How to be a better person, Simple tut.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

He said that in 1956. If you'd asked him about Christian ethics just after the A-bomb drops, when he was walking the streets of New York, wondering why everybody was smiling in the face of almost certain doom, he might have had a different view. If you'd asked him in 1988, as he was dying, me might have had a different view yet again.

---

Some people upon receiving new information, revise their opinion. Most don't. Their ego traps them. They can't admit to being wrong.  John Galbrath noted that most people when faced with the need to change their mind or prove there is no need to do so, get busy on the proof.

---

One solution to this problem is to have

no

opinion. Feynman was pretty good at this.

---

That's 

how he assisted in the development of the 

atomic bomb isn't it? His ony question was how to build it, not why he was building it. He had no opinion whether it was good or bad.

It would be pretty strange to have no opinion about some subjects. Example: What's your opinion on genocide? Six million Jews killed in the holocaust, good or bad? Uh, no opinion....

---

You are reading specificity where I provided none. I used the word "overall". I pick up and reject concepts as I go, but I don't feel myself in a strong enough position to proselytize on issues like naturalistic/religious/secular morality. Like many people, I "know" good and bad when I feel it. Maybe unlike many people, I'm willing to believe that's not the best way to figure it out. There are obvious cases, like genocide, but far less obvious cases, like the use of tasers.

As for Feynman, at the start of his involvment in the Manhattan project he believed, as did Einstein and many others, that Germany was on its way to a nuclear weapon. He did not want them to get there first. When Germany surrendered, that threat vanished. He admitted to ignoring that because the physics was so interesting.

This marks the end of my participation in this thread.

[Randall Ahren]

There has been no proselytizing on issues of naturalistic/religious/secular morality. There has simply been an inquiry into whether good and bad exists. Some hypothesized that it did not exist, e.g., that it amounted to simply variations in taste.

That hypothesis was tested by considering what our world be like if good and bad did not exist. That absence would have a profound impact on the arts. No one would have been able to distinguish Mozart from a rank amateur, among other things.

Therefore it is concluded that good and bad actually exists because if it didn't, our world be vastly different. If bad can be construed as evil, than correct answers to two of my earlier questions are at hand:

1. Does evil really exist? <-- Yes

2. Or is it just something imagined? <-- No

 

 

 

 

 

[emmettcullen93]

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

 

Does evil even exist in a godless world?

---

 

of course evil would exist in a godless world assuming that god is opposite of evil

but this isnt a godless world otherwise where did everything come from do you honestly believe that everything just popped out of nowhere and ended up this perfect? such as how every leaf is designed similar and how every human is desgined similar. how all trees are similar.

just my opinion. and dont worry about me actually talking because you didnt hit my nerve yet.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

emmettcullen93 wrote:

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

 

Does evil even exist in a godless world?

---

 

of course evil would exist in a godless world assuming that god is opposite of evil

---

I can't rap my mind around this sentence... it makes no sense to me whatsoever and doesn't really answer the question, if that was what you were trying to do.

As for the rest of your post, you're right... that's just your opinion.

...Dres

[emmettcullen93]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

emmettcullen93 wrote:

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

 

Does evil even exist in a godless world?

---

 

of course evil would exist in a godless world assuming that god is opposite of evil

---

I can't rap my mind around this sentence... it makes no sense to me whatsoever and doesn't really answer the question, if that was what you were trying to do.

As for the rest of your post, you're right... that's just your opinion.

...Dres

---

it means that god would be the opposite of evil or (good)

and if god or (good) didnt exist than evil couldnt exist. just a theological .... opinion i guess i would call it.

[Randall Ahren]

I think it's a logically sound conclusion that evil and good must both exist. It would be a strange world if you listened to music and could only decide the music was either evil or not evil. God however, I think is outside of both good and evil. Epicurus did some thinking about god. According to Epicurus:

1) If god cannot prevent evil, he is not omnipotent;

2) If god can prevent evil but is not willing to do so, then he is malevolent;

3) If god can and is willing, then there would be no evil; and

4) If is he neither willing nor able, why call him god?

#2 is incorrect. If he could and was willing, good would be destroyed too.

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

[Randall Ahren]

That's your hypothesis, but I'm not sure it's logically sound. First, I think good and evil can exist in the minds of animals besides humans. There was a female chimp which was taught sign language. The chimp taught the sign language to her offspring. I think chimps can be good and evil as well, towards each other as well as towards humans.

I'm sure you're familiar with the social insects, termites, ants, wasps, and bees. One of those creatures acting alone, removed from their colony seems completely stupid. Acting in concert though with their siblings, a greater pattern is revealed, far greater than any one individual.

