Are Athiests evil?

Shinji Ikari · 28-11-2008 02:36PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

According to the culture, you mean.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the culture. As in the Jewish culture? I remember a quote in the Old Testament about God commanding masters to treat their slaves well. That seems to imply God tacitly endorses slavery.

Shinji Ikari · 28-11-2008 02:47PM

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the culture. As in the Jewish culture? I remember a quote in the Old Testament about God commanding masters to treat their slaves well. That seems to imply God tacitly endorses slavery.

Yeah, I was right. It also only applys to Israeli slaves. So does that mean its was o.k. to treat non Jewish slaves poorly? This is what I'm getting at in regards to the definition of evil. There is no such thing as moral absolutism. Jesus exhibits different morals to Jehovah yet they are they same person. So unless God has dissociative disorder God is a moral relativist and therefore if thats true than how can evil exist in objective reality?

Leviticus 25:44

Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.

Fanny Cradock · 28-11-2008 02:52PM

What I mean is that slavery has been with us ever since we began to record history. Most of the time, irrespective of Christianity, this was a completely acceptable practice (at lease for the slave masters and those who benefited from the it) and one that formed the basis for many civilizations. It is also important to note that not all forms of slavery were or are the same.

While it it easy to look back and criticise a past culture built on slaves from our 'civilised' vantage point, it must be remembered that there are today more slaves than at any point in our history (of course, one could say that this is simply a function of a huge population) and we in the civilised West benefit from these slave.

Fanny Cradock · 28-11-2008 03:42PM

Shinji Ikari wrote: »

There is no such thing as moral absolutism. Jesus exhibits different morals to Jehovah yet they are they same person. So unless God has dissociative disorder God is a moral relativist and therefore if thats true than how can evil exist in objective reality?

This is all getting very postmodern. I don't accept that God is a moral relativist. But it is certainly arguable that mankind can only operate on a morally relative level. For instance, we have an unerring habit of constructing societies that are morally questionable or even morally repugnant in retrospect. Such an example is indicative of our own morality which is also subject to change over time.

It is arguable that Yahweh's interaction with mankind - his rules, for example - was at a level that could and would be accepted give the culture. Christians believe that God's word is a process of gradual revelation. As mankind changed so God was able to reveal more of his plan - this culminated (though still continues) in Jesus.

The analogy might be poor, but I think that such interaction could be comparable to a fitness instructor training a client. As the client isn't very fit, during the first few session the instructor suggests some light exercises. Slowly, over the following months, those exercises are gradually built upon as fitness is increased until everybody is happy with the result. In this regard, the instructor had a overall plan that was gradually enacted in relation to the clients ability. This gradual process was the only way to proceed. Any other way would have meant failure and would have been dangerous to the client.

Granted, there are certainly parts of the OT that cause me trouble. The issue of slavery is one of them. However, given my belief in Jesus - based both on evidence, critical though and, yes, faith - I am of the opinion that my explanation (and I concede that there are most probably better explanations out there) is acceptable for me.

CiDeRmAn · 28-11-2008 04:00PM

I suppose slavery has obvious parallels with modern business practice, where a countries resources don't just include the naturally found minerals or other materials but also the population of a given country that can be used as a resource to be exploited.
We may not condone the owning of another individual, calling it a breach of basic human rights and a barbaric archaic notion, but we seem to be fine with seeing workers in the developing world paid a pittance for hard labour on our luxury goods, or at least preparing the constituents of said luxury goods.

It is, to my mind, slavery by proxy and symptomatic of the amoral capitalist society we inhabit, more than that, it is not a new idea either, from the raping of less astute cultures by european colonial powers over the last 500 years or so, to the exploitation of there own populations by the power wielders since the dawn of human history.

Slavery is simply one of the above, part of a continum of man making money off of the sweat of another mans brow, the corruption of the natural instinct of ours to select a strong leader to follow.

We will only truely shed our human frailities, finally transcend our feet of clay, when we can, to paraphrase a certain local hero, treat others with the repect you yourself would wish to be treated.

We will have to wait and see on that one.

