“There is not sufficient love and goodness in the world to permit us to give some of it away to imaginary beings.”
~ Friedrich Nietzsche
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
toward a clearer understanding of reality
the rev’s faves
The Age of Reason
Thomas Paine
Some Mistakes of Moses
Robert Ingersoll
The God Delusion
Richard Dawkins
The Demon Haunted World
Carl Sagan
Awareness
Thomas Paine
Some Mistakes of Moses
Robert Ingersoll
The God Delusion
Richard Dawkins
The Demon Haunted World
Carl Sagan
Awareness
Anthony deMello
Breaking the Spell
Daniel C. Dennett
Freethought Across the Centuries
Gerald A. Larue
The Sins of Scripture
John Spong
Jesus for the Non Religious
Daniel C. Dennett
Freethought Across the Centuries
Gerald A. Larue
The Sins of Scripture
John Spong
Jesus for the Non Religious
John Spong
Doubt
Jennifer Michael Hecht
The Atheist’s Way: Living Well Without Gods
Jennifer Michael Hecht
The Atheist’s Way: Living Well Without Gods
Eric Maisel
Atheist Universe
David Mills
Atheism: The Case Against God
George H. Smith
Natural Atheism
David Eller
David Mills
Atheism: The Case Against God
George H. Smith
Natural Atheism
David Eller
Atheist Manifesto
Michel Onfray
A History of God
Karen Armstrong
A History of God
Karen Armstrong
The Spiral Staircase
Karen Armstrong
The End of Faith
Sam Harris
Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris
Ishmael
Daniel Quinn
A Short History of Nearly Everything
Bill Bryson
The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power
Joel Kramer & Diana Alstad
God is Not Great
Christopher Hitchens
50 Reasons People Give for Believing in God
The End of Faith
Sam Harris
Letter to a Christian Nation
Sam Harris
Ishmael
Daniel Quinn
A Short History of Nearly Everything
Bill Bryson
The Guru Papers: Masks of Authoritarian Power
Joel Kramer & Diana Alstad
God is Not Great
Christopher Hitchens
50 Reasons People Give for Believing in God
Guy P. Harrison
Being Peace
Thich Nhat Hanh
The Miracle of Mindfulness
Thich Nhat Hanh
The Reason Driven Life
Robert Price
The Conquest of Happiness
Bertrand Russell
Ken’s Guide to the Bible
Ken Smith
Losing Faith in Faith
Dan Barker
Thich Nhat Hanh
The Miracle of Mindfulness
Thich Nhat Hanh
The Reason Driven Life
Robert Price
The Conquest of Happiness
Bertrand Russell
Ken’s Guide to the Bible
Ken Smith
Losing Faith in Faith
Dan Barker
Godless
Dan Barker
Pagan Christs
J.M. Robertson
Treatise on the Gods
H.L. Mencken
The Christ Conspiracy
Acharya S.
The Jesus Mysteries Was the original Jesus a Pagan God?
Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy
The Road Less Traveled
Scott Peck
Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant
Edited by Preston Jones
Godless (age 12 and up)
Pete Hautman
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Robert M. Pirsig
How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science
Michael Shermer
Religion Explained
Pascal Boyer
The Hero’s Journey
Joseph Campbell
The True Believer
Eric Hoffer
Holy Horrors
James Haught
Pagan Christs
J.M. Robertson
Treatise on the Gods
H.L. Mencken
The Christ Conspiracy
Acharya S.
The Jesus Mysteries Was the original Jesus a Pagan God?
Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy
The Road Less Traveled
Scott Peck
Is Belief in God Good, Bad or Irrelevant
Edited by Preston Jones
Godless (age 12 and up)
Pete Hautman
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
Robert M. Pirsig
How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science
Michael Shermer
Religion Explained
Pascal Boyer
The Hero’s Journey
Joseph Campbell
The True Believer
Eric Hoffer
Holy Horrors
James Haught
Crazy for God
Frank Schaeffer
Your Inner Fish
Neil Shubin
A Guide to the Good Life:
the ancient art of stoic joy
William B. Irvine
This is Water
David Foster Wallace
Nickel and Dimed
Barbara Ehrenreich
links to enlightenment
10 reasons christianity is toxic
10 reasons Christianity is toxic
1. Christianity is INHERENTLY DIVISIVE as believers are promised eternal bliss and nonbelievers eternal torture.
2. Christianity INDUCES UNWARRANTED GUILT AND FEAR by asserting that a Cosmic Judge watches one’s every move and knows one’s every thought.
