EVIL!!!!!!!!

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 »

Immanuel Can wrote:
we can safely say there is not a single moral precept Atheism allows to be true and not a single human act Atheism allows us rationally to call evil
Equally there is not a single immoral precept atheism allows to be true and not a single human act atheism allows us rationally to call non evil

So that would then make it amoral by definition would it not as in neither moral or immoral
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9575
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:33 am So that would then make it amoral by definition would it not as in neither moral or immoral
Not quite.

I'm not speaking of the rightness or wrongness of being an Atheist, but of the logical consequences for someone who has already set their cap that way, and wants to live rationally and consistently with that belief.

A rationally-consistent Atheist can say nothing at all about the concepts "good" or "evil." Neither is a term that has any relevance or reality in the kind of universe Atheism conceives. It would mean that a rationally-consistent Atheist would simply have to say, "I know nothing at all about good or evil; I simply don't believe those terms have any reality."

But then these Atheist suppositions (that no God exists and neither is there any reality to "good" or "evil") would also allow evil (if it does exist) to run free. The would be no rational basis for condemning or approving anything morally.

To be sure, not everybody would seize the option of doing "evil"; but some surely would. And Atheists would have no rational basis for objecting whenever they did.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4225
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 »

Immanuel Can wrote:
A rationally consistent Atheist can say nothing at all about the concepts good or evil . Neither is a term that has any relevance or reality in the kind of universe Atheism conceives . It would mean that a rationally consistent Atheist would simply have to say I know nothing at all about good or evil
An atheist who had a moral philosophy that was entirely compatible with their atheism could say a lot more than nothing at all
So instead of continually focusing on just atheism why not examine each of these moral philosophies to see how valid they are
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4884
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Immanuel Can wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 3:00 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 9:34 am I have already justify how to ground a secular moral imperative or maxim, i.e.
  • No human being shall kill another human being.
So then...this is your logic:

There is no God, (Premise 1, Atheism, by definition)
Conclusion: Therefore, no human being shall kill another human being. (exact restatement of your claim).

Well, what's "Premise 2"? What line of thought gets you from Atheism to the claim that it is therefore not permissible to kill another human being? I can't even think of what a sensible or plausible "Premise 2" would be there. But maybe you can...
The justification is no ordinary human [except the mentally ill or necessary euthanasia in terminal cases] on earth would voluntarily agree to be killed.
Okay, so now you've created another problem. You need to prove that "volunteering" is an objective value.

Now, let us grant that it may be the case that "no ordinary human" would agree to be killed (I don't think it's true at all, and I really don't think you can. I'm certain all the "right to die" people would side with me in saying so.) But let's just pretend you got that one for free.

From where do you get the axiom, things people don't volunteer for cannot be done?

Lots of people doubt that. Children don't "volunteer" for time outs. Criminals don't "volunteer" to be incarcerated. Workers don't "volunteer" -- they expect wages, and have to work anyway, or their families starve. Accident victims don't "volunteer" to be maimed. There are plenty of human situations in which necessity or social requirement, not volunteerism, is the main principle.

In the animal kingdom (which Atheism holds we are members of), lions kill zebras all the time. Not only that, lions kill hyenas, jackals, and other lions. And there is zero moral prohibition on any of that. So how now do you make human being an exception, and say that they are the lone animals for whom "volunteering" is not just a stopper, but a moral/ethical duty to respect?

But again, maybe you know a "Premise 2" that nobody else does. I'll wait and see.
the above maxim will naturally be accepted by all.

Well, no, I can't simply hand you such a claim. It's not. You can see it's not.

But even if it were (let's pretend again), you've created a third problem now: now you've created a need to prove the axiom, "that which will naturally be accepted is obligatory."

Have you got a "Premise 2" for that one?
In this case, no human being has any rational justification to reject that moral maxim.
Certainly they do.

Let's suppose I want to take advantage of my society. My rationale for this is that I am übermensch, or one of the strong and courageous of Randian fame, and it suits my purposes to do something for which people will not volunteer...like, say, paying taxes to me, or settling for a portion of the value of their labour while I acquire the surplus value, or making as many women believe they are attracted to me as I can and using that to induce them give me sexual advantages and money. On Atheism, why must I not do any of this?

I can do it. I want to do it. Given my purpose, to advantage myself, I have a rational goal in mind, toward which this is the quickest route. You may say you don't like it; but I do. Tell me, as an Atheist, then, why I ought not to do whatever I want and whatever advantages me, regardless of whether or not anybody "volunteers." What care I for "volunteering"? What does Atheism add that would make me respect "volunteers," and not take my advantages?

