Maybe, a dumb question (4 atheists)?

[Desiremakesmeweak]

When I see discussions about 'beliefs' in various things - gods/aliens/miracles/the unseen etc., there is often a sidetrack into the 'why do bad things happen to (ordinary, even 'good') people.

I'm roughly familiar with some theological arguments dealing with that question - and I'd even include Scientology's thoughts (since Cruise is in the news, again!!) in the bunch... But, what do people who are avowedly atheistic, think about this thing about v. bad things happening to good people?

Do atheists have a view of 'evil' that is consistent (and I don't mean to say implicated with divinity or satanic 'beings') with the idea(s) of evil that say a scholarly theist would have?

I am proceeding from the basis that a learned theist will say that this world is somewhat imperfect to the extent that there is an unconcluded conflict here between absolute 'good' and 'evil' and the relevant 'forces,' be they psychological or spiritual or physical, of both.

A person might think a really really bad thing happening is tremendously 'sad,' yet objectively lacking in an absolute moral agency.

Is that what atheists might think?

How do they distinguish the moral intention of someone doing absolute evil? Or is there not such a parameter even within the human race and society?

If there is no such thing as a (human) person who can fully INTEND to do absolute evil (in other words, the behaviour of such a person is not actually 'intended' in the normal sense but is the result of a psychological impairment for instance) then I would also say there is no such thing as a 'supernatural' moral force of objective evil either because there is no equivalency of intelligences between the human and the not-human...

In other words - there is a difference between an intention by an intelligence, and simply an unfortunate set of mechanical and 'un self-conscious' circumstances.

? Or is there? (As far as the thoughtful atheist is concerned?) And I'd prefer to hear from the thoughtful ones, rather than the casual or gratuitously dismissive ones.

 

[IndieSnob]

You should go read some Thomas Nagel.

 

[Liar]

It seems like you're asking, in a roundabout way, if an atheist can have a concept of good and evil. They have. One such concept is, simlipfied, about construction vs destruction. Does your actions and intentions benefit the human collective, or does it hinder it?

 

[dolf]

i started falling asleep less than 1/4 of the way through.
you need to get the point and make it pointier.

 

[Liar]

It's a common hurdle for believers to wrap their heads around that it's possible to know right from wrong without a higher power dictating it. Likewise it's a common hurdle for non-believers to wrap their heads around that it's possible to believe that's nessecary.

 

[Bad_Doggie]

It might be a dumb question or may be a very interesting one; problem is, I've no idea what the fuck you are trying to ask?

Woof!

 

[Bad_Doggie]

It's a common hurdle for believers to wrap their heads around that it's possible to know right from wrong without a higher power dictating it. Likewise it's a common hurdle for non-believers to wrap their heads around that it's possible to believe that's nessecary.

Not only “a common hurdle for non-believers to wrap their heads around that it's possible to believe that's nessecary” but taking moral guidance from one who has little problem condoning and carrying out clearly immoral acts seems insane.

Woof!

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Atheists tend to make judgements based on social consequences, whether they are positive or negative. Asking an atheist "Why to bad things happen to good people?" is like asking "What color is Tuesday?".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LP3Zs_V_BQ

Not that we'd blame you for asking .....

 

[dolf]

is that what it was about?

ok... the bible tells me that i can't eat prawns & mix fabrics, that raping women is better than being gay, that mutilating babies makes god happy and that in a war we should kill every man, woman, child & beast in a city we invade...

i'll stick with my own morals, tyvm.

 

[dolf]

"Why to bad things happen to good people?"

same reason that bad things happen to bad people. because bad things happen. why would personality have an impact on your probability of getting cancer?

 

[SalviaDivinorum]

Atheism is not a religion or a specific philosophy so there is not one collective answer to your questions.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

same reason that bad things happen to bad people. because bad things happen. why would personality have an impact on your probability of getting cancer?

Exactly right - if you don't believe that there is an invisible grandpa, Santa Claus in the sky watching out for HIS children.

