For arguments sake if someone commits good for the intention of evil then there are a couple explanations I would have to this... If the deed the person committed was good and the deed went through and was a good deed but the intention was for an evil work (that didn't go through, since the deed was good) then you're right, evil exists within the individual but good came out as a deed. The thing is though, we know that good and evil can simultaneously co-exist in the world, but not really. Man I can't explain what I want to say... Um...
Like here is good ----> GOOD <- Where good exists here, evil doesn't
> Both exist in the world. But...
Here is evil ---------> EVIL <- Where evil exists here, good doesn't
For arguments sake if someone commits good for the intention of evil then there are a couple explanations I would have to this... If the deed the person committed was good and the deed went through and was a good deed but the intention was for an evil work (that didn't go through, since the deed was good) then you're right, evil exists within the individual but good came out as a deed. The thing is though, we know that good and evil can simultaneously co-exist in the world, but not really. Man I can't explain what I want to say... Um...
Like here is good ----> GOOD <- Where good exists here, evil doesn't
> Both exist in the world. But...
Here is evil ---------> EVIL <- Where evil exists here, good doesn't
It is true that some cases the Good and Evil are existing with the absence of one another but with the examples I gave and the one you gave proves that both can exist simultaneously, thus disapproving the case that one is truly the absence of one another for if they can exist simultaneously then they are not absences of one another.
"Men are mortal"
"I am a man"
"Therefore I am mortal"
-Socrates
"Evil is perceived as absence of Good"
"However Good and Evil can exist simultaneously"
"Therefore the previous perception is false"
Like here is good ----> GOOD ..................................<- Where good exists here, evil doesn't
.............................> Both exist in the world. But...
Here is evil ---------> EVIL...................................<- Where evil exists here, good doesn't
___
That diagram is better than original.
I'm not arguing they can't exist simultaneously, I'm saying where there is good there isn't evil, and where there is evil there isn't good.
If I murder a man, that's evil, no good is there, yet good still exists in other deeds other people are doing.
I'm not arguing they can't exist simultaneously, I'm saying where there is good there isn't evil, and where there is evil there isn't good.
If I murder a man, that's evil, no good is there, yet good still exists in other deeds other people are doing.
War can be both good and evil, on one hand it will save a culture, society, nation, etc. on the other it can annihilate a culture, society, nation, etc. Both happen simultaneously, can you define whether said war is absolutely good or absolutely evil?
Or more relatable, thousands of animals are killed on daily basis for consumption and medical needs. On one hand their sacrifice provides the well-being of the human race, on the other hand animals are proven to have sentience, they can feel, think, and show signs of intelligence. Can you define whether this practice is absolutely good or absolutely evil?
No one can. That's the point. You don't understand at all. There was a time of religion, and this was known as the Dark Ages. A time in history where burning a witch was for the "good", yet common sense was "evil". Now we live in a time of humanity. A time where common sense, logic, science, and humanity's reach is now a common goal, and we see how good it is for everyone. Religion, in my opinion, brings confusion and false hope. Acknowledgment is the best thing a man can have to continue moving forward.
No one can. That's the point. You don't understand at all. There was a time of religion, and this was known as the Dark Ages. A time in history where burning a witch was for the "good", yet common sense was "evil". Now we live in a time of humanity. A time where common sense, logic, science, and humanity's reach is now a common goal, and we see how good it is for everyone. Religion, in my opinion, brings confusion and false hope. Acknowledgment is the best thing a man can have to continue moving forward.
Acknowledgment of what? That we throw away a concept which can be seen as good in some ways (there's no denying this, religion does bring good in at least one way) and at the same time stimulates the mind, imagination, creativity, practically everything art-based for the sake of fact and presence of the unknown?
You say we live in a time of humanity, religion is arguably humanitarian. I'll bring up Christianity, this religion's sole purpose is to bring hope and guidance to a world ruled by the unknown, tyranny, and aggression. True the religion has history of past grievances but like you said, man must keep moving forward, so one must not dwell on the past but learn from it.
