Are Athiests evil?

wolfsbane

CiDeRmAn said:

And we humans do this all the time, to a greater or lesser degree whenever we feel threatened, we pick the weakest person and subjugate them, degenerate them, and this is one of the central tragedies to the human condition.
One perhaps we will never purge, one that is, surely common to all, regardless of faith.

Very true. Some ideologies tend to support intolerant nationalism but even Biblical Christianity has many times been subverted by the 'natural mind' common to all men. True Christians have at times lost their grip on biblical truth and went with the wisdom of the world. Oppression of all who differ was the result. That's not what Christ taught.

The thing there is, perhaps, that a moral socially cohesive belief system, and I include democracy in this, socialism too, will seek to lessen this effect, will encourage a society to forgo its natural distaste for the different, and bring people together to foster co-operation, ensuring the survival of the group to the next generation, examples of this on a sliding scale would be local politics, goverments, mainstream religion, federal states like the US, co-operative trading groups like the EU, right up to the UN, all of which try to draw us together, against our instincts, to make a family of us, and gain the comfort therein.

Some of this is good, but the natural bent of man is to pervert the good, to turn 'togetherness' into an enforced superstate that will dominate others, or even a world order that will liquidate any who oppose its every dictate.

All power tending to corrupt, etc.

Extremism is naturally self destructive, the 100 years of the 20th century has seen no extremeist society survive, or at least survive unchanged, eventually having to face up to it's crimes, and move on, Cambodia, Germany, Russia and soon China will follow suit, maybe, in time we'll see Iran, Israel, Syria and the US face their crimes similarly.

Thankfully, God in His mercy sets the limits to human wickedness. A 1000 year Reich would have ended it all for mankind, as would the global domination of Communism.

Sorry for the meandering reply, got a lot on my mind!

Not at all - many very astute observations there and in the parts I didn't quote.

wolfsbane

rockbeer said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Usually they would, and do. The difference between them and the theist is that the former must accept that their system is purely arbitary - that there is no good or evil beyond what the individual or society decides. The theist says there is an absolute standard, that good and evil are real qualities that exist even if all mankind were to have a contrary moral standard.
But it should be remembered that just because the theist believes their morality to be absolute doesn't make it true. Since there is no god, the theist's absolute morality is in fact just as 'made up' and arbitrary as the atheist's.

If there is no God, that's true. But whether there is or not, the atheist works on a knowingly arbitary basis and the theist is constrained by morals external to his will. That means the atheist can chop and change his standards at will; the theist is stuck with them or has to abandon his core belief.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
In many instances, Yes. But that is despite the atheist's belief - they have just adopted what they subconsciously feel good with, the moral code of their formative years.
Er, forgive me wolfsbane, but that's just pure shi!e. Are you saying that atheists never grow up and are only capable of living by the morality of our parents and teachers. Or that...

No - I was agreeing with CiDeRmAn when he said And as people of Europe we are born and raised in an essentially christian, if secular, collection of states, whose laws and general behaviour is rooted in those christian definitions of right and wrong.
Therefore, aren't we all, atheist, Catholic or Christian, governed by more or less the same morals? The same common morals?

Many atheists are like that. But some:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
It's when the atheist begins to think freely about morality that things become, er, different. Stalin, Mao, etc. did not allow the morality of their upbringing to stifle their thinking about morality.

...if we do shrug off those early influences that we end up being genocidal maniacs?

Not at all - just that the atheist who feels it immoral to kill a cow reaches that view in exactly the same way as the atheist who feels it moral to exterminate the Jews - the exercise of their free will without reference to any outside moral source.

Most atheists have a high degree of personal integrity because we have to take responsibility for our own actions... Because we are self-regulating and don't have handy deities and old books to whom we can pass the buck.

Exactly - you make your own morality. We are thankful for the many who decide on human-friendly systems. Others don't, and are using the exact same thinking as you: Because we are self-regulating and don't have handy deities and old books to whom we can pass the buck.

Unlike you guys, we actually have to think about whether things are right or wrong rather than just taking someone else's word for it.

Indeed - but that doesn't mean your thinking will generate human-friendly results.

I've never said this on boards before about anything I've seen posted, but I hope, I really hope, that you get an infraction for this insulting, patronizing and misguided cr@p.

I hope my reply has removed your misunderstanding of what I was saying.