But when "Why to bad things happen to good people?" is asked I think the implication is the asker belives. So to me, a non-believer, the question may as well be "What color is Tuesday?" because in that context the questions make equal sense to me.

 

[parodyluvr75]

A person can be spiritual and not Christian. A person can be moral and not believe in god.

Good and bad is clear cut only sometimes, most of the time it's as clear as mud.

As far as bad things happening to good people, a butterfly flapped its wings is as good an answer as any.

 

[Liar]

Exactly right - if you don't believe that there is an invisible grandpa, Santa Claus in the sky watching out for HIS children.

But when "Why to bad things happen to good people?" is asked I think the implication is the asker belives. So to me, a non-believer, the question may as well be "What color is Tuesday?" because in that context the questions make equal sense to me.

"Why to bad things happen to good people?" is a rethorical question that many non-believers turn to to illustrate the problem with religion - that God is either a myth, not in control, or a dick.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

That is not my experience.

 

[Comshaw]

When I see discussions about 'beliefs' in various things - gods/aliens/miracles/the unseen etc., there is often a sidetrack into the 'why do bad things happen to (ordinary, even 'good') people.

I'm roughly familiar with some theological arguments dealing with that question - and I'd even include Scientology's thoughts (since Cruise is in the news, again!!) in the bunch... But, what do people who are avowedly atheistic, think about this thing about v. bad things happening to good people?

Do atheists have a view of 'evil' that is consistent (and I don't mean to say implicated with divinity or satanic 'beings') with the idea(s) of evil that say a scholarly theist would have?

Do I think there is good and evil in the world? Absolutely! Do all atheist believe the same as I do? To find the answer to that, answer this: Do all religions of the world believe that evil originates from the same place and that each instance of evil is of the same caliber? That what one group of followers of a certain deity believe is exactly the same as the followers of another?

I am proceeding from the basis that a learned theist will say that this world is somewhat imperfect to the extent that there is an unconcluded conflict here between absolute 'good' and 'evil' and the relevant 'forces,' be they psychological or spiritual or physical, of both.

You are proceeding from the basis of what a christian theist would say. A Shinto priest, a Mayan priest, wouldn't see it that way at all.

A person might think a really really bad thing happening is tremendously 'sad,' yet objectively lacking in an absolute moral agency.

Is that what atheists might think?

You really need to clarify the about statement. Did you mean to say that a tornado is evil? That an earthquake is evil? Those are both bad things. Depending on the damage caused and lives lost they are both very sad things. Are they evil? Not unless you believe that there is a guiding intelligence behind them. I don't.

How do they distinguish the moral intention of someone doing absolute evil? Or is there not such a parameter even within the human race and society?

What is the definition of "absolute" evil? That one has me stymied. The best thing I can say is this: You're looking at this whole thing from a 21st century christian view point. If you want to truly understand another view point, throw out the colored glasses of religious bias. A clear view of a thing requires no filters be in place.
The definition of "moral" and "evil" have changed through history. And religions have modified it to fit what ever they wanted at the time. What would be morally wrong today was once pious and totally acceptable.

If there is no such thing as a (human) person who can fully INTEND to do absolute evil (in other words, the behaviour of such a person is not actually 'intended' in the normal sense but is the result of a psychological impairment for instance) then I would also say there is no such thing as a 'supernatural' moral force of objective evil either because there is no equivalency of intelligences between the human and the not-human...

Sorry, you lost me with this one. I just can't seem to make sense of it.

In other words - there is a difference between an intention by an intelligence, and simply an unfortunate set of mechanical and 'un self-conscious' circumstances.

??? Of course there is. There is a huge difference between what Hitler and Pol Pot did and what hurricane Sandy and Mount St. Helens did. If you're trying to say that all events, natural or human induced, are guided by an intelligent being, fine. For those who believe that, if it makes them comfortable, if it keeps them from being afraid, more power to them. The rub comes when they try to force that philosophy on others, when their view point is the only one that is correct. For my money all the evidence you need for religion as an evil is going on in the world today and has been for a long time. Northern Ireland and the middle east are two modern examples.