3. Christianity OBSCURES TRUTH AND PROMOTES FALSEHOODS by diverting focus from the natural (real) to the supernatural (unreal).
4. Christianity DEBASES HUMANITY by condemning us as sinners worthy of eternal damnation.
5. Christianity BREEDS A FALSE SENSE OF IMPORTANCE by asserting that The King of the Universe knew each of us intimately before we were born, knows the numbers of hairs on our head, has a special plan for us, loves us, watches us, listens to our every word, desperately wants a personal relationship with us and even promises to give us anything we ask for (Mt 21.22).
6. Christianity’s assertion that the Devil is real ALLOWS FOR THE LITERAL DEMONIZING of others.
7. Christianity PROVIDES THE ULTIMATE JUSTIFICATION FOR EVILS of all kinds (such as the vilifying of homosexuals and the subjection of women).
8. Christianity’s THREAT OF HELL HARDENS HEARTS and causes others mental anguish.
9. Christianity PROVIDES COVER FOR ABUSES OF ALL KINDS as evidenced by thousands of sexual abuse cases in the last few years alone.
10. Christianity LEGITIMIZES FRAUD as evidenced by countless insincere televangelists and church leaders.
1. Christianity is INHERENTLY DIVISIVE as believers are promised eternal bliss and nonbelievers eternal torture.
2. Christianity INDUCES UNWARRANTED GUILT AND FEAR by asserting that a Cosmic Judge watches one’s every move and knows one’s every thought.
3. Christianity OBSCURES TRUTH AND PROMOTES FALSEHOODS by diverting focus from the natural (real) to the supernatural (unreal).
4. Christianity DEBASES HUMANITY by condemning us as sinners worthy of eternal damnation.
5. Christianity BREEDS A FALSE SENSE OF IMPORTANCE by asserting that The King of the Universe knew each of us intimately before we were born, knows the numbers of hairs on our head, has a special plan for us, loves us, watches us, listens to our every word, desperately wants a personal relationship with us and even promises to give us anything we ask for (Mt 21.22).
6. Christianity’s assertion that the Devil is real ALLOWS FOR THE LITERAL DEMONIZING of others.
7. Christianity PROVIDES THE ULTIMATE JUSTIFICATION FOR EVILS of all kinds (such as the vilifying of homosexuals and the subjection of women).
8. Christianity’s THREAT OF HELL HARDENS HEARTS and causes others mental anguish.
9. Christianity PROVIDES COVER FOR ABUSES OF ALL KINDS as evidenced by thousands of sexual abuse cases in the last few years alone.
10. Christianity LEGITIMIZES FRAUD as evidenced by countless insincere televangelists and church leaders.
About Me
- john evans
- See evidence that strongly suggests that the Jesus of the bible was a character fabricated from Old Testament stories! jesusisamyth.blogspot.com
Many men without morals have attacked religion because it was contrary to their inclinations. Many wise men have despised it because it seemed to them ridiculous. Many persons have regarded it with indifference, because they have never felt its true disadvantages. But it is as a citizen that I attack it, because it seems to me harmful to the happiness of the state, hostile to the march of the mind of man, and contrary to sound morality, from which the interests of state policy can never be separated.
~ Baron d'Holbach
~ Baron d'Holbach
27 comments:
Why is the amount of love in the world insufficient?
Because humans tend to be self absorbed with small circles of compassion often constricted further by religious superstitions which have long hardened hearts, narrowed minds and consumed precious resources directed at countless thousands of invisible beings and other worlds.
Why is it wrong of them to keep their love and compassion in small circles? Why is it right for them to extend love to the whole world?
Well you have switched from asking why their is insufficient love in the world to why it is wrong to have a small circle of compassion.
I wouldn’t say it is wrong in any absolute sense but it is obviously detrimental to those outside any circle of compassion. If we choose to encircle all life we make the universe a little more compassionate place don’t we? Seems like a good thing to me. Certainly make for a happier and healthier world than one filled with people only concerned about themselves or their immediate surroundings.
