Is Atheism Fundamentally Evil?

[Feck]

Actually I would say there is a significant difference compare and contrast the nature of the characters Jesus and Mohammed compare Gospel to Hadith .There is no 'Lamb of Islam' there is only a murderous thief a leader of bandits liars oath- breakers slave traders torturers unashamed rapists and paedophiles
Now I'm not one to defend christianity But JUST HOW FUCKING STUPID DO YOU HAVE TO BE TO NOT SEE A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN THE SOURCE MATERIAL ?
And don't even mention the Old testament since Islam takes credit for all of that barbarism too .

[Svartalf]

fuckint, in a cahtolic country I can say I'm an atheist... try saying that in a muslamyc country

[Jason]

I thought the only species of non-believer Islam has it out for is the polytheists - which I believe the Koran commands needs must be slain. I believe an atheist is no more evil to them than a Christian or a Buddhist.

[Svartalf]

they'll do in anybody who's not a book worshipper, and even then chretins and joos are not safe.

[Sean Hayden]

When I read these kind of questions I immediately think of things like, if a man wears his undies on the outside of his pants, should he do the dishes on Tuesday or Saturday? That depends, is he a size 10 or 11-12, and what's the moon like tonight?

[Seth]

That's still an unqualified assertion.

Wrong. It's carefully qualified and quite specific. You lied about Christianity.

[Seth]

Now you're just deliberately creating subjects to goad certain people.

Not at all. Morals and Ethics are a hobby. One can test the bounds of a moral or ethical declaration by challenging it - and indeed one should when incredibly broad or general moral descriptors are applied to an entire section of society, such as 'atheists are fundamentally evil' etc. How the declaimer meets that challenge informs us as to limits and limitations of their utterances.

Absolutely true, as I've been doing for years and years. But don't expect anyone here to understand that because they are the prime purveyors of "incredibly broad or general moral descriptors [that] are applied to an entire section of society", such as Catholics or Republicans.

I long ago tired of explaining my role as an interlocutor and how it is possible to entertain an idea without accepting it and how it is both possible and desirable, and an indication of, as Aristotle said, a superior intellect to be able to argue a position that one does not necessarily personally hold as either true or morally acceptable. Debates function on the very premise that there are two sides to every argument and that to have a rigorous debate someone must represent each side of the issue. It is the custom of rational debate that those engaging in the debate do not ascribe the opinions and arguments made by one's opponent to the opponent in a personal way. Debates are supposed to be philosophically abstract discussions intended to illuminate and educate, which is impossible when fuckwitted snowflake liberals who can't stand to hear something they don't like insist on pestering the adults and interfering with rational conversation.

He's giving Seth yet another avenue to spew his hate and idiocy..

Indeed, that may be an unavoidable consequence I'm afraid

Yes, 'tis.

[Seth]

Lie.

Please qualify those assertions.

Otay. You lie about Christianity.

In what way, to what extent, in what regard?

In Anglicanism there is no official doctrine on theodicy, but Anglicans affirm the Western theodical position founded in Catholicism, that: God is the source of all goodness and creates all creatures good.

Correct so far.

Though God does not create evil He has given some creatures the ability to choose their relationship with Him; a freedom to either exalt, adore, and obey Him or to reject Him.

Again, correct.

So traditional theodicy goes, as God is the source of all goodness then to reject God is to reject goodness, wherein lies evil.

This is where you begin to go off track.

Evil is not a thing in itself, but a corruption of the goodness within creatures with the freedom to choose God, but who do not.

This is incorrect. Evil is indeed a thing in itself. It's a group of fallen angels lead by Satan, who is the source of that corruption. In the Old Testament Satan is personified by the serpent. Adam and Eve did not become evil by disobeying God and eating the apple, they were frail and succumbed to the temptation of evil and were punished for that disobedience. However, Adam and Eve were not Christians, and therefore it's really irrelevant what anybody did prior to Christ.

Christianity changed all the rules and Christ's sacrifice redeemed all those who would accept him. So when you said "Christians hold that all possible goodness flows from God and that the essence of evil is the refusal to submit to celestial authority; to love Him, honour Him, serve and obey Him" this was a lie, because that is not the case. It is not true that in Christianity "the essence of evil is the refusal to submit to celestial authority; to love Him, honour Him, serve and obey Him."

Catholicism generally takes this one step further to imply that if evil exists then morality necessarily exist (for how can we tell good from bad without a morality?), and therefore the existence of evil is an argument for God because morality, being the embodiment of goodness, must come from the fount of all goodness, God.

You would have to provide some credible evidence that Catholicism supports the implication you suggest. I don't believe it does.

As I said, from this religious perspective atheists are held to be 'fundamentally evil' as a consequence of their rejection of Christian claims and assertions made on behalf of their nominated deity, but does that mean that atheists are fundamentally (inherently, primarily, etc) 'profoundly immoral or wicked' people in their everyday lives and individual actions - as the descriptor 'evil' clearly implies?

