Because even if you remove the question of deities, the horrors of reality still remain.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A Problem of Evil for Atheists
- Thread starter Saint Frankenstein
- Start date
Because even if you remove the question of deities, the horrors of reality still remain.
Maybe I'll find an article from an atheist or naturalist that argues from a pessimistic, nihilistic and antinatalist position and post it. 
Whiterain
Get me off of this planet
Moral and Ethical right and an understanding of sadism.
Sadism
[sey-dist, sad-ist]
noun 1. Psychiatry. a person who has the condition of sadism, in which one receives sexual
gratification from causing pain and degradation to another.
2. a person who enjoys being cruel.
Given the principles of accepted moral and ethical belief sadism should be one of the
factors in the understanding of an "evil" person. Whether or not evil in the metaphysical
is a real phenomenon will simply just take more time.
My idea of evil is deliberately bringing harm onto other; in a sense of sadism. Not really
bringing other factors in like corporate scandals or actions brought into questioning a
personal belief in moral and ethical practice and understanding; it should be nearly
universal by this age.
Does evil take place in nature though? Certainly... Nature bores some heinously wicked
things to life, life Ebola, plague, Angler fish, The Clinton's.
What goes on in war is it evil? Extremely. Particularly when the values of the hero and warrior
have been reduced down into cold blooded killers; with the former values being "boy scout" bs.
It's the elimination of the understand of Evil that is taking place; warfare in general has been
insatiably heartless. Killing in the name of justice is something I understand yet there is a
vague line in killing being noble, it rarely is. Use examples like Hitler, Hillery Clinton, Johnson,
Nixon, Charlemagne, Kim Jong-Un, Longshanks... Would killing any of these people be Noble?
It depends on what side you are on and were your faiths lay. But, we have law and an elaborate
and humane justice system now. Yet, it is faulty and not all are brought justice in either argument
and it often times is abused. I mean, we are leaving a metaphysical understanding of "evil" and
how it should be handled with the crime. Evil and nature on the other hand is still evolving, it
is mostly a human agreement though centuries of being refined from metaphysical into more
humanely dealt with crimes. Unless you're in some **** hole in the world with a religious judge,
then you're probably going to get screwed; but it's getting more humane.
Sadism
[sey-dist, sad-ist]
noun 1. Psychiatry. a person who has the condition of sadism, in which one receives sexual
gratification from causing pain and degradation to another.
2. a person who enjoys being cruel.
Given the principles of accepted moral and ethical belief sadism should be one of the
factors in the understanding of an "evil" person. Whether or not evil in the metaphysical
is a real phenomenon will simply just take more time.
My idea of evil is deliberately bringing harm onto other; in a sense of sadism. Not really
bringing other factors in like corporate scandals or actions brought into questioning a
personal belief in moral and ethical practice and understanding; it should be nearly
universal by this age.
Does evil take place in nature though? Certainly... Nature bores some heinously wicked
things to life, life Ebola, plague, Angler fish, The Clinton's.
What goes on in war is it evil? Extremely. Particularly when the values of the hero and warrior
have been reduced down into cold blooded killers; with the former values being "boy scout" bs.
It's the elimination of the understand of Evil that is taking place; warfare in general has been
insatiably heartless. Killing in the name of justice is something I understand yet there is a
vague line in killing being noble, it rarely is. Use examples like Hitler, Hillery Clinton, Johnson,
Nixon, Charlemagne, Kim Jong-Un, Longshanks... Would killing any of these people be Noble?
It depends on what side you are on and were your faiths lay. But, we have law and an elaborate
and humane justice system now. Yet, it is faulty and not all are brought justice in either argument
and it often times is abused. I mean, we are leaving a metaphysical understanding of "evil" and
how it should be handled with the crime. Evil and nature on the other hand is still evolving, it
is mostly a human agreement though centuries of being refined from metaphysical into more
humanely dealt with crimes. Unless you're in some **** hole in the world with a religious judge,
then you're probably going to get screwed; but it's getting more humane.
So?...
Removing deities wouldnt mean evil never existed but that evil is a lot more personal.
Whiterain
Get me off of this planet
The idea of moral and ethical right and wrong should be universal. It's also a matter of one's under-
standing of conscience and whether or not one believes in such things as honor and integrity. Honor
for me is part of my sense of conscience, integrity and right and wrong. If I lie or do some kind of
moral or ethical wrong it hurts my honor and the deceit or guilt may weigh on you; many people do
not believe in such things this age, either.
There is no such thing as honor, I disagree; some have no sense of honor and moral and ethical
right is constantly questioned. People like this should be the one's in question, not our sense of
formality.
