If there was no afterlife......... (1 Viewer)

[tonydead]

Assume that this was the prevalent thought since the beginning of time as opposed to what we have today. How different the world would be, eh? Is man, from the outset, a generally moral being or would we be living a Mad Max type of existence?

Whether you believe or not, the religious influence that regulates, to some degree, everything in our lives (the law) is hard to unwind from our thought process, no? We've never known it otherwise. Yes, you can argue the the 10 commandments are just common sense and someone wrote a well intentioned book (the Bible) around them to promote widespread acceptance but that's not what I'm talking about. The basis of law has very little meaning when the overarching reason to be a good person is removed from the equation. It's completely shaped society as we know it today, right?

I'm not sure how you remove that and don't think you would live your life differently

What are you talking about; like 7 out of the 10 aren't even against the law? No common sense at all really. We are good people because that's what serves our ability to survive and reproduce. Murder for example, arguably the worst "sin" of all, does exactly the opposite. Doesn't have anything to do with religion.

 

[CBusAlex]

The basis of law has very little meaning when the overarching reason to be a good person is removed from the equation. It's completely shaped society as we know it today, right?

The basis of the law isn't to be a good person, it's to not screw up things for the people around you. You don't need a religious justification for that.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I could only imagine the chaos that the earth would have been in and would still be in if no one believed in the after life.

I think this is a really poor assumption, and truly believe that there would be no more evil if everyone stopped believing in the afterlife tomorrow. The least violent states in the US are the least religious. The most violent state is among the most religious. Prisons are full of religious people and most of the world's greatest villains were religious. I'd argue that 99% of them still think they're going to heaven because, really, who the hell would be a criminal if they actually believed they were going to be strung up with barbed wire and set on fire for the rest of eternity?

The problem with religion is that their holy texts give just as many people their own perverted justification for evil as the number of people they scare out of it. Maybe if organized religion got their #### together and actually removed the sociopathic evil from their texts then it would help a little. But as it is currently a Christian rapist can find his favorite rape passage from the bible to justify raping someone. A Muslim terrorist can find his favorite "behead the infidels!" verse for the Quran to justify beheading a non-Muslim. And just about anyone can find their favorite "everything is forgiven" passage to justify doing any damned thing they want.

Good people are good people whether they're religious or not. A rapist that doesn't rape because he wants to go to heaven is going to end up raping, and then using one of the 8,000 loopholes in the bible to make himself think he's still going to heaven.

 

[cosjobs]

Would you life your life different?

If there is an afterlife, I hope they teach spelling and grammar

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I could only imagine the chaos that the earth would have been in and would still be in if no one believed in the after life.

I think this is a really poor assumption, and truly believe that there would be no more evil if everyone stopped believing in the afterlife tomorrow. The least violent states in the US are the least religious. The most violent state is among the most religious. Prisons are full of religious people and most of the world's greatest villains were religious. I'd argue that 99% of them still think they're going to heaven because, really, who the hell would be a criminal if they actually believed they were going to be strung up with barbed wire and set on fire for the rest of eternity?

The problem with religion is that their holy texts give just as many people their own perverted justification for evil as the number of people they scare out of it. Maybe if organized religion got their #### together and actually removed the sociopathic evil from their texts then it would help a little. But as it is currently a Christian rapist can find his favorite rape passage from the bible to justify raping someone. A Muslim terrorist can find his favorite "behead the infidels!" verse for the Quran to justify beheading a non-Muslim. And just about anyone can find their favorite "everything is forgiven" passage to justify doing any damned thing they want.

Good people are good people whether they're religious or not. A rapist that doesn't rape because he wants to go to heaven is going to end up raping, and then using one of the 8,000 loopholes in the bible to make himself think he's still going to heaven.

You got it messed up - the only way to eliminate evil is to eliminate good. Evil does not exist without good, just as good does not exist without evil. They are comparative. So the simple solution is to eliminate good and evil goes away.

 

[cosjobs]

I could only imagine the chaos that the earth would have been in and would still be in if no one believed in the after life.

