So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Burning ghost »

Belindi -

You think volcanic activity and strong winds are "evil"?

You think we need "redemption"? We need to be saved from the success of reducing poverty and disease? Does such "redemption" involve shifting back toward some kind of Drak Age where women are reduced to property again?

I don't follow.
AKA badgerjelly
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Burning ghost wrote:Belindi -

You think volcanic activity and strong winds are "evil"?

You think we need "redemption"? We need to be saved from the success of reducing poverty and disease? Does such "redemption" involve shifting back toward some kind of Drak Age where women are reduced to property again?

I don't follow.
Natural events are unwitting and unwilled however their effects are sometimes evil effects.

Human behaviour is another natural event although humans can exert some self control and inhibit evil behaviour.

Throughout I define evil as that which causes death and suffering to man, beast, and species.

'Redemption' is a usually a religious word. But I use it in the sense that men do bad things. And that many people feel the need to redeem the debt that I believe we, as rational creatures, owe to ourselves and the rest of the living world to make reparation for our selfish destructiveness. The only useful idea of 'God' is the idea that God is the name of whatever useful work we do to redeem the above debt.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Steve3007 »

Evil. It's one of the many, many words that different people use in such different ways that arguments erupt between people who actually would agree with each other, if only it was clear in what sense they were each using words.

Belindi, you clearly use the word "evil" to mean, essentially, "destructive". Some other people seem to use it as a way to avoid having to look for reasons why humans do things. They say things like "that was an act of pure evil" and leave it at that. That's always been the sense of the word "evil" that I've found least helpful because it leaves no possibility of ever preventing future evil acts by attempting to understand their causes.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Spectrum wrote:
Actually to date, there is glaring evidence 'good' has the edge over 'evil' as far as humans are concern, otherwise the human species would have been extinct or reduced to isolated groups.
But bare survival is not a good enough criterion for good. Good is often present among the illustrious dead.Extinct species are not less good because they are extinct. Extinct and extant are factual: good and evil are moral.

Steve, I do agree that evil is a word that needs defining by a description of evil. The description can be examples, and it can be comparison with a criterion for evil. I posted my criterion.

Evil is a lot easier to define than good. Why is this?
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Burning ghost »

More equality, freedom and less child deaths and less child poverty. An established pedagogy, and a more nutritious diet.

I would call all of that pretty good. So, yeah! Spectrum is right to say 'good' is at the head of the human endeavor. That is not to say there are not individual acts of 'evil'. I would extend the argument further and even say that 'evil' is a natural necessity for the 'good'.

-- Updated October 9th, 2017, 10:19 am to add the following --

I would not define "suffering" as an "evil"? That is like saying life is evil. If that is your view then I whole heartedly wish to fight against you.

Maybe we'd be better off viewing "evil" in terms of encouraging destruction? Knowing a disaster is coming, knowing you can do something to prevent the extent of the disaster, yet doing nothing to help fend it of, is what I would call the first step toward actively initiating disaster. It starts with shirking responsibility and ends with actively feeding the fire of destruction.

We are all guilty of this "evil" to some extent. Some against themselves (causing the destruction to spread to others), and others by our failure to deal with ourselves and thus deflecting onto others.

Basically, I don't see how "evil" can be untangled from responsibility. This is why children are innocent. They have yet to reach a point where they are able to either take on or shirk responsibility to any large degree.
AKA badgerjelly
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Belindi wrote:Spectrum wrote:
Actually to date, there is glaring evidence 'good' has the edge over 'evil' as far as humans are concern, otherwise the human species would have been extinct or reduced to isolated groups.
But bare survival is not a good enough criterion for good. Good is often present among the illustrious dead.Extinct species are not less good because they are extinct. Extinct and extant are factual: good and evil are moral.

Steve, I do agree that evil is a word that needs defining by a description of evil. The description can be examples, and it can be comparison with a criterion for evil. I posted my criterion.

Evil is a lot easier to define than good. Why is this?
Re 'evil' - a definition and consensus are necessary else the discussion is going nowhere.

I have always defined 'evil' as human acts [individual or groups] that are net-negative to the well being of the individual and therefrom the collective.

I think you can agree to confine 'evil' to human acts only which is a subject by itself. When we confine 'evil' to humans only, we have the possibility to research, objectify and control evil to some extent.

If you wish, you can define 'evil' by extending it to non-human acts, e.g. natural events, viruses, animals, theistic related, etc. I am not interested in this extended definition in this discussion.

I believe bare survival at the optimal* level is the very minimal base for what is 'good'.
If only one person survive that is not optimal for the preservation of the species. To be optimal there must be the minimum number of males and females left to ensure the preservation of the species.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Spectrum wrote:
I think you can agree to confine 'evil' to human acts only which is a subject by itself. When we confine 'evil' to humans only, we have the possibility to research, objectify and control evil to some extent.
I don't agree because human beings are also part of nature. The fact that humans are moral beings does not exclude them from being part of nature.