Dave!

wolfsbane wrote: »

Usually they would, and do. The difference between them and the theist is that the former must accept that their system is purely arbitary - that there is no good or evil beyond what the individual or society decides. The theist says there is an absolute standard, that good and evil are real qualities that exist even if all mankind were to have a contrary moral standard.

And what practical difference does that make? Are atheists more prone to immorality? Crime? War?

If they're not, then what difference does it make whether you believe there is an absolute standard, or that morality is a dynamic societal consensus?

This is of course ignoring the obvious fact that the Bible can't be used as the moral standard, lest we stone everyone to death...

wolfsbane

Dave! wrote: »

And what practical difference does that make? Are atheists more prone to immorality? Crime? War?

If they're not, then what difference does it make whether you believe there is an absolute standard, or that morality is a dynamic societal consensus?

This is of course ignoring the obvious fact that the Bible can't be used as the moral standard, lest we stone everyone to death...

Atheists are more prone to hold to their own standard, not a dynamic societal consensus, if they can get away with it. If their standard fits well with the dynamic societal consensus, then there is no problem for them or the consensus society. Just like when the theist's morality fits well with the dynamic societal consensus.

But you seem to assume that the dynamic societal consensus is the only logical conclusion a free-thinking man can properly reach. So the source of morality is then external to the individual? You replace the Bible with whatever society generally holds at a particular time? And your morality changes with society's change?

Certainly the rules God gave for running the state in OT Israel did not apply to non-Israelites now or then, nor to the nation of Israel today, as it is not governed by Him. But the eternal moral law remains the same:
Mark 12:28 Then one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, perceiving that He had answered them well, asked Him, “Which is the first commandment of all?”
29 Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. 30 And you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ This is the first commandment. 31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote: »

Not at all - just that the atheist who feels it immoral to kill a cow reaches that view in exactly the same way as the atheist who feels it moral to exterminate the Jews - the exercise of their free will without reference to any outside moral source.

Not at all. We arrive at our moral standpoint without reference to an absolute moral source. We are of course at liberty to consult a far wider variety of 'outside sources' than the theist, making it more likely that we will arrive at rounded, inclusive conclusions, with the extra benefit of being able to adapt as new information comes to light.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Exactly - you make your own morality. We are thankful for the many who decide on human-friendly systems. Others don't, and are using the exact same thinking as you: Because we are self-regulating and don't have handy deities and old books to whom we can pass the buck.

Sure, but if you're going to embark on a genocidal killing spree it makes little difference in the end whether you decided to do so on the basis of an old book or off your own bat. If you're trying to argue that religious - specifically christian - morality has somehow protected us from human-unfriendly moralities I suggest you go and read some history.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Indeed - but that doesn't mean your thinking will generate human-friendly results.

Indeed - but arguably it does so more often than your old books.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I hope my reply has removed your misunderstanding of what I was saying.

It still seems as though you're saying that we either absorb our christian heritage and are 'good' or think for ourselves with genocide as the outcome. As far as I can see you portray all atheists as one of these two types. Unless you can elaborate on this my criticisms stand.

CDfm

rockbeer wrote: »

Not at all. We arrive at our moral standpoint without reference to an absolute moral source. We are of course at liberty to consult a far wider variety of 'outside sources' than the theist, making it more likely that we will arrive at rounded, inclusive conclusions, with the extra benefit of being able to adapt as new information comes to light.




Sure, but if you're going to embark on a genocidal killing spree it makes little difference in the end whether you decided to do so on the basis of an old book or off your own bat. If you're trying to argue that religious - specifically christian - morality has somehow protected us from human-unfriendly moralities I suggest you go and read some history.



Indeed - but arguably it does so more often than your old books.



It still seems as though you're saying that we either absorb our christian heritage and are 'good' or think for ourselves with genocide as the outcome. As far as I can see you portray all atheists as one of these two types. Unless you can elaborate on this my criticisms stand.

Gee Rockbeer do Sundays upset you that much.

Atheists are free to seek out a wider range of sources - but do they. Some may do - but we come accross a lot of dogmatic atheists and believers/former believers on-line who dont appear to.

I am constantly amazed at the polarisation of views.

Some Christians and unbelievers close their eyes to lots of bible sources that say stuff they dont like. Especially where it is more humanist and secular than they first imagine.

If you look at the bible especially the OT as being more observant and plotting the development of mans thinking and sophistication of thinking -its quite provoctive.

So nothing should shock ,from murder ,rape to genocide we have it all.

Applying morality and ethics to this is hard.But in no way can it not be viewed as contemporary.

