Are Athiests evil?

studiorat

Because the words any sense still has a negative meaning. The word "wicked" appears 24 times in the AV of the English Bible. There is a constant sense of malignancy in it's use. It is also replaced with "amiss", "evil", "lawless" etc. The word obviously comes from a translation, the original word untranslated hardly meant equal now did it?

After all the thread title is are "Atheists Evil" or had you forgotten?

The argument here is all people are born with something inherently "wrong" with them and only through acceptance of christanity can that be corrected. I do not subscribe to this and cannot stand aside while these views are being published in public if you will. As I believe this is point of view is actually somethinf that IS evil.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

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?

I have to agree with PDN here (so dirty, won't wash off!), Wolfie has always been pretty non-discriminatory over his condemnation of humanity. The idea that he is calling atheists particularly wicked or evil seems a misconception, in my opinion stemming more from people having a stereotypical view of the oppressive Christian/oppressed atheist dynamic than what Wolfsbane is actually saying.

You can't really come onto the Christian forum and not expect to have issues like sin and the wicked nature of humanity come up. Different Christians take different views to this. Wolfsbane is a bit on the fire and brimstone side of things, but he is still well within the Christian mainstream. He certainly isn't doing a Fred Phelps.

Having had long discussions with Wolfsbane over morality, atheist and Christian alike, I can pretty much say that I don't agree with the vast majority of his views. But he is as hard on Christians as he is on non-Christians.

studiorat

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't really come onto the Christian forum and not expect to have issues like sin and the wicked nature of humanity come up. Different Christians take different views to this. Wolfsbane is a bit on the fire and brimstone side of things, but he is still well within the Christian mainstream. He certainly isn't doing a Fred Phelps.

You can and should if that Christian forum is asking are people outside of their congegration evil.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

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?

Wolfie's free to bend and twist the language in any way he wants, and indeed, to redefine English in general as he sees fit. And the way in which this is done certainly can provide an interesting insight into how religion works.

However, when debating in public with people who don't share his own private version of English, it certainly is possible that he'll be misunderstood.

My suggestion is simply that if he wants to use words to convey accurately what he believes, then he should consider using a language we can all agree on.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

You can't really come onto the Christian forum and not expect to have issues like sin and the wicked nature of humanity come up.

No doubt -- guilt is one of christianity's finest selling points!

However, I wouldn't expect(*) to be taken seriously if, say in A+A, I referred to all christians as "Chrétiens" (or just plain "cretins") and claimed that it had a special, private meaning within atheism that wasn't insulting or normative.

(*)Unless I'm wrong, and christians are happy to be referred to as "cretins", in which case, please let me know.

Zombrex

studiorat wrote: »

You can and should if that Christian forum is asking are people outside of their congegration evil.

Christians can only proclaim themselves evil ... ?

studiorat

They should have a reason other than non-agreement with their point of view.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

No doubt -- guilt is one of christianity's finest selling points!

However, I wouldn't expect(*) to be taken seriously if, say in A+A, I referred to all christians as "Chrétiens" (or just plain "cretins") and claimed that it had a special, private meaning within atheism that wasn't insulting or normative.

(*)Unless I'm wrong, and christians are happy to be referred to as "cretins", in which case, please let me know.

I'm not sure the Christians are saying it has a different meaning, more that it has a context in relation to the Fall, that a non-believer would not perhaps consider.

The insult seems to stem from people thinking Christians such as Wolfsbane are proclaiming themselves better than others by saying that atheists are evil. When one understand the Christian context that he is making this proclamation in then one can see that he isn't actually proclaiming Christians as better than non-Christians.

Zombrex

studiorat wrote: »

They should have a reason other than non-agreement with their point of view.

They do have a reason, that is in fact the point.

The reason is Genesis, the Fall of Mankind. One cannot take comments Wolfsbane made in a context other than Genesis, at least not on the Christian forum when a Christian is posting.

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

[...] he isn't actually proclaiming Christians as better than non-Christians.

