Why some humans are so evil: double standards and irreligion

[Aoi Magi]

Nope, that'd be the final step, and most people don't go so far. But I do believe you've made yourself vulnerable to being mislead, not because you believe in god, but because you are under the authority of an organized religion.

Ok, so I'm not there yet , but you think the main goal of my faith is to get me to lose my humanity, and I'm being led that way and will eventually get there if I give in? Lol.

This sounds like some weird conspiracy thing to me. And it wouldn't explain the fact that my faith has taught me a very humanistic sense of morality.

Where exactly did I say the words you are putting in my mouth?
Goal of religion isn't to get rid of humanity, it's goal is to make people be submissive to authority.


Regarding your morality based on religion, you've got it the other way around, your choice of religion is based on and conforms with your morality. You weren't born a catholic, you were raised a catholic. The heathens here don't go around raping, murdering people despite not believing in your religion, and you wouldn't either because good people are good irrespective of their religious affiliations.

[Catholic_Lady]

Ok, so I'm not there yet , but you think the main goal of my faith is to get me to lose my humanity, and I'm being led that way and will eventually get there if I give in? Lol.

This sounds like some weird conspiracy thing to me. And it wouldn't explain the fact that my faith has taught me a very humanistic sense of morality.

Where exactly did I say the words you are putting in my mouth?
Goal of religion isn't to get rid of humanity, it's goal is to make people be submissive to authority.


Regarding your morality based on religion, you've got it the other way around, your choice of religion is based on and conforms with your morality. You weren't born a catholic, you were raised a catholic. The heathens here don't go around raping, murdering people despite not believing in your religion, and you wouldn't either because good people are good irrespective of their religious affiliations.

Sorry, you made it sound like losing my humanity would be the final step of/intention of my faith, if I were to go that far.

I suppose you are right about the goal of my faith being to be "submissive to authority." Though that's an interesting way of putting it. Most of us would say that the goal is to strive to live by God's commandments... and I was taught that God commands us to love other people and do good for other people. Because all people have inherent dignity. Nearly all morality revolves around that basic fundamental principle.

Anyway, this whole interaction between you and I started because I told DownBeatDrum that religious ideals arent in and of themselves, inherently bad. It just depends on what the ideals are. Religious ideals can influence a person to do good or they can influence them to do bad, depending on what the religious ideals are... like any other ideals we live our life by. I'm still not sure how our discussion has followed that.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's like those silly FB-type posts asking if we would take part in The PurgeTM if it was a thing. My answer is a categorical "no",

Now wait a minute...let's not be hasty... 

[Whateverist]

Evil people will do evil things but for a good person to do evil takes a strong idea and religion fits the bill.

I never did understand that quote that I keep seeing around here. It doesn't mean religious ideals are, in and of themselves, intrinsically bad. Which is what I think the quote is trying to convey. Obviously any strong idea can influence you do bad things if it's a bad idea lol. And likewise a strong idea can influence you to do good things if it's a good idea. We can't just talk about ideas in isolation as though they are all the same, whether they came from religion or not.

I think it is more that religion is so powerfully motivating that it can over-ride our natural repulsion against killing or torturing a fellow human being.  Conditions of war and nationalist fervor is another such dangerous motivation.

[henryp]

Wally, if what you're saying is true, then why don't we just euthanize people who are often seen as a burden to society as a whole? Such as poor people, severely handicapped people, really sick people, etc? It would certainly be "better for society" in a purely materialistic sort of way. Why do we have so many people dedicating their lives and traveling to the poorest places on earth to help those in need?

Surely there is something in us that desires goodness, even though it is constantly in conflict with selfish desires, it's there. And we have the ability to choose which way we go. Dont you think?

This sounds like some weird conspiracy thing to me. And it wouldn't explain the fact that my faith has taught me a very humanistic sense of morality.

I think sometimes people have impulses or upbringings that truly align their behavior with what is considered good.  But I don't think it's the norm. 

For euthanasia, I think it'll be a tough sell, because we're all going to get old.  Contrast with abortion, where there's no risk of being a baby again.  Poor people have been left to die for all times.  I assume the same goes for handicapped and sick for much of history as well.   

And I think goodness is often in cahoots with selfish desires.  That's again why I think a lot of catholic teachings make sense regardless of catholicism being true.

