In general, do atheists believe that evil exists?

[ambush80]

At what point in time did man stealing food or killing another man for food turn from non-evil to evil? I say non-evil because it still doesn't seem "good" even for Co-Magnun man or even present day animals to do it.
Does intent make it evil? A fish stealing or killing for food might not be evil because the fish doesn't have that thought process. I guess at some point man developed it.

These ideas of good and bad become less useful the more dire the situation, I think. Like in apocalyptic stories, the characters are often put in situations where they have to act in ways that under normal circumstances we would call evil or immoral. That probably means that we adjust our definitions of evil and immoral based on the situation.

 

[bullethead]

The psychopathy might make him steal money from old ladies.

Maybe the Ohio State tower shooter is a better example. He had a tumor in his head that was gonna keep growing and eventually kill him.

Is stealing money from old lady's (or anyone) "evil"?

The tower shooter certainly had a self destruct button growing in his head. I think it is a byproduct of nature to have cells act abnormally, but with the amount of frequency these cells go haywire I am begging to think it is more normal than we care to believe. If we are a created species, man we have some serious design flaws.
But back to the Tower guy. There wasn't some malevolent force from the dark depths of Hades taking control over the man's actions which caused him to be a life long menace to society. He had a tumor that caused him to snap. His acts were awful, inexcusable, unforgettable unforgivable but I don't know if Evil is the right word.
If he had hostages that he tortured for his own amusement then we are getting into the big E territory.

 

[bullethead]

These ideas of good and bad become less useful the more dire the situation, I think. Like in apocalyptic stories, the characters are often put in situations where they have to act in ways that under normal circumstances we would call evil or immoral. That probably means that we adjust our definitions of evil and immoral based on the situation.

It would be shocking and totally against societal limits to find out that your neighbor has been picking up hitchhikers and eating them.
If you are in a Plane wreck in the Andes mtns or part of the Donner party...morals change according to life's needs.

 

[ambush80]

Is stealing money from old lady's (or anyone) "evil"?

The tower shooter certainly had a self destruct button growing in his head. I think it is a byproduct of nature to have cells act abnormally, but with the amount of frequency these cells go haywire I am begging to think it is more normal than we care to believe. If we are a created species, man we have some serious design flaws.
But back to the Tower guy. There wasn't some malevolent force from the dark depths of Hades taking control over the man's actions which caused him to be a life long menace to society. He had a tumor that caused him to snap. His acts were awful, inexcusable, unforgettable unforgivable but I don't know if Evil is the right word.
If he had hostages that he tortured for his own amusement then we are getting into the big E territory.

Unless the designer is perfect. That we interpret things to be flawed is due to to our inability to comprehend the sublime perfection of the design; or so the argument might go.

 

[NCHillbilly]

Without reading the whole discussion and just answering the original question:

Most athiests I have known in my life believe in good and evil just as strongly as most religious people. They just don't believe that all good comes from a benevolent supernatural being, and all evil comes from a malevolent supernatural being.

 

[bullethead]

Unless the designer is perfect. That we interpret things to be flawed is due to to our inability to comprehend the sublime perfection of the design; or so the argument might go.

That perfect designer argument brings in the option that Evil is part of the design and we only interpret things to be evil even though they are happening as designed.

 

[WaltL1]

Without reading the whole discussion and just answering the original question:

Most athiests I have known in my life believe in good and evil just as strongly as most religious people. They just don't believe that all good comes from a benevolent supernatural being, and all evil comes from a malevolent supernatural being.

Yep.
It all circles back to the individual. From there it can be broken down to a multitude of different reasons why individuals do what they do.

 

[jollyroger]

Life itself seems to be a force or system that creates suffering and misery with interspersed moments of pleasure and joy.

You would really like Thomas Ligotti's writing.

 

[j_seph]

Nope. You nailed it, rock solid.

We all interpret things through our own lens. There are things that are awe inspiring, despite knowing how they happen on a material level. I feel that every time I see jumbo jet fly. There are many, many things, infinitely many, that we still don't understand on a material level.

