Many atheists have blind faith in good & evil.

page: 1
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:46 AM
link   
This question is especially for those who believe that nothing should be accepted to be true on blind faith alone. Do good & evil fundamentally exist, or are they just abstractions of human emotion... just words describing emotional opinions?

To an atheist or many agnostics, I suppose what is good and evil should be purely speculative and opinion. "One man's evil is another man's good." A lot of true atheists seem to have blind faith that there is fundamentally/absolutely right and wrong.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.




posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 02:57 AM
link   
People continue to evolve, societies change. So right/wrong can be speculative only a basic set of rules should never change.

1. Don't harm any person in any way.
2. Take care of Earth.

To me, the rest is noise and can change in the course of centuries.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by mortje
 


I agree, although to be in the middle of both good/evil, i would change it to say

1. Dont harm any human unless you want harming back.

This way if anyone harms you, you should have the right to do the same back and not to have anyone else decide what happens to them.

If you wanted to do the same back to that person,you should have that choice and you only.

Does this make sense?

[edit on 22-1-2009 by markjaxson]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   
True, if you harm other people there should be some kind of 'payback'.
The hardest part is what that payback should be so that person learns from it, so he/she won't fall back into repetition.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:12 AM
link   
To say that good and/or evil exist somewhere outside of the realm of the living beings in Universe (and they ALL know the difference, by the way) would be certainly a cop out for their own faults in treating others



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 03:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mortje
True, if you harm other people there should be some kind of 'payback'.
The hardest part is what that payback should be so that person learns from it, so he/she won't fall back into repetition.


Always go with your first instinct. Real life example here from me.

When i was about 8 i saw my brother getting beaten up on the floor at the bottom of the hill by god knows who and i instinctively ran down the hill and kneed him in the face at full run speed.

I got told off by the headmaster which i thought was very unfair, i explained what happened and nothing else was said, also the guy who was beating my brother never bothered my brother or even me again.

And im not the fighting type of person either i always avoid it whenever i can.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
This question is especially for those who believe that nothing should be accepted to be true on blind faith alone.

Then it is a question especially for me.


Do good & evil fundamentally exist, or are they just abstractions of human emotion... just words describing emotional opinions?

Good and evil are purely human concepts, but they arise from much more fundamental intuitions about right and wrong that may be universal.

Human beings invented good and evil. They do not apply to the world around us. They apply only to us and our actions.

But our intuitions of right and wrong are largely instinctive. We didn't invent them, we evolved them.


To an atheist or many agnostics, I suppose what is good and evil should be purely speculative and opinion. "One man's evil is another man's good."

Why do you suppose so? Haven't you noticed that, all over the world, people are pretty much in agreement about which actions are right and which are wrong? Where they disagree, it is usually because of religious or cultural differences. This suggests that morality goes deeper than culture or religion. There is plenty of other evidence for it, too.

Every human attribute has evolved for a reason. Our intuitions of right and wrong help protect us and those we care for against injury by others ill-disposed towards us; they regulate sexual behaviour to minimize inbreeding and enable us to live in large societies without excessive conflict. All this increases our ability to survive and reproduce successfully.

The urge to be with and interact with others who are like us, to preserve ourselves from harm, to protect those who are like us but weaker than us, to care for one another, to defend ourselves and what is ours against predators, to see fair play and punish offenders, to offer gifts and trade favours - all these are deep-rooted in us, instincts that evolved over untold millions of years and many of which we share with other social animals. These instincts - not religious doctrine - form the true basis for our judgements of 'right' and 'good'.

Other instincts - such as our innate aggression, sexuality and drive to acquire status - conflict with the social and nurturing instincts. They are just as important for our survival as the other sort of instinct, but their expression has to be controlled and limited to the appropriate set and setting, or they will destroy us, our families and societies. The uncontrolled expression of these instincts is what we call 'wrong' or 'evil'*.

When they are expressed appropriately and their potential for damage is contained, then we say it is 'good' or that someone has 'done the right thing'.

I don't know if there really are atheists who 'have blind faith that there is fundamentally/absolutely right and wrong'. Frankly, I doubt it; atheists are not stupid people. But if anyone wants to know where human concepts of morality come from, they should look to Darwin, not to the Bible or the Koran or the Baghvad-Gita or the Diamond Sutra.
 

*What are the Seven Deadly Sins but the uncontrolled expression of our instincts?

