Are people basically good?

[Votto]

It's been my experience that atheists tend to think that humanity is basically good.

Has anyone come to the same conclusion?

Yes, I have encountered this as well. The serious problem with that is atheists cannot describe in logical or rational detail why good is good or bad is bad, or name the fundamental/primal source from which they derive their moral systems. Just "because" is a cop-out to the heavy intellectual lifting required to effectively dodge belief in the Logos.

It is interesting because there is eternal evidence as to people not being "good" throughout history, yet they persist in believing people are naturally good.. However, they don't believe in God when there is a great deal of evidence that he exists.

That is because, I think, the atheist has difficulty accepting authority without blaming said authority for the bad things which have happened, both in his own life and the world around him. Lack of personal responsibility for accepting consequence of bad behavior. Atheists claim to not believe in God, and yet they continue to blame God for all the terrible evils of the world.

In believing people are naturally good, they (atheists) can fall back on moral relativism to redefine good and bad "on-the-fly" as needed. Accepting that people need a higher power from which to draw guidance and base foundational moral facts on means accepting they cannot use moral relativism as a tool to make good and bad situational or redefinable. They represent the ultimate rebellion against the Father, in thinking--with an astonishing lack of maturity and surplus of foolish arrogance, that they know better--than perhaps millions of years of historical living experience experienced before their birth, and that they know better than God.

I think it has to do with the internal need for a shepherd. As the Bible states, we are all sheep looking for a shepherd.

For the atheist, it is the state. After all, in their view the role of king has been vacated, so it needs to be filled to help guide and protect the sheep.

But if you were to agree that the inherent character of man is not good, then where does that leave them?

In 1 Samuel 8, we see the Hebrew nation asking God for a king. It grieves God as he warns them of the abuses that will ensue if he gives them what they want, but they would not heed his warnings, so God gave them Saul.

 

[Votto]

Ok then, let's put it another way.

Are the police evil for arresting or shooting murderers?

We should favor equality in Legal justice. Due process is the constitutional solution. Though, if a murderer opts for going out in a blaze of glory, he should expect to be killed.

Good advice is to never call the police unless absolutely necessary. They've been known to show up and execute people, and in some cases toss grenades into childrens beds.

So laws are not inherently evil, nor is the police.

Am I hearing correctly?

 

[Natural Citizen]

So laws are not inherently evil, nor is the police.

Am I hearing correctly?

Well, no, we can't say that. You're getting into a deeper discussion there. The reality is that what is often Legal is just as often not Lawful. So, we have to define the difference between them.

You're gonna have to START A NEW THREAD FOR THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO THE PRIMARY FOUNDATION FOR MORAL CODE THAT IS THE BENCHMARK FOR OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT and the fundamental principles of Individual liberty itself.

Sorry about all caps, I don't feel like backspacing all of that and typing it again.

 

[Crepitus]

We have the chioce to be either, but we are not inherently good or bad.

Would you say that the Holocaust was bad or good or are you arguing that Hitler had his good points?

Hitler chose to be evil. Why did you bring him into it? What are you trying to say?

Hitler is used because he is seen as universally evil. Really no other figure compares.

However, Jesus is seen as universally good, yet he said not to call himself good which I find thoroughly fascinating.

That is why I brought these two up in conversation.

As for Hitler, as I pointed out, he thought that he was doing "good", did he not?

Surely he knew putting people in ovens was wrong.

Jesus was not a real person as far as I know.

No, not if you dehumanize your victim.

For example, in the 1800's they dehumanized blacks as glorified animals so that they could treat them the way we do animals, which is lock them up, use them as beasts of burden, or kill them (and hopefully not eat them)

The Jew was put in the same light. It was mental gymnastics that was needed to bypass our inner moral voice.

But yea, I think deep down people do know right from wrong despite the rationalizations, which I think is the cause of many mental problems down the road.

You deny and confirm in the same post.

 

[night_son]

It's been my experience that atheists tend to think that humanity is basically good.

Has anyone come to the same conclusion?

