EVIL!!!!!!!!

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6305
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:51 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:07 pm
The Abrahamics is the commonly accepted collective noun for the three religions - it is not my own term
I didn't say it was. I just said it was a poor term, whosever it was.
However there would be no Christianity without Judaism [ Jesus was a Jew as were the Apostles and the very first Christians ]
I happily recognize that.

gaffo
Posts: 2377
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:26 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:01 pm
gaffo wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:23 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Mon Aug 12, 2019 2:12 am

I say that Shakespeare deliberately put that utterance in the mouth of a fool, Polonius, in Hamlet. It didn't work out well for him -- but he "got the point" in the end. :wink:
tell me more - not know of Shakespeare, my view is man being good, self knowledge/and self love.forgineancence is a good thing.

tell me more per shakepseare how that is "evil".
He doesn't say outright that it is: but by putting the advice in the mouth of the very foolish character, Polonius, he implies it's the sort of thing only fools advise. He could have had Hamlet or Gertrude or Horatio, the more admirable and clever characters, say it: but he chose Polonius. And people forget that, and quote that line as if it contains some kind of wisdom.

It doesn't. Polonius, as it turns out, has a one-track-mind, and thinks he's smart, but is not. The "self" he's "being true" to turns out to be an idiot.

Shakespeare is very keen on irony.

P.S. -- He "got the point in the end" by being stabbed to death by Hamlet. So that business of "being true to his own self" doesn't turn out well for him.
my mind goes to the bible's "judge not"..ingnoring lest ya me judged...........

I'm an utter ignoramouse about Shakespeare (maybe he was wise and worth my time to know about him - if so i have failed to date to know of his work.

1. so was Shakespeare wise and had a point in imposing said words in Polonius (never heard of him myself - i affirm my ignorance - life is finite and i just do not know much about Shack's works............i'm ok with my ignorance, but not ok enough to not be schooled. you schooled me sort of. and i thank you.

2. Is Shake a fool as a person, and so his works unworthy.


3. "by putting the advice in the mouth of the very foolish character, Polonius, he implies it's the sort of thing only fools advise" - if so why so? assuming Shake was not a fool.

i understand you cannot school me on Shakes's 20? plays - i'm an utter ignoramous on his works, not proud if that fact, but affirm i am.

i welcome as much schooling as you my provide as to such in this forum (and maybe foster my will to read Shake's works) - who knows, you never do.

I welcome education, just sayin.

thanks for reply Sir.

Dubious
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: "if morality comes from God then why is there disagreement about it among believers?"

Post by Dubious » Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:56 pm

henry quirk wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 1:31 am
That would likely be true if he ever said anything. All we ever hear are humans pretending.
I think if I were seriously lookin' at Christianity: I'd find myself the cleanest translations of the oldest books and go with that.

I think I'd avoid preachers and congregations and folks keen to tell me what God wants or sez.

I think it was Kierkegaard who wrote about Scripture as a personal letter from God to who ever happens to be readin'. If this is the case: what the hell does such a reader need with self-proclaimed intermediaries?
...absolutely nothing...unless it was the intermediaries who wrote the books.

gaffo
Posts: 2377
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:23 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm
gaffo wrote:
Mon Aug 26, 2019 3:47 am
rationally-consistent Atheist can say nothing at all about the concepts "good" or "evil."
not true at all!
Good!

Then you can prove me wrong if you can provide even one counterexample, in this kind of way.

The basic Atheist premise is this: "No gods exist." Or, if you prefer, "I lack belief in gods." Or maybe, "I believe in no gods." It makes no difference to what I'm about to say next: they all go to the same point.

The basic Atheists premise means this: that the universe exists without an objective reason or purpose for its existence. Nobody 'intended" anything by creating it, because there's no God. Fair enough?

Well, if there is no intention behind the origin of the universe, then there is also no objective purpose for the things in it. Like the universe itself, they are accidental products of an accidental process, and nothing more.
yes that my view - as person. and athiest.

the later does not define my character.


Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm
If we are accidental product of an accidental universe, then there is no sense in which we can call ourselves or our actions "evil" or "good."


nonsequiter on your part.

man is a moral animal via evolution -as a socialing moral animal - if we lacked morals we would have died out a million years ago.

so reason we are still Tribal/racist/sexist - instead of Global. tech has now outsized our moral DNA.

not saying man is immoral, he us just tribal/racist/sexist - fear of the "other".

we will soon be able to make "man" not tribal - via gen engineering, but imo such product is not longer man in my view.

