[Jerome_1]

Each of us is endowed with the natural law(our moral code or conscience)

Is there anyone here, who doesn't think that rape, murder, stealing, lying is wrong?

Evil is that which is contrary to our moral code or conscience.

I would guess that people who ignore their conscience are mostly atheists.

[Three Gun Fish]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

Each of us is endowed with the natural law(our moral code or conscience)

Is there anyone here, who doesn't think that rape, murder, stealing, lying is wrong?

Evil is that which is contrary to our moral code or conscience.

I would guess that people who ignore their conscience are mostly atheists.

That's an unwise guess. See, folks? The "Good" determines the "Bad."

Apparently you've never dealt with a problem child before.

[markulous]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

Each of us is endowed with the natural law(our moral code or conscience)

Is there anyone here, who doesn't think that rape, murder, stealing, lying is wrong?

Evil is that which is contrary to our moral code or conscience.

I would guess that people who ignore their conscience are mostly atheists.

I don't think lying is wrong necessarily. I've lied to people lots of times to stop them from asking questions. I don't really see the problem with it unless the nature of the act your lying about is something that is important harmful or important in some way Would I lie to a best friend or spouse? Probably not. And I'd expect the same from them.

Your last comment kind of threw me for a loop there. Are you saying atheists have less morals than theists? That's pretty ignorant if that's what you meant..

[hole in the sky]

Originally Posted by Tiger_vs_Mantis

I don't know what you mean by this.
Are you saying that the concepts of good and evil hve not yet been invented by human beings or that no acts are being committed that we would (today) consider evil? The first scenario I can imagine, the second I cannot.

well, if you read my post, i don't feel like humans invented good at all. i do believe 'evil' is a human invention however.

how do people live? what do they do for food? how do they earn a living? how do they make decisions that might hurt other people? do people have abortions? do they eat meat? does homosexuality exist? is there a healthcare system? do people produce and consume pornography? is the economic system based upon capitalism, communism? is it a democracy? this example is absurd.

none of this matters, because none of what you just mentioned is relevant to my example of separating good from evil. (i know, you're about to jump on me about what could be construed as evil by certain viewpoints, i get it, save your type) but the bigger picture i was trying to paint here was to remove ANYTHING that could possibly be considered evil by any stretch of the imagination.

i knew people would get all worked up about this though, which is why i also asked people not to take the utopia thing too seriously.

well what do you know, three pages later and someone takes it too seriously.

can it? or maybe people just thinkit's the state of nature. you haven't even begun to explain why killing ('murdering') the baby is evil inthe first place.

well, killing a baby is just one example, it can be interchanged if it doesn't suit you. however, using the definitions of good and evil, it is impossible for evil to precede good; people are too inherently selfish for that. it's definitely a state of nature because the number one person in our lives is...ourselves.

even animals aren't exempt from this selfish behavior.

Possibly maybe but certainly not necessary. Personally I'm not seeing it.

explain please?

I don't know exactly what you mean by this. In my opinion the definitions and the acts are intertwined. you decide whether an act is 'good' or 'evil' based upon your definition of good and evil.

like i've said and re-iterated before; no matter WHAT your definition of evil is, good will precede it in either will or intention. there is no way around this.

also, you seem to have come to the conclusion that good and evil do exist now, especially when you say "in my opinion the definitions and the acts are intertwined" so perhaps you could replace my example a few lines up with one that you are more comfortable with calling evil?

the next line you typed, "you decide whether an act is good or evil based upon your definition of good and evil" is almost right. the argument i'm driving home is that it doesn't matter what your definitions of evil are, they could be completely different from anyone elses definition.

ok.

what matters is that we have a clear definition of good, that way we have an idea of where everything else stands in comparison. anything that is pleasurable to the self, or 'good' for oneself is considered a good thing to that individual. this is what all of us across the globe share, people and animals alike.

this is the single definition that unites every person, no matter what their ideas of evil are. not everyone has the same idea of what evil is, but regardless of how they reach their own understanding of it, the need for good will come first.

yeah, youre just repeating your conclusion, but your supporting argument is really weak and not convincing.

at this point, this says more about the reader than the writer.

1. An instinctual drive that may help the survival of the species is not 'knowledge.' Sex might feel good, and this helps the survival of the species, but that is not the same thing as saying that the human being knows that sex is good for the survival of the species. the human organism recoils from extremes of heat and cold. without this mechanism, the species might not survive. but this does not require 'knowledge.' A plant has a mechanism that causes it to bend towards the light. does the plant 'know' that sunlight is good for it?

regardless of whether or not it's knowledge is irrelevant. the point is, 'good' (in this case, survival) is hardwired into us by the ongoing process of evolution and nature. the issue here is you're still thinking of the term 'good' in very emotional ways. i recommend you broaden your understanding of how survivalism is good for any individual, animal or plant. are we aware of it? sometimes. if we acknowledge it or not, it's still there. animals have this, plants have this too. the survival of a species is fundamental to it's existence, and i like i mentioned before, existing means you're living, which at the most basic core is 'good' for that species. i don't know why you typed that, you really veered off-topic on that one.

