Evil, Religion, and Sin.

[λngelღмander]

What divine privilege have we to determine what is objectively right and wrong? People love to use the word evil in conjunction with muslim extremists, but where exactly is evil in their plots? There's nothing inherently evil about doing something you truly believe in, only in the perspective of others. Suppose a man is born to an extremist family. He has never learned anything about the outside world, never watched mainstream television or seen the lifestyles of other parts of the world portrayed in anything but a negative way, and he is taught to hate Americans, can we fault him for killing innocent people? A person can't be blamed for being too stupid to see through an intricately laid web of lies, for believing in an intense doctrine of hatred. To blame a person for committing 'evil' when they no longer know the difference between right and wrong is like blaming a toddler for ignoring his mother. The theoretical toddler might comprehend english, and by the most stringent definition of the rule is not obeying its elders, it's not called evil. To be called evil, one must first know the difference between right and wrong, and then choose to do wrong anyway. Obviously this example is hyperbole, this isn't a crux of my argument.

 

In the eyes of an omniscient god, can right and wrong really be objective? 'Evil' committed in the true belief of a higher cause isn't evil, is it? If a muslim extremist were to be judged in the eyes of god, would that god damn the person to hell for their crimes? If a person could go to hell simply for being indoctrinated from birth with a dogma of hatred, then this earth serves no purpose other than to arbitrarily condemn people to hell. The same extremist who might blow himself up in time square could also be brought up to believe in the christian god, and become a pastor and live a life of purity, could he not? To say that that person was inherently evil from birth would defy the idea that all people are created equal. So can someone truly be faulted for their place of birth and family, and their resulting system of beliefs?

 

One of the myriad reasons I don't believe in god is that I don't believe all people are created equal. Some people are created intrinsically more likely to commit crimes or betray their better conscience, some people are born too stupid to know the difference between right and wrong, some people are born in life situations that would lead them to live a horrible, wretched life. To say that all people have the same chance at life is absurd, and I don't really believe that every human could be judged in the same light by a god if life situations and opportunities are so variegated. 

 

This is not to say I condone terrorism or evil. Obviously I think these are bad things and I wish we could rid the world of them. My point is simply that we like to point fingers at things and call them evil, but turn a blind eye to evil things committed in the name of things we believe in. There are people who would like to justify the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but at the same time condemn terrorism, and that's very hypocritical because both acts were atrocities committed in the belief of something pure at their core.

[HarryG]

If he has been shut out from the outside world and is taught to hate Americans or any other kind of person for that matter, that's just the way he grew up. We have the right to call murder evil no matter where the murderers came from and what their motivation/background is. One belief I have, no matter what persona I show here or anywhere else, is that everybody has the right to live, and when you start taking that right away when the people you kill have done nothing to you, you lose that right, no matter where you come from or why you did it. I don't believe in hating and killing extremist Muslims. I believe in hating and killing murderers who indiscriminately take the lives of others, no matter how they got to that point. God has nothing to do with it. We're big boys and girls, we can make that judgment call for ourselves (although in the majority of major religions this belief is backed up anyway).

[Hyperqube]

[3.50]

If you actually care about the answers to those questions, they're very much available. The explanations are there, and don't require any willful suspension  of disbelief, or anything similar. Dig a bit into evolutionary psychology, and you'll suddenly understand a whole shit-tonne of why we do and say the things we do, and what humans actually are. You won't be much happier, probably, but at least you'll know

[Piterek]

Oh look, another kebab defender.

 

All people are equal when born. They just choose their way or someone else does it for them depending on situation, opinions, religions etc..

If they got diffirent thinking then they should stay at place with people who think similiar. I mean I don't want this kebab going to Europe and start killing, because "the religion says so". Also in the civilised world killing is forbidden. You can't justify it (ofc not talking about burgers, who like shooting to everything). 

 

*puts fedora* God doesn't exist *takes off*

 

Hypercube - "Civilised" and also look who was the main force there and read the end of my post again.

[Hyperqube]

Also in the civilised world killing is forbidden.

err ...

 

2001–2014 – War in Afghanistan

2003–2011 – War in Iraq

2004–present - Drone strikes in Pakistan

2010–present - Drone strikes in Yemen

2014–present - intervention in Syria

"in the civilised world killing is forbidden" ... except if we feel it's justified. Then it's acceptable.

