What prevents an Athiest from seeking revenge ?

robindch

Malty_T wrote: »

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So what is it that makes us happy(whatever that means)?

God..

"God - manipulating dopamine reception for 200,000 years!"(tm)

gargleblaster

Malty_T wrote: »

Yeah but that's like the perceived notion that your going to be happier after winning the lottery. Nope!

Happiness is more about the journey than a destination.

Highly-publicized stories about less-than-ideal outcomes for a few lotto winners aside, I'll take less stress due to finances over more, TYVM.

irishh_bob

Malty_T wrote: »

Yeah but from a rationalist perspective that's a little short sighted. Ok let's assume to make is easier that you have no blood relatives or friends left who may be affected by your act of revenge. You still have to take into account that you are going to direct suffering upon one or more people. Let's say you do get your revenge and take your own life. Then depending on whether that person had family or friends you've also had an impact on them. Now this isn't about if they were guilty or not, this is about the fact that those people who suffer bullying, or traumatic events are more likely to go out into the world and seek retribution even if that means harming innocents. It's a violent feedback loop. Revenge fuels more revenge. Be it directly or indirectly, by your act of revenge, you have very possibly affected the quality of living of people who have nothing to do with you. If you are going to be gone from this world, why risk inflicting anything at all?

already said i had no interest in harming anyone physically so i dont see how it would effect this individuals family , besides , if the persons family is effected , i see that as a case of the sins of the father etc , something i very much believe in

Sarky

Do you not consider that a very cruel and twisted sentiment? Why should your revenge spread out to people who weren't actually involved? Do you just want someone to blame for your pain? It's a very short-sighted view. What if these relative innocents you hurt take revenge on you? Do you not see how that crap continues on?

Chuck Stone

Monty. wrote: »

The Christian viewpoint is not the topic. True Christians would claim "never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” - Romans 12:19. You can only pretend to be a Christian and at the same time take revenge.

Ahhh I see what's going on here.

You have the god of vengeance to dole out punishment beatings to those who have harmed you and yours in the afterlife.

Now what makes that stance any better than taking the baseball bat and breaking the legs of the rapist yourself?

Unlike eternal damnation at least the rapist has a chance to recover on Earth.

So who would be the more moral is such a situation?

The Christian God of vengeance or the baseball bat weilding atheist?

Monty.

Malty_T wrote: »

Nope, because it's not something that will make us happy. Seems a little counterintuitive I know. If I cut off your leg, odds are in a years time you'd be in the just same state as you were a year after winning the lottery.

Wicknight wrote: »

Mostly the human evolved emotional psychology of ethics.

On top of that is build the cultural/environmental aspects.

And then reason and experience on top of that.

Thanks for staying on topic and understanding the OP rather than trying to deflect it.

Can you expand on your post a bit, particularly ;

"human evolved emotional psychology of ethics. "

irishh_bob

Sarky wrote: »

Do you not consider that a very cruel and twisted sentiment? Why should your revenge spread out to people who weren't actually involved? Do you just want someone to blame for your pain? It's a very short-sighted view. What if these relative innocents you hurt take revenge on you? Do you not see how that crap continues on?

for the third time , im not interested in hurting anyone physically and as for this persons relatives ( whoom ive never met a single one of btw ) , someone else raised the spurious question of how it would effect them , might aswell worry about how prosecuting a criminal would effect the family of the afforementiond convict

Zombrex

Monty. wrote: »

Thanks for staying on topic and understanding the OP rather than trying to deflect it.

Can you expand on your post a bit, particularly ;

"human evolved emotional psychology of ethics. "

Humans have emotional instincts that attempt to regulate behavior at a basic level. For example we feel guilty when we hurt someone else and conclude that what we did was wrong. We feel compelled to act when we see someone suffering and conclude that to do so is moral.

This systems is far from perfect. Sometimes it simply produces bad feelings that can cause anger and resentment in the person, particularly if they are young, which results in the opposite of the desired effect (for example the guilt at doing something wrong can cause someone to act even worse to the person they harmed as that person simply reminds them of how bad they feel).

But over all they have shaped our forms of behavior over hundreds of thousands of years and there is little point trying to understand human ethics without understanding the underlying systems and why they evolved.

ShooterSF

irishh_bob wrote: »

already said i had no interest in harming anyone physically so i dont see how it would effect this individuals family , besides , if the persons family is effected , i see that as a case of the sins of the father etc , something i very much believe in

Yikes. I never met someone, not even online, who supports the idea that one should be punished for the actions of previous generations.I don't suppose you care to offer your reason(s) for justifying such a belief?