Can you imagine two termites conversing to one another in a tunnel? "What's it all about? Is there anything greater out there?" Or imagine two blood cells in your body asking the same questions of one another.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

emmettcullen93 wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

emmettcullen93 wrote:

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

 

Does evil even exist in a godless world?

---

 

of course evil would exist in a godless world assuming that god is opposite of evil

---

I can't rap my mind around this sentence... it makes no sense to me whatsoever and doesn't really answer the question, if that was what you were trying to do.

As for the rest of your post, you're right... that's just your opinion.

...Dres

---

it means that god would be the opposite of evil or (good)

and if god or (good) didnt exist than evil couldnt exist. just a theological .... opinion i guess i would call it.

---

But originally you said evil would exist in a godless world, then made the assumption that God is the opposite of evil... two statements that don't necessarily correlate with each other and certainly don't back each other up.  Which is why I had to question what, exactly, you were trying to say.

...Dres

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

That's your hypothesis, but I'm not sure it's logically sound. First, I think good and evil can exist in the minds of animals besides humans. There was a female chimp which was taught sign language. The chimp taught the sign language to her offspring. I think chimps can be good and evil as well, towards each other as well as towards humans.

I'm sure you're familiar with the social insects, termites, ants, wasps, and bees. One of those creatures acting alone, removed from their colony seems completely stupid. Acting in concert though with their siblings, a greater pattern is revealed, far greater than any one individual.

Can you imagine two termites conversing to one another in a tunnel? "What's it all about? Is there anything greater out there?" Or imagine two blood cells in your body asking the same questions of one another.

---

It's more logical that what you're saying here, when you consider that all of these observations have been processed through the human mind.

It could very well be that animals only consider what is beneficial to them and what is not.  We actually do the same thing, only we deem these things to be good and evil... a concept that we thought up on our own.

The mere fact that what one person would consider good, could be considered evil by another, is an indication that the concept of good and evil exists only within a person's individual mind.  Every person can be both and can easily be considered both at the same time, depending on who you ask... it's just a matter of perspective.  It's not something floating in nature that you can catch like the common cold.

...Dres

[Randall Ahren]

One problem with both your post and Celest's is that they both presume that there is nothing greater than humans. If humans conquer space and save an alien race and then the humans become extinct, there is no more good and evil because it only exists for humans, regardless of whether other species can think and exist after humans have disappeared from the universe.

Is there no evil really? All a matter of perspective? What about kicking a kitten to death? From who's perspective is that not considered evil?

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

One problem with both your post and Celest's is that they both presume that there is nothing greater than humans. If humans conquer space and save an alien race and then the humans become extinct, there is no more good and evil because it only exists for humans, regardless of whether other species can think and exist after humans have disappeared from the universe.

---

Now that's a leap... but in all honesty, the concept of good and evil could very well die out with the human race... it's at least as possible as not.  What wouldn't change is the fact that there are things that would be considered beneficial and things that would be considered detrimental to an individual being, depending on their perspective.  Humans can call that good and evil if they want to, that doesn't mean that any other species, alien or not, would also call it that or even see it the same way at all.

 

---

Randall Ahren also wrote:

Is there no evil really? All a matter of perspective? What about kicking a kitten to death? From who's perspective is that not considered evil?

---

From the perspective of a mother who's child is being attacked by a rabid cat.

...Dres

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

Perhaps you should read/watch Horton Hears a Who.

---

I'm convinced those Whos were merely a figment of Horton's overactive imagination. :matte-motes-silly:

...Dres

[Celestiall Nightfire]

---

[Randall Ahren]

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

One problem with both your post and Celest's is that they both presume that there is nothing greater than humans.

---

Randall, I don't presume any such thing.  

What about emergent intelligence?

 

---

But, as far as humans can see, we are the only sentient beings capable of the abstract thought processes necessary to formulate concepts like good and evil.   That's all we know...right now.  

---

That's what you believe, not what you know, and to reach that belief you have to ignore evidence to the contrary, such as language learning in apes and pining in general in mamals among other things.

 

---

Now in the past or in the future...or even now concurrent with our timeline...but far, far away in the universe...there may be other conscious beings that can think and have abstract concepts.  But, even then we cannot assume that they would formulate the type of concepts that humans have done.  

---

There is evidence from the past with Neanderthals. They cared for the sick and infirm and mourned their passing.

 

---

Also, if you are referring to a supernatural power for your reference of "greater than humans", there is simply nothing that indicates such.   So, there is only speculation and pretend...no reality to discuss.   Thus, that is not a factor.