I think this is a really poor assumption, and truly believe that there would be no more evil if everyone stopped believing in the afterlife tomorrow. The least violent states in the US are the least religious. The most violent state is among the most religious. Prisons are full of religious people and most of the world's greatest villains were religious. I'd argue that 99% of them still think they're going to heaven because, really, who the hell would be a criminal if they actually believed they were going to be strung up with barbed wire and set on fire for the rest of eternity?

The problem with religion is that their holy texts give just as many people their own perverted justification for evil as the number of people they scare out of it. Maybe if organized religion got their #### together and actually removed the sociopathic evil from their texts then it would help a little. But as it is currently a Christian rapist can find his favorite rape passage from the bible to justify raping someone. A Muslim terrorist can find his favorite "behead the infidels!" verse for the Quran to justify beheading a non-Muslim. And just about anyone can find their favorite "everything is forgiven" passage to justify doing any damned thing they want.

Good people are good people whether they're religious or not. A rapist that doesn't rape because he wants to go to heaven is going to end up raping, and then using one of the 8,000 loopholes in the bible to make himself think he's still going to heaven.

You got it messed up - the only way to eliminate evil is to eliminate good. Evil does not exist without good, just as good does not exist without evil. They are comparative. So the simple solution is to eliminate good and evil goes away.

evil does not exist if the is no evil. But no evil does not mean good. There could easily be meh and evil with no good.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I could only imagine the chaos that the earth would have been in and would still be in if no one believed in the after life.

I think this is a really poor assumption, and truly believe that there would be no more evil if everyone stopped believing in the afterlife tomorrow. The least violent states in the US are the least religious. The most violent state is among the most religious. Prisons are full of religious people and most of the world's greatest villains were religious. I'd argue that 99% of them still think they're going to heaven because, really, who the hell would be a criminal if they actually believed they were going to be strung up with barbed wire and set on fire for the rest of eternity?

The problem with religion is that their holy texts give just as many people their own perverted justification for evil as the number of people they scare out of it. Maybe if organized religion got their #### together and actually removed the sociopathic evil from their texts then it would help a little. But as it is currently a Christian rapist can find his favorite rape passage from the bible to justify raping someone. A Muslim terrorist can find his favorite "behead the infidels!" verse for the Quran to justify beheading a non-Muslim. And just about anyone can find their favorite "everything is forgiven" passage to justify doing any damned thing they want.

Good people are good people whether they're religious or not. A rapist that doesn't rape because he wants to go to heaven is going to end up raping, and then using one of the 8,000 loopholes in the bible to make himself think he's still going to heaven.

You got it messed up - the only way to eliminate evil is to eliminate good. Evil does not exist without good, just as good does not exist without evil. They are comparative. So the simple solution is to eliminate good and evil goes away.

evil does not exist if the is no evil. But no evil does not mean good. There could easily be meh and evil with no good.

You are correct that absence of evil is not presence of good - everything is neutral without something to compare it against.

 

[17seconds]

A better question would be, if I knew there was an afterlife would I live my life differently. That, I would answer yes.

Better than that would be - if the answer to the question "is there an afterlife?" was, in fact, the opposite of what you believe would you live your life differently?

 

[17seconds]

Would you life your life different?

If there is an afterlife, I hope they teach spelling and grammar

I would life the lifiest life I could life

 

[matuski]

I could only imagine the chaos that the earth would have been in and would still be in if no one believed in the after life.

I think this is a really poor assumption, and truly believe that there would be no more evil if everyone stopped believing in the afterlife tomorrow. The least violent states in the US are the least religious. The most violent state is among the most religious. Prisons are full of religious people and most of the world's greatest villains were religious. I'd argue that 99% of them still think they're going to heaven because, really, who the hell would be a criminal if they actually believed they were going to be strung up with barbed wire and set on fire for the rest of eternity?

The problem with religion is that their holy texts give just as many people their own perverted justification for evil as the number of people they scare out of it. Maybe if organized religion got their #### together and actually removed the sociopathic evil from their texts then it would help a little. But as it is currently a Christian rapist can find his favorite rape passage from the bible to justify raping someone. A Muslim terrorist can find his favorite "behead the infidels!" verse for the Quran to justify beheading a non-Muslim. And just about anyone can find their favorite "everything is forgiven" passage to justify doing any damned thing they want.