[Whateverist]

Where exactly did I say the words you are putting in my mouth?  
Goal of religion isn't to get rid of humanity, it's goal is to make people be submissive to authority.


Regarding your morality based on religion, you've got it the other way around, your choice of religion is based on and conforms with your morality. You weren't born a catholic, you were raised a catholic. The heathens here don't go around raping, murdering people despite not believing in your religion, and you wouldn't either because good people are good irrespective of their religious affiliations.

Sorry, you made it sound like losing my humanity would be the final step of/intention of my faith, if I were to go that far.

I suppose you are right about the goal of my faith being to be "submissive to authority." Though that's an interesting way of putting it. Most of us would say that the goal is to strive to live by God's commandments... and I was taught that God commands us to love other people and do good for other people. Because all people have inherent dignity. Nearly all morality revolves around that basic fundamental principle.

Anyway, this whole interaction between you and I started because I told DownBeatDrum that religious ideals arent in and of themselves, inherently bad. It just depends on what the ideals are. Religious ideals can influence a person to do good or they can influence them to do bad, depending on what the religious ideals are... like any other ideals we live our life by. I'm still not sure how our discussion has followed that.

In my view, it isn't that religion inevitably results in a loss of humanity.  It is simply one of the motivating forces which can have that effect.  In the story of Abraham I doubt that sacrificing a son is anything that would otherwise ever cross his mind.  But believing it is God's command and simultaneously believing nothing is more important than pleasing God could bring him to do just that.  

There are plenty of stories of people having psychotic breaks who believe similar things, that Jesus wants you to send your kids on up ahead.  Next thing you know someone has rolled a car full of kids into a lake to drown them.

I guess the question is whether a religious person holds God in such a high regard as to overweigh every other consideration.  If so, then under duress they and their loved ones are in danger.

But it doesn't have to be religion.  Patriotism can also unbalance a person leading them to take extreme measures.

[Catholic_Lady]

Religious ideology, just as any ideology or any value system, can influence a person to do good or to do bad, depending on what the ideology is.

[WinterHold]

Or...the increase in quality of life ("stuff") for most people is a result of people trying to make the world better, not the driver.  Or both.  Do you really think people are neanderthal morally-vacuous animals that would be out raping and killing if we didn't have our current society in place?  That's...a really dark and frankly unsupported view.  Shit was bad in the past.  It's going to be just by definition, because as years go on, things get better and better for more and more people.

I guess I just have more faith in humanity than you.  I'm proud to be a member of the human race.  We're pretty much good folks.

How do women fare on the rape front in 3rd world countries?  30%+ people in Uganda had Aids in the 80's, cause they were just rolling through villages raping everybody.  That's what humans look like without stuff and consequences.  We were talking about Haiti, a 2006 UN report said half of the women living in the Port au Prince slums had been raped. 

There's still plenty of child sex trafficking going on in undeveloped countries.  Once you take away our 1st world society, things are just as awful as they've ever been.  What's more likely the exception?  You and me in 1st world countries for the last 30-50 years?  Or everybody for 199,000 years, and plenty of people in modern times.

If you're looking for the thing that separates us, it's stuff.

Exactly this: without law or a constitution; humans turn into animal.

---

I'm not a terrorist because I fear a lord. Fear a day of judgement.

I'm not a terrorist because I'm not an asshole. Do you really need a sky daddy to punish you to keep you from being an asshole. 

Yes, you do.

the internet is an example of that. When laws go away; civility goes away; too.

---

I certainly think that people can be heavily influenced by their circumstances.  The examples he gives sure illustrate that.  I just don't think we're defined by them.  Otherwise literally nothing would have ever changed for the better.  There would be no hope for progress or improvement or advancement.  And I think we can all agree that humanity has advanced since the first step of our species.

Progress/improvement/advancement is a product of self-interest.  Both on the personal level, and on the societal level.  It is not a moral thing.  For example, slavery was progress at one time.  People were trying to do the work themselves, and they thought "This is hard and not working great."  And then someone came up with slavery.  And everybody was all "This is fucking amazing!  We should have owned another group of people a long time ago!"  Slavery was a very important step in the advancement of society.

I see that slavery has the same origins of the action in the OP: greed and power.
You pay a maid to clean your house; you never pay a slave except the first time.

