Are people basically good?

[ricechickie]

The fact that I want to talk myself into doing the right thing, despite it being more difficult, is proof of innate goodness.

The fact that you HAVE to talk yourself into doing it is proof that you AREN'T innately good. A longing to be good is not the same as being good.

It’s more than longing; it’s action. If goodness was innate, it would mean as much as blinking or breathing.

SOMETIMES it's action. I doubt very much if you ALWAYS do the right thing.

And I agree that if goodness was innate, it would come automatically. If you recall, YOU were the one arguing that it WAS innate; I've been saying all along that it's not.

I scrolled through several pages to find that I did, indeed, say goodness is innate. I meant it as “natural” or “inborn” not “instinctive” or “automatic.”

Wanting to do good is like the sex drive. Wanting sex is very natural and normal, somewhat instinctual, but you have to decide to act. People can be celibate despite the natural sex drive, and people can do evil despite the natural desire to do good.

Usually, those natural behaviors are thwarted with twisted upbringing, unfortunately.

To continue your analogy, the difference between wanting to be good and actually being good is akin to the difference between wanting to be sexually active and actually being sexually active: just because you want to achieve something doesn't mean you actually HAVE.

You really need to come to terms with the fact that the desire for evil lives inside of us right next to the desire to be good, and it's very often more appealing to us.

But I’m living well with the thought in my heart that since God loves me, I must have the capacity to be worthy of that love. Therefore, I love myself. Therefore, I know that I have it in me to do good, and it makes me a happier person.

Thinking that I’m a naturally bad person just fills me with shame and makes me depressed. Like I can’t shake sin.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

The only thing I learned from this post is that in your Mind, God has a penis and two balls.

What I just learned is that your high-school English teacher should be slapped.

In the English language, it is grammatically incorrect to refer to a sentient being as "it". The male pronouns also serve as neutral pronouns. Therefore, although God does not have a sex in the same way that humans do, proper English grammar refers to Him with male pronouns.

You will notice, if you ever discuss abortion with me, that I also refer to unborn babies as "he", even though they obviously are not all male. Same reason.

1. I don’t see the “it” in GT’s post to which you were responding.

2. That grammar rule is changing to relfect a society that isn’t patriarchal.

1) Reading comprehension is apparently not your thing. No one said the word "it" appeared in GT's post, Brain Trust. He said that I think God has male genitalia, because I refer to Him by male pronouns. I explained that I do so for grammatical reasons.

2) I have no interest in participating in the degradation of the language by low-class, slackjawed imbeciles. The purpose of language is to communicate effectively, not to make people with emotional issues feel better.

And when I need instruction on how I "should" speak, I certainly will not look for it OR receive it from the likes of you.

You’ve descended into insults. No wonder you think humans are inherently bad. It’s your defense, poor thing.

I just ask, WWJD?

No wonder you insist that humans are inherently good; it's YOUR defense, poor thing.

As for what would Jesus do, check out Matthew chapter 23, just as a for instance. Jesus not only insulted the Pharisees repeatedly, He went on a complete rant and tore them a new one. So I'd say I'm in pretty good company with being cranky.

And the next time you decide to give religious instruction, "Reverend", consider 1) whether you actually know anything, and 2) whether anyone wants or asked for it.

 

[ricechickie]

The only thing I learned from this post is that in your Mind, God has a penis and two balls.

What I just learned is that your high-school English teacher should be slapped.

In the English language, it is grammatically incorrect to refer to a sentient being as "it". The male pronouns also serve as neutral pronouns. Therefore, although God does not have a sex in the same way that humans do, proper English grammar refers to Him with male pronouns.

You will notice, if you ever discuss abortion with me, that I also refer to unborn babies as "he", even though they obviously are not all male. Same reason.

