There have been so many religions that use a god as excuse for violence.  If a god is given credit for conceiving morality he/she also has to accept this violence as part of their legacy.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

There have been so many religions that use a god as excuse for violence.  If a god is given credit for conceiving morality he/she also has to accept this violence as part of their legacy.

People love to have a reason for their wrongdoing and selfish violence. Religion is an easy cop-out. Although some religions do support or encourage violence, most do not.

If i ran over to China and started bombing and shooting people and said that it was for the good of the U.S. and i was doing it because of my love for my country, It wouldn't be the U.S.'s fault.  

Jigler wrote:

AttilaTheHun wrote:

There have been so many religions that use a god as excuse for violence.  If a god is given credit for conceiving morality he/she also has to accept this violence as part of their legacy.

People love to have a reason for their wrongdoing and selfish violence. Religion is an easy cop-out. Although some religions do support or encourage violence, most do not.

If i ran over to China and started bombing and shooting people and said that it was for the good of the U.S. and i was doing it because of my love for my country, It wouldn't be the U.S.'s fault.  

I agree with you and all I'm saying is that the converse(inverse?) applies as well.  If I run over to China and start being generally awesome and moral, saying it was for the good of the U.S. and was doing it for the love of my country, it wouldn't be the U.S.'s fault either.

So if one accepts that a god is creating/conceiving goodness then the badness has to come with it.  Relating back to the morality question, it would then follow that people have innate goodness and badness and that "morality" is just the decision chosen on which to pursue.   And if that decision is made by a person then wouldn't it mean the person creates their morality without outside intervention?

I pretty much completely agree with everything Jigler has said, good discussion overall and cool to see.  Will try and throw in other thoughts soon as well!

Attila:

So if one accepts that a god is creating/conceiving goodness then the badness has to come with it.  Relating back to the morality question, it would then follow that people have innate goodness and badness and that "morality" is just the decision chosen on which to pursue.   And if that decision is made by a person then wouldn't it mean the person creates their morality without outside intervention?

+1, I would only rephrase to say a person acts according to their nature and others call it morality.

AttilaTheHun wrote:

I agree with you and all I'm saying is that the converse(inverse?) applies as well.  If I run over to China and start being generally awesome and moral, saying it was for the good of the U.S. and was doing it for the love of my country, it wouldn't be the U.S.'s fault either.

So if one accepts that a god is creating/conceiving goodness then the badness has to come with it.  Relating back to the morality question, it would then follow that people have innate goodness and badness and that "morality" is just the decision chosen on which to pursue.   And if that decision is made by a person then wouldn't it mean the person creates their morality without outside intervention?

Unless the U.S. actually did send you over to be nice and moral.

I think "badness" comes as a result of people diverging from God's plan. It's like light and dark; if God creates light, darkness results from things blocking it, God did not then create the darkness(as an illustration).

Jigler wrote:

I think "badness" comes as a result of people diverging from God's plan. It's like light and dark; if God creates light, darkness results from things blocking it, God did not then create the darkness(as an illustration).

If God gave humanity the ability to diverge, (knowing it would be invoked, right?), then he/she knowingly created "badness" at that moment.  Actually, we really have no choice but to push it back even further and postulate that God's "plan" was to create badness.

If I was a theist, I would probably argue that God created morality; God defined good and bad (seeing as you can't have one without the other), just as God made it so that 1 + 1 = 2.

Here’s my little thought experiment:

There can be no equal to God, and in the beginning, God is lonely (They forgot to add that line to Genesis). Remember, (s)he who has all has nothing. So God’s plan is to create beings with which to share his/her omnipotence. In order to share, (s)he must love them, and the only way to create beings worthy of God’s love is to give them the means to understand everything, and I mean everything – good in all of its glory, and bad at its most horrifying depths. In short, humanity must suffer to understand and be able to truly love God back.  God has an ethical dilemma on his/her hands.

Analysis: Actually, this is a pretty poor plan. In the end, God has not really created a true equal, so God is still lonely. The only way that this story plays out favorably is if God IS love, and everything in the universe is a piece of God. But this is no longer a personal God.  It’s more like Pantheism.  I like Buddhism.  Strip away its dogma and hierarchical constructs, and you have Zen.  I really like Zen Buddhism. I doubt anyone has a handle on truth, but I’d wager Zen is closer than most.

Disclaimer:  I tried ZB out 25 years ago. It’s OK, but it just didn’t take. I’m not even sure it qualifies as a religion.

I found something interesting about God and why he created evil...

so this is just short version:

-God did not create evil, it is only permitted as an option. If God did not allow any chance, the possibility of evil, mankind would have served him from the obligation, not choice. He did not want "robots" that simply did what he wanted to make them based on his "program". God allowed the possibility of evil, so we had a true free will, and so we can choose if we want to serve him or not.

Well, it makes sense. if I made ​​a robot, with so much attention and love of my creation, I would not want that robot to be limited to work only  what I want from him.

(actually, we are doing that, taking advantage of everything we make lol)

Vidoviti Milan wrote:

...God did not create evil, it is only permitted as an option...

