Are Athiests evil?

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, to answer your question, C.S. Lewis said this:


I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

There's another possibility too, surely? He never said anything about being the son of God, his followers merely claimed him as such after his death.

Malari

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, to answer your question, C.S. Lewis said this:


I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Just because CS Lewis said that doesn't mean it's true. I don't even think his logic is very convincing. Why "a madman or something worse"? If he was mad, meaning if he actually believed he was a god, what was so bad about his impact and message that we should essentially be good to each other? From a christian point of view I mean. I agree with the Gambler, he was a good moral guide for the most part but not a god.

Biro

Dan133269 wrote: »

Very christian like, love your neighbour and all that. I see you're a model christian

And who are you to judge?

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's another possibility too, surely? He never said anything about being the son of God, his followers merely claimed him as such after his death.

And knowing that he was a liar, they stole the body (possible), convinced 500 people that he had appeared to them (possible) and later died for this lie (very unlikely). The ultimate fate of most of the apostles was gruesome - everything from being boiled in oil to being beheaded. They all suffered nasty deaths. Now it's possible that they were under some false illusion and they were somehow tricked into believing that they met Jesus after his death, but I don't believe it likely they would willingly go to their deaths professing that he was Lord if it was a lie.

CerebralCortex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And knowing it he was a liar, they stole the body (possible), convinced 500 people that he had appeared to them (possible) and later died for this lie (very unlikely). The ultimate fate of most of the apostles was gruesome - everything from being boiled in oil to being beheaded. They all suffered nasty deaths. Now it's possible that they were under some false illusion and they were somehow tricked into believing that they met Jesus after his death, but I don't believe that it is likely that they would willing go to their deaths professing that he was Lord if it was a lie.

Do you base your belief in god of that?

Tim_Murphy

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, to answer your question, C.S. Lewis said this:


I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

As others have pointed out, there are other plausible scenarios than the ones put forth by Lewis. The above only works if we assume that the gospels are a completely accurate account of the events that took place, which is hell of an assumption to be fair. Even then, it doesn't make that much sense.

It is a neat way of manipulating people people who like what they have heard about Jesus but haven't bought into the whole 'his is god thing'.

Fanny Cradock

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Do you base your belief in god of that?

No, I don't believe it is sufficient cause to base ones belief upon. However, I'm of the opinion that this argument, like Mere Christianity from where it is taken, is compelling reading for the half-convinced.

clearz

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.

And what forces might these be? Electromagnetic, strong/weak nuclear or gravitational? or have you managed to find some new one that you would like to share with us?

Gambler

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And knowing it he was a liar, they stole the body (possible), convinced 500 people that he had appeared to them (possible) and later died for this lie (very unlikely). The ultimate fate of most of the apostles was gruesome - everything from being boiled in oil to being beheaded. They all suffered nasty deaths. Now it's possible that they were under some false illusion and they were somehow tricked into believing that they met Jesus after his death, but I don't believe it likely they would willingly go to their deaths professing that he was Lord if it was a lie.

That's why I said:

Gambler wrote:

Yes I believe that if there was such a man then a lot of other mythical stories became attached to him that never really happened (like the resurrection etc.) but that doesn't mean that there was no man who made a big difference to the history of mankind.

Is it not plausible that the stories of the man spread by people who did not know him or his disciples became exaggerated\warped by well intentioned people trying to make the world a better place? Look at this comparison of the "life stories" of Horus and Jesus:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

It's specifically worth scrolling down to the table with the side by side comparison of both stories.

To me the story of Jesus has taken on a life of its own over time and while it has inspired some to be better people it has also inspired people to do terrible things "in his name". I don't know if it has been a net negative or not (that is impossible to measure in any objective manner) but I don't think that a story is a good enough reason to believe something without question based solely on the words contained within it. By that measure is there an argument to be had that the ancient Egyptians were right all along?

Fanny Cradock

The apparent similarities between Jesus and Horus have been discussed many times before. I'd advise you to do a search on the matter. I don't want this thread going down the Horus/ Mithraism route again.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53924898&postcount=91

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53924968&postcount=92

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=54021731&postcount=16

Gambler

I'm not trying to drag up old topics, sorry if that's how it came across, just saying that to believe that there was a man called Jesus existed isn't in and of itself proof that there is a God or a reason to believe in one.

