Understanding Atheist philosophy .

Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Understanding Atheist philosophy .

Does the atheist believe in Good and Evil?
I was talking to my friend, a Female Atheist, that did not
Believe in good or evil. When I asked her to
Explain, she did not know how to.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
What you experience are

What you experience are sensations of pleasure or pain to various degrees. These are pretty highly correlated with what is beneficial or harmful to one's survival. So we label 'good' the pleasure and beneficial things, evil is  associted with pain or harm.

Because we are social animals capable of empathy, we can relate to the experiences of others(aka feel their pain). So we catorize what happens to others as good or evil. But the bottom line is because we're products of evolution, good and evil concepts are 100% about survival. What religion has done is hijack these concepts in order to control people.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Exc

Thank you for your quick reply.

I'm having a hard time understanding These sensations compared to
a killer, for example. What fo you call a person who takes pleasure in raping and killing a child if evil and good is not proper terminology ?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'd wait until the

I'd wait until the psychiatric evaluation to specify, but in general I'd say the person was broken or handicapped.

However, atheism itself has no philosophy. Every atheist has their own views. Some believe in good and evil, and some don't.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Thank you for

Jimenezj wrote:
Thank you for your quick reply. I'm having a hard time understanding These sensations compared to a killer, for example. What fo you call a person who takes pleasure in raping and killing a child if evil and good is not proper terminology ?

Psychologists would call them a sociopath. A person that lacks empathy and derives pleasure causing pain to others. The cause can be understood scientifically as some combination of environmental and genetic factors. There is no devil or 'evil' in men's souls that causes this condition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy

Calling people 'evil' that do these things do not help. In fact, they often enjoy being thought of this way. Science are reason are the way to treat this condition, not superstition.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Exc

You said:
Psychologists would call them a sociopath. A person that lacks empathy and derives pleasure causing pain to others. 

There are several serial killers that lived normal lives, had a normal family and some were even professionals like doctors and psychiatrist which they would have had empathy , just to have and be in a family, empathy is evident.  I do believe serial killers lack empathy based on the facts of the lives of some of then on the link provided. 

http://www.buzzfeed.com/craigslistkiller/the-normal-lives-of-10-notorious-serial-killers?s=mobile

Going back to good and evil. 
Most people consider themselves good or positive people. 

But what constitutes good or positive? It is certainly not our way of living, for many live very well normal lives to include a serial killer. Some of the killers even take pleasure and benefit to their acts. It is evident that pleasure and benefit is also not what constitutes good or positive as you stated. 

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Jimenezj wrote:

Going back to good and evil.  Most people consider themselves good or positive people. 

But what constitutes good or positive? It is certainly not our way of living, for many live very well normal lives to include a serial killer. Some of the killers even take pleasure and benefit to their acts. It is evident that pleasure and benefit is also not what constitutes good or positive as you stated. 

The problem with serial killers is that they cause suffering to victims and their family and friends, which spreads to their family and friends and throughout society.  Good behavior is judged by how it increases the well-being and reduces the suffering in society.  Evil behavior is judged by how it decreases the well-being and increases the suffering in society.

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It has been discovered that

It has been discovered that people are capable of pretending to be something they're not in order to fit in with their surroundings and avoid persecution. Mimicing empathy is one of the things people can do, even if they don't experience it personally.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Exc

You said:
But the bottom line is because we're products of evolution, good and evil concepts are 100% about survival. 

How is that? In which way is good and evil pertain to survival? 

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You said:

Jimenezj wrote:
You said: Psychologists would call them a sociopath. A person that lacks empathy and derives pleasure causing pain to others.  There are several serial killers that lived normal lives, had a normal family and some were even professionals like doctors and psychiatrist which they would have had empathy , just to have and be in a family, empathy is evident.  I do believe serial killers lack empathy based on the facts of the lives of some of then on the link provided.  http://www.buzzfeed.com/craigslistkiller/the-normal-lives-of-10-notorious-serial-killers?s=mobile Going back to good and evil.  Most people consider themselves good or positive people.  But what constitutes good or positive? It is certainly not our way of living, for many live very well normal lives to include a serial killer. Some of the killers even take pleasure and benefit to their acts. It is evident that pleasure and benefit is also not what constitutes good or positive as you stated. 

I think with these people it's a combination of being a good actors and having selective empathy for those they deem good. But for their victims for whatever reason they did not. Take Ted Bundy for example, he obviously had issues with women but probably not so much men. I think it's also multiple personality disorder(Jeckyle and Hyde).

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You said: But

Jimenezj wrote:
You said: But the bottom line is because we're products of evolution, good and evil concepts are 100% about survival.  How is that? In which way is good and evil pertain to survival? 

Evolution tells that a behavior or some genetic quality that enhances survival will become more prevalent over time. We make judgements about 'good' or 'evil' based upon how it enhances survival.

For example, why is a serial killer 'evil' while a soldier that kills 'good'? Serial killers are evil because they are bad for your survival, while a soldier that kills your enemy is 'good'. So all judgements about what is good and evil can be mapped to how they enhance or impede survival of the people making the judgement.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

You said,

Good behavior is judged by how it increases the well-being and reduces the suffering in society.  Evil behavior is judged by how it decreases the well-being and increases the suffering in society.

What do you consider yourself ?

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:You said,

Jimenezj wrote:
You said, Good behavior is judged by how it increases the well-being and reduces the suffering in society.  Evil behavior is judged by how it decreases the well-being and increases the suffering in society. What do you consider yourself ?

I think science has shown that we're only motivated by sensations of pleasure and pain. We have no free will to be otherwise.

So the only question is how much cooperation does one have with others and how much does one use others for their own pleasures. I personally don't dirive much pleasure from causing pain to others except occasionally as revenge. I have a limited desire to want to help others, I've usually found that no 'good' deed goes unpunished. I don't have much patience for people that just want to take advantage of me. I only want to associate with people that are willing to give as much as they take.

So I don't make any judgements about good or evil, only beneficial or harmful. I would say the net benefit of my existence to most other people is positive.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Exc

So by them being Actors or pretenders which is a form of falsehood or a lie. Which would imply a negative effect as in evil. Correct? Correct me if I'm wrong.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Does the

Jimenezj wrote:
Does the atheist believe in Good and Evil? I was talking to my friend, a Female Atheist, that did not Believe in good or evil. When I asked her to Explain, she did not know how to.

You don't have to "believe" in good or evil. We observe it. Killing an innocent child any sane person would find bad. Giving CPR to a heart attack victim, most sane people would consider good. So that is not the issue.

