thought for the day.
 

Serious question. Does anyone here think good and evil exist as forces, not just as acts, and that there's an afterlife? Maybe not as on/off as Heaven and Hell but something? Assuming that there is, the argument that because nobody comes back to prove that it exists is about as farcical as the idea that the newborn could send messages back to the womb telling embryos that being born isn't the end of all things.

Think about it. An embryo has everything provided. Food, shelter, safety. Then it's forced down a dark constricting tunnel into an alien place. Blazing bright light, loud noises. Security snatched away. No wonder it comes out screaming.

No and no.

I would elaborate further, but I gotta go.

Chas

I was in a discussion with someone last week about the existance of evil eye and how it derived from envy. A pretty common believe among many nationalities.
I believe in evil acts and I do believe there is something more than life as we know it... here on earth.

Yes I do.

Pete

I with Chas on this one.

I believe in the existence of good and evil----with shades of grey. I also have hope for an afterlife, just don't come at me with organized religion. I''l bite your head off, 'cuz that crock of BS has NOTHING to do with God. I guess this makes me agnostic?

The second paragraph reminds me of a quip;

"A man spends nine months trying to get out of one, and the rest of his life trying to get back in."

Dave

Yes on the afterlife.

As far as good and evil, I agree with Dave. There is a lot of grey area.

Regards,

D-Ray

I believe there is something past this plane of existence. I have no idea if it is better, worse, higher, lower, or just different: but we came from something, are something, and will be something. Believing anything else would seem to me to be irrational.

I do NOT believe in absolute good or evil.

I don't believe there is anything after death just as there was nothing before birth.
I'm trying to make the best of things while I'm here!

I'll join the Chas-Finn group.

IMHO, good and evil have no empirical basis and are only relative to human beliefs. Of course, what we believe to be good or evil changes over time.

Post of the day!!:)

I'm just curious - is, say, punching babies ever good?

:p

Pete

In another time and place, infant sacrifice was considered a good thing.

Regards,

D-Ray

I understand that mores change over time. Before we'd leave unwanted babies outside to die, now we cut'em up and vacuum'em out before they're born.

But is say rape ever good?

Pete

precisely.

to answer the OP, I dismiss delusional constructs of the mind such as this one out of hand, so no.

It's an odd one. If a cat takes its time killing a mouse before losing interest and dispatching it, it's behaving normally. If a human were to behave this way in today's society it would be thought of as abnormal, psychotic, yet history is littered with examples of different human cultures where in some instances, part of the death penalty was to make it last as long as possible.

We're the focus of our own beliefs and as this focal point moves, our sense of right and wrong moves with it. Are extreme Christian believers doing a kindness when they try to beat the devil out of a child, or are they acting like throwbacks to a time when being stoned to death was thought a suitable punishment for sin?

There was a great drama on BBC Television about a group of survivors in a world hit by a lethal virus. The survivors thought of themselves as civilised but when a child was abused and the abuser caught they had to choose; hold to their beliefs and let him live but under restraint? Banish him? Or put him to death. The first two had the danger of risk; one way or another he might have escaped and become a danger so they chose the third way.

In the space of a few years not a few generations, what we think of as basic principles, pillars of our beliefs, can be completely discarded.

while I hope for (and expect) the fallacy of religion to be eventually filed away in its proper place, next to the "earth is flat" notion, I don't see the notions of good will, justice, altruism, etc. fading as a result. Value judgements such as right and wrong are not in the exclusive purview of theists, no matter how stubbornly they have laid claim to, and perverted them. We are a thinking, self aware species, capable of (and generally predisposed to) positive, constructive modes of thought and action without the preposterous crutch of a belief system founded on an ancient fantasy.

Until such time that we, as a species, shirk off the ignorance, fear and guilt inherent in said brainwashing, we won't know how well we would or wouldn't do with it all.

No to the first Q, cautiously optimistic to the second.

Karma always made more sense to me than a pissed off old guy on a golden throne with Santa Clause on the right and the Tooth Fairy on the left. That's just my take. Pick the symbolism that you prefer but one lesson seem universal and that's the golden rule. Even an atheist can't find fault there.:rolleyes:

If nothing else survives of me I like to think I left the place a little neater than I found it. Who knows? Lack of proof doesn't imply shit in my book other than arrogance.;)

It seems like you approach your atheism with a religious fervor. I am quite aware that religious folk can be intolerant, and that horrible acts have been done in the name of religion. But there have also been a great many people of faith who have been driven by their faith to perform great services for society. I believe that tolerance for all views - religious and anti-religious is a constructive way of maintaining a society. The wall of separation between church and state is essential to maintain such tolerance. The separation requires neutrality toward any religious belief or lack thereof, but it does not stand for governmental hostility toward religion, nor should it promote such hostility.