Its kind of like Tracey Emin labeling traditional artists "stuckists" and shouting "Stuck,stuck,stuck" when people dont appreciate her unmade bed or love letters stapled to tent pieces.

However Christians try - it is hard to ignore past(human)behaviour as mentioned in thr Bible so I wont go there unless there is a particular element you want to discuss.

So when I see discussions on subjective morality etc that tell me how unsophisticated and gullible I am - I go GULP - compared to what alternative. Be patient -the scientists are working it out but are keeping God out of the equation. But -I say God works for me . Ah well - you are just not sophisticated enough

I am sure you can understand my logic.

wolfsbane

rockbeer said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Not at all - just that the atheist who feels it immoral to kill a cow reaches that view in exactly the same way as the atheist who feels it moral to exterminate the Jews - the exercise of their free will without reference to any outside moral source.
Not at all. We arrive at our moral standpoint without reference to an absolute moral source. We are of course at liberty to consult a far wider variety of 'outside sources' than the theist, making it more likely that we will arrive at rounded, inclusive conclusions, with the extra benefit of being able to adapt as new information comes to light.

That's what I meant - you have no outside absolute, no source of morality other than yourselves. Your rounded, inclusive conclusions are reached in just the same way as Stalin's - and are just as valid. No matter on what part of the human-friendly spectrum you are, atheistic morality is entirely individual.

Sure, but if you're going to embark on a genocidal killing spree it makes little difference in the end whether you decided to do so on the basis of an old book or off your own bat.

Correct, not to the victim. But to the justification of your action, it does make a big difference.

If you're trying to argue that religious - specifically christian - morality has somehow protected us from human-unfriendly moralities I suggest you go and read some history.

Christian morality prohibits abuse of our fellowman - those who call themselves Christian and so abuse do so in violation of their professed beliefs. That means they are either false professors, or are wilfully sinning and so expose themselves to God's judgment.

The only complicating factor for the Christian is that of State morality. Believer and unbeliever alike hold that the State has a responsibility to enforce some morality, or some aspects of a morality. I'm sure we both agree that murder and theft should be punished. Both our moralities consider them immoral.

But when we come to issues like worship of a false god, or faulty worship of the true God, some Christians have in the past held that the State had to punish those too. That led even good Christians to persecute all who in their view worshiped incorrectly, even those they acknowledged as true Christians.

That was their folly. The State's business is with matters of morality that threaten the earthly security of the citzen, not their heavenly security.

Atheists like Stalin or the kindest neighbour, however, have no outside code to which they must justify their actions. The individual decides, albeit with obtaining all the outside information he can, what is right in his own sight. He is his own god.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Indeed - but that doesn't mean your thinking will generate human-friendly results.
Indeed - but arguably it does so more often than your old books.

Not by my reading of history.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
I hope my reply has removed your misunderstanding of what I was saying.
It still seems as though you're saying that we either absorb our christian heritage and are 'good' or think for ourselves with genocide as the outcome. As far as I can see you portray all atheists as one of these two types. Unless you can elaborate on this my criticisms stand.

How could you have missed this from my post? -
the atheist who feels it immoral to kill a cow

We are thankful for the many who decide on human-friendly systems.

I'll try other words: some atheists have subconsciously absorbed the 'Christian' culture and are relatively moral; others have consciously rejected the 'Christian' culture and reached the same conclusions; others have consciously rejected the 'Christian' culture and reached conclusions that led them to what the former two groups would call horrendous immorality.

rockbeer

OK wolfsbane, thanks for the clarification, I see what you're saying now.

No time for a proper reply.

UU

Cantab. wrote: »

It's atheists, not athiests...

Why don't you take your little discussion over to the atheism forum and leave us Christian folk alone?

I believe atheism and secularism is rooted in evil. Not that the subscribers themselves are inherently evil, just that they're under the influence of sinister forces.

Haha please it is secularism of the last centuries which has given religious people themselves more freedom and not everything can be religious you know so it's a rather ridiculous to assert secularism as evil. Besides there are many other religions besides Christianity and indeed Catholicism so secularism gives rights and freedom to people of other religions as well as Christians themselves. Christianity is equally diverse with all its different sects and traditions so there is a definite need for secularism. Much of our culture and richness has emerged from our breakaway from religious imperialism. Many science and medical and technological advances which you would take advantage from have emerged from secularism.