Zombrex · 28-11-2008 04:48PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

CDFM a word of warning. Wicknight has been asking the same questions with the same objections for the last three years. He has been answered and rsponded to over and over again and again and just wants to mock 'free choice'.

My advice: don't waste your time.

No, you are thinking of a completely different question that being - Given a choice between A and B can you choose to pick A if God already knows you will pick B.

This goes to the heart of free will and punishment for action (and has never been answered properly by the way), but it is actually nothing do to with the discussion I'm having with CDfm.

I didn't introduce free will into this discussion and to be honest I'm not sure why CDfm did either.

I'm asking CDfm where does he believe morality comes from, who ultimately decides what is right and wrong. If God decides that say, sex out side of marriage is immoral can a human decide it isn't and still be correct. Or is God's decision fundamentally what defines what is right and wrong in the first place.

CDfm appears to be saying that yes the human can, though most Christians I imagine would say that no he can't, God decides what is moral and immoral and if you disagree you are wrong.

Zombrex · 28-11-2008 04:49PM

niallk wrote: »

My mama says Wicknight is the Devil.

That's not what your mama said last night!!! :eek::pac::D;):pac:

... I'll get my coat ...

Zombrex · 28-11-2008 04:59PM

CDfm wrote: »

Can God be wrong?- I dont think so - because its his ball and we are playing with it.

There you go, that was simple enough wasn't it.

So if God decides something is moral and you decide it isn't, then you are wrong. End of story. Free will has nothing to do with that. God isn't forcing you to agree with him, but you are still wrong.

CDfm wrote: »

A believers morals and ethics will take into account their understanding of Gods word in the bible. So man gets to do the interpreting.

Yes but he will either interpret it correctly or incorrectly. He will either get it wrong or right. Something that is interpreted differently to how God meant it to be doesn't become moral because we do that.

CDfm wrote: »

As Socrates was very fond of saying "Gnothi seaton" (know yourself) and mans interpretation and application will be influenced by this. If you like, if a man or woman is dishonest in their application and this has a bearing on an outcome -well you can't lie to God as to your motives.

Again, this is very little to do with what we are talking about. The methods of interpreting God's communications don't have a lot to do with what I was asking you.

CDfm wrote: »

So unfortunately, Wicky,you are not off the hook in your quest. The application of morals and ethics are similar for both atheist and believer.

I agree 100% (in fact I had a long debate with Wolfsbane last year arguing just that), but again that isn't what I was asking you. It isn't the application of morality that I was asking you about, it was the concept of universal verse subjective morality.

CDfm wrote: »

So when I discuss Soloman et al I am giving you an example of how the sex question which you put great value on as a litmus test is not as simple as you would have it.

It is perfectly simple, you just either didn't understand what I was asking you, or for some reason didn't want to answer. You answered above (eventually), giving the answer I would expect from a Christian, that God cannot be wrong. He decides what is moral, if you disagree you are wrong.

You can be wrong in how you interpret God, but that is a whole different issue quite independent to the question I was actually asking you.

Zombrex · 28-11-2008 05:03PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What I mean is that slavery has been with us ever since we began to record history. Most of the time, irrespective of Christianity, this was a completely acceptable practice (at lease for the slave masters and those who benefited from the it) and one that formed the basis for many civilizations. It is also important to note that not all forms of slavery were or are the same.

While it it easy to look back and criticise a past culture built on slaves from our 'civilised' vantage point, it must be remembered that there are today more slaves than at any point in our history (of course, one could say that this is simply a function of a huge population) and we in the civilised West benefit from these slave.

None of which is relevant to the original issue that God did not consider slavery evil, actively encouraging its practice, according to the Old Testament.

CDfm · 28-11-2008 09:54PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Free will has nothing to do with that. God isn't forcing you to agree with him.
Yes but he will either interpret it correctly or incorrectly. He will either get it wrong or right. Something that is interpreted differently to how God meant it to be doesn't become moral because we do that.

I agree 100% (in fact I had a long debate with Wolfsbane last year arguing just that), but again that isn't what I was asking you. It isn't the application of morality that I was asking you about, it was the concept of universal verse subjective morality.