See above regarding emergent intelligence.

 

---

Correct. 

Unless the other hypothetical species, just happened to develop, the same abstract concepts.   Because, that is all it is.   There is no universal truth...only our thoughts to sustain the ideas of good and evil.

---

What about the meme as opposed to the gene? Isn't it possible for the meme to live on past physical death? Did the ideas of Socrates die when he died?

 

---

Yes, it all a matter of perspective. 

Evil exists as long as there is someone to

understand

the concept.   So, if all people over the age of five disappear..there is no evil.  Because younger children have not developed the thought processes yet to grasp the concept.

Which is one of the reasons why very young children can do actions that would be considered evil by adults.  Like kicking a kitten to death.   Then they might wonder why the kitten is not moving or playing.  But, they lack the perspective gained from a developed mature brain, to know that they killed the kitten or that what they did is bad.

It's for this reason that we do not leave babies alone with dogs, animals or even other very young children.   They are simply incapable of understanding what we consider right and wrong or good and bad.

---

 

Children of five years of age can understand good and evil. See this reference.

[Randall Ahren]

What about slavery? Is it a matter of perspective whether it's good or evil?

What about raping a five year old? Is that a matter of perspective whether it's good or evil?

[emmettcullen93]

think if satan was evil (as we believe)

and god was good ( as we also believe) ( by basic concepts in the world of course)

then the world balance is god vs satan

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

 

1) If god cannot prevent evil, he is not omnipotent;

              - ok god can prevent it he just dont due to the power of satan persay.

2) If god can prevent evil but is not willing to do so, then he is malevolent;

              - mmmm that is a false statement malvolent is willing to do evil not willing to prevent it. and he wants us to choose to do good not be forced to good because he whiped out all the evil.

3) If god can and is willing, then there would be no evil; and

            - not nessasaraly as he may enjoy a challenge. he is god so..........

4) If is he neither willing nor able, why call him god?

               - good point but he is willing and able he just has a different plan.

#2 is incorrect. If he could and was willing, good would be destroyed too.

---

to the whole statement it kinda sounds like communism. but we are all intitled to our opinions.

[emmettcullen93]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

emmettcullen93 wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

emmettcullen93 wrote:

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

 

Does evil even exist in a godless world?

---

 

of course evil would exist in a godless world assuming that god is opposite of evil

---

I can't rap my mind around this sentence... it makes no sense to me whatsoever and doesn't really answer the question, if that was what you were trying to do.

As for the rest of your post, you're right... that's just your opinion.

...Dres

---

it means that god would be the opposite of evil or (good)

and if god or (good) didnt exist than evil couldnt exist. just a theological .... opinion i guess i would call it.

---

But originally you said evil would exist in a godless world, then made the assumption that God is the opposite of evil... two statements that don't necessarily correlate with each other and certainly don't back each other up.  Which is why I had to question what, exactly, you were trying to say.

...Dres

---

if we look at the big picture it is easier to understand. in history when the world was created it was created perfect and with a plan then satan steped in being the oposing force of evil.

now look at what i said first. (this is where i change my answer as i have studied this a bit after i posted my answer) god created everything including satan which was at that point good but had rules and he had choices he choice to create evil and be the oposing force to the good. so if god didnt exist therefore didnt create satan the creator of evil then nothing would exist. good or evil. so in other words evil cannot exsit without good.

[emmettcullen93]

 

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

Can you imagine two termites conversing to one another in a tunnel? "What's it all about? Is there anything greater out there?" Or imagine two blood cells in your body asking the same questions of one another.

---

 

mmmm this one is easy do termites go to heaven or hell same for blood cells. humans were created to go to heaven termites wernt.

 

[emmettcullen93]

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

One problem with both your post and Celest's is that they both presume that there is nothing greater than humans.

---

ok read this

 

 

Genesis 1

New International Version (NIV)

Genesis 1

The Beginning

 1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

 

Genesis 3

New International Version (NIV)

Genesis 3

The Fall

 1Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

 2 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

 4 “You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. 5“For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

 6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. 7Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.

 8 Then the man and his wife heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and they hid from the LORD God among the trees of the garden. 9But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?”

 10He answered, “I heard you in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked; so I hid.”

 11And he said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?”

 12The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

 13Then the LORD God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?”

   The woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

 14So the LORD God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this,

   “Cursed are you above all livestock

   and all wild animals!

You will crawl on your belly

   and you will eat dust

   all the days of your life.

15 And I will put enmity

   between you and the woman,

   and between your offspring[

a

] and hers;

he will crush[

b

] your head,

   and you will strike his heel.”

