Evil is the absene of God? Read please...do you think it's true?

Question

To this the student replied, 'Evil does not exist sir or at least it does not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light.

what do you guys think about this?

Answer 1

To think of evil as only the absence of God is to commit a horrible injustice on all those who have been moral that don't believe in a God. Evil is not a metaphysical thing but an action. It is the action of using force and/or fraud to attain the actions one wishes. To compel another against their will to do something that is evil. To fool another for the purposes of gain is also evil. Force and fraud are tied together as the twins of evil because they both reject the search for the truth or demand that one understanding of world be accepted as the truth. Both deny the right of another person to use their mind. Morality ends were the gun begins, were force of some overrule the thinking of some or one.

Answer 2

Not at all. I'm warm and happy without God. I'm not amoral; my ethics are primarily Judeo-Christian with an emphasis on the Golden Rule. I'm sure some Fundamentalists will disagree. There are also many stories in the Old Testament of actions of God that can only be described as evil.  

Answer 3

The student is making the assumption that god exists. Rather presumptuous, don't you think?

Answer 4

Sounds like a very biased opinion to me.  It also depends upon what the user's definition of 'evil' is.  The judges that hanged, burned, drowned & pressed to death 'witches' throught the centuries certainly thought themselves full of God, while I would call them the blackest of evil.  I know many atheists (myself humbly included) that live very decent, charitible and moral lives with no supernatural influence whatsoever.

But it's understandable; many who are raised with intense religious upbringings can't understand any other way of living.  It's just another form of ethnocentrism.

Answer 5

To determine whether an action is good or evil, right or wrong, Buddhist ethics takes into account three components involved in a karmic action. The first is the intention that motivates the action, the second is the effect the doer experiences consequent to the action, and the third is the effect that others experience as a result of that action. If the intention is good, rooted in positive mental qualities such as love, compassion, and wisdom, if the result to the doer is wholesome (for instance, it helps him or her to become more compassionate and unselfish), and if those to whom the action is directed also experience a positive result

thereof, then that action is good, wholesome, or skillful (kusala). If, on the other hand, the action is rooted in negative mental qualities such as hatred and selfishness, if the outcome experienced by the doer is negative and unpleasant, and if the recipients of the action also experience undesirable effects from the action or become more hateful and selfish, then that action is unwholesome or unskillful.

It is quite probable that on the empirical level an action may appear to be a mixture of good and bad elements, in spite of the intention and the way it is performed. Thus, an action committed with the best of intentions may not bring the desired result for either the doer or the recipient. Sometimes an action based on negative intentions may produce seemingly positive results (as stealing can produce wealth). Due to lack of knowledge and understanding, people may confuse one set of actions with an unrelated set of results and make wrong conclusions, or simply misjudge them on account of social values and conventions. This can lead to misconceptions about the law of karma and loss of moral consciousness. This is why precepts are necessary in the practice of moral discipline: they provide definite guidelines and help to avoid some of the confusion that empirical observation and social conventions may entail.

Buddhist moral precepts are based on the Dharma, and they reflect such eternal values as compassion, respect, self-restraint, honesty, and wisdom. These are values that are cherished by all civilizations, and their significance is universally recognized. Moral precepts that are based on such values or directed toward their realization will always be relevant to human society, no matter to what extent it has developed. Moreover, their validity can be empirically tested on the basis of one's own sensitivity and conscience, which are beyond factors of time and place. Killing, for instance, is objectionable when considered from the perspective of oneself being the victim of the action (although when other lives are subjected to the same act, its undesirability may not be felt as strongly). The same is true with regard to stealing, lying, and sexual misconduct. Because Buddhist moral

precepts are grounded on these factors, their practicality remains intact even today, and their usefulness is beyond question.

Answer 6

I think it is in the wrong section.

Try Religion and Spirituality.

Right and wrong are moral issues, as is good and evil.

You are trying to say a Godless person cannot be good.

AND THERE ARE THOUSANDS THAT CAN PROVE YOU WRONG.

Answer 7

1) This takes a subjective view of things.  With the possible exception of light, the dichotomies could be looked at from the opposite side.  We could define cold as a stillness of the particles within a substance and thus heat becomes the absence of this stillness.  Cold exists and heat is just an illusion created by its absence.  Evil exists and god is just an illusion created by its absence.

2)As stated this only accounts for human evils.  Natural evils still present a problem.  Even if we stand on perceived evils being an illusion, we must consider the fact that an illusion preventing us from seeing the good is itself an evil.

3)Because God is capitalized here, we can assume that the student is referring to the Christian conception.  Since this conception includes the quality of omnipresence, it begs the question as to how there could be an absence of God.