20/20 special

holley
Theist
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
20/20 special

Just wondering if anyone saw the 20/20 special tonight about Faith?

It made me wonder if atheist believe in evil or possession.

Also,would you (the people who debated on Nightline)consider having another debate? I was thinking on Bill O' Reilly.Thanks for looking since I'm new here! Many Blessings.

"History is written by the winners" - WTS


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome Holley. I think it

Welcome Holley. I think it would be safe to say that all atheists don't believe in evil or possession.

I didn't see it, but my g-friend gave me updates. I read some parts on the internet. I was amazed by how much the neuroscientist did not know about the Brain. He seemed bent on explaining everything as faith and God. He said the scans showed the the lady speaking in tongues showed no activity in the frontal lobes. Well, we know that the frontal lobes serve as the voice of reason, impulse control, logic and thought in the brain. This is the the part of the brain that thinks before we act and helps people make decisions. I think a more simplier explanation was that this lady lost all reason, rationality and decision making while speaking in tongues as oppossed to God speaking through her. From a neuroscience view, it would make sense that somebody doing something so ridiculous would not be using that part of her brain.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
Also, I think the scientist

Also, I think the scientist was irresponsible and reckless. He knows that the brain is highly plastic and changes based on experiences. He tested people he knew believed in a certain faith and then claims that faith and susceptablity to a belief is hardwired?? The more reasonable and RATIONAL explanation is that thes individual brains changed as the result of their beliefs.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
Didn't they show James Randi

Didn't they show James Randi on 20/20?


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
The Lard

The Lard provides:

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2007/05/the_price_of_at.html

Or try this

[MOD EDIT - fixed link]

Hint: always hit the return button after posting a URL


holley
Theist
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
  your link isn't working

 

your link isn't working when I click on it!!


D-cubed
Rational VIP!
D-cubed's picture
Posts: 715
Joined: 2007-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Okay, try

Okay, try this:

http://onegoodmovemedia.org/movies/0705/2020_051107_atheism.mov

Just cut and paste it then delete the crap on the end which shows up for no particular reason. 


RationalSchema
RationalSchema's picture
Posts: 358
Joined: 2007-02-12
User is offlineOffline
American Atheist

American Atheist wrote:
Didn't they show James Randi on 20/20?

 I don't know, but they had a neuroscientist from U-Penn on doing neuroimaging scans. Dawkins was on, but nothing you haven't heard before.

"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."


holley
Theist
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
james randi

Yes,James Randi was on 20/20.Basically did update on Peter Popoff .


holley
Theist
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
new debate

Hey,

I was hoping to hear back on the issue of a new televised debate between Brain and Kelly and Bill O'Reilly(maybe Dr.Dobson-or other christian).What do you think? I think it would be more interesting with O'Reilly because he acts smug and cocky (which;no offense of course,in my opinion,that's how Kelly and Brain acted on t.v.). Thanks for looking...anyone one else feel the same?

 

"History is written by the winners" - WTS


American Atheist
American Atheist's picture
Posts: 1331
Joined: 2006-09-03
User is offlineOffline
About what?

About what?


holley
Theist
Posts: 23
Joined: 2007-05-11
User is offlineOffline
debate

I guess the same type of debate that they did on Nightline.Maybe something along those lines.


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
Arguing with O'Reilly is

Arguing with O'Reilly is pointless, he justs shouts over people and cuts their mics when he doesn't like what they have to say.


Ignorance Is Bliss
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
holley wrote: Just

holley wrote:

Just wondering if anyone saw the 20/20 special tonight about Faith?

It made me wonder if atheist believe in evil or possession.

Also,would you (the people who debated on Nightline)consider having another debate? I was thinking on Bill O' Reilly.Thanks for looking since I'm new here! Many Blessings.

 

I need to flame here. Bill O' Reilly is a jerk.  Done.

 Anyway, possession is a big no. I do believe in temporary insanity however. Or long term insanity. Now evil...well, evil is a a tricky thing. Lets think of it like this.

 We as people like to say Hitler was an evil person. So, lets make this simpler. Lets pretend I'm a Jew.