1. I don’t see the “it” in GT’s post to which you were responding.

2. That grammar rule is changing to relfect a society that isn’t patriarchal.

1) Reading comprehension is apparently not your thing. No one said the word "it" appeared in GT's post, Brain Trust. He said that I think God has male genitalia, because I refer to Him by male pronouns. I explained that I do so for grammatical reasons.

2) I have no interest in participating in the degradation of the language by low-class, slackjawed imbeciles. The purpose of language is to communicate effectively, not to make people with emotional issues feel better.

And when I need instruction on how I "should" speak, I certainly will not look for it OR receive it from the likes of you.

You’ve descended into insults. No wonder you think humans are inherently bad. It’s your defense, poor thing.

I just ask, WWJD?

No wonder you insist that humans are inherently good; it's YOUR defense, poor thing.

As for what would Jesus do, check out Matthew chapter 23, just as a for instance. Jesus not only insulted the Pharisees repeatedly, He went on a complete rant and tore them a new one. So I'd say I'm in pretty good company with being cranky.

And the next time you decide to give religious instruction, "Reverend", consider 1) whether you actually know anything, and 2) whether anyone wants or asked for it.

Bless your heart.

 

[ricechickie]

But does God love me?

 

[OldLady]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Evil, like cold and darkness are not extant. They do not exist by themselves, they exist as the absence of something else. Darkness is the absence of light. Cold is the absence of heat. And evil is the absence of good. So to answer your question, man is good as evil is not extant.

Evil is a lot more active than just the "absence of good." It is actions abhorrent to society. However, different societies find different things "abhorrent." For that reason, I find it hard to believe the Platonic theory that Good (and its flip side evil) is an immutable force in the universe. Humans determine the rules, and they determine what is good and what is evil.

 

[OldLady]

You are obsessed, dude(ding). Give it a break, some time. I'm trying to do my morning reading, I need ding in my alerts about shit that I had to start ignoring last night and now you're still carrying on....are you the type of guy that can't take a hint or what? 21x, "ding, I dont wish to talk to you about any important topics."

but but but but but....

#sloganslogansloganslogan

Look, you're just autistic. That's not my problem, carry it onto someone who might give a shit about your disability.

Put me on ignore. Because I’m going to speak out when I disagree with what I read.

That's good, dingerred. The little engine that could!~

Hey, maybe you'll get lucky and someone will really sit and ponder the magical profoundness of what you've got to say some time and by proxy, ask me what I think about it. You can flail all you wanna about me not answering you directly about your wishy-washy part tautological, part baseless assertion world-views. Call it a victory, little ding that could! Chooo--chooooo!

My obligation is satisfied when I participate in the conflict and confusion process. Growth filled communities explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Whether or not anyone else agrees with me is unimportant.

Apparently it is important to you. That’s why you behave the way you do. If you don’t engage people who have logical arguments then you can’t be proven wrong. That’s why you argue I am stupid and unworthy of your time.

From where I sit, you're grossly ILLogical, which is why I consider a topical investment with you to be a waste of time. By the way, you just outright stated that everyone I've conversed with here is incapable of logical arguments. I know these are the roads you need to take to rationalize why I don't respect you, bro. Get it all out there.....feel better, obsess less

There isn’t one post I have made in this thread that you can prove is illogical using facts and reason.

Instead you call me names and call what I write, slogans.

What is illogical is your dismissal of ideas without logic. People cannot be illogical. Ideas or beliefs can be illogical. Your only responses have been attacks on me, not my beliefs or ideas. It’s all in black and white.

I keep pondering “successful behaviors lead to successful outcomes” and are therefore “good.”

Are there not people who are seen as successful who got that way through dishonest means? Or even through honest, but let’s say, “cutthroat” means, which may be at the expense of others. Are those people “good”?

You're reading too far into it, it's actually a tautology because the outcomes are what's being used to call the behaviors "successful," via adhoc analysis.

In other words, it was a vacuous comment not even worth a second thought.......but what you seem to have responded to was more like this: ""Good" behaviors lead to successful outcomes......" - - and then your response, "yeah but so do bad ones," also renders the comment vacuous.