This makes no sense to me.  It's like saying that when God made 1 + 1 = 2, he left the option for it to equal 3.  This God you believe in leaves us all with moral dilemmas at every turn.  Each and every day, not one of us tells the truth. If we did, we'd all lose our jobs. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Morality is rarely black and white; it comes in infinite shades of all colors. If "bad" is an "option", then God created it, plain and simple.  The description and progression of morality that evolves in the Pentateuch - starting with the "fall from grace" leading to "chosen people" is just too primitive for my sensibilities. It paints a "black and white" explanation for the problem of evil. Personally, as allegory, I find it mildly offensive, and as literal truth, it's just plain scary to me.  If I was ever to subscribe to a theist position, I'm afraid I'd need to find one based in something other than the Judeo/Christian traditions.

..If I made ​​a robot, with so much attention and love of my creation, I would not want that robot to be limited to work only  what I want from him...

Be careful when you use this analogy..  It could come back to bite us all ;)

I have a hard time buying the 'free-will' justification for evil.  What about people who are insane?  I don't think people with psychological disorders (e.g. Psychopaths and others who feel no empathy.) have the 'free-will' to just stop being insane.   Legally there is an 'insanity defense' that implies that as a society, we believe some people don't have the free will to not do evil.  Why would an omnipotent benevolent god make psychopaths, etc.?   Look at someone like Albert Fish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Fish) or Jeffrey Dahmer.  These guys were clearly crazy.   Some of it due to the evils of others, but possibly due to genetics.   Did they have the free will to not be evil?

Even if you ignore or can justify the existence of moral evil, there is the problem of suffering in general.  Why would a benevolent and omnipotent God have things like cancer, birth defects, tornadoes, etc.   Is this really the best possible world?  An omnipotent being couldn't do better than this?

FYI: Jigler - the idea that bad is just the absence of good is quite old (4th century): 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatio_boni

How do you think the idea of good and evil changes if we factor in the animal kingdom? (This comment might be inspired by all the links to cannibals).  At its most fundamental level, a lot of the things we call "evil" are necessary for survival in the animal world.  i.e. killing rivals to ensure resources for your progeny.

And a lot of the things we call "good" could involve the same actions.  Is exterminating a whole troupe of monkeys infected with ebola a good thing? An evil thing?  What if it was not a group of monkeys but rather a group of humans infected with some kind of communicable, fatal disease?

Would we consider ourselves evil by getting rid of this group?  By isolating them and allowing them to die of their disease?  Would we say it's good to do this?

hm ... It seemed the only logical explanation for the followers of God. I still do not believe in anything... but, thinking about how the great creator (God) is actually made ​​matter, atoms, molecules. and what is evil? It can not be described with a microscope ... I guess he did not know what the consequences will be :) 

terrible is the fact that all living beings must eat other living beings to survive, whether plants or animals. Our conception of evil might not make sense for God, because he knows exactly why this is so as it is. numerous questions unanswered when speaking about God...

I think squintgnome argues from an interesting position because it challenges the fundamental question (one which seems to be the main one here) of what actually is good and what actually is evil? Like it or not, reasonably (and I know this harks to a few posts back) you have to be able to accept that each of us decides for ourselves what is good and evil.  

You can respect another's view of that, but at the end of the day, you believe what you do because it makes the most sense to you. Based on your instinct and your reason and your faith and your community and the collective unconscience and your experiences and evolution and...   All of these things come together in us as individuals and determine how we set about out lives and what we hold to be true.

Which means that on some level you have to understand that Dalmer, and others who have trouble with the dominant ideas of right and wrong, most likely have a different sense of what is right and wrong, and believe it with real conviction.  (and I'm not condoning actions of these individuals, just suggesting that in the same way we all hold our beliefs, so do they) 

The logical conclusion to this argument then (at least for myself) is that we all face an ultimate accountability every moment of everyday.  Those around us take account of our actions and interactions with them, and we feel the force of what we do by the way people treat us, or by the way the environment responds to us, or by the way out internal compass makes us feel (nothing like good old fashion conscience to let you know you goofed up).  For those that believe in the afterlife, the consequences get more severe, and move into the realm of being eternal as well as the immidiate consequeces around them.  For those that see God as a being, facing that God will be the ultimate account.

All I'm saying is that we choose our beliefs and are both immediately and long term accountable for them, no matter what it is that we believe.  The non-believer also faces this accountability (not from god, but from those around them, their own experiences and in the choices they make), even if they don't want to see it. 

Another way to think about things:

I have in me the capacity for great creation, and the capacity for great destruction.  These things are in balance and in fact, any time I do one it comes at the sacrifice of the other.

I destroy the animal to eat and grow (this sucks for the animal but is good for me).  My body kills off all manner of things destructive to it all the time (this sucks for the micro organisms but is good for me). I try to create in people the awareness to be accountable for themselves and take account of what character and qualities they actually have (this sucks for me but is good for everyone else). I do all manner of weeding and composting and fertilizing in order to create soil (this sucks for me, but it's good for the garden, and the worms and the rabbits in my neighborhood).

