Many atheists have blind faith in good & evil.

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
reply to post by Luciferdescending

 

I cannot find anything there to argue with.

really? nothing?

where's the fun in that?

OK, I will give it a shot. The problem is that I think you and I see eye to eye on many things. We just probably do not see them exactly the same nor express that in similar ways but I have read your posts on enough threads to know I really have no argument with you about anything off hand but just to be my advocate...

we do have that kind of control - but not as individuals - only as a group

our instincts have evolved to benefit the group - not the individual

regardless of what we can or cannot change - our mutual needs override our individual needs

this is why we often say - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few

I believe the first part is true but I believe the reason we actually say that is because people need to remind people that people are socialist in nature - generally speaking. I think people have become selfish, self righteous abstractions of themselves and the need to verbalize things their instincts are trying to remind them of because somehow saying we believe something satiates the beast within us that knows we never intend to practice it. This is why we often say that.

it's why it's easy to see evil in the desires or actions of an individual or smaller group that goes against the larger group

no matter how much our environment changes - and how much we adapt - our survival is always going to be tied to working with and coexisting with each other

our concepts of morality do evolve - you can see that in many areas - religion, race, gender, sexuality - the way the planet looks at war and peace and the environment

but all those changes are superficial

I do not agree that those changes are superficial. Those changes ripple in big big ways. When it was acceptable to say, split a person in half in the town hall for the public to view with no due process of law, that happened. Now, most people would not find that morally 'ok.' It happens far less than it used to.

our basic instinct to survive is always going to be tied to our need for the group to survive - and this is why we care about each other

this is why it bothers us when an old lady gets conked in the head and has her purse stolen - not because we were told it was wrong - not because we learned it was wrong - not because we believe it's wrong

it's because we know it's wrong

Ah, but that is just pushing the question farther down the road. Why do we believe it is wrong? Why is it wrong? "it's because we know it's wrong" I get upset when someone conks and old lady because I know old ladies and they are not a threat to me. I have met very few that made me dislike them and I am fairly certain that their purses can be taken in other ways than through violence. I feel it is wrong to harm an innocent and vulnerable person to take something of theirs, especially when you could do one or the other without either needing both to be accomplished. I have empathy and can put myself in either place and when I do, I feel like the criminal is an ass and the woman is a helpless victim. Now, why do I have empathy?

Ok, it was not much but I gave arguing with you about it a shot.

reply to post by Luciferdescending

My problem is that I see a harsh reality that belies the premise put forth. This social evolution is not happening. It seems nice to think that criminals go to jail and become less attractive for mating and therefor die off but...are our prisons getting less or more full with each new generation?

if you go back and look at history - it's easy to see how things can simultaneously be better and be worse - and what's better or worse right now will look completely different in the future - it looks as if there's no rhyme or reason to any of it

it can look like it's going in the wrong direction at times - but that's a matter of perspective - our relationship to and distance from the situation

I personally see humanity on a forward march towards being all it can be (and without having to join the army even)

but, it's a process of refinement - and it takes more than one lifetime to see the results

we don't hang people from trees anymore - at least not in this country - and not outside the legal system - that will change too in time

Do not worry though, honestly I see a very nice world in which I am quite grateful to be given the opportunity to exist, however ephemeral a gift it is.

I know you do :-)

This social contract is BS though.

you won't like this then - but the post of mine you agreed with was just another description of the social contract

it's more or less the same thing Astyanax was saying above - he just knows more words than I do and uses fewer smileys

:-)

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis
we don't hang people from trees anymore - at least not in this country - and not outside the legal system - that will change too in time

Instead of hanging some, we warehouse a LOT.

you won't like this then - but the post of mine you agreed with was just another description of the social contract

This social contract. This one I am responding about where criminals do not procreate.

it's more or less the same thing Astyanax was saying above - he just knows more words than I do and uses fewer smileys

No, it is not. You are talking about how no man is an island and that has always been shown to be true. He is saying that getting arrested takes you from the gene pool.

