You don't need to go very far back in any history books to scientifically prove that Evil exist.
Selfishness, hate, jealousy, murder and torture are all very real indeed. And the list gos on.
But so is goodness being proven to be real with selfless, love, compassion, life saving. etc which again is helping society work and grow and increases our life standards.
If everyone was for everyone then no one would have been against anyone but unfortunately there will always be in this world someone that believes that they are more worth then anyone else. Thats also one of the many reasons why world domination would never work very well at all.
Well good and evil only exist within us humans and somewhat maybe in animals. And there's debate whether it's objective or only subjective. Many religions for example say that it's objective because a god has created it.
On the other hand, people can't really agree on such things as abortion where two moral things go against one another (wellbeing of a child and their right to exist vs wellbeing and freedom of a mother in this example).
There needs to be some sort of standards, otherwise "good" and "evil" mean absolutely nothing. You can't call something "good" or "evil" if you have nothing to measure it with. But, who gets the right to set such a standard? Do you? I? a collection of people? There's 130+ nations in the world. (cont)
Do we simply take some consensus amongst them all? Nations can barely get along as it is, even the "peaceful" friendships amongst industrialized nations, and laws are vastly different between each. Attempting to label something as "good" or "evil" is silly if you're not going to choose a standard. (cont)
That's one of the reasons why religion exists. That's the only place where you can find a standard -- God. Now, we have several different religions out there, so which one is the right one? Well, you examine each and find the one that you can't disprove beyond reasonable doubt and go with that. (cont)
... and this is among the reasons why I find atheists so silly when they talk about "good" or "bad" ... because to be honest, they have absolutely nothing to compare "good" or "bad" to other than their own opinions or opinions of those they happen to agree with, so they really have no business talking about what "good" or "bad" is.
I disagree with you there. An atheist can talk about good and evil. They just have to acknowledge that it's subjective and whatever collective consensus people have is good enough. It could very well be that "good" is what is beneficial to the human race and "evil" is what isn't.
Xylia, you're smart but I think you are failing to realise that it's usually the religious ones who insist that things have to be a certain way while atheists are usually the ones to admit they don't know some things.
I suppose that has something to do with personal experiences; perhaps you've run into some of the (many!) religious people who think they know it all, and indeed that's wrong... and I've run into atheists who think that their opinions are the only ones that matter, that *their* version of good or evil is the "right one".
And furthermore... what is "beneficial" to the human race... is also something that's rather subjective in some parts. Some would argue that being more accepting of homosexuality is "beneficial" to the human race... I would argue otherwise, because of the facts surrounding the increased risk of disease in homosexual people vs heterosexual (and faithfully married) people.
I was worry for a second when i came back to see some alerts but it turns out that both of you are very calmly and respecting both views on this even thought you both disagree on some things which makes me happy.
It's a real shame most people these days have completely forgotten what the goal of a debate is. It isn't simply to win, but to end up with at least one of you knowing more or seeing things from a new perspective.
So the only kinds of debates one loses in are either the ones where you disagree on nothing or you have nothing else to say but "You think othrerwise, therefore fuck you"
Also sorry Xylia if I came across as condescending. I'm not used to debates with religious folk and I know you probably feel something towards stuff I couldn't understand so do tell if I ended up offending you.
No, you didn't offend me. I'm not one of those people who believe that anybody who doesn't believe should be shot and killed or something stupid like that. I am indeed a believer, and one of those beliefs is that simply we were all given free choice, and if God says that we're free to choose, who is anybody to say otherwise? (cont)
I think too many followers (of all faiths, including Christianity) forget about this little fact and get too zealous and it is something I hate to see as it is one of the prime reasons so many people hate religion in the first place.
The only thing I'd ask is that people not openly disrespect God. If you don't believe in Him, that's your choice... but I see too many atheists intentionally blaspheming just because they know it bothers us.
A person that kills for a god can usually only be stopped by force, while a person who kills because he thinks certain people have done something can be dissuaded by giving them evidence to the contrary. I do acknowledge that religion can also bring hope, but I personally don't think that's enough to make up for that.
What about a religion that not only does not instruct you to kill anybody, but outright forbids it unless in self-defense? I get that Catholics have murdered people in God's name during the Crusades, but they were horribly in error (they eventually admitted this themselves).
I can't really speak for other religions... but I see what other people who say they are Christians teach and I have to shake my head, because I realize that perhaps a large reason as to why people don't like the Faith is because there are a *lot* of misconceptions and people who are not accurately representing what the Bible teaches.
I know I went on a bit of a tangent there, but... it's this thing I keep seeing that really makes me sad... I wonder that if more people knew what it was Really about... they'd be more open and receptive. My apologies for digressing lol.
I have read that The old Catholics actually forbid people from reading the bible for a while. So people wouldn't figure out all the things they did that was against its teachings so they could gain more power over people.
Most religions i know of all state the same do not kill do not steal and be nice to each other and do not force your beliefs on others. (except for the viking belief the more you kill and steal the cooler you get in the after life)
Dose that force and kill those that do not believe what they believe are known as extremist and ironically breaks all their own fundamental rules for their own belief trying to force it on others.
Eh, I am not 100% sure about that. I'm sure that's true for some religions, but I know that at least Islam does actually promote violence in the Qu'ran (but yet also tells you to be nice to people too). (cont)
And yes, both Islam and Catholicism are/were guilty of not allowing followers to read the texts for themselves; they always had a priest/preacher/etc read it to them, and they were able to change it to say whatever they wanted it to.
And I would surmise that even Christians today, some of them will attend church and let the preacher tell them what the Bible says and not look it up to verify for themselves and I feel that's wrong. Not that they are forced to do it, they are just... I dunno, lazy?
Personally, I try to keep a pretty decent working memory of the Bible, that way when someone quotes it or claims it says something, I'll usually know if it's true or not... and if I'm skeptical, I'll go look it up.
I think Christianity's problem is that it's based upon one very old book that may possibly have lost some meaning during the years or during translation. It obviously contradicts itself a lot too because it's from different eras written by different people. So it can be read in many ways.
That's a misconception, though. It doesn't contradict itself whatsoever. Though that might be too complicated of a discussion to get into on someone's profile wall, but I'd be glad to clear up any questions one might have about it elsewhere.
The short version of it, is that different parts of the Bible are addressed to different groups of people in different time periods. This is where a *lot* of people, even devout Christians, get confused and end up thinking weird things.
Comments on Profile Post by General Nuclear