Evil means a Christian God cannot exist?

[drifblim70]

@E-boy: yeah, I guess that argument works, assuming that omniscience covers knowledge of the future, but God is supposed to exist outside of space and time, so I suppose it would.

@Darkmalice: so you think that this world exists as a preparatory course for the afterlife? You think that "the death of innocent people is required in order to make it obvious to the world that evil exists and is at large?"

Those arguments would only work if God was not omnipotent. Unfortunately, you have already defined him (or Him, whatever, a little sacrilege goes a long way) to be so, and thus, God should definitely be able to teach humans to be properly moral without using the death of other innocent humans as an "example"--even if we, as humans ourselves, couldn't come up with a better way (which I'm, to be frank, damn sure we could). You've also defined God to be omnibenevolent, which, as I assume you already know, means "all good." In other words, if God is omnibenevolent, all of his actions must be purely good; we shouldn't be able to point to any of them and say that they are morally questionable, as we are right now. If you want to say God's definition of morality differs from ours, be my guest, but then... should we really be worshipping this God so blindly, if his/His morality is so vastly different from ours?

If all God had to do to stop senseless human suffering was show the world he existed, he should've done it by now; hell, he could even wipe our memories afterward or something because he's GOD. You are viewing God's acts as though he is some human trying to establish a utopia. He isn't: he's GOD, and by your own definition he is omnipotent, i.e. he cando anything.

In order for your argument to make any sense at all, you must admit one of the following things: 1) that God is not actually omnipotent; 2) that God is not omnibenevolent by the human definition, meaning that He acts upon his own standards of morality, standards which may or may not benefit humanity. You seem to agree with #2, but I don't think you fully comprehend the implications of that response: it means that God can do whatever he likes, as long as it falls on the "good" side of his rules, not ours. All of this assumes the existence of God as the sentient being that Christians describe Him as.

Christians had better hope to God that he likes the people who suck up to him; who knows? Maybe he likes the underdogs, the rebels, the ones who attempt to commit moral acts despite what God defines as morality. Maybe that's the real test of humanity. Maybe Hell is the real Heaven; maybe there really isn't an afterlife, or a God, after all, but we're not very comfy with that.

Everything you've said relies upon heaven's existence, so I'll ask a corollary question: If heaven exists, who gets there? Must you be Christian to get in? Did Gandhi get into heaven, in your opinion (you don't have to be right, I understand that you don't have God's omniscience, just state your opinion).

 

[Obsessed]

Just out of curiosity, how do Christians determine what is true, and what isn't true?

Like... God advocates the death penalty. However, he has lied before as part of a test. For all you know he might be strongly against the death penalty. It is plausible that he was testing whether or not people would be willing to commit the most abhorrent of acts (murder) just because he advocated it.

If your God lied once as part of a test how can you be sure of what is the truth, and what is a lie?

 

[umbarsc]

If evil were simply an absence of good, that would imply that there were an "absolute zero" on the "goodness" scale. In other words, the point in which all the good has been removed. However, "goodness" extends infinitely in either direction. Most people would agree that killing a person is evil, killing two people is more evil, and killing a schoolbus full of children is the most evil of the three. You can always get more evil by killing one more person - killing n people is generally less evil than killing n + 1 people - but you can't get past absolute zero temperature by removing a more heat.

It also forces you to draw a sharp line between good and evil, which isn't possible - there has to be a continuum.

I don't see why. There is a sharp line between positive and negative numbers, after all. Actions could be "more" or "less" evil, but there could still exist a line between the two.

 

[J-man]

Just out of curiosity, how do Christians determine what is true, and what isn't true?

Like... God advocates the death penalty. However, he has lied before as part of a test. For all you know he might be strongly against the death penalty. It is plausible that he was testing whether or not people would be willing to commit the most abhorrent of acts (murder) just because he advocated it.

If your God lied once as part of a test how can you be sure of what is the truth, and what is a lie?

Does the Bible say God lied, or did you concoct this out of your feeble mind?

Yeah, i'm back. I shall never quit... However, you're gonna have to put up your arguments again, cause i'm sick of making great walls of texts.

 

[lati0s]

If God was omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, life would be perfect without evil, as God would give us everything we wanted plus more. But then what would the point of life be?