No, I'm not assuming he is saying that. All I'm complaining about is his use of the word "evil" to describe me specifically. Now he does claim that this is a private meaning which he claims that all christians share, but I rather suspect that few share it, whether they're willing to say so or not (again, please correct me if I'm wrong on this).

On the other hand, if wolfie's ok with me calling him a "cretin", then I'll be happy with him calling me "evil". Though I can't imagine that doing this is going to advance the debate a whole lot.

rockbeer

Wicknight wrote: »

Christians can only proclaim themselves evil ... ?

Well that's the way it generally works. People are expected to confine their pejoratives to within their own communities. Its no different to the axiom "don't criticize your wife's/husband's family". They can do it but you can't. Only religion - long-established religion at that - gives people the right to bandy terms like this about and direct them at the wider population. I'm with Robin, I think it's indefensible and the context is irrelevant.

I'd be very interested to see how things would turn out if Wolfie would pop on over to a few islamic or jewish forums and start calling them evil. Maybe he does, I don't know, but personally I think he's just taking advantage of atheists' understanding natures.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

On the other hand, if wolfie's ok with me calling him a "cretin", then I'll be happy with him calling me "evil". Though I can't imagine that doing this is going to advance the debate a whole lot.

This gets to what I think is the point here.

For you to call Wolfsbane a "cretin" would imply a proclamation of superiority on your part which I don't think is shared when Wolfsbane calls you evil, because (if my understanding is correct) Wolfsbane believes he is just as evil as you are, where as if you called Wolfsbane cretin or an idiot I don't think you would be thinking you are just as much an idiot as he is.

studiorat

Wicknight wrote: »

The reason is Genesis, the Fall of Mankind. One cannot take comments Wolfsbane made in a context other than Genesis

He is quoting from the NT not Genesis. The Old T, would simple command a slaughter of unbelievers.

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.

^^^
This I persume is quoted from neither.

The use of words wicked and evil in any context cannot mean anything other than a negative except perhaps "lawless" pertaining to not being under christian law. Any other use of the words or their meanings have an un disputed negative context ranging from evil by nature and in practice to highly offensive.

Considering the title of the thread, the use of the word, consciously or unconsciously and either in the bible or in everyday use, can have nothing except a negative meaning and indication of superiority.

rockbeer

Wicknight wrote: »

This gets to what I think is the point here.

For you to call Wolfsbane a "cretin" would imply a proclamation of superiority on your part which I don't think is shared when Wolfsbane calls you evil, because (if my understanding is correct) Wolfsbane believes he is just as evil as you are, where as if you called Wolfsbane cretin or an idiot I don't think you would be thinking you are just as much an idiot as he is.

Does he though? Isn't it quite clear from Wolfie's statements that while he was once as wicked as the rest of us, he imagines that his beliefs have saved him. While we remain wicked because we decline the opportunity to believe.

Isn't this just semantics in the end? He can call me wicked as long as he hedges it around with "in the biblical sense". I don't care what sense he means. If I wrote a book that redefined halfwit as "christian" it wouldn't justify me calling christians halfwits, whatever I might believe privately. Wicked means wicked and christians are being disingenuous if they try to use semantics or context to justify labelling as such those of us who disagree with them.

Zombrex

rockbeer wrote: »

Well that's the way it generally works. People are expected to confine their pejoratives to within their own communities.

Really? I'm pretty sure I can think of a good few examples of where that doesn't hold.

To pick an extreme example, would you not comment on Chinese oppression of civil rights because you aren't Chinese?

The argument "mind your bee's wax" only goes so far, and again I would point out that Wolfsbane hasn't gone over to the A&A forum to start proclaiming that we are all evil.

Using your example, while it might be considered rude to comment on the in-laws to your partner that only holds to a point (would you not comment if they were smacking their child, or stealing from blind people?), and it certainly doesn't stop you holding a negative position yourself, even if you don't express that to your partner unless asked for your honest opinion.

rockbeer wrote: »

Maybe he does, I don't know, but personally I think he's just taking advantage of atheists' understanding natures.