Doing philosophy or logic with Ding is just tedious - it's vacuous claim after tautology after piling on MORE unsupported assertions every time he attempts to support a claim....and then when he's cornered he starts memeing with slogans....it's literally like arguing with a 4yr old.

Oh, shit. I hoped to jump in but I don't know all these words.

 

[Votto]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Good are people who help children, not separate them from their parents.
Good are people who want healthcare for everyone who don't believe in let them die.
Good are people who want affordable education and don't prey on people's fear and ignorance.
Good are people who aren't racist.

It's pretty easy to figure out who is good and who isn't. And even figure out what political party they belong to.

I see, more political crap.

Speaking of politics, is Obama bad?

For it was Obama who also separated children from their parents. In fact, the media disingenuously used pictures of children in cages when it occurred under Obama, but used them to say it happened under Trump. Was that a "bad" thing to do?

Health care is another issue. Obama lied his arse off about much of the policy, like it not being a tax, it was, everyone having a reduction in premiums, they went up instead, and being able to keep your doctor and coverage, etc. Nope, none of it was true. In fact, the legislation is not even dry and the very same people want to now sell us a single payer system? Did I mention that Obama had to bribe members of his own party to vote for it?

As for education, the US pays more than any other country for education, and then rates about 48th in the world in science and math? WTH? Why then do we throw even more money at it instead of first seeing what is so wrong with the current system. Is that a bad thing?

And Trump is racist? I'm sorry, people like yourself say that Trump is bad for being racist when he has not done anything against any particular race, but FDR locked up innocent Japanese Americans just because of their race, yet he was a "good" President?

Dolt.

Politics alone shows us what humanity is made of.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The fact that you HAVE to talk yourself into doing it is proof that you AREN'T innately good. A longing to be good is not the same as being good.

It’s more than longing; it’s action. If goodness was innate, it would mean as much as blinking or breathing.

SOMETIMES it's action. I doubt very much if you ALWAYS do the right thing.

And I agree that if goodness was innate, it would come automatically. If you recall, YOU were the one arguing that it WAS innate; I've been saying all along that it's not.

I scrolled through several pages to find that I did, indeed, say goodness is innate. I meant it as “natural” or “inborn” not “instinctive” or “automatic.”

Wanting to do good is like the sex drive. Wanting sex is very natural and normal, somewhat instinctual, but you have to decide to act. People can be celibate despite the natural sex drive, and people can do evil despite the natural desire to do good.

Usually, those natural behaviors are thwarted with twisted upbringing, unfortunately.

To continue your analogy, the difference between wanting to be good and actually being good is akin to the difference between wanting to be sexually active and actually being sexually active: just because you want to achieve something doesn't mean you actually HAVE.

You really need to come to terms with the fact that the desire for evil lives inside of us right next to the desire to be good, and it's very often more appealing to us.

But I’m living well with the thought in my heart that since God loves me, I must have the capacity to be worthy of that love. Therefore, I love myself. Therefore, I know that I have it in me to do good, and it makes me a happier person.

Thinking that I’m a naturally bad person just fills me with shame and makes me depressed. Like I can’t shake sin.

God loves everyone, but you're delusional if you think you or anyone else is ever worthy of it.

I have to tell you that the argument of "Humans are basically good because it makes me feel good to think so" falls completely flat. As Ben Shapiro so often says, facts don't care about your feelings. Or, as I say it, the truth doesn't have to be nice. It just has to be true.

 

[Votto]

Simply a fact, dude. Anyone who thinks humans are basically good inside needs to take a long, hard, honest look in the mirror.

What a self-hating statement.

Does God think so little of us?

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

The fact that I want to talk myself into doing the right thing, despite it being more difficult, is proof of innate goodness.

The fact that you HAVE to talk yourself into doing it is proof that you AREN'T innately good. A longing to be good is not the same as being good.