And here, Darwin and Spencer and Sumner and Galton all jump into the discussion. If I am one of the "strong" in this animal society, and I am persuaded by you NOT to seize my natural survival advantages, I am harming the race. The strong must survive, and the weak and stupid must die, or the race will fail to evolve. Nietzsche adds, "Yes: and why should the übermensch be held back by the stupid moral qualms of the sheep?"

Here, the most highly-regarded Atheists all assemble and frown down on you. "Volunteer? What nonsense," they say. Even Richard Dawkins chimes in:

“The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose,
no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” (direct quote)

In other words, the overwhelming opinion of Atheists who are regarded highly by Atheists -- who are cited repeatedly, celebrated and valorized for their Atheistic wisdom -- are ranged against your view. They all ask, "How do you derive morality from Atheism?"

And your answer will not work. Even on this forum, I have had Atheists repeatedly assert to me that Atheism contains no moral claims whatsoever. But now, you tell me you're a different kind of Atheist, and you DO have an ability to ground a moral claim.

And you wonder if I doubt you?
  • * To facilitate survival and preservation of the species, DNA wise ALL humans are embedded with a program in their brain to kill whatever living things for food and nutrients. This kill or be killed program is active in the majority and dormant in some.
    The majority must have the ability to kill animals, fishes and whatever edible living things for food in addition to killing in the case of self-defense.
    The problem is this program is morally blind and some will kill without any moral sense.
This is why humanity must work on the inhibitor programs to modulate this terrible 'necessary' impulse to optimize the well being of all humans.
Wait a minute: did you not notice your own chosen quotation completely destroys your argument? You've just admitted, by quoting the above, that nature is "morally blind and some will kill without any moral sense." But then you want to say, "That's why we must inhibit nature," and "That's why we must deny our programming"?

But there's no possibility of this, under Atheism. There's nothing BUT nature. There's nothing BUT the program. In fact, it would be totally bizarre to think any creature, itself a product of nothing but nature and programming, even COULD resist that.

If we take Atheism seriously, then the upshot is your argument that any obligatory morality can exist is dead. And it's not dead by the hands of the Theists, but by the great "saints" of Atheism, and by the internal logic of the Atheist supposition.

It needs no other critic to pronounce its requiem.
Nah, you are just imposing your bad logic.

My syllogism,
  • 1. Humans exist [self-evident] grounded in reality.
    2. No human [except rare exceptions] will want to be killed.
    3. Therefore no human being shall kill another human being.
3 as a maxim is very logical, otherwise those in 2 will contradict themselves.
I could have stated P2 as 'ALL^ humans as individuals do not want to be killed'
^ except in very rare exceptions of the mentally ill or those in terminal situations.

Note the point in * in the earlier is not a quote, but my own notes.

I don't see how other atheists and any human being can disagree with the above.
Ask them or anyone 'do you want to be killed by another human being'?
Note "want" and being ordinary [unless they are mentally ill] all will answer "NO!"
Thus my conclusion stands.

Re euthanasia, I am referring the very small minority limited to those with specific terminal diseases [appropriately certified and confirmed]. This will be limited to probably 0.000014% or 1,000 out of the 7+ billion. Even with this number I think this sort self-volunteer is very high as not many people are that courageous. Point is I don't believe in the absolutely-absolute [no God to do so] thus my [human] provision for rare exceptions.

Re animals versus humans in relation to morality, surely you cannot be that thick not to know the significant difference between the brain and mental capabilities of humans and other animals.
That humans are higher moral beings is represented by the higher number of mirror neurons [related to empathy] in their brain as compared to minimal in the primates and none in the lower levels of animals.
There are other mental capabilities of humans that differentiate its higher moral competence over other animals, e.g. higher self-consciousness, theory of mind, etc.

Note I say again the maxim,
"no human being shall kill another human being"
is not enforceable but merely to act as a moral guide which I believe will be very efficient.

This is how it will work as a driver for improvement;
There is the absolute secular maxim
"no human being shall kill another human being" as a guide,
but in reality there are loads of killing by humans.
Thus we have a moral gap [variance] represented by the number of real killings.

This variance will drive humanity to research into the roots and to find corrective actions.
Note humans are natural auto-servomechanisms,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servomechanism
i.e. when given a target it will strive via control feedback to close the gap.

The fortunate thing is humanity at present is riding on a tremendous wave and rising trend of an exponential expansion of knowledge and technology which can be relied upon to drive an efficient secular moral and ethical system.
I believe the only hindrance at present is from the theists who are very selfish to secure their own salvation and thus stuck with the more than 2000 old doctrines based on faith.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Thu Aug 22, 2019 6:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4173
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 1:01 am
Lacewing wrote: Wed Aug 21, 2019 11:45 pm Round and round we go.
Yep. I knew you'd run.
What are you talking about? WOW... it is completely pointless to talk with you. If the discussion doesn't fit into your tightly defined parameters, you refuse to hear anything more. I wrote a very thoughtful and honest response to you, expressing HOW IT IS from the perspective of someone who doesn't believe in a god. I explained how my views of atheism do not exist within your parameters, and that's why your claims/points/questions are nonsensical. But you jumped right over that first-hand account to impose your own reality of how it is. Why don't you even try to understand beyond yourself? Is that just impossible for you?

