- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
My real reason for starting this thread is because of the constant religious arguments around here. I often see people who claim to be atheists talking about some act in the news as being "evil". It made me wonder if these people are actually atheists and understand what that means, or if they're just doing it to be fashionable or appear intelligent.
I like my thoughts as an Atheist. I believe that every person is their own God. We each possess nearly the same abilities as the biblical God, do we not? We can create life and we can destroy it as humans. We can control virtually everything around us in one way or another. So if each of us, as humans, are in our own way Gods, then we each define good and evil based simply on what we as Gods believe in, right?
Of course, theists will automatically denounce this reasoning because they have been taught to believe that there can only be one supreme being or "God" and that humans are not worthy of such a title because we have been "created" rather than formed by evolution. Although I call myself an Atheist, I am really more of a "self-believer" and feel that everyone else should be the same.
After further thought, I'm going to continue.
Why does morality and good judgment have to be reserved for theists anyway? It seems to me, more often than not, this thread as a prime example, that theists think they hold the high ground where morality and goodness are involved. I find that decidedly funny.
To elaborate further, lets analyze our closest animal relative, the primate. Now, how often will you see a primate, in it's native habitat with it's social group deny food to a fellow primate in good standing? I'd venture to say, it doesn't happen. Could we say that one primate performing the "hunting and gathering" for other primates is a simple function of "survival" then? I think we easily could. To continue, I think that as animals ourselves, we have an innate survival instinct, especially when it comes to those in our "social groups". For a human to see another human suffer or be eliminated from life is something that is associated with a failure of survival, an instinct born and bread within us through evolution. To simply say that evil cannot exist without God is ignorance at best.
So far in this thread, I've seen people equate good and evil with social functions and I don't think that's necessarily true, although the social aspect is one part of it. I think the primary definition of evil coincides with a violation of survival when survival is more or less guaranteed otherwise. It's easy to accept cannibals in 3rd world countries as being inherently "less evil" because their "evil actions" are somehow connected in one way or another to their general "survival" ability. A cat that kills and eats a bird is not necessarily viewed as evil because it's more of a survival instinct. However, see that same cat kill another bird and leave it to waste on the ground signifies that it was done with an intent other than survival, thus labeling the animal "evil". I think I've provided enough of an explanation on how "evil" and "good" can be defined simply on evolutionary (ie.-survial of the fittest) terms. In summary:
Evil is directly proportional to survivability factors in a society.
Of course, theists will automatically denounce this reasoning because they have been taught to believe that there can only be one supreme being or "God" and that humans are not worthy of such a title because we have been "created" rather than formed by evolution. Although I call myself an Atheist, I am really more of a "self-believer" and feel that everyone else should be the same.
After further thought, I'm going to continue.
Why does morality and good judgment have to be reserved for theists anyway? It seems to me, more often than not, this thread as a prime example, that theists think they hold the high ground where morality and goodness are involved. I find that decidedly funny.
To elaborate further, lets analyze our closest animal relative, the primate. Now, how often will you see a primate, in it's native habitat with it's social group deny food to a fellow primate in good standing? I'd venture to say, it doesn't happen. Could we say that one primate performing the "hunting and gathering" for other primates is a simple function of "survival" then? I think we easily could. To continue, I think that as animals ourselves, we have an innate survival instinct, especially when it comes to those in our "social groups". For a human to see another human suffer or be eliminated from life is something that is associated with a failure of survival, an instinct born and bread within us through evolution. To simply say that evil cannot exist without God is ignorance at best.
So far in this thread, I've seen people equate good and evil with social functions and I don't think that's necessarily true, although the social aspect is one part of it. I think the primary definition of evil coincides with a violation of survival when survival is more or less guaranteed otherwise. It's easy to accept cannibals in 3rd world countries as being inherently "less evil" because their "evil actions" are somehow connected in one way or another to their general "survival" ability. A cat that kills and eats a bird is not necessarily viewed as evil because it's more of a survival instinct. However, see that same cat kill another bird and leave it to waste on the ground signifies that it was done with an intent other than survival, thus labeling the animal "evil". I think I've provided enough of an explanation on how "evil" and "good" can be defined simply on evolutionary (ie.-survial of the fittest) terms. In summary:
Evil is directly proportional to survivability factors in a society.