The issue isn't that good or bad exist. The REAL issue is the subjective nature of cultural differences and political differences. That is what humans really fight over. How do we socialize and determine what is acceptable or not acceptable.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Exc

It's interesting that you said :

1. how much does one use others for their own pleasures. 

2. I personally don't dirive much pleasure from causing pain to others except occasionally as revenge.

 3. I only want to associate with people that are willing to give as much as they take.

4. I would say the net benefit of my existence to most other people is positive.

This point of view is what early teachers taught in a Negative philosophy . It is negative or evil because Hate and revenge  is made possible, for  Example:

1.  Confucianism, Plato , Aristotle  ,Islam, Hindu and other, all follow (Do Not= Negative or evil)

"What you DO NOT wish for yourself, do not do to others."

Or 

Don't hurt me and I will not hurt you. You help me and I will help you. Don't help me and I will not help you. 

A positive philosophy would be one were Love and Compassion is made possible. 

Example: (Do = Positive or Good)

"DO to others whatever you would like them to DO to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.

Matthew 7:12 

With this positive philosophy, the gift of love and giving is made possible and eliminates the negative part of hatred, revenge and rebellion

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:It's

Jimenezj wrote:
It's interesting that you said : 1. how much does one use others for their own pleasures.  2. I personally don't dirive much pleasure from causing pain to others except occasionally as revenge.  3. I only want to associate with people that are willing to give as much as they take. 4. I would say the net benefit of my existence to most other people is positive. This point of view is what early teachers taught in a Negative philosophy . It is negative or evil because Hate and revenge  is made possible, for  Example: 1.  Confucianism, Plato , Aristotle  ,Islam, Hindu and other, all follow (Do Not= Negative or evil) "What you DO NOT wish for yourself, do not do to others." Or  Don't hurt me and I will not hurt you. You help me and I will help you. Don't help me and I will not help you.  A positive philosophy would be one were Love and Compassion is made possible.  Example: (Do = Positive or Good) "DO to others whatever you would like them to DO to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:12  With this positive philosophy, the gift of love and giving is made possible and eliminates the negative part of hatred, revenge and rebellion

You compartmentalize yourself into a believer's box by buying into a superstition.

What you miss is that both the "good" and "bad" in human life are not a matter of the inventions of anyone's myth, but a result of evolution.

If evolution depended anyone's pet god in our species history, we never would have evolved. No human in our history, no group, no label, no nation, no race, no religion, invented "good" or "bad'. We have, in our species history, took myth and ideology, and marketed those claims to suit our own desires.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Just sayin'

“Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.”
Confucius, 500 years before Matthew.

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Just sayin'

Good and evil are just abstractions relative to circumstance and culture.
As far as your dismissal of the theory that evil is a lack of empathy, i would point out to you that sociopathic personalities generally excel in the art of blending in, they become consummate actors. Pretending to emotions and entering relationships for which they have no real feelings.
Ted Bundy worked on a suicide hot line, quite successfully by all accounts even while he was butchering young women.
John Wayne Gacey was a family man, a political activist and a fairly successful small businessman, while he was strangling young men and hiding them in his crawlspace.
Just examples...

LC >;-}>
 

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:So by them

Jimenezj wrote:
So by them being Actors or pretenders which is a form of falsehood or a lie. Which would imply a negative effect as in evil. Correct? Correct me if I'm wrong.

The problem here is that religion and superstitious thinking poisons everything, including language. 'Evil' is something invented by the religious/superstitious to describe these mysterious forces that seem to be against them. Since I'm not a superstitious person, I take things a face value and don't read in to something more than there is evidence. So, I can say that their behaviour is highly harmful to their victims and society at large, nothing more.

Moving forward, I'd like to see science and reason applied to the problem of harmful criminal behavior. I'd like to see these behaviors greatly reduced or eliminated. Just labeling things as 'evil' and telling the perpetrators they're going to hell doesn't really work. Religion and moralizing has been around awile so we can see it doesn't really solve any problem, it just stands in the way of science/reason developing a solution.

So by you embracing the concepts of 'good' and 'evil', I believe you are causing harm to others and society by standing in the way of solutions. By embracing things that don't work you are doing harm.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:It's

Jimenezj wrote:
It's interesting that you said : 1. how much does one use others for their own pleasures.  2. I personally don't dirive much pleasure from causing pain to others except occasionally as revenge.  3. I only want to associate with people that are willing to give as much as they take. 4. I would say the net benefit of my existence to most other people is positive. This point of view is what early teachers taught in a Negative philosophy . It is negative or evil because Hate and revenge  is made possible, for  Example: 1.  Confucianism, Plato , Aristotle  ,Islam, Hindu and other, all follow (Do Not= Negative or evil) "What you DO NOT wish for yourself, do not do to others." Or  Don't hurt me and I will not hurt you. You help me and I will help you. Don't help me and I will not help you.  A positive philosophy would be one were Love and Compassion is made possible.  Example: (Do = Positive or Good) "DO to others whatever you would like them to DO to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:12  With this positive philosophy, the gift of love and giving is made possible and eliminates the negative part of hatred, revenge and rebellion

I think life is balance between showing a willingness to cooperate and compromise while at the same time protecting yourself from being taken advantage(aka fucked over).

I think these philosophies of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "turn the other check" are just setting people up to be taken advantage of. I've seen so many people get screwed by supposed 'good Christians'. The predators find easy pickings among the lambs that adopt these philosophies.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is onlineOnline
IMNSHO

Jimenezj wrote:
Does the atheist believe in Good and Evil? I was talking to my friend, a Female Atheist, that did not Believe in good or evil. When I asked her to Explain, she did not know how to.

 

 

 

 

                    I know how to  ;    Tim Tebow 'good:religous: miraculous'.     St.Thomas of Brady 'better: NOT religious: Professional'.     I don't know what Brady thinks of religion but I do know that since he joined the NFL he never credited any fairy tales to his wins. Just homework, teamwork and practice. Reality seems to work for him. 

 

 

 

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Exc

You said:
I think life is balance between showing a willingness to cooperate and compromise while at the same time protecting yourself from being taken advantage(aka fucked over).

I think these philosophies of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" or "turn the other check" are just setting people up to be taken advantage of. I've seen so many people get screwed by supposed 'good Christians'. The predators find easy pickings among the lambs that adopt these philosophies.