 16To the woman he said,

   “I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;

   with painful labor you will give birth to children.

Your desire will be for your husband,

   and he will rule over you.”

 17To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’

   “Cursed is the ground because of you;

   through painful toil you will eat food from it

   all the days of your life.

18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,

   and you will eat the plants of the field.

19 By the sweat of your brow

   you will eat your food

until you return to the ground,

   since from it you were taken;

for dust you are

   and to dust you will return.”

 

 

that will explain it all. the serpent is cursed as well right? so evil exsits in the serpent (probally a simbol of satan but still)

 

[Madelaine McMasters]

Darnit, I'm back...

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

---

Celestiall Nightfire wrote:

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

One problem with both your post and Celest's is that they both presume that there is nothing greater than humans.

---

Randall, I don't presume any such thing.

What about emergent intelligence?

 I believe that can be explained by convergent evolution. The Earth is littered with examples of that. The definition of "intelligence" determines how much of that litter is relevant.

---

But, as far as humans can see, we are the only sentient beings capable of the abstract thought processes necessary to formulate concepts like good and evil.   That's all we know...right now.  

---

That's what you believe, not what you know, and to reach that belief you have to ignore evidence to the contrary, such as language learning in apes and pining in general in mamals among other things.

That elephants appear to mourn their dead is not proof that such behavior isn't a byproduct of some evolutionary adaptation. Whether that behavior descends from some common ancestor or converged independently as the result of some potentially unidentified selection pressures (our understanding of ancient selection pressures will always be woefully incomplete, fossil records skip a lot when played) may not matter. If one believes that we could have evolved such behaviors, no leap of faith is required to believe it could evolve elsewhere. To believe that such behaviors cannot be evolved ignores growing evidence to the contrary.

---

Now in the past or in the future...or even now concurrent with our timeline...but far, far away in the universe...there may be other conscious beings that can think and have abstract concepts.  But, even then we cannot assume that they would formulate the type of concepts that humans have done.  

---

There is evidence from the past with Neanderthals. They cared for the sick and infirm and mourned their passing.

Once again, this behavior could have propagated from ancestry. If ancestral forms exhibit such behaviors, you could imagine it passing on. Convergent evolution could also have produced such behaviors in response to selection pressures. Really, once you find such behavior in other animals, you've taken a step towards wondering if we're special or simply more specialized. (I hesitate to use "simply" there because it understimates the tremendous complexity of our specialization. I chose the word to differentiate specialization from special, which has a supernatural meaning here).

---

Also, if you are referring to a supernatural power for your reference of "greater than humans", there is simply nothing that indicates such.   So, there is only speculation and pretend...no reality to discuss.   Thus, that is not a factor.

See above regarding emergent intelligence.

See above regarding convergent evolution. 

---

Correct. 

Unless the other hypothetical species, just happened to develop, the same abstract concepts.   Because, that is all it is.   There is no universal truth...only our thoughts to sustain the ideas of good and evil.

---

What about the meme as opposed to the gene? Isn't it possible for the meme to live on past physical death? Did the ideas of Socrates die when he died?

Well, if termites had evolved enough intelligence to produce papyrus and stylii and eventually Johannes Gutenbug, I might expect the ideas of Termocrates to survive his death. All that's required for your argument is recorded history.

The Dali Llama, when queried about artificial intelligence, replied that he thought our abilities to create were limitless and so we could someday make machines that he would consider sentient. He then laughed (I can wonder if nervously) and said that after its construction, it would be necessary to transfer the continuum into it (I can't remember his wording, but you get the idea, call it the meme or God if you wish). The thought that we could comprehend the entirety of a machine we created, that it would then absorb some incomprehensible continuum that was just loitering about waiting for a host, and then become incomprehensible itself just doesn't pass the sniff test. Upon reading that, I thought of Sid Harris' "

And then a miracle occurs

" cartoon. The Dali LLama just delayed the miracle till the end while most put it at the beginning.

---

Yes, it all a matter of perspective. 

Evil exists as long as there is someone to

understand

the concept.   So, if all people over the age of five disappear..there is no evil.  Because younger children have not developed the thought processes yet to grasp the concept.

Which is one of the reasons why very young children can do actions that would be considered evil by adults.  Like kicking a kitten to death.   Then they might wonder why the kitten is not moving or playing.  But, they lack the perspective gained from a developed mature brain, to know that they killed the kitten or that what they did is bad.

It's for this reason that we do not leave babies alone with dogs, animals or even other very young children.   They are simply incapable of understanding what we consider right and wrong or good and bad.

---

 

Children of five years of age can understand good and evil. See this

reference

.