You do realize you are on the Christian forum.

studiorat

Wicknight wrote: »

You do realize you are on a Christian public forum.

fixed

robindch

Wicknight wrote: »

For you to call Wolfsbane a "cretin" would imply a proclamation of superiority on your part

No, no, not at all! I'm using "cretin" in what was probably it's original derivation, as an Anglicization of the French word "Chretien", and not in the normal, everyday sense in which it means "idiot"!

Zombrex

rockbeer wrote: »

Does he though? Isn't it quite clear from Wolfie's statements that while he was once as wicked as the rest of us, he imagines that his beliefs have saved him. While we remain wicked because we decline the opportunity to believe.

Not exactly. He (I think, and again I am cautious to speak too much for Wolfsbane) believes he is still just as wicked as we are, but his believes have saved him.

That is what salvation in a Christian context refers to, he isn't being saved from being wicked, he is being saved from the punishment of being wicked, the salvation is from hell which is the punishment for sin.

If he wasn't wicked he wouldn't need to be saved in the first place.

rockbeer wrote: »

Isn't this just semantics in the end? He can call me wicked as long as he hedges it around with "in the biblical sense".

As opposed to what?

Are you complaining that you have a right not to be offended by Christian belief while taking part in a discussion on Christian belief in a forum about Christian belief?

rockbeer wrote: »

Wicked means wicked and christians are being disingenuous if they try to use semantics or context to justify labelling as such those of us who disagree with them.

They (which means Wolfsbane and those who subscribe to his version of Christianity) are labeling "those of us who disagree" as evil and wicked simply because they are labeling everyone as such, and that will include non-Christians. But even if Wolfsbane was declaring all non-believers as being wicked and evil, while he himself was super wonderful I would have little problem him doing so in a forum about the belief that he is super wonderful.

Really I think people who get offended by this are searching for something to be upset about.

What did you think Christians thought about man kind?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

No, no, not at all! I'm using "cretin" in what was probably it's original derivation, as an Anglicization of the French word "Chretien", and not in the normal, everyday sense in which it means "idiot"!

Indeed, and if you were on a medical forum discussing thyroid deficiency I would certainly expect that someone consider the context of the discussion before they got offend by the use of that word.

Zombrex

studiorat wrote: »

fixed

Er, what?

I'll ask you the same question I asked Rock,

Are you complaining that you have a right not to be offended by Christian belief while taking part in a discussion on Christian belief in a forum about Christian belief?

rockbeer

Wicknight wrote: »

Really? I'm pretty sure I can think of a good few examples of where that doesn't hold.

Sure, but on the whole people have come to accept that using pejorative terms towards others simply because of the way they think/believe/look is no longer acceptable.

Wicknight wrote: »

To pick an extreme example, would you not comment on Chinese oppression of civil rights because you aren't Chinese?

Well, we're into behaviour now rather than belief which changes the ground somewhat. Wolfie isn't saying I'm evil because I eat babies, but just because I believe something different to him. How I act is irrelevant to him.

Wicknight wrote: »

Using your example, while it might be considered rude to comment on the in-laws to your partner that only holds to a point (would you not comment if they were smacking their child, or stealing from blind people?),

And again we're into behavioural examples. I'd have no problem with Wolfie or anyone calling me wicked if I was eating babies. I think

Wicknight wrote: »

and it certainly doesn't stop you holding a negative position yourself, even if you don't express that to your partner unless asked for your honest opinion.

Yes, this is interesting. I'm also allowed to think that jewish people are money grabbing and black people are criminals (I don't, but I'm allowed to). But fortunately society in general now recognizes that it is devisive and confrontational to permit me to say so as a generalization. I've got to say I think Wolfie's characterization of the entire human race as wicked and evil is unacceptable. I don't accept that we are. I think we're just fine in general, and that generalizations of this sort should be as unacceptable as the others I've listed above.

Wicknight wrote: »

You do realize you are on the Christian forum.