Yes, I have encountered this as well. The serious problem with that is atheists cannot describe in logical or rational detail why good is good or bad is bad, or name the fundamental/primal source from which they derive their moral systems. Just "because" is a cop-out to the heavy intellectual lifting required to effectively dodge belief in the Logos.

It is interesting because there is eternal evidence as to people not being "good" throughout history, yet they persist in believing people are naturally good.. However, they don't believe in God when there is a great deal of evidence that he exists.

That is because, I think, the atheist has difficulty accepting authority without blaming said authority for the bad things which have happened, both in his own life and the world around him. Lack of personal responsibility for accepting consequence of bad behavior. Atheists claim to not believe in God, and yet they continue to blame God for all the terrible evils of the world.

In believing people are naturally good, they (atheists) can fall back on moral relativism to redefine good and bad "on-the-fly" as needed. Accepting that people need a higher power from which to draw guidance and base foundational moral facts on means accepting they cannot use moral relativism as a tool to make good and bad situational or redefinable. They represent the ultimate rebellion against the Father, in thinking--with an astonishing lack of maturity and surplus of foolish arrogance, that they know better--than perhaps millions of years of historical living experience experienced before their birth, and that they know better than God.

I think it has to do with the internal need for a shepherd. As the Bible states, we are all sheep looking for a shepherd.

For the atheist, it is the state. After all, in their view the role of king has been vacated, so it needs to be filled to help guide and protect the sheep.

But if you were to agree that the inherent character of man is not good, then where does that leave them?

In 1 Samuel 8, we see the Hebrew nation asking God for a king. It grieves God as he warns them of the abuses that will ensue if he gives them what they want, but they would not heed his warnings, so God gave them Saul.

Leaves us all on a very slippery slope speaking to Man's ability to create and live in moral civilizations. If the atheist seeks the State as shepherd, or Father, then he is putting his life only in the hands of other men, and history has show us how that works out in most cases. And yet, somehow our founding Father's included God and rule by law--law as the great equalizer of men, and a Constitution written by men as both touchstone for the confluence of the earthly and divine, thus removing the fragility of human life from the imperfection and whim of the monarch. So either we go all in for God as higher authority and patternmaker of moral fact, or we continue with this great hybrid experiment between the two.

I think, perhaps Nietzsche's foreboding was warranted; even in America we are moving our government too far away from God--allowing too much of a gap to form between the Divine and the human. Consequences for that have been incoming for some time.

 

[harmonica]

humans are basically animals
...most things we do--even charitable things/for our family/etc we do to make ourselves feel good
...I kind of change my answer to not good, not bad
...serial killers kill for the thrill/high/to feel good--they ''need'' that high
..others murder out of passion-- very human --they get MAD
..''bad'' people steal for many reasons--some because they did not have parents that raised them ''correctly''....they are products of their socioeconomic life
...most murders in my city are in the black/poor areas
why not equally distributed throughout the city????!!! --

Speaking of animals, is it OK to lock them up and kill and eat them?

Is that considered good or bad or neither?

I wouldn't lock up animals-but I eat them

 

[Votto]

It's been my experience that atheists tend to think that humanity is basically good.

Has anyone come to the same conclusion?

Yes, I have encountered this as well. The serious problem with that is atheists cannot describe in logical or rational detail why good is good or bad is bad, or name the fundamental/primal source from which they derive their moral systems. Just "because" is a cop-out to the heavy intellectual lifting required to effectively dodge belief in the Logos.

It is interesting because there is eternal evidence as to people not being "good" throughout history, yet they persist in believing people are naturally good.. However, they don't believe in God when there is a great deal of evidence that he exists.

That is because, I think, the atheist has difficulty accepting authority without blaming said authority for the bad things which have happened, both in his own life and the world around him. Lack of personal responsibility for accepting consequence of bad behavior. Atheists claim to not believe in God, and yet they continue to blame God for all the terrible evils of the world.

In believing people are naturally good, they (atheists) can fall back on moral relativism to redefine good and bad "on-the-fly" as needed. Accepting that people need a higher power from which to draw guidance and base foundational moral facts on means accepting they cannot use moral relativism as a tool to make good and bad situational or redefinable. They represent the ultimate rebellion against the Father, in thinking--with an astonishing lack of maturity and surplus of foolish arrogance, that they know better--than perhaps millions of years of historical living experience experienced before their birth, and that they know better than God.

