Are Athiests evil?

wolfsbane

MrPudding wrote: »

No you are right, I would not condemn the judge, nor would most of the people on this board, but then that is very different to what we are talking about here. The judge did not "create" the offender. He simply happens to be the judge this particular criminal finds himself before to answer for his crimes. The judge, like other judges applies the law. Aside from that he has, or should have, no connection to the criminal.

Your god, on the other hand, allegedly created us. Further, it created us, and being all knowing, knew that we would sin, yet still went ahead with it. Unless it is not all powerful it must have known what Adam would do. This leaves a number of possibilities. 1) It is not the creator, or simply does not exist. 2) It exists but is not all powerful or all knowing. 3) It exists and is all powerful and all knowing but does not give a monkey's. 4) It exists and is all knowing but can't do anything because it is not all powerful.

I am sure there are other options as well, but the point is, it does not make any sense at all for your god, as you describe it, to punish puny humans for acting in a manner which is, in effect, entirely of it's making.

MrP

It might appear so to a sinner like yourself, but who are we to sit in judgment of God?

The God of the Bible declares Himself to be perfectly holy, as well as all-powerful and all-knowing. He did indeed know what the outcome of His creation would be, but He is not responsible for the free actions of His creatures.

He could have choosen not to have permitted their sin, but He chose otherwise. He is the only one with the wisdom to know if that was right or not, and He says it was. How foolish of us to put our tiny understanding up against His infinite wisdom:
Romans 9: 20 But indeed, O man, who are you to reply against God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, “Why have you made me like this?” 21 Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

wolfsbane

Hivemind187 said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
You did indeed miss an option:
Only one religion is right and God has provided the way to know which one.. He sent His Holy Spirit to accompany the preaching of the gospel:
John 16:8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.

He it is who opens the heart to believe and obey the gospel:
Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul.
OK, yeah. I read that like six times and you know what? It didnt tell me squat about which religion was the right one.

I fully get that you were trying to say "christianity" but which version? Catholocism? Protestanism? Mormonism? Branch Davidianism?

Throwing quotes around is all well and good but unlessthey actually answer the question they are a little flat.

The quotes were not meant to give you that knowledge, only to show you how that knowledge is achieved. God the Holy Spirit reveals it to us as we read/listen to His word.

Edit: Oh, thats not an additional option by the way since it is bunkum. God etc has not provided a means to know which faith is the correct one we know this by simple observation: Had he provided such a means it would be measureable and undeniable evidence of the existance of god. None exist, hence the number of faiths in existance arguing about a single deity and the existance of atheists constantly questioning the veracity of said faiths.

True Christians beg to differ - we have experienced that knowledge in our hearts.

Unbelievers may hear the clearest witness of the Spirit, but choose to reject it. The difference lies in the nature of the receiving heart: if it has been changed by God from its stoney hardness, then it gladly hears and obeys. That change is the regenerating work of the Spirit, preparing the elect soul for conversion. The rest are left in their wicked condition, and deny, reject and ridicule the idea of this holy God.

wolfsbane

Gambler said:

All I can really say to that is to point you to the actual information about the site, in particular:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/statbelief.htm

Here's a quote from them:
About accuracy in our essays:
We will attempt to overcome our biases on each topic that we describe, by explaining each point of view carefully, respectfully and objectively. To this end, we have many of our essays reviewed by persons familiar with the issues who represent all sides of each topic.

But the table of differences they list is loaded with claims the Conservative/Traditional Christian rejects - for example, that Matthew, Mark and Luke teach a salvation by good works and John by faith in Christ. Plain and inexcusable rubbish!

Nailz

No, Atheists aren't. I might be a crappy Christian, but, I've always respected others views if they made sence, and in almost every sence they do. From ones I know and met, they aren't pushy or anything, they don't care what you believe in, as far as they're concerned you can believe in whatever the hell you want (which is the downfall of many people in verious religions). They're normal individuals, almost more than ourselves). I see them as the Cult Of Personality.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

kingtut wrote: »

You use one man as evidence that all atheists are evil?
I do not think it is fair for you to assume that one evil atheist means that all atheists are evil.

