Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

[tzor]

However, with good and evil, you can pretty much accept that that which promotes humanity is good, and that which does not, is evil.

No. Not only is that a sloppy definition of good and evil, it's a generally wrong one.

I disagree.

OK, let's put this to the test. An asteroid cashes into the planet and kills all humanity. Good or Evil?

Change the angle by a few degrees; an asteroid crashes into the planet throws up a huge dirt cloud counter balancing global warming and saving all humanity. Good or Evil?

The correct answer is in both cases NEITHER, because it's a stupid non sentient asteroid.

Good and evil can't exist at all without knowledge. One has to deliberately do a good or an evil act. An evil act must benefit the self, the good act must benefit the other.

The act that benefits both the self and the other is ... well wasn't that nice.

The act that hurts both the self and the other is ... either stupid or insane.

Note that "benefit" is in the eye of the beholder. The person who blows himself up may not seem to be benefiting himself; but if he is really convinced of all those virgins, then this does in fact count.

And note that the benefit is relative and based on the person's understanding. A person may risk his life to save a child from an island only to have the tornado change course to hit where he just saved the child to instead of the island. The random nature of the tornado doesn't flip the situation from good to evil.

[AAFitz]

However, with good and evil, you can pretty much accept that that which promotes humanity is good, and that which does not, is evil.

No. Not only is that a sloppy definition of good and evil, it's a generally wrong one.

I disagree.

Elves don't exist (or at least we've never found evidence that they do), but we can choose how to perceive them.

No, but you freely admit we can choose to perceive them as light or dark, and it's light and dark/good and evil that I'm claiming exists because we can perceive them, not "elves."

I said from the first that these concepts are written down in the bible to help us understand the universe. I've also said that actions we interpret may not always fall on the "absolute" side of these scales.

Your notion of killing the killer before he kills your family is a good one; "thou shalt not kill," is biblical, and killing itself doesn't promote humanity, so is on the "evil side," even if "killing to protect my family," is "less evil" than, "killing because I'm evil."

The greater good//less evil might be for you to protect your family but spare that killer's life, so that he can live to reform and find that HIV cure.

I don't have to believe in a "God of Abraham" to perceive that some things are good, some things are not, and some things are less good or maybe a little less bad... and obviously, neither do you.

So, God and Satan may exist, and may not, but the concepts of good and evil that they define, surely exist; even if we, ourselves, a're not able to perceive the full future ramifications of our actions as they occur.

Sorry, your logic is flawed. Simply because we perceive there to be a force of evil and good, does not mean there is one, any more than "the force" exists, simply because many perceive it to exist. Dont even pretend that is not true.

Further, your definition of what promotes human kind is incredibly vague to the point that it makes it seem naive on an near childish level. In fact, it completely discounts the entire "do the ends justify the means" argument, and that's just for starters:

If I kill one person is it evil?
If I kill one person and it saves one person is it evil?
If I kill one person and it saves two people is it evil?
If I kill one person and it saves 1000 people is it evil?
If I kill one person and it saves 1 billion people is it evil?
If I choose not to kill a person, and it kills 1 billion is it evil?

Some of those acts very much promote overall human good. A couple so overwhelmingly, that one might consider not commiting an evil act, as to be even more evil. To carry it even further, and more complexly:

If I think that I need to kill one person, to save 1 billion, does that make it evil?
If I think that I need to kill one person to save 1 billion, and dont does that make it evil?

Again, evil does not exist. You simply choose to define it one way or another, and most will argue about the relative, evil and good of all those acts, but any that really consider the broad implications, will realize there really is not good or evil, but only choice, that leads to an outcome, which some consider evil, and some consider good.

When terrorists blew up the trade towers most considered it evil, but some considered it doing God's will.

The outcome, by any definition of what we consider evil, was indeed evil, but from the perspective of the terrorists, it was absolutely the exact opposite. They in fact, considered their acts of divine necessity and gave their lives towards that end. It is possible, from their perspective that it was not an evil act.

However, some may simply have wanted to kill a bunch of people out of a sense of revenge or simple murderous intent, which would make it fit the definition of evil much better, but it does not mean it brings into existence, some powerful entity of evil.