Again I ask, do we have more or less people in prison with each generation? Have we been adding that many new laws each year or that many new criminals?

reply to post by Luciferdescending

OK, I will give it a shot. The problem is that I think you and I see eye to eye on many things. We just probably do not see them exactly the same nor express that in similar ways but I have read your posts on enough threads to know I really have no argument with you about anything off hand but just to be my advocate...

I should have waited on my last post :-)

without getting too "we are the world" on you here - what you just said is true most of the time for everybody

it always amuses me to see everybody fighting like cats in dogs in these forums and not realize they're already in agreement

I do not agree that those changes are superficial. Those changes ripple in big big ways...

not superficial in importance - superficial in that they are things that are easily changed - and have changed - and will continue to change

the ideas and beliefs behind many of the categories I mentioned are little more than fashions and trends

at one time gay couples living together in the open - and raising families together - would have been unthinkable

it still is for many people - but the fact that it happens at all proves that society can change the way it thinks - and if not change what it believes exactly - can change what it is willing to believe

and yet the values that remain seem to be unchangeable - not only that - they are constantly reaffirmed

do unto others will survive anything and everything you can throw at it

I have empathy

those are the most magical words in our entire human vocabulary

those 3 words explain everything the OP is wondering about

Ok, it was not much but I gave arguing with you about it a shot.

that was great

and I don't really see it as arguing - I call it discussing :-)

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

I should have waited on my last post :-)

without getting too "we are the world" on you here - what you just said is true most of the time for everybody

it always amuses me to see everybody fighting like cats in dogs in these forums and not realize they're already in agreement

Yeah, I find myself trying to tear someone apart after 4 pages of rabbit arguing and then find myself starring them on another thread but hey, I am a mean person so I hate them based on first impressions anyway. I just know you better than you think.

not superficial in importance - superficial in that they are things that are easily changed - and have changed - and will continue to change

the ideas and beliefs behind many of the categories I mentioned are little more than fashions and trends

at one time gay couples living together in the open - and raising families together - would have been unthinkable

But then you get into what is superficial really? What if you are a person that dies at the age of 17. Everything that was in effect in that time is what you knew and was what the entire world was to you and nothing can change that. But that is a whole other boatload of BS.

those are the most magical words in our entire human vocabulary

those 3 words explain everything the OP is wondering about

...and yet it is still asserted that without Jesus, none of it is worth a damn. Sad, don't you think?

that was great

and I don't really see it as arguing - I call it discussing :-)

But you said that not arguing was what made me no fun so I was attempting to argue and I had to stretch at first to do it. Now it is only discussing?

reply to post by Luciferdescending

Again I ask, do we have more or less people in prison with each generation? Have we been adding that many new laws each year or that many new criminals?

how many generations back do you want to go? And how many reasons are there for putting someone in prison?

at one time there were debtors prisons - it doesn't happen now because we look at it that kind of situation differently

there are many prisons in the world where people are incarcerated for political reasons - in a strange way - may of the prisoners we have in our prisons now are political prisoners - even though politics wasn't their crime

I assume you're talking about prisons in the U.S. right now - and there's more than one reason why they're overflowing

in the future there will be fewer people incarcerated than there are now - but it's going to take some time

society will wheel around and take another look at the why of it all - and slowly those root causes will be addressed

we'll start working on why people end up in jail instead of just putting them in jail because it's easier than wondering about the why of it all

when it actually gets to the point where incarceration won't work in mopping up and hiding away the problems - we'll be forced to take a new approach

I'm voting for the humane approach - I realize it could go another way

but even that can't last forever

change is inevitable

I also think maybe the point of the social contract that you have a problem with is too specific - it's a small example of how things are weeded out

there are too many variables involved and too much time required to really illustrate the process - but it isn't wrong

you just have to pull back and look at the bigger picture

reply to post by Luciferdescending


I just wanted to let you know that I am going to get back to this

I have to bail - I'm already WAY late because I'm enjoying this and can't put it down

so - brb (OK - not right back - but back)

:-)

[edit on 1/24/2009 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by Luciferdescending

But you said that not arguing was what made me no fun so I was attempting to argue and I had to stretch at first to do it. Now it is only discussing?