Good people are good people whether they're religious or not. A rapist that doesn't rape because he wants to go to heaven is going to end up raping, and then using one of the 8,000 loopholes in the bible to make himself think he's still going to heaven.

You got it messed up - the only way to eliminate evil is to eliminate good. Evil does not exist without good, just as good does not exist without evil. They are comparative. So the simple solution is to eliminate good and evil goes away.

evil does not exist if the is no evil. But no evil does not mean good. There could easily be meh and evil with no good.

You are correct that absence of evil is not presence of good - everything is neutral without something to compare it against.

So we make up an invisible untouchable un-disprovable entity in our image and call it the standard.

Then other people make up invisible untouchable un-disprovable entities and we fight wars over whose is more good.

 

[ghostguy123]

I often imagine how much more wonderful the earth would have been and would still be if no one believed in the after life.

Agreed. If from the beginning of time religion/afterlife was never a thought, I really believe the world would be a much better place in just about every way.

All the "good" things the church does (things like food drives, raising money, child care stuff..............whatever else) would still be done just as much, just without the religious overtones.

It would be interesting to see how evolution would have worked with human nature if people were brought up for thousands of years being taught to be good to other for the sake of being good rather than to keep from going to hell.

 

[ghostguy123]

So we make up an invisible untouchable un-disprovable entity in our image and call it the standard.

Then other people make up invisible untouchable un-disprovable entities and we fight wars over whose is more good.

I'll fight you right now about it.

Religion has served as a pretty good form of population control over the years I suppose.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I often imagine how much more wonderful the earth would have been and would still be if no one believed in the after life.

Agreed. If from the beginning of time religion/afterlife was never a thought, I really believe the world would be a much better place in just about every way.

All the "good" things the church does (things like food drives, raising money, child care stuff..............whatever else) would still be done just as much, just without the religious overtones.

It would be interesting to see how evolution would have worked with human nature if people were brought up for thousands of years being taught to be good to other for the sake of being good rather than to keep from going to hell.

And we'd all have our damned hover boards and flying cars by now if technology hadn't been set back 1000 years during the time period when religion ruled (aptly named The Dark Ages).

 

[ghostguy123]

I often imagine how much more wonderful the earth would have been and would still be if no one believed in the after life.

Agreed. If from the beginning of time religion/afterlife was never a thought, I really believe the world would be a much better place in just about every way.

All the "good" things the church does (things like food drives, raising money, child care stuff..............whatever else) would still be done just as much, just without the religious overtones.

It would be interesting to see how evolution would have worked with human nature if people were brought up for thousands of years being taught to be good to other for the sake of being good rather than to keep from going to hell.

And we'd all have our damned hover boards and flying cars by now if technology hadn't been set back 1000 years during the time period when religion ruled (aptly named The Dark Ages).

Yeah but the terminators might have killed us all by now

 

[Zigg]

Would I have a sexy robot in this religion free world by now?

 

[ShamrockPride]

And another thing: if there's no afterlife, why would anyone care if there was still a god? Isn't that kind of the whole idea? If you believe in god, you want to get in good with the big man because this life is only temporary and eternity is what's important?

I don't think your hypothetical makes sense for anyone who currently believes in god.

Believing in god =/= living to get in good with the big man. . . at least I hope not

Even though to my understanding in most religions being a non-believer means you're going to hell (or whatever the equivalent)...

 

[Christo]

This is a really weird question. I don't understand at all living different in case of an afterlife. The people that say they are only living a certain way in case of an afterlife and would alter that approach if there was no afterlife seem mentally ill.

I know a hell of a lot of people who say they believe there's an afterlife who don't live their lives like they actually do.

 

[Christo]

I could only imagine the chaos that the earth would have been in and would still be in if no one believed in the after life.

