Originally posted by Nimzovik
What is the fundamental principle of evil? Evil is a very subjective term. How do you measure 'evilness'? Is it purely based on what scripture says? To an atheist, scripture are texts that have been completely made up and has no meaning, so you can quote scripture till you are blue in the face, and it will remain to be meaningless. An atheist doesn't believ ...[text shortened]... to go through labor! Get my point? Atheists are indeed dangerous.
My reply is a bit long as I am addressing your points as much as I can. Your comments are in bold.
'Evil is a very subjective term.' No. Not in accordance with the Christian perspective. Evil is just that --Evil. Where do I begin?
On an atheist perspective, religious scripture does not mean anything, so to define evil based on this scripture also is meaningless. Evil outside scripture is interpreted in many ways by different people, therefore is subjective.
1) Satan. In terms of the Christian tradition there is an actual being of Evil...
Atheists do not believe in Satan or Satanism either, so this point is irrelavent.
2) Demons. The number of documented incidences in terms of encounters (of course all documentation can be dismissed if it conflicts with one's perspective) is extensive throughout CULTURES and throughout AGES in regard to encounters with Evil. That in itself is an interesting phenomenon if not on a religious level then at LEAST on a sociological/archaeological or scientific level. By my lights such evidence is far more than just 'primitive, delusional, hallucinating man' or mental Illness. Such ideas are far too dismissive.
Likewise for Demons, they also do not exist to the atheist. I would be interested in "evidence" for demons, and I don't mean documentation which could easily be written by someone who completely misinterpreted something. I mean scientific evidence for demons, with references and examples and we can take it from there, rather than you just saying there is on a "sociological/archaeological or scientific level".
3) Man's depravity. The effects of Evil in regard to man's personal choices are rampant. To observe the world and behold the unspeakable atrocities man has committed against man is by my understanding blatantly obvious. Nuclear bombs. Abortion etc. Need I go on? Next issue. 'How do you measure 'evilness'? Simple really. You are Evil. Period. Shocking? Let us look at this in terms of the Christian tradition. The atheist. A-Theist is a term that probably will require defining if this discussion is to continue. Let us use the term in the kindest way possible as one who just does not believe in God as opposed to wishing to directly oppose Him. Why do I say you are Evil?
You calling me evil does not shock me in the slightest. Infact, it is exactly what I expected from you. Certainly many people have committed acts which are immoral (where I have specified how a humanist can conduct his life that isn't based on scripture, which you have addressed later, and I will also return to that point).
1) Like all humans we have the propensity of sinning that is, the Evil acts that man has done thru the ages. You are not immune. Understand I speak from the perspective of a Christian. I have no particular animus toward you personally. I DO have angst concerning you however for several reasons. More on this to come. Back to my thesis of why you are Evil. Either one accepts God or one is in open rebellion whether they are aware of it or not. Period. This is again in accordance with the Christian Scripture perspective. I realize that you may view yourself as one that has no ill will toward his fellow man. You may even be involved in charitable works. You may be a 'humanist' (I just love that term.....) However by spreading the FAITH of Atheism (You can not logically prove God does not exist therefore you take it on FAITH) you deprive people that may be amenable to the Christian faith.
I can understand why you would have this view on a christian perspective, but on a humanist (I know you are desparaging towards this term, but will come to this in later points) perspective, scripture was not written through some devine intervention. Therefore describing something as a sin based on scripture will not mean anything.
Coming to your point on "faith of atheism". It is not based on faith, it is based on probabilities. No right minded atheist can prove that God doesn't exist, and no right minded atheist will ever attempt to do so. It is best illustrated by Betrand Russell's teapot:
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Likewise, this can applied to pastafarianism. A satirical religion where people worship the flying spaghetti monster. Certainly you cannot prove that such a being doesn't exist, but the probabilities of it existing is so small that you might as well say it doesn't exist, just like a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars.
Now apply this to a Christian God. No sensible atheist will say a Christian God 100% doesn't exist but can say that they are 99.99999999999999999% sure (of course, not an exact figure, but just to illustrate the point that the probabilities of a Christian God's existance is so miniscule you might as well not acknowledge it).
You have asked me to clarify as to the nature of Evil to which I responded with a rather brief answer. I could elaborate further however I do not think you would listen. Note: you do not ask what I would call the real question regarding this issue. I have asked this before on this forum and got zero answers. The real question is this: What dear atheist is GOOD? How do you define it? What is your ....source? Why is your source correct? I have delineated as to the Christian perspective what is good. It is what God says is good. You apparently offer a statement somewhat related to this issue IF I understand correctly..."I will rather have morals ON MY OWN STRENGTH,TREATING OTHERS WELL THROUGH THINKING IT THROUGH LOGICALLY, then just because someone somewhere said you will "burn in hell" if you do what they say. “ Bold lettering mine. No offense but this is laffable. So. YOU are to determine what is right are you? How dare you. Hitler thought he was right and logical too, yes? Perhaps he viewed himself as a humanitarian? You inflict your values on others? What if you are a politician? You pass laws based on what you logically think through? This is just one of my points. NO OBJECTIVE, MUTUALLY AGREED UPON TRUTH. This is one difference between us.
If you use such strawman tactics, then it isn't really a lot of point debating. If you have read my last post carefully, you will find that I haven't even attempted to define good. To me, good, bad and evil are subjective terms. People interpret them in a multitude of different ways, so it is meaningless to use them unless you specify precisely what it means on a case by case basis.
I specifically said that a humanist (which will be agnostics as well as atheists) subscribes to a code of conduct that he/she will make decisions or perform actions which take into account human values. For example, a humanist will view that this is the only life we have. Therefore we would life a happy and fulfilling life without distraction of spending lots of time reading the bible, praying and going to church every Sunday. They can logically conclude that other people also want to live a happy and fulfilling life, and do not want to get hurt, so a humanist will live by the standard that this can be achieved as much as possible for everyone.
So, I haven't been determining what is right, just living a life which will be beneficial to everyone as a whole as much as possible.
Logically thinking through something is the best way at which to come to conclusions, there isn't any other way to the humanist.
Christians at least endeavor to cohesively espouse one basic philosophy. Always successful? No. I can't speak for all denominations. Personally I am a Catholic. We have well defined cannon law with a tradition of 2000 years. What gives Christians the right to lobby for my perspective if they are the politician? How dare we? In theory we have the spirit -read holy spirit- for our guide. We recognize soul. We cherish Spirit. I realize this is rubbish to you. Why? Because you rely, apparently, on pure logic. Empathy too eh? THAT is cute. Pathetic. One needs it's (logic) opposite -what you may call intuition although this term is sadly .....lacking. Try looking with BOTH eyes. Here is a thought Atheist... Where do humans come from, eh? Why evolution of course! Let us extrapolate from this wonderful LOGICAL idea. If we be products of abiogenisis, or from ultimately a microbe then the human has no soul.... No spirit.... We are mere 'Bio- machines.' Voila! We atheists now can kill our children if it is convenient. Because WE ATHEISTS have LOGICALLY thought this to be true. We will call it abortion! And to assuage our collective conscience (oooops wrong word here -conscience must be an ignorant religious concept.) we will call the baby a bio mass! Yah! A fetus! Just like in the old slave days we will take it's name (baby) away and depersonalize it! Kill the kid at 9 months? Sure! The preborn have NO constitutional rights to LIFE liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What gives us the Authority? We are HUMMNITARIANS! It is just too painful for a poor mother to have to go through labor! Get my point? Atheists are indeed dangerous.
Yes, we are bio-machines. Do not have a soul or spirit...
06 Oct '09 23:542 edits
Two Opinions
Back to Top