So I can go to the white supremacists forum and say all black people are criminals?

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Again I'm left wondering how Christians themselves determine that they are saved?

The truth is that nobody can say for certain. Many denominations claim to be saved (past tense). The bible makes it clear that salvation can be lost.

Wicknight wrote: »

Or do some say that they cannot know they are, though they obviously hope they are?

We can only hope and trust in God's mercy. As Jesus said, we must persevere to the end. If someone is saved (past tense), why would they need to persevere to the end?

Matthew 10:22 And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.

Matthew 24:13 But he that shall persevere to the end, he shall be saved.

Zombrex

rockbeer wrote: »

Sure, but on the whole people have come to accept that using pejorative terms towards others simply because of the way they think/believe/look is no longer acceptable.

They have? I certainly wouldn't subscribe to that position. It sounds like some Orwellian tough police.

Wolfsbane had the right to think you are wicked (what ever the context). And he should be allowed to express that view in a public forum set up specifically to discuss the religious belief that he subscribes to.

You have the right to be insulted, to object or simply ignore him.

rockbeer wrote: »

Well, we're into behaviour now rather than belief which changes the ground somewhat. Wolfie isn't saying I'm evil because I eat babies, but just because I believe something different to him.

He isn't saying you are evil because you believe something different to him. He is saying you are evil because you inherited a wicked nature from Adam that leads you to sin and disobey God. And that has everything to do with behavior.

rockbeer wrote: »

And again we're into behavioural examples. I'd have no problem with Wolfie or anyone calling me wicked if I was eating babies. I think

Yes, but that is because you consider eating babies to be "evil" yourself.

The issue here is that you do not consider what you are as evil, where as Wolfsbane does. And just like the baby eater not considering himself evil doesn't stop you from believing they are evil, you not believing what Wolfsbane believes doesn't have much baring on Wolfsbane.

Do you think a baby eater has the right not to be offended by someone proclaiming baby eating is evil on a forum about how bad cannibalism is? Would you expect the mod of the "Down with cannibalism" forum to remove posts from people proclaiming that eating babies is wrong because it is offending a cannibalist who wandered onto the forum and was reading the posts?

rockbeer wrote: »

Yes, this is interesting. I'm also allowed to think that jewish people are money grabbing and black people are criminals (I don't, but I'm allowed to).

You certainly are. And if the mods of Boards.ie start a "Jewish people are money grabbing" forum to discuss this belief you can post away in that forum. And if a Jewish person comes into the forum and says you should stop posting that, it offends him, I would be the first to defend you and your post.

rockbeer wrote: »

But fortunately society in general now recognizes that it is devisive and confrontational to permit me to say so as a generalization.

Er, no it doesn't. "Society in general" recognizes not only that you have a right to hold such views if you wish, but that you have a right to express those views publicly if you so wish without being stopped from doing so because someone else finds it offensive.

As for Boards.ie, which is not a private enterprise, it is up to the mods to decide what is or is not permitted. I personally see no problem at all with a Christian poster expressing pretty orthodox Christian belief on a Christian forum.

rockbeer wrote: »

I've got to say I think Wolfie's characterization of the entire human race as wicked and evil is unacceptable.

OK, don't become a Christian then ...

rockbeer wrote: »

So I can go to the white supremacists forum and say all black people are criminals?

Yes, if you want to.

rockbeer

Wicknight I know where you're coming from and I agree with most of it, despite what you might think. And let me say clearly that my argument is not about me being offended or not. It takes a lot more than a halfwit er christian's half baked ideas to offend me personally. Also I am wholeheartedly opposed to censorhip and under no circumstances support curtailing peoples' right to come out with whatever foulness and filth they like. Everyone has the right to express their opinion. And if you read my posts carefully you'll see that not once have I said that Wolfie or anyone else doesn't or shouldn't have the right to say what they like.

I think you're missing my point, which is that the foul and divisive views of certain christians are extended a degree of acceptability not given to anyone else. Anyone else who preached a philosophy of hatred based on the notion that humans (or any particular sub-group of humans) are inherently evil could quite rightly expect to receive severe criticism.

