Are Atheists evil?

[Road Warrior]

BTW, thank you to all you evil-doers who have made this thread such as great success!

God bless you every one!

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Misery loves company....

Hey, just kidding folks.
:run:

 

[Road Warrior]

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.

A slight disagreement. I see both terms as being independent, not simply one being a lower or higher level of the other. Sure, one can be confident their car will start, but is that really just another way of saying they have strong faith their car will start? Confidence is more quantifiable than faith. I can say I'm 75% confident that my car will start since 3 times out of 4 it does, but if I say I have faith my car will start, that's just a belief it will. I wouldn't say "I have 75% faith the car will start" since faith is either there or it isn't. A slight, but important difference.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

The number of posts in a debate does not equate with it's success... only one side of a debate has occurred road warrior... which makes for a less than enlightening debate.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Yes, one must not forget all the evil Buddhists who reject any concept of God.

....all non-theist religious believers such as Hindus

Less than 1/3 of Hindus are non-theistic.

 

[Road Warrior]

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.

Agreed, which is why all discussions of faith end up going nowhere. Even Richard Dawkins isn't 100% sure God doesn't exist because he can't prove it either way. He simply has faith God's existence is improbable. Based on what isn't really clear despite all of his analogies of teapots and the like.

 

[McBell]

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

Asinine is only the tip of the ice berg.
just wait, if you point out to many things he dislikes, you will also be completely ignored.

Wonder who it is he is trying to convince, everyone else, or himself?

 

[McBell]

Yes, one must not forget all the evil Buddhists who reject any concept of God.





Less than 1/3 of Hindus are non-theistic.

What is wrong with you?
Don't you know that facts and truths are completely irrelevant in this thread?

 

[tumbleweed41]

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.

Not believers in God. Remember the OP?

...or anyone else who chooses to be without God...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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?

No, I'm saying that whatever fuzziness there is at the edges of the definition of "evil", Road Warrior's definition is well beyond it.

For another analogy, while there may be disagreement about whether a Twinkie should be considered "food", this doesn't mean that we can't say that lettuce definitely is food and a rock definitely isn't.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I also find attaching probabilities to the supernatural to be a mistake; however that does not address the fundamental problem Road Warrior, a debate is a semi structured exchange of ideas through a rational dialogue whereby you explain a position through the use of reasoned arguments... that is not something that 'a leap of faith' is sufficient to achieve... not if you want to actually debate - that is for the domain of discussion, not debate.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No, I'm saying that whatever fuzziness there is at the edges of the definition of "evil", Road Warrior's definition is well beyond it.

For another analogy, while there may be disagreement about whether a Twinkie should be considered "food", this doesn't mean that we can't say that lettuce definitely is food and a rock definitely isn't.

How do you know Road Warrior's is way beyond it?

 

[Falvlun]

Example #3

I agree with this concept. Like darkness is a lack of light, evil is simply a lack of good. In the religious context, a lack of God or being away from God. Lucifer chose to pull away from God. Ergo, Lucifer is evil. Like cold is simply a lack of heat, not a force of itself, evil isn't a force. It's simply being away from God.

You have two different statements here of what evil is. First you define it as simply a lack of good. You then go on to say that evil is a lack of God.

Are you defining God simply, and only, as the concept of "good"? Or are you defining God as a supernatural Being with powers and such?

If you are defining God as just good, Atheists are no more "without good" than theists are. If you slap the label God to refer to "good", then more power to you. When I say I don't believe in god, though, don't expect me to be referring to your arbitrary semantic switcharoo.

The former definition is interesting, and one could argue that evil is a lack of good, like cold is the lack of heat. But the latter definition is so much prejudiced BS, that is easily falsifiable.

 

[crocusj]

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.

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.

But surely this is completely contradictory. On the one hand you are saying that believers don't have faith merely because they are told to and on the other you are saying that biblical authors accepted the authority of the past even if it didn't make sense to them. The majority of the worlds believers believe the way they do specifically because they were told to, otherwise the worlds demographics are wrong on every level. They are not wrong precisely because of the effect that you are denying. Now, it may be that every one of these believers has thought this through and arrived at the conclusion that the only religion or belief for them is the one they were born into but this phenomenon does beg a lot of questions about impartiality of resource when "reasonability" of an individuals beliefs is the issue. I am sure this is true of any idea, I am particularly sure that this is true of religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

How do you know Road Warrior's is way beyond it?

Because evil necessarily includes the notion of intentional harm (or the intent to do harm). His definition doesn't refer to either intent or harm at all.

 

[tumbleweed41]

BTW, thank you to all you evil-doers who have made this thread such as great success!

God bless you every one!

Other "successful threads"...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-debates/127176-should-incest-banned.html

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...87605-accuse-previous-poster-being-witch.html

And of course, a favorite from last year...

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/general-discussion/104369-240-days-left-until-world-comes.html



Congratulations.

 

[Road Warrior]

You have two different statements here of what evil is. First you define it as simply a lack of good. You then go on to say that evil is a lack of God.

Are you defining God simply, and only, as the concept of "good"? Or are you defining God as a supernatural Being with powers and such?

I use the terms interchangeably as positive forces as opposed to negative ones. Obviously no one on this forum knows or understands the true nature of the force many call "God". Like me, many have their guesses including guessing the force doesn't exist.

 

[Road Warrior]

You keep repeating that the universe is a dichotomy but is it really?

I perceive it to be.

Yin and Yang: The Dichotomy in the Universe

 

[Nakosis]

But surely this is completely contradictory. On the one hand you are saying that believers don't have faith merely because they are told to and on the other you are saying that biblical authors accepted the authority of the past even if it didn't make sense to them.

What I'm saying is I suspect it is a combination of reality and religious authority. I think it'd be wrong to assume it just being a matter of one or the other.

The majority of the worlds believers believe the way they do specifically because they were told to, otherwise the worlds demographics are wrong on every level.

I'm just saying demographics alone shouldn't be assumed to account for every dynamic involved in religious belief.

They are not wrong precisely because of the effect that you are denying.

Again not wrong just shouldn't be the only thing one relies on for understanding religious folks.

Now, it may be that every one of these believers has thought this through and arrived at the conclusion that the only religion or belief for them is the one they were born into but this phenomenon does beg a lot of questions about impartiality of resource when "reasonability" of an individuals beliefs is the issue. I am sure this is true of any idea, I am particularly sure that this is true of religion.

Religious folks have real experiences that they believe supports their belief. Supports what they been taught. You may offer different explanations for these experiences but the experiences themselves are real enough at least to the perception of the believer.

If you are going to make your argument against religion based on demographics alone you are not going to be very persuasive among the religious folks.

 

[Falvlun]

I use the terms interchangeably as positive forces as opposed to negative ones. Obviously no one on this forum knows or understands the true nature of the force many call "God". Like me, many have their guesses including guessing the force doesn't exist.

Is this force conscious? Does it prefer people who believe it exists? Does it actually cause good or is it simply present whenever good happens? All of these must be answered if you are to know what evil is--- which, according to the OP, you seem to believe that you do.

Since you don't know or understand the true nature of this force, how do you know it's not with atheists? Maybe it even likes us better. After all, atheists do good things too. :yes:

And, as noted before, if you are simply redefining "good" as "god", don't expect most people to be using your terminology when they use the word "god". For example, "god" in the statement "I don't believe god exists", more often refers to some supernatural power or Being, not the concept of good.