Are Athiests evil?

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

His own I would imagine ... if morality is relative what other standard is there?

WE are directed to render "unto ceasar" etc and judge man by the laws of man.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

WE are directed to render "unto ceasar" etc and judge man by the laws of man.

Law is the reflection of collective morality (in a democracy at least). That doesn't mean you have to agree. There are plenty of laws I object to on moral basis. And if one agrees then it is their morality anyway

CDfm

Climate Expert wrote: »

Consensus :

The moral consensus of the past does not agree with the moral consensus of today or other with other societies, therefore a consensus is meaningless as a moral guide.

It doesnt because man evolves and one hopes that morally he progresses and doesnt degenerate.

No one should disagree that the end of slavery is a good thing.

PDN

Climate Expert wrote: »

Consensus : The Earth is flat = WRONG

We're talking about morality. The earth being flat or not is nothing to do with morality.

The moral consensus of the past does not agree with the moral consensus of today or other with other societies, therefore a consensus is meaningless as a moral guide.

That argument only works if you start off by assuming that morality is relative. So to use it to draw the same conclusion would be circular reasoning.

If you allow the possibility of morality being absolute, then the existence of differing consensuses does not exclude the possibility that one particular consensus is right.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

That argument only works if you start off by assuming that morality is relative. So to use it to draw the same conclusion would be circular reasoning.

You asked him "If all morality is relative..."

Climate Expert

PDN wrote: »

We're talking about morality. The earth being flat or not is nothing to do with morality.


That argument only works if you start off by assuming that morality is relative. So to use it to draw the same conclusion would be circular reasoning.

If you allow the possibility of morality being absolute, then the existence of differing consensuses does not exclude the possibility that one particular consensus is right.

I covered my initial discussion on the fallacy of consensus in a general sense and then gave you an example of how its wrong for a moral sense assuming subjective morality. What more do you want?

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

Law is the reflection of collective morality (in a democracy at least). That doesn't mean you have to agree. There are plenty of laws I object to on moral basis. And if one agrees then it is their morality anyway

are there are things you disagree with on a moral basis that are not illegal?

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

You say it. So I have to accept it.

What happens when I inevitably contradict myself?

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

are there are things you disagree with on a moral basis that are not illegal?

Unprovoked verbal abuse.

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What happens when I inevitably contradict myself?

Richard Dawkins sheds a tear.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

are there are things you disagree with on a moral basis that are not illegal?

arraghh ... too many negatives ...

ok, let me see

things I disagree with that are not illegal ... so that would be things I disagree with that are legal, right?

I can think of plenty of things that I think should be illegal but that aren't, for example of the top of my head, advertisements aimed at children during children's television programs.

robindch

AtomicHorror wrote: »

But I'm evil.

Hey, that's not fair! You're probably defining (looks at which forum this is) "evil" as somebody who doesn't believe what you believe, in which case, I'm evil too since, I don't believe that you're evil. So in that case, one of us is evil, but only if the other person doesn't think so. Or something like that.

Glad we got that cleared up.

CDfm

robindch wrote: »

Hey, that's not fair! You're probably defining (looks at which forum this is) "evil" as somebody who doesn't believe what you believe, in which case, I'm evil too since, I don't believe that you're evil. So in that case, one of us is evil, but only if the other person doesn't think so. Or something like that.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Based on an OT test - you would be probably defined as good- I can only judge from what i see and having seen nothing suggesting otherwise.



By Wicknights definition - if involved in advertising to children - you might not be moral- but evil - it would seem you are not.

Ethical - let me see - do you intend to hand over all your Christmas presents to Christians?

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

What happens when I inevitably contradict myself?

A rumour has been started by Robin that you are good.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

By Wicknights definition

I gave a definition ... ?

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

I gave a definition ... ?

Wicknight said I can think of plenty of things that I think should be illegal but that aren't, for example of the top of my head, advertisements aimed at children during children's television programs.


This is exactly what you said. I have to accept it.

AtomicHorror

robindch wrote: »

Hey, that's not fair! You're probably defining (looks at which forum this is) "evil" as somebody who doesn't believe what you believe, in which case, I'm evil too since, I don't believe that you're evil. So in that case, one of us is evil, but only if the other person doesn't think so. Or something like that.

Glad we got that cleared up.

You make my mind sore.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

This is exactly what you said. I have to accept it.

I know exactly what I said, I'm wondering how you got from that to saying I gave a definition of evil?

komodosp

Well good vs evil is all about morals, and morals are all about values.
For example, murder is evil because we place a high value on human life and human rights. We place less value on animal life, so eating meat - not as evil.
Some place high value on the life of the unborn child, others don't, hence the whole debate of whether abortion is evil.
Now when it comes down to whether Atheists (or indeed non-Xians) are evil, you have to remember, to a proper Christian, the word of God and the belief in God are extremely valuable. And to some, not believing in God is denying the obvious, so to these people, atheists are just stupid. But to others, someone who doesn't believe in God is insulting Him, and therefore is evil.