We have the capacity for both good and evil too.  Maybe suffering and death are evil, or maybe they are signs that creation and destruction are in balance, or attempting to achieve a balance.  

I truly believe that Man's purpose on this planet is one of cultivator.  (I've considered alot or different ideas here, and this one seems to fit best for me) Other ideas fall anywhere between Man as ruler of the planet to man as Virus.

I like cultivator because it seems to describe out most basic trends.  We cultivate our lives by choosing some things and not others, we cultivate our food, and our environment. We cultivate each other: which is what this discussion is doing to all those involved btw.

I truly think people are best at cultivating. We move things and kill them and grow them, we change them, mould them, re-build them etc. 

Wow Ratsy, you have truly penetrated the darkness. Thank you for sharing, with all of us. Your eyes see well, however your mind is still trying to cultivate things. Lets look at the things that are obvious for all of us.

We were born into this experience through no choice of "mine". Yes? ooops  Eh? lol What was born then, if not this "mine". The potential to experience. What? differs upon the physical and all other limitations the potential is placed within. I.E. Stephen Hawkings vs. an olympic athlete. The source (potential) is the same; the outcome is directed by conditions (real or imagined). Can what we do really matter? If, and seeing as it is everyone does different things in different ways. Then we would have to quantify the value of every act. What about when the form the potential came in has fallen apart and withered away. Should we mourn the form? Honor the outcomes, or respect the potential that is within us all? Still present and alive, here and now?

Another thing we can all see and agree with is this "me" even though it had no input on the conditions this potential was placed, it has arrived regardless of the conditions. Here I am. At first glance it seems self-explaining like "I think therefore I am", yet does everyone think like I do? There are some people whose potential has been limited by brain injuries or are presently in a coma. There doesnt seem to be a self-imposed "me". Yet the form and being still remain. Wouldnt this mean it isnt a primary condition to life, this "me". So, what is this "me" that showed up after birth and is now directing and constantly evaluating my life? Look at it and you will see "me" is the container that I have put the judgement of my experiences in. Not the experiences themselves but my judgement on them. So, how do I know myself, but by my judgements. If this isnt a false belief I dont know what is.  I am because I judge I am. What if you dont judge? Then does this false identity disappear? Well, for believers in Jesus, he recommended "Denying the self", "judgeing not, lest ye be judged" (its the same machine pointd in different directions). For the Buddhist heart, Buddha's whole teaching was "You will suffer as long as you desire" Key point being this false "you".

Now you see why I said what I found was the madness in me, that was being covered up by the noise of the crowd. What crowd?, but the one I created to distract myself from peace. Think about this. If a man were truly happy what does he need to do? But, if a mans happiness is based upon thoughts, he has to constantly keep up the illusion of reality. This becomes "the pursuit of happiness" instead of ever achieving it.

All of you rule, I mean it, thank you so very much. If the point isnt about right or wrong you can cherish everyone for what they bring. Especially, if there isnt a you who could take it the wrong way.

Jigler, Jesus died for your sins (in your mind), but you beg heathen pardon, how does that fit into that framework? He took a risk, and died for it, find what you are willing to die for and maybe you will really live. And who knows 2000 years from now they may idolize you and your willingness to tell the "unbearable truth".

Simple truth from Homer Simpson  "What is mind? No matter. What is matter? never mind"

See for yourself, love to all of you

This whole thing reminds me of 'John from Cincinnati'.  Anyone watch that show?

Right now I want food, but am too lazy to cook...

SquintGnome wrote:

I endorse Evolutionary Psychology which posits that much of our behaviors (and therefore our experience as humans) are evolutionary adaptations with modification from our environment.  As such, I am trying to come to terms with what I have evolved to experience so I know my limitations and bouandaries and then based on that make the best I can of it.  I may have it figured out in three more lifetimes.

 

+1

Evolutionary Psych, Neuro, and Bio have some damn good explanations for just about every human and sociological behavior.  It's pretty awesome stuff.  My favorite is the stuff around human attraction. Shit will blow your mind (and if turned into applicable strategies helps other things getting blown more often).  =)

Oh, to answer to the OG Q.

I want to be happy.

Happy with my life in the present, happy with how I have grown and changed as an individual, happy in reflection of the good I have accomplished, and happy with the legacy I leave behind.

=)

itsnotatumor wrote:

Evolutionary Psych, Neuro, and Bio have some damn good explanations for just about every human and sociological behavior.  It's pretty awesome stuff.  My favorite is the stuff around human attraction. Shit will blow your mind (and if turned into applicable strategies helps other things getting blown more often).  =)

I major in Psychology at my University, so i've studied this stuff fairly extensively. I by no means claim to be an expert, but i at least have read some of the major theories. The way i see it, is that if you approach humanity and purpose with the presupposition that there is no God, then you will come up with satisfactory solutions that do not involve him. I don't think all of evolutionary psych is wrong, but with the option of God left out, you have to figure something else out and this is what i think ev.psych has done often.