I Agree with you that some Cristian people take advantage of other people as seen in T.V Evangelism and in the Catholic Church. I know that not many people know how to spot a wolf hidden in lamb's clothing, therefore a victim will fall. Jesus warns us about these people. But the fact of the matter is that these wolfs are everywere. People that look like normal people, but are out there to screw you over. You see these wolfs in politics, religion,wall street bankers, real estate, education , serial killers and the list goes on.

All these " acts of the wolf" comes down to one thing.
And that is personal choice for their actions, which will create a positive or negative reaction. Or the birth of what I call good and evil as an identification.
Evil is the lack of good in things . When a good that should be there is missing from something, that is called evil.
Example:
If a person lacks or is missing kindness in his heart and respect for human life that should be there, then the possibility of that person committing a violent hatred act will be very high.
Another example:
Cancer.
When a normal cell is missing DNA information, it will mutate into a cancer cell and multiply. Therefore Good is the lack of evil in things.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:I Agree with

Jimenezj wrote:

I Agree with you that some Cristian people take advantage of other people as seen in T.V Evangelism and in the Catholic Church.

But don't you think that persons of faith are opening themselves up to become victims? The don't accept the universe for how it is but rather how they might wish it to be. So you're going to be preyed upon by those who understand your gullibility. Just look at the politician that use faith to get votes.

 

Jimenezj wrote:

Evil is the lack of good in things .

Good being defined by what is beneficial to you?

 

Jimenezj wrote:

Example: If a person lacks or is missing kindness in his heart and respect for human life that should be there, then the possibility of that person committing a violent hatred act will be very high.

Who is to say what should and should not be there? You can say people should all be born with 10 toes, but nature sometimes produces people more than 10 or less than 10. Violence and making war has often worked as a behavior beneficial to survival. Some people are genetically predestined to have a more violent nature and the environment they are in also plays a big role. So are these people evil or is it there genes and upbringing that is evil?

To me this superstitious label of evil is harmful to society because it stands in the way of finding working solutions to violence. We know what fails to reduce violence(religion, moralizing, prisons, etc...) and we know what works(family planning, good education, medical treatments, etc..). So science works and superstition fails. So for you to support failed methods that continue to do harm to society, in your way of thinking is this evil or good?

Jimenezj wrote:

Another example: Cancer. When a normal cell is missing DNA information, it will mutate into a cancer cell and multiply. Therefore Good is the lack of evil in things.

But if your enemy were to get cancer, then this would be good. So it's really all about what is beneficial to you.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

EXC wrote:

What you experience are sensations of pleasure or pain to various degrees. These are pretty highly correlated with what is beneficial or harmful to one's survival. So we label 'good' the pleasure and beneficial things, evil is  associted with pain or harm.

I agree.  And people work better in groups, which our brains reward us for.  Our brains also reward us for fighting out-group members, which complicates ethics.

 

 

EXC wrote:

Because we are social animals capable of empathy, we can relate to the experiences of others(aka feel their pain). So we catorize what happens to others as good or evil. But the bottom line is because we're products of evolution, good and evil concepts are 100% about survival. What religion has done is hijack these concepts in order to control people.

There's still room to debate about how best to live.  Which parts of our brains should we emphasize?

 

 

EXC wrote:

Jimenezj wrote:

Example: If a person lacks or is missing kindness in his heart and respect for human life that should be there, then the possibility of that person committing a violent hatred act will be very high.

Who is to say what should and should not be there? You can say people should all be born with 10 toes, but nature sometimes produces people more than 10 or less than 10. Violence and making war has often worked as a behavior beneficial to survival. Some people are genetically predestined to have a more violent nature and the environment they are in also plays a big role. So are these people evil or is it there genes and upbringing that is evil?

Someone's genes and upbringing can make a person evil.  The person would also make decisions that would influence his outcome, but in certain non-psychopathic situations his evil nature could be mostly out of his control. 

You asked, "Who's to say what should and shouldn't be there?"  Well, we're capable of discovering the best ways of being happy/good and reducing suffering/evil with psychology and neuroscience.  We have our brains that evolved by forces out of our control, and now we can make the best of our situation through discovery and debate.  It's a complicated problem.

 

 

EXC wrote:

To me this superstitious label of evil is harmful to society because it stands in the way of finding working solutions to violence. We know what fails to reduce violence(religion, moralizing, prisons, etc...) and we know what works(family planning, good education, medical treatments, etc..). So science works and superstition fails.

Superstitious label of evil?  You already acknowledged that evil corresponds to pain.  Pain is a real, concrete phenomenon.  The word "evil" allows us to talk about the complexities of pain and when it is or isn't beneficial to us.  Of course, we have the in-group/out-group problem to deal with again.  But that can be addressed with conversation, technology and, if necessary, war. 

If you think we should reduce violence, you must be using a standard to base that judgment on -- and you've already said pain.  That's objectivity.

 

 

 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Exc

You said.
1. Who is to say what should and should not be there? 

Everybody has the capability to do positive or good things. That is why love and kindness is there. But to act on it, would require a personal choice. Which determines the outcome of good or evil . Also everybody has the capability to do evil. It is also there waiting to be acted out. 

What produces the outcome of good or evil is our choice. I can choose to save a life or kill a life. Therefore the power of choice produces good and evil. 

You said:
But if your enemy were to get cancer, then this would be good. So it's really all about what is beneficial to you.

To consider an enemy with cancer to be good and beneficial is the same as saying I want my enemy dead . To want or desire a negative result would involve personal choice. 

To want your enemy to recover from cancer is the same as saying, I want him to have life. 
To want or desire a positive result would involve personal choice. 

You said.
2. So for you to support failed methods that continue to do harm to society, in your way of thinking is this evil or good?

To completely eliminate harmful people from society would require the removal of personal choice, which would also remove evil.  This would equate to a society of robots, programed to do what they are told. Therefore all systems are failures. 

You said .
3.Some people are genetically predestined to have a more violent nature and the environment they are in also plays a big role. So are these people evil or is it there genes and upbringing that is evil?

The people are not evil until they begin to plan negative and evil plots and act on it. Which comes from personal choice. To save a life or to kill a life?

Evil genes and evil upbringing has a large role in making a choice. But in the end, the choice is up to that person. Genes and environment may steer you in the wrong direction, but everyone has the capability to steer away from evil. 

Example: Genesis 4

God speaking with Cain

If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

God is aware of what Cain is planing to do, which is to kill his brother.  So God reminds Cain that he is capable of making the right choice or doing good. If he chooses evil, than evil will rule over him. But even after committing murder, he still has the opportunity to change and rule over evil, by the power of choice. Continue in evil or not? 