[edit on 22-1-2009 by Astyanax]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by markjaxson
 


True, but that's 8 year olds
.

Adults needed to be handled differently. Simply knocking them around won't help.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by truthquest
 

Is that title really accurate? Do many atheists really have blind faith in good & evil? I just want to know where you got this information. And what is a true atheist?

Anyways, what is evil or good IS opinion. Personally, evil is forcing things on other people when they don't want it (especially if it benefits you and not them). Good is being kind, generous, non-judgemental, etc.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:29 AM
link   
\Do good & evil fundamentally exist, or are they just abstractions of human emotion... just words describing emotional opinions? \

For some people these are abstractions, yes.
This is the question of Moral! and its a very complicated question.
The moral is in-born in normal human beings, that is the in-born universal knowldege of good and evil. but there are deviants, who unfortunatley lack this inner core. the same as some people are born without ears or eyes, deaf and dumb, and need guidance. Unfortunately these moral deviations give more chances for survival for such deviants in pathological societies.
In medicine we have the terms: norm and pathology. Norm is a person is healthy and pathology - sickness, deviation, degeneration. the same with any society and state since all states consist of people and maybe normal or pathological. In physiology we have the term - homeostasis. the meaning is that any living system seeksto preserve its normal parameters and rates, since only such reproduction of Norm reproduces life. The scientists put the equal sign between norm and life and that means clearly that if a living system is not capable to provide Norm, its pathology that leads to death/ that is no-Norm meanth death.
in human society, norm is moral and its in-born in normal human beings.

Moral is not an abstract pile of abstract dogms heaped by jewish philosophers and thinkers but a centuries old arsenal of human experience of the most important rules, which if one doesnt follow, he is doomed to perish...



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 



I don't know if there really are atheists who 'have blind faith that there is fundamentally/absolutely right and wrong'...


my guess is that there are - being born with the same instincts as the rest of humanity

instinct is a hard thing to fight

our humanity is a hard thing to fight

the only thing that would differ is their interpretation - their understanding of what morality is - and how they choose to express what it means to them

it seems to me that it would all amount to the same thing in the end - being human and all

they are still human - aren't they? :-)



...atheists are not stupid people...


(because I can't help myself) no - it's true. While I don't like to use the word stupid when describing people - I have to admit - I have never met a stupid atheist

stubborn - defensive - irritable sometimes

but never once stupid

sometimes they can actually be pretty deep...



...But if anyone wants to know where human concepts of morality come from, they should look to Darwin, not to the Bible or the Koran or the Baghvad-Gita or the Diamond Sutra.


and this is where I have questions about things like art - all art - literature, music, dance, painting - architecture...

what is art really?

to me it is the most basic form of symbolism - it speaks to us on a different level in an attempt to explain the world around us - to each other and to ourselves

it attempts to explain us to ourselves

I mention it only because it's always seemed to me that - once you get away from the political aspects of religion - the power and control issues - it's just another art form

religion as art

it helps us understand who we are and where we came from, and what we want and intend to be

it was inevitable that it would be questioned - but it exists for some very basic and very useful reasons

and at times it's very beautiful

[edit on 1/22/2009 by Spiramirabilis]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyindevil
reply to post by truthquest
 

Is that title really accurate? Do many atheists really have blind faith in good & evil? I just want to know where you got this information. And what is a true atheist?

My information (more of an assumption) that atheists have blind faith in "good and evil" is based on my own blind faith in good and evil which I have had at both times I have had a very close to 0% belief in God, which would make me an atheist, and times where I have had closer to a 100% belief in God.

This question really began when I was researching the 9/11 conspiracy and I thought to myself about how nobody could be that "absolutely evil". I then had to correct myself being an atheist because "a true atheist does not believe in absolute evil". Yet at the same time I realized I just could not emotionally accept the fact that the act was not fundamentally evil.

For a true atheist atheist I think you have to be of the opinion that there is a "good and bad", not "good and evil". Whenever an atheist watches a particularly repulsive crime or sadistic act I suspect they think "that is absolutely evil" but correct me if I am wrong on that point.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by truthquest]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   
I'm guessing that many people in this thread don't understand atheism. Please before you make accusations like that at least think about it first. I'm sure many atheists would disagree with you.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthquest
This question is especially for those who believe that nothing should be accepted to be true on blind faith alone.