Getting back on topic a bit (just realised we are drifting wayyyyy of point) I think that trying too get an answer to this question is the same as trying to come to a consensus on whether or not there is a god. There are people like Cantab who believe that unless you live your life placing god at the centre of it then you are automatically living a sinfull life, there are other people who have told me that I live a more christian life than some very religious people they know (and these are all people that know I'm an Atheist!)

Asiaprod

Gambler wrote: »

Getting back on topic a bit (just realised we are drifting wayyyyy of point)

Indeed, thank you

I think that trying too get an answer to this question is the same as trying to come to a consensus on whether or not there is a god.

Sums it up nicely.

AtomicHorror

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And knowing it he was a liar, they stole the body (possible), convinced 500 people that he had appeared to them (possible) and later died for this lie (very unlikely). The ultimate fate of most of the apostles was gruesome - everything from being boiled in oil to being beheaded. They all suffered nasty deaths. Now it's possible that they were under some false illusion and they were somehow tricked into believing that they met Jesus after his death, but I don't believe it likely they would willingly go to their deaths professing that he was Lord if it was a lie.

Again though, the historicity of all of that is quite up in the air. The historic Jesus could well be a perfectly acceptable moral guide without the supernatural trappings. Besides which, if a lunatic tells the truth, does it become a lie because he is a lunatic? Are we forced to throw out the teachings of Jesus because we suspect he was crazy? We do have our own capacity to weigh up his reasoning, after all.

Plenty of philosophers were nuts or went nuts, and we still consider them valid.

Hivemind187

AtomicHorror wrote: »

There's another possibility too, surely? He never said anything about being the son of God, his followers merely claimed him as such after his death.

Fourth possibility: He never actually existed and is a composite character of many other profits and possible schizophrenics of the time cobbled together via a sort of primitive memetic evolution.

Just an opinion but the wildly differing accounts of the character, background and so-called facts surrounding the man are certain circumstantial evidence of this.

Fanny Cradock

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Again though, the historicity of all of that is quite up in the air. The historic Jesus could well be a perfectly acceptable moral guide without the supernatural trappings. Besides which, if a lunatic tells the truth, does it become a lie because he is a lunatic? Are we forced to throw out the teachings of Jesus because we suspect he was crazy? We do have our own capacity to weigh up his reasoning, after all.

Plenty of philosophers were nuts or went nuts, and we still consider them valid.

I suggest we take this to another thread if you are interested in my response.

Hivemind187

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And knowing it he was a liar, they stole the body (possible), convinced 500 people that he had appeared to them (possible) and later died for this lie (very unlikely). The ultimate fate of most of the apostles was gruesome - everything from being boiled in oil to being beheaded. They all suffered nasty deaths. Now it's possible that they were under some false illusion and they were somehow tricked into believing that they met Jesus after his death, but I don't believe it likely they would willingly go to their deaths professing that he was Lord if it was a lie.

Um ... sorry to say this but the circumstances of the deaths of the so-called apostles (if true) is evidence of only one thing; that people can die in gruesome ways.

Martyrs dispatch themselves for their beliefs all the time regardless of how misguided they are (buddhists priests who are anything but christian setting themselves alight in protest over war, occupation etc being an example) so all you have stated is that people can convince themselves to endure unbelieveable torture, maiming and eventually death for their "belief". THIS DOES NOT VALIDATE BELIEF. The belief could still as easily be a lie, a mistake, a misinterpretation etc.

It also assumes that each of the apostles knew one another however going on the dates most of the gospels are believed to be from it would require several of them to have been into their early to mid 100's would it not? Assuming that the chronological age of the texts can be trusted. If the apostles did not know one another and had merely picked up the story from another source they would have been more able to believe in the superman tales of Christ without having had to have met him and would be able to martyr themsleves by vesting their faith.

Most muslims have not met Mohammad yet their are a number of reletively famous ones prepared to strap TNT to their belts and detonate themselves in his name.

I doubt there are many christians today who have met Jesus Christ incarnate but there are many of them who are willing to die in the name of the religions claiming to represent his doctrines.

... ok, so this is a little more complicated to explain than what I have here but I trust you get the jist of it.

Fanny Cradock

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Um ... sorry to say this but the circumstances of the deaths of the so-called apostles (if true) is evidence of only one thing; that people can die in gruesome ways.

Martyrs dispatch themselves for their beliefs all the time regardless of how misguided they are (buddhists priests who are anything but christian setting themselves alight in protest over war, occupation etc being an example) so all you have stated is that people can convince themselves to endure unbelieveable torture, maiming and eventually death for their "belief". THIS DOES NOT VALIDATE BELIEF. The belief could still as easily be a lie, a mistake, a misinterpretation etc.

