Are Atheists Evil?

[idiosyncrasy]

A few years ago God was very much part of the lives of people. Even if one had doubts they were kept to oneself. Today there is almost as much pressure not to believe in God as there was to believe in him.
Is what is happening in the world today a result of man's trying to get along without God?

[idiosyncrasy]

Hello Goodlife, I was wondering when you were going to pop up.

[idiosyncrasy]

Lazygun@
We have Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Both expound their beliefs aggressively.
What I have noticed on this site on the various threads I have read through, is that the atheists favourite tactic is to stress the fact that by opposing evolution you are opposing science. No way.
What you should remember is that many of the greatest scientists were believers.

[LazyGun]

@goodlife
Yes, I think I can agree with that statement. For me, at least, the scale has now tipped firmly in the direction of religion doing more harm than good.

@ Octavius
Not sure that anyone would class "fighting for your life", or the survival instinct as being borne out of evil - at least I would not. And we often imagine that human communities would revert to savagery and barbarism given the right conditions, but I am entirely convinced that such a reversion would inevitably occur. For every rioter or looter for instance, you get many more people trying to uphold communal values...

[Octavius]

Agreed, so you get the goodies and the baddies on both sides of the palisade...assuming the "upholders of communal values" are the egalitarian goodies and not the bread-hoarding elite.

[LazyGun]

@ Idiosyncracy - Right. So this overarching pressure of atheism that you talk of - is down to 2 people, 1 dead? Against the might of the Papacy, or the Anglican Church, or the Muslim religion?

No, I do not buy it. What discomfits those with religion is that they now find people willing and able to question why religions and religious beliefs should be allowed such sway in our societies, why such beliefs, which lack any evidential foundation should be afforded respect, and why such beliefs hinder and counter progressive cultural developments, like equality for all.

And yes, if you reject evolution in favour of the creation myth, without any evidential or scientific basis, you are opposing science. Thats just a fact. Sure, there are scientists with faith - although that is increasingly rare - many studies and polls have shown that the higher your scientific qualification and study, the less likely you are to be religious.

Most scientists I know that have faith however, are entirely happy to accept evolution, and laugh equally hard at the lunacy and scientific illiteracy of the creationist mindset. If you reject evolution, the consilience of evidence from all of the different disciplines - geophysics, anthropology, evolutionary biology, molecular biology to name a few - then you reject the fundamentals of biology, chemistry and physics. Sorry, thats the way it is.

[LazyGun]

@ Octavius I take your point, and it appears that the essence of what I was trying to say got through despite my own grammatical error -

" but I am entirely convinced that such a reversion would inevitably occur. For every rioter or looter for instance, you get many more people trying to uphold communal values..."

Should have read " but I am NOT entirely convinced...." :)

[idiosyncrasy]

Lazygun@
Just because I mention two names does not mean there are not more.
Hitchens may be deceased but his books are still around influencing/pressurizing people.
Sam Harris is still around.
I don't really want to go down the line of atheism as that is not what I am looking for. However, atheism can manifest itself in three ways.

[LazyGun]

@ Idiosyncracy - Ahh, so the pressure you refer to comes from books and ideas, does it? So what should we be doing about that then? Banning them? Burning them? Censoring them?

Or perhaps, taking note of what they say, re-evaluating the faith and concluding that its not all it cracked up to be.

I must say, if your faith or your religion is so under threat or feeling so pressurised, then these ideas must be very powerful indeed, or your faith or your own ideas are so very weak. Which one is it, I wonder?

We should probably do away with education too, no? Since studies show that with greater education comes decreasing religiosity. We should probably also do away with material wealth and technological advancement as well, since again the correlation between such societies and religiosity tends to be inversely related.

So - there, we have cocooned and swaddled your faith, like a delicate infant, in the protective blankets of censorship, and blasphemy, and reduced education, and the relinquishing of material things. Do you feel better now? Is your faith more secure? Have we vanquished those spectres of knowledge, and ideas, and progress for you? Jolly good...

What are these 3 ways that atheism can manifest? I am vaguely intrigued...

