Are Athiests evil?

Irishcrx

I'm an Athiest as in I don't really believe in anything of any type of religion, I believe there is a reason why we are all here, I believe we as a race and everything around us is far to advanced to have just happend through evolution without any outside help. But I don't think it came froma God or anything like it, I believe the whole idea around religion is hypacritical and in it's own form of the word in many ways evil itself. It has caused the deaths of thousands of innocent people, brain washed and taken advantage of them. In this day and age I find it amazing that people still listen to the tripe, but if you look at the attendances and stats it is falling rather quickly.

However I don't think about this every day and I believe people are all entitled to their own views and opinions as am I and I get on with my own life. I understand that alot of people find comfort in the idea that there is a god watching over them and family etc it lets them live and die in peace and alot of people need that comfort.

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

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

I don't need an 'excuse' to hold a different view of human nature than you do. I have a perfect right to hold an opinion that human nature is inherently bad. I also think you have a perfect right to hold an opposite viewpoint. The only difference between us appears to be the degree of tolerance we extend to each other's opinion.

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.

My comment about atheism being a predominantly white middle-class phenomenon is both true and funny.

Many of us are prepared to question our worldviews and examine different worldviews. You should try it sometime. Being open-minded is nothing to be afraid of.

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

You can get much more intolerant. You could start ranting on websites about everyone who disagrees with you is nasty and dangerous. You seem to be missing the rather obvious point that you are the one in this thread who is displaying the most intolerance.

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?

And how many altruistic acts balance the Armenian genocide, or the current hell in Congo?

Man was created in God's image and all of us, on occasion, suprise even ourselves by doing things that are kind and unselfish. A trace of the divine spark still exists in all of us. But, sadly, we are all capable of unspeakable evil given the right circumstances.

Bleak? Quite possibly. But more realistic than a Pollyannaish belief in the essential goodness of human nature.

That Girl..

OK:rolleyes:

Zombrex

DerKaiser wrote: »

when's the last time you heard of an atheist killing someone for matters of faith?

well Communists in Russia, though I assume you actually meant killing someone for matters of atheism, rather than faith

Fanny Cradock

Heavens above! We could never make that mistake.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Heavens above! We could never make that mistake.

LOL

Seriously though, while I know a lot of you guys think the difference is trivial, it is I feel important. Not though for the reasons you may think, that I'm worried about atheism getting a bad name or trying to defend atheism. I think such thinking is misguided, as are the methods use by people such as Dawkins to go to lengths to counter the argument that "atheism" is responsible for as much war and deaths as religion. Dawkins and co rush to point out that this assertion is inaccurate for the wrong reasons in my opinion.

The assertion is inaccurate, but the problem with this inaccuracy isn't that it some how besmirches atheism, but more that it distracts from the dangers of the actual causes of these bad things, such as the way Communism put the idea of the State and its well being, ahead of the liberties and rights of the individuals in the State. The reason governments such as in the USSR and China clamp down on religion isn't because some atheist doctrine (there isn't one for a start), but because of the teachings in Communism that religion is bad and a particular way the State deals with bad things it percises as a threat

PDN

DerKaiser wrote: »

when's the last time you heard of an atheist killing someone for matters of faith?

It's still happening in China and North Korea.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

It's still happening in China and North Korea.

...because both countries are one-party states, and do not tolerate citizens with divided loyalties.

It's entirely unrelated to either state promoting group atheism, however vaguely.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

...because both countries are one-party states, and do not tolerate citizens with divided loyalties.

It's entirely unrelated to either state promoting group atheism, however vaguely.

So, providing your primary motive is not to promote group atheism, it's not evil to kill Christians?

BTW, I am not arguing that atheists are any more evil than anyone else. I was simply responding to Der Kaiser's unusual question about the last time I heard of an atheist killing someone for reasons of faith.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

So, providing your primary motive is not to promote group atheism, it's not evil to kill Christians?

What a stupid comment.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

What a stupid comment.

What a splendid rebuttal.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

What a splendid rebuttal.

Some replies are so dumb, that it's just not worth engaging in a debate.