It was never stated that god would give you everything you want, if a quest would be more fulfilling to you that is certainly would an omnibenevolent god would give you. Also there are many meaningful and fulfilling things that you could do in a world without evil or suffering, for example I love mathematics, I find learning about and discovering mathematics to be enjoyable and fulfilling, there is nothing about removing evil from the world that would prevent this.

I believe that life isn't perfect for a reason, a reason we will never find out but a reason that exists.

I believe that 2+2=5 for a reason, a reason that we will never find out but a reason that exists.

We need to learn from a non-perfect world with evil, and learn how to differentiate good from evil,

I have never murdered, I have never desired to murder, I have never witnessed a murder, I have never known anyone that was murdered, and yet I have a perfect understanding of what murder is and why it is wrong. Evil in the world is not necessary for people to learn to differentiate between bad and good.

help others,

Evil and suffering are not necessary for people to help each other. For example, suppose I had a friend who was struggling in their math class and I helped them out so they could understand it. was there evil here? NO. was there people helping others? YES

and become good people ourselves whilst avoiding evil, something that is impossible in a perfect world where there is no need to help other people.

I fail to see how the existence of evil and suffering is necessary for me to learn how to be a good person. As I outlined above, in a suffering and evil free world I could still understand evil and learn to help others

A part of the test is also developing faith in God

What I don't understand is why god wants faith. I truly do not see what is advantageous about it

If God stopped evil e.g. didn't let the Jews die after being taken to extermination camps and soldiers surviving shots to the head, then it would be plain obvious that it was the work of the divine.

If god is truly omnipotent then he could do anything as subtly or overtly as he wanted

Believing in God would be easy

Again, I do not see this as a bad thing, why would god want to hide himself from humanity so that the majority of the world would be completely unaware of his existence

Knowing that God exists, everyone would try to be as good as possible and cease any act of evil.

Unless the people themselves were different, I very much doubt that simply being aware of gods existence would cause everyone to not want to do evil, and if they did I would see this as only a good thing

Evil would then cease to exist, and it would be impossible for people to learn how to differentiate good from evil, help others, and become good people ourselves whilst avoiding evil. Hence the purpose of the test would be void.

As I posted above, all these things are perfectly possible in an evil free world. furthermore for god the purpose of any test is void because tests by definition exist to collect information, but god already knows everything so he needs no test.

With evil, having faith in God is also a difficult task, which makes the test of doing good and avoiding evil even more difficult.

But see, god doesn't need to make a difficult test, because he already knows exactly to what extent any person will remain faithful, under exactly which circumstances they will desire evil etc.

This means we learn more and are better prepared for the after live, so we will enjoy the after life even more.

If god is truly omnipotent then he is capable of teaching us everything we could learn in this life and more without invoking the use of evil or suffering.

This point is separate from what I have already stated, but I have heard a theory (can't remember who made it) that evil is a lack of good. Simply put, evil exists where good does not

This is wrong, me tying my shoes accomplishes no good, but only a fool would call it evil.

If God made us perfect, we would be 100% good, and evil would not exist. We would then become like robots, only capable of doing good instead of having the choice to commit good or evil

The existence of only good people does not preclude the existence of choice, god is omniscient so he knows under what circumstances a person will choose good before he creates them so god could give people free will but then only create people that he knows will choose right.

(and rendering the purpose of God's test void once again). l

But the purpose of god's test is already void because he knew the result before conducting the test.

Therefore, evil must exist if there is to be purpose in life,

As I showd before it is definitely possible to find fulfillment and purpose in a life that exists in a world without evil

and I honestly doubt that any one individual is pure good.

If a person is not all good, it is because god knowingly created them that way


EDIT: @J-man please look at post number 339 for my argument, it is not a wall of text I promise

 

[Obsessed]

Does the Bible say God lied, or did you concoct this out of your feeble mind?

Yeah, i'm back. I shall never quit... However, you're gonna have to put up your arguments again, cause i'm sick of making great walls of texts.

Umm...

God told Abraham he wanted him to sacrifice his son. God actually didn't want Abraham to sacrifice his son. That is considered lying in my book.

Please don't think that I am making stuff up about the Bible. I read the Old Testament starting at age 7, all the way up until I was 15. I went to a Jewish fucking day school. I know the Old Testament pretty damn well. It is generally accepted that God lied to Abraham in order to test Abraham's loyalty.

If you really need me to I could post the whole story here directly from the Bible.

Also you might want to edit your post. Ad Hominems (Grr! You don't share my beliefs therefore you have a feeble mind!) will only get you infracted. I would hate for you to get infracted/banned before you answer our/my questions.