What religion are you?

err Atheists are the soldiers of Satan. Of course they're evil.

Zombrex

Sean_K wrote: »

err Atheists are the soldiers of Satan. Of course they're evil.

Atheists don't believe in Satan any more than they believe God








... of course thats what Satan wants us to all think ... waaahhaaahaaahaa!

studiorat

wolfsbane wrote: »

Unbelievers may hear the clearest witness of the Spirit, but choose to reject it. The difference lies in the nature of the receiving heart: if it has been changed by God from its stoney hardness, then it gladly hears and obeys. That change is the regenerating work of the Spirit, preparing the elect soul for conversion. The rest are left in their wicked condition, and deny, reject and ridicule the idea of this holy God.

Personally I think this statement is absolutely "evil".

Absolute rubbish! Wicked condition? The usual self-righteous bs. I for one am sick and tired of reading posts from so called christians calling themselves better than others.

Athiests Evil? Yeah right. Why don't we start discussing are Muslims evil or Jews evil and see how far we get.

I think Wolfsbane is right out of line here, faith is not a measure of goodness or whatever you want to call it. If we started judging people by their deeds and not what colour their theological football jersey is, I for one would be happy enough to leave this forum alone and christians to discuss their beliefs.

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

Unbelievers may hear the clearest witness of the Spirit, but choose to reject it. The difference lies in the nature of the receiving heart: if it has been changed by God from its stoney hardness, then it gladly hears and obeys. That change is the regenerating work of the Spirit, preparing the elect soul for conversion. The rest are left in their wicked condition, and deny, reject and ridicule the idea of this holy God.

So what happeed to free will then? If God has to intervene to change a heart from its "stoney hardness" first from how is it choice at all to reject him?

Looks like I didn't get picked for the football team, its like primary school all over again

Nonsense.

Fanny Cradock

wolfsbane wrote: »

Unbelievers may hear the clearest witness of the Spirit, but choose to reject it. The difference lies in the nature of the receiving heart: if it has been changed by God from its stoney hardness, then it gladly hears and obeys. That change is the regenerating work of the Spirit, preparing the elect soul for conversion. The rest are left in their wicked condition, and deny, reject and ridicule the idea of this holy God.

Maybe you should tone down the rhetoric a bit, Wolfsbane. It certainly doesn't win any favour with those you are referring to. It only servers to alienate people as it appears that you place yourself on a higher moral ground. Let's keep this civil.

Fanny Cradock

marco_polo wrote: »

So what happeed to free will then? If God has to intervene to change a heart from its "stoney hardness" first from how is it choice at all to reject him?

I believe that Wolf subscribes to the notion of such things being preordained. (Please correct me if I'm incorrect there, Wolf.) This is a notion that I have great trouble with myself.

marco_polo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I believe that Wolf subscribes to the notion of such things being preordained. (Please correct me if I'm incorrect there, Wolf.) This is a notion that I have great trouble with myself.

It seems a contradictory position to me, I also find his views that good works are pretty much meaningless to be a rather bizzare moral framework to say the least.

Just old fire and brimestone rhetoric.

Fanny Cradock

marco_polo wrote: »

It seems a contradictory position to me, I also find his views that good works are pretty much meaningless to be a rather bizzare moral framework to say the least.

Just old fire and brimestone rhetoric.

Again, I may be incorrect here, but I would assume the Wolf means that good works are meaningless with regards to salvation. The former has no bearing on the latter. Maybe, though, I am slightly misrepresenting the viewpoint of many Christians when I say this (my own included).

I would be of the opinion that good deeds are a natural consequence of accepting Jesus - arguably even essential for a Christian. But to avoid any arguement, this says nothing about the morality of non-believers.

studiorat

Good deeds are a natural consequence of being human, not accepting Jesus, IMO. Empathy and all that.
Now I'm assuming you mean accepting Jesus as your redeemer.