I switched asking because your reply to my initial question seemed to imply that those who are in small circles of compassion were doing something wrong.
I just don't understand where any concept of "good" or "bad" comes from without absolutes. Where do you get it from? Why, however simplistic this may be, why is it good to be happy and bad to be sad? Why should we try to love everybody?
“I just don't understand where any concept of "good" or "bad" comes from without absolutes. Where do you get it from?”
Like all knowledge, we get our concept of good and bad from experience. This experience leads to positive feelings/consequences and we call it good. That experience leads to negative feelings/consequences and we call it bad. Of course that is the very simplified version but is the general idea.
“Why, however simplistic this may be, why is it good to be happy and bad to be sad?”
From an evolutionary/survival perspective, happiness will lead to more healthy social connections and better chance of survival than sadness which tends to isolate us. If living/surviving is good than happiness is good. I suppose if you think living is bad than sadness becomes a good thing.
“Why should we try to love everybody?“
We evolved to be very social creatures and so when we help/love others we actually feel good (endorphins are released)and it strengthens bonds with others who may help/love us when we need it. So from a selfish point of view it helps us to love others. Also, we experience suffering and naturally want to avoid it and loving others helps reduce their suffering
"This experience leads to positive feelings/consequences and we call it good. That experience leads to negative feelings/consequences and we call it bad. "
Out of curiosity, is it good or bad to avoid the negative consequences that result from X experience? If you brought consequences on yourself, should you face them or should you be able to get out of it?
We have to do our best to weigh the pros and cons of our actions and different situations demand different actions. Seems like if facing them would result in more long-term good than bad then that would be the way to go.
OK. Makes sense. Where does evil originate from? Is man inherently evil?
Do you think animals are capable of evil? I would think not. They are not moral or immoral but amoral. In order to do evil, one has to have a sense of good and evil behavior (morality) right?
So think back to early humans as they evolved from amoral animals. When the brain/mind evolved to be self conscious and could formulate very simplistic ideas of right and wrong behavior is when “evil” became a concept. That’s all it is. An idea, concept, descriptive word to express what humans consider bad.
So that should answer the question about humans being inherently evil. How could they be inherently a “descriptive word?”
Humans aren’t inherently evil any more than they are inherently good. They are just human. Capable of both extremes and everything in between.
OK, so then where does the act of evil - call it what you will - originate from? If evil is just a word for something man doesn't like, that would seem to imply that only things like hurricanes, floods, injuries, etc were evil - things that happen to people, naturally. But we both know that people can do evil things to each other - steal from, kill, rape, etc. So where does that come from? What sparked someone to act in an evil way? That's what I mean by is man inherently evil. Is man inherently inclined to act in an evil fashion?
Acts of nature like hurricanes are not evil because their is no willful intent to harm. Unless one believes a god controls these acts of destruction but even then one would have to say the god was evil not the hurricane itself.
Humans are an animal which have done animalistic things like kill other humans for as long as they have existed. Before we developed the capacity to reason about right and wrong this killing was not evil just as a baboon killing another baboon is not evil. We simply evolved the capacity to label acts that we have always done as good or evil. Hope that makes sense.
That does make sense. I was calling a hurricane evil not because I think hurricanes are evil (because they can't think) but because you defined evil as "something humans don't like"...so now I'm a bit confused. Do you mind defining evil for me? Your definition I mean?
Sorry, I was not very clear. I meant things done by humans.
I would define evil as the intent to cause needless suffering or death.
I would define good as the intent to nurture well-being.
"When the brain/mind evolved to be self conscious and could formulate very simplistic ideas of right and wrong behavior is when “evil” became a concept. That’s all it is. An idea, concept, descriptive word to express what humans consider bad."
"I would define evil as the intent to cause needless suffering or death."
These two don't really seem to fit together. On the one hand, you are saying that evil isn't really a set thing, it's something decided by the offended party. But then on the other side, you're saying that evil is something that you cause to somebody else. Which is it? Or, to be a bit more clear perhaps, if I break into my neighbor's house and steal their TV, is that evil (or wrong, if you want) because I have intended harm toward them, or is it evil because it is something they don't like?