I don't know what word you live in. Perhaps you haven't noticed that these days there tends to be an outcry when racist football fans aim monkey chants at black players or people get beaten up in the street for being gay. These things still happen, of course they do, but gradually their acceptability is dwindling. There are laws against peddling racist lies based on grotesque generalizations. Inciting racial hatred is a crime. Perhaps you don't agree with these laws? I'm not sure I do, but I welcome the fact that they illustrate that society has come to question the attitudes behind the actions.

I simply long for the day when there's a similar outcry when some misguided christian characterizes the whole of humanity as wicked and evil. It's the kind of belief that underpinned empire and slavery. It reflects a breathtaking cultural arrogance in which only christians are good and right and decent. It's only one small step from believing that people are evil to believing that they somehow deserve the bad things that happen to them. And not only that but it's a vital aspect of the indoctrination process. Once you convince people they're evil you're half way to selling them your philosophy as their only salvation. What's positive or life-affirming about that? What is the effect on children of starting them out in life believing they are inherently bad? You can't stop people believing or spreading this kind of filth but you can stand up against it wherever you find it, christian forum or not.

By the way, I thought the christian forum was for discussing christianity, not for protecting the darkness at the heart of the philosophy of certain from exposure to the light.

Mods please note I don't include all christians in the above rant, just those who believe that the whole of humanity is inherently evil.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

It reflects a breathtaking cultural arrogance in which only christians are good and right and decent.

No, the teaching of Christianity is that all of us are inherently evil in our inclinations. That includes Christians.

If you want to expose cultural arrogance then why not begin with atheism? A bunch of predominantly white and middle-class people who assert that their Western worldview is superior to all others.

Christianity, on the other hand, is a culturally and racially diverse faith.

Mods please note I don't include all christians in the above rant, just those who believe that the whole of humanity is inherently evil.

I don't think that all the countless atrocities in human history are the result of people being essentially good and noble.

Our human nature tends to lead us to grab what we want and, if necessary, to hurt others in the process. Just watch two toddlers fighting over a toy.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

No, the teaching of Christianity is that all of us are inherently evil in our inclinations. That includes Christians.

And as I've said, I don't see that that gives you any excuse for characterizing the rest of us that way.

PDN wrote: »

If you want to expose cultural arrogance then why not begin with atheism? A bunch of predominantly white and middle-class people who assert that their Western worldview is superior to all others.

This is quite funny, PDN. Shame it isn't meant to be. The fact is that everybody believes their world view to be correct, otherwise what's the point of it. That's a far cry from characterizing anyone who doesn't share it as damned and everyone regardless as wicked and evil.

PDN wrote: »

Christianity, on the other hand, is a culturally and racially diverse faith.

Which still characterizes people as evil and holds itself up as the only answer. How much more intolerant and culturally undiverse can you get?

PDN wrote: »

I don't think that all the countless atrocities in human history are the result of people being essentially good and noble.

Our human nature tends to lead us to grab what we want and, if necessary, to hurt others in the process. Just watch two toddlers fighting over a toy.

And of course the truth is some and some. Yes people fight for resources. This doesn't make them wholly evil. And they also share them, which doesn't make them wholly good. For the most part people get on with their lives, mostly honest, mostly altruistic, most of the time. With occasional bursts of extreme behaviour one way or the other, usually dictated by circumstances. Humans fighting for resources is no more evil than parasitic wasps laying their eggs in maggots for the larvae to devour. Now there's a being that really does eat babies but we don't say it's evil. I wonder why not?


Christianity's view of humanity is deeply unbalanced. How can it be realistic, or squared with the evidence, to take such a stark, bleak view of things as to suggest that we are inherently and fundamentally evil despite the altruism that pervades every society?

Zombrex

rockbeer wrote: »

I think you're missing my point, which is that the foul and divisive views of certain christians are extended a degree of acceptability not given to anyone else. Anyone else who preached a philosophy of hatred based on the notion that humans (or any particular sub-group of humans) are inherently evil could quite rightly expect to receive severe criticism.

