• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why I am non-religious

A person who is high strung can choose to become calmer over time, or vice-versa.

No, a person can choose actions (like going to therapy) that may (or may not) lead to becoming calmer.

Even if we cannot choose our personality (I think we can, but suppose we cannot), why does that imply we cannot choose our values?

Values are just ethical beliefs. Beliefs are not chosen. We just have beliefs. We don't choose to believe something is the case anymore than we choose to experience red when we look upon a stop sign or to feel pain when you stub your toe. It simply appears in our consciousness without any intent on our behalf for it to do so. I cannot choose to believe that an anvil is about to fall out of the sky and kill me. I can imagine such a thing, I can visualize such a thing. But I don't believe it. If I believed it I wouldn't still be typing this, I would be diving for cover.
 
I don't believe in agency since we have no ability to choose our personality and hence we have no ability to choose our values. As such, I don't believe there is such a thing as good and evil, because the idea of good and evil is based on the idea of having agency to choose, meaning choose our values.

It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious.
Oscar wilde.
 
So you don't believe that, say, what Hitler or Stalin did was evil?

They were not evil, and it's provable... whatever "evil" means, which is undefinable.

Hitler and Stalin did not cause all that destruction on their own. They probably did not kill even one human being themselves, ever. The just barked out orders and a lot of other people -- A LOT -- chose to adhere to the orders and carry them out.

Where all those people evil too? It's easy to show that such a group of almost random people just happened to be "evil" and be at the same place and time as their "evil" leader. That's statistically improbable.

The term "evil" assumes that there is some benevolent supernatural entity out there that some humans refuse to follow, and they follow the hypothetical malevolent supernatural entity instead.

That's just mental crap. :)
 
They were not evil, and it's provable... whatever "evil" means, which is undefinable.

Hitler and Stalin did not cause all that destruction on their own. They probably did not kill even one human being themselves, ever. The just barked out orders and a lot of other people -- A LOT -- chose to adhere to the orders and carry them out.

Where all those people evil too? It's easy to show that such a group of almost random people just happened to be "evil" and be at the same place and time as their "evil" leader. That's statistically improbable.

The term "evil" assumes that there is some benevolent supernatural entity out there that some humans refuse to follow, and they follow the hypothetical malevolent supernatural entity instead.

That's just mental crap. :)


Uh.....both Hitler and Stalin were pretty clearly evil individuals, even from an objective standpoint.

You do realize Hitler fought in the First World War and Stalin fought in the Russian Civil War, right? They both personally got their hands dirty at one time or another.

Telling somebody to commit an evil act reflects on the person giving the order.
 
Given that some killers go free, or are not even brought up on charges at all (cops/military cough cough), I would say it means their actions were deemed okay. Maybe you don't understand morale relativism?

And why should they be?

Defending oneself and protecting others isn't a crime. Neither is eliminating those who had ordered the murders of hundreds of innocents, or participated in such actions.
 
Telling somebody to commit an evil act reflects on the person giving the order.


So, hypothetically speaking, if one of those evil people gave an order to your father to kill hundreds of people in a gas chamber and your father complied and killed them, it's the the evil person that gave the order that is at moral fault, and not your father?

There is no evil. There's no gods either.
 
Uh.....both Hitler and Stalin were pretty clearly evil individuals, even from an objective standpoint.

You do realize Hitler fought in the First World War and Stalin fought in the Russian Civil War, right? They both personally got their hands dirty at one time or another.

Telling somebody to commit an evil act reflects on the person giving the order.

I disagee with the word 'objective'.. but I will agree from 'an almost universal point of view.'
 
the_recruit said:
No, a person can choose actions (like going to therapy) that may (or may not) lead to becoming calmer.

This isn't exactly what I was talking about. It seems to me that people can actually choose to be more of whatever quality they wish, within some limits. A person can learn to interrupt perturbing emotions or thoughts, and do so simply by choosing to do so. A person can decide to be more honest, less serious, more studious, more kind, less trustworthy, and so on. Obviously, not all personal qualities are like this--a person cannot choose to be smarter, taller, more blue-eyed, quicker (by much, anyway), and so on. But by concentrated will and vigilance, a person can change quite a lot about themselves.

Now, suppose this is false. I don't think it is, but suppose it is false, and what you say is true. A person can choose to go to therapy (for example) and so become more calm. As you seem to say, the person will have chosen an action with a certain result, and will have intended to bring that result about by choosing that action. I don't see how that is a problem for my claim. If I decide to cook dinner and claim that's what I've done, it's no refutation of my claim that what I actually did was choose to cut up some veggies and a chicken breast, turn on the oven, put it all in a pan, and so on. If I choose an action with a consequence of which I'm aware, and intend the consequence, I've chosen the consequence.

the_recruit said:
Values are just ethical beliefs.

