by Kevin Olivier

Created on: April 20, 2009

There is no such thing as "good" nor "evil," only nature.

What most people these days don't realize is that words "good" and "bad" came into existence with thedevelopmentof religion. With the evolution of religious belief, humanity was supplied with ever expanding rules with which one was expected to live by. It was "good" for a person to live by the laws provided and "bad if one were to rebel against them.

With that said, I feel quite comfortable arguing that people are neither born good nor bad, but rather natural. A perfect case study of this assertion would be to look at a third world country, or a post apocalyptic civilization. Whenever a large scale disaster takes its toll on a community of people, common courtesy and philanthropic desires are replaced by the need to survive.

In communist Russia, genocide was commonplace. With the radical Stalinist regime, people were dying of starvation every single day. How did some survive? Cannibalism; with nothing to eat, people's natural instincts kicked in and they ate whatever they could. No one shared food; it was all about survival. Obviously, in modern society cannibalism is strictly forbidden. If one person were to eat another in the US, they would be arrested and most likely be charged with manslaughter.

As you can see, the words "good" and "bad" are just fabricated in order to compare a person to a social standard. A popular argument for fundamentalist believers is that without God, there would be no "good" or "bad." I completely agree with this statement. Without God, there wouldn't be random rules that govern society, which seem to just stem fromintolerantindividuals. Without God, humanity would be able to focus on creating a lifestyle that would help everyone collectively create a better community. Instead of worrying aboutsacrificesand repentance, people would be able to address issues directly effecting them.

That doesn't go to say that without religion killing or stealing would be permitted; this isn't the case at all. I firmly believe that if we were to evolve without religion, we would still frown down upon things such as murder. The reason humanity would most likely eventually outlaw it is because it slow down the progress of mankind. If one person were to kill another, jealousy and hatred would appear. Out of hatred, a person would most likely seek revenge on the person. Eventually, those agreeing with one side or another would team up against each other and a larger war would break out.

It is clear that killing would be a setback to the development of a civil society.

As I was saying before, people are natural. If we were to say that people were inherently good, we would have to address the standard we measure what defines good. Its time that people turn away from religious bigotry. What may be good for a religious agenda may be bad for a societal agenda. I'm quiteconfidentin saying that Elizabeth the first (Bloody Mary) didn't do good, as she though, by burning 300 protestants at the stake. Same goes for all the old crusader movements.

Learn more about this author, Kevin Olivier.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.