Conquer Club

Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

What say you?

 
Total votes : 0

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby tzor on Sun Mar 17, 2013 2:53 pm

crispybits wrote:The point is, there is no more evidence for existential beauty, or fragrant-ness, or whatever as there is for existential good and evil (as in something that exists independently of our culture/society).


Bah humbug, that's no point at all. You are trying to argue apples by using bananas as examples. That there is artificial selection in terms of flowers and fragrances is a nice point but has nothing whatsoever to do with the notion of good and evil (nor the notion of gravity nor heat and so on and so forth).
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:21 pm

The point is that there are a million different human concepts, fragrant/noxious, beautiful/ugly, fair/unfair, boring/entertaining, etc etc. As a society we generally agree which of those categories most things that those categories can apply to fall into because of social norms we are brought up within. Generally speaking, people will rate Charlize Theron as more beautiful than Rosie O'Donnell, and flowers as nicer smelling than sewage, etc etc. But the point is not in that detail.

We have concepts for good and evil. I am asserting that these are no different to any of the other concepts I listed - completely man-made and we generally agree on what they are because of the social norms we are brought up within. Others assert that these are actual qualities of things, totally independent of whether there is any societal or cultural standards by which to compare them to. They come from God, or at the very least God is the thing that shows us what they are.

So we disagree, and like with any disagreement I am trying to find out what the right answer is. I am completely willing to admit I am wrong if I get presented with either compelling evidence or argument why that is the case. But so far in my whole life I have seen no evidence that good and evil are actual existential qualities. It would end there if it didn't matter, but the fact is that the nature of good and evil is used as evidence for God, and God is used by people to try and enforce 1st-2nd century BC values on a society I have to live in in the 21st century, so it does matter. It matters a lot.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby Dukasaur on Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:38 pm

john9blue wrote:
crispybits wrote:Most people would agree that flowers smell better than sewage, does that mean that there is some objective reality that exists independently of us that governs which smells are pleasant and which are horrible? Or is it a subjective judgement, and the consensus of society defines how we describe those two smells?


so it's not CERTAIN that flowers smell better than sewage? it's just unknown?

To a human, sure. But I can think of quite a few species of insects and other invertebrates that would find the high-protein sewage a more attractive scrounging zone. So, no, there is not objective truth there.
Image
User avatar
Lieutenant Dukasaur
Community Coordinator
Community Coordinator
 
Posts: 26964
Joined: Sat Nov 20, 2010 4:49 pm
Location: Beautiful Niagara
32

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby stahrgazer on Sun Mar 17, 2013 3:53 pm

crispybits wrote:The point is that there are a million different human concepts, fragrant/noxious, beautiful/ugly, fair/unfair, boring/entertaining, etc etc.


The REAL point is, if you can distinguish them, then they exist.


I could switch zero and infinity as concepts; they still remain opposite concepts no matter what I choose to call them.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:05 pm

Indeed, but they are still concepts rather than real things. Concepts that are defined by society rather than independent of society. Concepts that cannot be used as any form of proof for the existence of God (unless there's another part of the argument I haven't heard yet) or anything else.

Let me demonstrate just a little differently. The bible says that God is the source of all grace and beauty. But we don't see anyone claiming that because there are things that are beautiful, then there must be some independnt, objective quality called beauty that exists separately from us, and that this is a reason to believe in God. Or that because there are things that are graceful, then there must be some independnt, objective quality called grace that exists separately from us, and that this is a reason to believe in God. Are the existence of things we consider beautiful or graceful enough to prove anything about God or anything else at all?
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby tzor on Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:08 pm

crispybits wrote:We have concepts for good and evil.


We also have concepts for hot and cold. But the existence of concepts of hot and cold based on perception does not preclude an absolute concept for hot and cold. Yes the senses can be fooled as to temperature but that does not mean that there isn't an absolute scale. There are a lot of "concepts" for "good" and "evil." They do not preclude an absolute concept whereby these items can be measured.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:19 pm

You're right, but we can see other evidence for hot and cold apart from "feeling" it. We can put a bucket of water above a fire and watch as it boils. We can put a crisp lettuce leaf into that steam and watch it wilt. We can then take that leaf and wrap it around the bulb of a thermometer and watch the mercury expand to fill more of the tube.