[naomi24]

idiosyncrasy, //Hitchens may be deceased but his books are still around influencing/pressurizing people.//

I don’t understand why you think his books are pressurising people. No one is forced to read them.

[jomifl]

Since 'evil' is a christian concept then only christians can describe atheists as evil. Since atheist deny the exisence of the christian god they are therefore blashphemers and must be evil. So idiosyn.. is that the answer you wanted?

[idiosyncrasy]

LG@
I don't come under pressure myself. I have a strong belief in God as the Creator so I don't believe in evolution as a Big Bang. I do accept that some animals/plants may evolve in order to adapt to their environment but this is different than changing from one species/kind to another.
I don't feel under threat from philosophies etc. My beliefs are strong to overcome pressure from others as I have had to stand up to peer pressure on many occasions.
I don't agree with doing away with education! What on earth makes you think that? Technology has its place in society, it is only when it is ill used it can be dangerous. The relinquishing of materialism is surely up to the individual. I know I enjoy my car, my computer, tv, home and contents and even my holidays etc.
The three ways atheism manifests itself - surely you, as an atheist must know that.
Militant atheism
Theoretical atheism
Practical atheism

Jomiflo@
No. I have already mentioned that not all atheists are evil, just as all Christians are not good.

[LazyGun]

@ Idiosyncracy - just reading these boards, and your post appears, as if by magic.

Here is my issue, Idiosyncracy - You start with an open question " Are Atheists Evil?". Which of course infers that they are and you are simply asking a rhetorical question. Note - you did not type " Are some Atheists Evil?", You did not type Are the Religious Evil, or Are some religious evil - You typed "Are Atheists Evil".

Still, you claim to recognise that evil can and does happen regardless of faith or lack of it. which I suppose is a form of progress.

Moving on - In your OP you claim " almost as much pressure not to believe in god as there was to believe in him" . Now to me, thats a red flag REALLY? moment. You do not justify that claim or offer any evidence, You simply assert. And it simply is not true.

I then ask you to offer some evidence to support your claim -and you come back with "Dawkins and Hitchens" - their words and books, I suppose. So the pressure to conform with Atheism, this pressure- almost as great as the religions with their evangelical missions, their doorstep recruiting, their weekly Sunday seminars, their missionary missions - this pressure is a couple of talking heads and books?

The 2 do not balance - the 2 are not equivalent. The reality is that there is no external pressure to become an atheist or renounce your religion, but there is a growing realisation that the teachings of the faithful are lacking and have no evidence.

Then you go on to claim - again, without any evidence at all - whether "what is happening in the world" is all down to humanity converting to atheism in droves. This is just an absurd, empty,rhetorical question. You fail to quanitify what exactly it is that is happening in the world that demonstrates gods anger or active ignoring of mankind. You fail to demonstrate which part of the globe you mean - surely if god were to punish man for atheism he would punish man for apostasy too, and so some parts of the globe would essentially be smoking wrecks, fall of natural disasters only, or famine, or plagues of locusts or whatever?

So thats that sentiment comprehensively consigned to the rubbish bin.

And this is why I think you might not favour education, or modern day technology. To hold to a literal interpretation of the bible as an adequate explanation for creation of earth is extremely unscientific. By believing in a young earth you reject the fundamental principles of all of the major sciences. How can anyone who rejects the fundamental principles of all of the major sciences favour education?

Again you qualify, but that qualification is weak, as with the well-nigh irresistable pressure for atheism resolving in the words and works of Dawkins and Hitchins, your objection to evolution is qualified. You accept some evolution, you say. And thats the classic, grudging half hearted acceptance - "micro-evolution" its called- and you see creationists use this argument all the time. Its weak from them, it has always been weak, and it is a weak srgument from you now. And, whats Big Bang got to do with Evolution anyway? Explain...

Then, you go on to chide me. I asked you to expand upon your "3 types of atheism". In your reply, you see, surprised I am unaware - What? You think I read minds or something?. And then you give us your 3 types - your Neopolitan Atheist Ice cream with its 3 flavours - militant, theoretical and practical. Ermm - what?