---

We've been pretty decent folks the entire time.  That;s what makes those big flashy examples of "evil" remarkable in the first place, they're a break from the norm - not the norm.  We've gotten up to more shit, recently, than we did in the 40 or 50k years preceding, honestly.  Today is not an example of relative peace for humanity n the larger view of our species time here (even if it is compared to more recent history).  Today is an example of unbearable inequality and resource scarcity.

I don't think so.
Humans did nasty, nasty stuff in all ages. Actually the invasion of Iraq while Mexican terrorists are skinning people alive and cut their hearts is one example of how evil human can be.

The evil apathy

---

It's always tricky trying to separate practicality and morality.  Like you say with Catholic doctrine, most of it is rooted in natural law.  So even if the church wasn't there to say it was right, it'd still be practical/common sense in many cases.  The flaw being that it's common sense from the perspective of all humanity, whereas usually laws are more geared towards helping a specific group of humans rather than all of them.

---

Yes. The Catholic Law is rooted in natural law and common sense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_maiden

---

So in your opinion, no good thing humans have ever done, no advancement or progress ever made, was for moral reasons?  Literally everything is in selfish self-interest and defined by material gains and holdings?

I think selfish self-interest (and tribal-interest) and material gains and holdings are very much a primary driving force.    Is it so odd?  Is that not the 'law of the jungle' so to speak?

---

But how do you explain the fact that there was still a need to justify it morally?

I think people need societal norms to adhere to.  I think that's important for a society to hold together, for it to have rules/laws.  So the justification is necessary to maintain the rules/laws.  You can't own people.  But we want to own these people.  Well we can't say anyone can own anyone, because I don't want to get owned.  Well, let's just say you can own black people because they aren't human.  I'd also add that because morality/law are intertwined, and people are taught they should be good, they want a way to frame themselves as good/follow the law.  But if they really wanted to be good, would we have had slavery and all the other stuff? 

It's always tricky trying to separate practicality and morality.  Like you say with Catholic doctrine, most of it is rooted in natural law.  So even if the church wasn't there to say it was right, it'd still be practical/common sense in many cases.  The flaw being that it's common sense from the perspective of all humanity, whereas usually laws are more geared towards helping a specific group of humans rather than all of them.

---

My favorite modern example, is music.  Look what happened when we were able to steal it off the internet instead of buy it.  They had to change the whole industry.  

We're seeing the same thing with tv/movies now as well even though it's 2018 and we're all in a non-broken society.  You can steal it, and there are no consequences.  So people steal it.

Oh and I forgot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cannibalism

Reports of cannibalism were recorded during the First Crusade, as Crusaders were alleged to have fed on the bodies of their dead opponents following the Siege of Ma'arrat al-Numan. Amin Maalouf also alleges further cannibalism incidents on the march to Jerusalem, and to the efforts made to delete mention of these from Western history.[61] During Europe's Great Famine of 1315–1317 there were many reports of cannibalism among the starving populations. In North Africa, as in Europe, there are references to cannibalism as a last resort in times of famine.[62]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_cannibalism#cite_note-62][/url]

Catholicismis not common sense

---

Usually because of some fucking god or other such primitive shit.

Evil people will do evil things but for a good person to do evil takes a strong idea and religion fits the bill

People are a gray region.
Nobody is good or evil.

---

---

Humans do have the essence of both "good & evil" inside their minds; I can say that no person is purely evil or purely good, we always stand in a gray spot.
I disagree with you that all religions fail at defining good and evil; or the natural gray spot we all stand in. Yes; many religions fail to define what is natural and what isn't; but I do believe that Islam is very different from other religions.

I'm a theist; and matters are not summed in a simple "only good should happen" sentence. Controlling (and creating) both good & evil, attributing the act of creation of both ways to a single entity, is one aspect I find very logical.

---

It's off of the topic of evil and on to the existence of a deity, but we know quite well what causes a "ground bounce".  No deity required.  If you meditate on a text long enough, and have been told repeatedly that when you do so and pray you will receive messages from a god, your brain will create those messages.  No deity required.  
What is enough to prove he's there?  Have him show up and say "hi".   We'll need video-cameras and multiple witnesses at the very least.

Are you tracing the origins of the phenomena with full extent?
For example; we know various reasons for the bounce. More tracing will get us to earth. Then planets. Then galaxies...you see where this is going.