I think it has to do with the internal need for a shepherd. As the Bible states, we are all sheep looking for a shepherd.

For the atheist, it is the state. After all, in their view the role of king has been vacated, so it needs to be filled to help guide and protect the sheep.

But if you were to agree that the inherent character of man is not good, then where does that leave them?

In 1 Samuel 8, we see the Hebrew nation asking God for a king. It grieves God as he warns them of the abuses that will ensue if he gives them what they want, but they would not heed his warnings, so God gave them Saul.

Leaves us all on a very slippery slope speaking to Man's ability to create and live in moral civilizations. If the atheist seeks the State as shepherd, or Father, then he is putting his life only in the hands of other men, and history has show us how that works out in most cases. And yet, somehow our founding Father's included God and rule by law--law as the great equalizer of men, and a Constitution written by men as both touchstone for the confluence of the earthly and divine, thus removing the fragility of human life from the imperfection and whim of the monarch. So either we go all in for God as higher authority and patternmaker of moral fact, or we continue with this great hybrid experiment between the two.

I think, perhaps Nietzsche's foreboding was warranted; even in America we are moving our government too far away from God--allowing too much of a gap to form between the Divine and the human. Consequences for that have been incoming for some time.

Na, all we need to do is get Trump out of there and everything will be peachy keen.

LMAO!

 

[Natural Citizen]

Leaves us all on a very slippery slope speaking to Man's ability to create and live in moral civilizations. If the atheist seeks the State as shepherd, or Father, then he is putting his life only in the hands of other men, and history has show us how that works out in most cases. And yet, somehow our founding Father's included God and rule by law--law as the great equalizer of men, and a Constitution written by men as both touchstone for the confluence of the earthly and divine, thus removing the fragility of human life from the imperfection and whim of the monarch. So either we go all in for God as higher authority and patternmaker of moral fact, or we continue with this great hybrid experiment between the two.

I think, perhaps Nietzsche's foreboding was warranted; even in America we are moving our government too far away from God--allowing too much of a gap to form between the Divine and the human. Consequences for that have been incoming for some time.

It's not Principle 1 for nothing.

Principle 1. The Spiritual Is Supreme

 

[Votto]

humans are basically animals
...most things we do--even charitable things/for our family/etc we do to make ourselves feel good
...I kind of change my answer to not good, not bad
...serial killers kill for the thrill/high/to feel good--they ''need'' that high
..others murder out of passion-- very human --they get MAD
..''bad'' people steal for many reasons--some because they did not have parents that raised them ''correctly''....they are products of their socioeconomic life
...most murders in my city are in the black/poor areas
why not equally distributed throughout the city????!!! --

Speaking of animals, is it OK to lock them up and kill and eat them?

Is that considered good or bad or neither?

I wouldn't lock up animals-but I eat them

It is one of the questions that most concerns me, do you view humans as glorified animals or a creation distinct from the animal kingdom that was made in the image of God?

That is an important question to answer because if human beings are merely animals, then you can treat them as such. If not, then we have innate rights that separate us from the animal kingdom.

 

[Votto]

So laws are not inherently evil, nor is the police.

Am I hearing correctly?

Well, no, we can't say that. You're getting into a deeper discussion there. The reality is that what is often Legal is just as often not Lawful. So, we have to define the difference between them.

You're gonna have to START A NEW THREAD FOR THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE GET INTO THE PRIMARY FOUNDATION FOR MORAL CODE THAT IS THE BENCHMARK FOR OUR FORM OF GOVERNMENT and the fundamental principles of Individual liberty itself.

Sorry about all caps, I don't feel like backspacing all of that and typing it again.

I don't know that we need to start a new thread for that.

I think we both can agree that what is legal does not mean it is moral, and vice versa.

In my view it is man's law verses God's law.

For the most part, we all have an innate sense of what is right or wrong. Christ pointed to the Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do to you and I think most all laws of various countries adhere to such a teaching.

By in large I think most would agree with this law that covers most everything.