I have more kin whit a racist human (my GF is not of my race - not that anyone care - vegs makes it a point that i posted she is black 5 times in the last 2 yrs here -s o whatever).

my point is racists are human - though tribal (and good - but not so much being tribal racists) - but still human and worthy of comdemning/educating.


the "next" being via gen engineering may not be human enough to me to relate to nor care about as a "brother".

Nature - natural evolution breeds "one of our own"..................."good" overall.

the next - gentic engineering, will not.


BTW - i do feel for the affect of globalism, i helps mexicans/bangalise while making american working folks poorer,

i can relate, i'm poor too but afiirm natural selection as making us all humans - and globalisation helping others while hurting me moneywise.


as to gen engineered future folks, no, not so kin to call them as folks like me.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm
Therefore, Atheism has no way to speak intelligibly of "evil."

nonesence.

man is a socail aminmal via his evolutionary DNA.

any acts that threaten surivival of the collective is "evil"

so murder is "evil"

but not in case of war and self defence - why those cases are not viewed as "evil"? - refer to man the social trible animal per survival ot the collective via evolution.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm
For then, no such thing can exist. All there is, is what is. It's neither right nor wrong: it just is, it just exists.
no, man is a moral animal - moraliity (and old tribalism/racism - fear of the other) is made in his DNA as the social animal he is.

and the animal - I'm an animal too - not self dissparagement, just stating the fact - and so as a social animal/man was born with "good"/"moral" DNA - like almost all of us human animals.

dochsund included - though a total asshole and unactualized person - his DNA is as moral (maybe more "moral" than mine - who knows.

yes even racist filth have the same moral genes as the rest of us - they are not in accord to self-knowledge, but of the same moral nature as the rest of us).

Dachsund prob had a bad childhood and born with the short staff.............who know or cares (I know his kind, they are at war with themselves - and not evil, just cowards making the rest of us pay for ther self hate).



Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm
Murder is not right, but it's not wrong.
depends upon motive and circumstances.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm
Rape is not right, but not wrong.

ibid. though with less charity off hand on this particular.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm
Torture is not right, but not wrong.

ibid, same as rape. most folks will confess to make the pain stop, even if 1 of ten make a true confession rather than a false one to make the pains stop.


I do not condone torchure for any reason myself - even if 1 - in 10 result in a true confession and prevents future death.

but that is just my view - noting false confessions outnumber true one on this accord

(and noting i value a Just Republic (rule of law) - American - instead of a thugocrity).


Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm
Achievements are not good, but not bad. Kindness is not good, but not bad. Wisdom is neither good nor bad. Nor is anything.

Now, how would you disprove that?

??


Immanuel Can wrote:
Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:17 pm
It would be easy. Just show that one of these things is the kind of thing that an Atheism would be morally obligated to do by his Atheism.

It would be like this:

"Because the universe is an accidental byproduct of accidental forces, therefore, murder is evil."

But how could any rational person make sense of that? :shock:
you bigotry remains, Athiesm only denies your God as existing.

it offers no morality in any way.

your disparagement make me sick to my stomach.
You needn't be dramatic.

I'm not "disparaging" anything. I'm just going step by step, according to Atheism, and showing you where it leads. If you think you can take it to a different destination, show why that's rational. I'd be fine with that.
[/quote]

You are as racist as dochsund in your own way Sir.

look within, your understanding of the nature of Athiesm is WRONG.

Atheism is only a denial of in your belief in your God - nothing more.

some are immoral - same number of immoral as in your camp (if you wish to wage a Jihad - do to toward your asshole Christians wishing death on all others - instead of asshole in my Athiest camp).

if you are of goodwill you will do so, instead of assuming we all hate your God - most of us don;t and couldn't care less, so do - fine - wage your war against then - while you do so against your asshole Christians (you know who they are!). leave me out of it. I'ma peace loving Athiest not at war with your God - be he exist or not.

gaffo
Posts: 2377
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:46 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:05 pm
[
But it is not true that what it DOES claim has no implications for morality.


duh!!!!!!!!!!



your view of Atheism is via christian bias.

you affirm Athiesm posits no moral position, the continue to dissparage us!!!!!

bullshit sir.

gaffo
Posts: 2377
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:47 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:05 pm

But it is not true that what it DOES claim has no implications for morality.


