Are Atheists evil?

[Road Warrior]

I see, yet you should realise that in taking such a leap of faith you arrive at a position by which if others do not share your faith all you are standing on is air

Of course. This entire forum is based on that premise. It's one reason why mothers around the world won't let people discuss politics or religion at the dinner table; because it is so open to a wide variety of opinions.

 

[Nakosis]

I disagree. I'm confident that when I get off work my car will start allowing be to drive home. I'm confident about most things based on evidence. As you know..faith is believing something without the requirement of evidence.

The difference between faith and confidence I see as a threshold. I am never absolutely sure the car will start. However it has consistently in the past I am reasonably sure that it will.

Some simply take a lower level of evidence to pass that threshold of confidence. Christian see the testimony of the Bible as evidence. They see whatever spiritual experiences they've had as evidence. Maybe these things don't meet your threshold of what you'd accept as evidence. Obviously it does for others.

If I had a really broken down car my trust in the starting of that car maybe reduce to the level of faith. I never know absolutely my car is going to start. My trust that it will lies somewhere between faith and confident.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The concept of free will says people are free to choose. The dichotomy of the Universe allows them a choice. "To be or not to be", to be with God or without. Their call.

I would submit that "free will" is but an illusion if we are discussing the god of the bible/quran. This god is said to be everywhere in and outside of space/time, it knows everything, it sees/hears everything and is all powerful. With such attributes then the concept of "free will" is void to such a being because any choice or lack thereof is rendered void.

 

[Koldo]

I'm still waiting for you to answer mine to you from previous thread. Until then, enjoy your wait.

What question? Can you provide the link to me? I couldn't find it.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Of course. This entire forum is based on that premise. It's one reason why mothers around the world won't let people discuss politics or religion at the dinner table; because it is so open to a wide variety of opinions.

Actually the forum is slightly different, it is about helping learn about philosophy and theology, for that we endeavor to present our positions and arguments to support those opinions; especially in DEBATES this is supposed to occur in a rational manner to emphasize the soundness of our premises and reasoning, to address counter arguments and in doing so educate (hence 'Religious Education Forum') both ourselves and those around us.

To take a 'leap of faith' might be reasonable within a discussion of belief, particularly of those who hold similar beliefs; however in a debate, which is a (at least semi structured) rational exchange of information taking a leap of faith is to fail to provide the reasoning, it is merely something that weakens your argument to such an extent that no one who does not already agree with that position would consider it might be correct. Alternatively, if you had actually provided such reasoning, perhaps you might have the possibility of swaying other people.

 

[crocusj]

The concept of free will says people are free to choose. The dichotomy of the Universe allows them a choice. "To be or not to be", to be with God or without. Their call.

You keep repeating that the universe is a dichotomy but is it really? If you set a premise of "to be or not to be" then sure but you are merely creating this dichotomy by introducing mutually exclusive ideas. This would suggest that all men (or ancestors of men) were evil before any understanding of a concept of a god and what that god would expect of us. Not to mention evil trees. More specifically, it does not allow for those who have not had any contact with a god of good and evil but have one of survival and non survival, famine or feast, drought or deluge. Are all who do not understand, appreciate or even know this god of yours, defined as evil? Obviously, this must also include very young children. How can this possibly be? What you suggest seems to say that no-matter how "good" a person is they must be evil if they are in some way "away" from this god of yours. Really?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Over 1 billion atheists in the world. 15% of the world is apparently "evil".

This in spite of the fact that recent research to be published in the July 2012 issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science demonstrates that atheists are more driven by compassion to help other people that the highly religious.
This does not mean that the religious give less than atheists, but that the motivation differs.
According to the soon to be released study, the religious seem to be more driven by obligation (tithing, religious duty, etc.) than compassion.

Atheists More Motivated by Compassion than the Faithful | LiveScience


And as I stated before, who would call Secular Humanism "evil" with it's mission of reason, ethics and social justice?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The difference between faith and confidence I see as a threshold. I am never absolutely sure the car will start. However it has consistently in the past I am reasonably sure that it will.

I agree. Confidence should never be misconstrued as certainty. I think religious faith compared to confidence deals with certainty.

Some simply take a lower level of evidence to pass that threshold of confidence. Christian see the testimony of the Bible as evidence. They see whatever spiritual experiences they've had as evidence. Maybe these things don't meet your threshold of what you'd accept as evidence. Obviously it does for others.

This "evidence" as you call it is extremely personal and subjective.