 

[Votto]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

We have the chioce to be either, but we are not inherently good or bad.

Would you say that the Holocaust was bad or good or are you arguing that Hitler had his good points?

Hitler chose to be evil. Why did you bring him into it? What are you trying to say?

Hitler is used because he is seen as universally evil. Really no other figure compares.

However, Jesus is seen as universally good, yet he said not to call himself good which I find thoroughly fascinating.

That is why I brought these two up in conversation.

As for Hitler, as I pointed out, he thought that he was doing "good", did he not?

Surely he knew putting people in ovens was wrong.

Jesus was not a real person as far as I know.

So we all know that throwing people in ovens is evil? Really?

Don't look now, but today we put aborted babies in furnaces to heat our buildings.

Shocking Report Shows 15,000 Aborted Babies Incinerated to Heat British Hospitals | LifeNews.com

Is this wrong? My guess is that since you are not a Christian, you think that the unborn are not really people. And if they are not really people, there is no problem with throwing them in ovens.

If so, the Nazi regime thought the exact same way you do. For the Nazi, Jews were not really people either.

 

[night_son]

We have the chioce to be either, but we are not inherently good or bad.

Would you say that the Holocaust was bad or good or are you arguing that Hitler had his good points?

Hitler chose to be evil. Why did you bring him into it? What are you trying to say?

Hitler is used because he is seen as universally evil. Really no other figure compares.

However, Jesus is seen as universally good, yet he said not to call himself good which I find thoroughly fascinating.

That is why I brought these two up in conversation.

As for Hitler, as I pointed out, he thought that he was doing "good", did he not?

Surely he knew putting people in ovens was wrong.

Jesus was not a real person as far as I know.

Don't look now, but today we put aborted babies in furnaces to heat our buildings.

Shocking Report Shows 15,000 Aborted Babies Incinerated to Heat British Hospitals | LifeNews.com

Is this wrong? My guess is that since you are not a Christian, you think that the unborn are not really people. And if they are not really people, there is no problem with throwing them in ovens.

If so, the Nazi regime thought the exact same way you do.

Pardon my French but F**k me.

Canaanite god worship anyone?

 

[Votto]

Would you say that the Holocaust was bad or good or are you arguing that Hitler had his good points?

Hitler chose to be evil. Why did you bring him into it? What are you trying to say?

Hitler is used because he is seen as universally evil. Really no other figure compares.

However, Jesus is seen as universally good, yet he said not to call himself good which I find thoroughly fascinating.

That is why I brought these two up in conversation.

As for Hitler, as I pointed out, he thought that he was doing "good", did he not?

Surely he knew putting people in ovens was wrong.

Jesus was not a real person as far as I know.

Don't look now, but today we put aborted babies in furnaces to heat our buildings.

Shocking Report Shows 15,000 Aborted Babies Incinerated to Heat British Hospitals | LifeNews.com

Is this wrong? My guess is that since you are not a Christian, you think that the unborn are not really people. And if they are not really people, there is no problem with throwing them in ovens.

If so, the Nazi regime thought the exact same way you do.

Pardon my French but F**k me.

Canaanite god worship anyone?

Those that sacrificed their children to the pagan gods did so for such things as increased fertility, better crops, victory at war, etc.

In short, killing their children was a way to boost their material needs.

Today, most abortions are done for the same reason. Kids are just expensive is all.

As the Bible points out, the love of money is a root of all evil.

However, to defend abortion on demand we are always confronted with stories about children who are raped, or back alley abortions.

Funny thing, Dr. Gosnell was an abortion doctor who routinely abused and even killed women coming for an abortion, but the state did nothing to stop him for some 30 years because abortion is such a political football. It was far cheaper to mistreat the women than it was to care for them properly. In fact, he made sure he targeted minority women, I assume because they had less chance of defending themselves legally. As for back alley abortions, you would probably have been safer using a hanger yourself.

Then there are kids who are brought in for abortions, abortions that their parents not even know they had. My guess is that abusers often do this to hide the fact that the children being raped since their stomachs never show.

 

[G.T.]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

 

[Votto]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

So people are basically good?