[♠Derpeh♤]

Imo the notion of right and wrong has nothing to go with God nor religion it's to do with a mix of morals and empathy which is something you develop through life experiences and can't be taught. This is the main reason why younger kids lack mecy, when they tease someone they will go at it until someone else tells them to stop, they wont stop punching someone in the face until a teacher physically stops them however once they get older gain more life experience they naturally realise when they have "crossed the line".

 

When others "break" from what you believe is the "correct" behaviour that is when you deem that "wrong"

 

 

Oh look, another kebab defender.

 

I mean I don't want this kebab going to Europe and start killing, because "the religion says so". Also in the civilised world killing is forbidden.

 

Screw you kebabs are bloody awesome >:

 

I'm not sure if you're joking or being serious so ill assume you're being serious at thinking at all Muslims wanting to kill those outside their religion since a surprising amount of people actually think it's true. Fact is if all 1.5billion muslims wanted your head the world would have been in WW3 a long long time ago. If anything Muslims are the biggest victims of extremist groups, they literally have their holy grounds bombed every day more muslims who simply want to live a peaceful life are dropping like flies because idiots who believe in a few twisted sentences whilst ignoring nearly the rest of the book think "that's what God wants".

[MrDeepDarkmind]

hey El chapo is known as a hero in his city so basically he is a guy who doesn't do evil

[Baloo]

The opening post to this has such a holier than thou tone; which I suppose is ironic given Angelmander doesn't believe in god.

 

Anyways, yes, I believe the killing of those who have done no harm to you goes against human nature. I do understand people can be taught to hate and kill. However, I am also aware there are a multitude of terrorist attacks orchestrated by those who were from a different country of origin and traveled to the Middle East and became radicalized, so the argument of being raised without outside information falls flat on that front.

 

On the larger issue of evil being about perspective, yes, it is about perspective. That being said, I can still find something evil based on my perspective. However, since I have a more evolved mammalian brain, then I also have the sympathy to relate and understand others with different perspectives which may inevitably warp my own.

 

----------------------

 

In regards to Hiroshima and Nagasaki versus everyday terrorist attacks. There is a key difference which I believe should be mentioned. The fact more lives would have been lost on both sides had the Allies invaded Japan is one point, however, not my main one. The main difference is the United States as a nation through its president realized there wrong-doing and has officially apologized on multiple occasions for their actions. Currently the leaders orchestrating these attacks on civilians from ISIS or other Islamic extremist groups are always quick to claim responsibility for the attacks, but never to apologize to those who have lost their lives and make reparations.

 

That being said time will tell if they will admit their wrong and try to make amends, but until that time I condemn it as evil since they have not seen the error in their way. Sympathy and empathy are vastly underrated qualities, but they are an immensely defining characteristic of being human.

[NotWarlizard]

Imo the notion of right and wrong has nothing to go with God nor religion it's to do with a mix of morals and empathy which is something you develop through life experiences and can't be taught. This is the main reason why younger kids lack mecy, when they tease someone they will go at it until someone else tells them to stop, they wont stop punching someone in the face until a teacher physically stops them however once they get older gain more life experience they naturally realise when they have "crossed the line".

 

This right here. People like to blame outside factors and justify everything to fit an agenda, but derpeh said it well in this comment.

[♠Derpeh♤]

hey El chapo is known as a hero in his city so basically he is a guy who doesn't do evil

 

That's the exact point which OP is pointing out, that right and wrong depends on your perspective.

 

El chapo is seen as a hero because he apparently gives a lot of his money to help out the poor in mexico (funding schools, roads, medical bills...etc), he is a form of protection if you are in his territory (which is quite alot) and he literally gives the middle finger to the corrupt government hence seen as some twisted version of robin hood. To the people in mexico he is awesome to the outside world he is the worlds most wanted criminal.

[Hyperqube]

Baloo, it seems you're not quite informed on Hiroshima & Nagasaki. linky. More specifically

 

The fact more lives would have been lost on both sides had the Allies invaded Japan is one point, however, not my main one.

 

This, has been proven to be a myth. Japan's economy (incl. ability to make weapons) was busted, it's army defeated, and it wanted out of the war, and the U.S. was aware of that:

 

Navy Secretary James Forrestal termed the intercepted messages "real evidence of a Japanese desire to get out of the war." "With the interception of these messages," notes historian Alperovitz (p. 177), "there could no longer be any real doubt as to the Japanese intentions; the maneuvers were overt and explicit and, most of all, official acts. Koichi Kido, Japan's Lord Privy Seal and a close advisor to the Emperor, later affirmed: "Our decision to seek a way out of this war, was made in early June before any atomic bomb had been dropped and Russia had not entered the war. It was already our decision."