I'm not sure about that (actually, I'm pretty sure it's false). Let me try to get clear on your claim first, though. When you say values are ethical beliefs, do you mean that values are identical with ethical beliefs, or that values are a kind of ethical belief? If the latter and not the former, what kinds of ethical beliefs are not values?

the_recruit said:
Beliefs are not chosen. We just have beliefs.

This also seems false. I take your claim to be this: for all x, if x is a belief, then x is not chosen. While I would agree that no one wakes up and says "today, I'm going to believe in unicorns," and then actually succeeds in believing in unicorns (unless they already did believe in unicorns), I don't think this is all there is to say on the matter. Beliefs can be arrived at through a process of cognitive investigation, and one can choose which of several alternative logical pathways to take when performing an investigation. The most obvious example is that one can choose when to stop investigating. Very often--you can see it all the time on these boards--people choose to stop rational investigation because they've already got a belief they like and don't want to abandon. That is a case of choosing a belief.

Of course, there are more obvious instances of choosing a belief. When we are presented with two inconsistent pieces of testimony, we must choose which to believe. Now, it's no answer to say that one may be obviously more believable, or that one's values dispose one toward one piece of testimony over another. That's just what a choice is.

the_recruit said:
We don't choose to believe something is the case anymore than we choose to experience red when we look upon a stop sign or to feel pain when you stub your toe. It simply appears in our consciousness without any intent on our behalf for it to do so. I cannot choose to believe that an anvil is about to fall out of the sky and kill me. I can imagine such a thing, I can visualize such a thing. But I don't believe it. If I believed it I wouldn't still be typing this, I would be diving for cover.

Sure. I agree that this kind of belief-choice doesn't happen. But it's not the only possibility here.
 
It is absurd to divide people into good and bad. People are either charming or tedious.
Oscar wilde.

Too few understand that Milo is the reincarnation of Oscar.
 
I disagee with the word 'objective'.. but I will agree from 'an almost universal point of view.'

'Evil' like 'beauty' is in the eye of the beholder. The best we can hope for that the Stalins and the Hitlers are almost universally seen as evil.
 
So, hypothetically speaking, if one of those evil people gave an order to your father to kill hundreds of people in a gas chamber and your father complied and killed them, it's the the evil person that gave the order that is at moral fault, and not your father?

There is no evil. There's no gods either.

Born of them are at fault. Just because you don't think there is a God, that does not mean that there isn't evil in the world.
 
I disagee with the word 'objective'.. but I will agree from 'an almost universal point of view.'

If you accept the premise that murdering lots of people is bad, even if you don't care about the people that were murdered, you'd still come to the conclusion that what they did was evil.
 
If you accept the premise that murdering lots of people is bad, even if you don't care about the people that were murdered, you'd still come to the conclusion that what they did was evil.


From my cultual perspective, because of what I think about it. It's precisely because of how people think about it, not despite what people think about it.
 
I don't believe in agency since we have no ability to choose our personality and hence we have no ability to choose our values. As such, I don't believe there is such a thing as good and evil, because the idea of good and evil is based on the idea of having agency to choose, meaning choose our values.

I know of no one who bases the concepts of good and evil on agency. Well...I knew of no one until you came around that is...

Without agency, you might be able to argue that all evil is natural evil and there is no such thing as moral evil. Alternately, you might argue for a redefinition of moral evil. But the lack of agency wouldn't help you argue against the existence of evil at all.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe in agency since we have no ability to choose our personality and hence we have no ability to choose our values.
In actuality you do have the ability to choose both your personality and your values, as they are the creation of your own thoughts, whether right or wrong.

There is no more subjectivity in morality than their is in mathematics, and both are linked to one another.

As such, I don't believe there is such a thing as good and evil, because the idea of good and evil is based on the idea of having agency to choose, meaning choose our values.
You would be incorrect on both counts.

Those who feel the need to deny evil are far more likely to have something to hide, hence their desire to solipsistic define reality by their own perceptions than objective realities.
 
And why should they be?

Defending oneself and protecting others isn't a crime. Neither is eliminating those who had ordered the murders of hundreds of innocents, or participated in such actions.

Again, maybe you don't understand moral relativism:
Man faces jail after protecting home from masked attackers
Man faces jail after protecting home from masked attackers | National Post

Sometimes it is legal to defend yourself, other times it is not.

Sometimes it is legal to just wantonly kill people accused of selling drugs, sometimes it is not.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/01/24/deadly-milestone-philippines-abusive-drug-war
 
This isn't exactly what I was talking about. It seems to me that people can actually choose to be more of whatever quality they wish, within some limits.

But you don't get to choose what qualities you wish to have. Don't believe me? Wish to become a bank robber that wants to rob at least ten banks in ten months and go do it. Don't tell me you could, go do it, let yourself get caught, and then respond to this post. I mean, you think we have agency, it should be simple enough for you to do.

Oh, and whatever your sexual orientation, have sex with someone of the gender you don't like too. Film it and provide the link.

Use your agency and go crazy with it!
 
Ace300 said:
But you don't get to choose what qualities you wish to have. Don't believe me? Wish to become a bank robber that wants to rob at least ten banks in ten months and go do it. Don't tell me you could, go do it, let yourself get caught, and then respond to this post. I mean, you think we have agency, it should be simple enough for you to do.

It might be simple, but it also obviously has bad consequences that I don't particularly want to invoke. You seem to confuse the fact that there are some things we are not free to do with the claim that we are not free to do anything. The latter claim clearly does not follow from the former fact.

As for whether I can choose what qualities I want to have...well, within limits, sure I can. I agree I do not have complete freedom to so choose. I'm not sure why that is relevant, though--if I choose to be calmer, it's not really an argument against the existence of my choice to say that I didn't choose my choice, and so I don't have a choice. I never claimed to have a choice of choices...just a choice.
 
I don't believe in agency since we have no ability to choose our personality and hence we have no ability to choose our values. As such, I don't believe there is such a thing as good and evil, because the idea of good and evil is based on the idea of having agency to choose, meaning choose our values.

The search for moral absolutes without a transcendent reference (i.e. God) is an impossibility, for what we are left with is simply moral relativism, where one person's thought-out morality is arguably as good as that of another. That's why many atheists and agnostics have a problem identifying what evil is - there is no absolute reference point for them.

God's moral laws are absolute - they originate from an outside and divine source. They are for all people in all places at all times in history. They do not change.

Man's laws, if not based on God's laws, are subjective. They tend to change over time, in different places, and in different cultures. One example is prohibition, while another is gay marriage.

Generally speaking, absolute Laws, originating from God, are normally the hallmark of Christian conservatives, while moral relativism is usually embraced by the liberal left, atheists, and agnostics.

You know what's curious is the number of people (lots of liberals, atheists, and agnostics) who reject God but who nevertheless claim that God is evil. Apparently they can always work up a quick definition of evil when it comes to God and conservatives.
 
Last edited:
The search for moral absolutes without a transcendent reference (i.e. God) is an impossibility, for what we are left with is simply moral relativism, where one person's thought-out morality is arguably as good as that of another. That's why many atheists and agnostics have a problem identifying what evil is - there is no absolute reference point for them.

God's moral laws are absolute - they originate from an outside and divine source. They are for all people in all places at all times in history. They do not change.

Man's laws, if not based on God's laws, are subjective. They tend to change over time, in different places, and in different cultures. One example is prohibition, while another is gay marriage.

Generally speaking, absolute Laws, originating from God, are normally the hallmark of Christian conservatives, while moral relativism is usually embraced by the liberal left, atheists, and agnostics.

You know what's curious is the number of people (lots of liberals, atheists, and agnostics) who reject God but who nevertheless claim that God is evil. Apparently they can always work up a quick definition of evil when it comes to God and conservatives.

If god's laws are absolute, then why does he break them all the time?

Epicurus pretty much debunked the whole philosophy about the god is good thing centuries ago:

ThHt1XI.jpg
 
If god's laws are absolute, then why does he break them all the time?

Epicurus pretty much debunked the whole philosophy about the god is good thing centuries ago:

ThHt1XI.jpg

It's too bad you stopped following the conversation some 2000 years ago. There's been a lot more said on the topic since.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/
 
The search for moral absolutes without a transcendent reference (i.e. God) is an impossibility, for what we are left with is simply moral relativism, where one person's thought-out morality is arguably as good as that of another. That's why many atheists and agnostics have a problem identifying what evil is - there is no absolute reference point for them.

God's moral laws are absolute - they originate from an outside and divine source. They are for all people in all places at all times in history. They do not change.

Man's laws, if not based on God's laws, are subjective. They tend to change over time, in different places, and in different cultures. One example is prohibition, while another is gay marriage.

Generally speaking, absolute Laws, originating from God, are normally the hallmark of Christian conservatives, while moral relativism is usually embraced by the liberal left, atheists, and agnostics.

You know what's curious is the number of people (lots of liberals, atheists, and agnostics) who reject God but who nevertheless claim that God is evil. Apparently they can always work up a quick definition of evil when it comes to God and conservatives.

Moral relativism is not embraced by anyone. It is merely a fact of life because there is no ultimate moral authority and so there are no moral absolutes. Morality is a human concept and only applies to human societies and the behavior of people. Man-made morality is subjective as it has changed historically and varies among different societies.
 
Being taught to be religious makes no sense as it is the so-called soul that is religion, not the mind. No one in my family went to church after my folks took me and my brother there for exposure to see if it stuck. It never did so after a few visits it was over. From childhood I resented the idea of a human telling others he or she knew of god but could not prove it. To claim to know what god is is the same as declaring they were there at the big bang so they can explain all the physics of it.
 
Moral relativism is not embraced by anyone.

Sorry, not buying that for a second.

It is merely a fact of life because there is no ultimate moral authority and so there are no moral absolutes.

There are moral absolutes, and they derive from the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
 
Back
Top Bottom