It’s more than longing; it’s action. If goodness was innate, it would mean as much as blinking or breathing.

To have an innate sense of right and wrong does not mean doing good is innate.

After all, we all violate the inner voice. If we are naturally good, why do we do that?

To add confusion, the voice is not always correct. Sometimes what we think is good, is actually bad, and what we desire may cause us to rationalize that something is really good when deep down we know it's bad. I think this leads to mental disorders.

The Bible says that overall the human heart is deceitful, as our biggest down fall is self deception.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But does God love me?

Of course, but not because of your wonderfulness; because of His grace and mercy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What a self-hating statement.

Does God think so little of us?

Nothing self-hating about it. It's called "honest self-knowledge", which I realize is a rare thing in the age of participation awards and "building self-esteem" without actually earning it.

I have character flaws. You have character flaws. Everyone has character flaws. Only a damned fool or a liar tries to claim otherwise.

As for God, He obviously thinks a lot of us, considering the amount of trouble He's gone to for us. But I don't have to think badly of those I love to recognize their imperfections, and neither does God.

Ask yourself this: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the right thing, because you didn't really want to?

Now ask yourself THIS: have you ever had to talk yourself into doing the wrong thing? Or did you just have to convince yourself it wasn't really that bad?

The fact that I want to talk myself into doing the right thing, despite it being more difficult, is proof of innate goodness.

The fact that you HAVE to talk yourself into doing it is proof that you AREN'T innately good. A longing to be good is not the same as being good.

It’s more than longing; it’s action. If goodness was innate, it would mean as much as blinking or breathing.

To have an innate sense of right and wrong does not mean doing good is innate.

After all, we all violate the inner voice.

To add confusion, the voice is not always correct. Sometimes what we think is good, is actually bad, and what we desire may cause us to rationalize that something is really good when deep down we know it's bad. I think this leads to mental disorders.

The Bible says that overall the human heart is deceitful, as our biggest down fall is self deception.

That is the most profound, insightful post I have read today.

 

[ricechickie]

But does God love me?

Of course, but not because of your wonderfulness; because of His grace and mercy.

So I’m supposed to go around with sense of unworthiness of God’s love, even though He does love me, and I’ve been made in his image?

I’m not supposed to feel good about that and strive to live up to that love, but I’m supposed to feel like a wretch that doesn’t deserve the love freely given?

FUCK THAT.

 

[ricechickie]

I strive to do good every day of my life.

My parents raised me with the knowledge that I’m a good person worthy of their love, and God’s love, and imbued with that knowledge, along with corrections when necessary, I loved myself. And I continued to hold myself to high standards to do the right thing, because I have confidence that that is the person I am meant to be.

Why would a Christian want to make me feel otherwise?

 

[OldLady]

But does God love me?

Of course, but not because of your wonderfulness; because of His grace and mercy.

So I’m supposed to go around with sense of unworthiness of God’s love, even though He does love me, and I’ve been made in his image?

I’m not supposed to feel good about that and strive to live up to that love, but I’m supposed to feel like a wretch that doesn’t deserve the love freely given?

FUCK THAT.

Um, I think it has to do with being humble, though I'm not sure.

 

[ricechickie]

But does God love me?

Of course, but not because of your wonderfulness; because of His grace and mercy.

So I’m supposed to go around with sense of unworthiness of God’s love, even though He does love me, and I’ve been made in his image?

I’m not supposed to feel good about that and strive to live up to that love, but I’m supposed to feel like a wretch that doesn’t deserve the love freely given?

FUCK THAT.

Um, I think it has to do with being humble, though I'm not sure.

I am humble. I don’t think I’m God’s favorite. I don’t think I’m more worthy than anyone else, of love or success. I jist think that I am a good person (not a saint), because every day, I do my best to do good things.

That benefits everyone around me. It makes me feel good. It’s a win-win.

 

[OldLady]

But does God love me?