 

Currently the leaders orchestrating these attacks on civilians from ISIS or other Islamic extremist groups are always quick to claim responsibility for the attacks, but never to apologize to those who have lost their lives and make reparations.

 

And, back in the day the 'current' leader also took responsability, and dindn't appologize ...

 

President Truman steadfastly defended his use of the atomic bomb, claiming that it "saved millions of lives" by bringing the war to a quick end. Justifying his decision, he went so far as to declare: "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians."

 

in fact, the paper continues

 

This was a preposterous statement. In fact, almost all of the victims were civilians, and the United States Strategic Bombing Survey (issued in 1946) stated in its official report: "Hiroshima and Nagasaki were chosen as targets because of their concentration of activities and population."

 

If the atomic bomb was dropped to impress the Japanese leaders with the immense destructive power of a new weapon, this could have been accomplished by deploying it on an isolated military base. It was not necessary to destroy a large city. And whatever the justification for the Hiroshima blast, it is much more difficult to defend the second bombing of Nagasaki.

The main difference is the United States as a nation through its president realized there wrong-doing and has officially apologized on multiple occasions for their actions.

You do know the U.S. never apologized for Hiroshima/Nagasaki, right?

 

(To be fair, in this day and age, Japan feels an apology would do more harm then good (source: wikileaks) ... but before that, the U.S. never apologizes either)

[Adolf Storms]

Kill em all... let God sort em out

[[Unactive Account]]

if you feel guilty about something. Then you must have done something wrong. 

[Gren]

The argument that everyone is born equal holds no water at all, you can easily dispel this notion by looking at gene codes.  No person is exactly the same as another (with the exception of identical twins I guess) based on their genetic make up.  Of course, there's also the fact that we're all born into vastly different external circumstances.  So on this point, I agree with Angel. 

 

However, the knowledge of good and bad can be obtained objectively, at least if we define good as moral and bad as immoral.  Once you take god out of the equitation, or rather the notion that morality if dictated by religion, we have to look for something else to tell us what is morally preferable behaviour.  Without going into a huge philosophical debate, the general principle can be pretty much boiled down to: 

 

You are free to do as you want, unless your actions are harming others.  If your actions are harming others, you are impeding on their freedom and thus, you have now forfeited some of your freedom.  

 

This is the simple way to describe moral and immoral behaviour.  This is what is needed to function in a secular, free society. It seems rather obvious that if my actions are causing harm to others, they are immoral.  Sometimes, that 'harm to others' part is rather murky (e.g. is doing heroin really only causing harm to yourself, or is also causing harm to those around you?) but to be clear, fortunately for us, in the case of suicide bombings, it's very black and white:  You're blowing yourself up and killing people that you don't even know.  Killing innocent people = bad.  

 

Now, of course you can argue that in their perspective, the people they blew up weren't innocent, either because they belonged to the wrong sect of Islam or because they weren't Muslims at all.  That's irrelevant though, since we're not accepting the principles of morality as taught by religion.  You are allowed to believe whatever you want, but as soon as that belief translates into harm to others, your actions are no longer moral.  

 

I don't accept the "How should they have known better?" excuse.  If we accept this kind of thinking, we're pretty much removing all people's responsibility to improve their life.  Some people are abused as children.  We do not accept this as an excuse to abuse children when they turn into adults.  Likewise, just because you've been taught all your life to kill the infidels, doing so doesn't become justified.  

 

On the topic of hypocrisy in regard to condemning suicide bombings and condoning other acts of war:  Are there really very many people who condone the acts of war committed by our governments?  Who asked you whether we should invade Iraq for a second time? Yea...I don't remember voting on that one. Afghanistan?  Same thing.  Who asked the American public whether the CIA should actively pursue a program of covert destabilization in central and south America during the Cold War?  Nobody.  Let's not pretend like these acts of war are a democratic affair.  In regard to the two nukes in Japan, the only reason why people still stand behind that is because the common narrative goes "We needed to do that in order to win the war.  The Japanese would have never given up.  By dropping those nukes, we actually saved lives, both American and Japanese."  Wow, sounds great, of course I agree with that!  Now of course we know that those details didn't seem to be true after all.  Japan was ready to surrender.  Why would you need to drop a second bomb?  Why did you continue air assaults after the nukes were dropped?  If more people knew about these details, they would no longer agree that the two nukes were justified. 