Heaven and Hell concocted by man? Well, believing the word was inspired by God to the men that wrote the books within the bible is something you have to make a decision on, and it looks like you have. The writers claimed to be inspired, many went to their death preaching what they believed to be the truth because of what they had experienced
But you and me both know the Santa Claus comparison is ridiculous, that's a kids fable we tell them, for pete's sake.
It isn't ridiculous at all. We tell that story to kids so they can be good, and their reward is to get presents at the end of the year. In exactly the same way isn't it possible (nay, highly likely) that as torture, murder, theft etc. overwhelmed the world, some good people would band together to create a very big elaborate lie in hope that the peace will come to all humans?
If a man is being tortured for information that he truly doesn't know, eventually he will crack and give them whatever they want, even if it is a lie. Their motives are for good, and I can in every way see why they would do such a thing.
Oh and by the way, yes, I believe that this scenario is way more likely than jesus - the son of christ, actually walked the Earth.
The story of jesus is just a ploy to make us believe god exists, because lets face it, as humans we need to be able to sense something to believe it is true. There were many gods invented in the history of mankind, so no one would believe one god any more than they believe the other. But jesus is evidence (for some, it is proof) that this one god actually exists.
I chose to believe it what they said was the truth, so in turn believe heaven and hell exist and not just as a mere way to keep people in line. Are you kidding me right now? Yeah I'm gonna live the best I can to God's standards because I don't want to go to hell, but saying that it was made up by man to keep weak minded people in line is an assumption on your part that the writers were lying, just as I'm assuming they were telling the truth.
You obviously don't realize the lengths some people will go to in order to keep them and their families safe.
If you were living in a world where wars waged in your very backyard, wouldn't you do whatever it takes to stop it before your family is murdered? I definitely would, and so I don't blame these people for creating Christianity since it was a good way of stopping much of the evil in the world. Religion feeds off of people's fears of being punished, a.k.a. hell.
When people are about to be killed, what is the last thing they do? They prey don't they. Prey for what though? So the killers will spare them? In the end it's all about survival.
If you're saying that we can do whatever we want because in the end a prayer will fix it, you'd be very wrong.
I thought this would come up. People want to live a happy life, and now they also want to go to heaven. I've seen bad people make up their own version of how god works to suit their needs. This religious guy once told me exactly that the opposite to what you said. He said he can commit a crime for personal gain but as long as he prays afterwards, he won't go to hell.
This is exactly my point, religion is the concoction of good people's understanding of what good is. Obviously everyone has sinned, so to not have the option of clearing your past through prayer, everyone would then give up hope in ever going to heaven and would thus not give a damn about being good. Since this is bad and defeats the purpose of heaven and hell, the option is made available to pray for forgiveness.
God looking into your heart is just a more elaborate way of saying you need to be sincerely sorry.
The guy I spoke to by the way, he created his own version of religion to suit his needs. As long as his mindset is content that he won't be punished by going to hell since he believes in that stuff, then he will be happy doing what he does.
You never really defined what you meant by interacting. I thought prayer, singing, praising and worshiping was interacting, but I guess not.
You need to think critically for a second. Just be honest with yourself, if god did not exist, would singing and praying change at all? Would you feel like you're interacting with him any less than if he did exist?
So if you believed in God you don’t think it would change anything about you? I used to smoke pot everyday for two years straight before I got serious about Christianity, then I quit smoking. My belief in God changed my ways, if I had never gave God a chance I would still be gettin' baked every day, let me assure you.
Why did you stop? Because god believes smoking pot is bad or because society believes it's bad? I don't see how god could possibly deny anyone having the fun of hallucinating and being disconnected from reality such that all their sorrows vanish. I've never smoked it myself because it's against the law but this is what I've heard happens.
Notice how you could also get away with smoking pot from the justice system. If there were no way of smoking without being caught, then you wouldn't have done it in the first place. Again, it's all about not being punished.
My reasons are because he created everything. He gave me a life to live. He gave me his son for my sins. There's a lot more but those are the major ones I suppose.