Also is atheism any more evil to you as would other religions such as Islam, Judaism (which Christianity would not have existed in the first place without) or Buddhism or even our ancient traditions of heathenism any more evil in your eyes or indeed the eyes of a Christian such as yourself as atheism is? Also I am atheist and I am a secularist. I am not evil. Religion has resulted in many wars, murders, bloodshed for centuries, a lot more than both atheism and secularism ever had I dare say. One only needs to look at terrorism for example.

CDfm

rockbeer wrote: »

Most atheists have a high degree of personal integrity because we have to take responsibility for our own actions...

I dont mean to be picky -but isnt this a generalisation.Where is the proof.

Given that atheists have individual subjective morality how can you say most atheists have a high degree of personal integrity.

Thats not to take away from secular humanists who sound like unitarians to me.

Shinji Ikari

CDfm wrote: »

I dont mean to be picky -but isnt this a generalisation.Where is the proof.

Given that atheists have individual subjective morality how can you say most atheists have a high degree of personal integrity.

Thats not to take away from secular humanists who sound like unitarians to me.

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your're generalising when you say athiets are moral relativists. The word atheist simply denotes a disbelief in a deity,nothing more.

CDfm

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. Your're generalising when you say athiets are moral relativists. The word atheist simply denotes a disbelief in a deity,nothing more.

Thats OK. Im very good at making sweeping generalisations.

Im more into the philosophical side it - I am not saying that atheists are not moral people and dont subscribe to that.

I do have problems understanding some parts - especially how a moral system works without God.

ChocolateSauce

CDfm wrote: »

Thats OK. Im very good at making sweeping generalisations.

Im more into the philosophical side it - I am not saying that atheists are not moral people and dont subscribe to that.

I do have problems understanding some parts - especially how a moral system works without God.

For me, my moral system (which of course works without god) is based mostly on logic, and somewhat on culture. If I wonder is something immoral, I ask myself why would it be? Why wouldn't it be? The core belief is that a thing is immoral if it harms someone unnecessarily. If it does not harm someone unnecessarily, it is not wrong.

This means my morals are somewhat absolute- just because a culture permits something does not make it right (I have a problem with the idea that immoral acts in other countries are excusable on the basis of it being normal and socially acceptable over there, for example). If you have any specific questions, please let me know and I'll answer.

Shinji Ikari

CDfm wrote: »

Thats OK. Im very good at making sweeping generalisations.

Im more into the philosophical side it - I am not saying that atheists are not moral people and dont subscribe to that.

I do have problems understanding some parts - especially how a moral system works without God.

Dawkins has a theory; Our altruism is a positive evolutionary misfiring from the days when we lived in small hunter gather communities. If you met someone it would be in your benefit to be nice and moral to them as you would most likely meet them again in the future as the worlds population was so small. Now we live in larger societies but the mentality is still there. So essentially its a case of "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."

Shinji Ikari

Also you don't have to believe in Jesus or reincarnation to adhere to many of the ethics of Christianity and Budhhism.
Just as you don't have to worship any Philosophers to adhere to ethical concepts.

CDfm

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

Dawkins has a theory; Our altruism is a positive evolutionary misfiring from the days when we lived in small hunter gather communities. If you met someone it would be in your benefit to be nice and moral to them as you would most likely meet them again in the future as the worlds population was so small. Now we live in larger societies but the mentality is still there. So essentially its a case of "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."

I dont do Dawkins.:pac:

ChocolateSauce

CDfm wrote: »

I dont do Dawkins.:pac:

Maybe so, but you can't ignore his science just because you don't like his personal views.

CDfm

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Maybe so, but you can't ignore his science just because you don't like his personal views.

I dont like the way he mixes religion with science.

I think his pronouncements on religion are as much pseudo-science as creationism is.

My view is Dawkins is to Religion what (Henry M) Morris is to Science.

lostexpectation

cdfm, he is holds the position for public understanding or science, he doess't make these 'pronouncements' for kicks its his job and is based on his expertise.

CDfm

lostexpectation wrote: »

cdfm, he is holds the position for public understanding or science, he doess't make these 'pronouncements' for kicks its his job and is based on his expertise.

If I post my Dawkins phobia in PI can you guarantee no creationists will post

ChocolateSauce

CDfm wrote: »

I dont like the way he mixes religion with science.

I think his pronouncements on religion are as much pseudo-science as creationism is.

I won't begrudge you that. I don't entirely like it either. Personally, I found the biggest weakness of The God Delusion was his attempt to use science to disprove god.