Turtwig

ShooterSF wrote: »

Yikes. I never met someone, not even online, who supports the idea that one should be punished for the actions of previous generations.

Haven't you been following Christianity at all?

RP Mc murphy

Monty. wrote: »

We know that true Christians (which are few and far between), do not seek an eye for an eye.

What keep Atheists from seeking revenge ?

Criminal and civil law may be one reason, and the risk of retaliation may be another, but there are ways and means of obtaining revenge without technically breaking the law, or risking retaliation.

We live in a society, there are certain rules and regulations that come with this, we tend to know what these R&R's are. Like "he who breaks the law goes back to the house of pain"

The true Christians as you call them are weak scum like the rest of us, no better no worse (maybe worse - think of the children)

sensibleken

Malty_T wrote: »

Haven't you been following Christianity at all?

or republicanism

monkeybutter

Clearly there is nothing to stop one taking revenge other than human nature, whether it be the fear of consquences or the inherint human nature to not harm others.

Other than that, it depends on the type of revenge, the murder of another in revenge is not the same as smashing your kid brother toys cause he broke yours.

So it would depend on the type of revenge clearly.

No humans exist that haven't taken revenge at some point, no matter what they believe, even the baby jeesus.

Sarky

irishh_bob wrote: »

for the third time , im not interested in hurting anyone physically and as for this persons relatives ( whoom ive never met a single one of btw ) , someone else raised the spurious question of how it would effect them , might aswell worry about how prosecuting a criminal would effect the family of the afforementiond convict

I never mentioned physical harm, why are you so hung up on that? And why would you willingly inflict suffering of any kind on someone who wasn't even responsible for hurting you? Don't you think they deserve to be able to live without worrying about being dragged into a personal vendetta that has nothing to do with them? do you just label them collateral damage? Are their lives just not as important as your need to hurt someone back?

Prosecuting a criminal is completely different from taking justice into your own hands, and you know it. Revenge is a childish need to hurt someone to make yourself feel better. Society's law and justice are about trying to give everyone an equal footing, and stop stupid things like revenge getting out of hand.

irishh_bob

ShooterSF wrote: »

Yikes. I never met someone, not even online, who supports the idea that one should be punished for the actions of previous generations.I don't suppose you care to offer your reason(s) for justifying such a belief?

where did i say such a thing , was replying to the spurious arguement that revenge is wrong due to the effect it might have on the relatives of the perpetrator

if john gilligans ( gangster ) kids are ostracised when it comes to seeking employment etc , theese are examples of the sins of the father

irishh_bob

Sarky wrote: »

I never mentioned physical harm, why are you so hung up on that? And why would you willingly inflict suffering of any kind on someone who wasn't even responsible for hurting you? Don't you think they deserve to be able to live without worrying about being dragged into a personal vendetta that has nothing to do with them? do you just label them collateral damage? Are their lives just not as important as your need to hurt someone back?

Prosecuting a criminal is completely different from taking justice into your own hands, and you know it. Revenge is a childish need to hurt someone to make yourself feel better. Society's law and justice are about trying to give everyone an equal footing, and stop stupid things like revenge getting out of hand.

im begining to think some posters are being willfully obtuse here , i never mentioned the relatives of the individual who wronged me , ive no intention or interest in dragging them ( whoever they are ) into any vendetta , an earlier poster was speculating on whether my exacting revenge would spill over into a relatives life , that is something entirely different , i dont care whether it effects relatives indirectly no more than this perpetrator ( who ruined my life ) cares that thier persecution of me has effected my relatives ( and it has btw ) indirectly

if a victim of bullying in school one day decided to meat out some justice to his abusers and happened to break one of the brutes noses , would you cry a river for the mum of the bully who got a taste of his own medicine ?

ShooterSF

Malty_T wrote: »

Haven't you been following Christianity at all?

Ah I know it's one of it's and Judaism's teachings but I never met anyone who was really comfortable with it (and it appears I may have taken up Bob wrong too)

irishh_bob wrote: »

where did i say such a thing , was replying to the spurious arguement that revenge is wrong due to the effect it might have on the relatives of the perpetrator

if john gilligans ( gangster ) kids are ostracised when it comes to seeking employment etc , theese are examples of the sins of the father

But is that fair? It's not the child's choice that their parent was a gangster and it's unfair to hold it against them.