I find it perfectly possible that the start of the big bang happened because of a higher being, as I do find it possible for any other theories (since we won't ever know for sure, anything is possible) but to believe that he would expect you to praise him, when he hasn't ever made an appearance (unless you take jesus as his appearance) is quite silly in my opinion. If he put us here on this Earth, then he expects us to do exactly what the animals do, live our lives to their fullest by surviving and being happy.
... Things are what you make them. Most people will agree that protecting people is good because it is in the nature of humans to think so, just like murder is considered evil. But what about everything in between? Stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, is that good or evil? Is it good if my intentions are good (quite irrelevant, humans always do what they consider to be good at the time), or if society thinks it is good, or if the law says it is good, or if my friends think it is good?
Is it even possible to define something as good? I don't think so.
Exactly. Good is what man considers to be good at the time. Murder is a sin, but the church has killed many people over the years because, while murder is a sin, it contradicts the church's need to do what they think is right.
Murder is a pre-meditated killing out of hatred, so self-defense wouldn't constitute murder, but manslaughter. Manslaughter, according to the bible is not a sin, so, according to the bible I'd say it's safe to say that manslaughter is not evil, but that doesn't make it good either, right? I think each scenario just needs weighed out in context and not generalized.
Hey I got another thing to bring up in conversation which is where do we get our morals from? I would say we are all "moral" people here in the sense we aren't murdering people or stealing etc... But why aren't we? If you find a wallet on the ground why do you turn it into the police department?
Since the general consensus here is that good and evil can't be defined except by the individual defining it themself, then how have we all come to the conclusion (as well as most people) that these things are evil?
I would argue that all morals have a stem from religion because religion (in my case christianity, but even in a general sense most big religions are morally pretty good in general) set a standard for us to agree upon instead of everyone just going by their own standard, which if we did that (and we do to some extent, but I would argue we form our morals unknowingly from religious doctrines) I believe the world would be even more chaos than what it is now.
Murder is a pre-meditated killing out of hatred, so self-defense wouldn't constitute murder, but manslaughter. Manslaughter, according to the bible is not a sin, so, according to the bible I'd say it's safe to say that manslaughter is not evil, but that doesn't make it good either, right? I think each scenario just needs weighed out in context and not generalized.
Hey I got another thing to bring up in conversation which is where do we get our morals from? I would say we are all "moral" people here in the sense we aren't murdering people or stealing etc... But why aren't we? If you find a wallet on the ground why do you turn it into the police department?
Since the general consensus here is that good and evil can't be defined except by the individual defining it themself, then how have we all come to the conclusion (as well as most people) that these things are evil?
I would argue that all morals have a stem from religion because religion (in my case christianity, but even in a general sense most big religions are morally pretty good in general) set a standard for us to agree upon instead of everyone just going by their own standard, which if we did that (and we do to some extent, but I would argue we form our morals unknowingly from religious doctrines) I believe the world would be even more chaos than what it is now.
But I would argue that it didn't stem with religion, it came from the sense of community. Just look at the animal kingdom; different of species of animals commit immoral acts against each other, eating each other, fighting each other, stealing, etc. But if you look at one specific species you would see herds, packs, prides, all grouped together and all care for each other, now animals don't have religion do they?
Religion at best is a concept we as humans made up to consist of morals. If you look at Christianity's Ten Commandments most of it is a basic list of morals that we generally accept in society, but we couldn't have just made it up, there had to be a time where we had no religion but we still had morals obviously (or we would still be Stone Age currently).
Good and Evil are simply view points. Nobody acts with what they view as an evil purpose. Hitler didn't kill millions of Jews because he thought it was evil. Stalin didn't kill millions of Russians because he thought it was evil. They thought they were doing the right thing. We disagree. The acts, from their eyes, are good and righteous, and from our eyes are evil and cruel.
Quote from Puttah »
Exactly. Good is what man considers to be good at the time. Murder is a sin, but the church has killed many people over the years because, while murder is a sin, it contradicts the church's need to do what they think is right.
More like it contradicts the church's need to do whatever they feel like doing.
Murder is a pre-meditated killing out of hatred, so self-defense wouldn't constitute murder, but manslaughter. Manslaughter, according to the bible is not a sin, so, according to the bible I'd say it's safe to say that manslaughter is not evil, but that doesn't make it good either, right? I think each scenario just needs weighed out in context and not generalized.
