Questions for atheists

[finder]

I was addressing a specific question from Jack in which he set the perimeters. Of course job search isn't evil. The point is if you are only self serving, that is evil. And I have every right to hold that opinion.

by minorwork Are you looking to define harmless actions of your readers as sin? Would somebody bringing guilt into the mind of another, where previously there was none, make that person evil? A perceptive individual told this story to me and other Volcons.

No, why would you think that? I've clearly stated my view. We can not be good if we have bad thoughts. Resisting them doesn't make us good. Good would mean we had no bad thoughts.

[finder]

Sure.



Among the basest forms.



Nope.



Yes.

Does this exclude me from your cherry-picked, generalized debate?

No, and why do you say "cherry picked?" I do not exclude myself. I know I can't be good if I harbor evil inside. Even when it's not acted out.

[Jack]

Exactly where did these attributes come from? How did you happen to acquire them?

They are the products of chemical and electrical reactions and connections in the brain. I was born with them and developed them as I aged and gained knowledge and experience. Some people are born with chemical imbalances in their brains or damage neural pathways and suffer undeveloped or underdeveloped capacities for empathy and conscience.

We can not be good if we have bad thoughts.

You perceive the world in black & white, I perceive a world with shades of gray. In my world you can be a good person with bad thoughts. Bad thoughts are common to humans, we think a lot of things and not all of them can be commendable. Not acting on the bad thoughts is what helps a person be good despite them.

Resisting them doesn't make us good. Good would mean we had no bad thoughts.

No, "perfect" would mean we had no bad thoughts, and no human is perfect unless they die at birth. Resisting bad thoughts is a part of maturity, of being a good and decent human.

[finder]

Finder, the point is, religion does not make people more moral. All it does is make them pay lip service to morality on Sunday morning.

Actually I agree with you, pretty much anyway. Religion itself has no power over sin.

The same moral Christians you know who would never even drink alcohol would probably be the same way if they were atheists. The same criminals in jail who are christians would probably have done the same things if they were atheists.

More then likely. Can't believe we are in so much agreement!

Do you need god to tell you it's bad to murder someone so that you don't go ahead and do it? Would you kill kids if god didn't tell you it was bad? No? Me neither, and god isn't telling me that any of that is wrong, that is my decision.

Exactly, we decide. A lion doesn't decide though. It kills the cubs of a rival with not thought of morality at all. Just to preserve its dominance in the pride. Other primates that are social as we are, they kill without a thought, but we consider its morality, why? I believe it is because we are evil but strive for good. Good is pure and has no part of evil so it's illogical to assume we're good but harbor evil thoughts that we must resist.

The LAW of man is much more effective than god's laws.

I think neither set of laws has been effective. Just look at the crime stats of any population. That's why we need Christ. But for the topic of this thread, why would society need laws in the first place if humanity was good? If we were good evil wouldn't even enter our minds, but it does. We must strive for goodness. Isn't this obvious considering your words...?

Also, even if I did get some sadistic pleasure out of hurting others, I wouldn't do it either, because of the chance of prosecution I suppose. I don't know - I don't frequently have "evil thoughts", and I can't imagine how someone would get anjoyment out of hurting others.

but everyone has evil thoughts.

[finder]

You perceive the world in black & white, I perceive a world with shades of gray. In my world you can be a good person with bad thoughts. Bad thoughts are common to humans, we think a lot of things and not all of them can be commendable. Not acting on the bad thoughts is what helps a person be good despite them.

Perhaps, but it could be considered immature to operate in a gray world because you find justification in the gray and lose responsibility. We all agree, don't we, that sometimes we act on those thoughts?

No, "perfect" would mean we had no bad thoughts, and no human is perfect unless they die at birth. Resisting bad thoughts is a part of maturity, of being a good and decent human.

Agreed. Perfection is required in order to never harbor evil thoughts. So if good were part evil then it would be nonsensical to call it good. For how can good harbor evil? It is nonsensical to call ourselves "good and decent" while we yet must strive to reach that goal. See what I mean about hiding our responsibility in the gray? I think it is rather black and white and accepting that would be the act of a mature and wise person.

[Angry Citizen]

No, and why do you say "cherry picked?" I do not exclude myself. I know I can't be good if I harbor evil inside. Even when it's not acted out.

Buddy, humanity is not sinful. Individuals may be, but not all, and certainly not most. This is perhaps the greatest curse of Christianity, this false notion that humans are 'evil' and need to be cured by some dead Jew.

[Jack]

Good is pure and has no part of evil so it's illogical to assume we're good but harbor evil thoughts that we must resist....So if good were part evil then it would be nonsensical to call it good. For how can good harbor evil? It is nonsensical to call ourselves "good and decent" while we yet must strive to reach that goal.

I'm going to use your terminology and not quibble right now over a definition of "evil".

Why do you think "good" and "evil" are mutually exclusive? I see them as extremes on the moral/ethical continuum. On the left, "good" and on the right, "evil". I don't believe anyone falls exclusively on either end but dwells somewhere along the line from one extreme to the other. Just like there are degrees between absolute brightness and absolute darkness. We don't experience either extreme in nature. I doubt there's any human in history who has been 100% good or evil.

...it could be considered immature to operate in a gray world because you find justification in the gray and lose responsibility. We all agree, don't we, that sometimes we act on those thoughts?