On revenge as a whole I guess I agree with Malty and Sarky in theory and agree I doubt you get any real closure yet if someone hurt someone close to me I'd probably still end up seeking revenge. Call it human weakness.

irishh_bob

ShooterSF wrote: »

Ah I know it's one of it's and Judaism's teachings but I never met anyone who was really comfortable with it (and it appears I may have taken up Bob wrong too)



But is that fair? It's not the child's choice that their parent was a gangster and it's unfair to hold it against them.

On revenge as a whole I guess I agree with Malty and Sarky in theory and agree I doubt you get any real closure yet if someone hurt someone close to me I'd probably still end up seeking revenge. Call it human weakness.

so you,ve never been suspicious about someone based on the ( poor ) reputation of thier father - brother etc

if a child of a gangster suffers prejudice and discrimination , the lesson to be learned is , dont be a social pariah or those around you will fall victim to guilt by association

A Primal Nut

To answer your question, there is nothing about Atheism that stops someone taking revenge. If the person has violent tendencies and looking for a reason to lash out, or if the person has sufficiently aggressive and feels he or someone he knows has been hurt in some way, its likely that he will seek revenge. If he is more passive, its likely he won't seek revenge (at least not the violent sort). Whether or not someone seeks really depends how aggressive and patient they are - the person's personality, upbringing, circumstances, etc.

I don't think revenge is a strong natural human urge. Otherwise, as you say, we would see it a lot more often, among all people of any creed. How many acts of violence are carried out as revenge - not that many. Much more are carried out for self-gain.

Inconsistenices in organised religion don't stop people seeking revenge either; while some passages may preach forgiveness, others, particularly the old testament, preach God's punishment towards those who anger him, among other acts of revenge. As has happened time and time again throughout history, religious people will find a way in their religion to justify their revenge if they feel the urge to be revengeful.

Atheism is not a moral code - there is nothing about it which stops people murdering, stealing, etc. Its simply the absence of belief in organised religion or God (depending on the definition). Whether that someone does bad things is up to the individual - the same applies to religious people. Not that revenge is necessarily a bad thing - I think our justice system could do with more revenge.

sensibleken

irishh_bob wrote: »

so you,ve never been suspicious about someone based on the ( poor ) reputation of thier father - brother etc

if a child of a gangster suffers prejudice and discrimination , the lesson to be learned is , dont be a social pariah or those around you will fall victim to guilt by association

while it does happen, if it is you that is judging the relatives of a criminal unfavourably because of their association it is you that is at fault. for example I know gilligans brother and he is a lovely man

irishh_bob

sensibleken wrote: »

while it does happen, if it is you that is judging the relatives of a criminal unfavourably because of their association it is you that is at fault. for example I know gilligans brother and he is a lovely man

any relative of john gilligan would need to work hard to earn my trust , i think thats a pretty sensible approach tbh

ShooterSF

irishh_bob wrote: »

so you,ve never been suspicious about someone based on the ( poor ) reputation of thier father - brother etc

Yes as I have said I'm human but I make an effort to realise I'm being unfair and do my best to override my gut.

if a child of a gangster suffers prejudice and discrimination , the lesson to be learned is , dont be a social pariah or those around you will fall victim to guilt by association

No that's one lesson the other is to acknowledge you (not you personally) are relying on an evolved requirement to make a quick decision on someone to protect yourself and that you are being unfair to them if you actually negatively affect that person's quality of life based on those prejudices.

twinQuins

irishh_bob wrote: »

any relative of john gilligan would need to work hard to earn my trust , i think thats a pretty sensible approach tbh

Nope, that's just prejudice. Stop kidding yourself.

Monty.

A Primal Nut wrote: »

To answer your question, there is nothing about Atheism that stops someone taking revenge. If the person has violent tendencies and looking for a reason to lash out, or if the person has sufficiently aggressive and feels he or someone he knows has been hurt in some way, its likely that he will seek revenge. If he is more passive, its likely he won't seek revenge (at least not the violent sort). Whether or not someone seeks really depends how aggressive and patient they are - the person's personality, upbringing, circumstances, etc.

I don't think revenge is a strong natural human urge. Otherwise, as you say, we would see it a lot more often, among all people of any creed. How many acts of violence are carried out as revenge - not that many. Much more are carried out for self-gain.

Inconsistenices in organised religion don't stop people seeking revenge either; while some passages may preach forgiveness, others, particularly the old testament, preach God's punishment towards those who anger him, among other acts of revenge. As has happened time and time again throughout history, religious people will find a way in their religion to justify their revenge if they feel the urge to be revengeful.