I think a little thing called "perspective" will drive this question to have no answer... ever. Look at all these answers, perspective of the question and the crap your analyzing will always get the answer you want. Perspective is my personally philosophy, (I'm agnostic btw). It's evil if I think it's evil, it's not if I don't. I can see how it can be something else to you, but to me it'll probably always be evil 
Same for good btw
Same for good btw Sort of, but then it is no long "good and evil" it is simply the fact that one person can beat up the other person.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Rogue
I never stated that theists are more good or less evil than than atheists. I'm trying to find out how an atheist can even believe in the existence of good or evil.
Read the entire thread. You seem to equate good with survival, and evil as preventing survival. If the universe as it exists is purely based on chance, then why is survival good? Or even necessary. A species not surviving simply returns it to the accidental inorganic material from which it came.
I never stated that theists are more good or less evil than than atheists. I'm trying to find out how an atheist can even believe in the existence of good or evil.
Read the entire thread. You seem to equate good with survival, and evil as preventing survival. If the universe as it exists is purely based on chance, then why is survival good? Or even necessary. A species not surviving simply returns it to the accidental inorganic material from which it came.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
its up to you to find your purpose. you have a mind, you use it. its that or be a slave to a magical being, being sent to earth to suffer for a bit before the magic man decides its time to give everyone a heavenly vacation(assuming youve chosen the correction religion), its not all fine and dandy. that or you burn in hell, weee!
frankly i'd see very little purpose in life serving such a monsterous god.
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
What does purpose have to do with god? This is a discussion about atheism. If you can't separate the two, you need to think about it some more.
But you do bring up an interesting point: Find your own purpose. Without a god or a universal purpose, that's really all one can do. But right back to the main topic of this thread, choosing your own purpose negates the existence of good and evil. Charles Manson found a purpose. Was he evil?
Why do you assume the magical being people assume exists is a Christian one?
if ANY sort of god exists, Christian, Aztec, Zulu, Carmack, etc... then "good and evil" exist
othwise they don't
this is true and undeniable
arguing all day long about weathr god exists or what his nature is are very debatable
I never said survival was good, it's instinct formed from evolution. Of course, you're going to take it back to your "purpose" arguement which makes your question unable to be answered based on personal belief systems of every "God" that's posted to this point.
Evolution brings with it greater function and adaptability in a given space in a given time. You're completely trivializing simple chance in the vast scale of things. Have you never, ever, in your entire life seen something happen or wondered at any point, ever, in your entire existence that you simply could not explain or that simply defied logic or understanding based on your previous teachings in religion? If your immediate answer to everything is simply, "That was God's work" then there's no rationalizing with you about an Atheist's belief system or what an Atheist may define as good or evil. You must not believe at all in accident, chance or anything that is not pre-determined because through this entire thread, you've pretty much refused to believe anything other than that which you believe. Accident does not always equal purpose. Things in life that happen by accident often end up having a purpose, but other times they do not, right? So in essence you have asked a question that simply cannot be answered in the first place because each "God" to this point has provided their own answer anyway. The only difference between Theists and Atheists is that Theists have a tendency to believe the same thing, although that varies widely also. You've in essence asked "What color is the sky in your world?" and that's a question with an answer so varied by so many variables that it's virtually impossible to answer. I've given my way of rationalizing good and evil based on survival and evolution, a process that Theists simply refute because it goes against their belief system. With that rambling, I am done. And what a rambling it was. God made me do it!
Evolution brings with it greater function and adaptability in a given space in a given time. You're completely trivializing simple chance in the vast scale of things. Have you never, ever, in your entire life seen something happen or wondered at any point, ever, in your entire existence that you simply could not explain or that simply defied logic or understanding based on your previous teachings in religion? If your immediate answer to everything is simply, "That was God's work" then there's no rationalizing with you about an Atheist's belief system or what an Atheist may define as good or evil. You must not believe at all in accident, chance or anything that is not pre-determined because through this entire thread, you've pretty much refused to believe anything other than that which you believe. Accident does not always equal purpose. Things in life that happen by accident often end up having a purpose, but other times they do not, right? So in essence you have asked a question that simply cannot be answered in the first place because each "God" to this point has provided their own answer anyway. The only difference between Theists and Atheists is that Theists have a tendency to believe the same thing, although that varies widely also. You've in essence asked "What color is the sky in your world?" and that's a question with an answer so varied by so many variables that it's virtually impossible to answer. I've given my way of rationalizing good and evil based on survival and evolution, a process that Theists simply refute because it goes against their belief system. With that rambling, I am done. And what a rambling it was. God made me do it!
