Only if as an atheist you believe evil exists, I don’t personally. I only see angry damaged people acting out.
Yeah. That’s my point.
Then we’re in agreement. Unfortunately a lot of our atheistic humanist brethren have not learned to shake all forms of religious yoke off specifically in their archaic embraced notions of morality or ethics. The ghost [shattered remnants] of religious past still resides within them in their beliefs.
I have defined what is “evil” from the empirical perspective.
Good is the opposite of ‘evil.’
Therefore the absence of evil acts is good.
If one is not committing evil [as defined], then one is doing good [logically].
Thus if one has brought up one’s child the best way possible, then one is doing ‘good’. There are a wide range of human activities and as long as these activities are not identified as evil [raping, theft, lying, etc.] then these activities are ‘good.’
So without a God, we do have good and evil acts.
What is a problem with that.
OTOH, note Allah [God] in the Quran sanction and exhort Muslims to kill non-believers, spread terror to non-believers and other ‘evil’ acts. God promote and condone evil.
Regardless of the many conceptions, logic and rationality will drive all theists to one ultimate definition of God, -the absolutely perfect God - otherwise [I have stated many times] a theist will end up with a god that is inferior and dominated by another god resulting one’s inferior god has to kiss the ass of the more greater and more perfect God.
Note I have defined what is ‘good’ empirically and it has nothing to do with any God [illusory and impossible].
If you have done your best to bring up your children without any evil intent and they have not committed any evils from your teachings, then such an act is ‘good’ which is empirically evident.
Any act that you have done that do not end up with evil consequences, that is considered ‘Good’.
There is no need for ‘good’ to arise from a God, QED.
We may not be in as much agreement as as you might think. Although my conceptions are radically unorthodox, at heart, I’m a theist. The “Good” I talked about is what Plato taught and I happen to agree. According to Wiki:
Note, however, that though the sun is an object of knowledge, we cannot know it by looking directly at it.
Confusion on my part then. Noted.
Well that’s what happens when an atheist enters a theist thread. I consider myself an unorthodox pessimistic atheist not to be confused with the atheistic humanistic nancies that believe technological innovation is the great and only savior of the world. In my world there is no salvation whether from God in the religious scribblings of a book or from a government political bureaucrat. No, for me this world is beyond saving and salvation is only a fanciful unattainable dream.
I’m one of those atheists that other atheists despise. I of course wear it as a badge of honor with pride. Lonely is the life of the modern cynic.
Note criticisms of Plato’s ‘Good’- same as my critique that such ‘Good’ and ‘God’ are empirically baseless and groundless;
No, you haven’t. You only gave an opinion.
What is all-encompassing can have no opposite.
Therefore, “evil” is estrangement from the real.
I consider myself an unorthodox short-term pessimist and a sometimes long-term optimist theist, not to be confused with someone who believes in the religious scribblings of “sacred texts.” As for me, I’m not sure this (human) world is worth saving.
Maybe we should start a club or something.
BTW, I read the rest of the article and saw what Prismatic highlighted: Plato’s Form of the Good does not explain events in the physical world and I agree. But I’m not limited by what Plato says. What Ferber wrote is more interesting because “simultaneously defined and unknown, and be in a state of both “being” and “not being”” is something a “mystic” might say.
You seem to be very lost here.
What I have stated is objective truth.
A proposition is true when it is supported and justified by empirical evidences.
I have defined what is ‘evil’ in terms of empirical acts and provided the basis of empirical evidence to support the definition.
The acts of murder [as defined] is ‘evil’ [as defined].
An act of murder is proven with the evidence of dead body who died abnormally and accompanied by a confession from the murderer and all these evidences are confirmed by experts in their specialized fields.
Btw, do you understand what is meant by ‘opinion’ in relation to objective ‘truth.’
An opinion is a proposition without subjective conviction and objective evidences.
What I have defined is not an opinion because my definition of evil [empirical] has to be supported by empirical evidence.
Where is your evidence to support what you termed as ‘good’ and ‘all-encompassing’?
Note the list of criticisms of your Plato’s Good I have provided above.