Hey I got another thing to bring up in conversation which is where do we get our morals from? I would say we are all "moral" people here in the sense we aren't murdering people or stealing etc... But why aren't we? If you find a wallet on the ground why do you turn it into the police department?
Since the general consensus here is that good and evil can't be defined except by the individual defining it themself, then how have we all come to the conclusion (as well as most people) that these things are evil?
I would argue that all morals have a stem from religion because religion (in my case christianity, but even in a general sense most big religions are morally pretty good in general) set a standard for us to agree upon instead of everyone just going by their own standard, which if we did that (and we do to some extent, but I would argue we form our morals unknowingly from religious doctrines) I believe the world would be even more chaos than what it is now.
But I would argue that it didn't stem with religion, it came from the sense of community. Just look at the animal kingdom; different of species of animals commit immoral acts against each other, eating each other, fighting each other, stealing, etc. But if you look at one specific species you would see herds, packs, prides, all grouped together and all care for each other, now animals don't have religion do they?
Religion at best is a concept we as humans made up to consist of morals. If you look at Christianity's Ten Commandments most of it is a basic list of morals that we generally accept in society, but we couldn't have just made it up, there had to be a time where we had no religion but we still had morals obviously (or we would still be Stone Age currently).
Animals don't think of eating prey as immoral dude. Animals don't travel in packs because they care for each other on the level of human caring, or even in a sense to prove that humans formed their own morals because even lower species have morals... They travel in packs for survival reasons, not for any moral reasons.
I believe there's always been religion, but I also believe the world is approx. about 6000 years old.
Murder is a pre-meditated killing out of hatred, so self-defense wouldn't constitute murder, but manslaughter. Manslaughter, according to the bible is not a sin, so, according to the bible I'd say it's safe to say that manslaughter is not evil, but that doesn't make it good either, right? I think each scenario just needs weighed out in context and not generalized.
Hey I got another thing to bring up in conversation which is where do we get our morals from? I would say we are all "moral" people here in the sense we aren't murdering people or stealing etc... But why aren't we? If you find a wallet on the ground why do you turn it into the police department?
Since the general consensus here is that good and evil can't be defined except by the individual defining it themself, then how have we all come to the conclusion (as well as most people) that these things are evil?
I would argue that all morals have a stem from religion because religion (in my case christianity, but even in a general sense most big religions are morally pretty good in general) set a standard for us to agree upon instead of everyone just going by their own standard, which if we did that (and we do to some extent, but I would argue we form our morals unknowingly from religious doctrines) I believe the world would be even more chaos than what it is now.
But I would argue that it didn't stem with religion, it came from the sense of community. Just look at the animal kingdom; different of species of animals commit immoral acts against each other, eating each other, fighting each other, stealing, etc. But if you look at one specific species you would see herds, packs, prides, all grouped together and all care for each other, now animals don't have religion do they?
Religion at best is a concept we as humans made up to consist of morals. If you look at Christianity's Ten Commandments most of it is a basic list of morals that we generally accept in society, but we couldn't have just made it up, there had to be a time where we had no religion but we still had morals obviously (or we would still be Stone Age currently).
Animals don't think of eating prey as immoral dude. Animals don't travel in packs because they care for each other on the level of human caring, or even in a sense to prove that humans formed their own morals because even lower species have morals... They travel in packs for survival reasons, not for any moral reasons.
I believe there's always been religion, but I also believe the world is approx. about 6000 years old.
Yes recent studies keep showing that animals do have emotions such as empathy, compassion and even intelligence.
Take gorrilas, monkeys, apes for example. It is fact that they can understand humans and even know sign language and with this knowledge of communication can communicate on the basic level.
Or more relatable, our pets, such as dogs. Ever wonder when a dog's master dies the dog stays alongside the body? This isn't animal instinct, this is compassion and care.
I also believe the world is approx. about 6000 years old.
The way that religious folk say that atheists are ignorant, when they themselves believe the Earth is still 6000 years old given all the evidence against it. It's just stupid on so many levels.