(I'm sorry, I hope I made sense in my question!)
Very good question!
Let’s see... Evil is clearly an idea not a thing. No one can point to evil like we can point to a tree. We can point to an action and call it evil but the action itself is not evil in and of itself.
So back to my definition... “evil is the intent to cause needless suffering or death."
An “intent” is not a thing like a tree but an idea. It seems to jive, doesn’t it?
To your question....
“if I break into my neighbor's house and steal their TV, is that evil (or wrong, if you want) because I have intended harm toward them, or is it evil because it is something they don't like?”
I would say that the idea of “evil” is developed as part of a culture. And so it will vary from culture to culture and will vary between individuals in each culture. Stealing is certainly broadly condemned across most if not all cultures. Your question is a bit off because people don’t usually steal to hurt others but to simply help themselves. But I would say if the intent was to hurt the victim by stealing the tv than the act or the intent/idea was evil. The fact that they don’t personally like it does not make it evil.
I could try to save a person who is trying to commit suicide. That person would not like my actions but my intent was good so one could hardly call my actions evil.
OK, thank you. I think you cleared that up a bit. Evil, yes, is not a tangible thing but rather a concept.
So if it's people's intent that makes something evil, where did this intent arise from? If humans are inherently good beings, where did they even get the drive - the intent - to cause another harm or suffering?
Consider the apes. They may kill one another but that is not evil because they lack the ability to reason about right and wrong. If they were to evolve that ability in the next hundred thousand years then at some point what was once amoral behavior would become moral and immoral. They would not have acquired a drive to be good or bad but simply evolved a consciousness of their behavior.
I’m a bit worn out from a bike ride--hope that makes sense!
Consider the apes. They may kill one another but that is not evil because they lack the ability to reason about right and wrong. If they were to evolve that ability in the next hundred thousand years then at some point what was once amoral behavior would become moral and immoral. They would not have acquired a drive to be good or bad but simply evolved a consciousness of their behavior.
I’m a bit worn out from a bike ride--hope that makes sense!
"Consider the apes. They may kill one another but that is not evil because they lack the ability to reason about right and wrong."
Right. Animals kill, not for sport or from a desire to cause harm to one another, but because they are dumb or because they need food.
"If they were to evolve that ability in the next hundred thousand years then at some point what was once amoral behavior would become moral and immoral. They would not have acquired a drive to be good or bad but simply evolved a consciousness of their behavior."
This is still a bit different, though. Humans do not kill and then realize that it was an immoral thing to do; they set out with malicious intent to cause harm to one another. They are not merely conscious that they are doing something wrong; they set out to do the wrong or the harmful thing. Why?
Chimpanzees wage war with neighboring groups — they set out to kill others of their kind. Where did this impulse arise? Through evolution no doubt. Our impulse to do similar violence to others is closely tied to that of the chimpanzees. It is a product of evolution. We are also closely tied to the Bonobos who are quite compassionate and resolve their conflicts with sex more often than violence.
Bottom line is that our behavior arose over millions of years. It is still evolving. Why do we do evil things? For any number of reasons — Greed, selfishness, vindictiveness. Out of anger, hatred, embarrassment, ignorance and so on.
But why would something like that evolve? That would imply that humans are born with the natural inclination to do evil, if it's an evolved thing it would be passed through genes.
We ARE born with a natural inclination to do evil. Also a natural inclination to do good.
Genes are what determine general behavior. Rabbit genes make rabbits act like rabbits and human genes make humans act like humans.
Wait, so now we have an inclination for both? I'm sorry, I don't understand how that works (I've always heard either people say humans are inherently evil or inherently good.) Do you mind explaining?
Do you know a single person who never did a helpful thing? Never did a harmful thing?
But generally people are taught to be helpful (share the toy with your brother), whereas harmful comes naturally to them (my toy!)
They are doing studies now with babies showing that they are born with an innate sense of justice... they are born with this evolved trait not taught it. Babies will cry at the sound of other babies crying but not their own showing a sense of empathy for other’s suffering...the females show much more sensitivity by the way than males)
I would suggest you read Our Inner Ape by Frans De Waal
Post a Comment