I believe Hitler is evil because he killed 4-8 million of my people. Hitler believed that my people were evil for being greedy, and causing the corruption of the Aryan race. He though I was evil, and I think he is evil. So who is right? No one is right, because evil is a perception. Good is also perception. Hitler believed he was doing good by elimination "impure" races. So, evil is perceived. Although, we all do have general things frowned upon in society, such as murder, and theft, but at one point in time, murder and theft were viewed (when done against another country) perfectly okay. And in some cases, that is still true.  Evil and good, and opinions of such in society change over time. Certain things become wrong, and new things become right. 

 I myself however choose to adopt Kurt Vonnegut's set of "common human decency". So basically not doing anything to intentionally harm someone innocent for self gain. Or, doing anything I perceive to be evil. People often don't understand evil is a perception because of the archtype evil guy in movies. He's portrayed as knowing what he does is wrong, but enjoying it. In truth, people who commit "wrong" often justify it to themselves before they do it. Otherwise, they wouldn't do it.


AbandonMyPeace
Posts: 324
Joined: 2007-03-15
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: Arguing with

Maragon wrote:
Arguing with O'Reilly is pointless, he justs shouts over people and cuts their mics when he doesn't like what they have to say.

 

Yeah it would be pointless to debate that guy. I have never seen him be quite long enough to let someone else get a word in. I would not want to see the RRS debate him. Im sure they could outsmart mr. O'Reilly but that would require him to shut his mouth for a few minutes. 


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
There would be no chance of

There would be no chance of getting a fair airing on O'Reilly. It was bad enough on ABC with their selective editing.

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


caseagainstfaith
Silver Member
caseagainstfaith's picture
Posts: 202
Joined: 2006-09-10
User is offlineOffline
holley wrote:

holley wrote:

I was thinking on Bill O' Reilly.

 

Edit:  ooops, this is the kindness forum, so I'll just delete my comments here...


BGH
BGH's picture
Posts: 2772
Joined: 2006-09-28
User is offlineOffline
caseagainstfaith

caseagainstfaith wrote:
holley wrote:

I was thinking on Bill O' Reilly.

 

Edit: ooops, this is the kindness forum, so I'll just delete my comments here...

Good call Case! I was just getting ready to do that. Feel free to re-post your thoughts but without the profanities. 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
I don't buy the 'posession'

I don't buy the 'posession' thing.  I do believe in evil.  Causing someone injury or death 'just because' is pretty evil sounding to me.  Hitler - evil.  Torturing animals - evil.  You get the idea.  I don't think anything supernatural makes us evil, though.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


jive turkey
Theist
jive turkey's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Ignorance Is

Ignorance Is Bliss wrote: 

***No one is right, because evil is a perception. Good is also perception.***

Finally someone came out and said it: Hitler was not bad or wrong or evil. This is what I view as a major weakness of atheism as a philosophy (or the philosophies that spring from it). It lead to conclusions like Hitler was fine, he was not necessarily good or bad, he simply was. By extension MLK was not truly good either (because there's no such thing as good). In fact, MLK was delusional in this way of thinking. He gave his life for non-selfish reasons because he felt what he was doing was ultimately right (something which does not exist). Someone may choose to live by 'common human decency' while another way choose to bring his 9mm to class and kill as many people as he can, both are fine. BTW, where did we get our archetypes from before we had movies?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13370
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jive turkey

jive turkey wrote:

Ignorance Is Bliss wrote:

***No one is right, because evil is a perception. Good is also perception.***

Finally someone came out and said it: Hitler was not bad or wrong or evil. This is what I view as a major weakness of atheism as a philosophy (or the philosophies that spring from it). It lead to conclusions like Hitler was fine, he was not necessarily good or bad, he simply was. By extension MLK was not truly good either (because there's no such thing as good). In fact, MLK was delusional in this way of thinking. He gave his life for non-selfish reasons because he felt what he was doing was ultimately right (something which does not exist). Someone may choose to live by 'common human decency' while another way choose to bring his 9mm to class and kill as many people as he can, both are fine. BTW, where did we get our archetypes from before we had movies?