And ugh... why do we have to post our arguments again? They would still be walls of text. Just read them.

Anyway I did have three questions for you. Please answer them as best as you can.

Why should we believe the Bible?

How do we know that the Bible is the word of God?

How do we know that the Bible is infallible?

 

[MrIndigo]

@J-Man:

And in addition to Obsession's questions:

How do you choose which texts are the truth? The Quran states it's the word of God too, but you reject it in favour of the Bible. My question is how you differentiate between godly sources and nongodly sources.

 

[E-boy]

@E-boy: yeah, I guess that argument works, assuming that omniscience covers knowledge of the future, but God is supposed to exist outside of space and time, so I suppose it would.

Something that exists out of space and time just can't exist. If God existed outside of time we should be able to prove his existence in the future, but since he always exists out of time, no matter how far in time we go, we'll always have to say "we can prove him in the future", if you get what I mean. (This means we'll never be able to prove his existence)
And something that exists out of space can't have an influence on 'space'. Also God is believed to be immanent, so yeah, he must exist in space.

 

[Ruby Soho]

I'm feeling rather pretentious, so I'm going to jump into the ring.

One of the essential problems with the "evil exists and if god were 3O, he would not allow that so therefore the christian god cannot exist" argument is that it pre-supposes universal definitions of good and evil.

People get around this by saying things like, "ok ruby, you pretentious prick, imagine a world where there is no crime, and one where there is, isn't the world where there is no crime is undeniably a better world, right??"

But if you think about it, that doesn't really make sense either. In fact, one of the major trends of modern moral philosophy is that it is entirely impossible to define what "good" is. Any attempt we make falls into what G.E. Moore calls the naturalistic fallacy.

http://fair-use.org/g-e-moore/principia-ethica/chapter-ii (this link starts his attack on utilitarianism and kant, read if you want to know why exactly those two are not valid definitions of good)

If you enjoy philosophy less than me and don't feel like picking through Moore, he is probably the most influential moral philosopher in modern times. What he essentially argues is that good is a basic element. Basic in the sense that it is impossible to define. It just is.

If we concede that we cannot define what good is, how can we pretend to know what evil is? We know that good cannot be defined as pleasure, due to the MYRIAD of problems with utilitarianism (and see link above), and following that logic evil cannot be defined as suffering. Attempting to define evil in terms of good is no use either, since good cannot be defined, it still sheds no light onto what evil actually means.

Good and Evil then, are like the words big and small. Merely basic adjectives which describe something. The argument that evil exists so God cannot exists requires a UNIVERSAL definition of evil, rather than a comparative one. To explain, this bottle cap on my desk may seem small to me, but to an ant, it seems awfully big. In the same sense, something which may seem good to somebody may seem evil to somebody else (like abortion for instance, but I merely point out the disagreement between reasonable people, and do not wish to open that can of worms here or call anybody wrong). The other big problem with a universal definition of evil, is how drastically the word changes historically. Today, most people consider War as evil, but to the Classical Greeks of Athens and Sparta, war was honorable, noble and essentially good. To simply declare that what we consider evil is correct and all past societies were full of themselves seems even more pretentious than what I am doing. It is far more reasonable to realize that good and evil are shifting words and that nothing is evil in and of itself- only in the minds of individuals and collections thereof.

Thus because nothing can be evil in and of itself in a vacuum, the existence of what I consider evil has no bearing whatsoever on whether a 3O god can exist.

The most comfortable definition of these moral terms is as expressions. People think they know what good is, and define certain acts as such. It is very difficult from a philosophical standpoint to create a universal definition of good, and many great philosophers have tried and been proven wrong by simple thought experiments over and over.

In short, the existence of what I may consider evil, is in no way inconsistent with the existence of a 30 god, due to the necessarily limited definition of what evil can mean.

 

[cantab]

One of the essential problems with the "evil exists and if god were 3O, he would not allow that so therefore the christian god cannot exist" argument is that it pre-supposes universal definitions of good and evil.

But so does Christianity. If there is no universal definition of good or evil, the whole thing about heaven and hell and sin and righteousness and salvation and all the rest of it all collapses.
It may well be impossible to create a concise definition of 'good' or 'evil' in human language, but in Christianity they have to be absolutely defined, even if the definition is known only to God.

 

[Anachronism]

Does the Bible say God lied, or did you concoct this out of your feeble mind?