But Cain never repented of his ways and choose to continue in his ways. Did God destroy Cain? No. Why? Because God respects our choice and therefore waits in patience for people to make the right choice. Will God ever do something to eliminate evil? Yes, but in due time, once the last person makes the right choice. It is just a matter of time and in the end, time will tell all. 

I had an excellent time with you on this topic. You answered my question regarding good and evil for the Atheist. I wish you the best in your journey in life, and perhaps one day we will meet again. 

Good bye.  

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

Philosophicus wrote:

 

Superstitious label of evil?  You already acknowledged that evil corresponds to pain.

No I don't believe in the concept of 'evil'. I'm trying to explain to Jimenez where we gets this concept of 'evil'. I only acknowledge that actions can be beneficial or harmful and that this correlates to levels of pleasure and pain sensations we experience. I want Jimenez to understand that by his definition of evil, being superstitious ought to be considered evil.

Philosophicus wrote:

The word "evil" allows us to talk about the complexities of pain and when it is or isn't beneficial to us. 

Religion and superstition have poised language to the point where an irrational concept like 'evil' becomes accepted concepts with any evidence for it's existence. So it only makes sense to talk about benefit and harm since these are things that can often be measured empirically.

Philosophicus wrote:

If you think we should reduce violence, you must be using a standard to base that judgment on -- and you've already said pain.  That's objectivity.

The well being of humans and animals is something that can be measured and measurements will improve with technology advancement.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:   Everybody

Jimenezj wrote:


 

Everybody has the capability to do positive or good things.

No. They lie to you, you don't have free will. When you touch a hot stove, you immediately pull back. Why? Because you only respond to pleasure and pain(or the expection). What have you ever done that should convince anyone this is not true?


 

Jimenezj wrote:

That is why love and kindness is there.

Did you read the post about the love hormone? Your willingness to love and show kindness can be manipulate just by changing your hormone levels.


 


 

Jimenezj wrote:

To consider an enemy with cancer to be good and beneficial is the same as saying I want my enemy dead . To want or desire a negative result would involve personal choice. To want your enemy to recover from cancer is the same as saying, I want him to have life. To want or desire a positive result would involve personal choice.

It's still all about you. What you believe benefits you is good, what harms you is evil.


 

Jimenezj wrote:

To completely eliminate harmful people from society would require the removal of personal choice, which would also remove evil.

I never said eliminate harmful people. I'm talking about harmful concepts like religion and superstition.

If you support something proven not to work, is this evil by your definition of evil?


 

Jimenezj wrote:

The people are not evil until they begin to plan negative and evil plots and act on it. Which comes from personal choice. To save a life or to kill a life?

So then black people must be more evil than whites if they commit crimes at a higher rate. The fact that they grew up in a ghetto is irrelevant to whether they are evil.


 


 

Jimenezj wrote:
Evil genes and evil upbringing has a large role in making a choice. But in the end, the choice is up to that person. Genes and environment may steer you in the wrong direction, but everyone has the capability to steer away from evil.

Well how does it work then for evil people is it 1/3 genes are evil, 1/3 environment was evil, 1/3 person's choice is evil. What about people that tell people religion will solve all your problems and it doesn't, why aren't they evil for lying?


 


 

Jimenezj wrote:

Example: Genesis 4 God speaking with Cain If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. God is aware of what Cain is planing to do, which is to kill his brother. So God reminds Cain that he is capable of making the right choice or doing good. If he chooses evil, than evil will rule over him. But even after committing murder, he still has the opportunity to change and rule over evil, by the power of choice. Continue in evil or not? But Cain never repented of his ways and choose to continue in his ways. Did God destroy Cain? No. Why? Because God respects our choice and therefore waits in patience for people to make the right choice. Will God ever do something to eliminate evil? Yes, but in due time, once the last person makes the right choice. It is just a matter of time and in the end, time will tell all. I had an excellent time with you on this topic. You answered my question regarding good and evil for the Atheist. I wish you the best in your journey in life, and perhaps one day we will meet again. Good bye.

 

I'm not "the Atheist'". I'm an Atheist, we all have different opinions. You're making stuff up. Didn't your god say something about bearing false witness as being evil?

 

For theists, how can evil exist? Everything is part of God's plan. If someone murders a loved one of yours, you're supposed to believe they are in a better place with Jesus, and you will join them shortly. The only reason pain should ever afflict someone is lack of faith. How can evil exist if it's all part of God's plan unless God is evil?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

EXC wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:
 

Superstitious label of evil?  You already acknowledged that evil corresponds to pain.

No I don't believe in the concept of 'evil'. I'm trying to explain to Jimenez where we gets this concept of 'evil'. I only acknowledge that actions can be beneficial or harmful and that this correlates to levels of pleasure and pain sensations we experience.

Wouldn't "harmful" also be an irrational concept?  The word "evil" already exists to represent something undesirable; we should keep it.  We should dust off the theological baggage.  The concept of an ethics that involves God with absolute (unchanging and eternal) and objective (out there), should be gotten rid of.  We should replace it with an objective (out there) and relative (flexible to the situation and changeable) ethics based on neuroscience and psychology... and what the hell, sociology too.

 

 

EXC wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

The word "evil" allows us to talk about the complexities of pain and when it is or isn't beneficial to us. 

Religion and superstition have poised language to the point where an irrational concept like 'evil' becomes accepted concepts with any evidence for it's existence. So it only makes sense to talk about benefit and harm since these are things that can often be measured empirically.

If you were consistent you would say that the irrational concept of "evil" has been replaced by the irrational concept of "harm."  You're just changing the label.

 

 

EXC wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

If you think we should reduce violence, you must be using a standard to base that judgment on -- and you've already said pain.  That's objectivity.

The well being of humans and animals is something that can be measured and measurements will improve with technology advancement.

I agree.

 

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus wrote:Wouldn't

Philosophicus wrote:

Wouldn't "harmful" also be an irrational concept? 

By harmful I mean the amount of painful, uncomfortable sensations experienced in the brains of real people and animals. Something that can be measured. Or the cause of death. I think by these definitions, we can measure harm. Maybe one day they'll be a pain-o-meter where you can measure the level of pain a brain experiences.

Philosophicus wrote:

The word "evil" already exists to represent something undesirable; we should keep it.  We should dust off the theological baggage.  The concept of an ethics that involves God with absolute (unchanging and eternal) and objective (out there), should be gotten rid of.  We should replace it with an objective (out there) and relative (flexible to the situation and changeable) ethics based on neuroscience and psychology... and what the hell, sociology too.