EDIT POST.....I JUST REALIZED WHAT SECTION THIS WAS IN. I consider equating atheists to Hitler to be out of the scope of "Kill em with kindness" and should be put where others can recipocate. But if it stays here I wont make noise in the library. Sorry for the lack of attention to what room I was in. 

This post is a joke right?

If you cant understand the flaw in this you you obviously dont know what how violent and opressive theocracies to dissentors. Do you even know what a theocracy is?

Please dont ever sit on a jury, "They dont think like me, so they must be guilty"

Let me set you strieght. I do not like Hitler any more than you. Your fallacy is that it is failing to see "worship" of anything, be it a political party, a person, or a religion, or dictator without question is bad.

If you think that knowing what I know that I'd value genocide as a goal you are just as nuts as Hitler. And if you believe that because I am an atheist I will lead people to commit genocide, then it would stand to reason that you'd act in every aspect of your life to opress me even if there were no evidence that I would.

If I am bad, even before I act on anything, then do something about it now before us kitten barbaquing, goat sacrificing, cootie spreading heathens stick you in the oven.(tTake note of sarcasm)

Should I equate all Christians to Eric Rudoph because he claimed to be a Christian?

If there is anything I hate just as much as dictators is people who blindy buy a stereotpe without even knowing the individual.

If you think religion is incapable of violence you obviously dont watch the news nor have you ever picked up a history book.

I bet you dont even know what the Nazis had embossed on their belt buckles.

If you dont, go do some research. 

Here are some words from famous people who did not like living under religious rule.

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

TTThomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams April 11th 1823.

"Question with boldness even the existance of God, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Thomas Jefferson, EPITAPH

"As the goverment of the United States, is not in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Barbary Treaty(Treaty of Tripoly) articall 11, signed by both houses of congress and signed into law by President John Adams, June 10th 1797.

"I distrust what God believers say what God wants, because it usually coincides with their disires" Susan B. Anthony.

I guess these people, since they didnt want to live under religious law, must have wanted to commit genocide too.

 

 

"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


Tyl3r04
Posts: 117
Joined: 2007-05-10
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: jive turkey

Brian37 wrote:
jive turkey wrote:

Ignorance Is Bliss wrote:

***No one is right, because evil is a perception. Good is also perception.***

Finally someone came out and said it: Hitler was not bad or wrong or evil. This is what I view as a major weakness of atheism as a philosophy (or the philosophies that spring from it). It lead to conclusions like Hitler was fine, he was not necessarily good or bad, he simply was. By extension MLK was not truly good either (because there's no such thing as good). In fact, MLK was delusional in this way of thinking. He gave his life for non-selfish reasons because he felt what he was doing was ultimately right (something which does not exist). Someone may choose to live by 'common human decency' while another way choose to bring his 9mm to class and kill as many people as he can, both are fine. BTW, where did we get our archetypes from before we had movies?

This post is a joke right? Or are you a drone who regergitates garbage you bought.

If you cant understand the flaw in this you you obviously dont know what how violent and opressive theocracies to dissentors. Do you even know what a theocracy is?

Please dont ever sit on a jury, "They dont think like me, so they must be guilty"

Listen prick, let me set you strieght. I do not like Hitler any more than you. Your fallacy is that it is failing to see "worship" of anything, be it a political party, a person, or a religion, or dictator without question is bad.

If you think that knowing what I know that I'd value genocide as a goal you are just as nuts as Hitler. And if you believe that because I am an atheist I will lead people to commit genocide, then it would stand to reason that you'd act in every aspect of your life to opress me even if there were no evidence that I would.

If I am bad, even before I act on anything, then do something about it now before us kitten barbaquing, goat sacrificing, cootie spreading heathens stick you in the oven.(tTake note of sarcasm)

Should I equate all Christians to Eric Rudoph because he claimed to be a Christian?

If there is anything I hate just as much as dictators is people who blindy buy a stereotpe without even knowing the individual.