Atheism is not a moral code - there is nothing about it which stops people murdering, stealing, etc. Its simply the absence of belief in organised religion or God (depending on the definition). Whether that someone does bad things is up to the individual - the same applies to religious people. Not that revenge is necessarily a bad thing - I think our justice system could do with more revenge.

First honest and clear answer, thanks.

Turtwig

Monty. wrote: »

First honest and clear answer, thanks.

So was everyone else dishonest then?

Monty.

Malty_T wrote: »

So was everyone else dishonest then?

Dishonest is too strong, but there was a lot of spoofing, spinning, twisting and bluffing going on. That's to be expected I suppose. Direct questions rarely get direct answers anywhere these days.

Zombrex

Monty. wrote: »

Dishonest is too strong, but there was a lot of spoofing, spinning, twisting and bluffing going on. That's to be expected I suppose. Direct questions rarely get direct answers anywhere these days.

Well to be fair you were given a lot of direct answers to your question that seemed to not satisfy you. I certain struggled to figure out what exactly you were asking. If you see this as me and others being dishonest that is a shame.

Others had said pretty much exactly what Primal Nut said, so I'm also not sure what exactly you mean by first honest answer.

Saying that their was a lot of spinning going on is also an odd thing to say. This would imply that your original question was highly loaded, that you had a conclusion about atheism you were attempting to push that others tried to avoid with spin and dishonesty.

I didn't initially see your question like that, and I would be disappointed that I engaged in good faith with you if that was the case.

Monty.

Wicknight wrote: »

If you see this as me and others being dishonest that is a shame.

Why the misquote ?

Wicknight wrote: »

this would imply that your original question was highly loaded, that you had a conclusion about atheism you were attempting to push that others tried to avoid with spin and dishonesty.

I have absolutely no conclusions about atheism, and I still don't, and I never will about any belief. I just had questions, that's how I better understand and respect other peoples beliefs. You cannot push someone into spining or otherwise, that's a choice they make themselves. Some people spinned etc., some did not, and I'm old enough and ugly enough to be very able at telling the difference. You get that on any forum, no matter the subject.

Wicknight wrote: »

I didn't initially see your question like that, and I would be disappointed that I engaged in good faith with you if that was the case.

Actually you were one of the posters that bothered to seriously address the question rather than seek to be offended, and I've already thanked you for that. I'm disappointed now that you've seemingly jumped to another track.

Thanks for your earlier replies. They were honest, but in all honesty, I did not find them clear to me. That's perhaps more my issue than yours.

I'm bowing out of this thread. Thanks.

Zombrex

Monty. wrote: »

Why the misquote ?

Which mis-quote?

Monty. wrote: »

I have absolutely no conclusions about atheism, and I still don't, and I never will about any belief. I just had questions, that's how I better understand and respect other peoples beliefs. You cannot push someone into spin, that's a choice they make themselves.

If you just have questions then how can anyone be spinning anything? You can only spin conclusions.

If someone is spinning an answer it is them attempting to mask the conclusion already reached.

-Did you have sex with that woman
-No!
-Well we have photos of you having sex with her
-Well what do you mean by "sex", when you said sex I meant something else.

You can't spin an answer to a question that doesn't already have a conclusion attached to it.

Monty. wrote: »

Actually you were one of the posters that bothered to seriously address the question rather than seek to be offended, and I've already thanked you for that. I'm disappointed now that you've seemingly jumped to another track.

Perhaps it was because you said A Primal Nut was the first honest answer you received.

Monty.

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps it was because you said A Primal Nut was the first honest answer you received.

Please read back to what I posted before you jump to any more conclusions.

"First honest AND clear"
That means you can be honest AND unclear.

Paparazzo

Religion definitely isn't the reason why people have morals. Ask any Christian bloke if they ever had a ****, see if they obeyed church law there.

Turtwig

Monty. wrote: »

Dishonest is too strong, but there was a lot of spoofing, spinning, twisting and bluffing going on.

Could I have three examples of each please?

ShooterSF

Monty. wrote: »

Please read back to what I posted before you jump to any more conclusions.

"First honest AND clear"
That means you can be honest AND unclear.

Now see that's spin

Monty.

ShooterSF wrote: »

Now see that's spin

Good example of spoof :P

Zombrex

Monty. wrote: »

Please read back to what I posted before you jump to any more conclusions.

"First honest AND clear"
That means you can be honest AND unclear.

lol, ok if you say so. With this attitude I'm surprised anyone bothered to answer you at all.

Monty.

Wicknight wrote: »

With this attitude

:rolleyes:

Sarky

Most of us were pretty clear. And honest.