Here is my next question to you - definitions of each, please, together with a practical example of how they differ from each other, otherwise your attempts to re-classify atheism go into the dustbin too.

So. Failed title. Unsupported and empty rhetorical assertions. Anti-scientific. Invented definitions. Any other logical fallacies you wish to add?

[naomi24]

idiosyncrasy, Without the advent of religion, and the subsequent pressure put upon the populace over thousands of years to believe, the term ‘Atheism’ would never have arisen. Just a thought – but I look forward to reading your three definitions.

[jomifl]

idiosyn, how can you say that not all atheists are evil, what evidence to you have to substantiate that assertion. One evil all evil, no need to try not to offend, we can take it. Where in your bible does it say that not all atheists are evil. It doesn't does it. Q.E.D. (or not)

[idiosyncrasy]

LG & Naomi@
You asked for the definitions of the three ways atheism manifests itself:
Militant atheism: - Is driven by its hostility to religion with the aim to suppress and oppress religious believers.
Philosophical atheism: - The assertion that God does not exist.
Practical atheism: - living as though God does not exist.

I am researching atheism, not that I am interested in it, I believe in God wholeheartedly and nothing will change that. But I am interested in finding out why people feel that they must deny God's existence. All that I have found so far reaffirms my belief.

Jomifli@I asked a simple question - Are Atheists Evil? Nothing underhand or ambiguous.

[RATTER15]

idiosyncrasy,
"I believe in God wholeheartedly and nothing will change that"

that is precisely the problem! totally blinkered and will not accept or believe anything else, whereas Atheists believe there is no god but if you show us evidence or proof of his existence we are open to review our beliefs.

[jomifl]

idio.. You also stated that not all atheists are evil which you have not substantiated.
There is no pressure not to believe in god that I am aware of. If some people feel a bit foolish when the basis for their belief is shown to be at the very least suspect and unable to withstand scrutiny then that is a matter for them. You can believe whatever you want but don't use your beliefs as a basis for judging others or making decisions that affect others.
As for 'trying to get along without god' I have no need to 'try' it is apparent that it is the theists who have the difficulties in trying to obey their god.

[LazyGun]

@Idiosyncracy. Thanks for your definitions.

Can you give me an example of when militant atheism has actually suppressed or oppressed religious believers? I would argue that what those with religion define as "militant atheism" is actually some atheists who quite happily and publically point out and ridicule the absurdities of religious belief.
And i really do not see any practicable difference between your definition of philosophical and practical atheists - can you offer me an example of a philosophical atheist - someone who denies god exists. to continue with you shorthand and slightly inaccurate description - and a practical atheist? I know of no-one who would deny gods existence and then live their lives as if a god actually does exist.

Your definitions are arbitrary and lack consistency and logic, idiosyncracy. And a question so binary in its implication " Are Atheists Evil" can only be interpreted as underhand or ambiguous in its intent.

You still have not offered any examples of real world events that lead you to assume that the world "turning away from god" leads to an increase in negative events, nor point to a time when humanity lived on an Earth that was a happy idyll.

And as Ratter points out - Telling everyone that nothing will change your opinion that god exists might, to you, signal strength of conviction. To anyone reasonable, the idea that people would refuse to recognise evidence that proves the contrary just goes to show how irrational your belief is....

[Sparkles62]

No what a ridiculous idea.
And as for atheists aggressivly campaining trying to persuade people against god,
I have never yet had an atheist come knocking on my door trying to convert me,
but I have had the catholics, C of E, jehovahs, mormons, etc, etc

[naomi24]

idiosyncrasy //Militant atheism: - Is driven by its hostility to religion with the aim to suppress and oppress religious believers.//

I think that’s a gross misconception. In my experience atheists may well be verbal in their opinions, but they don’t aim to suppress or oppress the religious. They would far rather the faithful reach alternative conclusions by subjecting their beliefs to honest and rational scrutiny, which usually they are unwilling to do.

Your other two definitions are so airy-fairy, they don't warrant consideration.

If you’re researching atheism, a good start might be to ask atheists why they are atheists. At the moment you appear to be making assumptions.