^That statement is hilarious

Multiple contradictions in the bible courtesy of GOOGLE.COM:

http://biblical.justdrew.net/taxonomy/term/11

I apologize for turning this discussion into a one about whether or not the bible is the word of God, but I would say that the original question is much easier to determine the answer to if the proper context is given first. I think that those multiple contradictions are enough to show that the Bible is a HUMAN invention, and the makers of the bible knew nothing more about God than the average person does. It is simply first-hand accounts of people who have supposedly had relations with God or Jesus. These accounts were then found and compiled years later, translated, edited, and then translated and edited several more times to create the English bibles that we have today. Anyone who has used google translator or who has gone to translationparty.com knows that even if the original bible was compiled completely out of things that God and Jesus actually did and said, by the time it has been edited and translated the bible may have a completely different message than it originally did.

 

[J-man]

But so does Christianity. If there is no universal definition of good or evil, the whole thing about heaven and hell and sin and righteousness and salvation and all the rest of it all collapses.
It may well be impossible to create a concise definition of 'good' or 'evil' in human language, but in Christianity they have to be absolutely defined, even if the definition is known only to God.

Something i'd like to point out: Without a higher being than man, there is no such thing as good and evil.

^That statement is hilarious

Multiple contradictions in the bible courtesy of GOOGLE.COM:

http://biblical.justdrew.net/taxonomy/term/11

I apologize for turning this discussion into a one about whether or not the bible is the word of God, but I would say that the original question is much easier to determine the answer to if the proper context is given first. I think that those multiple contradictions are enough to show that the Bible is a HUMAN invention, and the makers of the bible knew nothing more about God than the average person does. It is simply first-hand accounts of people who have supposedly had relations with God or Jesus. These accounts were then found and compiled years later, translated, edited, and then translated and edited several more times to create the English bibles that we have today. Anyone who has used google translator or who has gone to translationparty.com knows that even if the original bible was compiled completely out of things that God and Jesus actually did and said, by the time it has been edited and translated the bible may have a completely different message than it originally did.

Courtesy from Google: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm#6

 

[Ruby Soho]

But so does Christianity. If there is no universal definition of good or evil, the whole thing about heaven and hell and sin and righteousness and salvation and all the rest of it all collapses.
It may well be impossible to create a concise definition of 'good' or 'evil' in human language, but in Christianity they have to be absolutely defined, even if the definition is known only to God.

Simply because the question posed is designed to attack Christianity does not mean an answer to it pre supposes Christianity. My point was not that Christianity is correct, indeed the first thing I do is dismiss Christianity's view on morality as being philosophically unsound. I merely purport that the existence of a 3O god is not inconsistent with the existence of what is perceived as evil. Imho, it is impossible to use logic and philosophy to prove whether god exists (yes I do think Descartes made some illegitimate logical bounds to reach his conclusions), or doesn't exist.

Further, as a second point, even if you assume the universal definition of good does exist by virtue of God being the only being capable of comprehending it, then you cannot assume that evil things actually happen. Since only god knows what things are evil, we can only guess, and if we think something is evil and happening in the world, then we have guessed wrong.

The other problem is it is a circular argument. What you want to say is that if there is a universal definition of evil, then god cannot exist. But when you define good- and by extension evil- to require God's existence, then showing an inconsistency only shows that your definition of good is flawed and nothing about god. This is because he is required to exist to invoke the very universal definition you need to disprove him. Its trying to say God causes a paradox when in fact you've defined good as a paradox and carried it through the equation. Its like assuming "P = not P" in logic, when you assume a paradox, you can prove ANYTHING.

 

[cantab]

Something i'd like to point out: Without a higher being than man, there is no such thing as good and evil.

No. God or no God, 'good' and 'evil' still have meaning. The meanings may be different, and without assuming God it seems harder to claim them as always absolute - though some actions, such as murder, have been considered evil in the vast majority of societies past and present. (Probably because a society that considered murder good would self-destruct.) But if you claim that "Without a higher being than man, there is no such thing as good and evil.", I first ask you to define what you mean by 'good' and 'evil'. I very much doubt there is any definition that would imply the existence of a higher being without assuming it - your argument thus probably ends up circular.

(If you want my definition - good and evil are what an individual or a society considers them to be.)

Imho, it is impossible to use logic and philosophy to prove whether god exists (yes I do think Descartes made some illegitimate logical bounds to reach his conclusions), or doesn't exist.