? Or is there? (As far as the thoughtful atheist is concerned?) And I'd prefer to hear from the thoughtful ones, rather than the casual or gratuitously dismissive ones.

Comshaw

 

[dolf]

good & evil are human constructs.
a shark isn't evil, it's just following instinct.
we create a concept of evil to explain behaviours that we find hard to explain or understand. it's just a label.

 

[Sean Renaud]

good & evil are human constructs.
a shark isn't evil, it's just following instinct.
we create a concept of evil to explain behaviours that we find hard to explain or understand. it's just a label.

A lot of people have a hard time defending Hitler, Stalin or the KKK. I mean we can explain them, even understand them but the overwhelming majority of us place the same label on them.

 

[LiFeNdEaTh]

interesting..

 

[richard_daily]

Religion allows people to attribute their horrible actions to "the devil" or some other "sin", instead of taking responsibility for the actions that they choose to do, and letting the causes for that rest on their shoulders.

 

[Laurel]

Atheism is not a religion or a specific philosophy so there is not one collective answer to your questions.

That was my reaction, too. Kind of asking a group of people who don't like hamburgers, "What are your thoughts on meatballs?" Some may be against meatballs because they're ethically opposed to the eating of cows. Others may love meatballs because they're fine with ground beef by itself, but don't like it on a bun with other crap. And so on. Just because a group of people all don't like or don't believe in something doesn't mean they have anything else in common - including the reason for the dislike/disbelief.

 

[phrodeau]

Religion allows people to attribute their horrible actions to "the devil" or some other "sin", instead of taking responsibility for the actions that they choose to do, and letting the causes for that rest on their shoulders.

Worse than that, the suicide bomber believes that he acts under God's control.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

That was my reaction, too. Kind of asking a group of people who don't like hamburgers, "What are your thoughts on meatballs?" Some may be against meatballs because they're ethically opposed to the eating of cows. Others may love meatballs because they're fine with ground beef by itself, but don't like it on a bun with other crap. And so on. Just because a group of people all don't like or don't believe in something doesn't mean they have anything else in common - including the reason for the dislike/disbelief.

Sure but atheists are the fastest growing definable group in the US electorate. So something is binding these folks together. They at least have their atheism in common

You can say the same about why people believe too. Or why they believe in their particular god, or meatball, or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

 

[Laurel]

I have to say, for the record: I'm a non-believer. I used to get really riled up about it. But after years of life, I strongly believe it's wrong to say that religious people are any less intelligent, logical, or kind than non-religious people. There are irrational and cruel atheists. There are kind and smart theists. I still truly believe that people would be better off if we all operated from a non-superstitious, logical, humane place of mind. But I also accept that everyone has a right to choose whatever path is best for them, and that people can come to that place via different routes. So long as they don't hurt or bother other people, it's all good. When they start hurting others or stopping others from living freely, then they should be stopped - no matter what they do or don't believe.

I think the world would be a much better place if everybody led by example, rather than telling other people what to do - be it what/how to post, what music to listen to, or what to believe.

 

[Laurel]

Sure but atheists are the fastest growing definable group in the US electorate. So something is binding these folks together. They at least have their atheism in common

You can say the same about why people believe too. Or why they believe in their particular god, or meatball, or Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Absolutely. Though I think that people who are Christians have at least the belief in Christ in common, even if the various denominations differ on the fine print. Members of the Tulip Lovers Association* have more in common with each other than do people who are not members. And I don't think you can compare "theists" versus "atheists" because believers that I know don't consider themselves "theists" - they consider themselves Catholics, or Baptists, or Muslims, or Jewish, etc. And those are all defined and structured groups who believe what they do based on interpretations of their literature. In contrast, most atheists don't believe anything necessarily.


*I dunno if there is such a thing. Just typed it as an example.