If you think religion is incapable of violence you obviously dont watch the news nor have you ever picked up a history book.

I bet you dont even know what the Nazis had embossed on their belt buckles.

If you dont, go do some research. I dont think you do much of that otherwise this pathetic insult wouldnt have happened. You do know how to do research dont you?

BTW "QWERTY" is not an element. But you will need "QWERTY" to find out what the Nazi's had on their belt buckles. I hope you dont repeat your stupidity when you come back.

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

TTThomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams April 11th 1823.

"Question with boldness even the existance of God, for if there be one, surely he would pay more homage to reason than to that of blindfolded fear" Thomas Jefferson, EPITAPH

"As the goverment of the United States, is not in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" Barbary Treaty(Treaty of Tripoly) articall 11, signed by both houses of congress and signed into law by President John Adams, June 10th 1797.

"I distrust what God believers say what God wants, because it usually coincides with their disires" Susan B. Anthony.

I guess these people, since they didnt want to live under religious law, must have wanted to commit genocide too.

 

 

Whoah whoah whoah. Was that necessary? He was merely showing what he thought and you attack him for it? Uncalled for. =[

However, they are both right. Good and evil are nothing more than perceptions. There is no ultimate good, and no ultimate evil. We have to remember that what Hitler was doing, he honestly thought he was doing the right thing. He had justified himself and deemed his course of actions "for the betterment of Germany". However, we know what he was doing was wrong. We know it's wrong to murder. We know it's wrong to kill. But at the same time, we can't condemn Hitler for being evil because he honestly thought he was doing his country a great justice. That doesn't negate his actions at all though. I'm merely saying, there is no Good in this world, Nor any evil. Only perceptions of Good and Evil. We can't go condemning someone for being evil when that same person could condemn us for being evil. How could we know who was right?

"Why would God send his only son to die an agonizing death to redeem an insignificant bit of carbon?"-Victor J. Stenger.


jive turkey
Theist
jive turkey's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Brian 37 wrote: I consider

Brian 37 wrote:

I consider equating atheists to Hitler to be out of the scope of "Kill em with kindness" and should be put where others can recipocate.

----

Please re-read my post and this thread. I never equated atheist to Hitler...never. Nor do I mean to imply that in any way. I was only responding to another's comments and pointing out what I feel to be an troublesome issue in the atheistic position. (BTW, I'm a theist and I concede issues with the theistic position as well.)

So, now that we have some "Hitler was not bad" statements, can we get some "MLK was not good" admissions as well. Smiling

/peace


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
jive turkey wrote: Brian

jive turkey wrote:

Brian 37 wrote:

I consider equating atheists to Hitler to be out of the scope of "Kill em with kindness" and should be put where others can recipocate.

----

Please re-read my post and this thread. I never equated atheist to Hitler...never. Nor do I mean to imply that in any way. I was only responding to another's comments and pointing out what I feel to be an troublesome issue in the atheistic position. (BTW, I'm a theist and I concede issues with the theistic position as well.)

So, now that we have some "Hitler was not bad" statements, can we get some "MLK was not good" admissions as well. Smiling

/peace

 

Good and evil are issues of morality.

You do not need to be a christian or believe in god to understand that something is good or that it's bad.

I find it insulting that you believe that atheists would excuse the attrocities of the nazi regieme. And you took what Jane said out of context and twisted it to come up with this 'argument'. 

 


pariahjane
pariahjane's picture
Posts: 1595
Joined: 2006-05-06
User is offlineOffline
I think Maragon is on the

I think Maragon is on the right track.  Good and evil are moral issues, not necessarily perception issues.  Yes, there is some wiggle room with regard to what is good vs. evil, but lets face it (why do we always talk about Hitler?) what Hitler did was pretty seriously an evil thing.  The destruction, death and harm that occurred at the hands of the Nazi regime is inexcusable and I think that anyone, regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs can see that.

At the same token, I happen to find burying a woman up to her neck and chucking large stones at her head because her husband accused her of adultery as a pretty evil action.  Some people in the Middle East might not agree with me. 

