28 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelI don't really subscribe to the concept of "evil", at least not in the way it is brandished by many religionists, and in the way it is often used by religionists on this forum.
Are we born evil?
For instance, galveston75 has called me "evil" several times for disagreeing with him or for not accepting his subjective assertions. He has also claimed that I am 'working for Satan', or words to that effect, on several occasions. RJHinds has also claimed I am "evil". Can't remember what for, and it scarcely matters. Point being, in the hands of religious moralizers, it gets rinsed of much of its practical applicability.
Using the word "evil" - which would also be applied to a child rapist, say - in this religionist way, over differences of opinion on a debate forum, seems to strip it of meaning and certainly undermines the consensus about the meaning of a word that is required for reasonable discussion to be possible.
But, I will take the word "evil" and define my equivalent of it as follows: immoral and sociopathic action that is detrimental and/or damaging to others and which stems from an abject lack or even absence of empathy and compassion.
And so, now, are we born "evil"?
No. Of course not. But it can start to kick in when our moral hard wiring, as human beings, starts to equip us with the capacity for things like empathy and compassion.
28 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYes,I see the problem we have with that word. It's simply ridiculous to brandish anyone "evil" based on rhp posts,especially posts in the vein of yours.
I don't really subscribe to the concept of "evil", at least not in the way it is brandished by many religionists, and in the way it is often used by religionists on this forum.
For instance, galveston75 has called me "evil" several times for disagreeing with him or for not accepting his subjective assertions. He has also claimed that I am 'working for Satan' gs, starts to equip us with the capacity for things like empathy and compassion.
I thought they were just taking cheap shots to try to put you off. Or taking their their faith so fundamentally as to be insane.
Another question to all:
Are new people getting more intelligent,(in general), than say 50 years ago?
I certainly think so, And I think it's a mix of nature and nurture that makes young people clued in earlier and earlier to the more important points in life, (mostly overlooked by schools), that creates the x and y generation we have now. (one of the most important subjects I was taught in high school was Physical education-the theory part(40% ), which showed a lot of the basic workings of the human body and where the teachers answered often asked questions about drugs,sex,etc.)
Many of them are as intelligent as a lot of posters here in their teenage years. It's only the life experience they lack, which ironically seems to be held back from them more and more by silly laws and overcompensative parents, that holds them back from being even more intelligent.
28 Nov 12
It is said in Hinduism that we choose our parents.
This can more often than not seem like an outrageous and counterintuitive claim - at least I would have thought so in my early 20's, but now, as more of my life unfolds, I'm not saying that we choose our parents, but that there is some very real ,practical,lesson-giving reason for why we are our parents kids.
For me, if my mum and me weren't related, we'd hate each others guts, but being in the same "small" family has taught us the value of family.
Of family love, and for me, an insight into why people like my mum act and think the way they do.
Theist or atheist we all generally have some lessons to learn from our mums and dads and vice versa , or so is my contention.
Almost universally we put our families ahead of our friends, and the reason for that seems very complex and multi-facetted
28 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by karoly aczelWhether it's accusations of being "evil" or "slimy" or in cahoots with "Satan", it's just the 'sanctified' vanity of the religionist bumping up against the cognitive dissonance that a pointed, non-credulous question or two can cause.
It's simply ridiculous to brandish anyone "evil" based on rhp posts, especially posts in the vein of yours. I thought they were just taking cheap shots to try to put you off. Or taking their their faith so fundamentally as to be insane.
28 Nov 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelAnd the word is "evil". So if we agree to use it, what do you reckon about my non-superstition based working draft of a definition?
Yes,I see the problem we have with that word.
"Evil": Immoral and sociopathic action, that is detrimental and/or damaging to others, which stems from an abject lack or even absence of empathy and compassion, and which cannot be present in us until or unless our moral hard wiring, as human beings, fails to equip us with the capacity for the empathy and compassion necessary for us to interact with others in a morally sound way, which therefore means that we are not and cannot be "born "evil".
As far as this particular problematical word goes, can you subscribe to any of this?
28 Nov 12
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFtotally with you there.
Whether it's accusations of being "evil" or "slimy" or in cahoots with "Satan". it's just the 'sanctified' vanity of the religionist bumping up against the cognitive dissonance that a pointed, non-credulous question or two can cause.
They always seemed threatened and will try anything, sometimes more than once - or reel out the same strawman 6-8months later...
But bonoon says we are born 'sinful' because it says so in the bible according to him. And 'sinful' seems to opens all sorts of cans of worms and sardines that smell awful and no one likes to clean up.