Except for Trump, right?

Seriously though, look at the wars, the genocide, the fact that most men who have walked their earth were either a slave or sent to die in a war for some horrible dictator., etc.
IF people are inherently good, then why is this?

 

[G.T.]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

So people are basically good?

Except for Trump, right?

Seriously though, look at the wars, the genocide, the fact that most men who have walked their earth were either a slave or sent to die in a war for some horrible dictator., etc.
IF people are inherently good, then why is this?

Your first two sentences make no sense....

Basically = non specific
Trump = specific

Wars are typically started by Governing bodies, not "basic" people. Also, we are (still) evolving away from slavery, and so that comment was already addressed by my stating that we are good due to biological and sociological evolution.

In other words, if you didn't fail to read for comprehension, you'd have realized that the inquiries in your response were already addressed.

 

[Votto]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

I challenge your definition of what is good.

So what if you were able to end someone's life without causing them any pain, would that be considered good because you prevent them from having anymore pain?

Also, emotional pain often comes from having things you love taken from you. Would it then be better to prevent people from loving so that they don't care about what they lose?

I say this is pure BS.

 

[Votto]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

So people are basically good?

Except for Trump, right?

Seriously though, look at the wars, the genocide, the fact that most men who have walked their earth were either a slave or sent to die in a war for some horrible dictator., etc.
IF people are inherently good, then why is this?

Your first two sentences make no sense....

Basically = non specific
Trump = specific

Wars are typically started by Governing bodies, not "basic" people. Also, we are (still) evolving away from slavery, and so that comment was already addressed by my stating that we are good due to biological and sociological evolution.

In other wordsw, if you didn't fail to read for comprehension, you'd have realized that the inquiries in your response were already addressed.

So these evil political figures are space aliens, or are they simply a reflection of the society from which they came?

Additionally, who threw the Jews in the ovens? Hitler?

Why did the Catholic church remain so silent during the Holocaust?

Why did FDR not let more Jews flee to America?

People are basically good, eh?

I don't buy it!

 

[G.T.]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

I challenge your definition of what is good.

So what if you were able to end someone's life without causing them any pain, would that be considered good because you prevent them from having anymore pain?

Also, emotional pain often comes from having things you love taken from you. Would it then be better to prevent people from loving so that they don't care about what they lose?

I say this is pure BS.

Well, of course this is simple minded in terms of being an objection...

To my "ending someone's life," you're implying that "pain" is the only type of suffering. Do I need to break things down for you, in terms of which types of suffering there are? Collateral suffering, physical suffering and mental suffering.

There's no such thing as "prevent people from loving," that is beyond ridiculous. Do you think literal thought is transparent and police-able? When the fuck did the technology become available, because the last I checked the only way to see the literal, physical neuro-firing known as "thoughts" was the very very blurry printing of a photograph, from a memory.

 

[G.T.]

I'd define good as that which causes the least amount of suffering. I'd say humans are basically good, and this is a result of bio & socio evolution.

So people are basically good?

Except for Trump, right?

Seriously though, look at the wars, the genocide, the fact that most men who have walked their earth were either a slave or sent to die in a war for some horrible dictator., etc.
IF people are inherently good, then why is this?

Your first two sentences make no sense....

Basically = non specific
Trump = specific

Wars are typically started by Governing bodies, not "basic" people. Also, we are (still) evolving away from slavery, and so that comment was already addressed by my stating that we are good due to biological and sociological evolution.

In other wordsw, if you didn't fail to read for comprehension, you'd have realized that the inquiries in your response were already addressed.

So these evil political figures are space aliens, or are they simply a reflection of the society from which they came?

Additionally, who threw the Jews in the ovens? Hitler?

Why did the Catholic church remain so silent during the Holocaust?

Why did FDR not let more Jews flee to America?

People are basically good, eh?

I don't buy it!

No, your first sentence is a non-sequitur. I didnt say all people are good, or that people are good all of the time. Do you know your question included the word, "basically." YOURE THE ONE that framed things this way, and you're taking my answer based on the basic, and challenging it in terms of the specific.

Your inability to critically think may be why you're so easily brain-washed by Religions.