issue of evil for atheists

[PAB]

(not all, but I have observed) In atheism there is a tendency to follow similar paradigms as those who are deeply religious, the veiw -'evil' of religion as a basis its axis of evil (as its extremity for an atheist to take). Those who are deeply religious have as a cause of their knowing of good and evil the agenda of emotive position. The atheist amounting to the same. You break down a wall (theology set up by your social institutions) with reason but then there is the possibility you stop at the knowing of the evil of religion . this is just as problematic as being a evangelical or fundamentalist. It is taking the position of knowing of something or someone, this is a new barrier. (It is taking a theological argument into atheism). (this all becomes more complex in individual events of 'moral duty')

I would go so far as to say that an atheist should remove the word evil from there vocabulary or at the very least re-classify it under mysticism and treat it as such. The idea of evil is pollution from theocracy, treading with it this idea of knowing by assigning evil, by its very use. This is not to say we remove morality, there is still a right from wrong as vague and subjective as this is (objective in its biological evolutionary) remains (this is yet to be shed).

However to place evil or good as sources of ethical knowledge is bad play for atheists. It is the knowing position of a ethical view which should not be sustained-which means you shouldn't be sure that hitler was evil, john lennon was good. .....it is not enough in atheism to just not believe in a deity(s) and mysticisms without challenging constantly there root causes and long reigning influences which shape our society

:twisted:

 

[obsidianavenger]

not sure if i quite follow, but you seem to imply that if you are an atheist you must give up the right to all moral claims. that, i am afraid, is total bullshit

theres no coherent way for christians to derive morality from god or from the bible. it follows that they get it from some other source, the same source that atheists get it from: the mind.

additionally, if you want to talk about "helping" the theistic world view, denying a coherent atheistic morality is a great way to do it

 

[Den]

Good and Evil are two completely subjective terms because one man's ideals are another man's worst nightmares. Evil is a term based on personal beliefs or morality; it is not a set guideline for the entire world that "X person is evil, Y person is good". Atheists can use the term evil, there's nothing preventing us from classifying something as evil because the term is so subjective. Think of it like this... To an American, an Iraqi Terrorist is evil however to an Iraqi terrorist an American is evil.

 

[AndromedasWake]

'Evil' as a word is used colloquially by the non-religious to encompass 'very, very bad'. The nature of right and wrong in a non-religious moral framework is best addressed by Sam Harris I think, way back in 2004 with The End of Faith.

I'm paraphrasing, but he essentially says that if there are truths to be known about human happiness (which modern neuroscience suggests there are), then there are truths to be known about ethics, which is principally concerned with human happiness and suffering.

Even to a secularist there is room for things to be morally right and wrong (ethically just and unjust respectively).

EDIT: By truths, I mean universal scientific truths about the human brain. On the surface, right and wrong may seem subjective, but if we are interested in ethics and happiness, then we will find ethical frameworks that are objectively better than others. Most religious moral frameworks are not ethically superior purely as a matter of statistics, as they haven't shown to be best at alleviating suffering and promoting happiness.

 

[nemesiss]

well, the problem is the concept of evil.
when people say "hitler was evil" they are talking about WW2.
what if i told you, that hitler was a good guy... most people would freak out.
but hitler did some good things, he brought germany out of the despression, made unemployment-rates go down, the ammount of suicides dropped, improved the german infra structucture with the autobahn, turning (nazi-)germany into a militairy powerhouse from almost nothing.

you say alot of things about hitler, but those are some impressive features to pull-off which most people will never even come close to achieve... perhaps only in a video-game.


if you think we can't have moral from another source other then a diety...
please watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XtvWkRRxKQ

 

[PAB]

yeah evil is subjective, but to actualy be moral is to attempt to become indifferent to evil and good. the american view of the evil iraqi - as soon as he or she accepts that the iraqi is evil this is the problem. since evil is subjective there is no evil. to go after the iraq or america on the premise of evil is no better than going after it in the name of god. evil is something other than immoral. you have the bad immorality , when evil becomes subjected on this it extends this immorality to knowingness of evil.

the problem is . is that you are playing still on theocratic terms. it is not until you rise up and above that .

my view is that morality arrives from a fundemental biological/evolutionary foundation it is not a static thing however but a assemblage -
desire and aesthetics plays a big part in understanding right from wrong.