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

Many of us are prepared to question our worldviews and examine different worldviews. You should try it sometime. Being open-minded is nothing to be afraid of.

Don't go there PDN, you know nothing about me.

PDN wrote: »

You can get much more intolerant. You could start ranting on websites about everyone who disagrees with you is nasty and dangerous.

If this barb is aimed at me, please point out where I have said the above and I'll retract it instantly

PDN wrote: »

You seem to be missing the rather obvious point that you are the one in this thread who is displaying the most intolerance.

I am expressing intolerance of a viewpoint. I think it's quite OK to do this; as I've tried to explain, it's no different to being intolerant of racist or homophobic attitudes. This is clearly not the same as being intolerant of the people who hold the views. As I've also made clear I'm utterly opposed to censorship and would defend your right to hold any view. That to me goes without saying. You should try figuring out the difference sometime before you start to throw stones.

PDN wrote: »

And how many altruistic acts balance the Armenian genocide, or the current hell in Congo?

Who can say? The millions that go on every day in small ways that nobody notices? The world community trying to provide aid after an earthquake or tsunami? Thousands of volunteers working for nothing to provide health care and education all over the planet. I can't answer these questions, but I do know that we're a conflicted balance of our aggressive, warlike tendencies and our altruistic, caring ones. Most societies are in fact peaceful most of the time, for what it's worth. To say so is just a statement of fact. It's certainly no more 'Polyannaish' than believing some magical super-being is going to step up and 'save' me from myself. I'm realistic enough to know that only I can do that. I'm also realistic about the state of the world, but I do know that to subscribe to a philosophy based on universal self-loathing is no kind of useful contribution to improving things.

There's something quite refreshing about being accused of being too idealistic by a christian

PDN

rockbeer wrote: »

to subscribe to a philosophy based on universal self-loathing is no kind of useful contribution to improving things.

Good gracious! Recognising the inherent wickedness of human nature in no way equates to self-loathing.

I recognise that as a human being I am tempted at times to do bad things and, given the right circumstances, I am probably as capable of great evil as were the schoolteachers, farmers etc. who participated in the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide. I could kid myself that I am somehow exceptional and that those other people were fundamentally much more evil than me - but I don't think that is realistic.

I live by a philosophy that has enabled me to confront my own tendency towards wrong and instead to pursue moral improvement marked by acts of kindness to others. This helps me to be a better husband, father and citizen than would otherwise have been the case. Quite how that equates to 'self-loathing' is beyond me.

Galvasean

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.

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

Pity the book Christianity is based around discriminates against many kinds of people.

CDfm

How do you define an atheist. If someone says I dont believe in the God of the Bible and Catholic Church - it depends what part they dont believe in.

SO I never know how to define atheist - it varies like vegetarians from people who are : anti -church;anti-clerical;modernists(or whatever the call themseves); agnostics and deists (einstein type believers)

I dont know if there are many people who actually do not believe in any God or creator whatsoever.

I suppose some atheists are evil- in that deciding there is no God it allows them to go off and do what they want without a moral code.

toiletduck

PDN wrote: »

My comment about atheism being a predominantly white middle-class phenomenon is both true and funny.

True? I searched but can't find anything to back that up. This was top of my search results, hardly in agreement with your assertion.

Maybe you're using anecdotal evidence, in which case since atheism is more evident in 'classes' with better education and it is a predominately white country... Well what else would you expect? :pac:

rockbeer

PDN wrote: »

Good gracious! Recognising the inherent wickedness of human nature in no way equates to self-loathing.

A philosophy that characterizes the entire human race as fundamentally wicked and evil in my book equates to one of self-loathing. How else can you describe it (apart from wildly inaccurate, of course)?

PDN wrote: »

I recognise that as a human being I am tempted at times to do bad things and, given the right circumstances, I am probably as capable of great evil as were the schoolteachers, farmers etc. who participated in the Holocaust or the Rwandan genocide. I could kid myself that I am somehow exceptional and that those other people were fundamentally much more evil than me - but I don't think that is realistic.

+1 (and the self-honesty is appreciated).

