The Root of All Evil

It might help point out that it can be ignorant, dangerous and bad just like any atheist can be the same things as well but does not have to be so by definition (as any rational and objective person would conclude).

 

relaxxx:

Faith might be ignorant, dangerous and bad but you and your video have not shown how it is the source of all evil or bad.

 

IT'S NOT!
Evil is a kind of bad with intent. Bad with hateful intention, bad for the sake of pure nastiness.
Natural bad has no intention, it just is, imperfections of nature, kill to survive...
ALL EVIL IS BAD
NOT ALL BAD IS EVIL.
TITLE NEVER SAID ALL BAD!
GET OVER IT!!!!

 

Just wondering: why would natural badness be considered imperfect? Isn't perfection a human concept like good and evil.

 

Yes, so? Perfection is indeed a concept. An unobtainable concept.
Imperfection on the other hand is a fact of life, it is most likely why energy and matter exist, it is the primary mechanism of evolution.

 

Dawkins - in fact all of Evolutionary Biology and Psychology really in terms of causal explanation, has nothing beyond reaction to religion. His books and general rhetorically bombastic stance explain nothing, but seek to ridicule a lot.

 

The title is: The Root of All Evil

The title uses the word 'all.'

Definition:

All- used to refer to the whole quantity or extent of a particular group or thing.

What definition for the word 'all' are you using?

 

^He divided the terms bad and evil like he explained. So all evil does not have to include all the bad since not all the bad is evil.

 

No. I disagree with the premise that a "religious person" is, by definition, a "believer". I assert that there are religious attitudes displayed on both sides of the aisle, whether the believing, or the unbelieving. I further assert that one need not be a "believer" in order to be "religious".

I believe "religion" and "faith" are two separate issues. "Religion", to me, simply speaks to the fervency with which one stands by one's beliefs. Religion tends to make one inflexible, and close-minded. One may indeed be "religious" in one's belief in "atheism", for instance. It becomes religious when one closes one's mind and heart to the allowance for and tolerance of "other views". That kind of rigidity, to me, exemplifies the "religious".

The religious are entrenched in their own position, at the cost of rational, reasonable thought or discourse. There are those in this category on both "sides of the fence".

 

"Evil" tends to imply harmful, malicious, damaging. Quite independent of the idea of "faith", one can be "evil" in one's intent to harm. This would not be an inconsistency, as even amongst non-believers, there is an allowance for the idea of the "evil" as referring to the intent of harming another. "Evil", strictly speaking, relates to an individual or a group as being willing to do harm, to damage, to do that which is inhumane. This definition does not necessitate a "faith in God", but merely a belief that certain things are "inhumane", and transgress humanly accepted standards of mutual conduct.

"Evil" does imply a motive, not merely "bad", but with a personal intent behind the "evil". Hence, and "evil" person being a "bad" person, but not all "bad" people being "evil". Some are just "bad" due to the effect of circumstance on their personality. These ones may or may not be "motivated to perform harm on others" by intent. They may just be "bad", such as the guy who thoughtlessly dumps toxic waste in the river, not intending to harm others specifically, but being careless as to the outcome. This is a "bad" person, but not necessarily an "evil" person, as the intent is different.

 

What is the difference between evil and insanity?

 

I dunno, what is the difference between evil and insanity?

 

The perception of evil is insanity. The idea that there are good and bad forces, is insanity. What possible threat to reality could there be besides perceiving it other than it is? Can we make reality, unreal? Can we make something more or less real?

 

ot2,

If I knew, I wouldn't have asked . . .

 

I would not call subjective perceptions like good and bad insanity by definition. Isn't that as radical as perceiving all faith as evil?

 

There are those things we natively prefer and those things we do not. What is good to one in this sense is not good for another. We do not need to judge the aesthetic qualities of our experience as good or bad to organize our lives. Simply let your answer be yes or no, without qualification.

Superlatives of any kind obscure true nature. Another way to say this is the sun shines on all alike.

Is it radical to regard the world with equanimity? Perhaps.

However as the subjective is stilled, the object becomes apparent.

 

occasionally i am perceived other than i am , and i can't shine it on
when an insane person comes at me with a vilolence . this has happened
several times this year , so , i have thought about the reality in all the
ways i can .

i consider two aspects . one good , one bad .

the goodness is my power to stop the attack and allow
some resolution . this is the reality they perceive , and
then they proceed with the drama . they become a demon
which is a confuktion of idea in action . i react , specifically ,
specially , to each according to the neediness . my role in the
show , the wild clever hippie , has not been institutionalized .

we are perceived as disorderly .

orderly athiests will also
go insane ? yes . please take
your meds .

 

The statement that religion is "the root of all evil" is false, for several reasons. First, it implies that if there were no religion we'd all be trustworthy, honest, non-cheating, non-stealing, non-raping law abiding citizens. If you believe that, please get in touch about some real estate I'd like to sell you. Most wars in history had nothing to do with religion, and most wars involving religion were about other things, as well. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and the "Dear Leader" running North Korea are examples of atheism run amok. Oh, but all of those were Marxist-Lenninists. Not all atheists are that way. Which brings me to the next point.

Second, not all religionists are that way either. What's so evil about the Ba'hai, the Quakers, or even the UCC or Methodists, not to mention Unitarians? They seem to be pretty tolerant, loving, peaceable people. And the ones I run with are open to reason and evidence.

Third, the founders of most world religions taught values which, if followed, would make the world a better place. I think the Buddha had it right when he taught that the root of all evil is attachments. Jesus had it right when the taught unconditional love for all people, including society's outcasts. These thinkers preached against the prevailing values of the world:wealth, status, power, and sensual indulgence. They were right.

Fourth, it's not religion but false religion that's the problem. All organized religions, human institutions that they are, have drifted from the paths of their founders, and have been corrupted by worldly values. It's not the religions but the worldly values or "human nature' that are the problem. I suspect world run in the name of science by intellectuals like Dawkins would be at least as miserable as the miserable one we have, run by secular politicians beholden to religious charlatans.

So far, I'm reacting mainly to the title of the video and Dawkins propensity toward over-generalization. But it really is an excellent documentary that deserves careful thought and maybe another post or more. The facts it presents are disturbing--not only the religious violence but the assault on reason in the name of religion.

 

Agree. Denying the present moment is the root of evil.

 

I wish I was as smart as you at 23 Okiefreak :2thumbsup: good post!