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Rogue, you really need to think a lot more about this before you try to claim religious people are sheep. You don't even understand what you believe. You're trying to prove you're right, by proving I'm wrong. And since I'm not religious and don't believe in god, you're whole premise here is flawed.
So some of you are implying that without a supreme being delcaring what is good and what is evil, you couldn't make that distinction? Without a god spelling it out for you, people may not always agree on whats good and evil (afterall, I don't think those participating in the crusades thought they were doing evil). Either way though as people we can make intelligent decision on good and evil, right and wrong, rude and polite all based on our upbringing in society. Much like a giant belch in the middle of dinner is known by most to be rude and inappropriate, most people learn from society that smashing people in the head with a hammer isn't quite right either. No god required there. Why would you need a god to have good and evil any more than you would to have right and wrong, polite and impolite, smart and dumb, etc? You don't know what they are at birth, but if take a random sampling of children at say 13, I'll bet that statistically they nearly all pick the sama catagory for a given act even if they're raised as athiests.
Actually I have the most trouble with religion giving people and inflexible idea of what is good and evil. How can they be wrong, its the absolute meaning of good or evil, right? "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." --Blaise Pascal
Actually I have the most trouble with religion giving people and inflexible idea of what is good and evil. How can they be wrong, its the absolute meaning of good or evil, right? "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." --Blaise Pascal
Where did I say Theists were sheep? There you go, a Theist turning their own words on me for your own benefit. Is self-service a requirement of God?
I could tell you what I believe, and I thought I did, but you would denounce it or question it the very same way I question your belief in something you cannot prove exists. So in the end, the arguement is pointless either way. I'm pretty sure, yep, I very sure that what I said in my diatribe was that everyone is going to see and believe what they want to see and believe, regardless of what's proven or not. Free will is something that I believe in and something that far more often than not, Theists surrender to their social gatherings and teachings. I believe that I am free to do what I want. I believe that I am free to impact my fellow man however I choose, whether it defies the aforementioned survival of myself or my species. I believe that you cannot define for me that I cannot believe in good and evil because I do not believe in a God. I believe that you do not even know a God exists and cannot prove it to me. I believe that you're wasting your time, much as I am about to stop doing with this thread, believing in something that causes you to spend time in a large building a day or two per week when you could be out impacting your fellow man in a much more direct manner. I believe I know what I believe. I believe that for you to question what I believe only means that you are not sure what you believe yourself. I believe in much more than that and I believe that wrapping it up into the word "God" is simply unbelieveable to me.
I could tell you what I believe, and I thought I did, but you would denounce it or question it the very same way I question your belief in something you cannot prove exists. So in the end, the arguement is pointless either way. I'm pretty sure, yep, I very sure that what I said in my diatribe was that everyone is going to see and believe what they want to see and believe, regardless of what's proven or not. Free will is something that I believe in and something that far more often than not, Theists surrender to their social gatherings and teachings. I believe that I am free to do what I want. I believe that I am free to impact my fellow man however I choose, whether it defies the aforementioned survival of myself or my species. I believe that you cannot define for me that I cannot believe in good and evil because I do not believe in a God. I believe that you do not even know a God exists and cannot prove it to me. I believe that you're wasting your time, much as I am about to stop doing with this thread, believing in something that causes you to spend time in a large building a day or two per week when you could be out impacting your fellow man in a much more direct manner. I believe I know what I believe. I believe that for you to question what I believe only means that you are not sure what you believe yourself. I believe in much more than that and I believe that wrapping it up into the word "God" is simply unbelieveable to me.
Actions are only good or evil in relation to a goal. In christianity the goal is simple: please god, go to heaven. An atheist must decide on a goal or purpose for life, and evaluate how an action would stand in relation to that goal.
If for example as some of you have said, your goal is the continuation of the human race, then killing is wrong because it acts against that goal.
All that being said, you get about 80% of your ethics from you upbringing, whether you know it or not. This accounts for the feeling some people have that you are 'born' with a sense of right and wrong.
LinuxBoy! Where are you?
If for example as some of you have said, your goal is the continuation of the human race, then killing is wrong because it acts against that goal.