It does not take faith to believe in what is given to you. I have not seen a god or any evidence of a god. I do not believe in things that I have no reason to believe in. Therefore, the only logical choice is to believe in the nothing we can observe. That is not faith. People of faith just do not seem to understand what atheism is all about at all. I think it is why they are people of faith.

Do good & evil fundamentally exist, or are they just abstractions of human emotion... just words describing emotional opinions?

To an atheist or many agnostics, I suppose what is good and evil should be purely speculative and opinion. "One man's evil is another man's good." A lot of true atheists seem to have blind faith that there is fundamentally/absolutely right and wrong.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.


Good and evil always have been and always will be subjective. Are you Christian? Do you believe it is good to offer your virginal daughter to a guest? Do you believe shellfish are abominations? Do you believe it is as evil for me to steal, commit adultery, dishonor my father or mother, and yell Jesus Christ when I stub my toe in the dark at night? Are they all as evil? They are on the same list. Whether we were both men of faith or not, what is good and evil would vary. Just look at how many Catholic priests managed to feel it was not evil to have sexual relations with young boys. Look how many of them thought it was not evil to move these men from community to community to keep them from getting caught instead of stopping them from continuing. Look how many Muslims this and Jews that. Do you see a whole lot of agreement about what is right and wrong? I don't. I know what is wrong to me and that is good enough. My parents raised me right and I understand empathy quite well so my ethics are as good if not better than any person of faith I have ever met. I guess the conclusion from that is yours to make.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 07:48 PM
link   
We don't all follow a particular philosophy. We are as varied as a snowflake. I believe in moral relativism for the small things in life. The more important a stance is to me, the more I will become biased and selfish, which of course, is the right thing to do...

I equate evil with extreme psychopathy. I admit that the evil is only coming from a broken machine, but I sometimes call it evil because I am trying to convey the viceral and emotional aspect of it... which, of course, is important to know when deciding whether or not you will be tolerating of evil (or just bad things) or if its not a good time to fight back.

So, as a moral relativist, I say, do what you will, so long as it does not hinder me. If we should get cross, I will naturally prefer my own view point before yours, unless you can prove me wrong, or, if you would like to negotiate and maybe we can give and take if you are my friend. This is my view of a healthy selfishness. All it is is a priority system as a general guideline... "Me first, unless you are my friend, then we share." I think this is reasonable and natural and has a natural justice.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by TheSingularity]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:09 PM
link   


I admit that the evil is only coming from a broken machine, but I sometimes call it evil because I am trying to convey the viceral and emotional aspect of it...


I think that makes sense

the word evil is like the word god - it comes loaded with so many different meanings for so many different people - it ends up meaning almost nothing

but it means what it means to you

if evil doesn't exist - we still need a word to explain just how wrong wrong can feel

"that was really, really bad" just doesn't go far enough sometimes



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:32 PM
link   
Evil is not an abstract concept. Its defined by two things: 1. The rejection of the truth. 2. replacing the truth with a lie.

An evil person knows the truth. They reject it. They attempt to replace it with a lie. In EVERY circumstance where the word Evil is applied these two conditions must exist. Otherwise it is not Evil.

The real problem is there doesn't seem to be an agreed upon definition of the word, so its left open to interpretation; which is Evil because Evil does have a definition and many people simply reject it and try and replace it with another definition. This way it is easier to be Evil and escape detection I suppose.

The above post illustrates my point exactly. Some people don't know better. Most fit into one of two categories: 1. They are Evil. 2. They are uninformed.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by huckfinn]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Spiramirabilis
 


Yeah, I'll even use the word God as well: "There is nothing wrong with me fundamentally. This is the way God created me." I'm turning the Christian view of original sin upside-down... or right-side-up actually.



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:10 PM
link   
Oh, and to address the other on-going point I would say, yes, everyone's perspective is equally valid, but I temper that by saying that everyone also has their right to fight tooth-and-nail for what they believe in. Evidently, that's how life works... you have to fight it out and I don't see any way around that. We have no choice but to fight against what we perceive as evil. Whoever wins, wins. Moving on.

[edit on 22-1-2009 by TheSingularity]



posted on Jan, 22 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frankidealist35
I'm guessing that many people in this thread don't understand atheism. Please before you make accusations like that at least think about it first. I'm sure many atheists would disagree with you.


Could you specify what accusations are being made that have not been thought about? I hope not mine, because I get personally offended when someone tells me how long I need to think about any given issue unless I specifically ask, but maybe that is just me.





new topics
top topics
 
3
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join