A few points -

Firstly I'm not quite sure where you got a "philosophy of hatred" from. Who do you think Wolfsbane hates?

Secondly, this (as I keep pointing out) is the Christianity forum. It is hardly surprising that Christian views are extended a degree of acceptability not given to others. The idea that fly fishing is great is extended a degree of acceptability on the fly fishing forum where as the view that fly fishing sucks wouldn't necessarily be. The opposite holds on the "Fly Fishing Sucks" forum.

Thirdly, following on from that, there is the A&A forum, or the Humanities forum, where someone is free to debate Christian belief as ridiculous, stupid and hateful if they wish.

Fourthly, the Christians were asked for their opinions by the OP.

Fifthly, by saying that something is "unacceptable" you imply that it should not be accepted by who ever is controlling things. This in turn implies censorship.

rockbeer wrote: »

Perhaps you haven't noticed that these days there tends to be an outcry when racist football fans aim monkey chants at black players or people get beaten up in the street for being gay.

If you went up to a racist person and said "So you think black people are scum", and they turned around and said "Yes actually, I do", would you start shouting that this is totally unacceptable of him to say that in public.

I imagine the racist person's first response would be "So why did you ask me then"

That isn't even along the lines of what Wolfsbane was saying.

What he said is more along the lines of someone expressing the opinion that all humans are inherently selfish when someone asks them do they think a specific person is selfish.

If you asked me if I though you were selfish and I said "I think everyone is selfish", would you be deeply offended?

rockbeer wrote: »

There are laws against peddling racist lies based on grotesque generalizations. Inciting racial hatred is a crime. Perhaps you don't agree with these laws?

No actually I don't, but then it is a bit of stretch to say that Wolfsbane was attempting "incite hatred" Hatred of what exactly, humanity in general?

rockbeer wrote: »

I simply long for the day when there's a similar outcry when some misguided christian characterizes the whole of humanity as wicked and evil.

I don't. I think "outcries" are far too emotional and fall foul of mod mentality. There are very few instances that I can recall where a public outcry resulted in a considered and cool headed examination of the events.

rockbeer wrote: »

Once you convince people they're evil you're half way to selling them your philosophy as their only salvation.

Well yes, that is the point of Christianity.

There is little point in a savior if you don't need to be saved from something.

rockbeer wrote: »

You can't stop people believing or spreading this kind of filth but you can stand up against it wherever you find it, christian forum or not.

I'm all for "standing up" Rockbeer, but at some point constantly standing up at every opportunity in righteous indignation just ends up being disrupting and annoying.

As you point out the Christian forum is for discussing Christianity. Are you going to filibuster every Christianity thread with your view that Christian belief is unacceptable? That kinda makes it hard to discuss Christianity doesn't it.

The phrase "a time and a place" springs to mind

rockbeer wrote: »

Mods please note I don't include all christians in the above rant, just those who believe that the whole of humanity is inherently evil.

That would be most Christians. What do you think Jesus is supposed to be saving us from?

rockbeer

Wicknight wrote: »

Secondly, this (as I keep pointing out) is the Christianity forum. It is hardly surprising that Christian views are extended a degree of acceptability not given to others.

I'm not going to reply to the rest of your post Wicknight, I normally agree with most of what you say but you're way wide of the mark on this one.

I will just point out that this degree of acceptability doesn't just apply on the christianity forum but in wider society where religion is widely regarded as justifying views and beliefs that would not be so easily tolerated coming from anyone else.

Fanny Cradock

I thought that Wolfbane explained his position quite clearly and managed to clear up the confusion that some people may have had with his words. In light of this, I'm not sure where there controversy comes from.

DerKaiser

Are we still interested in the original topic here?

If so, atheists evil? Are you serious? In my opinion it's the ones who blindly follow the made-up-guys that are the inherently evil ones, when's the last time you heard of an atheist killing someone for matters of faith?