However unlike you I don't feel the need to believe that we are inherently and fundamentally evil to accept that we are all capable of such acts. Any more than I need to believe we're all fundamentally good and wonderful to accept that we're capable of altruism. We are all equally as capable of altruistic acts as evil ones, yet you don't characterize us all as wonderful and good on that basis do you? So why is it any more realistic to say we're all evil? That's why I believe it's a philosophy of self loathing, because it doesn't reflect our entire nature, but selects the negative aspect for special attention. As I said before, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

anti-venom

CDfm wrote: »

How do you define an atheist. If someone says I dont believe in the God of the Bible and Catholic Church - it depends what part they dont believe in.

SO I never know how to define atheist - it varies like vegetarians from people who are : anti -church;anti-clerical;modernists(or whatever the call themseves); agnostics and deists (einstein type believers)

I dont know if there are many people who actually do not believe in any God or creator whatsoever.

I suppose some atheists are evil- in that deciding there is no God it allows them to go off and do what they want without a moral code.

I'm not the most prolific of posters on this or the A&A forums but I've been around long enough to notice you and your posts. And I know you've been around long enough to know better than to post the garbage you've posted above. Do you ever carefully read and consider the posts by atheists concerning ethics and morals or does it all just go over your head? Honestly man you get my blood up with that inane drivel.

PDN

toiletduck wrote: »

True? I searched but can't find anything to back that up. This was top of my search results, hardly in agreement with your assertion.

Maybe you're using anecdotal evidence, in which case since atheism is more evident in 'classes' with better education and it is a predominately white country... Well what else would you expect? :pac:

The question as to why there are so few black atheists has been discussed at richarddawkins.net https://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=51401&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=0

Try this party game. Name one prominent black proponent of atheism off the top of your head. Then (slightly easier) name one prominent female proponent of atheism.

studiorat

Wicknight wrote: »

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?

Ah, it's not a christian forum now, it's a forum about christian belief. No, I'm saying I am offended, it's not a question about having or not having rights.

toiletduck

Cheers for the link, interesting reading.

As for the party game, that still doesn't address your original assertion. And tbh I'd find it hard to list more than five 'proponents' of atheism!

CDfm

anti-venom wrote: »

I'm not the most prolific of posters on this or the A&A forums but I've been around long enough to notice you and your posts. And I know you've been around long enough to know better than to psot the garbage you've posted above. Do you ever carefully read and consider the posts by atheists concerning ethics and morals or does it all just go over your head? Honestly man you get my blood up with that inane drivel.

This caught my eye on Anthony Flew

http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/2543431/is-richard-dawkins-still-evolving.thtml

He was an avowed atheist whose views have changed. He is not a born again christian but I am sure the article explains how is views evolved.To some people to be atheist is to be non Christian and to believe in an undefined something or to be anti church or pro-science or whatever.

I used to know an atheist who campaigns against the catholic church and has joined pseudo -Christian organisations to do so. I have heard the same guy argue the existance of God with someone recently bereaved -which I thought cruel.

I am fairly well read on philosophy and ethics and religions and I sometimes take a cynical view of atheists that misquote religion or are dogmatic in their approach.Arent people allowed to have a middle undecided ground.

I used the phrase some atheists are evil - in the sence that they justify the lack of a God belief tgo commit evil acts - I meant it in a sociopathic or psychopathic way. I did not say that atheists are intrinsicly evil and to be atheist is to be evil.

I am unashamedly a God believer and probably have simpler beliefs than others who post.Maybe you need to translate your views into the ladybird edition just for me because who knows the might go over my head after all .

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Good gracious! Recognising the inherent wickedness of human nature in no way equates to self-loathing.

well that is debatable, but probably a new thread is in order ...

Zombrex

studiorat wrote: »

Ah, it's not a christian forum now, it's a forum about christian belief.

Did I claim it was a Christian forum? (I assume you mean a forum just for Christians)

studiorat wrote: »

No, I'm saying I am offended, it's not a question about having or not having rights.

Why are you saying you are offended? What do you want to be done?

Or do you simply want to inform Wolfsbane that you are offended by his beliefs?

studiorat

PDN wrote: »

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.