I think this is a really poor assumption, and truly believe that there would be no more evil if everyone stopped believing in the afterlife tomorrow. The least violent states in the US are the least religious. The most violent state is among the most religious. Prisons are full of religious people and most of the world's greatest villains were religious. I'd argue that 99% of them still think they're going to heaven because, really, who the hell would be a criminal if they actually believed they were going to be strung up with barbed wire and set on fire for the rest of eternity?

The problem with religion is that their holy texts give just as many people their own perverted justification for evil as the number of people they scare out of it. Maybe if organized religion got their #### together and actually removed the sociopathic evil from their texts then it would help a little. But as it is currently a Christian rapist can find his favorite rape passage from the bible to justify raping someone. A Muslim terrorist can find his favorite "behead the infidels!" verse for the Quran to justify beheading a non-Muslim. And just about anyone can find their favorite "everything is forgiven" passage to justify doing any damned thing they want.

Good people are good people whether they're religious or not. A rapist that doesn't rape because he wants to go to heaven is going to end up raping, and then using one of the 8,000 loopholes in the bible to make himself think he's still going to heaven.

You got it messed up - the only way to eliminate evil is to eliminate good. Evil does not exist without good, just as good does not exist without evil. They are comparative. So the simple solution is to eliminate good and evil goes away.

Simple?

 

[IC FBGCav]

Would you life your life different?

If there is an afterlife, I hope they teach spelling and grammar

Might want to put a period at the end of that. HTH

 

[CowboysFromHell]

A better question would be, if I knew there was an afterlife would I live my life differently. That, I would answer yes.

Better than that would be - if the answer to the question "is there an afterlife?" was, in fact, the opposite of what you believe would you live your life differently?

Way better question, and one I would answer differently.

 

[Rirruto]

Life is already too long. I would be pissed off to find out there's more of it later.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I could only imagine the chaos that the earth would have been in and would still be in if no one believed in the after life.

I think this is a really poor assumption, and truly believe that there would be no more evil if everyone stopped believing in the afterlife tomorrow. The least violent states in the US are the least religious. The most violent state is among the most religious. Prisons are full of religious people and most of the world's greatest villains were religious. I'd argue that 99% of them still think they're going to heaven because, really, who the hell would be a criminal if they actually believed they were going to be strung up with barbed wire and set on fire for the rest of eternity?

The problem with religion is that their holy texts give just as many people their own perverted justification for evil as the number of people they scare out of it. Maybe if organized religion got their #### together and actually removed the sociopathic evil from their texts then it would help a little. But as it is currently a Christian rapist can find his favorite rape passage from the bible to justify raping someone. A Muslim terrorist can find his favorite "behead the infidels!" verse for the Quran to justify beheading a non-Muslim. And just about anyone can find their favorite "everything is forgiven" passage to justify doing any damned thing they want.

Good people are good people whether they're religious or not. A rapist that doesn't rape because he wants to go to heaven is going to end up raping, and then using one of the 8,000 loopholes in the bible to make himself think he's still going to heaven.

You got it messed up - the only way to eliminate evil is to eliminate good. Evil does not exist without good, just as good does not exist without evil. They are comparative. So the simple solution is to eliminate good and evil goes away.

evil does not exist if the is no evil. But no evil does not mean good. There could easily be meh and evil with no good.

You are correct that absence of evil is not presence of good - everything is neutral without something to compare it against.

So we make up an invisible untouchable un-disprovable entity in our image and call it the standard.

Then other people make up invisible untouchable un-disprovable entities and we fight wars over whose is more good.

You have issues with religion apparently, where did I mention an untouchable, unproveable entity? I am really just looking at the topic of good or evil in the absence of either. How do we measure evil? In my experience we have some moral standard that is normal (neutral) and if something is "better" than standard it is ranging toward good. If something is "worse" than standard it is ranging toward evil. So in your case - if we had a perfect standard - some created entity you speak of - wouldn't that standard be neutral - and going above it would be good and below it would be evil? Just meeting the standard would be neutral.

The better question to me is what is the standard by which we measure good and evil? How often does that standard change? Can there be any moral absolutes? Do we get to vote on what is good vs evil? Does it vary by culture?