Why this is an issue with atheism is beyond me, just for the record.  Perhaps I'm mistaking what that person meant (I don't remember the name, sorry) but just because I'm an atheist doesn't mean I can't tell the difference between good and evil.

If god takes life he's an indian giver


jive turkey
Theist
jive turkey's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Some of the questions I

Some of the questions I posed are probably better suited for the Philosophy board. I will try looking there.

I forgot who brought up Hitler on this thread (yeah, why always him...Stalin can't get no RRS love?). But speaking of Nazi parallels, I noticed that Theist get marked or branded on this board. That's how it starts people Smiling First order of business is to mark the 'bad' ones so they can be easily recognized and one doesn't have to waist any time listening to what they have to say without it coming through the filter of that label. Stage 2 is a bit more messy….

But really, what's up with the theist labels?


Maragon
Maragon's picture
Posts: 351
Joined: 2007-04-01
User is offlineOffline
jive turkey wrote: Some of

jive turkey wrote:

Some of the questions I posed are probably better suited for the Philosophy board. I will try looking there.

I forgot who brought up Hitler on this thread (yeah, why always him...Stalin can't get no RRS love?). But speaking of Nazi parallels, I noticed that Theist get marked or branded on this board. That's how it starts people Smiling First order of business is to mark the 'bad' ones so they can be easily recognized and one doesn't have to waist any time listening to what they have to say without it coming through the filter of that label. Stage 2 is a bit more messy….

But really, what's up with the theist labels?

 

The labels help us to keep from getting confused(there's alot of people who post here). Alot of people will....pretend to be atheist or agnostic an...I don't know...do stupid thing...but they're really theists and have said so in previous threads.

If we go to a christian board, we get labelled as atheists, no skin off of my back.

 


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
jive turkey

jive turkey wrote:

Ignorance Is Bliss wrote:

***No one is right, because evil is a perception. Good is also perception.***

Finally someone came out and said it: Hitler was not bad or wrong or evil. This is what I view as a major weakness of atheism as a philosophy (or the philosophies that spring from it). It lead to conclusions like Hitler was fine, he was not necessarily good or bad, he simply was. By extension MLK was not truly good either (because there's no such thing as good). In fact, MLK was delusional in this way of thinking. He gave his life for non-selfish reasons because he felt what he was doing was ultimately right (something which does not exist). Someone may choose to live by 'common human decency' while another way choose to bring his 9mm to class and kill as many people as he can, both are fine. BTW, where did we get our archetypes from before we had movies?

Everyone has their opinion. In mine, no one, atheist or otherwise, is justified in claiming that Hitler was not evil without torturing the definition of the word.

There is no "atheist philosophy" that does away with good and evil. Atheism doesn't address morality at all.

I know that you and most theists don't feel that morality is possible without God. My position is that morality is impossible WITH God.

1. If God is omnipotent, then is impossible, in logic, for us to do anything outside of his will. Saying that God gave us free will is like saying that he made a rock that he couldn't lift - it is a tautological impossibility. Therefore, all human actions are really God's actions and no moral judgement attaches to us at all.

2. Let's say God is limited and we are free to defy Him. However, we are conscious of the fact that if we disobey his commands, we go to hell and if we obey we go to heaven. We are all now under the dominion of the most oppressive form of cohersion imaginable. Doing the right thing is not a matter of morality, it is a matter of self-preservation. No act can be considered "good" when it is tainted by the implicit profit motive. In fact, only acts that disobey God might be considered good, because at least the actor was acting independantly of his own self interest. Under no circumstances do the actions of the coherced adhere to the coherced - they adhere to the cohercer.

3. The Bible tells us, straight out, that we are not saved by acts but by grace. Therefore, the only route to goodness is to be in right with God - trying to do the right thing in and of itself will get you nowhere. This means that the ONLY thing that counts is what God tells us. If God told us to murder a million kids, then that, according to Biblical morality, would be the "good" thing to do. There is a logical violation here because something which is "evil" today might be "good" tomorrow, and vice versa, according to God's whim. Again, how can morality adhere to the actor when we are told flat out to suspend our critical thought and obey without reason?