Only by the inclusion of humans as part of nature , and by extension humans and humanity as material for deterministic science, can we control what by consensus we deem to be evil in humans and humanity. Your predilection for survival of homo sapiens is served by inclusion of homo sapiens in nature like other species. Indeed other species can and do enlighten us as to human nature.
User avatar
Atreyu
Posts: 1737
Joined: June 17th, 2014, 3:11 am
Favorite Philosopher: P.D. Ouspensky
Location: Orlando, FL

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Atreyu »

Well, I don't know about "the world", but Mankind definitely needs redemption....
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3065
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Burning ghost »

Belindi -

The issue seems to be more about most people not adhering to the idea that volcanoes get moody.

I am willing to accept that animal s have certain levels of "morality" and a sense of "fair play". I am saying VERY clearly that talking about 'evil' trees, the 'evil' of bodies of water, or 'evil' weather, is almost complete nonsense.
AKA badgerjelly
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Belindi wrote:Spectrum wrote:
I think you can agree to confine 'evil' to human acts only which is a subject by itself. When we confine 'evil' to humans only, we have the possibility to research, objectify and control evil to some extent.
I don't agree because human beings are also part of nature. The fact that humans are moral beings does not exclude them from being part of nature.

Only by the inclusion of humans as part of nature , and by extension humans and humanity as material for deterministic science, can we control what by consensus we deem to be evil in humans and humanity. Your predilection for survival of homo sapiens is served by inclusion of homo sapiens in nature like other species. Indeed other species can and do enlighten us as to human nature.
I was not clear. I understand humans are part, connected and interdependent with nature and the whole of reality. In this sense nature will effect humanity and the acts [not necessary evil acts] of humanity can effect nature.

My point earlier was, the word 'evil' a VERY loose term. Thus to be more effective in our communication and discussion in this instance and case, I would prefer to confine 'evil' to human acts only. For example in the case of Philosophy of Morality and Ethics, there is no necessity to extend the term 'evil' [bad] to non-human activities.

If you want to extend 'evil' to non-human things and events, there would be separate topic you can discuss with those who agree with your definition, but I am out of that.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Belindi »

Spectrum wrote:
If you want to extend 'evil' to non-human things and events, there would be separate topic you can discuss with those who agree with your definition, but I am out of that.
But don't you recognise that , despite that they may not conceptualise, animals other than men feel evils? And don't you recognise that even the inanimate world and universe might be a value in its own right so that destruction of it is an evil?

If you are going to disregard other sentient animals and/or the inanimate universe then you will have to claim that other sentient animals and the inanimate universe don't matter.

If you are in the business of limiting evil to men then why not impose further limits and limit evil to very intelligent men? I can answer that, Spectrum. It is because you want to discuss evil solely as social evil. That is okay, but it's legalistic not philosophical.

The idea of a good God which by definition has no evil is a good idea. It can be helpful to personify an idea. Whenever this good -God -personification becomes a political weapon it deteriorates into a power for lies, and lies are evil. Similarly when philosophy metamorphoses into legalism philosophy can serve lying behaviour.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Steve3007 »

Belindi:
Evil is a lot easier to define than good. Why is this?
Is it? If evil is defined as destructive couldn't good be defined as constructive?
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Belindi wrote: If you are in the business of limiting evil to men then why not impose further limits and limit evil to very intelligent men? I can answer that, Spectrum. It is because you want to discuss evil solely as social evil. That is okay, but it's legalistic not philosophical.
It is matter of efficiency.
I don't want to extend the term 'evil' to natural events as that will involve God [don't exists] and mess up with the theistic 'Problem of Evil.' This can be very messy when one get entangle into the the non-existent ontological evil.

I prefer to focus on 'evil' as restricted to [intentions and negligence of] humans and therefrom the Philosophy of Moral [dealing with good and evil]. In this case we are focused on researching and resolving the issue of human evils, i.e. genocides, murders, mass rapes, corruption, serial killers, drug wars, and the likes. With the advent of advancing knowledge in the field of genomics, neurosciences and others we are now is a good position to focus and work on human-based evils more efficiently.

Where it involves natural catastrophes they should be resolved by scientists, governments on a global scale and appropriate parties. I am not into this issues.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Steve3007 »

I don't want to extend the term 'evil' to natural events as that will involve God
If this particular usage of the word "evil" simply means "destructive", why does it have to involve a god?
Spectrum
Posts: 5161
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: So you're an atheist? Not so fast.

Post by Spectrum »

Steve3007 wrote:
I don't want to extend the term 'evil' to natural events as that will involve God
If this particular usage of the word "evil" simply means "destructive", why does it have to involve a god?
Note the 'problem of evil' re argument against theism.
Example if God is so morally good, compassionate, omni-benevolent why is God introducing evil acts in terms of tsunamis, earthquakes, volcano eruptions and other catastrophes that kill millions, in addition to allowing evil-acts to exist.

Personally I do not use this 'problem of evil' [a sort of checkmate move] to counter the existence of God because God is illusory in the first place and is an impossibility.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021