I've had great conversations with theist friends. You don't seem capable of that because of some agenda you always seem to have but refuse to admit to. You pretend to want to discuss things, while continually twisting things your way. It's messed up.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4173
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

What is more evil than an evil theist?

Post by Lacewing »

I see things that I would describe as evil (as in: a type of energy). I.C.'s under-handed communication is one of them... it's downright creepy at times how deceptive and slithery it can be (that's why I've previously pointed out the similarity to a snake). Rather than reflecting the good and sacred that is easily evident in truly spiritual beings and energy, such seems to demonstrate what religion has actually warned against.

What is more evil than an evil theist? It seems like the worst kind of evil, doesn't it?

And to think how such evilness is carried out without much conscious awareness because one believes they are on a god's side, and they don't even NEED to think twice -- making them perfect puppets! What is really controlling them? I bet the truth of it is ironic and very amusing.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 4884
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What is more evil than an evil theist?

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 6:44 am I see things that I would describe as evil (as in: a type of energy). I.C.'s under-handed communication is one of them... it's downright creepy at times how deceptive and slithery it can be (that's why I've previously pointed out the similarity to a snake). Rather than reflecting the good and sacred that is easily evident in truly spiritual beings and energy, such seems to demonstrate what religion has actually warned against.

What is more evil than an evil theist? It seems like the worst kind of evil, doesn't it?

And to think how such evilness is carried out without much conscious awareness because one believes they are on a god's side, and they don't even NEED to think twice -- making them perfect puppets! What is really controlling them? I bet the truth of it is ironic and very amusing.
We need to define what is meant by the term 'evil' for this discussion.

I define 'evil' [secular] in terms of intents and acts, i.e. evil acts are those that are net-negative to the well being of the individual, the group and humanity.

One of the most evil act from theism is the inculcating and exacerbating of threats, fears and anxieties within believers to the extent the believers will obey every command of God within the scriptures to avoid perdition in Hell.
In addition, theism promote a heavy dose of the primal "us versus them" impulse and that cause the believers to be wary [to the extent of being dangerous enemies] of the 'them' i.e. the non-believers as a serious threat to their security re salvation.

That obviously generate a very negative state to one's well being and that of group[s] which in turn will have a net-negative to humanity when some evil prone theists commit terrible and violent acts as inspired the the holy texts to please God as a religious duty. This is so evident with Islam and others.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4173
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: What is more evil than an evil theist?

Post by Lacewing »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 8:00 am
I agree with your definition and observations.

I also think that people can be unconscious of the evil nature they are manifesting, and that's why I might refer to it as an "energy". Whereas intents and acts might be considered as conscious.

Unconscious evil seems worst of all because the person is not really at the helm of controlling their energy. They are brainwashed by one thing or another, and they condemn and lash out at everyone who is not like them...some even as far as wishing harm or annihilation on the perceived "others". It does not seem sane. Such evil energy seems like a type of cancer of ones being/essence -- systematically destroying and replacing their original healthy awareness and nature with a darkly twisted mentality that is disassociated from all else.

I think some of the writings in The Bible were warnings to theists about what they could become -- speaking more to them than to anyone else. Because the kind of theist beliefs that pit good against evil in epic proportions can actually create it in order to try to prove themselves right.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9575
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 4:45 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
A rationally consistent Atheist can say nothing at all about the concepts good or evil . Neither is a term that has any relevance or reality in the kind of universe Atheism conceives . It would mean that a rationally consistent Atheist would simply have to say I know nothing at all about good or evil
An atheist who had a moral philosophy that was entirely compatible with their atheism could say a lot more than nothing at all
Good! Let's hear about that.

What can an Atheist say, premised solely on his Atheism, about evil? Lay it out, and let's look at that.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9575
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:34 am My syllogism,
  • 1. Humans exist [self-evident] grounded in reality.
    2. No human [except rare exceptions] will want to be killed.
    3. Therefore no human being shall kill another human being.
Okay, VA, let's take a logical look at this:

Premise 1 is true, but manifestly entirely irrelevant. It fails even to include the term "Atheism." A premise missing one of the key terms is irrelevant.

Premise 2 takes for granted, with no proof at all, that "wanting" is a morally-binding quality. And it again fails to mention the key term.

The conclusion does not follow from the premises.

