Human cruelty

[Wildswanderer]

I wouldn't agree with that, if that were the case. I honestly don't think that we would have survived as a species.

But also to me there is a huge difference between cyberbullying and bullying in general and this. To put its to the extremes, lets say I wanted you dead for whatever reason. Even if that were the case, the step going from me simply wanting to kill you, to me wanting you to go through one of these devices/machines is like a completely different story. Because clearly it is not enough for me simply getting rid of you, I have to get rid of you in the most cruel way that I could possibly think of. I mean, I don't even think the best horror writers today could come up with stuff like this, and if they did, I assume they got inspired by it

And I don't think we are just talking crazy mass murders here, like them having killed whole families, children, pets etc. in some extreme act of violence. But probably people identified as criminals, might be murders and stuff like that, political and religious reasons I assume, traitors and so forth. So even if they thought the death penalty was the best option, they just for whatever reason, had to make it sort of like an artform of how you could get rid of people in different creative ways.

Yeah, well, look at history overall. Acts of extreme violence and cruelty are the rule, not the exception. Men are basically evil. In fact, I would argue that our morality today mostly comes from the tenets of Christianity that our society has absorbed, even though a lot of those are getting warped now. You have an unrealistic view of the extent of man's depravity.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Nonsense. I don’t believe people are basically evil. The number of people who torture, maim, kill people (and animals) in gruesome ways and enjoy it, i.e. psychopaths and sociopaths, pales in comparison to the number of people who are repulsed by it and wouldn’t think of it. I think the spectators of such ancient and medieval practices were conditioned and desensitized to it.

In my sect of Hinduism God has stepped in 23 times, with one more to come, to address a world gone bat-**** crazy. However, these were largely a one-on-one between God and a single evildoer. Other sects of Hinduism don’t believe this at all.

You have an unrealistic view of the extent of man's depravity. When you look at history overall, you see that men, all men are capable of acts of extreme evil. We live in a post-Christian age, but we still hold to a lot of Christian ideas, such as do unto others are you would have them do to you. Other time periods have no such restrictions and I think for all the ways we romanticize the past, we would be shocked to find just how bad it was.

 

[Heyo]

It's not God's track record, it's ours. Those who truly follow Jesus' command to do unto others as you would want them to do to you will have a good track record. Those who pretend God is on the side of their cruelty don't

Let me clarify: all the religious scripture, teachings and the belief in gods hasn't made people (on average) more moral. Thus, religious scripture, teaching and belief in gods is not a useful tool to get to a less cruel society.
In fact, it seems that not believing in gods is more conductive to that goal. So, in answer to your claim that we need god(s) to be less cruel, I conclude that we need less god to be less cruel.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Let me clarify: all the religious scripture, teachings and the belief in gods hasn't made people (on average) more moral. Thus, religious scripture, teaching and belief in god

I'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion, since the majority of people throughout history have been religious in one way or another.
And athiestic governments murder people also.

 

[Heyo]

I'm not sure how you would come to that conclusion, since the majority of people throughout history have been religious in one way or another.
And athiestic governments murder people also.

I'm not talking about governments. They are a special kind of evil. (And a tu quoque doesn't support your argument.)
I'm talking about people and statistics indicating (in what crude form ever) moral behaviour. Crime statistics for example. There are multiple examples that indicate that less religious people commit less crime and even less violent crime.
I'm talking about long time effects. The enlightenment with its humanist values has formed a culture that is less violent, often against religious backlash.
I'm talking about wars, civil war and terrorism which you will find more often in religious and extremely religious areas.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I'm not talking about governments. They are a special kind of evil. (And a tu quoque doesn't support your argument.)
I'm talking about people and statistics indicating (in what crude form ever) moral behaviour. Crime statistics for example. There are multiple examples that indicate that less religious people commit less crime and even less violent crime.
I'm talking about long-time effects. The enlightenment with its humanist values has formed a culture that is less violent, often against religious backlash.
I'm talking about wars, civil war and terrorism which you will find more often in religious and extremely religious areas.

So you conveniently get to leave out the effects of organized atheism? That certainly would tilt the scale. Lots of communist atheistic governments to choose from so we can see the real effect of the philosophy, but you are choosing to look at a culture still heavily influenced by Christain principles and called an atheistic system...I can't take that seriously.

 

[Heyo]

So you conveniently get to leave out the effects of organized atheism? That certainly would tilt the scale. Lots of communist atheistic governments to choose from so we can see the real effect of the philosophy, but you are choosing to look at a culture still heavily influenced by Christain principles and called an atheistic system...I can't take that seriously.

Again, the to quoque fallacy doesn't support your case. You claimed

Men are basically evil. It's why we need God.

For that to be true you need to show that believers are better than atheists. Simply saying "but the others are also bad" is no excuse for your cruelty.
Anecdotal evidence also doesn't help. Single examples of believers being less cruel are not enough. You'd have to show a trend.

Or you could admit that it is simply your opinion and you can't substantiate your claim.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Let me clarify: all the religious scripture, teachings and the belief in gods hasn't made people (on average) more moral. Thus, religious scripture, teaching and belief in gods is not a useful tool to get to a less cruel society.
In fact, it seems that not believing in gods is more conductive to that goal. So, in answer to your claim that we need god(s) to be less cruel, I conclude that we need less god to be less cruel.

