Zone1 Atheism Has No Basis for the Idea of Good or Evil, Just or Unjust

[Weatherman2020]

CS Lewis on his conversion to Christianity. He says in Mere Christianity:

But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea
of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was
bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself
in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water
animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was
nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—
for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen
to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words,
that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my
idea of justice—was full of sense.​

 

[GreatestIam]

Atheism Has No Basis for the Idea of Good or Evil, Just or Unjust​

I am not an atheist, but have seen them use the greater good as a basis.

The good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

I see atheists walking their talk, statistically, as where there are more of them and less religious, they produce a more peaceful and law abiding people.

Now if we could just get the religious to be more atheistic.

That would really help out the world.

Right?

 

[Votto]

CS Lewis on his conversion to Christianity. He says in Mere Christianity:

But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea
of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was
bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself
in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water
animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was
nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—
for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen
to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words,
that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my
idea of justice—was full of sense.​

So long as right and wrong do not have an agenda of some kind, truth is easy to see.

 

[BULLDOG]

CS Lewis on his conversion to Christianity. He says in Mere Christianity:

But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea
of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was
bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself
in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water
animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was
nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—
for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen
to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words,
that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my
idea of justice—was full of sense.​

So CS Louis was a religious nut. Only a total idiot would say atheism has no basis for good and evil.

 

[Cougarbear]

So CS Louis was a religious nut. Only a total idiot would say atheism has no basis for good and evil.

It doesn't. If you say it does, what is your basis? How do you logically reason something is good or evil? Where does your hypothesis begin, end, get started? Please do enlighten us.

 

[GreatestIam]

So long as right and wrong do not have an agenda of some kind, truth is easy to see.

Your evolution has an agenda. Be it successful depends on those around you.

Our right and wrong sides, compete and cooperate, have agendas that default to cooperation and love, not hate.

The hate bias is in us at that point, but will not rise unless that which is loved is put into jeopardy.

 

[Cougarbear]

So long as right and wrong do not have an agenda of some kind, truth is easy to see.

Without a basis, you would not have truth as your hypothesis. Another word in this case for "agenda" is "basis." Without this, you have not right or wrong to recognize.

 

[Cougarbear]

Atheism Has No Basis for the Idea of Good or Evil, Just or Unjust​

I am not an atheist, but have seen them use the greater good as a basis.

The good of the many outweigh the good of the few.

I see atheists walking their talk, statistically, as where there are more of them and less religious, they produce a more peaceful and law abiding people.

Now if we could just get the religious to be more atheistic.

That would really help out the world.

Right?

The greater good for who? The Jews or the Nazis? The concept of the good of the many out weigh the good of the individual is democracy in it's purest form of tyranny. Kill the few that you believe is causing the economic problems. Stalin, Mao and Hitler did it. As did every tyrant throughout history.

So, Democrats are mostly atheists you are saying. So, we should have lots of peace in America. Yet, we have more violent crime than ever before now. The country has been turning away from their God for decades and it shows in corruption, confusion of basic things such as man and woman and simply the violence and wokeness we see tearing apart America. Joe Biden, as was Obama, the divider in chief.

 

[GreatestIam]

Without a basis, you would not have truth as your hypothesis. Another word in this case for "agenda" is "basis." Without this, you have not right or wrong to recognize.

I think I agree. I need an example though and will try genocide as a basis.

Is it right or wrong for a God who can cure all things, to kill?

 

[GreatestIam]

The greater good for who? The Jews or the Nazis? The concept of the good of the many out weigh the good of the individual is democracy in it's purest form of tyranny. Kill the few that you believe is causing the economic problems. Stalin, Mao and Hitler did it. As did every tyrant throughout history.

So, Democrats are mostly atheists you are saying. So, we should have lots of peace in America. Yet, we have more violent crime than ever before now. The country has been turning away from their God for decades and it shows in corruption, confusion of basic things such as man and woman and simply the violence and wokeness we see tearing apart America. Joe Biden, as was Obama, the divider in chief.

My reply was religious and yours was political.

You lose the religious issue.

Thanks for nothing.

 

[Cougarbear]

I think I agree. I need an example though and will try genocide as a basis.

Is it right or wrong for a God who can cure all things, to kill?

That's not a basis. Are you advocating for or against genocide as your basis? Also, what is your entire doctrine behind your pro or con on genocide?

 

[Weatherman2020]

So CS Louis was a religious nut. Only a total idiot would say atheism has no basis for good and evil.

Atheism has a basis for good and evil.

Mao, Stalin, Manson, Pol Pot all had basis for good and evil.

 

[Cougarbear]

My reply was religious and yours was political.

You lose the religious issue.

Thanks for nothing.

I see no difference between religious or political. I gave a perfect example and you have not. You should thank then for everything.

 

[Cougarbear]

Atheism has a basis for good and evil.

Mao, Stalin, Manson, Pol Pot all had basis for good and evil.

Their doctrine is basically Marxism as their belief. So, their decisions are predicated on the economy of their tyranny they poses. Genocide is good for them to eliminate the poor that suck up the welfare needs for the greater good of the middle class and above.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Their doctrine is basically Marxism as their belief. So, their decisions are predicated on the economy of their tyranny they poses. Genocide is good for them to eliminate the poor that suck up the welfare needs for the greater good of the middle class and above.

Still, everyone has a basis for good and evil. And without God, that basis can change randomly by the hour.

For an atheist evil and good are subjective. They can simply change their mind and technically eliminate all evil in the world simply by thought process.

 

[WinterBorn]

I have been an atheist for many years. My basis for good and evil is simple. Is someone harmed by it? Yes? It is evil.
Is helping someone providing a better life for them (even for a short time)? Yes? It is good.

 

[WinterBorn]

Still, everyone has a basis for good and evil. And without God, that basis can change randomly by the hour.

For an atheist evil and good are subjective. They can simply change their mind and technically eliminate all evil in the world simply by thought process.

I am an atheist. And good and evil are not subjective. Murder is evil. Rape is evil. Child abuse is evil. I do not need a religion to see this.

 

[Cougarbear]

Still, everyone has a basis for good and evil. And without God, that basis can change randomly by the hour.

For an atheist evil and good are subjective. They can simply change their mind and technically eliminate all evil in the world simply by thought process.

But they don't. Marxist become Tyrannists and destroy, kill and get rid of free agency over the people's lives.
A moral basis that yields good cannot change unless you decide to be evil. Then, your basis has to change.

 

[dblack]

Morality is an evolved trait of human societies. It promotes survival of the species. While religion has often been used to promote specific visions of morality, it is not the source.

 

[dblack]

Still, everyone has a basis for good and evil. And without God, that basis can change randomly by the hour.

So can religious faith. Arguably, it's less reliable than a person's lifelong values and convictions.

They can simply change their mind and technically eliminate all evil in the world simply by thought process.

So can religious people.