Want to say this as inoffensively as i can: I can see you're not familiar with syllogisms or logic. Now, many people don't know how to do syllogisms, so I can't blame you if yours fails to fit the syllogistic format. But it isn't really even close. However, I thought it fair to give you the chance to make your case rationally. We'll have to try a more informal route, I can see.
Ask them or anyone 'do you want to be killed by another human being'?
Why do you need to ask them? Darwin, Nietzsche or Rand would say, "Who cares what they want?" What makes you certain that humans are the kinds of creatures one owes to ask anything? Why aren't they the kind of creatures one simply uses as one wills?

Look at it this way. No lion says to a zebra, "Do you wish to be killed?" (And if it did, and took that seriously, it well might starve.) Humans are animals too, right? So why should one human "ask" another if he/she "wants" or "likes" anything, especially if doing that thing stands to advantage the first person?

I'm not saying that's my view. But a consistent Atheist would be obligated to think that. If you think an Atheist owes us to "ask" each other whether we "like" this or that, you would need to show that beyond a reasonable doubt. It's not obvious.
Re animals versus humans in relation to morality, surely you cannot be that thick not to know the significant difference between the brain and mental capabilities of humans and other animals.
That humans are higher moral beings is represented by the higher number of mirror neurons [related to empathy] in their brain as compared to minimal in the primates and none in the lower levels of animals.
True, but not relevant. Really, this is not proof of anything at all.

Let us grant that humans are immensely better than all other animals. If they are still animals, so what? Paramecia are immeasurably below lions -- much more distant, in fact, than lions are from us; yet lions still kill. What feature of our sophistication makes it logical to think we can't, or shouldn't, kill?

But in point of fact, this argument too is irrelevant. That's because it fails to refer to the key term at all. It doesn't even make any use of the supposition "Atheism is true," so it's not an argument for that proposition, nor is it an argument from that proposition. It's just off topic, then.

So it may be that not killing has some utility for us, sometimes; of course it's equally obvious that sometimes killing does have utility to us. Either way, the fact of its utility to us won't make it wrong to kill, of course, if Atheism is true. It will merely leave it as optional -- and not as a morally "better" or morally "worse" thing to do than not killing.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9575
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 6:11 am it is completely pointless to talk with you. If the discussion doesn't fit into your tightly defined parameters, you refuse to hear anything more.
Au contraire. I put to you a very simple task, which you are evading: to speak about Atheism from Atheism. It's your own ideology, from your own ideology. But you're afraid to. You can see the train coming down the tunnel, and you're getting the heck off the tracks.

I don't blame you. But why, then, would you ever want to follow an ideology you are afraid to explore on its own terms?
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4173
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Lacewing »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:44 pm I put to you a very simple task, which you are evading: to speak about Atheism from Atheism. It's your own ideology, from your own ideology.
Have I NOT told you that it's NOT an ideology for me? Why are you ignoring this and insisting that I answer your question as it suits you?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:44 pm But you're afraid to. You can see the train coming down the tunnel, and you're getting the heck off the tracks.
This is you being a manipulative and dishonest idiot. I've clearly responded to you. You do not accept it. Stop making up crap about what other people should or do think. Are you aware that there's a difference between your understanding/reality/beliefs and that of a broader reality and others? Does your ego have no bounds?
Atla
Posts: 3064
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Atla »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:57 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:44 pm I put to you a very simple task, which you are evading: to speak about Atheism from Atheism. It's your own ideology, from your own ideology.
Have I NOT told you that it's NOT an ideology for me? Why are you ignoring this and insisting that I answer your question as it suits you?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:44 pm But you're afraid to. You can see the train coming down the tunnel, and you're getting the heck off the tracks.
This is you being a manipulative and dishonest idiot. I've clearly responded to you. You do not accept it. Stop making up crap about what other people should or do think. Are you aware that there's a difference between your understanding/reality/beliefs and that of a broader reality and others? Does your ego have no bounds?
I think it's actually good that IC clings to religion, this way he's a sociopath restricted by artifical morals. Without religion he would just be a perfectly amoral sociopath. (But I find this odd, they usually don't restrict themselves.)
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9575
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can »

Lacewing wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:57 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 5:44 pm I put to you a very simple task, which you are evading: to speak about Atheism from Atheism. It's your own ideology, from your own ideology.
Have I NOT told you that it's NOT an ideology for me?
But that's simply untrue. It's a one-precept ideology, and you have already confirmed that you believe it. There's no further dispute, obviously.

Speak about Atheism from Atheism. Deal with how Atheism can speak of morality. All the rest of the clucking and flapping is uninteresting to me.
User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 4173
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Lacewing »

Atla wrote: Thu Aug 22, 2019 6:35 pm I think it's actually good that IC clings to religion, this way he's a sociopath restricted by artifical morals. Without religion he would just be a perfectly amoral sociopath.
Very good point. :D
Post Reply