All there really is, is our perception of it, and while in advertising, perception is reality, in reality, perception is just perception, and reality is only reality.

So, while you perceive a force of evil, that does not make it reality, only your perception, and whatever the reality is, it is, and there is absolutely no way to definitively state there is a force of good or evil, but only some abstract construct of perception of them, or essentially, a belief that they exist, with no real physical proof either way.

[stahrgazer]

Just because the benefit or detriment is in the eye of the beholder, doesn't change that there is a benefit and there is a detriment.

Your argument against mine is that you personally can't figure out whether it's "good" or "evil."

Just because you're not omnicient enough to figure it out, doesn't mean that good and evil doesn't exist.

And just because my definition is simplistic doesn't make it wrong.

A kindergartner can add 1 + 1 =2 because it's very simplistic; and the kindergartner would be right.

Anyway, so good and evil exist, and what's "good" benefits humanity and what's "evil" does not - and we'll agree that humans are flawed and can't always predict whether an outcome is more good or more evil.

The "laws" or "rules" in the bible were meant to help man understand which acts might be considered more good and which might be considered more evil.

[crispybits]

But your very definition makes good and evil cultural conceptual. Without human society, there can be no "for the benefit of human sociey" and therefore no good end evil (as there are no people to conceptualise them). You're simply defining moral and immoral using consequentialism/utilitarianism and renaming them as good and evil rather than providing any sort of argument why these things exist outside of conceptual thinking.

[AAFitz]

Just because the benefit or detriment is in the eye of the beholder, doesn't change that there is a benefit and there is a detriment.

Your argument against mine is that you personally can't figure out whether it's "good" or "evil."

Just because you're not omnicient enough to figure it out, doesn't mean that good and evil doesn't exist.

And just because my definition is simplistic doesn't make it wrong.

A kindergartner can add 1 + 1 =2 because it's very simplistic; and the kindergartner would be right.

Anyway, so good and evil exist, and what's "good" benefits humanity and what's "evil" does not - and we'll agree that humans are flawed and can't always predict whether an outcome is more good or more evil.

The "laws" or "rules" in the bible were meant to help man understand which acts might be considered more good and which might be considered more evil.

Unwittingly, you basically agree with everything I argued with this post here, and confirm it to be true. What you have argued, is that you have a definition that you perceive and believe, and have no way of knowing if it is right or wrong, which essentially, makes it fiction.

It may very well exist, and that may very well be "reality", but your argument is that you perceive it to exist, which makes it reality, and is therefore the faulty logic.

Certainly good and evil might exist, but it is hardly the fact that some perceive it to exist, that proves its existence.

In fact, the fact that people perceive it differently, might go to prove it can't possibly exist, in any reality whatsoever. It doesn't, but that argument is even more valid than yours, that good or bad exists, because you think it does, which really isn't logic, but a simple faith, with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

[tzor]

If I kill one person is it evil?
If I kill one person and it saves one person is it evil?
If I kill one person and it saves two people is it evil?
If I kill one person and it saves 1000 people is it evil?
If I kill one person and it saves 1 billion people is it evil?
If I choose not to kill a person, and it kills 1 billion is it evil?

The answer to all of the above is NO. (Well technically the answer to all of the above is UNDEFINED.)

Without knowing the result of the action on you personally, it is impossible to tell if the act is good or evil.

[tzor]

When terrorists blew up the trade towers most considered it evil, but some considered it doing God's will.

It was clearly "evil." They killed thousands so they could each get seventy odd virgins. That's clearly evil. I mean why couldn't the thousands get virgins? No, they died and didn't get the virgins.

They weren't doing God's will; it was all about those virgins.

[BigBallinStalin]

But your very definition makes good and evil cultural conceptual. Without human society, there can be no "for the benefit of human sociey" and therefore no good end evil (as there are no people to conceptualise them). You're simply defining moral and immoral using consequentialism/utilitarianism and renaming them as good and evil rather than providing any sort of argument why these things exist outside of conceptual thinking.