It also assumes that each of the apostles knew one another however going on the dates most of the gospels are believed to be from it would require several of them to have been into their early to mid 100's would it not? Assuming that the chronological age of the texts can be trusted. If the apostles did not know one another and had merely picked up the story from another source they would have been more able to believe in the superman tales of Christ without having had to have met him and would be able to martyr themsleves by vesting their faith.

Most muslims have not met Mohammad yet their are a number of reletively famous ones prepared to strap TNT to their belts and detonate themselves in his name.

I doubt there are many christians today who have met Jesus Christ incarnate but there are many of them who are willing to die in the name of the religions claiming to represent his doctrines.

... ok, so this is a little more complicated to explain than what I have here but I trust you get the jist of it.

Can you point out where I said martyrdom validated their beliefs? I was discussing the unlikelihood of someone willingly laying down their life (painfully or otherwise) for something they believed to be false.

Please take it to another thread. We have gone way off course here.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, to answer your question, C.S. Lewis said this:


I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

I have never heard of a man who says he is a poached egg come out with any moral teaching, so if Jesus was lunatic and not the son of God he still would not just be any old lunatic.

The lier / lunatic argument from Lewis is a classic case of sophistry.
Lewis had no training in any philosophy, science, maths or anything connected with logic. Otherwise he might have come across this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dichotomy.

His argument is a little variant of this it's a false trilema.

If he was well up on Greek Philosophy he'd see there were already far more sophisticated ways of thinking and teaching than anything that came from Jesus.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Now it's possible that they were under some false illusion and they were somehow tricked into believing that they met Jesus after his death, but I don't believe it likely they would willingly go to their deaths professing that he was Lord if it was a lie.

Looking at the evidence of our species, the only religion I can think where believers have never been prepared to die for is Scientology.

It sounds dramatic, that people were prepared to die for something, but in fact it just highlights the most dangerous aspect of religious belief.

Fanny Cradock

Tim, I've asked nicely on two occasions to take it to another thread.

wolfsbane

Macros42 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That often is a major factor in unbelief. The unwillingness to consider oneself the creature in a Creator/creature relationship.
Yet I look up at the stars with or without my telescope and find myself humbled by the sheer vastness of it. It's not pride that I'm an atheist.

We can be comfortable with humility toward impersonal things, but the test comes in regard to other persons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sparkysrovers
I just find it very weird that atheists dont believe in anything.
I believe there is no God. That's not a facetious comment - I actually do believe that. I also believe in the power of the human spirit (not soul) including after death in some circumstances. But that's not to say that I believe in a Christian/Judaic/Islamic/etc afterlife.

Yes, atheists do believe in all sorts of materially unverifiable things, and I appreciate your honesty in admitting to some.

The prime one is that there is no God - how could one possibly know that? Your belief in an afterlife is just as whimisical.

Tim Robbins

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Tim, I've asked nicely on two occasions to take it to another thread.

Apologies.

midlandsmissus

Of course atheists aren't evil. I myself was an atheist for a long, long time, before I turned christian. I didn't believe in anything, definitely didn't believe in the catholic church. A series of happenings in my life has made me believe in God, and now I'm happier than I ever was.

But it is a VERY unchristian thing to say atheists are evil. How can any christian person say this? Some people just havent found their way yet. Christians are meant to guide people, not condemn people.

I would say as a christian I do still think and question alot. I never blindly follow anything. I still think the catholic church is completely the wrong way of teaching religion to people, it has become about power and money to them. I believe that you can talk to God yourself, you don't need a priest to do it for you.

Christians shouldn't look down on other people, and atheists are a big part of society. What happened to love your neighbour!!!

Fanny Cradock

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Of course atheists aren't evil. I myself was an atheist for a long, long time, before I turned christian. I didn't believe in anything, definitely didn't believe in the catholic church. A series of happenings in my life has made me believe in God, and now I'm happier than I ever was.

But it is a VERY unchristian thing to say atheists are evil. How can any christian person say this? Some people just havent found their way yet. Christians are meant to guide people, not condemn people.

I would say as a christian I do still think and question alot. I never blindly follow anything. I still think the catholic church is completely the wrong way of teaching religion to people, it has become about power and money to them. I believe that you can talk to God yourself, you don't need a priest to do it for you.

Christians shouldn't look down on other people, and atheists are a big part of society. What happened to love your neighbour!!!