 

[matuski]

I could only imagine the chaos that the earth would have been in and would still be in if no one believed in the after life.

I think this is a really poor assumption, and truly believe that there would be no more evil if everyone stopped believing in the afterlife tomorrow. The least violent states in the US are the least religious. The most violent state is among the most religious. Prisons are full of religious people and most of the world's greatest villains were religious. I'd argue that 99% of them still think they're going to heaven because, really, who the hell would be a criminal if they actually believed they were going to be strung up with barbed wire and set on fire for the rest of eternity?

The problem with religion is that their holy texts give just as many people their own perverted justification for evil as the number of people they scare out of it. Maybe if organized religion got their #### together and actually removed the sociopathic evil from their texts then it would help a little. But as it is currently a Christian rapist can find his favorite rape passage from the bible to justify raping someone. A Muslim terrorist can find his favorite "behead the infidels!" verse for the Quran to justify beheading a non-Muslim. And just about anyone can find their favorite "everything is forgiven" passage to justify doing any damned thing they want.

Good people are good people whether they're religious or not. A rapist that doesn't rape because he wants to go to heaven is going to end up raping, and then using one of the 8,000 loopholes in the bible to make himself think he's still going to heaven.

You got it messed up - the only way to eliminate evil is to eliminate good. Evil does not exist without good, just as good does not exist without evil. They are comparative. So the simple solution is to eliminate good and evil goes away.

evil does not exist if the is no evil. But no evil does not mean good. There could easily be meh and evil with no good.

You are correct that absence of evil is not presence of good - everything is neutral without something to compare it against.

So we make up an invisible untouchable un-disprovable entity in our image and call it the standard.

Then other people make up invisible untouchable un-disprovable entities and we fight wars over whose is more good.

You have issues with religion apparently, where did I mention an untouchable, unproveable entity? I am really just looking at the topic of good or evil in the absence of either. How do we measure evil? In my experience we have some moral standard that is normal (neutral) and if something is "better" than standard it is ranging toward good. If something is "worse" than standard it is ranging toward evil. So in your case - if we had a perfect standard - some created entity you speak of - wouldn't that standard be neutral - and going above it would be good and below it would be evil? Just meeting the standard would be neutral.

The better question to me is what is the standard by which we measure good and evil? How often does that standard change? Can there be any moral absolutes? Do we get to vote on what is good vs evil? Does it vary by culture?

I obviously and definitely have issues with religion. You have shined a light on a particularly interesting feature of religion to me.

The response stands... when you want to establish a standard, the most effective option man has ever conceived is to place it beyond reproach. Make a god and through him establish your standard.

Invisible, untouchable, un-disprovable supernatural entity that controls the afterlife sets the standards. Baffling and fascinating to me how many times it has been repeated with unmatched success.

Second part stands as well. How do you kill a god and change the moral standard in your favor? With another god of course.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

I could only imagine the chaos that the earth would have been in and would still be in if no one believed in the after life.

I think this is a really poor assumption, and truly believe that there would be no more evil if everyone stopped believing in the afterlife tomorrow. The least violent states in the US are the least religious. The most violent state is among the most religious. Prisons are full of religious people and most of the world's greatest villains were religious. I'd argue that 99% of them still think they're going to heaven because, really, who the hell would be a criminal if they actually believed they were going to be strung up with barbed wire and set on fire for the rest of eternity?

The problem with religion is that their holy texts give just as many people their own perverted justification for evil as the number of people they scare out of it. Maybe if organized religion got their #### together and actually removed the sociopathic evil from their texts then it would help a little. But as it is currently a Christian rapist can find his favorite rape passage from the bible to justify raping someone. A Muslim terrorist can find his favorite "behead the infidels!" verse for the Quran to justify beheading a non-Muslim. And just about anyone can find their favorite "everything is forgiven" passage to justify doing any damned thing they want.

Good people are good people whether they're religious or not. A rapist that doesn't rape because he wants to go to heaven is going to end up raping, and then using one of the 8,000 loopholes in the bible to make himself think he's still going to heaven.