How then can you account for the good deeds of people who don't accept Jesus in accordance with any christian belief. My deeply good sufi friends who would really and truly sell their belongings to accomodiate a stranger for instance. I wonder how many christians would accept someone into their house like that.
But hey it's ok, they're on the winning team!

Oddly enough I have no trouble as an Atheist with the universe being preordained, why not? Just not created by an interventionist being.

Fanny Cradock

studiorat wrote: »

Good deeds are a natural consequence of being human, not accepting Jesus, IMO. Empathy and all that.
Now I'm assuming you mean accepting Jesus as your redeemer.

How then can you account for the good deeds of people who don't accept Jesus in accordance with any christian belief. My deeply good sufi friends who would really and truly sell their belongings to accomodiate a stranger for instance. I wonder how many christians would accept someone into their house like that.
But hey it's ok, they're on the winning team!

Oddly enough I have no trouble as an Atheist with the universe being preordained, why not? Just not created by an interventionist being.

Ah, but you see, I never said that being a Christian was required for being a good person. I believe that all goodness comes from God where one believes in him or not. This is probably an infuriating argument for you :pac:

Care to expand on your final paragraph? Would it not take a huge leap to go from an ordered universe in which one can make predictions, to one that is so ordered that even an apparently random entropic system is preordained.

marco_polo

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Again, I may be incorrect here, but I would assume the Wolf means that good works are meaningless with regards to salvation. The former has no bearing on the latter. Maybe, though, I am slightly misrepresenting the viewpoint of many Christians when I say this (my own included).

I would be of the opinion that good deeds are a natural consequence of accepting Jesus - arguably even essential for a Christian. But to avoid any arguement, this says nothing about the morality of non-believers.

I am probably just not getting it, but surely from the christain point of view good works must have a value with regard to salvation. (Is the opposite a common non-catholic christian viewpoint? I only have a little prior catholic experience)

It just seems to me that if someone holds the view that good works are meaningless with regards to salvation, then surely "Why live morally?" is a valid question to ask of someone who holds such a belief as it is often asked of atheists. Or perhaps I am interpreting this all wrong and what is meant is that good works done purely for the the sake of gaining salvation are of no use?

Not looking for a non-believer morality fight just curious about this topic. I tend to stay out of these threads, unless something really grinds my gears. I don't have overly strong views on religion just not my cup of tea anymore .

Fanny Cradock

marco_polo wrote: »

I am probably just not getting it, but surely from the christain point of view good works must have a value with regard to salvation. (Is the opposite a common non-catholic christian viewpoint? I only have a little prior catholic experience)

It just seems to me that if someone holds the view that good works are meaningless with regards to salvation, then surely "Why live morally?" is a valid question to ask of someone who holds such a belief as it is often asked of atheists. Or perhaps I am interpreting this all wrong and what is meant is that good works done purely for the the sake of gaining salvation are of no use?

Not looking for a non-believer morality fight just curious about this topic. I tend to stay out of these threads, unless something really grinds my gears. I don't have overly strong views on religion just not my cup of tea anymore .

The misunderstanding is my fault.

Let me put it this way. For Christians the words found in Romans 3:23 ring true: "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". In other words, salvation isn't earned, it's an act of grace, a freely given gift. So, while it would be untrue to say Christians hold that good deeds are meaningless, with regards to salvation, we believe it come from Jesus alone.

From salvation, however, though not exclusive to it, one expects that good deeds will arise. Indeed, one would have to ask questions if a moral improvement didn't arise. This isn't to say that Christians are somehow immune from evil deeds, are better people, or that non-Christians are less moral than Christians.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

From salvation, however, though not exclusive to it, one expects that good deeds will arise.

Would a Christian then be skeptical of the salvation of someone who claims to be saved but who leads a selfish unhelpful life?

Is it possible for someone to believe in Jesus, believe they are saved, but not be? I know quite a few "Christians" who seem to genuinely believe they are saved (and genuinely believe I'm going straight to hell) but who I wouldn't consider to lead lives filled with good deeds.

rockbeer

Wicknight wrote: »

Would a Christian then be skeptical of the salvation of someone who claims to be saved but who leads a selfish unhelpful life?