Sorry for butting in here, and I have trouble reading stahrgazer-posts, but two questions:

(1) Is the underlined a problem to her position?

(2) Does it pose problems with your position?

[crispybits]

Stahrgazer's position is that good and evil are like gravity or magnetism, they are actual forces/qualities/something that exist outside of human abstracts (the lack of real definition to what exactly they allegedly are is part of the reason I'm having such trouble accepting it)

My position is that this may be true, but I have seen no evidence or compelling argument why I should use that assumption, whereas I have seen compelling evidence that good and evil share a lot of the same qualities as other purely abstract concepts such as beauty/ugliness or fairness/unfairness, etc. Not enough to rule out stahrgazer's assertion entirely, but enough to make it very unlikely and to make basing any other belief on it at best rash and at worst foolish.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh... her position doesn't make sense. There are no constants with moral 'calculations'. Much of morality is hard to price as well.

I'm pretty much in agreement with you. Although for most people who do not think critically about morality, I imagine that they stick to some "categorical imperatives," and for other decisions do some kind of benefit-cost analysis. (That could be similar to your "beauty/ugliness" comparison, but with many people, they hold general rules with little to no exceptions).

[john9blue]

If I kill one person is it evil?
If I kill one person and it saves one person is it evil?
If I kill one person and it saves two people is it evil?
If I kill one person and it saves 1000 people is it evil?
If I kill one person and it saves 1 billion people is it evil?
If I choose not to kill a person, and it kills 1 billion is it evil?

The answer to all of the above is NO. (Well technically the answer to all of the above is UNDEFINED.)

Without knowing the result of the action on you personally, it is impossible to tell if the act is good or evil.

It was clearly "evil."

lol. how can you reconcile these two positions?

[tzor]

It was clearly "evil."

lol. how can you reconcile these two positions?[/quote]

Because in the case of the terrorists, we know their personal gains and losses from the actions; in killing themselves they were (they believed) guaranteed a specific number of virgins in the afterlife.

(Note that if they seriously did not believe what they were told then they were idiots; neither good nor evil; just stupid.)

The question of killing x to save y doesn't indicate the gains/losses of the person doing the act.

That's how I reconcile; good and evil is based on the relationship between the actor and the other; who gains and who looses. If both gain or both loose the question becomes moot.

[stahrgazer]

Just because the benefit or detriment is in the eye of the beholder, doesn't change that there is a benefit and there is a detriment.

Your argument against mine is that you personally can't figure out whether it's "good" or "evil."

Just because you're not omnicient enough to figure it out, doesn't mean that good and evil doesn't exist.

And just because my definition is simplistic doesn't make it wrong.

A kindergartner can add 1 + 1 =2 because it's very simplistic; and the kindergartner would be right.

Anyway, so good and evil exist, and what's "good" benefits humanity and what's "evil" does not - and we'll agree that humans are flawed and can't always predict whether an outcome is more good or more evil.

The "laws" or "rules" in the bible were meant to help man understand which acts might be considered more good and which might be considered more evil.

Unwittingly, you basically agree with everything I argued with this post here, and confirm it to be true. What you have argued, is that you have a definition that you perceive and believe, and have no way of knowing if it is right or wrong, which essentially, makes it fiction.

It may very well exist, and that may very well be "reality", but your argument is that you perceive it to exist, which makes it reality, and is therefore the faulty logic.

Certainly good and evil might exist, but it is hardly the fact that some perceive it to exist, that proves its existence.

In fact, the fact that people perceive it differently, might go to prove it can't possibly exist, in any reality whatsoever. It doesn't, but that argument is even more valid than yours, that good or bad exists, because you think it does, which really isn't logic, but a simple faith, with no supporting evidence whatsoever.

Wrong.

People perceive actions differently, yes.

But people can see that evil is not the same as good, even if they prefer one or the other.

Most people would agree that homicide is wrong.

Most people would agree that multiple homicide is even more wrong.

The only "trip up" is whether preventing a homicide now is more "good" if, to prevent that homicide, it means killing; or whether it's more "evil" to kill to prevent the homicide because of the loss potential "good."