Really, taboo and superstition should be relegated to history as an interesting human psychological condition that evoked more action in some parents of the 20th century than anything their actual immediate family may say to them, but actually infromed them of not much more than zilch
28 Nov 12
Originally posted by karoly aczelI reckon the "born sinful" thing is just a doctrinal device created by ecclesiastical technocrats to consolidate their temporal power over their congregation.
But bonoon says we are born 'sinful' because it says so in the bible according to him.
Originally posted by karoly aczelYou mean like not actually knowing what the definitions of 'sin' and 'evil' are or how
totally with you there.
They always seemed threatened and will try anything, sometimes more than once - or reel out the same strawman 6-8months later...
But bonoon says we are born 'sinful' because it says so in the bible according to him. And 'sinful' seems to opens all sorts of cans of worms and sardines that smell awful and no one likes to clea ...[text shortened]... ual immediate family may say to them, but actually infromed them of not much more than zilch
they differ in respect to each other, well well, and all the while maintaining to offer
some kind of opinions based on their usage? its hard for Christians or any other
thinking person for that matter to be convinced by your assertions of superstition and
ignorance given that you seem not to have the slightest idea what these terms mean
yourself but somehow deem yourself qualified to sit in judgement of a whole generation
of other people and to top it all off you frame it in the now obligatory secular liberal
terminology of a psychological condition, lol, you new agers are really something
shouldn't you be gaining energy from your crystal or knitting yourself underwear from
hemp?
28 Nov 12
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIf you don't offer a definition of your own, robbie, and then address karoly's OP rather than aiming personal remarks at him, then you're just coming of as being passive aggressive and pompous. Just saying.
You mean like not actually knowing what the definitions of 'sin' and 'evil' are or how
they differ in respect to each other, well well, and all the while maintaining to offer
some kind of opinions based on their usage? its hard for Christians or any other
thinking person for that matter to be convinced by your assertions of superstition and
i ...[text shortened]... ouldn't you be gaining energy from your crystal or knitting yourself underwear from
hemp?
28 Nov 12
2 edits
Are we born evil?
It's hard to answer yes or no, because it depends on how you define "evil." So get that out of the way first. Some people think "evil" is the equivalent of serial killer tendencies, for example.
Oh. I see I'm way behind in the thread. Ok, moving on.... are we getting more intelligent? Absolutely not. I would expect the opposite, just looking at the obvious. Our brain functions better with more exercise/use. As technology increases, we find that our problem-solving skills are required less and less. Thus, less exercise of the brain, and a diminishing of the IQ. My thoughts anyway.
I hear that kids today can hardly even function without the use of cell phones and global positioning apps.
The movie Idiocracy comes to mind. The theory being that more intelligent people tend to propagate less, and the less intelligent people tend to have larger families.... so, do the math from there.
Originally posted by karoly aczel"born sinful" is a charged statement that always draws ire from the non-Christian crowd. "Babies are completely innocent," etc.
Yep, for sure
Ok then, please explain why every baby in its early development stages, learns--among other things--to lie, and learns selfish behavior, i.e. crying to manipulate others into giving it what it wants... all on its own.
"The baby learns this behavior from Mommy and Daddy." Hogwash. Babies learn these types of behavior long before they are wise enough to flesh it out using observation and deduction. It's not like a baby watches Daddy cry when he doesn't get his way, then mirrors the behavior.
However, if you don't consider lying and selfishness to be "evil" or even "sinful," then... there isn't much left to discuss because we define the words differently to the point where we can't compare apples to apples.
28 Nov 12
Originally posted by sumydid"Ok then, please explain why every baby in its early development stages, learns--among other things--to lie, and learns selfish behavior, i.e. crying to manipulate others into giving it what it wants... all on its own."
"born sinful" is a charged statement that always draws ire from the non-Christian crowd. "Babies are completely innocent," etc.
Ok then, please explain why every baby in its early development stages, learns--among other things--to lie, and learns selfish behavior, i.e. crying to manipulate others into giving it what it wants... all on its own.
"The ba ...[text shortened]... efine the words differently to the point where we can't compare apples to apples.
So a baby crying because it requires food etc is a sin, I suppose it should send it's parents an Email, or better yet feed itself and change it's own nappies etc.
To assume it is being consciously manipulative rather than acting upon innate hard wired instinct crucial to it's survival is the sort of lunatic assumption that arises from dismissing the theory of evolution as a satanic scam.