It is perfectly simple, you just either didn't understand what I was asking you, or for some reason didn't want to answer. You answered above (eventually), giving the answer I would expect from a Christian, that God cannot be wrong.

But the thread concerns whether or not atheists are evil. I think you are straying wildly off topic here.

I can only say how I do it. This may not be true for everyone -especially those whose religous beliefs are different to mine and have a literalist take on the bible.

There are some questions that there are yes and no answers for. I dont believe that is true for everything because there are ethical situations which are not black and white and that we reflect on.

You have picked the area of sexual morality as your litmus test - and I have demonstrated to you that in itself as an example God has shown mercy.So while a person might not have an ideal life in every sense - you want to portray a situation where God doesnt forgive or understand and I have cited you examples where that has not been the case.

I have used examples to arrive at my conclusion.

One thing that really bugs me on Atheist writings is how atheists arrive at their definitions of morals and ethics as from an atheist perspective these are subjective. In Christianity - there are universal beliefs but some issues are subjective.In other words , there is a central ideology and philosophy unifying the logic of the decions.

With Atheism there isnt a cohesive central ideology. Lack of such an ideology does not make an atheist evil. Only actions will.

The same way that a lot of Christian ideals are aspirational -their application can be subjective -free will and all that.

So you are asking a question the answer to which is a paradox. It is therefore complex and you would want to refine it a lot more,.

wolfsbane · 28-11-2008 10:55PM

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Can I ask the Christians, say an individual was walking along and a baby fell out of a pram, face down into a few centimeters of water. The man seen the baby struggling but continued to walk on anyway as he was late for a meeting, the baby subsequently died. The newspapers later reported this man as evil when the CCTV footage was released. Would they be correct?

Yes, they would. And not just in the general sense that all men are sinners, but in the narrower sense of being particularly wicked.

CDfm · 29-11-2008 01:16AM

Wicknight wrote: »

None of which is relevant to the original issue that God did not consider slavery evil, actively encouraging its practice, according to the Old Testament.

That is still irrelevant to the question posed which is whether or not atheists are evil.

It still does nothing to clarify if atheists have a particular moral or ethical code and does nothing to clarify as to how this develops.

Come on - some straight answers on the philosophy of atheism would be great.

CDfm · 29-11-2008 04:12PM

BrianCalgary wrote: »

CDFM a word of warning. Wicknight has been asking the same questions with the same objections for the last three years. He has been answered and rsponded to over and over again and again and just wants to mock 'free choice'.

My advice: don't waste your time.

Brian - Wicknight might ask the same questions. On philosophy,morals and ethics both Christian and atheist have similar questions and methods in determining their positions.

Some atheists dont understand that we do. There are also misconceptions between members of different churches and atheists about blind obedience.

I would like to see Wicknights views on arriving at moral questions and dilemmas.

I dont see anything wrong with leaving him explain his postion and putting them out there for all to see. I have seen very little writting on the development of atheist morals and ethics and would like to know more.

I honestly thought Wicknight was posting to explain this rather then a church attack. Maybe he will surprise you by doing so.

CDfm · 29-11-2008 04:20PM

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

Can I ask the Christians, say an individual was walking along and a baby fell out of a pram, face down into a few centimeters of water. The man seen the baby struggling but continued to walk on anyway as he was late for a meeting, the baby subsequently died. The newspapers later reported this man as evil when the CCTV footage was released. Would they be correct?

That is a fairly easy one.

From a Christian point of view you have an obligation to help. The Good Samaritan and all that. It points out that those who dont help are hypocrits.

Is the atheist point of view that you only do what you are required by law. In France - you have a legal obligation to help and not to do would mean prosecution for indifference.

so is a person who is indifferent to others evil- well i would say its not its not an attractive trait and is not at all nice.

we all know people who are toxic and passive aggressive and enjoy the commotion they cause. is that evil - well - it may not be evil on a charles manson scale but it is somewhere on the scale

a person like this may not be guilty of a crime - but repeat behavior like this is evil at some level and is not good for the people around them.

if a nurse constantly ignores a help bell as other nurses run to help- is that evil- ya because it has consequences. as would be a teacher who gives pupils she goesnt like low grades.

evil may be too strong a word -unethical yes.

if you dont feed a pet regularily or vchange the cats litter - thats cruelty

so it is there somewhere on the scale

rockbeer · 29-11-2008 11:37PM

CDfm wrote:

some straight answers on the philosophy of atheism would be great

CDfm wrote:

I have seen very little writting on the development of atheist morals and ethics

CDfm wrote:

Is the atheist point of view that you only do what you are required by law.

