Do atheists "sugarcoat" the human condition?

@kellyjay said
What it means is what we do?

Its meaning is derived by each human from what they do with their capacities.

@kellyjay said
So all the killing, stealing, lying, this is who we are what we mean?

It's what some people are, yes. It's part of the meaning they find in life.

@fmf said
It's what some people are, yes. It's part of the meaning they find in life.

Do you believe some of us are above such things, or only to a lesser degree?

@moonbus said
Also all the reaching out to help when wars, famines, hurricanes, earthquakes, and pandemics strike. Also the public schools and libraries, which support a whole society despite people (such as AverageJoe) who never directly use them and complain about paying for other people's kids' educations. Also the people who risk their lives every day working to improve conditions in p ...[text shortened]... cesses. What went wrong in your childhood, that you think only bleak thoughts about your fellow men?

I think we are not divided into two groups, the good and the bad, but each is a mix.

@kellyjay said
I think we are not divided into two groups, the good and the bad, but each is a mix.

Yes, all right, a mix. The human has capacities, for good, for evil, for neutral, for ambiguity and ambivalence, man is a mix. The capacity itself is neither good nor evil: what is good or evil is only the use to which any given man puts his capacities.

Imagine a recipe which calls for several different ingredients: flour, eggs, butter, milk, vanilla, baking soda, sugar, etc. If you try to eat pure baking soda, it tastes pretty awful. But the whole cake is quite nice. So now, imagine someone saying cake must be bad, because one ingredient in it tastes bad. There you have Christianity in a nutshell: the Christian ethos damns man for only one aspect of his capacity, it damns him for his capacity for evil, but, in spite of his capacity for good and for neutral/ambiguous/ambivalent, only a miracle can save him from an eternity of unbearable torture. Why should the evil aspect totally outweigh the good and other aspects? This moral asymmetry makes no sense to an atheist.

@moonbus said
Yes, all right, a mix. The human has capacities, for good, for evil, for neutral, for ambiguity and ambivalence, man is a mix. The capacity itself is neither good nor evil: what is good or evil is only the use to which any given man puts his capacities.

Imagine a recipe which calls for several different ingredients: flour, eggs, butter, milk, vanilla, baking soda, sugar, e ...[text shortened]... pect totally outweigh the good and other aspects? This moral asymmetry makes no sense to an atheist.

There is also the trap of wishing we were perfect, realizing that we cannot be perfect no matter how hard we try, then throwing the baby out with the bathwater and saying that, since we are not perfect, we must be irretrievably evil and no better than any murderer, robber, rapist, etc.

...when most people in fact do not ever do the really bad things.

@bigdogg said
There is also the trap of wishing we were perfect, realizing that we cannot be perfect no matter how hard we try, then throwing the baby out with the bathwater and saying that, since we are not perfect, we must be irretrievably evil and no better than any murderer, robber, rapist, etc.

...when most people in fact do not ever do the really bad things.

When we look at our computer devices, there are high and low limits on where we want our devices to operate. Our devices to function appropriately; all currents and voltages are somewhere between those limits. If we are all outside the limits concerning pure good, we are less than, and there is no escaping that; it is simply a fact of human nature. It isn't a trap; it is simply an acknowledgment of the nature of man; we are flawed, even the best of us.

@moonbus said
Yes, all right, a mix. The human has capacities, for good, for evil, for neutral, for ambiguity and ambivalence, man is a mix. The capacity itself is neither good nor evil: what is good or evil is only the use to which any given man puts his capacities.

Imagine a recipe which calls for several different ingredients: flour, eggs, butter, milk, vanilla, baking soda, sugar, e ...[text shortened]... pect totally outweigh the good and other aspects? This moral asymmetry makes no sense to an atheist.

Our capacities are not what damns us; it is our actions; even FMF said our actions define us, so when we could do good and don't, that defines us, when we shouldn't do wrong, and we do that defines us. If all we have to compare ourselves to is just ourselves, it is all graded upon a curve; you are not so bad compared to that one. That isn't how it is graded; however, we don't even get a break when we are just looking at ourselves because with what we judge, that is how we will be judged, so if I'm condemning someone for a thing, I'm doing, I'm acknowledging the wrong in another. I'm also guilty for doing it. We stand condemned as we are; we need to be changed from the inside out; this is beyond us alone, we need a Savior.

@kellyjay said
When we look at our computer devices, there are high and low limits on where we want our devices to operate. Our devices to function appropriately; all currents and voltages are somewhere between those limits. If we are all outside the limits concerning pure good, we are less than, and there is no escaping that; it is simply a fact of human nature. It isn't a trap; it is simply an acknowledgment of the nature of man; we are flawed, even the best of us.

Computers, electric voltage and current, now you're speaking my language.

The limits you've mentioned are generally recommendations of the designer. Some devices will still work outside those limits; it's just not ideal operating conditions.

Take gaming computers - the CPUs can be 'overclocked' for better performance. This means we deliberately exceed the manufacturer's specs. We'll need to compensate for that by doing things such as liquid cooling - but it certainly can be done successfully.

Even in something as completely scientific and rules-based as electronics, the limits are not always hard and fast.

Coming back to the main point of moral perfection - yes, we are not perfect, but - that does not matter! It is sufficient to be the best version of ourselves.

@bigdogg said
Computers, electric voltage and current, now you're speaking my language.

The limits you've mentioned are generally recommendations of the designer. Some devices will still work outside those limits; it's just not ideal operating conditions.

Take gaming computers - the CPUs can be 'overclocked' for better performance. This means we deliberately exceed the manufacturer's ...[text shortened]... e are not perfect, but - that does not matter! It is sufficient to be the best version of ourselves.

Who typically gets to set the rules and call what is sufficient and what isn’t? In our hardware requirements we find the proper tolerances and design the required tasks around what we have to work with. Even over clocking can only be done within those tolerances going beyond them will ruin the device. Even if it functions better it will have a shorter life.

@kellyjay said
Do you believe some of us are above such things, or only to a lesser degree?

Side note: four questions form you on the trot KellyJay, all asking me for my personal opinions about the topic at hand. And there's nothing wrong with that.

We cannot talk about morality, good, evil, truth, lies, delusion, justice, consciousness and other similar things on a message board unless we probe each other about our beliefs and definitions and perspectives and explanations of what we mean when we address each other or when we assert or ask things.

So, please. KellyJay. Enough with the silly Project Rhetorical Foetal Position on several other threads these last few weeks. Thank you in advance.

@fmf said
Side note: four questions form you on the trot KellyJay, all asking me for my personal opinions about the topic at hand. And there's nothing wrong with that.

We cannot talk about morality, good, evil, truth, lies, delusion, justice, consciousness and other similar things on a message board unless we probe each other about our beliefs and definitions and perspectives and expla ...[text shortened]... ject Rhetorical Foetal Position on several other threads these last few weeks. Thank you in advance.

zzzz

@kellyjay said
zzzz

You are being a willful hypocrite.

Now, what about your response to my answer to the personal question you asked me?

@fmf said
You are being a willful hypocrite.

Now, what about your response to my answer to the personal question you asked me?

I don't post here for your approval, and you don't post for mine. Listen, you start your posts and have the discussion the way you want, and I'll do the same. I never shut anyone down in talking; I didn't want to go down what I considered a rabbit hole from the intent of what I was going for when I was being asked to respond; you don't like that, tough.

@kellyjay said
I don't post here for your approval, and you don't post for mine.

You complain incessantly about me asking about your personal opinions across multiple threads, and use that to dodge the topics, and here you are asking me about my personal opinions.