[Hyperqube]

Are there really very many people who condone the acts of war committed by our governments?

 

Foreign policy was the dominant theme throughout the election campaign, particularly Bush's conduct of the War on Terrorism and the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

-- Wikipedia, US presidential election, 2004; which Bush won.

[Baloo]

You do know the U.S. never apologized for Hiroshima/Nagasaki, right?

 

[Gren]

 

 

Foreign policy was the dominant theme throughout the election campaign, particularly Bush's conduct of the War on Terrorism and the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

-- Wikipedia, US presidential election, 2004; which Bush won.

 

 

 

Condone is present tense, not past tense.  There were so many lies and misinformation flying around during the immediate years after 9/11 (mainly surrounding WMDs, and Iraq's existing military capabilities) that it's not surprising that a majority of the US public (that's only in the US though, I would wager that the majority of the civilized world outside of the US didn't even condone the war back then) thought this war had to happen.  And actually you can see a change in US public opinion which turned from 'in favour' to 'opposed' during the years immediately following Bush's 2nd election.  

 

Today, I think it's safe to say that the majority of us in the West do not think the Iraq war was a good idea and thus my points stands: most of us are aware of the inherent hypocrisy of condemning terrorist attacks while condoning our own military actions.   This isn't some moral gray zone: going to war unprovoked is wrong and killing civilians is never right.  There may be some people out there who disagree with this, but I think at this point in time in 2016, that would be the minority.   

[Hyperqube]

@Gren: agreed.

 

<movie>

and the headline with that movie:

 

Sympathy for victims but no apology as Obama makes historic Hiroshima visit

I'm sorry, but the "nation through its president" has not "officially apologized on multiple occasions for their actions". Not even once.

[ThisEngiThough]

*THINKS HARD

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ughhhhhhhhhhhhhh 

ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 

 

yah sure angle

[Professional Map Painter]

 

 

Foreign policy was the dominant theme throughout the election campaign, particularly Bush's conduct of the War on Terrorism and the aftermath of the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

 

-- Wikipedia, US presidential election, 2004; which Bush won.

 

 

Bush Jr wanted to finish what Bush Sr started. If Bush Sr had actually got the job done and implemented something similar to the Marshall plan, then everything would have worked out. Instead, Bush Jr went on a vendetta fuelled by a desire for oil $$$, and along with Blair (who also ignored and manipulated intelligence), ended up wrecking havoc in the Middle East. Iraq would be a client state of ISIS if it wasn't for the efforts of the Peshmerga. Saddam should have been removed as part of the Gulf War, rather than some botch-job intervention that resulted in the deaths of far too many Iraqi civilians and US/NATO servicemen. His reward - the UN makes him their Middle East peace envoy. iirc Alastair Campbell, his pathological liar spin doctor has also been in the employ of a dictator. So not only did they contribute to the instability in the Middle East, they're also hypocrites. They tried to achieve a sort of "Falklands boost" and it backfired spectacturely.

 

Sad thing is, Blair not only fucked up Iraq but also this country as well. If we'd continued to overspend at his rate we'd have ended up with a debt like Greece and would be forced to implement much harsher austerity measures. Brown and Blair's overspending, raid on private pensions + desire to sell off our gold at cheap rates did far more damage than the current government. His policy of encouraging excessive mass immigration also merely exploited migrants in return for easy Labour votes (which also resulted in tougher restrictions on non-EU migrants). I hope he ends up in a cell at the Hague (then again, he'd probably be more effective in opposition than Jeremy "friends with the IRA, Hamas + Cuba and only supported by militant trade unionists + champagne socialist millenials" Corbyn). Perhaps when the inevitable split happens we'll get 'Momentum' and 'New Labour' - that would be hilarious. After all, Corbyn has far fewer MP's supporting him than May does. It's a shame people like Tony Benn aren't still around - I wouldn't have agreed with him on much, but he was a far better human being than the majority of today's Labour MP's.

 

Bush meanwhile hasn't even bothered to read the Chilcot report, and instead of blatantly denying that he ever did anything wrong like Campbell and Blair, has just decided to quietly retire and claim that the world is better off without Saddam. He'll probably be let off.