I also believe the world is approx. about 6000 years old.
Just jumping into this one, hope no one minds -
I fail to see how this is still a present factor in religion at all.
How many times over has there been solid proof that there are skeletons, fossils, and so much more that date far beyond 6,000 years?
I suppose as it's as a religious friend of mine put it:
"Maybe they did the math wrong?"
Aye, the fossils date back a few million years with a 99% gap for error.
Like here is good ----> GOOD <- Where good exists here, evil doesn't
> Both exist in the world. But...
Here is evil ---------> EVIL <- Where evil exists here, good doesn't
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
It is true that some cases the Good and Evil are existing with the absence of one another but with the examples I gave and the one you gave proves that both can exist simultaneously, thus disapproving the case that one is truly the absence of one another for if they can exist simultaneously then they are not absences of one another.
"Men are mortal"
"I am a man"
"Therefore I am mortal"
-Socrates
"Evil is perceived as absence of Good"
"However Good and Evil can exist simultaneously"
"Therefore the previous perception is false"
.............................> Both exist in the world. But...
Here is evil ---------> EVIL...................................<- Where evil exists here, good doesn't
___
That diagram is better than original.
I'm not arguing they can't exist simultaneously, I'm saying where there is good there isn't evil, and where there is evil there isn't good.
If I murder a man, that's evil, no good is there, yet good still exists in other deeds other people are doing.
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
War can be both good and evil, on one hand it will save a culture, society, nation, etc. on the other it can annihilate a culture, society, nation, etc. Both happen simultaneously, can you define whether said war is absolutely good or absolutely evil?
Or more relatable, thousands of animals are killed on daily basis for consumption and medical needs. On one hand their sacrifice provides the well-being of the human race, on the other hand animals are proven to have sentience, they can feel, think, and show signs of intelligence. Can you define whether this practice is absolutely good or absolutely evil?
Acknowledgment of what? That we throw away a concept which can be seen as good in some ways (there's no denying this, religion does bring good in at least one way) and at the same time stimulates the mind, imagination, creativity, practically everything art-based for the sake of fact and presence of the unknown?
You say we live in a time of humanity, religion is arguably humanitarian. I'll bring up Christianity, this religion's sole purpose is to bring hope and guidance to a world ruled by the unknown, tyranny, and aggression. True the religion has history of past grievances but like you said, man must keep moving forward, so one must not dwell on the past but learn from it.
If a man is being tortured for information that he truly doesn't know, eventually he will crack and give them whatever they want, even if it is a lie. Their motives are for good, and I can in every way see why they would do such a thing.
Oh and by the way, yes, I believe that this scenario is way more likely than jesus - the son of christ, actually walked the Earth.
The story of jesus is just a ploy to make us believe god exists, because lets face it, as humans we need to be able to sense something to believe it is true. There were many gods invented in the history of mankind, so no one would believe one god any more than they believe the other. But jesus is evidence (for some, it is proof) that this one god actually exists.
You obviously don't realize the lengths some people will go to in order to keep them and their families safe.
If you were living in a world where wars waged in your very backyard, wouldn't you do whatever it takes to stop it before your family is murdered? I definitely would, and so I don't blame these people for creating Christianity since it was a good way of stopping much of the evil in the world. Religion feeds off of people's fears of being punished, a.k.a. hell.
When people are about to be killed, what is the last thing they do? They prey don't they. Prey for what though? So the killers will spare them? In the end it's all about survival.
I thought this would come up. People want to live a happy life, and now they also want to go to heaven. I've seen bad people make up their own version of how god works to suit their needs. This religious guy once told me exactly that the opposite to what you said. He said he can commit a crime for personal gain but as long as he prays afterwards, he won't go to hell.
This is exactly my point, religion is the concoction of good people's understanding of what good is. Obviously everyone has sinned, so to not have the option of clearing your past through prayer, everyone would then give up hope in ever going to heaven and would thus not give a damn about being good. Since this is bad and defeats the purpose of heaven and hell, the option is made available to pray for forgiveness.