WTF??????



your view of Atheism is via christian bias.

you view of Athiesm is all wet, and continue to dissparage us!!!!!

bullshit sir.

you are Dachsund, only instead of "blacks" its "atheists" for you.

you have much to learn, look within Sir.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:55 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:02 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 2:56 am
Point is you keep coming back to the same people.
You are are not aware there is a wide range of non-theists who have a wide range of views...
Okay, let's make that real. Let's talk particulars.

You have said that people such as Nietzsche, Hume, Darwin, Freud, and Dawkins are not your brand of Atheism.

Give me your particular brand. What is it that you, personally, believe about Atheism that none of these Atheist "greats" believed?
Yes, killing is an inherent instinct and natural in 99% of animals.
But humans has evolved to have a moral compass re killing, note mirror neurons and empathy with regards to another human being. This human compassion is at present extended to pets and other animals.
That's an "is." It does not automatically issue in any "ought" at all. If you think it does, you need to show why it does. It's not enough that you say, "Well, a lot of people believe it..." Because at one time, 100% of the people in the world believed the world was flat -- and every last one of them was wrong. So you need to give us reasons to think that this time, these "humans" of whom you speak are right, and not deceived again.
The most efficient approach...
"Efficiency" takes for granted a purpose. But if one's "purpose" is to purify the race, say, as Hitler's was, then killing is the most efficient way to guarantee that no "pollution" enters the race. So that is not a good argument.
As I had argued the theists' basis of relying on an illusory God with threats and fears of Hell [this is enforcement] of hell is not effective overall with the existence of the malignant theistic Islam.
This isn't pertinent to the question of what Atheism can rationalize. Even were it true that 100% of the Theists were "not effective" in some way, it would not make any case that Atheism WAS.

So that comment is just off topic. It doesn't help your case.
Example;
  • 1. Many children believe Santa Claus exists as real and parents practice Santaism.

    2. I have nothing to do with 1 and do not practice Santaism. In this case I am indifferent to 1 and there is no question of whether I believe or do not believe Santa Claus is real or not. If anyone insist Santa Clause exists as real, then bring proof to justify it.
The above is the same with my views with theism and my position as [a]theist, i.e. not-a-theist or non-theist.
If necessary I can show why theists are theists and why the theists' God cannot exists as real.

My position as [a]theist - indifferent to theism, is focused to be a better human striving for perpetual peace grounded on a sound framework and system of morality and ethics grounded on secular absolute moral maxims as demonstrated in the OP.

I am optimistic with the current exponential expansion of knowledge and technology especially in the field of neuroscience, humanity will be able to establish an efficient framework and system of morality and ethics that is fool proof.

Note efficiency is conditioned upon achieving stated goals.
What I had emphasized is the efficiency of achieving goals within a model and system that is efficient.
I have already stated the moral goals why do you deflect and deviate to evil goals of Hitler and the likes.

I agreed the current model of Christianity is a good one with a certain level of efficiency optimize to conditions since 2000 years to the present but the way it has driven its theological moral [immutability, threats, fears, ] will not be efficient in the future as humans continue to evolve and changes are inevitable.

Thus we need a new dynamic framework and model for morality and ethics in the future to meet new challenges.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu Aug 29, 2019 5:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Thu Aug 29, 2019 3:24 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:49 am
I was a practising Christian for I9 years - a non practising Christian for another 27 years - an atheist for 9 years [ where I am now ]
I think that I will probably remain an atheist for the rest of my life but I cannot be certain as I could become a Muslim before I die

This is important because if I am studying Islam then it means I am not closed minded on the subject of God

I have also read the Torah [ the first five books of the Old Testament ] the Bible and the Koran
I have only read them all once but have no problem in reading them again especially the Koran
But I will not be reading the Bible in its entirety because its too long so only individual chapters

I am learning more about Islam than I ever knew and hope to continue learning as much about it as I possibly can
And finally just in case Immanuel Can does not know this Jesus is loved by Muslims as much as he is by Christians

So that is me then : an atheist who knows nothing at all about God but is studying Islam to increase his knowledge and understanding of him

And though Immanuel Can will claim that Islam is different to Christianity [ which it obviously is ] this is not what this thread is about at all
However if I converted to Islam tomorrow then he and I would be in complete agreement about good and evil and the meaning of existence
Islam?? for the 72 virgins and eternal erection?
Islam is inherently malignant, evil and violent... ... so we are still in the topic of evil?