Hi CDfm,
Hope you don't mind me pitching into the discussion at this late stage. I just wanted to try to clear up what I think is a misconception on your part.
These quotes from you suggest that you imagine atheism to be a philosophy or belief system somehow analogous to christianity or some other faith. This isn't the case. Athesist have just one thing in common - their lack of belief in a deity, usually an interventionist one at that. Beyond that there is not necessarily any common ground whatsoever in how we arrive at our moral and ethical codes, whether such codes resemble each other, or whether we have them at all. In short, there is no 'philosophy of atheism' nor any system of 'atheist morals and ethics'.

Of course in practice there tend to be some common threads. You might find it interesting to do some reading up on the Humanist Manifesto, for example. It will give you an idea of how an atheist (or humanist) might think about these issues, although you are also likely to get disagreement from plenty of atheists about some of it.

Some of it, for example, I personally find a little too pseudo-religious for my tastes.

AtomicHorror · 29-11-2008 11:46PM

rockbeer wrote: »

Hi CDfm,
Hope you don't mind me pitching into the discussion at this late stage. I just wanted to try to clear up what I think is a misconception on your part.
These quotes from you suggest that you imagine atheism to be a philosophy or belief system somehow analogous to christianity or some other faith. This isn't the case. Athesist have just one thing in common - their lack of belief in a deity, usually an interventionist one at that. Beyond that there is not necessarily any common ground whatsoever in how we arrive at our moral and ethical codes, whether such codes resemble each other, or whether we have them at all. In short, there is no 'philosophy of atheism' nor any system of 'atheist morals and ethics'.

Of course in practice there tend to be some common threads. You might find it interesting to do some reading up on the Humanist Manifesto, for example. It will give you an idea of how an atheist (or humanist) might think about these issues, although you are also likely to get disagreement from plenty of atheists about some of it.

Some of it, for example, I personally find a little too pseudo-religious for my tastes.

You need to close your link with a [/url] tag!

Otherwise, I agree completely.

rockbeer · 30-11-2008 12:25AM

AtomicHorror wrote: »

You need to close your link with a [/url] tag!

Oops, thanks! Bit off it today.

CDfm · 30-11-2008 01:05AM

rockbeer wrote: »

Hi CDfm,
Hope you don't mind me pitching into the discussion at this late stage. I just wanted to try to clear up what I think is a misconception on your part.

Some of it, for example, I personally find a little too pseudo-religious for my tastes.

Hi Rockbeer

Good of you too pitch in.

Sometimes stuff disappears into the blackhole of atheism vs creationism and we end up with discusions which could seriously be added to a script of South Park.

The humanist stuff is a bit twee- I dont imagine Id want to go there either.

There are misconceptions on the atheist side too - I keep expecting too see Yoregod jokes.

CD

rockbeer · 30-11-2008 01:47AM

Sorry CDfm, perhaps I'm being thick but I don't understand your reply at all.

CiDeRmAn · 30-11-2008 02:22AM

I find the whole Humanist thing a but wierd myself, as an atheist I just don't follow the need for ceremony that they have, also the need to replace one dogma with another.
Plus, something that really irks, is that when the likes of Newstalk have a religious discussion, and they want an atheist point of view, they wheel on a Humanist.
Very irritating that

CDfm · 30-11-2008 02:26AM

rockbeer wrote: »

Sorry CDfm, perhaps I'm being thick but I don't understand your reply at all.

I can understand that.I cant understand why atheists want a pseudo religous ideoligy either.

Its like a vegeterian option at McDonalds -it doesnt work for me.If you are looking for a religous ideoligy go to a church or a philosophy group and get into philosophy.