I don't use the word 'evil' except to mock theists. I think there is just too much baggage from religion poisoning people's understanding of the universe. Do you think some day science can invent an evil-o-meter? Like what God has to decide who needs to go to hell?

 

 

Philosophicus wrote:

The word "evil" allows us to talk about the complexities of pain and when it is or isn't beneficial to us. 

Religion and superstition have poised language to the point where an irrational concept like 'evil' becomes accepted concepts with any evidence for it's existence. So it only makes sense to talk about benefit and harm since these are things that can often be measured empirically.

Philosophicus wrote:

If you were consistent you would say that the irrational concept of "evil" has been replaced by the irrational concept of "harm."  You're just changing the label.

Theists have done less harm to the word 'harm' than the word 'evil'. Religion poisons everything including language.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
EXC

Your questions are very interesting and attracted me to a reply.  

Jimenezj wrote:

 Everybody has the capability to do positive or good things.

Atheist EXC replied saying:
No. They lie to you, you don't have free will. When you touch a hot stove, you immediately pull back. Why? Because you only respond to pleasure and pain(or the expection). What have you ever done that should convince anyone this is not true?

Atheist EXC said. 

For theists, how can evil exist? Everything is part of God's plan. If someone murders a loved one of yours, you're supposed to believe they are in a better place with Jesus, and you will join them shortly. The only reason pain should ever afflict someone is lack of faith.

 How can evil exist if it's all part of God's plan unless God is evil?

This is a very common question from atheist and a very interesting Question. This is how i answer this problem.

God is not evil, people are. Jesus never killed anyone. People killed him. God did not kill Cain. Cain killed Abel. 

God does not create evil,People do.  God  allows the power of choice in humanity. Humans create evil by choosing to go against the choices of good. 

God is aware that by allowing choice, humanity is capable of becoming evil by their free will or choice. But that is what is necessary to allow the choice of good. 

If evil did not exist, people would not have anything other than good to choose from. Which is illogical to only have one item to choose. This is called dictatorship or forcing people to choose in their favor or for personal benefit. 

But since God is fair, he allows people to choose good and evil and if a person chooses evil, that person is still given an opportunity to choose good like the example of Cain.Why give the person another opportunity ? So that the person can see that good will always outweigh evil.  The outcome is this corrupted world, for the purpose of the greater good. This world is not ruled by majority good People. But it us ruled by majority evil people. Including false leaders and members of the church . 

It may seem that the odds are against us. It may seem that we are vulnerable to the enemy. But in my realty, God is with us and he outweighs the odds. 

In conclusion , I have learned that majority Atheist do not believe or accept the notion of Good and Evil and the notion of free will or choice. 

Which is an opposite of what the Theist accepts or believes. 

Again thank you for you comments and answers. 

I hope that we will have more discussions like these, in the near future. 

Again ,
Good bye 

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

EXC wrote:

Philosophicus wrote:

Wouldn't "harmful" also be an irrational concept? 

By harmful I mean the amount of painful, uncomfortable sensations experienced in the brains of real people and animals. Something that can be measured. Or the cause of death. I think by these definitions, we can measure harm. Maybe one day they'll be a pain-o-meter where you can measure the level of pain a brain experiences.

Philosophicus wrote:

The word "evil" already exists to represent something undesirable; we should keep it.  We should dust off the theological baggage.  The concept of an ethics that involves God with absolute (unchanging and eternal) and objective (out there), should be gotten rid of.  We should replace it with an objective (out there) and relative (flexible to the situation and changeable) ethics based on neuroscience and psychology... and what the hell, sociology too.

I don't use the word 'evil' except to mock theists. I think there is just too much baggage from religion poisoning people's understanding of the universe. Do you think some day science can invent an evil-o-meter? Like what God has to decide who needs to go to hell?

 

 

Philosophicus wrote:

The word "evil" allows us to talk about the complexities of pain and when it is or isn't beneficial to us. 

Religion and superstition have poised language to the point where an irrational concept like 'evil' becomes accepted concepts with any evidence for it's existence. So it only makes sense to talk about benefit and harm since these are things that can often be measured empirically.

Philosophicus wrote:

If you were consistent you would say that the irrational concept of "evil" has been replaced by the irrational concept of "harm."  You're just changing the label.

Theists have done less harm to the word 'harm' than the word 'evil'. Religion poisons everything including language. 

I just saw your image of the evil-o-meter pop up when I came to type in my comment; it didn't display on the thread.  Anyway, an evil-o-meter is harder to make than a pain-o-meter because the "evil" diagnosis requires an ethical judgment, whereas the "pain" diagnosis only requires a neuroscientific judgment.  Evil involves a "should."  It also involves complicated in-group/out-group analyses and evaluations.

We seem to be mostly in agreement, except for the use of the word "evil."  (You don't seem to mind the word 'good.')  I'm fine with using the words "benefit" and "harm;" I reserve "evil" for extreme cases of harm. 

So how about this, EXC.  Would you replace "good" and "evil" with "prosocial" and "antisocial"?

 

 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Again , Good

Jimenezj wrote:
Again , Good bye 

So then by your standard, when Joe Paterno didn't stop child abuse when he had the power to stop it, he was still being 'good'. Only the coach that did the abuse was evil. Isn't that what god does is stand around and let victims be victimized and still he is good?

You obviously don't want to answer my questions directly. You don't want to admit that it is a logical contradiction to say 'evil' is part of Gods plan and God does nothing to stop evil, but he is all good.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Exc

I did answer you question, read the last part of #25. study all my answers and reply if you have more questions. I believe all questions gave been covered.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:I did answer

Jimenezj wrote:
I did answer you question, read the last part of #25. study all my answers and reply if you have more questions. I believe all questions gave been covered.

I'll ask again because you gave an answer that was not to this question:

We know that religion/superstion doesn't work to reduce human suffering and ignorance. We know that science, secularism and reason work to solve problems. For you to support failed methods that continue to do harm to society and individuals, in your way of thinking, are you being evil or good?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Jimenezj wrote:

[EXC] said: ["]But if your enemy were to get cancer, then this would be good. So it's really all about what is beneficial to you.["]

To consider an enemy with cancer to be good and beneficial is the same as saying I want my enemy dead . To want or desire a negative result would involve personal choice.  To want your enemy to recover from cancer is the same as saying, I want him to have life.  To want or desire a positive result would involve personal choice. 