I have been studying Islam full time for many years with focus on the Quran couple with very detailed analysis and noted the central core and ethos of Islam is inherently malignant, evil and violent.

3400++ or 55% of the 6236 verses of the Quran are focused on non-Muslims [drive the primal US versus Them instinct] culminating in Allah exhorting Muslims to war against and kill non-Muslims under very loose conditions of threats, i.e. even drawing of cartoons of Muhammad is a threat to Islam thus justification for killing the non-Muslims involved and supporting it. This is so evident.

The 'Us versus Them' impulse in the Quran is 99/100 strong and is the nursery ground for terrible evil culminating in genocides.

The "Us versus Them" is the grounding in the 8 stages of Genocide;
http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/8 ... ocide.html

The Prophet Isa in the Quran is not the Jesus Christ in the Gospel.
  • 4:157. And because of their [Jews - infidels] saying: We [infidels] slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger [a misconception] - They slew him not nor crucified, but it [is only] appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they [infidel -Christians] have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they [infidels] slew him not [that is] for certain, [Muslims insist Jesus was not killed nor crucified]
In Quran, God has no son, to insist would be the greatest sin;
  • 5:72. They [infidels - Christians] surely disbelieve [KFR; kafara] who say : Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary.
    The Messiah [Jesus] (himself) said: O Children of Israel [Jews], worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.
    Lo! whoso [infidel] ascribeth partners [ShRK; yush'rik] unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden Paradise. His [infidel's] abode is the Fire. For evildoers [ZLM: lilẓẓālimīna] [infidels] there will be no helpers.
The Quran condemned the Christians as infidels [Kuffar] because the Christians claim Jesus -Son of Mary, is God. In this case, the Christians had assigned partners to Allah - the greatest sin in Islam.

The above are merely two of the many such verses where Allah condemned Christians [and non-Muslims] as evil people, are disbelievers and in the most derogatory terms and hatred.

Yes, there are some verses in the Quran where Allah seem to have spoken of the Jews and Christians favorably. But these verses were stated in the early stages of Muhammad's preaching where he had to present the usual 'sales talk' as buddies and pander with the hope of converting the Jews and Christians.
But the Jews and Christians were too intelligent [theological wise] to buy Muhammad's snake oils and that made Muhammad very angry, thus the hatred, antagonism culminating with threats and actual evil and violence acts upon the Jews, Christian up the present.

A wise religion would never emphasize the 'Us versus Them' primal and tribalistic impulse, and worst still include evil and violent elements that are loosely defined which enable some zealous Muslims the passport to commit terrible evil and violence in the name of Islam.

If you are driven for spirituality, then Buddhism-proper [focus on mindfulness] would be one choice. But note some Buddhist experts advice Buddhism proper is not efficient for those above [55-60] since the brain has been subject to much atrophy.
The saying “You can't teach an old dog new tricks” applies here.

What is happening to you is very normal with many people as they get older;
  • Across the world, people have varying levels of belief (and disbelief) in God, with some nations being more devout than others. But new research reveals one constant across parts of the globe: As people age, their belief in God seems to increase.
    https://www.livescience.com/19971-belie ... m-age.html
Note Anthony Flew the once most famous atheist was 'forced' into deism during the later part of his life when his rational neurons atrophized and could not inhibit the primal existential crisis.

If you are desperate for salvation, revert back to Christianity with focus on the Gospel of Christ only.

If you want to go into details we can open a thread;
Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?

ETA:
Raised a new Thread;
Is Islam a Peaceful Religion?
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=27267&p=421979#p421979

Your comments to that OP?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6305
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:07 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:55 am
My position as [a]theist - indifferent to theism, is focused to be a better human striving for perpetual peace grounded on a sound framework and system of morality and ethics grounded on secular absolute moral maxims as demonstrated in the OP.
This is your answer to my question about how your "Atheism" is different from those of Nietzsche, Darwin, Rand...etc.?