Well, no. Christians believe that man is sinful, which is distinguishable from evil. Man may DO evil, but Christ forgives all sins and washes them away with his blood and the penitent man who accepts Christ and seeks forgiveness is thereby made sin-free. Thus, it may be evil to commit a sin, but the person is not inherently or irredeemably evil in Christian theology, merely lost in sin. Most Christians don't characterize atheists in general as "evil", though I'm sure some do...even religious people make doctrinal mistakes. In my experience the primary emotion associated with atheists is pity and concern. You see, those who do not accept Christ are not "fundamentally evil", they are but "lost sheep" and it is the mandate of all Christians not to judge others ("judge not lest ye be judged") but to bring those lost souls to Christ through persuasion and by example.

Some people seem to think so, don't they?

I'm sure some people do, and probably correctly so. Atheists are certainly not immune to being "profoundly immoral or wicked." One can certainly argue however that atheist are more prone to immorality or wickedness than Christians are because they don't subscribe to any higher power or morality and therefore the source of their moral compass is strictly internal, which leaves little in the way of external auditing or control to guide the atheist into proper moral behavior when that internal moral compass goes wonky.

Think of Christianity as if it's a precise frequency standard used to calibrate a radio. Without that outside standard a radio can malfunction and drift from the proper frequency and because there is no internal form of calibration to detect this drift, the radio can deviate without knowing its deviating. But, apply the calibrated external frequency standard to the signal and it's easy to see that the radio has gone wrong.

Morality is much the same. When the only source of moral guidance is self-made and internal the chances of the person going off track without even recognizing what is happening is much higher than if there is an external source of moral guidance, such as religion.

That's one reason religion persists and prevails in humanity. It provides an external moral compass that people can use to guide their behavior when they themselves are unable to recognize when they are drifting into immoral conduct. Of course, some religious moral compasses are better than others, but the principle is the same.

...

So, if some are to maintain that atheists are fundamentally evil--which is to say that everyone and anyone who does not believe the claims and assertions of the religions above, or of any religion, is 'inherently evil' or 'evil by default'--and if to be evil is to be, at the very least, 'profoundly immoral and wicked', what is the proper authority to determine the basis and bounds of good and evil, and from where is that authority drawn?

Nobody says that. Well, the Muslims say that, but then again they are evil fuckwits so we can ignore them.

You said it.

No, YOU said it. I've never said that atheists are fundamentally evil. SOME atheists may be, but that's different. Atheism is living without an external moral compass calibration, and therefore atheists are more prone to deviation from moral behavior than those with a source of external calibration.

[Seth]

Not significantly different from Catholics and evangelicals.

Er, entirely different actually. Your statement is a prime example of the loss of moral compass calibration that I refer to. You hate Catholics so much that you aren't even able to see when you are making accusations that are entirely untrue. And if you are aware of the untruth of what you're saying, then your claims are simply evil and utterly immoral and they prove my point quite perfectly: Atheists can be evil.

[Seth]

I thought the only species of non-believer Islam has it out for is the polytheists - which I believe the Koran commands needs must be slain. I believe an atheist is no more evil to them than a Christian or a Buddhist.

Muslims think ALL religions other than Islam are evil and ALL religious believers, including Atheists, qualify as "non-believers" (in Islam) and therefore must be converted or killed.

[Seth]

they'll do in anybody who's not a book worshipper, and even then chretins and joos are not safe.

Nor indeed are Muslims themselves. In fact so far the largest number of people Muslims have killed have been other Muslims. That's really one of the best hopes for everbody else, that Sunni and Shiite will be perpetually at war with each other and kill one another off, thus eliminating our problem.

We should be trolling the Sunni with Shiite propaganda and the Shiite with Sunni propaganda and we should be encouraging them to fight among themselves.

If the Taliban have even one redeeming factor its that they cut the heads off their own people who stray from their fundamentalism, which is just fine with me...one less Muslim to bother the rest of the world.

I wonder how the last two Muslims on earth will resolve their dispute over which uncle is the right one. Fuckwits.

[Brian Peacock]

When I read these kind of questions I immediately think of things like, if a man wears his undies on the outside of his pants, should he do the dishes on Tuesday or Saturday? That depends, is he a size 10 or 11-12, and what's the moon like tonight?

[JimC]

fuckint, in a cahtolic country I can say I'm an atheist... try saying that in a muslamyc country

You can now, but back in the day there would be an interesting collection of torture tools waiting for you.

Modern day christianity is a relatively toothless tiger; in the past it has been just as ferocious as Islam. It did not abandon this position out of a moral re-awakening, but because it was dragged unwillingly to relative powerlessness by the inexorable tide of secularism in Europe.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

Atheism is living without an external moral compass calibration, and therefore atheists are more prone to deviation from moral behavior than those with a source of external calibration.

What complete and utter bullshit. There is a wide variety of ethical systems atheists and humanists may adopt. You are assuming that only religion (via a supernatural being's power) has either the right and/or the ability to provide moral guidance.

I thought you were against monopolies?

[NineBerry]

Fundamentally evil and proud of it.