You got it messed up - the only way to eliminate evil is to eliminate good. Evil does not exist without good, just as good does not exist without evil. They are comparative. So the simple solution is to eliminate good and evil goes away.

evil does not exist if the is no evil. But no evil does not mean good. There could easily be meh and evil with no good.

You are correct that absence of evil is not presence of good - everything is neutral without something to compare it against.

So we make up an invisible untouchable un-disprovable entity in our image and call it the standard.

Then other people make up invisible untouchable un-disprovable entities and we fight wars over whose is more good.

You have issues with religion apparently, where did I mention an untouchable, unproveable entity? I am really just looking at the topic of good or evil in the absence of either. How do we measure evil? In my experience we have some moral standard that is normal (neutral) and if something is "better" than standard it is ranging toward good. If something is "worse" than standard it is ranging toward evil. So in your case - if we had a perfect standard - some created entity you speak of - wouldn't that standard be neutral - and going above it would be good and below it would be evil? Just meeting the standard would be neutral.

The better question to me is what is the standard by which we measure good and evil? How often does that standard change? Can there be any moral absolutes? Do we get to vote on what is good vs evil? Does it vary by culture?

I obviously and definitely have issues with religion. You have shined a light on a particularly interesting feature of religion to me.

The response stands... when you want to establish a standard, the most effective option man has ever conceived is to place it beyond reproach. Make a god and through him establish your standard.

Invisible, untouchable, un-disprovable supernatural entity that controls the afterlife sets the standards. Baffling and fascinating to me how many times it has been repeated with unmatched success.

Second part stands as well. How do you kill a god and change the moral standard in your favor? With another god of course.

Yeah, that is what I am driving at - determining the standard. If that standard varies over time, then it definitely is suspect - and most probably a standard with suspicious origins, that served whoever declared it the standard in some fashion. That is where I brought up the question of what determines absolute moral truth. As you mentioned, many times this has been declared as having been issued by a god or gods depending on who is making the claim. What fascinates me - from a purely secular perspective - what determines good versus evil when you remove the construct of religion. In some cases it has to be societal norms, but what was considered good at one time may be seen as evil later. Are there absolutes when it comes to good or evil that do not vary over time - or is everything neutral and good versus evil is dependent upon who is viewing the action?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

One of the big stumbling points I came across when I started to question the religion I was brought up under was the concept of an afterlife. I, like I assume many here, was taught that humans have souls and when they die, their soul goes to either heaven or hell for eternity. But, for all of the other animals on earth, they have no soul and when they die, that's just it, the end.

When I was exposed to the theory of evolution and realized just how closely we are related to other animals, it made no sense that we were so special and they were not. (98-99% of our genetic makeup is identical to that of our closest relative, the chimpanzee.) So, at what point did humans diverge and suddendly become so special? When you realize how gradually we evolved from our ape ancestors, it's difficult to envision a point in time when a soulless ape gave birth to a human that suddendly now had an eternal soul and an afterlife to look forward to. I never could rationalize that.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

One of the big stumbling points I came across when I started to question the religion I was brought up under was the concept of an afterlife. I, like I assume many here, was taught that humans have souls and when they die, their soul goes to either heaven or hell for eternity. But, for all of the other animals on earth, they have no soul and when they die, that's just it, the end.

When I was exposed to the theory of evolution and realized just how closely we are related to other animals, it made no sense that we were so special and they were not. (98-99% of our genetic makeup is identical to that of our closest relative, the chimpanzee.) So, at what point did humans diverge and suddendly become so special? When you realize how gradually we evolved from our ape ancestors, it's difficult to envision a point in time when a soulless ape gave birth to a human that suddendly now had an eternal soul and an afterlife to look forward to. I never could rationalize that.

That is another thing that is fascinating to me - the whole concept of soul. More interesting is what makes us "human" (not biologically speaking). So we are a pretty neat assortment of structure and chemicals, but what is that thing that is the spark of life - the thing that takes all the parts that make us who we are and differentiates us from all other creatures. Theoretically you could probably replicate all of the "things" that go into the physical thing we call a human body - but if you constructed it perfectly, what is it that takes that conglomeration of "stuff" and takes it from being a collection of stuff into being a human? This isn't some tricky religious question - probably more of a psychology question - but it fascinates me. What is the essence that gives life?