What is evil [empirically-based] is part and parcel of reality. Such evils must be addressed and resolved.
Btw, I raised this thread and the onus on me to define what is meant by the terms I used.
Protocol and ethically wise, you cannot force your way in to change my definition with your groundless and baseless terms.
A value-judgment is never objective.
Why?
Again you are lost here.
All value-judgment can be objectified to an agreed set of criteria and conditions to eliminate personal biasness.
Note beauty [whilst highly subjective] is objectified in the results of the Miss World contests and it is accepted objectively with the criteria and conditions ‘what is beautiful’ is judged upon.
It is the same with the results for diving, skating, gymnastic contests in the Olympics which is objective to the extent the winners are recognized without objections and the winners are listed in the medals listing won by each individual athlete and the respective countries.
To eliminate personal bias, the highest and lowest scores are ignored and the balance is averaged out.
As I had stated, what is “objective” is intersubjective consensus based on an agreed Framework & Systems [with it principles, methods, criteria, assumptions, consensus process,].
I believe the idea of objectivity that you have in mind is absolute objectivity, possibly belong to God, is an illusion and an impossibility.
There is no way one can produce anything that is absolutely objective without some elements of human conditions being involved in concluding what is objective.
Why???
Do you want to condone or commit an empirical evil like genocide [it existence can be empirically verifiable and proven]?
Do you condone empirical mass rapes, murders, and the likes?
I don’t condone nor promote the above evil acts, that is why humanity must address such and all evil acts then resolve them.
Yeah. Why?
The sad thing is, I don’t think you will recognize that these ancient ideas make your modern ideas look foolish. 
I don’t see how re what you have quoted can prevent genocides, mass rapes, murder and all sorts of evil in the future?
The above are categorized as empirical evil.
The modern idea is; to prevent, reduce or eliminate empirical evil, one need to apply the appropriate modern Problem Solving Techniques.
On of the essential feature of any Problem Solving Technigues is one must first define the problem.
Thus we need to define what is empirical-evil.
To force change, in other words. “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” - Albert Einstein
Why? “Just as value is not in the object but in our way of relating to the object, neither is meaning or purpose in the object, but in our way of relating to the object.” The “evils” you describe reflect relationships, not empirical realities.
To some extent, especially problems that require a paradigm shift to resolve, I agree we cannot use the “same thinking” we used when we created the problem.
Many a times we need to step of the of the box we are in to resolve a problem correctly and efficiently. e.g.
Drawing nine dots on a piece of paper and have a go with a pencil. Place your pencil somewhere, draw four straight lines without taking your pencil off the page. Each line must start where the last line finished.
I believe I have stepped out of the existing paradigm into a new paradigm in addressing the problem of empirical evil. Instead of looking for the root of evil externally, I am proposing a Copernican turn to understand and resolve the problem of empirical evil from our own internal self from the neural basis. This is a very novel approach.
In the other hand, the theists are stuck in the paradigm of theism on a psychological basis in looking at the problem from the major premise of an illusory non existing God. What follows from such a major premise will be an illusory and not effective solutions.
Thus theists are stuck with Einstein’s;
“… solving problems with the same thinking they used when they created them.”
Not sure where you are heading with ‘relationship’.
Why are real problems like genocides, murder, rapes, and the likes not empirical realities?
They literally have a negative value for humanity.
To eliminate, prevent or reduce such negative values we have to address and resolve these empirical evils.
Are you implying we [humanity] should ignore these evil acts [empirical based], let them happen and disregard the sufferings of the victims of such evils?
Nothing of the kind! I’m saying we should recognize that the evils you mention are caused by a debauched relationship with the world. It’s a spiritual matter, not an empirical one. If you appreciate Buddhism, certainly you can appreciate that.
The Eight-Fold Path is about right relationship, not overcoming evil.
Although one equates to the other - an issue of pursuing hope or avoiding threat (half full / half empty).
As an afterthought to my last post, it is no accident that the “forbidden fruit” is the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil. The problem is, ever since Adam took that first bite, people have been gorging themselves on that fruit ever since.
True and thus leading to the need of a Savior of Man, from his “sins” (misjudgments).