God looking into your heart is just a more elaborate way of saying you need to be sincerely sorry.
The guy I spoke to by the way, he created his own version of religion to suit his needs. As long as his mindset is content that he won't be punished by going to hell since he believes in that stuff, then he will be happy doing what he does.
You need to think critically for a second. Just be honest with yourself, if god did not exist, would singing and praying change at all? Would you feel like you're interacting with him any less than if he did exist?
Why did you stop? Because god believes smoking pot is bad or because society believes it's bad? I don't see how god could possibly deny anyone having the fun of hallucinating and being disconnected from reality such that all their sorrows vanish. I've never smoked it myself because it's against the law but this is what I've heard happens.
Notice how you could also get away with smoking pot from the justice system. If there were no way of smoking without being caught, then you wouldn't have done it in the first place. Again, it's all about not being punished.
I find it perfectly possible that the start of the big bang happened because of a higher being, as I do find it possible for any other theories (since we won't ever know for sure, anything is possible) but to believe that he would expect you to praise him, when he hasn't ever made an appearance (unless you take jesus as his appearance) is quite silly in my opinion. If he put us here on this Earth, then he expects us to do exactly what the animals do, live our lives to their fullest by surviving and being happy.
Hey I got another thing to bring up in conversation which is where do we get our morals from? I would say we are all "moral" people here in the sense we aren't murdering people or stealing etc... But why aren't we? If you find a wallet on the ground why do you turn it into the police department?
Since the general consensus here is that good and evil can't be defined except by the individual defining it themself, then how have we all come to the conclusion (as well as most people) that these things are evil?
I would argue that all morals have a stem from religion because religion (in my case christianity, but even in a general sense most big religions are morally pretty good in general) set a standard for us to agree upon instead of everyone just going by their own standard, which if we did that (and we do to some extent, but I would argue we form our morals unknowingly from religious doctrines) I believe the world would be even more chaos than what it is now.
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
But I would argue that it didn't stem with religion, it came from the sense of community. Just look at the animal kingdom; different of species of animals commit immoral acts against each other, eating each other, fighting each other, stealing, etc. But if you look at one specific species you would see herds, packs, prides, all grouped together and all care for each other, now animals don't have religion do they?
Religion at best is a concept we as humans made up to consist of morals. If you look at Christianity's Ten Commandments most of it is a basic list of morals that we generally accept in society, but we couldn't have just made it up, there had to be a time where we had no religion but we still had morals obviously (or we would still be Stone Age currently).
More like it contradicts the church's need to do whatever they feel like doing.
Animals don't think of eating prey as immoral dude. Animals don't travel in packs because they care for each other on the level of human caring, or even in a sense to prove that humans formed their own morals because even lower species have morals... They travel in packs for survival reasons, not for any moral reasons.
I believe there's always been religion, but I also believe the world is approx. about 6000 years old.
unzip, strip, touch, finger, grep, mount, fsck, more, yes, fsck, fsck, fsck, umount, sleep
Yes recent studies keep showing that animals do have emotions such as empathy, compassion and even intelligence.
Take gorrilas, monkeys, apes for example. It is fact that they can understand humans and even know sign language and with this knowledge of communication can communicate on the basic level.
Or more relatable, our pets, such as dogs. Ever wonder when a dog's master dies the dog stays alongside the body? This isn't animal instinct, this is compassion and care.
The way that religious folk say that atheists are ignorant, when they themselves believe the Earth is still 6000 years old given all the evidence against it. It's just stupid on so many levels.
Just jumping into this one, hope no one minds -
I fail to see how this is still a present factor in religion at all.
How many times over has there been solid proof that there are skeletons, fossils, and so much more that date far beyond 6,000 years?
I suppose as it's as a religious friend of mine put it:
"Maybe they did the math wrong?"
Aye, the fossils date back a few million years with a 99% gap for error.
I've not met someone who believes that level of religious nonsense before...
How do you explain away the dinosaurs? Or Pangaea? Or even Humans that existed 6001 years or longer ago?
Me: The Earth is closer to being 6 billion years old than 6 thousand
Mum: 6000 years could mean god years
Me: ...