How do you know what is evil when evil is none existent?

The definitions of "good" and "evil" seem very subjective; however (although along the same lines), evil seems generally to indicate an act of a very selfish (ie, subjective) nature that is detrimental to the broader (ie, objective) consequences. Pretty much the opposite of "altruism", more than that of "good" (if one thinks of "good" and "bad" as opposites, seemingly on a much smaller scale). The posts here have eventually shifted into pitting "evil" versus "morality" rather than "good". So, my thinking here would equate "morality" with "altruism".

Altruism — the doctrine that the general welfare of society is the proper goal of an individual's actions: opposed to egoism.

Some selfish natures that ignore broader consequences have already been given:

• Spidergoat — immoral behavior (morals being universally applicable and true forever)
• Cosmictraveler — child sexual abuse
• Jeeves — a deliberate, freely chosen pattern of harmful behaviour [that] diminishes [the] chance of survival of the social unit
• Chimpkin — [going] through life using people financially, conning them, and charming them into helping him by appearing vulnerable and sweet.
• Chimpkin — to spread malicious rumors on the job, or to knowingly contract for a poor job on a contractee's house because the contractee does not know know precisely what needs done and how to specify for it, or to borrow money informally and not pay it back.
• Wellwisher — individual behavior, which if extrapolated to the entire group, would regress or destroy the group.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Those problems acting against our general functionality is a major discredit to religion.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Negative theism is theism. If you make claims about reality for theistic reasons, then you are a theist. And if you're a theist, dont expect to be taken seriously.

Bullshit. Support this or withdraw it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'll second that.
But, remember, a fear of god is exactly what some people absolutely require to stay in line. Being an atheist is a much greater and larger challenge than to live by a religion.

 

If genes did underlie behavior, since humans are able to change behavior, with will power, does that mean humans can manipulate genetic expression?

For example, let us assume hunger and food gather behavior was all due to genes. If I put it off my hunger and food gathering by going on a diet, does that mean I am silencing genes using my mind? Since that logically follows, how far down the genetic line can the mind manipulate genes; placebo effects?

In my opinion, genes are important for formation of the brain and help to hardwire neural placeholders for behavior. But the brain also gathers data, thereby adding flesh to these genetic placeholders. This allows leverage over the genes.

Human behavior is based on personality firmware. It is genetic hardwired, but it is really firmware, in that it is very pliable via input data. One way to visualize this, is with the analogy of growing a tomato plant from a seed. The tomato seed has genes that will unfold into this characteristic plant. But depending on growing conditions, such as water, light, nutrients, pH, bugs, mold, bacteria, etc.,the final plant has a wide range of pliability. Someone with a black thumb will have different results than someone with a green thumb using the same genetic seed stock. Through this genetic pliability, we can alter the final quality, shape and taste of the tomato.

The genes for behavior are like neural seeds that will grow into a neural plant, often bearing fruit at different stages of life. The growing conditions of the mind, and sensory input, influences the pliable nature of these seeds, as they push forward on their genetic journey. There are green thumbs and black thumbs when it come to the final result of this genetic unfolding.

The concept of original sin, or the seed of evil, has to do with free will and choice. Unlike the animals whose pliable genetic seeds (firmware) for behavior, will input only natural data, human choice and will power adds internal subjectivities that are not based on cause and effect. There is a little black thumb in all of us, with some having more and some less. These give unnatural ingredients to the seedlings, which will detour from their natural optimizations. We are born that way.

 

Can u elaborate pls?

What do u mean support it? I gave u a dozen sources. Read them, they support this claim.

 

Really? If you can reliably state that, then you presumably have read them. And if they furnished you with reasons, you should be able to repeat those reasons.

 

Exactly. Since we cant help encountering new situations and having to apply or subjectives to them, what we must do is to use logic and reasoning to act in a way compatible with the genetic predispositions. Like in classical philosophy " I do this, because it is my nature to do it". This is a far better choice that to use a scripture as a moral code.

 

The sources are given so that I do not have to repeat 20 pages of research and news data on a forum. That the entire point of giving sources. Can u please read this short article from 'nature' before u answer:

http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...nd-genetic-makeup-influence-behavior-13907840

 

You have given me no reason to accept your conjecture, so, I reject it.
The notion of "altruistic genes" appears to be nonsense.

 

Sadly some people have been at least somewhat mentally abused during their upbringing, enough that their motivation derives from avoidance of punishment instead of accomplishing things that help society.

Generally, they are driven to find out more about the world they live in. They tend to understand very well that what they don't know can hurt them.

 

Ok. So ur a mortally repulsed by sources. I will give u one example that demonstrates genetic determinism in higher animals, then we will only discuss that example. OK?
The example is: Domestication.
Predatory instincts in wolves are gentically determined, coz artificial breeding by man create docile dogs. Similiarly, cattle have genetically determined in their herding behaviour. Try herding wildebeasts and then compare it to how easy it is to control dairy cows. Again, genetic selection having a clear effect on behaviour in higher animals.

 

Yes. It is a rather unfortunate fact that accepting 'god made it' to a question like 'why are orchids like this?' ends it right there. On the other hand, saying 'its a result of evolution' opens up the entire field of modern biology.

 

You must be fucking joking.

 

Ok then. Whats ur explaination of how domesticates become docile over time?
Why are dogs not aggressive like wolves and why do cattle not maul u for trying to steal their milk? Do they make conscious decisions, every time, every individual in every generation 'deciding' the same thing - being docile?

 

Asking me questions is not giving me reasons. It is over, you have not supported your contention and I am bored by your religious neurosis, if you can engage atheistically, go for it.

 

True, the thought process pretty much ends at god made it or god did it.

 

I already gave u sources u didnt read and reasons u dismissed. Running out of options, I asked, ok, then what is ur explaination? What the hell else am I supossed to do?

And if u mean by 'religious neurosis', my discussion with elte, that is a completely different issue than the one we are discussing. And what does "if you can engage atheistically, go for it" mean?

 

I dont, see post 43.

 

U neither answered my question nor adressed the issue at hand. If u want to troll, go to youtube. Either read the sources or post about genetic determinism of behaviours. Thats what this discussion is about. Pls be clear and concise as to what u want to discuss and what u propose I should do.