OK - arguing - didn't mean to spoil it

:-)

doesn't seem like you're stretching - seems like you're a natural

Originally posted by Spiramirabilis

OK - arguing - didn't mean to spoil it

:-)

doesn't seem like you're stretching - seems like you're a natural

Oh once the ball gets rolling, sure.

\Are you saying that because you do not agree with her view or because you think it is impossible for someone to come to their own conclusions without a god telling them what to think? Just asking. \

No way I would think any of the ways you described...)
I have posted already my thoughts on the subject. Moral is a centuries old arsenal of human experience of the most important rules and prohibitions, saved in our genes, and which are of universal nature.
In case of your mom and the saying, its another example of universal observation based on human experience.

What you all do here is trying to specify the universal Moral according to the ideas of a bunch of philosophers you have read. All their philosophies are based on the denial of inborn moral. Just recall Freud, he denied inborn Moral all his life/ In the end of life, Freud just crossed out all his methods and produced a new one which was based on existance of inborn knowldege of good and bad... Nobody uses this method since it states that you will never cure a deviant of degeneration of genes...

Better learn yourselves...

The question of pathological societies and theur influence on the preversion of Moral is intersting though.

Originally posted by Astyanax

Taking the purse-snatching discussed is evil because the social contract written on our genes states is evil?

Now that's just silly. Intellectually, we can explain why assaulting someone and robbing them is wrong in terms of the social contract, in terms of individual human rights and so on, but in the end no explanation is required.
We know it is wrong because the thought of it, or the sight of it, appals and frightens us. We know it is wrong instinctively. This is not because we have 'a social contract written into our genes' but because we have moral understanding built into us.

And furthermore, the primary reason which we obey that social contract is because of the personal advantage it provides us all?

No. We obey the terms of the social contract because (i) we have an instinct to do what our group demands of us, to 'fit in', (ii) because that instinct is strongly reinforced by conditioning, or education if you prefer, and finally (iii) because if you don't, those in authority will lock you up.

Didn't I explain all this before?

You have explained this before but please note I was just asking you to clarify what you had already said. You did a good job of the clarification too I think. Yet I will ask for one more point of clarification:

Its sounds like you would agree that belief in what is good and what is evil is largely faith-based, due to that as you say it isn't based on an intellectual thought process but rather we know right from wrong instinctively. Is that the case?

[edit on 24-1-2009 by truthquest]

Deliberately harming others is Evil.
Thinking about, or planning to harm others, is also Evil.

Self defence, defending the innocent, is not Evil, even if bodily harm is needed to subdue a mugger, stop a murderer, stop a purse snatcher, etc.

We don't live in an ideal world. In reality there are evil people(sons of perdition) that can only be stopped by force, and sometimes death.

Some things are the way they are. Each person needs to decide for themselves what course of action they will take in a real world situation, and then proceed with a clear conscience, putting Faith in God.

I make no apologies for using the term "God".

reply to post by Luciferdescending


From a quick Google search it appears there are more people in prison with each generation.

More than 1 in 100 American adults were incarcerated in 2008.
This is a huge failure of the collective (family/community/government) to train up children in the way they should go.

My theory is bad government, bad education, broken homes, blurred lines between good and evil, poverty, drugs, and alcohol contribute to 98 percent or more of all crimes. The other few percent are people dead from the neck up.

Throwing non violent people in Jail makes matters worse as the re offending rates are about 80% and non violent people often turn violent from being in Jail.

Throw someone into the pen and the smell will rub off on them. Or, When you wrestle in the mud with pigs, you end up smelling like one.



[edit on 24/1/09 by John Matrix]

reply to post by John Matrix


Yep, so true.

Originally posted by TheSingularity
reply to post by John Matrix

 

Yep, so true.

what, no star? oh well!!

Originally posted by John Matrix
Deliberately harming others is Evil.
Thinking about, or planning to harm others, is also Evil.

Self defence, defending the innocent, is not Evil, even if bodily harm is needed to subdue a mugger, stop a murderer, stop a purse snatcher, etc.