Tracing gives us the full story. And the full story is unanswered by science. Science stops at the big bang.
And  ground shaking is nothing but an aftermath of that bang.

The mind can imagine messages, there is where I think a right religion would matter, separating truth from fantasy. A God who will show up in this life is not worthy; though.

---

Do you understand what a cartel does to people who don't display the proper loyalty, what it does to their families?  Do you think that doesn't extend to their own employees?

So yeah, we see them do something horrible...but it would be lazy to think that they do it purely out of gree or lust for power, or even simple evil..though I'm sure that's true in a few cases of batshit crazy fucking psychos.  Just as it would be lazy to imagine that they do it because they aren't religious.  The majority of people in c and s american cartels, for example are -deeply- religious, not because the cartel is religious, but because the people who it is made up of are by default.

Some even support a cartel because they see the cartel as standing up to abusive government on their behalf.  Helicopters spraying their farms with bullets..setting them on fire.  Sons snatched in the middle of the night by faceless men with a single green eye.  OFC they back the guy that shoots back.  You should be very familiar with this, given your religion and residence.  I can't fathom what it is, ultimately, that compels you to say things that I know you realize can't be true.

If the official reasons for doing this are true; they wouldn't be laughing while doing it. There is a high degree of joy when the blood spills; to me that's a person enjoying what he/she does.

Middle Eastern governments and terrorists over here, have similar torture gulags that we hear about unofficially, but everybody knows they are there. Secret prisons and all. They do the same. And the torture is usually enjoyed by the executioner. To make people suffer the most; they need to enjoy brutality.

The cartels are the one of the saddest transformations of rebellion against capitalism in South America.

[WinterHold]

Those things aren;t unified across all societies.  Some societies have/had no concept of property, and so no concept of theft, for example.  Fear of reprisal couldn't even factor in in those cases, reprisal for what and by whom?  

-and yet they managed not to "take each others stuff": as we would conceive of it.

Long story short...we don;t actually have to whip the shit out of people, or threaten to whip them..to keep them from doing bad shit.  Honestly, that compells them to do bad shit in the first place.  That might go at least a little way to explaining why people have been fucking up so hard particularly since we started believing in religions formed around that very concept.  The man who accepts the doctrine of eternal torment isn't going to bat an eye at a moment of the same.  

You may think that your acceptance of this is the reason that you're not a terrorist, but in truth, it's probably the reason that you're closer than I am to being one.  You are actually describing law and norms, up above, as the employment of terror.  Suggesting that terror is what makes us act right.  You know who else thinks that?  Allah and all his mujahideen.

Every country in the world has prisons, armies and police. They even call it "law enforcement".
There is an official institution for enforcing fear in every country in the world.

If I'm a terrorist for suggesting that "deterrence is caused by fear"; then all armies of the world are terrorists; with the U.S sitting on the throne with lots of atomic, terrorist weapons.

The first operation in the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was officially named "shock and awe"..that's quite terrorist.

---

...I'm not a terrorist because I fear a lord. Fear a day of judgement...

Did Ted Bundy / Jeffrey Dahmer have a fear of judgement? Bundy murdered 30+ women, the actual figure is likely much higher, we will never know. Dahmer ate 17 blokes. But while awaiting execution they both became Born Again Christians and confessed their sins. They're in heaven.
 
Now Bill Gates and Warren Oats between them have ~$80 billion in a charity fund dedicated to improving the lives of mostly children in developing countries. And guess what? The two of them are destined to burn in hell for all eternity because they won't kiss Hank's arse. 

I read a lot about Judgement, redemption, salvation, forgiveness, absolution, deliverance, etcetera, et fucking cetera. Nowhere do I see the words fairness or compassion. They aren’t in the fundie vocabulary. Theirs is a binary position, heaven or burn. Are they so totally devoid of imagination that they can't see a problem with this?

I can't find the words to express my contempt for the deranged arseholes, and I mean that!

Edit. Spelling.

It's a bad turn for the Christian faith to have the confession concept.
All humans are capable of lying to save their skins; or at least save their public image.

The same goes with Bill Gates and his phony charity work. But one thing I stress on: Islam has different standards for judgement, unlike Christianity and other faiths.

[Succubus]

The same goes with Bill Gates and his phony charity work. But one thing I stress on: Islam has different standards for judgement, unlike Christianity and other faiths.

Arsehole!