If I had a really broken down car my trust in the starting of that car maybe reduce to the level of faith. I never know absolutely my car is going to start. My trust that it will lies somewhere between faith and confident.

This may be the fine line between faith and hope.

 

[Random]

Over 1 billion atheists in the world.

That many?

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I assume that includes non theists such as Agnostics Random.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That many?

:drunk:.........

 

[tumbleweed41]

I assume that includes non theists such as Agnostics Random.

More than likely.

Although it would be a stretch to assume that Agnostics fall into the category of those who choose to be with God, and are therefor, not evil, as suggested by the OP.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Y_Y so mean.... i know I am evil (REAL evil, not the sissy OP variety)... but to have it aired in public... its like someone held up my jocks with skid-marks on them

 

[idav]

Not to mention evil trees.

Indeed, LOL.

 

[idav]

The concept of free will says people are free to choose. The dichotomy of the Universe allows them a choice. "To be or not to be", to be with God or without. Their call.

To answer your question, I do not know since I cannot see what is in their heart. Usually adultery is wrong since it harms another or breaks a promise, but there are circumstances in which it is not such as by mutual consent.

Your speaking of free will versus intent to do good. A wrong choice doesn't mean ill intention. Is being wrong evil? I don't really think that being with or without god makes a difference as to whether a person is evil. An important factor is knowing something is wrong and why.

 

[McBell]

If evil is defined as being away from or without God just like darkness is without light or cold is without heat, then does this mean atheists or anyone else who chooses to be without God are evil?

Then every single monotheist is evil, right?
If you are without any of the thousands upon thousands of proposed god, you are evil.

So since everyone is in the same boat, what is the point of the word evil as "defined" in the OP??

See, i am actually looking for an answer that is not self serving.

To say that being without {insert specific god here} is nothing more than self serving justification of preconceived notions, prejudice and bigotry.

I notice your complete ignoring of this point when brought up on page one....

 

[BobbyisStrange]

Then every single monotheist is evil, right?
If you are without any of the thousands upon thousands of proposed god, you are evil.

So since everyone is in the same boat, what is the point of the word evil as "defined" in the OP??

See, i am actually looking for an answer that is not self serving.

To say that being without {insert specific god here} is nothing more than self serving justification of preconceived notions, prejudice and bigotry.

I notice your complete ignoring of this point when brought up on page one....

I asked the same thing and got no response.
This is an asinine argument.

 

[Nakosis]

I agree. Confidence should never be misconstrued as certainty. I think religious faith compared to confidence deals with certainty.



This "evidence" as you call it is extremely personal and subjective.



This may be the fine line between faith and hope.

I just don't think most believers have faith just because they are told to do so. They they think they have a reasonable basis for their faith. At least the one's I've talked to.

So you are saying faith then hope? Faith on the very low end of confidence?

I don't know, faith is confidence for some.

And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,

I don't think the biblical authors were trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. They were just people trying to make sense of things. They really couldn't make sense of God. However they had this belief handed down from the authority of the past which itself didn't make sense but they still accepted it's authority. So they resigned themselves to faith. They found themselves stuck between reality and the authority of the Bible.

So their wisdom they could offer from their own thinking was to trust in the commandments of God. Their own words came to be accepted as the Words of God. Believers read these words and accept their absolute authority. Their words had no authority beyond the men who wrote them. Men trying to make sense of the world they lived in the best they could.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?

(Bear with me - it's relevant)

I don't get its relevance, are you assuming there's a solid definition of "evil" out there, thus all other definitions of it are meaningless?

 

[Road Warrior]

That many?

The number includes any and all non-theist religious believers such as Hindus and Buddhists. If one goes strictly by the definition of "atheist" as opposed to including "areligious", then yes, the number would be that many. Yes, it's a bit of sleight of hand to puff up the numbers, but from a particular point of view, it can be seen as accurate.

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is difficult to quantify the number of atheists in the world. Respondents to religious-belief polls may define "atheism" differently or draw different distinctions between atheism, non-religious beliefs, and non-theistic religious and spiritual beliefs.[169] A Hindu atheist would declare oneself as a Hindu, although also being an atheist at the same time.[170] A 2005 survey published in Encyclopædia Britannica found that the non-religious made up about 11.9% of the world's population, and atheists about 2.3%. This figure did not include those who follow atheistic religions, such as some Buddhists.[20] A broad figure estimates the number of atheists and agnostics on Earth at 1.1 billion.[171]

Kinda ironic that I'm castigated for my point of view by the very people who are stretching their numbers to include religious believers around the globe.