Sorry that just made me think of this

1 Corinthians 13:12
12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

 

[ambush80]

You would really like Thomas Ligotti's writing.

I'll look into it.

 

[ambush80]

That perfect designer argument brings in the option that Evil is part of the design and we only interpret things to be evil even though they are happening as designed.

It's not evil if He does it, like how our leaders ignore their own covid mandates.

 

[bullethead]

It's not evil if He does it, like how our leaders ignore their own covid mandates.

Then why call it Evil?

 

[1gr8buildit]

Gentlemen: i merely used the adjective 'orthodox' to be definitive to whatever the traditionally accepted views for atheists are
(as previously posted, i am trying to learn what atheism is and is not.).....
As per Dictionary.com for your consideration:
"orthodox" -
1. of, relating to, or conforming to the approved form of any doctrine, philosophy, ideology, etc.
2. of, relating to, or conforming to beliefs, attitudes, or modes of conduct that are generally approved.

You have sparked an interesting discussion. Of which we come here for.... I would not want to derail your thread... however, the word orthodox in regards to belief of something, is very inmteresting. We use it like it's a factural word, however, it only represents the believing group that won the battle over a belief. We might say it was the "majority"... or one side had the most powerful voices supporting it... or one neutral person of power made it happen, like Constantine, intending peace. Or, ??? interested to see other perspectives.

The word "approved" is used in the definition. Approved by who? The side that won the battle.... the side that assumes they are right... Is there a survey we can see, a petition that has documented signatures.... Don't get me wrong, I still use the word "orthodox" even though I'm not in that group in regards to my religious beliefs

 

[Israel]

Unless the designer is perfect. That we interpret things to be flawed is due to to our inability to comprehend the sublime perfection of the design; or so the argument might go.

yes.

 

[WaltL1]

Unless the designer is perfect. That we interpret things to be flawed is due to to our inability to comprehend the sublime perfection of the design; or so the argument might go.

To which one might respond -
If the design was perfect wouldnt we ALL (humanity) be able to comprehend the perfection?
No other religions, no other beliefs, no doubts, no questioning.......

 

[RegularJoe]

... There are many, many things, infinitely many, that we still don't understand on a material level.

That is for dang sure ... and the older i get the less i know, compounded by the more questions i have .... which a biggie reason why i dig this forum (when the forum is civil).

 

[hummerpoo]

That is for dang sure ... and the older i get the less i know, compounded by the more questions i have .... which a biggie reason why i dig this forum (when the forum is civil).

Only slightly different — the more I attempt to learn, the more questions I have. I read a little short article and the footnotes lead to multiple books. There are so many rabbits it is difficult to stay on one scent trail.

 

[RegularJoe]

The word "approved" is used in the definition.
Approved by who?
The side that won the battle.... the side that assumes they are right...
Is there a survey we can see, a petition that has documented signatures....
Don't get me wrong, I still use the word "orthodox" even though I'm not in that group in regards to my religious beliefs

Observations appreciated/comprehended.
History books are just that, no? : ))))
i spose 'definitions' are the product of us meeples trying to establish just small beach heads of certainty in the massive complexity of everything?.....
What i spose i am trying to say,
& in support of at least part to all of what you are saying,...
definitions, in many cases, must be carefully regarded for the reasons you stated.
Now, you & i have me wondering ~
should we wonder who approved the definition for the noun "definition?"

 

[Ruger#3]

I‘ve often thought of the impact of societal norm of our definition of evil. It’s a sliding scale. Our early ancestors thought the natives evil as they bashed a captured child against a tree. I’m sure the native saw the child as something of no value, a burden and a threat to his very existence.

As I’ve aged and watched our societal norm of what is evil evolve it’s unsettling.

 

[JB0704]

Great thread fellas. I miss these discussions, but drifted away from this forum a few years back because I felt like I said everything I had to say. Hope you all are doing well.