Is it possible for someone to believe in Jesus, believe they are saved, but not be?

I'm no christian ( as most of you have probably guessed ) but I always understood that no christian should believe or claim that they were saved. I thought this was strictly god's prerogative.

It's always been a source of amazement to me, the confidence - the utter certainty - with which so many christians make outrageous pronouncements about who is saved and who is damned. It goes without saying that everyone almost without exception considers themselves among the saved.

It's almost as though they had a hot line upstairs, but as far as I can see everyone is just guessing.

(Sorry if this is a bit OT)

Fanny Cradock

Wicknight wrote: »

Would a Christian then be skeptical of the salvation of someone who claims to be saved but who leads a selfish unhelpful life?

Is it possible for someone to believe in Jesus, believe they are saved, but not be? I know quite a few "Christians" who seem to genuinely believe they are saved (and genuinely believe I'm going straight to hell) but who I wouldn't consider to lead lives filled with good deeds.

Well, it's not up to me, tbh. However, I would wonder why there has been no improvement or worse. At this point I may be departing from biblical teachings and slip into my natural state: scepticism.

As for your latter question, I think that it might. By way of comparison, somebody could claim to love their wife, yet it's not words but actions that go to proving this deceleration.

Fanny Cradock

rockbeer wrote: »

I'm no christian ( as most of you have probably guessed ) but I always understood that no christian should believe or claim that they were saved. I thought this was strictly god's prerogative.

It's always been a source of amazement to me, the confidence - the utter certainty - with which so many christians make outrageous pronouncements about who is saved and who is damned. It goes without saying that everyone almost without exception considers themselves among the saved.

It's almost as though they had a hot line upstairs, but as far as I can see everyone is just guessing.

(Sorry if this is a bit OT)

Quick answer, I believe that it is denominational. However, there are many passages in the bible that I believe guarantee salvation to those who truly believe. Of course, defining what true belief is may be a probl;em to some but not others.

For example, Matt 7:

7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

Zombrex

rockbeer wrote: »

It's almost as though they had a hot line upstairs, but as far as I can see everyone is just guessing.

I think the idea that someone can tell they are saved (leaving aside judgments about others) is quite important in Christianity. From the skeptical/atheist in me I would say that is because a religion that says you might be saved, you will find out when you die, probably wouldn't be that popular. The certainty of salvation removes a lot of worry. A religion where that worry is part and parcel of the religion wouldn't offer a whole lot more than simply being agnostic.

From being on this forum for a while I've seen quite a few Christians proclaim that they are saved. They seem happy to do this, while saying they cannot make any judgments about anyone else because they can't see into the persons heart.

This raises the interesting question of how do they know, how do they see into their own heart?

Which in turn leads on to the question of what is exactly required to be saved and how does some judge that this has been met? There seems to be various interpretations of this.

I mention this because it relates to the issue of good deeds. Fanny's comments that good deeds should lead on from being saved because being saved improves a persons heart and outlook, provides in some way a test for salvation. Can a person be saved and not change their outlook. If they believe they are saved, if they truly believe Jesus is son of God, can they not be saved?

wolfsbane

Wicknight said:

Would a Christian then be skeptical of the salvation of someone who claims to be saved but who leads a selfish unhelpful life?

Yes:
Matthew 7:15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? 17 Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

Is it possible for someone to believe in Jesus, believe they are saved, but not be?

Yes. Many in fact:
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe you should tone down the rhetoric a bit, Wolfsbane. It certainly doesn't win any favour with those you are referring to. It only servers to alienate people as it appears that you place yourself on a higher moral ground. Let's keep this civil.

I'm not being uncivil. I'm not accusing atheists of being the only wicked people. ALL of us are born wicked. Only those whom God changes are removed from that state, and it is not for any good in themselves - so they have nothing to boast about.

Perhaps it is the terminology that bothers some here. Wicked/Evil seem to them to imply the murderer or rapist compared to the law-abiding good person. But that is not the Christian use of those terms, and it is not the sense I'm using. The least sin is wicked/evil.