However, the modern western world now has access to religion on an individual basis. No one, I assume in all of the west, is at this time compelling you to think about it a certain way, (or if they are in the political setting, it's probably not comparable to what the medieval powers did) under threat of the judas cradle. However, individual access and judgement to theism unlocks a few new problems, namely that the individual may lack comprehension and motivation. Generally, this is approaching the reason why they often allowed an institution to mediate religion, is because comprehension and motivation capacities were exceeded for enough people. Sort of an analog, would be why we often trust a lot of scientific explanation with the scientists, or medical explanations with the doctors etc. Religion was a field that was like that. But eventually, we saw that maybe religion isn't really like that after all, and so now it is something more like a preferential , individual skill

 

[Wildswanderer]

For that to be true you need to show that believers are better than atheists. Simply saying "but the others are also bad" is no excuse for your cruelty.
Anecdotal evidence also doesn't help. Single examples of believers being less cruel are not enough. You'd have to show a trend.

All men are inclined to evil. Believers included. Paul says that the good he wants to do he doesn't do and the evil he doesn't want to do he keeps doing.
It's why we need saving. If we could be good on our own, why would we need forgiveness?

 

[Mock Turtle]

All men are inclined to evil. Believers included. Paul says that the good he wants to do he doesn't do and the evil he doesn't want to do he keeps doing.
It's why we need saving. If we could be good on our own, why would we need forgiveness?

I don't know where you got this idea from - all men are inclined to evil, and does that include females too? - but either you have a very limited knowledge of others or have very bad experiences with any with whom you came into contact.

 

[Wildswanderer]

I don't know where you got this idea from - all men are inclined to evil, and does that include females too? - but either you have a very limited knowledge of others or have very bad experiences with any with whom you came into contact.

Of course, it includes everyone. This is a basic tenet of Christianity. All have sinned. All do evil in God's sight.
If we weren't inclined to evil, why would we need laws?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Of course, it includes everyone. This is a basic tenet of Christianity. All have sinned. All do evil in God's sight.
If we weren't inclined to evil, why would we need laws?

Inclined to evil hardly is the reason why we have laws though. It's more to do with simply controlling large societies where differences in beliefs, behaviours, and actions occur. What is evil to some is not evil to others - like homosexuality, for example, and which your Christianity might be seen as the problem rather than homosexuality - hence the laws varying in different countries. And it's all a bit moot for all of us who don't believe or accept the tenets of the various religions, but who still might have just a moral nature as most others.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Inclined to evil hardly is the reason why we have laws though. It's more to do with simply controlling large societies where differences in beliefs, behaviours, and actions occur. What is evil to some is not evil to others - like homosexuality, for example, and which your Christianity might be seen as the problem rather than homosexuality - hence the laws varying in different countries. And it's all a bit moot for all of us who don't believe or accept the tenets of the various religions, but who still might have just a moral nature as most others.

Of course laws vary by culture, so what? Man is still basically evil. Do you find anything morally unacceptable? You might set the boundaries in different places, but you still believe something is wrong.
And we need " religion" to define what is sin, or we will just justify our own, and condemn somebody else's. Which is a sin of selfishness.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Of course laws vary by culture, so what? Man is still basically evil. Do you find anything morally unacceptable? You might set the boundaries in different places, but you still believe something is wrong.
And we need " religion" to define what is sin, or we will just justify our own, and condemn somebody else's. Which is a sin of selfishness.

I suspect you get this view, that man is basically evil, purely from your religious belief. As to such, I would be extremely sceptical as to any religious belief if the evidence was to contradict such, which is apparent since most people don't conform to what you consider as being evil, unless purely coinciding with your religious doctrine. I think you need to get out more. And we all tend to have a moral nature - something that we seem to have gotten from our ancestors and that makes sense so as to form part of how we live - even other animal species seem to have such.

 

[Wildswanderer]

think you need to get out more. A

Judge much? I get out plenty. Didn't you notice the billions of dollars worth of property damage and the riots and deaths during the last year? Were those moral actions?
That's a glimpse of man without the law's constraints.

 

[Wildswanderer]

And we all tend to have a moral nature - something that we seem to have gotten from our ancestors and that makes sense so as to form part of how we live - even other animal species seem to have such.

Animals are not moral. They act on instinct. A fox feels nothing as he rips apart a live rabbit or plays for hours with a live rodent. This world isn't like Disney.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Animals are not moral. They act on instinct. A fox feels nothing as he rips apart a live rabbit or plays for hours with a live rodent. This world isn't like Disney.

You need to do some basic research into animal behaviour.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Judge much? I get out plenty. Didn't you notice the billions of dollars worth of property damage and the riots and deaths during the last year? Were those moral actions?
That's a glimpse of man without the law's constraints.

Billions? Methinks you exaggerate somewhat.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Billions? Methinks you exaggerate somewhat.

Nope, that's actually a low estimate. Just the US riots caused between one and two billion in damage. Add that to all riots worldwide.

 

[Wildswanderer]

You need to do some basic research into animal behaviour.

I've been doing research and trapping and reading animal sign since I was under 10 years old. That's forty plus years studying animal behavior. Plus farming to one degree or another for most of my life.