Of course we do, we're human. Lacking belief in absolutes and acknowledging the gray areas of life does not excuse anyone from responsibility. I would contend that believing your life is determined by the actions of unseen gods and devils allows one to claim they aren't responsible for themselves. Non-believers, on the other hand, have no one but themselves to blame for their mistakes.

Here's a black&white versus gray area scenario I'd ask you to consider: Say you're in traffic and a black guy in a fancy car swerves in front of you at almost causes a crash. Let's also say the very first thought that pops into your mind is, "Stupid nigger". The minute that thought enters your mind you realize how inappropriate and "wrong" that thought is and immediately berate yourself for even thinking it. Now according to a black&white attitude you're condemned for having had the thought initially regardless of how you later dealt with it. In a gray area world, because of your life experiences, it's understandable that you might think that immediately but commendable that you rationally corrected yourself about it. In a black&white world people are either good or bad, and since no one is wholly good they must all be bad. In a gray area world humans are neither wholly good or bad but fall somewhere in between those two extremes. We accept that we are fallible, imperfect beings, full of contradictions and good intentions that often aren't realized.

The ideal of perfection espoused by Christians isn't based on reality, the actual nature of humans, but rather on a false dichotomy created by looking at issues as black&white and ignoring the degrees between. Christianity then invents a being we are asked to believe exists that embodies the perfection we can only imagine. Most gods are anthropomorphic precisely because they are the "ideal human", we create them in the image of what we'd like to be and wish we were. But we're not, and I seriously doubt we ever will be as long as humanity exists.

It is nonsensical to call ourselves "good and decent" while we yet must strive to reach that goal.

It's an expression of intent, not a claim of accomplishment. We want to be good and decent, we strive every moment to be so, we aspire to be better and more decent than we are now in the future. It's self-defeating and unreasonable to insist that simply because we aren't and likely never will be as good and decent as we wish we were that we ought to consider all of humanity evil.

[Zeebadee]

They are the products of chemical and electrical reactions and connections in the brain. I was born with them and developed them as I aged and gained knowledge and experience. Some people are born with chemical imbalances in their brains or damage neural pathways and suffer undeveloped or underdeveloped capacities for empathy and conscience.

So, since empathy and conscience are a basis for morality, you're acknowledging that men are born with an inherent sense of morality?

[Jack]

So, since empathy and conscience are a basis for morality, you're acknowledging that men are born with an inherent sense of morality?

It's my opinion that most people are born with the mental capability to develop a conscience and empathy. I'm not sure what you mean by "an inherent sense of morality" but if you're asking if I believe people are born with a sense of right and wrong, a moral code, already in place then no, I don't. I believe most people are born with the equipment necessary to form a sense of morality but there are no guarantees they will. Some people are born with physically damaged brains and have a diminished capacity to develop their conscience and empathy. Others will suffer trauma as children and it will warp their mental processes and thus their conscience and empathy. Still others may be raised with values and attitudes that allow them to ignore their conscience and empathy and become psychopaths and sociopaths. Even those with religious training can turn out that way. As far as I know we are born with very few inherent psychological preconditions. The need to suckle and sleep are the predominant ones, and none of them involve the conscience or empathy. Those develop later, along with things like speech and the ability to synthesize input from the world around us.

[finder]

While it's true I'm a Christian and believe in the purity of true goodness, I knew of the Milgram Experiment, but stumbled upon it again around a month ago. And it started me thinking about good and evil. So I started this thread. Here's a sample of the experiment. Not the original but you can find that if you wish, I watched and read about it fully but this is a more modern, updated version of the experiment...



We definitely harbor evil.

[Jack]

I don't think it's as simple as "we definitely harbor evil". We all share common human traits that can be exploited and used against us and others. Humans can be gullible and that can be manipulated by others to their benefit. It's my opinion that religions do this in order to gain followers since the more followers there are in a particular religion or denomination the more power and money the leaders enjoy. Politics is another field where human traits are exploited and controlled for the benefit of a party, cause or candidate. Most of what I know about this topic I learned as a member of a psychological operations unit in the Army Reserves after my discharge. Exploiting human vulnerabilities is practically a science. If you're going to affix blame for this sort of thing, blame those who do the exploiting, not those who just happen to have common human traits that are exploitable.

Dogs, because of the way humans have bred them for centuries, have a natural affinity for humans. You can abuse them severely and they'll still come back to your side. Should we blame dogs for being so foolishly loyal or should we blame those who take advantage of their loyalty in order to abuse them?

[ozzie666]

We can not be good if we have bad thoughts. Resisting them doesn't make us good.

well thats just plain wrong isn't it?

you no what having bad thoughts makes us? human. every single human on the planet will at some stage in their life, think about doing something bad or against your standard societal moral code. this moral code, although, like jack says, is not in place at birth, its going to be there eventually, with or without religion. it doesnt matter if you have god in your life or not, you grow up knowing its wrong to cheat, steal, lie and hurt others. and i can promise you now, 100% of humans will have thought about one of those at some point.

but resisting those thoughts, saying no to them, is exactly what separates good people from the rest. those who realise the potential to commit evil, but do not, are the people you can call, "good".

now what does god have to do with making the right decision?

im pretty sure when your like 2 or 3 and another kid steals your toy and you start crying, that's the start of empathy. cause then eventually you'll steal someone elses toy and your mum will say "you didn't like it when that boy stole yours, so how do you think he feels?" and although its such an early age, remorse can be found in guilt very easily.

hows them for morals? do not steal. i didn't need moses to tell me that one.