That's why I purposefully avoided things like hot and cold and stuck with beauty, fragrant-ness, fairness, etc. These are concepts that really do exist, but the fact that the concept exists is no more proof of anything than the fact we have concepts for unicorns or fairies or leprechauns would mean that any of those things really exist.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby tzor on Sun Mar 17, 2013 4:50 pm

The problem is that in relating to notions like beauty, you basically take cover in an area that is not often discussed in a scientific manner. Scientifically, it's a really interesting subject, "When considering a mate, people's assessment of physical beauty is mostly about symmetry, scientists say." So, really, appeal to your own ignorance in a subject isn't a really good argument.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:14 pm

So everyone symmetrical is beautiful?

http://www.toxel.com/inspiration/2011/0 ... cal-faces/

Some of them don't look so hot to me, but they're all perfectly symmetrical images.

Therefore we can determine that symmetry is not the only factor that determines beauty, though it may be one indicator that it's more likely that someone will be considered beautiful.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby tzor on Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:18 pm

There is a difference between "mostly" and "solely" you know.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Sun Mar 17, 2013 5:25 pm

Precisely, so we agree.

One asymmetrical and beautful face rules symmetry out as a defining factor of beauty. It's a common feature for sure, but symmetry isn't beauty, and beauty isn't symmetry.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby stahrgazer on Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:10 pm

crispybits wrote:Indeed, but they are still concepts rather than real things. Concepts that are defined by society rather than independent of society.


Wrong. How society chooses to perceives them, is all that's defined by society. The things themselves, exist. If they did not exist, society could not choose how to perceive them.

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

Murder, for example, does not promote humanity; murder is evil.
Eating nutritionally promotes humanity; eating nutritionally is good.

Eating nutritionally may not be the diametric opposite of murder, but it sure beats eating poison. So, eating poison falls somewhere along the evil side, while feeding someone poison falls a little more toward the evil side.

You can change the names easily, but you cannot change that some sets of actions promote humanity, others definitely do not, and some are less obvious to discern (like, murder is evil, but all killing may not be considered evil or "as evil" for example if the killing is to protect something more innocent/less capable of protecting itself, like killing a murderer before it can kill a baby.)
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby tzor on Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:33 pm

stahrgazer wrote: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.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:34 pm

Elves don't exist (or at least we've never found evidence that they do), but we can choose how to perceive them. Read Tolkein or many other fantasy authors and you'll find they are graceful and good and brilliant at archery etc. Read Pratchett or several dark fantasy authors, and there's something dark and twisted about them, they become the stuff of nightmares. Either way we have a perception of elves without them needing to be real instead of man-made imaginary constructs. In the case of elves the concept exists for entertainment value (or at a stretch as a way of making a wider metaphor depending on the author), but in the case of that list I made a few posts back or good/evil the concepts exist as a way of helping us to categorise the world around us.

However you slice it, the fact we can perceive a concept doesn't make that concept real independently of us.

And trying to categorise it as "good is whatever promotes humanity" isn't exactly cut and dry anyway - utilitarian/consequentialist ethics has some major flaws that have yet to be resolved. For example I might kill a teenage gang member in self defence during a street robbery gone wrong thereby defending myself and my family from being killed ourselves, but if I had not killed him he would have reformed his ways in prison in his twenties and become a scientist that found a cure for HIV in later life. The initial act is good in isolation, but the consequence is harmful to humanity as a whole, and we often have no way of knowing what those consequences can be on a longer timescale.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby stahrgazer on Sun Mar 17, 2013 8:54 pm

tzor wrote:
stahrgazer wrote: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.

crispybits wrote: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.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby tzor on Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:25 pm

stahrgazer wrote:
tzor wrote:
stahrgazer wrote: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.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby AAFitz on Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:36 pm

stahrgazer wrote:
tzor wrote:
stahrgazer wrote: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.

crispybits wrote: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.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby stahrgazer on Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:54 pm

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.
Image
User avatar
Sergeant stahrgazer
 
Posts: 1411
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 11:59 am
Location: Figment of the Imagination...

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:04 pm

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.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby AAFitz on Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:11 pm

stahrgazer wrote: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.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk
Too much. I know.
Sergeant 1st Class AAFitz
 
Posts: 7270
Joined: Sun Sep 17, 2006 9:47 am
Location: On top of the World 2.1

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby tzor on Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:05 pm

AAFitz wrote: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.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby tzor on Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:08 pm

AAFitz wrote: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.
Image
User avatar
Cadet tzor
 
Posts: 4076
Joined: Thu Feb 22, 2007 9:43 pm
Location: Long Island, NY, USA

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:23 pm

crispybits wrote: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?
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby crispybits on Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:32 pm

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.
User avatar
Major crispybits
 
Posts: 942
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2012 4:29 pm

Re: Christianity, Atheism, and Original Sin

Postby BigBallinStalin on Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:38 pm

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).
User avatar
Major BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 5151
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham

PreviousNext

Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users