morality comes from the mind -religion recieved morals from this and created god and attributed morals from god. athiests now remove god and say morals are from the mind. this isnt far enough. morality is from the 'mind' it is subjective so why behave in the fashion which assumes that morality is from the mind, is subjective yet for some reason has validity or value. this is clutching to a theocratic womb. im not suggesting is we remove morality...this is not a option. but we treat morality and humanity in a non mystified perspective of absurdity. as soon as you adopt a self-critical, self-awreness of morality you can know longer hold truth in morals hence the need for indifference especially on grounds of evil

 

[Zylstra]

not sure if i quite follow, but you seem to imply that if you are an atheist you must give up the right to all moral claims. that, i am afraid, is total bullshit

theres no coherent way for christians to derive morality from god or from the bible. it follows that they get it from some other source, the same source that atheists get it from: the mind.

additionally, if you want to talk about "helping" the theistic world view, denying a coherent atheistic morality is a great way to do it

win

 

[nasher168]

Ah, now you're making a little more sense. At first I thought you were saying as a theist, that us atheists have no morals.
I fail to see how being moral is "becoming indifferent to evil and good". Surely, being moral is acting in such a way that you perceive to be good. To be indifferent to what you consider good and evil is to be amoral, not moral.

 

[Giliell]

well, the problem is the concept of evil.
when people say "hitler was evil" they are talking about WW2.
what if i told you, that hitler was a good guy... most people would freak out.
but hitler did some good things, he brought germany out of the despression, made unemployment-rates go down, the ammount of suicides dropped, improved the german infra structucture with the autobahn, turning (nazi-)germany into a militairy powerhouse from almost nothing.

Sorry, but either your history-lesson wasn't very good or you should have listened better.
He brought Germany out of the depression? Yes, he simply invented a trick that allowed him to print more money.
And yes, with forced labour (ever heard of "Arbeitsdienst"?), unemployment usually isn't a problem. For slaves, unemplyment is the least of their problems and the wonderful Autobahnen were mostly built by forced labour. And btw, he didn't do a good job on infrastructure with the Autobahnen that he built. For infrastructure, other routes would have been way better. He built them only according to his war plans so he could reach France quickly, for example.
Suicide rates dropped?
How good, only that (state-sanctioned) murder rates went through the roof. Oh, and if anybody could consider it a good thing to turn a peaceful state into a military powerhouse so they could start the worst war yet known to mankind they surely need their heads examined.
That's like saying the 9/11 terrorists were good guys because they prepared the whole thing neatly.

Now, back to the problem:
I go with Andromedas Wake that evil means "very bad" or, to put it differntly, bad in an extreme quality.
I think I can say without any problems that murder is always evil.
I can do that because in my country murder is narrowly defined by the law as:
being malicous (the victim doesn't have a chance)
for low motives
planned

Killing, meaning the needless loss of a human life is bad, but there are bigger differencies than when it comes to murder.
Killing someone in self-defense is totally justified, but it's still bad that it had to come that far
Killing someone in a tragic accident is worse. There's nothing "good" comming from that death (while in the former example the good is the preservation of the own life or that of family members...)
Killing someone in a bar-fight, for example is still worse, but it's still not murder since it was neither planned nor malicous, but it shows criminal energy and a disregard for human life.
Still, the line of "evil" isn't crossed yet.

 

[Jorick]

yeah evil is subjective, but to actualy be moral is to attempt to become indifferent to evil and good. the american view of the evil iraqi - as soon as he or she accepts that the iraqi is evil this is the problem. since evil is subjective there is no evil. to go after the iraq or america on the premise of evil is no better than going after it in the name of god. evil is something other than immoral. you have the bad immorality , when evil becomes subjected on this it extends this immorality to knowingness of evil.

the problem is . is that you are playing still on theocratic terms. it is not until you rise up and above that .

my view is that morality arrives from a fundemental biological/evolutionary foundation it is not a static thing however but a assemblage -
desire and aesthetics plays a big part in understanding right from wrong.

morality comes from the mind -religion recieved morals from this and created god and attributed morals from god. athiests now remove god and say morals are from the mind. this isnt far enough. morality is from the 'mind' it is subjective so why behave in the fashion which assumes that morality is from the mind, is subjective yet for some reason has validity or value. this is clutching to a theocratic womb. im not suggesting is we remove morality...this is not a option. but we treat morality and humanity in a non mystified perspective of absurdity. as soon as you adopt a self-critical, self-awreness of morality you can know longer hold truth in morals hence the need for indifference especially on grounds of evil

Being moral is being indifferent to good and evil? Uh, no, as Nasher168 pointed out, that would be amoral.