Deities aren't necessary but their archetypes gave many people the understanding of chivalry,
malevolence and benevolence.
standing of conscience and whether or not one believes in such things as honor and integrity. Honor
for me is part of my sense of conscience, integrity and right and wrong. If I lie or do some kind of
moral or ethical wrong it hurts my honor and the deceit or guilt may weigh on you; many people do
not believe in such things this age, either.
There is no such thing as honor, I disagree; some have no sense of honor and moral and ethical
right is constantly questioned. People like this should be the one's in question, not our sense of
formality.
Deities aren't necessary but their archetypes gave many people the understanding of chivalry,
malevolence and benevolence.
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
The "fact" of evil does not exist.
It is too subjective.
Cannibalism is evil in the west, but good in New Guinea.
Its all relative.
It is just life which is very often anything but fair, although humans introduced law to reduce overt harm to the society.
Nothing is Black and white, good or evil. Everything is grey ie somewhere in between.
Is war ever justified is it good or evil
Is capital punishment ever good. Apparently in IS beheading is fantastic fun, I am sure they don't think its evil.
Who am I to say that one tribes customs are good or evil. Admittedly I would never want to live in such a tribe.
The premise is naive as it assumes some false axioms.
Cheers
It is too subjective.
Cannibalism is evil in the west, but good in New Guinea.
Its all relative.
It is just life which is very often anything but fair, although humans introduced law to reduce overt harm to the society.
Nothing is Black and white, good or evil. Everything is grey ie somewhere in between.
Is war ever justified is it good or evil
Is capital punishment ever good. Apparently in IS beheading is fantastic fun, I am sure they don't think its evil.
Who am I to say that one tribes customs are good or evil. Admittedly I would never want to live in such a tribe.
The premise is naive as it assumes some false axioms.
Cheers
Last edited:
Jumping in late here but I have to take issue with the OP:
This premise is flawed. For the most part, it describes no atheist I know of. For the most part atheists await evidence of a supernatural being and would acknowledge one given sufficient evidence.
This premise is flawed. For the most part, it describes no atheist I know of. For the most part atheists await evidence of a supernatural being and would acknowledge one given sufficient evidence.
Yerda
Veteran Member
That's the problem of evil sorted then.
For the most part, atheists are waiting only for busses and trains.
And also for doctors, spouses, airplanes & the next airing of The Walking Dead.
and the next, and sadly last, Odd Thomas book.
I tend to disagree and go more with natalist than anti. I look at it as existence is inherently worth more than non-existence and I feel the same about life, that life is inherently worth more than non-life no matter what the species. With that I can always consider life worth something as it is a rare gem in the universe which appears to not have too much life able to get through the struggles. I think death and suffering is just a result of life being able to exist and death is an illusion in that death has nothing to do with whether the life managed to survive because life survives through lineage and individual potential suffering is well beyond the point of life striving in general.
I disown this thread. Lmao.
Cephus
Relentlessly Rational
Good and evil, right and wrong, all of these are subjective concepts that have no objective meaning whatsoever. You cannot find a single moral precept that has been consistent across history and throughout the world. It's all open to change as people's opinions change. Therefore, the whole concept of atheism and evil is absurd, it means nothing, any more than theism and evil means anything.
CarlinKnew
Well-Known Member
As an atheist I actually enjoyed the article. Although the question was defined excessively, it's a worthwhile question nonetheless. The question is targeted to someone, like myself, who believes that it would be better if people whose lives are predominated by pointless suffering were never born. Knowing that my future descendant could be one of those people, is it immoral for me to procreate? The question comes down to probability. If I'm wealthy, with good genetics, and the future looks bright, I'd say procreation is a moral act: my descendants are likely to have positive lives, but again it's not definite.
Bunyip
pro scapegoat
Well yes, the problem of evil just does not translate from Christian theology to atheism.That's the problem of evil sorted then.
Evil is just a subjective label, not something that exists as a force or objective reality.
It could also come down to how long a view you take. What if your immediate progeny have miserable lives, but then the next 100 generations that follow are walkin' in tall cotton?
DayRaven
Beyond the wall
I often wonder if I could (by magic or science) take Richard Dawkins back to the time of Jesus and he witnessed the events (assuming for this argument that the gospels are accurate) the crucifixion and three days later he witnessed the empty tomb and then he saw and poked (like Thomas) his finger in the living Christ's wounds would he really believe? (in fact I wonder this for myself as much as Mr Dawkins).
Faith isn't really about facts, as I see it, it is what you stand for.