It's impossible to use logic and philosophy alone to prove whether anything exists or does not exist.

In general I agree with both of your posts, but I don't find them all that relevant. Of course, MANY posts in this thread haven't been very relevant to the OP, including many of my own

 

[J-man]

No. God or no God, 'good' and 'evil' still have meaning. The meanings may be different, and without assuming God it seems harder to claim them as always absolute - though some actions, such as murder, have been considered evil in the vast majority of societies past and present. (Probably because a society that considered murder good would self-destruct.) But if you claim that "Without a higher being than man, there is no such thing as good and evil.", I first ask you to define what you mean by 'good' and 'evil'. I very much doubt there is any definition that would imply the existence of a higher being without assuming it - your argument thus probably ends up circular.

(If you want my definition - good and evil are what an individual or a society considers them to be.)

Would you like to know what will eventually happen if society gets to decide what's good and evil? Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea, Present day Iran. These are arguably the best cases of society without God deciding for what is good and wrong, and they all lead to the greatest Human misery, suffering, and death.

 

[Obsessed]

Something i'd like to point out: Without a higher being than man, there is no such thing as good and evil.

Something I'd like to point out: I kindly reposted my questions as you requested, as did Mr. Indigo. Would you kindly answer them when you get the chance?

Also your statement is wrong. I can define good and evil in such a way that they still exist whether or not a god does.

Good - Actions that have a positive impact on society.

Evil - Actions that have a negative impact on society.

Also:

I am sure that most Christians today would view stoning an adulterer to death to be a very barbaric thing. However, the Bible advocates this. No I am not making this up. I'll post the exact Bible quote if you desire. Anyway, you do not follow that specific passage in the Bible because you consider the action it condones to be evil. Ultimately you, and all other Christians, pick and choose which laws/morals/commandments you follow based on your own sense of what is right and wrong.

Oh and your whole argument rests on the supposition that the Bible is the word of God. If it isn't then you are simply following a moral code set by people several thousand years ago. Which brings me back to:

How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?

How do you know that the Bible is infallible?

Why should we believe the Bible?

 

[J-man]

Something I'd like to point out: I kindly reposted my questions as you requested, as did Mr. Indigo. Would you kindly answer them when you get the chance?

Have Patience, i will get to you.

Also your statement is wrong. I can define good and evil in such a way that they still exist whether or not a god does.

Did you not read the above post.

Good - Actions that have a positive impact on society.

Evil - Actions that have a negative impact on society.

Sure they exist in word, but without someone with authority over man to enforce these definitions, man is virtually free from having to own

Also:

I am sure that most Christians today would view stoning an adulterer to death to be a very barbaric thing. However, the Bible advocates this. No I am not making this up. I'll post the exact Bible quote if you desire. Anyway, you do not follow that specific passage in the Bible because you consider the action it condones to be evil. Ultimately you, and all other Christians, pick and choose which laws/morals/commandments you follow based on your own sense of what is right and wrong.

Oh and your whole argument rests on the supposition that the Bible is the word of God. If it isn't then you are simply following a moral code set by people several thousand years ago. Which brings me back to:

How do you know that the Bible is the word of God?

How do you know that the Bible is infallible?

Why should we believe the Bible?

Ack, i shall see yo tomorrow, ran out of internet time.

 

[Veldurak]

I'm sorry if my post doesn't match the current discussion going on, but I read the first post and then skipped to the back. I think that evil does not mean that God can't exist.

My reasoning is that hardships make us better when we overcome them. We simply wouldn't improve without trials or evil. If Adam & Eve stayed in the garden forever, not knowing good or evil, they would have just existed, not improving. That is the purpose of the devil, to tempt us but ultimately make us stronger. The strongest steel is forged in the hottest fire. Another reason is that I think that the universe as a whole fits together too perfectly to have happened as an accident.

 

[Ruby Soho]

Would you like to know what will eventually happen if society gets to decide what's good and evil? Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea, Present day Iran. These are arguably the best cases of society without God deciding for what is good and wrong, and they all lead to the greatest Human misery, suffering, and death.