And what's that nonsense about subjectivity meaning it doesn't exist? That's like saying the exact name of the color of my car, being a bluish-green color, is subjective and therefore my car has no color.

As for the rest, you make no sense. Morality comes from biological sources, but it also has to do with religion, so we should stop acting like it's religion? I think most of us here would agree that there isn't a supernatural reason for morals and therefore your entire idea is pointless. And whatever the hell you're saying at the end there about indifference to evil, refer back to my first point...

Urgh, you need to be more coherent so I can more efficiently trash your arguments. :lol:

 

[AncientLie]

In my slow road to Atheism, I've stopped using the word "Evil" because, to me, it's meaning is supernaturally implied.
I don't believe in the supernatural, so things are bad, unjust, shitty..........you get the idea.

 

[nemesiss]

well, the problem is the concept of evil.
when people say "hitler was evil" they are talking about WW2.
what if i told you, that hitler was a good guy... most people would freak out.
but hitler did some good things, he brought germany out of the despression, made unemployment-rates go down, the ammount of suicides dropped, improved the german infra structucture with the autobahn, turning (nazi-)germany into a militairy powerhouse from almost nothing.

Sorry, but either your history-lesson wasn't very good or you should have listened better.
He brought Germany out of the depression? Yes, he simply invented a trick that allowed him to print more money.
And yes, with forced labour (ever heard of "Arbeitsdienst"?), unemployment usually isn't a problem. For slaves, unemplyment is the least of their problems and the wonderful Autobahnen were mostly built by forced labour. And btw, he didn't do a good job on infrastructure with the Autobahnen that he built. For infrastructure, other routes would have been way better. He built them only according to his war plans so he could reach France quickly, for example.
Suicide rates dropped?
How good, only that (state-sanctioned) murder rates went through the roof. Oh, and if anybody could consider it a good thing to turn a peaceful state into a military powerhouse so they could start the worst war yet known to mankind they surely need their heads examined.
That's like saying the 9/11 terrorists were good guys because they prepared the whole thing neatly.

Now, back to the problem:
I go with Andromedas Wake that evil means "very bad" or, to put it differntly, bad in an extreme quality.
I think I can say without any problems that murder is always evil.
I can do that because in my country murder is narrowly defined by the law as:
being malicous (the victim doesn't have a chance)
for low motives
planned

Killing, meaning the needless loss of a human life is bad, but there are bigger differencies than when it comes to murder.
Killing someone in self-defense is totally justified, but it's still bad that it had to come that far
Killing someone in a tragic accident is worse. There's nothing "good" comming from that death (while in the former example the good is the preservation of the own life or that of family members...)
Killing someone in a bar-fight, for example is still worse, but it's still not murder since it was neither planned nor malicous, but it shows criminal energy and a disregard for human life.
Still, the line of "evil" isn't crossed yet.

thank you for that addition, i read those points in an article in a tabliod-like magazine and i did had a gut feeling that something was missing.
Thats why i also posted it like that, with a predicament that someone would correct me on that and i thank you for the additional information.
it also shows how subjective the term "evil" is, it almost looked like that hitler may not have been such an "evil" guy only but only due to the lack of information which you added. the only good thing Hitler did was start 2nd WW, so that we were able to grow as a society past such stupid bigotry.

people often can't see "evil" into their own acts.
in the eyes of the suicide murderers of 9/11, the were certain they were good people.
they might have been, brainwashing by their leaders, but they didn't see how the rest viewed it.

 

[Giliell]

@Nemesis
You're welcome
Sorry if I came across a bit unfriendly
The Nazis tried real hard to wipe out my family, so whenever I hear something along the line of "Hitler wasn't too bad" I start barking like Pawlov's dog starts drooling.
BTW, if it was a tabloind, I'm surprised they didn't include my favourite one: Women could walk the streets freely at night :evil:

Back on topic
Thinking about it again last night I came to the conclusion: The problem of evil is one of linguistics.
I thought about how I'd use that word in my mother tongue.
Apart from extreme crimes and the religious sector, all the phrases where I use the German equivalent of evil "bà¶se" would translate into English as bad or even naughty.
Same in Spanish, there aren't even two words to distinguish between the supernatural religious evil (lo malo) or something simply bad (mal, malo).
So it's just that the English language has this strong religious/supernatural connotation
And I think that we have internationally pretty well defined what things are considered very, very bad.
Not everybody might agree, not even every culture, but there's an overwhelming consensus.

 

[xman]

"X person is evil, ...".

I beg your pardon!