 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Ignorance Is Bliss
Posts: 12
Joined: 2007-05-13
User is offlineOffline
jive turkey

jive turkey wrote:

Ignorance Is Bliss wrote:

***No one is right, because evil is a perception. Good is also perception.***

Finally someone came out and said it: Hitler was not bad or wrong or evil. This is what I view as a major weakness of atheism as a philosophy (or the philosophies that spring from it). It lead to conclusions like Hitler was fine, he was not necessarily good or bad, he simply was. By extension MLK was not truly good either (because there's no such thing as good). In fact, MLK was delusional in this way of thinking. He gave his life for non-selfish reasons because he felt what he was doing was ultimately right (something which does not exist). Someone may choose to live by 'common human decency' while another way choose to bring his 9mm to class and kill as many people as he can, both are fine. BTW, where did we get our archetypes from before we had movies?

I don't think you can comprehend the point I'm making, because it wasn't that one. First, please do not put words in my mouth. I did not say I didn't personally think Hitler was wrong for what he did. I didn't say I disagree with MLK. See, that's where you mistake my point. I may realize good and evil are all about perception, but I still have my own sense of right and wrong. You really screwed up trying to make a point, because you ended up assuming in your entire argument. Lets state this out.

To me Hitler was wrong. I refuse to say evil because evil implies the intent to cause blantant destruction. He tried to "protect" the (Non-existent) aryan race. 

To me Martin Luther King Jr. was a great man. (Met one of his daughters too.) He fought hard for the rights of his race. (African-Americans, or what have you.)

They both defend the rights of their own "group". Neither did it for entirely selfish reasons, but they did it in different ways. One is evil and one is good for the method by which the accomplished their goal? Or, didn't, in Hitler's case. See, another mistake you make.

An act in itself is not evil. Rather, it is the intent behind the act. If I steal a million dollars, am I bad? Well, what if I stole that million dollars to donate to charity?  A charity to help save starving children? And lets say I stole from a loan shark who went around ruining peoples lives? Would I be bad for stealing? Well, by some people's understanding of how good and evil work, yes. An act is evil. Not the intent. I could save a child's life with the intent to sleep with his mother. The act is good because I saved the childs life. Well darn, guess it's okay.

Think of it like this. Lets use the word shit. Alright, people view the word shit as offensive. (Well, some do.) Is it the word that is truly offensive, or the meaning of the word? Why is shit any more offensive than crap if they mean the same thing? Why is ass more offensive then butt? They mean the same thing. Same thing with evil and good. I do something evil with good intent, or I do something good with evil intent. Is it the intent behind the act or the act itself that is evil or good? But lets say the intent is to steal food from America and send it to a starving country. Is that evil or good? Why? Again, you'd get different, answers, and therefore good and evil are perception. 

Evil. Is. A. Man. Made. Conept. That is my point. "Good" is what agrees with the social norm. Not killing is a social norm. "Bad" or "Evil" is what goes against the social norm. Hitler changed opinions of the social norm for some people.  He made it seem as if killing Jews was good because of propaganda and skillful rhetoric. He was doing something "Good" because he followed the social structure and beliefs he created and installed. 

To some people, MLK was "evil". Specifically white supremecists. Think, they're out to insure the well being of a certain "tribe" or group of people. Whites. Is that evil? Wanting to protect yourself from a perceived threat? No. Not to me. Very rarely do I ever use the word evil or good. 

Your inability to see from other peoples shoes is somewhat humorous. Merely because something is contradictory to your beliefs does not make it evil. Nor just because you believe something make it good. Is killing people wrong? Yes and no. Is killing someone who is trying to kill you wrong? Yes and no. It depends on ones perception and opinion. Since opinions vary, and forcing your opinions on others is bit fascist, no one is truly right. You may be right to yourself, but not right to someone else.