So I'm saying the most kind and helpful neighbour is wicked/evil if he is still in his sin, still has not repented and trusted in Christ. That is the Christian definition, not something I dreamt up in a fit of self-righteousness.

studiorat

Ah! You mean "Ali-G wicked!"

I is original wicked! Wicked man.
Safe...

Fanny Cradock

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not being uncivil. I'm not accusing atheists of being the only wicked people. ALL of us are born wicked. Only those whom God changes are removed from that state, and it is not for any good in themselves - so they have nothing to boast about.

Perhaps it is the terminology that bothers some here. Wicked/Evil seem to them to imply the murderer or rapist compared to the law-abiding good person. But that is not the Christian use of those terms, and it is not the sense I'm using. The least sin is wicked/evil.

So I'm saying the most kind and helpful neighbour is wicked/evil if he is still in his sin, still has not repented and trusted in Christ. That is the Christian definition, not something I dreamt up in a fit of self-righteousness.

I understand this, Wolf, but such language really gets some up some people's noses. It's probably akin to non-believers accusing us Christians of being delusional. As a mod I'm simply trying to be impartial as I can. Playing devils advocate, if you will.

Galvasean

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not being uncivil. I'm not accusing atheists of being the only wicked people. ALL of us are born wicked. Only those whom God changes are removed from that state, and it is not for any good in themselves - so they have nothing to boast about.

Perhaps it is the terminology that bothers some here. Wicked/Evil seem to them to imply the murderer or rapist compared to the law-abiding good person. But that is not the Christian use of those terms, and it is not the sense I'm using. The least sin is wicked/evil.

So I'm saying the most kind and helpful neighbour is wicked/evil if he is still in his sin, still has not repented and trusted in Christ. That is the Christian definition, not something I dreamt up in a fit of self-righteousness.

Glad you cleared this up Wolfsbane.
Hopefully now people can understand your position without taking offense.

One question on a specific note though:

wolfsbane wrote: »

Only those whom God changes are removed from that state, and it is not for any good in themselves

How does this affect free will? (apologies if this has been answered already)

marco_polo

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not being uncivil. I'm not accusing atheists of being the only wicked people. ALL of us are born wicked. Only those whom God changes are removed from that state, and it is not for any good in themselves - so they have nothing to boast about.

Perhaps it is the terminology that bothers some here. Wicked/Evil seem to them to imply the murderer or rapist compared to the law-abiding good person. But that is not the Christian use of those terms, and it is not the sense I'm using. The least sin is wicked/evil.

So I'm saying the most kind and helpful neighbour is wicked/evil if he is still in his sin, still has not repented and trusted in Christ. That is the Christian definition, not something I dreamt up in a fit of self-righteousness.

I understand your position now, however it is the more commonly attributed meaning of the words evil / wicked is what would spring to most peoples mind first.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes. Many in fact:
Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

thanks, I thought I remembered a passage along those lines but couldn't remember what one. Not going to pretend I understand exactly what Jesus is referring to by the "you who practice lawlessness" line, but it does seem to clear up that belief in Jesus alone is not a means of salvation.

Again I'm left wondering how Christians themselves determine that they are saved? Or do some say that they cannot know they are, though they obviously hope they are?

robindch

wolfsbane wrote: »

I'm not being uncivil. I'm not accusing atheists of being the only wicked people. ALL of us are born wicked. [...] the most kind and helpful neighbour is wicked/evil if he [...] has not [...] trusted in Christ. That is the Christian definition, not something I dreamt up in a fit of self-righteousness.

Rather than using the word emotive and unhelpful word "evil" to describe somebody who doesn't believe the same thing you believe, why not try describing us as something more co-operative?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Rather than using the word emotive and unhelpful word "evil" to describe somebody who doesn't believe the same thing you believe, why not try describing us as something more co-operative?

Or, if you are going to enter into discussions on the Christianity forum, why don't you accept it when words are used in a theolological or biblical sense?