All that being said, you get about 80% of your ethics from you upbringing, whether you know it or not. This accounts for the feeling some people have that you are 'born' with a sense of right and wrong.
LinuxBoy! Where are you?
the reason i bolded the your was to illustarte the fact that whatever your religion defines as good/evil may not be the same as some other religion defines as good\evil and again i reiterate god and good\evil have nothing to do with each other for me, they may for you but not for me and the millions of other atheists out there.
I think many people overlooked the signficance of the "for mankind=good" statement. I always figured that early man found out it was easier to survive in a group. When one member of the group killed, stole from, etc. others within the group, it jeopardized the entire group's well-being and was labelled "bad." That group grew bigger and became a society. This understanding started to become engrained in man's thinking and the difference between good and bad became almost instinctual. To put this understanding into words, a written moral code was developed. "Religion" was a wonderful method of teaching/explaining the moral code to people. So, do people have to learn the most basic sense of good and bad from religion alone? No. Even if it is never instinctual, society teaches children right from wrong immediately.
And I think the ideas behind good and bad, right and wrong are different from society to society. I'm sure even your ideas of right and wrong are slightly different from the ideas of your grandparents.
Oh, individuals can choose to have a purpose for their lives. Societies can have a purpose that goes beyond a lifetime. Is there a reason why we're here? Not necessarily. But why can't people develop a purpose to make their lives feel worthwhile?
I had missed Rogue's extended post before I wrote this, but I agree entirely. Why do theists believe they are always on a moral high ground?
And I think the ideas behind good and bad, right and wrong are different from society to society. I'm sure even your ideas of right and wrong are slightly different from the ideas of your grandparents.
Oh, individuals can choose to have a purpose for their lives. Societies can have a purpose that goes beyond a lifetime. Is there a reason why we're here? Not necessarily. But why can't people develop a purpose to make their lives feel worthwhile?
I had missed Rogue's extended post before I wrote this, but I agree entirely. Why do theists believe they are always on a moral high ground?
On a universal scale I can't say whether good and evil exist as absolutes. We don't know enough about the universal scale to make that judgement.
All the same, pragmatically they're convient to have around. For those who've pointed out societies making up religions and the morals that go with them, I think the most overarching thread behind them is that almost all of them revolve around the idea of "Doing otherwise will harm ME." I don't think anyone here would volunteer to be on the recieving end of a lot of what society calls Evils.
-- Jack
Which is it, is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's?
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
All the same, pragmatically they're convient to have around. For those who've pointed out societies making up religions and the morals that go with them, I think the most overarching thread behind them is that almost all of them revolve around the idea of "Doing otherwise will harm ME." I don't think anyone here would volunteer to be on the recieving end of a lot of what society calls Evils.
-- Jack
Which is it, is man one of God's blunders or is God one of man's?
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
Originally posted by: Soybomb
So some of you are implying that without a supreme being delcaring what is good and what is evil, you couldn't make that distinction? Without a god spelling it out for you, people may not always agree on whats good and evil (afterall, I don't think those participating in the crusades thought they were doing evil). Either way though as people we can make intelligent decision on good and evil, right and wrong, rude and polite all based on our upbringing in society. Much like a giant belch in the middle of dinner is known by most to be rude and inappropriate, most people learn from society that smashing people in the head with a hammer isn't quite right either. No god required there. Why would you need a god to have good and evil any more than you would to have right and wrong, polite and impolite, smart and dumb, etc? You don't know what they are at birth, but if take a random sampling of children at say 13, I'll bet that statistically they nearly all pick the sama catagory for a given act even if they're raised as athiests.
Actually I have the most trouble with religion giving people and inflexible idea of what is good and evil. How can they be wrong, its the absolute meaning of good or evil, right? "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction." --Blaise Pascal
No.
If a god exists, "good and evil" exist, but the people might still not know what it is. It is not a god's pointing it out to us that makes it exists. The existance of a supreme being makes it exist. Weather the people know he exists or have any societal customs, have no bearing on good and evil.
Good and evil are tied to the existance of a god.
The religion of the people does nto change anything.
If the Aztec gods exist, then "Good and evil" exist even if everyone on earth is Hindu or atheist.
People's correct or incorrect assumptions about what is "good and evil" do not change what is "good and evil.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 400
Facebook
Twitter