ChocolateSauce

lostexpectation wrote: »

cdfm, he is holds the position for public understanding or science, he doess't make these 'pronouncements' for kicks its his job and is based on his expertise.

Yes, and while he is right to make certain pronouncement regarding science and creationism, and while I personally support his stance and life's work, I can certainly understand why his personal views would make him unsuitable for his office in the eyes of many.

Shinji Ikari

CDfm wrote: »

I dont like the way he mixes religion with science.

I think his pronouncements on religion are as much pseudo-science as creationism is.

My view is Dawkins is to Religion what (Henry M) Morris is to Science.

Actually it's religious folk who mix science with religion not the other way around. If you believe a God created the Universe your're postulating a scientific theory;the ultimate scientific theory.Thus your theory will be examined by the scientific method and it fails. Hence my atheism.

kelly1

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

Thus your theory will be examined by the scientific method and it fails. Hence my atheism.

Is that a prediction?
Or are you saying science has proven that God doesn't exist?

PDN

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

If you believe a God created the Universe your're postulating a scientific theory;the ultimate scientific theory.Thus your theory will be examined by the scientific method and it fails. Hence my atheism.

So what constitutes a scientific theory? Here are a few definitions:

An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. ...
bama.ua.edu/~brown/voc.doc

A body of knowledge using controlled-variable experimental methods to construct a formal and mathematically structured system. ...
www.udmercy.edu/faculty_pages/staudenmaier_sj/ethics/glossary.html

A well-tested explanation for a wide range of observations or experimental results
quizlet.com/print/157385/

a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"

It seems to me that the Christian belief that God made the universe fails to qualify as a scientific theory on several counts.

1. It does not try to explain how or why the creation of the universe occurred. It simply affirms the original cause.

2. Believing that God created the universe does not necessarily use controlled-variable experimental methods to construct a formal and mathematically structured system. Nor is it based on a wide range of observations or experimental results.

3. The belief that God created the universe is not falsifiable.

The belief that God created the universe has not 'failed' since the scientific method has not disproved it.

Shinji Ikari

kelly1 wrote: »

Is that a prediction?
Or are you saying science has proven that God doesn't exist?

Which God?; Thor, Lugh, Ameterasu,Zeus,Apollo,Jehovah, Ises, Mithras?

Science can never 100% disprove the existence of a deity no more than it can disprove the celestial teapot or the flying spagetti monster. What it can illustrate however is that there is not a shread of evidence in favour of the existence of any God. So unless evidence is revealed we should
dismiss the God hypothesis.Any good scientist who does not indulge in compartmentalisation will agree with me.

Jack Sheehan

In what light would you consider a person like me. My morals and ethics almost totally coincide with the teachings of Jesus, but I do not believe in God. Am I evil? Or pitiable? I am genuinely curious.

kelly1

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

Science can never 100% disprove the existence of a deity no more than it can disprove the celestial teapot or the flying spagetti monster. What it can illustrate however is that there is not a shread of evidence in favour of the existence of any God. So unless evidence is revealed we should
dismiss the God hypothesis.Any good scientist who does not indulge in compartmentalisation will agree with me.

I think you'll find that science can say nothing about God. That only proves the limitations of science.

Do you subscribe to the Positivist philosophy?

Shinji Ikari

PDN wrote: »

So what constitutes a scientific theory? Here are a few definitions:



It seems to me that the Christian belief that God made the universe fails to qualify as a scientific theory on several counts.

1. It does not try to explain how or why the creation of the universe occurred. It simply affirms the original cause.

2. Believing that God created the universe does not necessarily use controlled-variable experimental methods to construct a formal and mathematically structured system. Nor is it based on a wide range of observations or experimental results.

3. The belief that God created the universe is not falsifiable.

The belief that God created the universe has not 'failed' since the scientific method has not disproved it.

1; Via the will of God
2; I will have to get back to you on that one to be honest
3;Nothing is 100% falsifiable. However the God hypothesis can be safely ruled out due to a severe lack of evidence. If you still believe you might aswell embrace Solipsism...anything goes.

Shinji Ikari

kelly1 wrote: »

I think you'll find that science can say nothing about God. That only proves the limitations of science.

Do you subscribe to the Positivist philosophy?

Well I'm an Empiricist. I hav'nt studied Positivism in great detail. I think its more of a case that God is silent on Science. Which is a bit strange because if God exists it would be the ultimate scientist.