Or, you could take the argument that some would not agree that multiple homicide is "wrong" at all (Jeff Dalmer, Son of Sam, Al Quaeda/Twin Towers.)

But just because some folks will always be twisted, or because humans cannot see the future, doesn't mean good and evil don't exist.

At the very least, all of those knew there was a difference between letting folks live and killing them.

As an analogy: just because Stevie Wonder cannot, himself, see, does not mean vision does not exist, and it doesn't mean that there isn't a light spectrum; and just because some folks are color-blind, does not mean that the light spectrum doesn't allow reflections of various colors.

You want to "define" good and evil using examples by the blind and the color-blind; or at least, use the blind and the color-blind to disprove "good" and "evil."

You're just wrong.

It's as wrong as the mathematically challenged being unable to add 2+2 to equal 4.

[crispybits]

OK stahrgazer, lets assume you're right for a moment and that good and evil are real things, what, in your opinion, are they?

What I mean by that is that we know light is a particle/waveform. I'm not suggesting you have to point out a particle of good/evil or a good/evil wave or whatever, but if you insist that these are real things independent of human conception, then what are they? I can describe how my model of good/evil works, that as human constructions they are reflections of societal or cultural abstracts of things that are good or bad for society or individuals or both. I'm completely lost on how this external and existent thing you're describing actually works.

[BigBallinStalin]

It was clearly "evil."

lol. how can you reconcile these two positions?

Because in the case of the terrorists, we know their personal gains and losses from the actions; in killing themselves they were (they believed) guaranteed a specific number of virgins in the afterlife.

(Note that if they seriously did not believe what they were told then they were idiots; neither good nor evil; just stupid.)

Sorry, but you're completely wrong here. The gains in the afterlife may be convincing, but to fight for a cause against perceived oppression to the brink of annihilating oneself is not at all stupid. It's completely rational: choosing a particular means to successfully attain an end. American soldiers do this as well--in those great times of need. So do civilians at times. There's nothing stupid about self-sacrifice--maybe for you it is, but you have completely different ends and face completely different opportunity costs.

[PLAYER57832]

Just because the benefit or detriment is in the eye of the beholder, doesn't change that there is a benefit and there is a detriment.

Your argument against mine is that you personally can't figure out whether it's "good" or "evil."

Just because you're not omnicient enough to figure it out, doesn't mean that good and evil doesn't exist.

And just because my definition is simplistic doesn't make it wrong.

Correct, but in each case the converse is also true. Because anyone cannot figure out good or evil doesn't mean its not there... but it also does not mean it IS.

[stahrgazer]

OK stahrgazer, lets assume you're right for a moment and that good and evil are real things, what, in your opinion, are they?

What I mean by that is that we know light is a particle/waveform. I'm not suggesting you have to point out a particle of good/evil or a good/evil wave or whatever, but if you insist that these are real things independent of human conception, then what are they? I can describe how my model of good/evil works, that as human constructions they are reflections of societal or cultural abstracts of things that are good or bad for society or individuals or both. I'm completely lost on how this external and existent thing you're describing actually works.

Forms of energy, aka, forms of particle/waveforms.

If someone is "good" enough, you can feel it; if someone is "evil" enough, you can feel that, too.

If you've never felt either one, that's a shame.

[crispybits]

OK, so we'll run with that. (I'm not convinced, but in the interest of keeping an open mind and all that)

If good and evil are particles/waveforms, then we should theoretically be able to detect some physcal effects from them right? So how would we go about designing an experiment, under scientific conditions, to attempt to do that? Do we actually have good and evil people and try and measure everything we can about them? Do we try and isolate good and evil actions and measure everything we can about them?

None of these questions disprove your hypothesis, but for anyone else to accept that hypothesis as proven reality, there needs to be some way in which to demonstrate it. You claim that it's a form of energy, fair enough, but how does that energy react with all of the other forms of energy and matter, how does it change or influence or cause or get caused by other forms of energy or matter? Why does it seem to mostly be limited to human actions and interactions? We sense no evil when a leopard eats a gazelle, that's just the way of the world, but if a human ate a human..... Do we have some special sort of biology for this?