Jimenezj, sometimes wanting people dead is a good thing.  The more evil and destructive they are to society, the more they deserve death.  Do you favor the death penalty in certain circumstances?

Examples where murder is justified is in self-defense and war.

 

jimenezj wrote:

[EXC] said. 2. ["]So for you to support failed methods that continue to do harm to society, in your way of thinking is this evil or good?["]

To completely eliminate harmful people from society would require the removal of personal choice, which would also remove evil.  This would equate to a society of robots, programed to do what they are told. Therefore all systems are failures. 

Jimenezj, this makes you sound like you don't want to punish criminals.  If someone is harming society I want them to lose their personal choice.  It's not fair to the rest of us otherwise.

 

jimenezj wrote:

Example: Genesis 4 God speaking with Cain

["]If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.["]

God is aware of what Cain is planing to do, which is to kill his brother.  So God reminds Cain that he is capable of making the right choice or doing good. If he chooses evil, than evil will rule over him. But even after committing murder, he still has the opportunity to change and rule over evil, by the power of choice. Continue in evil or not? 

But Cain never repented of his ways and choose to continue in his ways. Did God destroy Cain? No. Why? Because God respects our choice and therefore waits in patience for people to make the right choice. Will God ever do something to eliminate evil? Yes, but in due time, once the last person makes the right choice. It is just a matter of time and in the end, time will tell all. 

This is nonsense.  If God had the power to prevent the evil murder of Abel He should have suspended Cain's free will.  Look at the cost of God's decision: an innocent man is dead who had a family.  I don't want to get into the theology of the story; I'm assuming for this argument that Abel was a good man who did not deserve to be killed. 

Imagine if the police were surveilling a possible murderer.  They suspected that he was likely to kill an innocent person.  So, when the day came for the man to kill the innocent person, the police, who had him under surveillance, decided not to intervene and prevent the murder because they didn't want to take away the murderer's free will to kill an innocent man.  This is not morality and it is not fair to the man who got killed, or to his family and friends.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3207
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Does the

Jimenezj wrote:
Does the atheist believe in Good and Evil? I was talking to my friend, a Female Atheist, that did not Believe in good or evil. When I asked her to Explain, she did not know how to.

Good and evil are opinions, just like right and wrong.

Do you know if she is a weak or strong atheist?

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

You said:
This is nonsense.  If God had the power to prevent the evil murder of Abel He should have suspended Cain's free will.

Would you like your personal choice suspended, before an evil act were to occur? If this is the case, evil would not exist. Only good would exist without the choice of evil. Not having a choice, is the same as not having freedom. Do you prefer freedom or no freedom called slavery. 

But it all boils down to the truth. If God had created humanity without personal choice or freedom, than how would he know If a person truly  loves him for who he is? No choice would equal, no true love. But with freedom of choice, he knows who truly loves him and who truly rejects him. Made possible by free will or choice. This is better understood if you believe in true Love. 

Evil exists for the greater good of true love. 

Will evil exist forever? No. It is only here to accomplish the goal. Then it will be deleted.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

You said:
This is nonsense.  If God had the power to prevent the evil murder of Abel He should have suspended Cain's free will.

Would you like your personal choice suspended, before an evil act were to occur? If this is the case, evil would not exist. Only good would exist without the choice of evil. Not having a choice, is the same as not having freedom. Do you prefer freedom or no freedom called slavery. 

But it all boils down to the truth. If God had created humanity without personal choice or freedom, than how would he know If a person truly  loves him for who he is? No choice would equal, no true love. But with freedom of choice, he knows who truly loves him and who truly rejects him. Made possible by free will or choice. 

Evil exists for the greater good of true love. 

Will evil exist forever? No. It is only here to accomplish the goal. Then it will be deleted. 

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

You said:
This is nonsense.  If God had the power to prevent the evil murder of Abel He should have suspended Cain's free will.

Would you like your personal choice suspended, before an evil act were to occur? If this is the case, evil would not exist. Only good would exist without the choice of evil. Not having a choice, is the same as not having freedom. Do you prefer freedom or no freedom called slavery. 

But it all boils down to the truth. If God had created humanity without personal choice or freedom, than how would he know If a person truly  loves him for who he is? No choice would equal, no true love. But with freedom of choice, he knows who truly loves him and who truly rejects him. Made possible by free will or choice. 

Evil exists for the greater good of true love. 

Will evil exist forever? No. It is only here to accomplish the goal. Then it will be deleted. 

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Jimenezj wrote:
You said: This is nonsense.  If God had the power to prevent the evil murder of Abel He should have suspended Cain's free will. Would you like your personal choice suspended, before an evil act were to occur? If this is the case, evil would not exist. Only good would exist without the choice of evil. Not having a choice, is the same as not having freedom. Do you prefer freedom or no freedom called slavery. 

It would be better if evil weren't an option.  It's unnecessary.  If this universe was designed by a deity or deities, it has serious design flaws.  If you prefer a world with evil, then you have problems I can't help you with.

 

 

Jimenezj wrote:

But it all boils down to the truth. If God had created humanity without personal choice or freedom, than how would he know If a person truly  loves him for who he is? No choice would equal, no true love. But with freedom of choice, he knows who truly loves him and who truly rejects him. Made possible by free will or choice. This is better understood if you believe in true Love.  Evil exists for the greater good of true love.  Will evil exist forever? No. It is only here to accomplish the goal. Then it will be deleted.

Tell me why God requires our love in the first place.  Is He dependent?  Does He get depressed if we don't love Him?  Or angry?  It doesn't appear we have too much choice with Jesus, what with all the death threats and hellfire speech (supposedly, the wages of sin is death).  If someone puts a gun to your head and demands you to give him your money or he'll shoot, he's dramatically limiting your freedom.  Few people would choose to rebel. 

This whole story sounds like a very human con.


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

You said.
It would be better if evil weren't an option.  It's unnecessary.  

I believe you have answered your own Question. 

You see, evil can't exist, because it causes death and destruction.
This is what Paul the apostle meant by saying in Romans 6:23

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

But how else would we know this without experiencing evil. How else can a person decide what is good and evil, if evil did not exist. 

Christ is not forcing us to decide ( gun in the head)  , as you yourself has determined that evil is unnecessary. You came to your conclusion by experiencing evil. You did not need anyone, to explain the origin of sin, called evil 

Jesus know that evil cannot exist forever. But how else would me and you know this without experiencing evil and having the choice to determine what is good .