Well said.

wolfsbane

midlandsmissus wrote: »

Of course atheists aren't evil. I myself was an atheist for a long, long time, before I turned christian. I didn't believe in anything, definitely didn't believe in the catholic church. A series of happenings in my life has made me believe in God, and now I'm happier than I ever was.

But it is a VERY unchristian thing to say atheists are evil. How can any christian person say this? Some people just havent found their way yet. Christians are meant to guide people, not condemn people.

I would say as a christian I do still think and question alot. I never blindly follow anything. I still think the catholic church is completely the wrong way of teaching religion to people, it has become about power and money to them. I believe that you can talk to God yourself, you don't need a priest to do it for you.

Christians shouldn't look down on other people, and atheists are a big part of society. What happened to love your neighbour!!!

Maybe it's a different use of terms, but I find your use of evil rather strange for a Christian.

How would you describe the moral state of the unconverted? Did you not need to repent to become a Christian? What did you repent of, if it wasn't your sins against God? Is not sin against God evil? Should not a man whose life is characterised by sin against God be called evil?

I can understand an unbeliever thinking only great sinners - like murderers - evil, but God regards all sin as evil. The sin of unbelief characterises a person, ie, it is not a singular event, so the unbeliever can properly be called evil.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Maybe it's a different use of terms, but I find your use of evil rather strange for a Christian.

How would you describe the moral state of the unconverted? Did you not need to repent to become a Christian? What did you repent of, if it wasn't your sins against God? Is not sin against God evil? Should not a man whose life is characterised by sin against God be called evil?

I can understand an unbeliever thinking only great sinners - like murderers - evil, but God regards all sin as evil. The sin of unbelief characterises a person, ie, it is not a singular event, so the unbeliever can properly be called evil.

funny, i was actually thinking a similar thing (thinking the same as Wolfsbane, going to have nightmares about that one :pac:)

My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, is that a core tenent of Christianity is that everyone is ultimately wicked. We are all deserving of hell fire. That is in fact the point of Christianity, the reason Jesus came to Earth, it is a way to avoid this punishment by accepting Jesus.

Perhaps what midlandsmissus meant that it is an unChristian thing to believe that atheists are any more evil than anyone else? There certainly seems to be a lot in Christianity about individual Christians lacking the ability or wisdom to judge others. That is God's job.

condra

But it is a VERY unchristian thing to say atheists are evil. How can any christian person say this? ..........Christians are meant to guide people, not condemn people.

Unfortunatly, I think a lot of Christians consider their faith a "licence to judge", and can be as smug, conceited and dismissive as any atheist I've ever met.

Of course atheists are not evil.

Why do you think so many atheists are so passionate and mouthy?
So many of us see mass delusion as being harmful to human beings as a whole.
We want humans to live in a world where the importance of truth and justice are respected, and where skeptical enquirey is encouraged, where corporations, despots and cult leaders can't brainwash people into mental slavery.

The question is completely ridiculous in the first place, from an atheist or anyone else.
Imagine someone asking a question like "are black people evil?", or "are gay people evil?".
The answer should always be "of course not".

What about "are murderers evil"?
I would say no.
I would say many of them would qualify as "evil" as described by the RCC or indeed most scientists or philosophers, BUT, there are always exceptions, always grey areas.

In my opinion, many religious people need to stop dealing in absolutes!

Gambler

Some interesting definition takes on Evil here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil

Specifically in relation to the various christian takes:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil#Judaeo-Christian_religions

I found this particularly interesting: "In Christianity, some sects stress obedience to God's law. Other sects emphasize Christ's statement that love of God and love of your fellow man is the whole of the law. Still others emphasize the idea that humanity is, within itself, irremediably evil, and in need of forgiveness. (see Original Sin)"

It seems that Christians can't decide a definition of Evil between themselves any more than secularists can

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

My understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, is that a core tenent of Christianity is that everyone is ultimately wicked. We are all deserving of hell fire.

I wouldn't go quite that far!

Jesus taught that only God is good meaning that all goodness comes from God. It's God's grace that makes us good and the absence of His grace renders us incapable of loving and being good.

People only become deserving of Hell when they deliberately reject God's grace through grave sin. We don't deserve hell for taking a biscuit without asking!

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

People only become deserving of Hell when they deliberately reject God's grace through grave sin. We don't deserve hell for taking a biscuit without asking!

Its the "only" bit though isn't it.

As anyone ever lead a life and not become deserving of Hell? If it was relatively simple task to do what was the point of Jesus?