We don't live in an ideal world. In reality there are evil people(sons of perdition) that can only be stopped by force, and sometimes death.

Some things are the way they are. Each person needs to decide for themselves what course of action they will take in a real world situation, and then proceed with a clear conscience, putting Faith in God.

I make no apologies for using the term "God".

So what if a child doesnt want to be stabbed by a doctor with a needle for vaccines agianst diseases? Would it be evil to plan to take him anyway?

What about knowing that something evil will be done to somone... and you do nothing. Does that mean that you yourself have a part in it? Just like god allows thousands to die in africa everyday.... obviously they are evil sinners... obviously.

And o yes Jesus would agree that you should do what ever it takes to kill or maim anyone who does evil..... not turn the other cheek or anything.

reply to post by truthquest

Its sounds like you would agree that belief in what is good and what is evil is largely faith-based, due to that as you say it isn't based on an intellectual thought process but rather we know right from wrong instinctively. Is that the case?

For the last time: I am not talking about good and evil. I am talking about right and wrong. They are not equivalent.

What is faith? You have to have faith in something - something, moreover, that you have never seen but have only been told about. Since you have never seen it (or touched it or heard it or smelled it or tasted it) it exists, as far as you are concerned, purely in your mind. It is only possible to have faith in an intellectual concept.

* * *

reply to post by Luciferdescending

You are clearly bent on making your original point stick no matter how little data supports it and refuse to even think of mine no matter how much data supports it so never mind I even brought it up, ok.

Oh, dear. Do you really think so?

Was there any data you brought up, then? Apart from some claimed personal observations in one post I don't see any on the thread.

As for my 'original point' , well: you're new here. I have posted supporting data for my views - including the ones expressed here - on any number of ATS threads; my sources are usually authoritative and often consist of peer-reviewed scientific papers. You might want to go to my profile page and skim through a few of the threads and posts you find listed there; you'll probably find what you want. I hope you enjoy reading them; I do try to write so as to make my posts easy reading (in spite of all those words Spiramirabilis pretends she doesn't know).

Enjoy!

Originally posted by Astyanax
Was there any data you brought up, then? Apart from some claimed personal observations in one post I don't see any on the thread.

As for my 'original point' , well: you're new here. I have posted supporting data for my views - including the ones expressed here - on any number of ATS threads; my sources are usually authoritative and often consist of peer-reviewed scientific papers. You might want to go to my profile page and skim through a few of the threads and posts you find listed there; you'll probably find what you want. I hope you enjoy reading them; I do try to write so as to make my posts easy reading (in spite of all those words Spiramirabilis pretends she doesn't know).

Enjoy!

Data? Look at your posts. If you cannot read what you write, I highly doubt that my reposting it will help at all. So you have supporting data to back up what exactly? You refuse to show it to me so you do not have it. I am not your F-in gopher. You present a BS theory. I say prove it. You tell me to go look at other nonsense you posted to make you feel better about the BS I called you on here?

We are in this thread. If you are going to just make crap up, go for it. I am going to call you on it. If the very best you can to is to tell me to go away and look it up myself, then do not bother making anymore points that you cannot back up, ok!

reply to post by Luciferdescending

But then you get into what is superficial really? What if you are a person that dies at the age of 17. Everything that was in effect in that time is what you knew and was what the entire world was to you and nothing can change that. But that is a whole other boatload of BS.

I'm wondering if you can go a little further with what you're saying here - I'm not sure I understand the point you're trying to make

...and yet it is still asserted that without Jesus, none of it is worth a damn. Sad, don't you think?

yes and no

apparently I'm the only one that wants to beat this horse (I would never beat a horse - dead or otherwise)

metaphor, parables, symbolism...

people find meaning where they find it - how they find it - and however they are able to find it

it only bothers me when one group of people demands that everybody must find meaning their way - and their way only

it bothers me even more when they're willing to kill people to make sure that happens

reply to post by Luciferdescending


civility and decorum Lucifer

the bad ass shtick will only get you so far - even in a real fight

your beef - your data is up first