And it is your assumption that these beliefs are grounded in Atheism itself?

I think the other Atheists will say they're purely your own. They will not share them, nor will they seem them as any sort of logical outcome or necessary extensions of Atheism. In fact, I know they will; they've already said they want Atheism represented as a one-axiom negation.

And that's the way I'm representing it here. I think that maybe the one who's misrepresenting it is not me.

But I'll let those other Atheists set you straight about that. What do others think: does Atheism logically entail a belief of the sort VA outlines above?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6305
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:56 pm

gaffo wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 12:47 am

your view of Atheism is via christian bias.

you view of Athiesm is all wet, and continue to dissparage us!!!!!

bullshit sir.
Sorry, gaffo: I have already responded to this. It read as follows:

"You needn't be dramatic.

I'm not "disparaging" anything. I'm just going step by step, according to Atheism, and showing you where it leads. If you think you can take it to a different destination, show why that's rational. I'd be fine with that."


Show that Atheism leads somewhere other than amorality. I'll even let you pick the precept you choose. You can show why Atheism leads to, "It's wrong to lie/cheat/steal/commit adultery/kill/etc. etc. etc." You pick it. Then make the case.

If you can't, then you would have to recognize that what I said is true: that Atheism leads to no moral precepts at all. It makes nothing wrong, and nothing right. In other words, it has no conception of "evil" at all.

Which is what I've been saying.

So, ante up or don't. But I think you know what I know: that either way, you won't win. I'm actually right about that. And it has nothing to do with "disparaging." it has everything to do with what Atheism cannot achieve.

uwot
Posts: 4370
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by uwot » Thu Aug 29, 2019 9:55 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:56 pm
..."I'm not "disparaging" anything. I'm just going step by step, according to Atheism, and showing you where it leads..."
But Mr Can, you have included two steps that no atheist would agree to:
The god described in the bible exists.
Good is whatever that character says it is.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:56 pm
...If you think you can take it to a different destination, show why that's rational. I'd be fine with that."
Raymond the supreme blue torture monkey exists.
Raymond says farting on public transport is evil.
Therefore, farting on public transport is evil.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:56 pm
Show that Atheism leads somewhere other than amorality.

Well Mr Can, since 'moral' in your view means 'according to my god's will', where else could it possibly lead?
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:56 pm
I'll even let you pick the precept you choose. You can show why Atheism leads to, "It's wrong to lie/cheat/steal/commit adultery/kill/etc. etc. etc." You pick it.
Any of the above.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:56 pm
Then make the case.
You might get caught.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:56 pm
If you can't, then you would have to recognize that what I said is true: that Atheism leads to no moral precepts at all. It makes nothing wrong, and nothing right. In other words, it has no conception of "evil" at all.

Which is what I've been saying.
Yes but you, and the halfwit apologists you have borrowed from, have turned it into a woeful argument:
The concept of evil can only come from your god.
Some actions and events are evil.
Therefore, your god exists.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:56 pm
So, ante up or don't. But I think you know what I know: that either way, you won't win. I'm actually right about that.
To quote the great Bill Murray: "It’s hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it’s damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person."

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:29 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 7:07 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:55 am
My position as [a]theist - indifferent to theism, is focused to be a better human striving for perpetual peace grounded on a sound framework and system of morality and ethics grounded on secular absolute moral maxims as demonstrated in the OP.
This is your answer to my question about how your "Atheism" is different from those of Nietzsche, Darwin, Rand...etc.?

And it is your assumption that these beliefs are grounded in Atheism itself?

I think the other Atheists will say they're purely your own. They will not share them, nor will they seem them as any sort of logical outcome or necessary extensions of Atheism. In fact, I know they will; they've already said they want Atheism represented as a one-axiom negation.

And that's the way I'm representing it here. I think that maybe the one who's misrepresenting it is not me.

But I'll let those other Atheists set you straight about that. What do others think: does Atheism logically entail a belief of the sort VA outlines above?
You are ignorant of [a]theism, preferably non-a-theist or a non-theism.

[A]theism [your preference not mine] is a default and had existed since the first emergence of humans.
Then [a]theism was slowly dissected by theism [primitive polytheism] then to the present monotheism.

Aside from default [a]theism, alternatives to theism within the same field existential crisis has been around since more that >10,000 years ago.