I have read tons of arguments about origins of life and regardless of whether it is completely natural - versus religious claims that it is supernatural - it is a fascinating thing to think about.

 

[matuski]

I could only imagine the chaos that the earth would have been in and would still be in if no one believed in the after life.

I think this is a really poor assumption, and truly believe that there would be no more evil if everyone stopped believing in the afterlife tomorrow. The least violent states in the US are the least religious. The most violent state is among the most religious. Prisons are full of religious people and most of the world's greatest villains were religious. I'd argue that 99% of them still think they're going to heaven because, really, who the hell would be a criminal if they actually believed they were going to be strung up with barbed wire and set on fire for the rest of eternity?

The problem with religion is that their holy texts give just as many people their own perverted justification for evil as the number of people they scare out of it. Maybe if organized religion got their #### together and actually removed the sociopathic evil from their texts then it would help a little. But as it is currently a Christian rapist can find his favorite rape passage from the bible to justify raping someone. A Muslim terrorist can find his favorite "behead the infidels!" verse for the Quran to justify beheading a non-Muslim. And just about anyone can find their favorite "everything is forgiven" passage to justify doing any damned thing they want.

Good people are good people whether they're religious or not. A rapist that doesn't rape because he wants to go to heaven is going to end up raping, and then using one of the 8,000 loopholes in the bible to make himself think he's still going to heaven.

You got it messed up - the only way to eliminate evil is to eliminate good. Evil does not exist without good, just as good does not exist without evil. They are comparative. So the simple solution is to eliminate good and evil goes away.

evil does not exist if the is no evil. But no evil does not mean good. There could easily be meh and evil with no good.

You are correct that absence of evil is not presence of good - everything is neutral without something to compare it against.

So we make up an invisible untouchable un-disprovable entity in our image and call it the standard.

Then other people make up invisible untouchable un-disprovable entities and we fight wars over whose is more good.

You have issues with religion apparently, where did I mention an untouchable, unproveable entity? I am really just looking at the topic of good or evil in the absence of either. How do we measure evil? In my experience we have some moral standard that is normal (neutral) and if something is "better" than standard it is ranging toward good. If something is "worse" than standard it is ranging toward evil. So in your case - if we had a perfect standard - some created entity you speak of - wouldn't that standard be neutral - and going above it would be good and below it would be evil? Just meeting the standard would be neutral.

The better question to me is what is the standard by which we measure good and evil? How often does that standard change? Can there be any moral absolutes? Do we get to vote on what is good vs evil? Does it vary by culture?

I obviously and definitely have issues with religion. You have shined a light on a particularly interesting feature of religion to me.

The response stands... when you want to establish a standard, the most effective option man has ever conceived is to place it beyond reproach. Make a god and through him establish your standard.

Invisible, untouchable, un-disprovable supernatural entity that controls the afterlife sets the standards. Baffling and fascinating to me how many times it has been repeated with unmatched success.

Second part stands as well. How do you kill a god and change the moral standard in your favor? With another god of course.

Yeah, that is what I am driving at - determining the standard. If that standard varies over time, then it definitely is suspect - and most probably a standard with suspicious origins, that served whoever declared it the standard in some fashion. That is where I brought up the question of what determines absolute moral truth. As you mentioned, many times this has been declared as having been issued by a god or gods depending on who is making the claim. What fascinates me - from a purely secular perspective - what determines good versus evil when you remove the construct of religion. In some cases it has to be societal norms, but what was considered good at one time may be seen as evil later. Are there absolutes when it comes to good or evil that do not vary over time - or is everything neutral and good versus evil is dependent upon who is viewing the action?

I would lean both.

The absolute that we are progressing to is probably an unattainable goal. We move closer or further from it, I doubt our species ever achieves it.

 

[matuski]

I would actually replace the word absolute with an ideal.

We are striving for an ideal.