That is why the second part of Romans says. 

but the free gift of God is eternal life through Christ Jesus our Lord.

Yes, there is evil in the world. But evil is not the end of humanity. Good has been proven to be accepted, and evil has been proven to be unnecessary. Jesus did not force this on us. This has been decided by humanity by choice. In survival of the fittest, only the strong will survive. And in the end, good will survive. 

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:But how else

Jimenezj wrote:

But how else would we know this without experiencing evil. How else can a person decide what is good and evil, if evil did not exist.

I though the Bible tells you what is good and evil and you're not supposed to ever question it.

 

 

Jimenezj wrote:

Christ is not forcing us to decide ( gun in the head) 

What do you call heaven and hell then?

If I kidnapped you and made it be known that I would torture you unless you do as I say, then how are you able to decide what to do?

Jimenezj wrote:

But how else would me and you know this without experiencing evil and having the choice to determine what is good .

So unless you kill someone, you'll never know that murder is evil? Most murderers feel no remorse, that is why they are able to kill, so they don't experience 'evil'. It's only the victims that feel the pain. So any all powerful God that watches over all this must be a sadist.

God is all powerful. He could just write it in a book and then convince us that the book is true. If God can only show us what evil is by having us experience the pain of being a victim, then he is not all powerful. Your bible contraticts itself.

Jimenezj wrote:

In survival of the fittest, only the strong will survive.

That's not how evolution works, get your facts strait before you try and argue against it.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Exc

You said.
God is all powerful. He could just write it in a book and then convince us that the book is true. If God can only show us what evil is by having us experience the pain of being a victim, then he is not all powerful. Your bible contraticts itself.

Logically speaking, let's say that an engineer (God) , all by himself has developed the first computer and the first computer program and they work good. The engineer knows all the ins and outs of the computer and the program. Now lets say you come in the picture. You believe that you have a better program for the computer, yet you know nothing about computer engineering. Is this logical? Of course not.

The Natural state of a human being is rebellion, evident since childhood. Society tells us not to smoke,not to drink, not to do drugs because it can kill us. They show us movies and books. We study it, and yet we still do it. Personal choice. 

We all believe that God should have done this and that,That it would be better if this was this way or that way,  to include myself.  But in reality, it is not logical. 

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Philosophicus
Philosophicus's picture
Posts: 362
Joined: 2009-12-16
User is offlineOffline
...

Jimenezj wrote:

Logically speaking, let's say that an engineer (God) , all by himself has developed the first computer and the first computer program and they work good. The engineer knows all the ins and outs of the computer and the program. Now lets say you come in the picture. You believe that you have a better program for the computer, yet you know nothing about computer engineering. Is this logical? Of course not.

You're assuming the computer designer is good, and that there is one.  And we have intelligence -- enough to have figured out collectively over centuries how old the universe is, the age of the earth, the fact that we have common ancestors with lower forms of life.  We've figured out how galaxies form, how stars blow up, how chemicals evolve, how the brain works, how to make medicine.  We've figured a lot out on our own.  And where's the evidence for a Creator?  And do you come in Its name?

 

 

Jimenezj wrote:

The Natural state of a human being is rebellion, evident since childhood. Society tells us not to smoke,not to drink, not to do drugs because it can kill us. They show us movies and books. We study it, and yet we still do it. Personal choice.  We all believe that God should have done this and that,That it would be better if this was this way or that way,  to include myself.  But in reality, it is not logical. 

You're trying to make us dependent on the Christian church, and we don't believe in God in the first place.  I don't believe in any deities because all the arguments for deities are unconvincing.  This doesn't mean there are no deities, but it means I won't believe unless there's scientific data for it.  I have no reason to do otherwise, and your whole religion stinks of a con dreamt up in the minds of humans.

Look at EXC's quote.  It says "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."  I regard your religion as false, and I won't take orders from your church.  If you're implying that people are atheist because of rebellion, you're desperate.  It's very foolish of you to believe that people are atheist because of rebellion.  Think about it.  This is like believing that the police don't exist because you don't want to go to jail.  Well, what are all those police cars doing driving around?  Jimenezj, you have to do better than that.

I'm not discounting that some people might be atheist out of rebellion, but I find it hard to believe -- it's seems like a difficult task to deceive yourself that successfully.  Maybe it's like a child abused by his parents until he tries to block out their existence in his mind -- but he would still probably have some knowledge in there of his parents.  Of course, there could be some people that are atheist out of mental illness or brain damage. 

Do you think there are true atheists, or do you think we're pretending?


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Philosophicus

You said.
You're trying to make us dependent on the Christian church, and we don't believe in God in the first place.

When I said that the Nature of a human being is Rebellion, I am talking about all of humanity including me and you. This is evident in all the things we do, since childhood. Remember that the topic is Good and Evil. I understand that you are an Atheist. You are what you say you are, and that is fine. Just like you, I also don't believe in religion. Majority of religion is man made. I believe in reality, based on facts and evidence for the existence of God. Read thread 41 which deals with the reality of evil.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
EXC

You said.
If I kidnapped you and made it be known that I would torture you unless you do as I say, then how are you able to decide what to do?

No one put a "Gun In the head" or kidnapped and tortured Cain. He was able to decide what to do , which was to kill his brother. Cain lived all his life. 

The same with Me and you. No one is forcing us to make a decision on our choices in life. 
No one is twisting your arm and forcing you to say " Praise the Lord". 

The bible has commandments just like our government has rules and regulations. It is our choice to decide to obey or disobey the rules. 

To the Atheist that does not believe in a spiritual soul is therefore considered spiritually dead by the Christian , which us logical. 

Example :

If a person does not believe he exist in the physical state ,it is logical to say that the person is physically dead. 

Just because the bible says that an unbeliever will be judged by God with the possibility of being deleted, does not mean that we are forced to decide to believe or obey.

The same with government laws. Just because the law says not to  kill someone, does not mean we are being forced to obey. People brake these laws all the time. 

The difference between these two example Of murder and judgment is that God offers an opportunity and government does not.  If a person does not accept the opportunity, then full judgment will take place. 

Dependent upon personnel choice and not force. 

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God. 


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Jimenezj wrote:Logically

Jimenezj wrote:

Logically speaking, let's say that an engineer (God) , all by himself has developed the first computer and the first computer program and they work good. The engineer knows all the ins and outs of the computer and the program. Now lets say you come in the picture. You believe that you have a better program for the computer, yet you know nothing about computer engineering. Is this logical? Of course not. The Natural state of a human being is rebellion, evident since childhood. Society tells us not to smoke,not to drink, not to do drugs because it can kill us. They show us movies and books. We study it, and yet we still do it. Personal choice. We all believe that God should have done this and that,That it would be better if this was this way or that way, to include myself. But in reality, it is not logical.