This has to be the worst argument ever. People in general cause each other suffering. And they will do that whether or not they believe god exists. Honestly, if you are going to rely on your statement above, look at what I have below. By your logic the only acceptable religion is Buddhism, because their virtues don't lead to death, destruction and corruption.
FUN FACT: Iran had a democratically elected president in the 1950s, who wanted to interfere with Big Oil companies because they were cheating his people out of tons of money and he wanted control of his own country's resources. Eisenhower declared he was a communist, had the CIA over throw him, and install a the old religious zealots back in power, throwing the country into turmoil with the entire educated population holding a grudge against the US (and for good reason). The entire reason Iran is like it is today, was so the US oil companies could milk more money from a corrupt government in iran

Lets not even get into what attrocities The Church Has commited in His glorious name. Slaughtering hundreds of Muslim civilians during the crusades... Various inquisitions, using ruthless pre suppositions of guilt, and merciless executions of entire villages of heretics for no other reason than they practised the Mass slightly different than the Church... the list goes on and is not pretty. Lets not forget that the Church followed "God's morals" and not "societies"

So don't point your finger at the mistakes of other countries and blame their actions on their godlessness. Its just childish. I believe the quote is something like people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

The argument I made earlier for why there is no universal definition of good stands. And your "example" does nothing but attempt to invoke dogma, propaganda, and sentiment to disprove it.

 

[Obsessed]

Sure they exist in word, but without someone with authority over man to enforce these definitions, man is virtually free from having to own

Ack, i shall see yo tomorrow, ran out of internet time.

Well yeah... but your argument then amounts to appeal to consequences.

See you tomorrow.

 

[cantab]

Would you like to know what will eventually happen if society gets to decide what's good and evil? Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea, Present day Iran. These are arguably the best cases of society without God deciding for what is good and wrong, and they all lead to the greatest Human misery, suffering, and death.

Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia fell. Communist China is changing. North Korea will quite possibly fall.

And present-day Iran is very much a society that considers itself with God. As were several religious groups in the 19th century USA, and US society at those times in general, that supported slavery. As were a very large number of societies that used torture in their judicial systems - including the USA in the 21st century.

Indeed, believing that one is carrying out the will of God allows one to excuse any behaviour.

In any case, your arguement is a logical fallacy.

 

[MrIndigo]

Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia fell. Communist China is changing. North Korea will quite possibly fall.

And present-day Iran is very much a society that considers itself with God. As were several religious groups in the 19th century USA, and US society at those times in general, that supported slavery. As were a very large number of societies that used torture in their judicial systems - including the USA in the 21st century.

Indeed, believing that one is carrying out the will of God allows one to excuse any behaviour.

In any case, your arguement is a logical fallacy.

In fact, he also seems to be making the post hoc ergo procter hoc mistake, assuming that the USA have God's blessing because they haven't fallen (yet).

Hitler was also apparently very religious, so Nazi Germany wasn't even a society without God. Nor was fascist Italy, really.


EDIT: Also, there's a complicated but completely cogent argument that defeats the "Atheists can't have morality because they don't have God". The requirement for the moral code mandated by a God is always tested against man's own morals, which means that man must be capable of making moral decisions without God in the first place. Furthermore, the loophole is "my opinion of morality is not opinion, because I am deferring to God's" doesn't get around the fact you have to make a choice about who to defer to in the first place, which you do by choosing which religion fits with your own moral judgment in the first place.

 

[SSBM roy]

Would you like to know what will eventually happen if society gets to decide what's good and evil? Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, North Korea, Present day Iran. These are arguably the best cases of society without God deciding for what is good and wrong, and they all lead to the greatest Human misery, suffering, and death.

This is, for the most part, the usual historical revisionist boilerplate that Deck Knight has graced us with countless times, but I did a double take when I noticed the inclusion of Iran in that list. Are you seriously suggesting that a country recognized as a theocratic republic, the population of which is 98 percent Muslim and where blasphemy is illegal is an example of atheism run amok? I'm speechless.

 

[cantab]

Hitler was also apparently very religious

Well Hitler's religious beliefs have long been debated. He certainly professed Christianity in public, but that may have been for political reasons. In Mein Kampf he repeatedly expressed his belief in God however. While Hitler may not have been Christian, he was certainly not an atheist.

 

[MrIndigo]

Well Hitler's religious beliefs have long been debated. He certainly professed Christianity in public, but that may have been for political reasons. In Mein Kampf he repeatedly expressed his belief in God however. While Hitler may not have been Christian, he was certainly not an atheist.

I would conjecture that even if atheists were all nihilists (and they're not), that would make them less likely to commit heinous acts like genocide, because they lack the conviction afforded by a belief in an all-powerful being having your back.