrews to go out and do it.

Personally I think the genocide carried out by the Hebrews under orders from God is a lot worse than the slavery carried out by the Hebrews under orders from God, but for some reason the slavery strikes more of nerve with some Christians, and they rush to find excuses for why it wasn't really slavery (I've even heard it said that who are we to say that the women captured from foreign lands after the Hebrews killed their parents, sisters and brothers, didn't want to freely marry the Hebrew soldier holding them, which kinda shows the lengths that people will go)

Perhaps "they deserved it" line seems more passable when you are taking about the butching of women and children than when talking about the slavery of women and children, who knows?

goldenbrown

of every SS soldier in the German army of the 1939-1945 period was the motto 'Kuche und kirche', which is 'kitchen and church', these were the men and women who sent many a child and disabled person to be killed in the gas chambers around a country that makes BMW's - sometimes there can be a reduction of evil in our world with an increase of athiests who believe in man and his/her human rights - I myself value the gospels (on a private basis not in the manner of needing to believe I need to relate to occasional Christian goodness by being in a crowd and bending the need to an organisation whose HQ is in Italy) but I am one of many watching every day for the next attempted use of those gospels for the evil that sometimes sees organised religion and evil combine...'be not overcome by evil..but overcome evil with good'... St.Paul, Letters.... the Courts in ireland have been the Normandy beach in recent years...in terms of evil and the welfare of young Irish children, 'be not overcome by evil..but overcome evil with good'... St.Paul, Letters....

PDN

goldenbrown wrote: »

On the belt buckle of every SS soldier in the German army of the 1939-1945 period was the motto 'Kuche und kirche', which is 'kitchen and church'

Actually that is not true.

Most German soldiers had Gott mit uns (God with us) on their belt buckle, but this predated Nazism considerably since it was on soldiers' belts in WWI. It was the motto of the Royal House of Prussia.

The SS ditched this reference to God and instead their belts read Meine Ehre heißt Treue (my honor is loyalty).

WWI buckle:

WWII Wehrmacht buckle:

SS buckle:

As for the church and kitchen thing, this was actually Kinder, Küche, Kirche (Children, kitchen, church) and was used by Kaiser Wilhelm II in the 19th Century. While the phrase was also used by the Nazis they tended to downplay the church bit. For example, Hitler quoted it in a speech in 1934, but changed the reference from 'church' to 'home'.

Schuhart

PDN wrote: »

Most German soldiers had Gott mit uns (God with us) on their belt buckle, but this predated Nazism considerably since it was on soldiers' belts in WWI. It was the motto of the Royal House of Prussia.

The SS ditched this reference to God and instead their belts read Meine Ehre heißt Treue (my honor is loyalty).

There you go confusing the argument with relevant facts again.

Can't we just make distorted comments that serve our preconceptions and leave it at that?

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

What do you not get? The Hebrews had slaves. They took slaves from surrounding civilsations, including taking women for the male soldiers who were forced to marry (ie sex slaves). God not only provided laws to regulate this but told the Hebrews to go out and do it.

Personally I think the genocide carried out by the Hebrews under orders from God is a lot worse than the slavery carried out by the Hebrews under orders from God, but for some reason the slavery strikes more of nerve with some Christians, and they rush to find excuses for why it wasn't really slavery (I've even heard it said that who are we to say that the women captured from foreign lands after the Hebrews killed their parents, sisters and brothers, didn't want to freely marry the Hebrew soldier holding them, which kinda shows the lengths that people will go)

Perhaps "they deserved it" line seems more passable when you are taking about the butching of women and children than when talking about the slavery of women and children, who knows?

ITS a bit off topic.

But society at that time operated like that.

Even Ireland had a tradition of hostage taking etc.

I feel the argument is leading down the path but atheists kill more than christians and its a number game- rather than is an atheist by definition evil. The answer to that is - in my book no.

That things might be done in the name of God -as in the German example given-traditionally God is quoted and is on everyones side. God doesnt get a vote when he is invoked.

Dave!

CDfm wrote: »

ITS a bit off topic.

But society at that time operated like that.

Even Ireland had a tradition of hostage taking etc.

Oh well then, sure it's grand