Ho-ho-ho. The white middle class put down! Very good. Righteous even... Well I guess it could be a number of factors. Education, tradition and various other social and economic factors, white middle class missionaries even! However my point in this debate is the "athiests evil" thing.

This begs the question, are athiests superior and evil?
My take on it is no one is either...

PDN wrote: »

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

The average protestant is a 23 year old African black woman. However it would be very odd if it wasn't diverse since 32% of the worlds population are in fact christian.

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.

Actually no, human nature actually encourages cooperation and peaceful social interaction. If it didn't we'd live alone like bears and if not extinct there certainly wouldn't be as many of us as there are.

It's an interesting take on it though. Religion has certainly played a part in the formation of civilization as it stands today. As soon as we begin to move out of our small social groups, we start to form a larger social groups, for trade mutual protection etc. what better definition of a group than a system of beliefs. Religion after all is wider than nationality or colour.

However religion has become the dividing force since those early days and is now the barrier to peace and cooperation for humankind. I digress but I think a quote from the great, white middle class philosopher Bertrand Russell sums it up...

Religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion prevents us from removing the fundamental causes of war; religion prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific co-operation in place of the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment. It is possible that mankind is on the threshold of a golden age; but, if so, it will be necessary first to slay the dragon that guards the door, and this dragon is religion.

tis true though Toddlers are indeed evil little things!

studiorat

Wicknight wrote: »

Did I claim it was a Christian forum? (I assume you mean a forum just for Christians)

Why are you saying you are offended? What do you want to be done?

Or do you simply want to inform Wolfsbane that you are offended by his beliefs?

I'll answer with a quote if I may...

Wicknight wrote: »

You do realize you are on the Christian forum.

Well I'm not a christian and I'm here:pac:
You'll find I'm only here because it's a thread regarding atheists and it's a good old barney at that! thanks...

If you care to look at my post history I'm really only here for some of the more outlandish threads, divine appearances, historical context, intelligent design (;):):rolleyes::mad::mad::o:o:eek::rolleyes:) etc.


I'm simply disagreeing, I'm only "offended" for the sake of debate. It offends my rationality and common sense if you will.



(For women and black athiests if you really are interested you could start with googling Hubert Henry Harrison and Susan B. Anthony both very active in the 1920's.)

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

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.



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?



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?


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.



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.



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



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

I greatly appreciate the fact that Wickie has been diligent in following my argument. He correctly identifies my assertion that atheists are evil with the concept that ALL mankind are naturally evil, and that this concept is historic Christian doctrine. As Wickie points out, that is why mankind needs a Saviour.

It troubles me that some think such an idea necessitates hatred of sinners, when the reverse is the case: Christians are so concerned for them that they seek their conversion, to save them from the wrath to come.

Equally troubling is the idea that the Christian faith should be suppressed. I know that has often been the case with those who hate Christ, and that it will be the universal mindset in the rule of Antichrist - but it is sad to hear it in 21st C. Ireland.

Anyway, thank you Wickie for a note of reason and toleration.:)

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

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.

I appreciate your efforts.

I would fully expect non-believers to accuse us of being delusional - that is a basic premise of their world-view (at least as far as atheists go). And I would not be insulted by them saying so. I wouldn't expect them to euphemise with 'mistaken in your understanding' or whatever - delusional succinctly expresses the thought.

wolfsbane

Galvasean said:

One question on a specific note though:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
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)

Free will is a big subject, but I'll give you the essentials as they relate to salvation:
1. All are born lost, with a sinful nature that will not love and obey God.

2. If left to their own free will, they will always exercise it according to their evil natures - so they will never sincerely repent and trust in God.

3. God takes the initiative, choosing before time began a number of these sinners for salvation, sending His Son to pay for their sins, and sending His Holy Spirit at some moment in their lives to change their heart so that they will gladly repent and believe.

You will see that man always has free-will, but that his will is bound to his nature. A sinful nature freely rejects God; a regenerated nature freely accepts Him.

Many object that God is unfair in choosing some and not others - but they forget that God is under no obligation to save any sinner. It is to the praise of His mercy that He saves any. Those who end up in hell do so because of the choices they freely made.