Of course, but not because of your wonderfulness; because of His grace and mercy.

So I’m supposed to go around with sense of unworthiness of God’s love, even though He does love me, and I’ve been made in his image?

I’m not supposed to feel good about that and strive to live up to that love, but I’m supposed to feel like a wretch that doesn’t deserve the love freely given?

FUCK THAT.

Um, I think it has to do with being humble, though I'm not sure.

I am humble. I don’t think I’m God’s favorite. I don’t think I’m more worthy than anyone else, of love or success. I jist think that I am a good person (not a saint), because every day, I do my best to do good things.

That benefits everyone around me. It makes me feel good. It’s a win-win.

Try not to listen to Cecilie. I swear she lives to make people feel miserable.

 

[Cecilie1200]

But does God love me?

Of course, but not because of your wonderfulness; because of His grace and mercy.

So I’m supposed to go around with sense of unworthiness of God’s love, even though He does love me, and I’ve been made in his image?

I’m not supposed to feel good about that and strive to live up to that love, but I’m supposed to feel like a wretch that doesn’t deserve the love freely given?

FUCK THAT.

Um, I think it has to do with being humble, though I'm not sure.

I am humble. I don’t think I’m God’s favorite. I don’t think I’m more worthy than anyone else, of love or success. I jist think that I am a good person (not a saint), because every day, I do my best to do good things.

That benefits everyone around me. It makes me feel good. It’s a win-win.

Try not to listen to Cecilie. I swear she lives to make people feel miserable.

I'll take it as a compliment that a fuzzyheaded doofus like you doesn't approve. If I am ever being the sort of person you like, please tell me so that I can stop immediately.

 

[ding]

Think of it this way, two people who are caring, thankful and humble will always have a more successful relationship than two people who are cruel, thankless and selfish.

Success is a broad measure but we all know what it looks like in reference to failure. It can be measured many ways, but the contrast to its antithesis is always stark.

I suppose it depends on what one’s goal is, as to whether one is successful or has failed.

Sure, if your goal is to get divorced than acting selfishly and cheating on your spouse would be the way to go. However, if your goal is to have a happy and long lived marriage then being faithful and selfless is the better choice.

But most people tend to view success and failure in the traditional sense. Where success is defined as good and failure is defined as bad.

You were the one who said my definition of success might have been too narrow. Now you seem to want to narrow it.

Consider this example:

A woman with children works hard, makes money, and gets promoted. The promotion involves more hours, more travel, but a hefty raise. The family will be well off, but everyone else will feel the strain and have to sacrifice time and energy to make up for her absence.

If her goal is to make as much money as she can, she takes the job and is successful.

If her goal is being there for her kids’ lives as much as possible, then she doesn’t take the job, and she’s successful.

Those who share her values and goals will applaud her decision. Those who don’t may even go so far as to call her a failure.

Not really what I was talking about now is it.

So your examples “work” and mine don’t.

Quelle surprise.

I didn’t say that. I said it was not really what I was talking about. To understand what I am saying you must compare stark contrasts.

It seems to me that you don’t want to believe in absolute wrong and right unless a wrong has been done to you. In those instances you absolutely do believe in a universal right and wrong.

When I use the term successful behaviors I am talking about universal rights and when I use the term failed behaviors I am talking about universal wrongs.

You can argue against this all you want but the moment a wrong is done to you you let the cat out of the bag that you do believe in a universal right and wrong.

 

[ricechickie]

It’s like Jesus speaks through you....

 

[ding]

To answer this question, we should first define what "good" means to each of us, and then answer.

What say you?

Man knows right from wrong; good from evil. He is born a moral being and is hard wired for morality.

Man knows right from wrong so much so that when he violates it, rather than abandoning the concept, he rationalizes that he did not violate it. That's how much man knows right from wrong and prefers right over wrong.

He is born a moral being and is hard wired for morality.
You got some research bearing that out?

Sure. Google are we hardwired for morality.