Dont go for religion or philosophy-lite.

I have a hard time with Christians posting bible references in answer to atheist posts.

I dont pretend to be perfect - but I do find it peculiar that atheist posters want to post on docterine to prove a point they have heard or read before - yet want to ignore how beliefs etc developed and drew on other important developments in philosophy and moral thought.

I do think that Christian and atheist living in practice are closer than either let on and that christian morals are more subjective than docterine suggests.Thats the reality.

CDfm · 30-11-2008 02:36AM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

I find the whole Humanist thing a but wierd myself,
Plus, something that really irks, is that when the likes of Newstalk have a religious discussion, and they want an atheist point of view, they wheel on a Humanist.

yup - its like being a little bit pregnant or someone who claims to be vegeterarian eating chicken or fish.. it doesnt cut it.

rockbeer · 30-11-2008 02:44AM

CDfm,

I think you and I are sort of like the British and Americans - two people divided by a common language.

Since you obviously haven't read my post properly - or if you have, you completely misunderstood it - and since you haven't shown the faintest sign of having registered the more interesting and important part of it (the bit about there being no common atheist moral system), I'm just going to bail out again gracefully ,OK?

Night.

CDfm · 30-11-2008 03:04AM

rockbeer wrote: »

CDfm,

I think you and I are sort of like the British and Americans - two people divided by a common language.

Since you obviously haven't read my post properly - or if you have, you completely misunderstood it - and since you haven't shown the faintest sign of having registered the more interesting and important part of it (the bit about there being no common atheist moral system), I'm just going to bail out again gracefully ,OK?

Night.

I will read thru it again and will probably be back with questions.

Atheism thought is a bit of a jump for me - so be patient if my comments are naff I would like to know more.I wont be changing my belefs but I would love to understand it more -not just bthe stereotype.

can i be the American - they are cooler.

CD

PS I read the Manifesto and it is very positive and moral.

CiDeRmAn · 30-11-2008 10:06AM

Why wouldn't atheists have a moral system?
More importantly, given that religion is a subjective thing, don't christians ultimately have their own internalised moral compass, regardless of the teachings of the church?
And as people of Europe we are born and raised in an essentially christian, if secular, collection of states, whose laws and general behaviour is rooted in those christian definitions of right and wrong.
Therefore, aren't we all, atheist, Catholic or Christian, governed by more or less the same morals? The same common morals?

And aside from some fundamentalist texts, extreme interpretations of any articles of belief, be they Islam, Judism, Christianity, Secular etc, aren't all socially cohesive belief systems "positive and moral"?

Fanny Cradock · 30-11-2008 03:36PM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Why wouldn't atheists have a moral system?
More importantly, given that religion is a subjective thing, don't christians ultimately have their own internalised moral compass, regardless of the teachings of the church?
And as people of Europe we are born and raised in an essentially christian, if secular, collection of states, whose laws and general behaviour is rooted in those christian definitions of right and wrong.
Therefore, aren't we all, atheist, Catholic or Christian, governed by more or less the same morals? The same common morals?

And aside from some fundamentalist texts, extreme interpretations of any articles of belief, be they Islam, Judism, Christianity, Secular etc, aren't all socially cohesive belief systems "positive and moral"?

Well, I wouldn't necessarily say that religion is subjective. Take Judaism for example. If you happen to read parts of the OT you will see how strictly regulated and structured it was. The subjectivity comes from the individual deciding to adhere rigidly to this structure or not.

I would agree that Europe owes a great deal of it morals and laws to Christianity. Even now, in a post Christian Europe, the influence of Christianity is evident - although some people play down its influence.

You run into problems of subjectivity when you try to define what is and isn't extreme. For example, if Hitler had won the war, it is possible that we would all now think that Fascism is the bees knees. There may well be some loose meta-morality (we all have a sense of justice, for instance), but that hasn't always kept us out of trouble.

