children can make their own mind up about religion when they grow up...

[AliGrylls]

Okay I have just read this on another thread but this is a statement I hear quite a lot and want to ask the question.

If all you teach your child is atheism how will they make their mind up about religion when they grow up because they have no religion other than atheism?

They will know nothing other than what you have taught them so they have nothing to make their mind up about - they will be atheist, by default. If people genuinely want their children to make their own mind up they have to provide them with a reasonable alternative (ie, Judaism / Christianity / Islam).

I don't actually know any adults who have been brought up atheist who have thought all of a sudden "I believe in God, I am going to go to Church".

It is a theory of human nature, one devoid of nature and only nuture

Theories are testable frameworks with boring stuff like evidence etc... I'd like to hear more about this theory of human nature.

I'm sorry, I'm not following Rose.

they haven't all though, cultures that practiced universal total or predominant nakedness generally had fewer (to none, sometimes) evidence of pornographic material. Coupled with the more obvious lack of cameras.
We could talk about polyandrous and matriarchal lineage societies, or many other things, alas I think the constraints of the questioneers lie a lot closer to home. Suffice to say that many different kinds of human society have existed over millenia, and those that remain are less varied but not homogenous, and there just isn't enough overlap to assert any kind of intrinsic nature to all humans.

If indeed we assert a belief in nature at all. But thats a whole other kettle of fish outside of the scope here. Is anyone else still waiting for Roseflowers definitions of EVIL ?

Alistron just be intrested if you were going to answer my earlier questions?

I have already told you my defintion of evil!

Rosewater - yes come on lets have some ideas from you! - you're having Winter do all the work here.

Chicken

human nature, fundamental dispositions and traits of humans. ...A broader problem is that of determining which ostensibly fundamental human dispositions and traits are natural and which are the result of some form of learning or socialization. Recent research in genetics, biology, and cultural anthropology suggests that there is a complex interaction between genetically inherited factors ...

Ie Winters theory would consider nuture only (learning and socialisation etc) and not include nature (biology, genetics etc)

Really? Was "evil is something that people do" meant to be an explanation? Oh. I wish I'd shown such brevity. Care to expand on that?

And actually I did not say that one does not consider biology and genetics et al, please don't misrepresent me.

Rosewater, what were your questions?

Nope.

I have actually answered my defintion in the fact I clearly showed I agreed with Chicken and Alistron. It is there in black and white.

Plenty of human cultures don't have 'porn'. There have been plenty of cultures that had no representative art, and I think there are still some that have a taboo on representative pictures of people. The ones with the most repressive attitudes towards it tend, on the whole, to be nastier towards women (Saudi Arabia, Taliban-led Afghanistan) than those that have quite a lot of it (Holland, Scandinavia).
So as an example of 'evil' - epic fail.
I'm a little unsure as to whether there is a universal human nature or not: the few things that all humans do (eat, excrete, breathe) or that nearly all humans do (have a sexual appetite/some wish to procreate) are not exclusively human. The closest thing you could get to universal human traits would probably be the constant struggle to balance human drives towards competition and co-operation, both of which all human beings seem to have to some extent.

May I join in -

Evil is not so much the sin but the refusal to ackowledge it - as defined by Scott Peck - "People of the Lie."

Winter

You said:

There are no ways that all humans think feel and act. They are all culturally derived, time dependent, and subjective.

I LOVE Scott Peck!

Ah, so "what they said" is your definition? I don't know how I missed that, so clear. Neither of those posters, I'm sure they'll forgive me for saying, actually defined what they meant by evil either.

Can you, in a few short sentances (or indeed long ones if you prefer) define your understanding of evil? Thanks.

Can you read?

The fact that I am writing here would indicate yes. Or perhaps I only think I can read .

Why?

Roseflower Tue 12-Apr-11 19:26:29
Rose, can you define this evil entity that you believe in? Are we talking satan and his little imps?

Nah pretty much same what you said.

See, I struggle with the Satan idea, because it basically absolves people of responsibility. It makes victims of us all.

I would entirely agree.

Well then you can read you just dont want to make the effort to read my posts perhaps

yes I read those posts. They don't contain any definition of evil. You refer back to earlier posts, but they don't contain a definition either. Indeed the only comprehensive definition on the subject comes from the poster who doesn't believe in it. (Hint, its me).

So that would be a no to my polite enquiries for an actual definition then? No problem.

I can't define evil, but I know an evil act when I see it (from my cultural background and in context, natch ). For example, kicking kittens seems pretty evil, but thwacking spiders over the head with 'War And Peace' seems totally reasonable.

Thats something to work with, thank you. Would you agree then that evil is subjective, in that your spectrum may be entirely different from someone elses? Or even just a little bit different, but still different?

My post clearly shows what I think. I do not see how it is possible to make an argument of that.

Sigh. For the benefit:

Evil is committing an act whereby the ultimate goal is to knowingly cause harm, distress or destruction.