 

Since God is all powerful, why not idiot proof his creation? This is what a good engineer does, he makes sure that the user can not be injured by his creation. He is either a bad engineer or a sadistic one. Look at what Microsoft does, they believe they are gods so they don't let anyone else's software run on their OS.

If God is all powerful, then he is also a sadist for not eliminating human suffering, or he does not exist. Sorry but there is no other logical conclusion.

Jimenezj wrote:
No one put a "Gun In the head" or kidnapped and tortured Cain. He was able to decide what to do , which was to kill his brother. Cain lived all his life. 

He told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate the fruit, hardly giving them freedom.  Why not mention them? If a government says you'll be punished for doing certain things, this means you are not free to do them.

Cain was punished for what he did, so it was hardly his free decision. He either thought he could get away with it or the punishment would not be sever.

Jimenezj wrote:

The same with Me and you. No one is forcing us to make a decision on our choices in life.  No one is twisting your arm and forcing you to say " Praise the Lord". 

What the hell is heaven and hell? Isn't that 'putting a gun to your head'. Ultimate paradise or ultimate torture, but it's still your choice? OK, so I choose to be an atheist. If you choose this path, what do you get? Paradise or torture, the 'gun' is to your head.

 

Jimenezj wrote:

The bible has commandments just like our government has rules and regulations. It is our choice to decide to obey or disobey the rules.  To the Atheist that does not believe in a spiritual soul is therefore considered spiritually dead by the Christian , which us logical.  Example : If a person does not believe he exist in the physical state ,it is logical to say that the person is physically dead.  Just because the bible says that an unbeliever will be judged by God with the possibility of being deleted, does not mean that we are forced to decide to believe or obey.

So we're all just zombies?

And if you don't believe you're spirtually dead, but your not being forced.

Jimenezj wrote:

The same with government laws. Just because the law says not to  kill someone, does not mean we are being forced to obey. People brake these laws all the time. 

Then according to your definition, no one is ever forced to do or not do anything. So why do you say God doesn't force us to believe when it impossible for anyone to ever force someone to do something?

What is the death penalty if it's not an attempt to force people not to murder?

Jimenezj wrote:

The difference between these two example Of murder and judgment is that God offers an opportunity and government does not.  If a person does not accept the opportunity, then full judgment will take place.  Dependent upon personnel choice and not force. 

If I don't pay my taxes. Then government gives me some limited time to pay or they send me to jail. How is that not forcing me to pay?

You say God gives me some limited time to believe. But then to hell. How is that not forcing me to believe?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13675
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:If I don't pay my

Quote:
If I don't pay my taxes. Then government gives me some limited time to pay or they send me to jail. How is that not forcing me to pay?

What a bunch of utopia bullshit.

So if I have no intent of sexually assaulting someone because I whip my dick out in public without sexually assaulting someone, by proxy of my own whims, pissing in public should be legal? I didn't assault you!

CONSENT is the key you miss. You want to live in a utopia the will never exist. We will NEVER have 7 billion people who do not flock together by forming governments.

Name me one government, EVEN the ones we despise, that do not in some form collect money from the citizens?

GOVERNMENT is inevitable, it WILL HAPPEN. Taxes WILL HAPPEN.

The only reasonable argument we can argue is the way taxes are collected and how it is used and it's efficiency.

No taxes wont fucking happen.

GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASS!

We as a nation, and a species for that matter, have two choices.

1. Beat each other into submission.

OR

2. Consent of the governed

 

Without taxes even in the west where BOTH you and I value our freedom, WE would be subject to the whims of dictators. Some form of revenue has to be collected to prevent dictators from taking hold.

So what do you want to collect taxes for? Your personal whims when it suits you? Or the defense of even those who disagree with you?

Dictators collect revenue to maintain monopolies. Civil society collects revenue to protect the commonwealth.

So do you want to collect money to maintain your alpha male status? Or do you collect money to protect even dissent?

BOTH have to have money to maintain power. But what separates the west from dictatorships is that taxes are subject to review, and are not a "sin" because one side or the other does not get what they want.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3139
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:CONSENT is the

Brian37 wrote:

CONSENT is the key you miss. You want to live in a utopia the will never exist. We will NEVER have 7 billion people who do not flock together by forming governments.

I've never said I'm an anarchist. I only have a problem with how the government collects money and for what it uses. It's quite a strawman you've made of me.

 

Brian37 wrote:

Name me one government, EVEN the ones we despise, that do not in some form collect money from the citizens?

I'm all for collecting reasonable user fees if government provides a comperable service. But you want taxation without benefits, and benefits without taxation.

Brian37 wrote:

The only reasonable argument we can argue is the way taxes are collected and how it is used and it's efficiency.

Why can't we move toward making everything a user fee?

The USA didn't have income tax until 1913, how did that happen? Public works projects like the Erie canal were financed with user fees. Since then we've have expensive foriegn wars and a dependant welfare class.

Brian37 wrote:

2. Consent of the governed

How about consent of the taxed?

Brian37 wrote:

Without taxes even in the west where BOTH you and I value our freedom, WE would be subject to the whims of dictators. Some form of revenue has to be collected to prevent dictators from taking hold.

What? How does a dictator or corrupt government have any power unless they collects taxes? It's free money. If they are force to provide a service instead of free money via income tax, guess what, no opprotunity for corruption.

Brian37 wrote:

Your personal whims when it suits you? Or the defense of even those who disagree with you?

But, I should be happy to pay for other people's whims???

Brian37 wrote:

So do you want to collect money to maintain your alpha male status?

No. Collect money to pay for what you use. Do you buy other people's grocieries when you go into a store.

Does it ever get old building these strawmen?

Why is pay as you go so difficult to understand?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Jimenezj
Theist
Posts: 344
Joined: 2011-12-16
User is offlineOffline
Exc

EXC said.
He told Adam and Eve they would die if they ate the fruit, hardly giving them freedom.  Why not mention them?

God's commandment was like saying ,Don't drink poison or you will die, part of freedom of choice.  It was his advice. But they choose to drink the poison. So they suffer the consequence . In reality, they have freedom. The same with heaven and hell.hell is poison. But many will prefer the poison.which is fine, it's their choice.

appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence for a no God.