CiDeRmAn · 30-11-2008 07:21PM

Was Fascism perhaps less of a blip than we care to admit?
I mean, certainly during the 20th century, secular groups have been the largest mass murderers on the planet.
Previous to this it could be argued we had a long and nasty habit of oppressing and, if the need demanded it, exterminating peoples who stood in the way of, ultimately, power.
These could be anyone from the obliteration of the American way of life by the colonists post 1492, the aboriginal tribes of Japan, South Africa, Catholics in Ireland, Protestants in pre Elizabethan England, Scots Protestants by other Scots Protestants and so on.

Most of the pre 20th Century immoral acts were commited by people with a faith, generally a faith bolstered by a head of state, acting in the economic interest of the state, with a veneer of religious entitlement to it, to lend it all justification, and to convince the poor people, the classes expected to be at the sharp pointy end of the acts themselves, that this heinous behaviour was demanded by nation and God.

This latter behaviour would seem to be continuing even in the 21st Century.

Whether Fascism can be compared to an amoral capitalist transnational business machine as things stood during colonial european expansion and now with US and Chinese consolidation of resources, is a grey area, the attempted extermination of the Jewish people on the one hand, and the manipulation of the destinies of weaker nations worldwide on the other.

Surely most people who partook in the secular atrocities of the past all had a faith, or at the very least a moral compass, as sadi before.
The brainwashing of people to dehuminise a race or citizen of another country, thereby making them easier to dispose of, is very very common, used again and again to demonise an enemy, making immoral behaviour against them easily borne as, internally, they aren;t like us, I'm not taking part in acts upon equals, rather on a degenerate species, akin to an animal, and what does one do with a troublesome animal? and so on the logic goes.
And we humans do this all the time, to a greater or lesser degree whenever we feel threatened, we pick the weakest person and subjugate them, degenerate them, and this is one of the central tragedies to the human condition.
One perhaps we will never purge, one that is, surely common to all, regardless of faith.

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

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

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

CDfm · 30-11-2008 07:58PM

CiDeRmAn wrote: »

Was Fascism perhaps less of a blip than we care to admit?

No.

wolfsbane · 30-11-2008 08:07PM

CiDeRmAn said:

Why wouldn't atheists have a moral system?

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

More importantly, given that religion is a subjective thing, don't christians ultimately have their own internalised moral compass, regardless of the teachings of the church?

They may do, but that is in conflict with their claims to be Christian. Like an atheist believing that homosexuality was wrong because God said so.

And as people of Europe we are born and raised in an essentially christian, if secular, collection of states, whose laws and general behaviour is rooted in those christian definitions of right and wrong.
Therefore, aren't we all, atheist, Catholic or Christian, governed by more or less the same morals? The same common morals?

In many instances, Yes. But that is despite the atheist's belief - they have just adopted what they subconsciously feel good with, the moral code of their formative years. It's when the atheist begins to think freely about morality that things become, er, different. Stalin, Mao, etc. did not allow the morality of their upbringing to stifle their thinking about morality.

And aside from some fundamentalist texts, extreme interpretations of any articles of belief, be they Islam, Judism, Christianity, Secular etc, aren't all socially cohesive belief systems "positive and moral"?

But if extremist systems are also socially cohesive, socially cohesive cannot define morality.

rockbeer · 30-11-2008 09:05PM

wolfsbane wrote: »

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

But it should be remembered that just because the theist believes their morality to be absolute doesn't make it true. Since there is no god, the theist's absolute morality is in fact just as 'made up' and arbitrary as the atheist's.

wolfsbane wrote: »

In many instances, Yes. But that is despite the atheist's belief - they have just adopted what they subconsciously feel good with, the moral code of their formative years.

Er, forgive me wolfsbane, but that's just pure shi!e. Are you saying that atheists never grow up and are only capable of living by the morality of our parents and teachers. Or that...

wolfsbane wrote: »

It's when the atheist begins to think freely about morality that things become, er, different. Stalin, Mao, etc. did not allow the morality of their upbringing to stifle their thinking about morality.

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

Most atheists have a high degree of personal integrity because we have to take responsibility for our own actions... Because we are self-regulating and don't have handy deities and old books to whom we can pass the buck. Unlike you guys, we actually have to think about whether things are right or wrong rather than just taking someone else's word for it.

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

Are Athiests evil?

Comments