Using "

All

 I Really Need to Know I 

Learned

 in Kindergarten" as evidence of some innate human understanding of good and evil is self contradictory. Fulghum's book is an endearing recapitulation of modern moral code. With that understanding, the book's title could be rewritten as...

"I Really Knew Nothing About Morality Until Kindergarten", which I believe argues directly against your propositions to date.

---

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

emmettcullen93 wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

emmettcullen93 wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

emmettcullen93 wrote:

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

 

Does evil even exist in a godless world?

---

 

of course evil would exist in a godless world assuming that god is opposite of evil

---

I can't rap my mind around this sentence... it makes no sense to me whatsoever and doesn't really answer the question, if that was what you were trying to do.

As for the rest of your post, you're right... that's just your opinion.

...Dres

---

it means that god would be the opposite of evil or (good)

and if god or (good) didnt exist than evil couldnt exist. just a theological .... opinion i guess i would call it.

---

But originally you said evil would exist in a godless world, then made the assumption that God is the opposite of evil... two statements that don't necessarily correlate with each other and certainly don't back each other up.  Which is why I had to question what, exactly, you were trying to say.

...Dres

---

if we look at the big picture it is easier to understand. in history when the world was created it was created perfect and with a plan then satan steped in being the oposing force of evil.

now look at what i said first. (this is where i change my answer as i have studied this a bit after i posted my answer) god created everything including satan which was at that point good but had rules and he had choices he choice to create evil and be the oposing force to the good. so if god didnt exist therefore didnt create satan the creator of evil then nothing would exist. good or evil. so in other words evil cannot exsit without good.

---

Oh okay... I get it... you've based your idea of the way things work on the bible, instead of on any sort of logical conclusions.  Since I'm not very well versed on biblical fairy tales, I'd be at a distinct disadvantage if we were to continue this discussion based solely on this farcical framework.  As you might expect, I'm not prepared to debate you on your belief system, so let's just leave it where it is. :matte-motes-big-grin-wink:

...Dres

[emmettcullen93]

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

emmettcullen93 wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

emmettcullen93 wrote:

---

Dresden Ceriano wrote:

---

emmettcullen93 wrote:

---

Randall Ahren wrote:

 

Does evil even exist in a godless world?

---

 

of course evil would exist in a godless world assuming that god is opposite of evil

---

I can't rap my mind around this sentence... it makes no sense to me whatsoever and doesn't really answer the question, if that was what you were trying to do.

As for the rest of your post, you're right... that's just your opinion.

...Dres

---

it means that god would be the opposite of evil or (good)

and if god or (good) didnt exist than evil couldnt exist. just a theological .... opinion i guess i would call it.

---

But originally you said evil would exist in a godless world, then made the assumption that God is the opposite of evil... two statements that don't necessarily correlate with each other and certainly don't back each other up.  Which is why I had to question what, exactly, you were trying to say.

...Dres

---

if we look at the big picture it is easier to understand. in history when the world was created it was created perfect and with a plan then satan steped in being the oposing force of evil.

now look at what i said first. (this is where i change my answer as i have studied this a bit after i posted my answer) god created everything including satan which was at that point good but had rules and he had choices he choice to create evil and be the oposing force to the good. so if god didnt exist therefore didnt create satan the creator of evil then nothing would exist. good or evil. so in other words evil cannot exsit without good.

---

Oh okay... I get it... you've based your idea of the way things work on the bible, instead of on any sort of logical conclusions.  Since I'm not very well versed on biblical fairy tales, I'd be at a distinct disadvantage if we were to continue this discussion based solely on this farcical framework.  As you might expect, I'm not prepared to debate you on your belief system, so let's just leave it where it is. :matte-motes-big-grin-wink:

...Dres

---

ok i respect that.

[Randall Ahren]

@Dres & Celest:

People don't live forever. One of the reasons people create is to have something that lives beyond them, regardless of whether it's a painting on a cave wall, a sculpture, or some bit of wisdom, like the teachngs of Christ. The same could be said of entire civilizations. Many have came and went over the centuries and built great monuments and made great discoveries. I think you could apply the same principle to the entire human race. If another race finds us long after humans are all dead and gone, they will see that we reached for the stars and find human footsteps on the moon and our artifacts on Mars, and perhaps Voyager in another solar system carrying some of the best creations of human kind.

Moreover, I don't see humans as much different than animals. If humans were eliminated, something would move into the niche currently occupied by humans. So I don't see goodness ending with the human race or requiring humans to appreciate it. Thousands of years from now, archeologists of entirely different species may examine our ruins and appreciate the beauty and glory that was human kind.