Note [a]theism within Hinduism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism_in_Hinduism
Then we have Buddhism which is 500 years Before Christ.
Note there are appx 500 million Buddhists around the world and many more communists [China, Russia, Cuba] which are [a]theistic.

So what is so grand with associating [a]theism with a limited group comprising Nietzsche, Darwin, Rand...etc.?

Your claim '[a]theist cannot establish absolute moral rules' is false.

surreptitious57
Posts: 3517
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 » Fri Aug 30, 2019 5:07 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
does Atheism logically entail a belief of the sort VA outlines above
Logically yes absolutely no and by that I mean that his view is not an exclusive one
Since the spectrum goes from defending the right of theism to exist in every manifestation possible to the total abolition of all beliefs
There is therefore no single position with regard to what atheists think of religion beyond the non acceptance of the existence of God
My own position is that the freedom to think or believe whatever you want is a basic human right that should not be denied to anyone

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6305
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:51 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:29 am
You are ignorant of [a]theism, preferably non-a-theist or a non-theism.
I think that's pretty obviously not true. I've taken your word for this definition, and the word of other Atheists. If you lied, it's not my fault. I took your word.

What's interesting, though, is that you can't seem to connect your Atheism to any moral premises or conclusions. That fact speaks for itself.
[A]theism [your preference not mine] is a default and had existed since the first emergence of humans.
Actually, this is categorically untrue, so far as historians, archaeologists and anthropologists are concerned. There is no evidence of any ancient culture that was not religious.
Your claim '[an]Atheist cannot establish absolute moral rules' is false.
(corrections?)

If that's so, then you can easily prove it. Create a valid syllogism, correct in form, to show that this is so.

Here: I'll make it as easy for you as it can get.

Premise 1: The world is a product of impersonal, unintentional forces. (A necessary truism, if Atheism is also true.)
Premise 2:
Conclusion: Therefore, an Atheist cannot morally be a pedophile. (I'm surmising that any moral agent should regard that act as evil, and that you're such a moral agent. Fair enough?)


Just fill in premise 2, and you've disproved me with final certainty. Atheism has then rationalized an evil act as "evil."

Go ahead.

uwot
Posts: 4370
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by uwot » Fri Aug 30, 2019 4:34 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:51 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:29 am
You are ignorant of [a]theism, preferably non-a-theist or a non-theism.
I think that's pretty obviously not true. I've taken your word for this definition, and the word of other Atheists. If you lied, it's not my fault. I took your word.
Don't be silly, Mr Can. Many atheists have told you they don't believe in god. You keep telling us we believe there is no god.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:51 pm
What's interesting, though, is that you can't seem to connect your Atheism to any moral premises or conclusions. That fact speaks for itself.
Indeed, many atheists have conceded that their atheism has nothing to do with their morality. In practice, we have to build our moral system on our attitude to our fellow humans, rather than some literary creation.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:51 pm
[A]theism [your preference not mine] is a default and had existed since the first emergence of humans.
Actually, this is categorically untrue, so far as historians, archaeologists and anthropologists are concerned. There is no evidence of any ancient culture that was not religious.
Bloody hard to prove a negative, but even if you could prove that no ancient culture was not religious, the prospect of you proving that no ancient society included atheists is nil. Quite apart from that, why you think the myriad metaphysical speculations of our ancestors lends any weight to your belief that Jesus Christ turned up too late to save them is a bleedin' mystery.
Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Aug 30, 2019 2:51 pm
Premise 1: The world is a product of impersonal, unintentional forces. (A necessary truism, if Atheism is also true.)
Premise 2:
Conclusion: Therefore, an Atheist cannot morally be a pedophile. (I'm surmising that any moral agent should regard that act as evil, and that you're such a moral agent. Fair enough?)[/color]

Just fill in premise 2, and you've disproved me with final certainty. Atheism has then rationalized an evil act as "evil."

Go ahead.
'Evil' is a loaded term. It doesn't really mean much outside of theism. To atheists, it equates to something like revolting or contemptible - judgements that atheists can make for themselves, without getting the nod from a character in a book. So premise 2 goes along the lines of 'children are entitled to discover their sexual needs on their own terms'. Sadly, Mr Can, we all know that some paedophiles, theist or atheist, pay little attention to morality.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests