This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

To atheists: What do you attribute to not having evil rule the world?

#101NsM ComatosisPosted 8/27/2011 10:30:54 AM
NSM Comatosis: What is. Your. Problem? I am NOT out to make you seem like a terrible person and NONE of my comments are personal attacks on you. I'm sorry if you've comprehended them as that, but they are not. Is something going on in your life that you are taking things so personal? Are you okay? Do you need to talk about it?

I am NOT out to insult you or anyone else (apart from Shado and OW and CIA and people like 'em) and I am sorry if you were insulted.


I'm not taking things personally; you're asking me personal questions and then using my answers to try to prove that what I said about people in general is wrong. I just don't follow the logic.

And you still think the rates have gone down? How industrious do you think the witch burnings were back in the early 1900s? I mean, sure, we had a REALLY bad period back in the back in the day (double typing intentional) but once we reach even Salem, THAT was considered terrible stuff, and that wasn't that big.

Which is why I said "rates have gone down" and not "the total number of people killed for witchcraft has gone down." We have a much larger population now than we did back then, and most of us don't engage in witch hunts even by proxy (i.e. gathering around the pyres and cheering on as someone is burnt alive). The majority of people in the civilized world can readily acknowledge that these beliefs are nonsense and the results of these beliefs are an atrocity. It's decidedly not "normal" to endorse this.

No, I'm just questioning that the possibility alone makes the world better.

Less evil? Yes.

I don't see what the results have to do with good/evil.

More people helping others = more good. Fewer people being slaughtered for imaginary thought crimes (again, proportionately speaking) = less evil. (This is incidentally why I rail on religion so often, because it's one of the last few bastions of socially acceptable lunacy in which people can justify and rationalize such atrocities. Forcing half of your population into cloth bags = bad. Forcing half of your population into cloth bags because your religion says so = "who are we to judge?")

Just imagine the Inquisition happening in this day and age, similar in scope but with our current population, diversity of cultures, and available technology. Imagine the Catholic Church gathering up all non-Catholics and slaughtering them for heresy. I could easily envision something like the Holocaust, except a few orders of magnitude worse. I wouldn't blame if you if you couldn't imagine such a thing, because the public backlash all around the world would be enormous. The majority of the world wouldn't stand for that garbage.
---
Pun is top 10 of all time. You can tell he ate a lot of mc's. -- Moogle Hunter
#102NsM ComatosisPosted 8/27/2011 10:39:12 AM(edited)
Hypothetical to maybe illustrate better: [edited for post length] There's no question that the new world is better off in terms of resources and stuff like that and that a lot more people survive, but is that world more or less evil than this world?

If we managed to solve the problem of world hunger and sickness, I really doubt that we'd suddenly allow wanton murder to happen, first of all. But yes, I would characterize your scenario as "evil" regardless, and would have problems if people just didn't care that others were being killed so nonchalantly. I still don't think it could reasonably happen, though. I would see a lot of people going, "what the **** did you do that for?" and push to stop this from happening.

However, now we have to transpose that analogy to the world now and prove that something similar is happening. I don't think it is. Even in terms of proportions and not just raw numbers, there's a greater percentage of people out there concerned about the wellbeing of others, and some of them moved enough to try to do something to help them. Again, the case can be made that we could be doing a lot MORE with our current technology and what not, but I still think the trend is moving towards more people caring about others, and not less.

Neither did I. The thing is, have you? Because every time I've even raised the subject I've been met by a blaring horn of "Nobody gits to take mah freedoms from me! Guns make the world safer!" which is why I'm questioning your claim that in spite of the terrible weapons of death we've made we think more about them.

I think guns (in the US) are a complete non-issue and anyone who feels so strongly on the subject could make much better use of their time--correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Europe in general is getting by just fine without gun rights as a hot-button political issue. All in all, though, I'm not opposed to sane, responsible people with guns. And by this I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to requiring prospective gun owners to submit to psychological testing beforehand, so that we can reasonably rule out whether or not this guy at some point will throw a tantrum and shoot his whole family.

That said, though, I find it horrible that the US is largely the one to blame for supplying all these evil dictatorships around the world with weapons.

They do, and then they talk about it for a bit and then they forget about it because something new and shiny appeared. It's the sort of thing that's not easily fixed and so the people who try to fix it usually can't hold public attention for long enough.

But this has always been true, except that now we're better able to get this message across to more people, which is a good thing. Some will take action (most won't), but this is still an improvement over what we had before.

Totally not what I ever claimed. We're talking exclusively about good vs. evil here, not QoL.

Quality of life and "good and evil" are correlated. There's less evil in places where people enjoy a high quality of life. Likewise, countries with bottom-of-the-barrel quality of life indices are such usually because of crime, violence, lack of access to healthcare, education, food, etc.

Actually I see racism and other forms of biggotry very rampant in white, church-going males in the US and across Europe. Not lynching men in trees, but people who would join in if a mob formed. And I do see people beaten and killed for being what they are, and also see it happen to where the police doesn't really care based on who it happened to. This is besides the point though.

It's not besides the point because, while it's still a problem, it's definitely less of a problem than it was before.
---
Pun is top 10 of all time. You can tell he ate a lot of mc's. -- Moogle Hunter
#103the final bahamutPosted 8/27/2011 1:32:39 PM
I'm not taking things personally; you're asking me personal questions and then using my answers to try to prove that what I said about people in general is wrong. I just don't follow the logic.

I do that because these discussions often fail when they become too generalized and fall into things like "I'm sure someone does". And yes, you ARE taking it personal, or your last post was deeply misleading.



Which is why I said "rates have gone down" and not "the total number of people killed for witchcraft has gone down." We have a much larger population now than we did back then, and most of us don't engage in witch hunts even by proxy (i.e. gathering around the pyres and cheering on as someone is burnt alive). The majority of people in the civilized world can readily acknowledge that these beliefs are nonsense and the results of these beliefs are an atrocity. It's decidedly not "normal" to endorse this.


Key part being "in the civilized world". We are not the majority of this planet. Or actually, all of humanity has civilization, but I take it you mean "the part of the world that shares my fundamental worldview".

Less evil? Yes.

Why thank you for the well worded argument.


More people helping others = more good.


So more people not doing a damn thing = more evil?

Fewer people being slaughtered for imaginary thought crimes (again, proportionately speaking) = less evil. (This is incidentally why I rail on religion so often, because it's one of the last few bastions of socially acceptable lunacy in which people can justify and rationalize such atrocities.

If you think that's the case I give you nazism, political conflict and good old war. Those are still going strong.

Forcing half of your population into cloth bags = bad. Forcing half of your population into cloth bags because your religion says so = "who are we to judge?")

And what do you say of things that force people out of cloth bags and into what they percieve as nakedness? How would you like to be forced to go naked into the streets?
I'm not defending misogyny here - and Heaven knows that the middle eastern nations has that in spades, apart from Israel - but forcing women to leave the kitchen is as patriarchal as forcing them to stay in it.

Just imagine the Inquisition happening in this day and age, similar in scope but with our current population, diversity of cultures, and available technology. Imagine the Catholic Church gathering up all non-Catholics and slaughtering them for heresy. I could easily envision something like the Holocaust, except a few orders of magnitude worse. I wouldn't blame if you if you couldn't imagine such a thing, because the public backlash all around the world would be enormous. The majority of the world wouldn't stand for that garbage.

Right until they did it themselves. There have been PLENTY of ethnic cleansings in recent years. Usually, the majority of the world stands back and gives a stern look. If we can be bothered to care. Sure, they're not worldwide, but that's simply because the right match hasn't dropped yet.



If we managed to solve the problem of world hunger and sickness, I really doubt that we'd suddenly allow wanton murder to happen, first of all.

---
E ys Bahamut! oui risyhc puna sa! Oui uvvaht sa cahcac!!!
DISCLAIMER: I'm not accountable for this post. I don't know English I just hit keys at random.
#104the final bahamutPosted 8/27/2011 1:33:08 PM
Your considerations about the morality of humanity is the subject of the debate, and irrelevant to the hypothesis. However, it would be far from the first time in history that men who were fed and satiated let others die for their entertainment.

But yes, I would characterize your scenario as "evil" regardless, and would have problems if people just didn't care that others were being killed so nonchalantly. I still don't think it could reasonably happen, though. I would see a lot of people going, "what the **** did you do that for?" and push to stop this from happening.

And yet humans kill each other all the time. Largely without facing much repercussion.

You argued earlier that because Haiti would have been far off a century or two ago, given the same disaster, that we are a more "good" world. However, in this situation - where everyone is better off, largely speaking, better off than in this world - you say it is more "evil".
Oh, and speaking of Haiti... how much did we care about them a month later?

However, now we have to transpose that analogy to the world now and prove that something similar is happening.

No we don't. It was exploring a principle in your thinking. Not the world at hand.

I think guns (in the US) are a complete non-issue and anyone who feels so strongly on the subject could make much better use of their time--correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure Europe in general is getting by just fine without gun rights as a hot-button political issue.

That's generally because we don't give guns to whoever wants it, including the mentally ill.

All in all, though, I'm not opposed to sane, responsible people with guns. And by this I mean, I wouldn't be opposed to requiring prospective gun owners to submit to psychological testing beforehand, so that we can reasonably rule out whether or not this guy at some point will throw a tantrum and shoot his whole family.

So what do you do when your sane, rational man gets angry due to a situation that is wholly unaccountable for and beyond what the person has experienced so far in his life, and shoots his wife's mistress? What do you do when your sane, rational man is in a situation where he feels threatened, carries his gun to protect him and out of fear shoots another human being (incidentally, because he was afraid the other gun-carrier was going to shoot him) who really meant him no harm? Crimes of passion HAPPEN. They happen to sane, rational people. They just get worse when guns are involved.
Do you dispute this?

That said, though, I find it horrible that the US is largely the one to blame for supplying all these evil dictatorships around the world with weapons.

Business is business. It is merely an aspect of humanity. Part of why the world is not getting more "good", or more "evil".


But this has always been true,

Yes.
---
E ys Bahamut! oui risyhc puna sa! Oui uvvaht sa cahcac!!!
DISCLAIMER: I'm not accountable for this post. I don't know English I just hit keys at random.
#105the final bahamutPosted 8/27/2011 1:34:20 PM
except that now we're better able to get this message across to more people, which is a good thing.

And now there are more shiny things, all the time. It is a lot easier to loose attention.

Some will take action (most won't), but this is still an improvement over what we had before.

You think people didn't take action in the past? I'm sure you'll disagree with their results, but the people who did misioneering back in the day did it for much the same reason as I will eventually do doctors without borders. Are their good intentions evil, simply because they were ignorant jackasses?


Quality of life and "good and evil" are correlated.

But you just answered the opposite to the hypothetical. The vast majority of humanity had much higher QoL but because a few were killed in cold blood, you said the world was evil.

There's less evil in places where people enjoy a high quality of life. Likewise, countries with bottom-of-the-barrel quality of life indices are such usually because of crime, violence, lack of access to healthcare, education, food, etc.

Ahh, so the best of our society are the corporate bosses, the big banking investors, yes? Because they sure as hell have a higher QoL.


It's not besides the point because, while it's still a problem, it's definitely less of a problem than it was before.


And again you do not seem consistent on whether you deign a world good based on results, or the people.
---
E ys Bahamut! oui risyhc puna sa! Oui uvvaht sa cahcac!!!
DISCLAIMER: I'm not accountable for this post. I don't know English I just hit keys at random.
#106CIA911Posted 8/27/2011 3:33:41 PM
I am NOT out to insult you or anyone else (apart from Shado and OW and CIA and people like 'em) and I am sorry if you were insulted.

Haven't even made one post in this topic, don't even know this person, and yet he is somehow out to insult me for some reason. Funny.
---
Job 38:4 - Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
#107NsM ComatosisPosted 8/27/2011 4:45:09 PM
I do that because these discussions often fail when they become too generalized and fall into things like "I'm sure someone does". And yes, you ARE taking it personal, or your last post was deeply misleading.

1. Discussions of this nature have to be generalized, otherwise we can always find that one dude who doesn't fit the trend, which according to you apparently renders the argument completely useless.
2. You're asking me personal questions. What kind of answer can I give that is not personal?

Key part being "in the civilized world". We are not the majority of this planet. Or actually, all of humanity has civilization, but I take it you mean "the part of the world that shares my fundamental worldview".

I guess we have to start by defining "civilized." I would consider North America, Europe, most of South America, and a lot of Asia to comprise a significant percentage of the world's population, as well as civilized. Several African countries fit the bill too, as do a few nations in the Middle East (i.e countries that support freedom, are not theocracies, and are not ruled by evil dictators who want to subjugate or kill entire demographics over nonsense).

Why thank you for the well worded argument.

Why thank you for asking a yes or no question.

So more people not doing a damn thing = more evil?

I've been using ratios this whole time for that reason, because you have to take into account population differences throughout history. "Oh, less people died of the plague than people who are dying of AIDS now. Clearly, humanity was better off during the plague."

If you think that's the case I give you nazism, political conflict and good old war. Those are still going strong.

Where is Nazism still going strong? As far as the other two, they were going on back then too, and to a higher degree. How would the world react if Obama suddenly declared himself King Obama and started expanding the American Empire by exterminating everyone in his path and seizing their territories?

And what do you say of things that force people out of cloth bags and into what they percieve as nakedness? How would you like to be forced to go naked into the streets?
I'm not defending misogyny here - and Heaven knows that the middle eastern nations has that in spades, apart from Israel - but forcing women to leave the kitchen is as patriarchal as forcing them to stay in it.


Where in the world does this happen? France banned veils, sure, but women are otherwise not forced to dress any particular way. That's the premise behind freedom. You can choose to cover yourself up if you want.

Right until they did it themselves. There have been PLENTY of ethnic cleansings in recent years.

A lot of which are religious or racial in nature, and I oppose both theocracies and racism. You're barking up the wrong tree if you think I don't find these acts abhorrent.

Usually, the majority of the world stands back and gives a stern look. If we can be bothered to care. Sure, they're not worldwide, but that's simply because the right match hasn't dropped yet.

Please. No wonder you think the world will be a perpetual **** hole. I guess you think every single human being is a bomb waiting to go off.
---
Pun is top 10 of all time. You can tell he ate a lot of mc's. -- Moogle Hunter
#108NsM ComatosisPosted 8/27/2011 4:45:34 PM
Your considerations about the morality of humanity is the subject of the debate, and irrelevant to the hypothesis. However, it would be far from the first time in history that men who were fed and satiated let others die for their entertainment.

Where is this happening now? What percentage of the population is engaged in this practice? The whole point of this discussion is to ascertain whether there's more or less evil in the world now than there was before, so the timeline matters. Bringing up gladiatorial combat back in the Roman Empire kinda proves my point, because you don't see that **** happen now to any significant degree. Statistical outliers are exactly that.

And yet humans kill each other all the time. Largely without facing much repercussion.

And they did so back then too, with even less repercussions.

You argued earlier that because Haiti would have been far off a century or two ago, given the same disaster, that we are a more "good" world. However, in this situation - where everyone is better off, largely speaking, better off than in this world - you say it is more "evil".

I didn't say it would be more evil. I said I would find it evil if people didn't give a **** about others getting killed (and note here that we're talking about people just sitting there watching as someone else is being killed). And this would be true in any context, regardless of whether or not there was abundant food for everyone and no one ever got sick.

Oh, and speaking of Haiti... how much did we care about them a month later?

So, the fact that people are still suffering throughout the world means that whatever help we give to a few people is suddenly meaningless? I guess I won't bother trying to save a drowning person should I come across one, because hey, a bunch of people die from drowning. Why does that one guy deserve special treatment?

No we don't. It was exploring a principle in your thinking. Not the world at hand.

The world at hand has everything to do with the discussion, because the discussion IS about whether or not the world is less evil than it was before.

That's generally because we don't give guns to whoever wants it, including the mentally ill.

The definition of "mentally ill" can be relaxed when it comes to someone wanting to buy weapons.

So what do you do when your sane, rational man gets angry due to a situation that is wholly unaccountable for and beyond what the person has experienced so far in his life, and shoots his wife's mistress? What do you do when your sane, rational man is in a situation where he feels threatened, carries his gun to protect him and out of fear shoots another human being (incidentally, because he was afraid the other gun-carrier was going to shoot him) who really meant him no harm? Crimes of passion HAPPEN. They happen to sane, rational people. They just get worse when guns are involved. Do you dispute this?

Yes, because your definition of "worse" doesn't take into account the nature of the crime itself. If someone enters into such a deranged fit of rage, it's not likely he's gonna go "well ****, I don't have a gun, so my efforts to kill this person have been thoroughly stymied and I may as well give up." If someone's gonna die, I would prefer it be from a gunshot to the head than repeated stab wounds.

And this brings up the next point, **** happens. The fact that some people have died during a heart transplant doesn't mean that heart transplants in general are evil, or that we should discourage them. If we had good gun control and made sure we only sold them to people who were responsible and not crazy, the couple of incidents happening afterwards would be statistical outliers. Are cars evil because some idiots choose to drive drunk and kill others as a result?
---
Pun is top 10 of all time. You can tell he ate a lot of mc's. -- Moogle Hunter
#109NsM ComatosisPosted 8/27/2011 4:53:12 PM(edited)
Business is business. It is merely an aspect of humanity. Part of why the world is not getting more "good", or more "evil".

Sure. Selling the rest of the world life-saving technology is the exact same thing as selling them machine guns.

And now there are more shiny things, all the time. It is a lot easier to loose attention.

Again, what's your point? No amount of help should be given unless we can help every single person on the planet?

You think people didn't take action in the past?

They did, but they were UNABLE to provide the same level of help that we can provide now, because we have better technology than we did back then. A house fire can be put out relatively quickly thanks to fire trucks and guys whose job is to put out fires. Try putting out a house fire with buckets of water that you have to run down to the river to get.

I'm sure you'll disagree with their results, but the people who did misioneering back in the day did it for much the same reason as I will eventually do doctors without borders. Are their good intentions evil, simply because they were ignorant jackasses?

Wow.

But you just answered the opposite to the hypothetical. The vast majority of humanity had much higher QoL but because a few were killed in cold blood, you said the world was evil.

If everyone had equal access to an unlimited supply of food and never got sick, those things would not factor into measuring quality of life. Quality of life matters when there's inequality and an uneven distribution of resources. Based on your silly hypothetical, you might as well say that we all enjoy the same quality of life NOW simply because we're all alive.

Ahh, so the best of our society are the corporate bosses, the big banking investors, yes? Because they sure as hell have a higher QoL.

I generally consider you to be a pretty intelligent person, but I'm beginning to doubt this based on your repeated misinterpretation and distortion of my arguments.

Again, quality of life matters when there are inequalities. If there are a couple of trillionaires out there hoarding all the world's resources while the rest of the population is starving to death, that's bad.

And again you do not seem consistent on whether you deign a world good based on results, or the people.

You should clarify this, because I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.
---
Pun is top 10 of all time. You can tell he ate a lot of mc's. -- Moogle Hunter
#110lorddrago88Posted 8/29/2011 7:01:05 AM
bsballa09 posted...
What do you attribute to good always beating evil?

lol someones in a fantasy world.
---
Master of the Logical Fallacies-
-August 22, 2011-