Regards,

D-Ray

And I thought you were an independent thinker. :rolleyes:

Regards,

D-Ray

While I'm hardly religious, I can see positive attributes for those who are. And once the snake kissers are discounted, I'm of the conclusion that most religious people are indeed capable of rational thought, and hardly zealots by anyone's definition.

Now I an curious as to why espouse atheism with the fervor of an Elmer Gantry. Is it not enough to draw your own conclusions and simply go your own way?

I can appreciate your disgust with the likes of Pat Robertson, but it appears to me that other than being polar opposites on religious beliefs, your tactics are much the same.

Chas

Well done, guys. A kind of agree with both of you on this, though I lean toward Neo's view. This is probably a reaction to hardcore bible-thumpin' Evangelists pushing their way too far into the public square.

Dadgummit, Chas. Why do you have to go and say pretty much the same thing as me, but say it with so much flair? ;) Is it your mission in life to expose pedestrian prose?

Regards,

D-Ray

I'm thinking that the three of us should get matching tattoos, so that we can be different.

Chas

Be original! Be a Pepper!

That ad campaign always annoyed me.

Regards,

D-Ray

If, in the course of stating my opinion in an unfiltered, direct manner I display disdain, it's not rooted in hostility, or, in any sense, tactical thinking. It's just how I feel about it. I do not feel it is incumbent upon me to display some insincere form of deference when speaking about religion, nor am I to be held accountable for potential defensive reactions that some might experience.

no tactics, no strategy, no ulterior motives. it's just me thinking out loud.

Either I missed your post, or we were tying at the same time.

In one way, I'm a bit surprised that we came to the same conclusion, in another, not so much.

I think it's the timing that caught me off guard. And you also stated your response in a more eloquent manner.

Perhaps we should gang up on that godless freak Finn next!!!

Chas

It doesn't bother me in the least, as I don't get too excited about the subject in one way or the other.

Chas

In many ways... Charles is our Samuel Clemens ( Mark Twain) of the twenty-first century. :D

I guess I am more linear in my thought process?

If we came from nothing and will become nothing, then we are nothing.

I can't buy that or I become a true narcissist.

Thanks for the kind words, but I'm nobody or nothing.

Really.

Chas

Gotta hand it to the Mad Ave boys, coming up with a way to exploit the herd mentality by suggesting that you can somehow rise above it and become "special", simply by becoming the member of a different herd that drinks a different soda pop.

He's a sucker, she's a sucker, wouldn't you like to be a sucker too?

Snob appeal on the cheap, I guess.

Chas

D has pointed out the problem with believing that the golden rule is universal.

BAM!!


Excellent Zeke.

Pete

I'm with Zeke simply because it makes sense. I belong to no "organized religion" simply because they all seem more interested in the organization than the message. Analyzed, Jesus' teachings make a great deal of sense as a method for living with each other with reduced friction, always a good idea. If I am wrong, I will not know it, if the deniers are wrong they are in for a pleasant surprise.:)

BTW I much prefer Rabbi Hillel's version "That which is distasteful to you do not do unto others, this is the whole law the rest is mere commentary."

Don't know about you, but I did not 'come from nothing'. I came because my parents co mingled sperm and egg....

...and an intangible we call love.:)

Not being an ass: and where did they come from?

Eventually, there's an impasse to believing we came from nothing, at least for me.

I have seen pure evil in humans and good to a fault in others. Now is this do to a force behind this, guess I attribute it to the human animal.
I seem to believe more in a reincarnation sorta philosophy. I have had to many psychic experiences happen in my life to not believe their is something after passing from this dimension.




Barney

My understanding of the so called golden rule is literal as I would hope it would be understood by anyone else. It is a recommendation towards a personal code of conduct that benefits all equally.

Sophistry aside, where's the problem in that?

Rabbi Hillel provides the classical response to any argument to the contrary.

We did not come from nothing. There is no such thing as nothing. This is where people get confused.