CDfm

komodosp wrote: »

And to some, not believing in God is denying the obvious, so to these people, atheists are just stupid. But to others, someone who doesn't believe in God is insulting Him, and therefore is evil.

But that is a matter for God to decide.

Man doesnt have the authority to make that judgement only relative to the laws of man.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

I know exactly what I said, I'm wondering how you got from that to saying I gave a definition of evil?

a definition of morals?

Wait a minute - are you going to suggest that advertising to children during Childrens TV programmes is not really evil. ethical

Evil might even be relative ? Moral relativism realism perhaps?

wolfsbane

CDfm said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by komodosp
And to some, not believing in God is denying the obvious, so to these people, atheists are just stupid. But to others, someone who doesn't believe in God is insulting Him, and therefore is evil.
But that is a matter for God to decide.

Man doesnt have the authority to make that judgement only relative to the laws of man.

I agree. I was only reporting what God has said - and of course agreeing with it.

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Climate Expert
I'm an atheist and I'm fairly immoral in lots of ways. Since there is no absolute moral code or adjudicator then it doesn't really matter. If you say somebody is evil and they say they're not then who is right?
The majority. That's society. It's always worked that way, we just anthropomorphised the Authority as a means of maintaining a stable morality.

Hmm. So that other AH was right when he and the majority of his nation said the Jews were evil.

Christians say only God determines what is good or evil. Man's individual choice or majority choice may or may not coincide with that. God is not moved.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

Wait a minute - are you going to suggest that advertising to children during Childrens TV programmes is not really evil. ethical

I certainly would say it is not ethical. I wouldn't say it is evil. "not ethical" and "evil" can't be used interchangeably as you appear to be suggesting.

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

I certainly would say it is not ethical. I wouldn't say it is evil. "not ethical" and "evil" can't be used interchangeably as you appear to be suggesting.

I am not suggesting that ethical and evil are interchangeable.The same way legal and moral are not interchangeable.

but that ethics are where you apply morals beliefs etc .I suppose its to achieve "rightyness"

so you agree that you apply your moral code subjectively and intuitively yourself individually

that being the normal thing to do.

you are law abiding in general and have a moral code and ethics

but that a christian may have a code also informed by religous beliefs which they interpret.

so because you may not subscribe to that christian code doesant make you evil

legally if you dont commit major crimes you have your freedom

its not my place to judge you either way - nor to doubt the sincerity of your belefs

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You make my mind sore.

There there. Better now.

Just like I always say- is there never an atheist around when you need one.

Dave!

CDfm wrote: »

Just like I always say- is there never an atheist around when you need one.

Jayzus it's gonna take me a good half an hour to parse that sentence and make sense of it... I'll report back.

Zombrex

CDfm wrote: »

so you agree that you apply your moral code subjectively and intuitively yourself individually

What do you mean "agree"? That was my original point. All morality is subjective. Christians argue differently, believing morality is decided by God.

CDfm wrote: »

so because you may not subscribe to that christian code doesant make you evil

No, being descended from Adam makes me evil.

CDfm wrote: »

its not my place to judge you either way - nor to doubt the sincerity of your belefs

Are you sure you are replying to the correct post? This comment seems unconnected to my posts

CDfm

Wicknight wrote: »

What do you mean "agree"? That was my original point. All morality is subjective. Christians argue differently, believing morality is decided by God.


No, being descended from Adam makes me evil.


Are you sure you are replying to the correct post? This comment seems unconnected to my posts

Morality and ethics are subjective. We apply them to our lives - based on what we know and our experiences..

Being descended from Adam makes you human - it doesnt make you evil. Im a man and I cant categorise you either way. All I can say is that according to my beliefs its only God who can judge that.

Christ kinda said dont be too judgemental. So I cant judge you by Gods law. But if you commit a crime I can only judge you by mans laws.

I do think some posters go to far in categorising atheists - especially as a central tenet of religion is not being able to quantify Gods mercy etc and for Christian believers not to judge. So I am pointing this out as a general point - maybe others differ.

rockbeer

CDfm wrote: »

Being descended from Adam makes you human - it doesnt make you evil. Im a man and I cant categorise you either way. All I can say is that according to my beliefs its only God who can judge that.

Christ kinda said dont be too judgemental. So I cant judge you by Gods law. But if you commit a crime I can only judge you by mans laws.

I do think some posters go to far in categorising atheists - especially as a central tenet of religion is not being able to quantify Gods mercy etc and for Christian believers not to judge. So I am pointing this out as a general point - maybe others differ.

It's refreshing to hear you say these things, CDfm. I personally have no problem with any christian who says "leave it to god". Handing out judgement, after all, seems to be god's main business what with having been a little underemployed since finishing the creating part.

But seriously, this seems to be the only thing a christian with any conscience can say, otherwise he or she would be claiming to be able to read god's mind. Maybe I've got it wrong, but wouldn't that be a horribly blasphemous thing to do?

The more interesting question is what, if anything, christians such as yourself feel you should do about those who bring your faith into disrepute by claiming to be able to judge on god's behalf here on earth. Are you happy to let them at it? Or do you think you have a responsibility to try to convince them of the error of their ways?