I'm not justifying the murder of millions, nor am I saying MLK was evil. And for you to judge a kid who brings a gun to school and shoots people is sickening. Imagine this. The boy is shoved around, beaten up, day after day. No one cares. No one listens. The teachers don't care. The principal doesn't. His parents don't. No one does. He gets abused, verbally, and physically. Shoved into luckers, dumped into trash cans. Day after day, week after week, year after year.

 Imagine every horrible thing to do to someone and imagine it done to him. If he brings a gun to school and shoots the people that bully him, I don't sympathasize with the bullies definately. Everyone has a breaking point. Everyone. No one has infinite patience. Everyone breaks, and loses their sanity at some point. You just put enough pressure, and it'll happen. In 6th grade some years ago, I got picked on a lot. Shoved around. I finally lost it and beat some kid senseless who decided it'd be funny to kick me while I was sitting alone not bugging anyone. It was after a long year of being shoved around and taking crap. I kept complaining, and nothing was done. I felt good for weeks after beating the crap out of him. But see, it wasn't one year, it was many. 4 years of dealing with crap. I lost it.

 So, was I evil for beating the crap out of the kid who kicked me? Some would say I am. I should have been "mature". However, that's passing judgement upon me, and making the assumption that you yourself would be fine in a situation like that under circumstances like that. 

Everyone views the world out of a little bubble. This bubble distorts what is outside of the bubble, and causes us to each form our own opinions of what is outside the bubble. Whether it be truth or not. We each form our own ideas, and therefore our own beliefs on what is good or bad. These int urn are passed down to our children who pass it down to their children and so on and on. Then, someone goes against the perception of the bubble, seeing what's outside different then what is taught, and they violate the social norm.

 I expect a poorly worded and/or response that is completely irrelevant to what I said. Either that, or no response at all.


Susan
Susan's picture
Posts: 3561
Joined: 2006-02-12
User is offlineOffline
OK folks.  This is the

OK folks.  This is the Kill 'Em With Kindness forum.

The tone of this thread is getting out of hand.

Please refreain from snide remarks, insults, name-calling, etc.

If you wish to continue using tones like I'm seeing in these posts, please move to the Atheist vs Theist forum. 

Please remain civil. 

 

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.


jive turkey
Theist
jive turkey's picture
Posts: 41
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Ignorance Is Bliss

Ignorance Is Bliss wrote:
Imagine every horrible thing to do to someone and imagine it done to him. If he brings a gun to school and shoots the people that bully him, I don't sympathasize with the bullies definately. Everyone has a breaking point. Everyone. No one has infinite patience. Everyone breaks, and loses their sanity at some point. You just put enough pressure, and it'll happen. In 6th grade some years ago, I got picked on a lot. Shoved around. I finally lost it and beat some kid senseless who decided it'd be funny to kick me while I was sitting alone not bugging anyone. It was after a long year of being shoved around and taking crap. I kept complaining, and nothing was done. I felt good for weeks after beating the crap out of him. But see, it wasn't one year, it was many. 4 years of dealing with crap. I lost it.

Sorry you had such a hard time.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13370
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Maragon wrote: jive turkey

Maragon wrote:
jive turkey wrote:

Some of the questions I posed are probably better suited for the Philosophy board. I will try looking there.

I forgot who brought up Hitler on this thread (yeah, why always him...Stalin can't get no RRS love?). But speaking of Nazi parallels, I noticed that Theist get marked or branded on this board. That's how it starts people Smiling First order of business is to mark the 'bad' ones so they can be easily recognized and one doesn't have to waist any time listening to what they have to say without it coming through the filter of that label. Stage 2 is a bit more messy….

But really, what's up with the theist labels?

 

The labels help us to keep from getting confused(there's alot of people who post here). Alot of people will....pretend to be atheist or agnostic an...I don't know...do stupid thing...but they're really theists and have said so in previous threads.

If we go to a christian board, we get labelled as atheists, no skin off of my back.

 

Yea, thats not really different than a Job Aplication if your name is Pat and they ask you to mark Mr or Ms.

I would have a problem if an atheist or theist politician wanted laws  like hitler did marking Jews with stars and numbered tatoos.

This is a private forum, not a goverment institution. 

"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