2. knowledge of danger is not nearly the same thing as knowledge of good and evil.

correct, but knowledge of what's harmful and how to avoid it is paramount to existing. existing is good for the species. knowledge of danger is good.

3. there is plenty of evidence to suggest that as a species we do not have knowledge of what is dangerous to us. Why do you think so many people die of stress-related diseases? Chronic stress is caused by the human organism's inability to distinguish between real and imagined dangers.

humans beings are VERY knowledgeable about what is dangerous to us, don't sell yourself short. there of course will always be instances in which someone does something incredibly stupid without seemingly any forethought of how this could negatively affect his or her future (most youtube videos) or cases like you said where the body does not know it's being harmed. but even in the example you gave, stress-related illness is just that, stressful. stress is not a good feeling for any of us, and this is why steps are taken to remove it. the body may be incapable of preventing it, but everyone who feels stress knows they are better off without it.

the knowledge IS there, the capability of preventing it isn't always. this speaks less about good and evil than it does about faulty triggering due to genetics, however.

4. what makes you think we are past the remedial stages of evolution? human beings have not been around very long at all. historically and genetically speaking we are barely removed from the "state of being." If humanity destroys itself then as a species we won't have gone very far at all.

i read something interesting by richard dawkins; he said something like "if the length of your arm represents the time-span dinosaurs have lived on this earth, by comparison people have been living here for less than a shaving of a fingernail."

kinda puts things in perspective a bit, i agree.

but it's foolish to think we haven't done quite a bit of evolving ourselves. when i say remedial stages of evolution, i am of course speaking in terms of our own history as a species. it's easy to compare it to something that's been around for much longer and say "ha! we're just a bunch of noobs!" and maybe we are, but it definitely required the fundamental pre-requisite of self-preservation to even get this far. that's not debatable.

cute.

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Originally Posted by Three Gun Fish

The mutations? Yes, they came to be called chickens. Other countries have different names. I don't know what they are.

Just kidding. My theory, as it stands, didn't happen at once or just with ONE egg (or chicken, if you prefer). The question was what came first: chicken or egg. That was the question. I maintain it was the egg -- because a chicken doesn't pop out from nowhere. Neither does an egg, but do you really think something that wasn't a chicken somehow BECAME a chicken during its lifetime?

I say the changes were made in the eggs.

I am following it makes sense, but it does not explain how the chicken from this egg managed to procreate.

[Toda Hiro-matsu]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

Each of us is endowed with the natural law(our moral code or conscience)

Is there anyone here, who doesn't think that rape, murder, stealing, lying is wrong?

Evil is that which is contrary to our moral code or conscience.

I would guess that people who ignore their conscience are mostly atheists.

Atheist is such a harsh word. I prefer the term, "people who use their brains". It's so condescending for you idiot theists to say things like this. Especially considering something like less than 1% of all prison inmates are atheists. Suck on that, you mental infant.

[Three Gun Fish]

Originally Posted by Jay Pan ROKK

I am following it makes sense, but it does not explain how the chicken from this egg managed to procreate.

When a Mommy and a Daddy love each other very much . . . .

[Philosophighter]

Originally Posted by Jerome_1

Evil is that which is contrary to our moral code or conscience.

Good job, Jerome!! Evil is that which is contrary to "OUR" moral code...So we need people to have a moral code..No people = no moral code. So a moral code is not universal, its not even across similiar species, genus', etc. So no people = no moral code = no good/evil. Yay!!!!

If there was one person on the planet, would he have a morality? Would he have a set of rules to live by, and could we call them morals? Or do we need two people in a context to share rules and agreements (dont steal from me, dont rape my daughter, etc.) to have morality?

[hole in the sky]

^animals with slight genetic variations or mutations are very well capable of procreating. there are instances in which a drastic mutation will hinder this ability, but it's quite rare. that usually becomes the case when something is born so defective that it doesn't live long enough to reach proper breeding age.

[Toda Hiro-matsu]

Originally Posted by hole in the sky

^animals with slight genetic variations or mutations are very well capable of procreating. there are instances in which a drastic mutation will hinder this ability, but it's quite rare. that usually becomes the case when something is born so defective that it doesn't live long enough to reach proper breeding age.

All wrong, I'm sorry. Detrimental mutations are the majority, not the other way around. And birth defects are hardly ever mutations. So far you're not living up to your claim to beating anyone here in a debate.