EVIL!!!!!!!!

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6970
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Dontaskme » Sat Aug 24, 2019 9:57 am

f12hte wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 pm
Evil. What is it's source? Is it just a subjective idea in each person's mind? If God made all things, then is he the ultimate source of evil?
That which makes all things is a concept known as God, God is just another word for every conceivable concept.

So yes, if a word can be conceived, then yes, God is the source of all evil, and God is one evil God.

God is everything. Being evil is no exception.

God is one hell of an evil son of a bitch so to speak. That's the nature of knowledge.

Go back to the garden to the time before you ate from the tree of knowledge if you don't want evil in your life. If you want goodness, then you have to have it all, you can't just have one half of the cake that suits you, you have to take on the whole cake. That's what being knowledgable is like.

.

Dachshund
Posts: 314
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 6:40 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Dachshund » Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:05 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:33 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:12 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
how good and evil can have any objective content at all or even any reality to back a subjective claim of the same if Atheism is the assumption
Atheism has nothing to say about morality and you agree with this so then why are you still asking questions about it in relation to good and evil
Very simple.

Atheism stultifies those concepts completely. They refer to nothing. That means that if one is an Atheist, and wants to behave rationally and consistently with what one says one believes, one is also obligated to believe there is no evil.

Can you live with that?



Immanuel




I'm a great admirer of the English author, C.S. Lewis. I first read his seven Narnia Chronicles when I was about 12 years old, and over the years I have re-read them as an adult several times. Every time I "step through the wardrobe" that sits against the wall in the bedroom of that English Country House and re-enter Lewis's enchanted winter world of Narnia I immediately feel all of my senses starting to work "overtime" in anticipation of what new truth the books will reveal for me this time in my own reality. By the time I have reached p.15 of of the first chronicle: "The Loin the Witch and the Wardrobe", I am already emotionally affected at a very deep level. Lewis was a unique and brilliant prose stylist, he was honoured not that long ago with a well-deserved place in "Poet's Corner in Westminster Abbey near Chaucer and Charles Dickens. From memory, some 100,000,000 copied of the Narnia Chronicles have been sold to date since they were first published in England in the 1950's.Lewis' non-fiction books in Christian apologetics have sold in the region of 10-20 million copies each. How does one explain his extraordinary success as a writer? Personally, I think he had mastered the craft of blending the supernatural knowledge of his Christian faith with that knowledge that is the fruit of human reasoning (logic, rationality, science) in his writing. I find it very difficult to clearly illustrate what I mean here in terms of providing some quick examples, though I'll give it a shot...



The best I can do is say that I think one of the most distinctive hallmarks of C.S.Lewis writing (fiction and non-fiction) is the artistic combination of logic and emotion or love, etc; (other affective experiences) - of fact and fiction, of the magical and the mundane, of dreams and reality, - of the numinous and the commonplace, of the material/physic and the existential, of prose and poetry. For instance, in the Narnia Chronicles he created a Christian world that could be thought and felt (or, rather: "felt- as- it was - thought" and "thought-as- it- was- felt", a world that it would be, for instance, strictly "logical to love"). His narratives successful in both providing answers to intellectual questions and in satisfying those spiritual yearnings that are connected with them; he demonstrates the importance of images and stories for the life of faith without forgetting to include the necessary, reasoned, coherent belief as well. I think C.S Lewis was a 20th century version of St Thomas Aquinas insofar as he came to understood that faith and reason must not be viewed as separate and incompatible ways of knowing, but rather, are intended to work together in harmony. When a harmonious synergy between faith and reason is established man journey toward the Truth is guided in the correct direction. Pope John Paul II - who was no mean philosopher himself - summed it all up very elegantly 20 years ago in his Encyclical: "FIDE ET RATIO" ("FAITH AND REASON") when he wrote...



"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth, and God has placed in the human heart a desire to know the truth - in a word, to know himself - so that, by knowing and loving God, men and women may also come to the fullness of truth about themselves."



Here's a passage from C.S,Lewis' wonderful "Mere Christianity"(regarded by many eminent Christian theologians as one of the 20th century's great texts in Christian apologetics)
) that I think has some relevance to the set of topics (atheism vs theism, objective morality, etc.) currently under discussion on this thread...


"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. Just how had I got this idea of just and unjust ? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line, what was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust ?... Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist - in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless - I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality - namely my idea of justice - was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning." :)



As you are also discussing the question of morality in the context of atheism and theism (i.e, the belief or lack of belief in a Biblical God), here are some brief points in support of those who are arguing for existence of God and objective morality.



Basic moral values do exist and there is no good reason to deny them, Moreover human beings all have an innate dignity (worth) because they were fashioned in the image of God who is the cause of all greatness and morality. To put it simply, naturalism cannot adequately account for moral obligation or human rights (natural rights) since valueless processes cannot conceivably produce valuable human beings.




If God doesn't exist, then objective moral values and rights don't exist. In addition, morality is not the by-product of evolutionary forces, but rather reinforces human dignity as bestowed by God. Atheists may argue that if God exists, then God's commands or character must be subject to non-arbitrary principles of goodness that are independent of God, so moral values can exist independently of God. The sub-argument even claims that such moral values and dignity are, in fact, supported by atheists who are forced to recognise the inherent connection between God ans objective moral values and human dignity. However, it is by the very interconnected and inherent relationship between faith and reason that theological scholars are able to declare such moral values and dignity have their basis in the creator God.




With respect to the mention I made above of the relationship between faith and reason (philosophical, scientific) I agree that while faith and reason are wholly different modes of knowing in themselves, they are nonetheless intended to work together in a complimentary, and intimately intertwined relationship In this way. To borrow John Paul's analogy, just as the two wings of the Dove - when they functioning in proper natural consonance - loft the creature skyward; so too can faith and reason working together in accord lift the human spirit ever closer to truth. Parallel to this relationship between faith and reason, I believe there is an intrinsic connection between God and objective moral vales along with human dignity and natural rights. Ironically enough, support for this notion came from astute, intellectual atheists who recognise the the existence of morality, but cannot trace its origin to any scientific or philosophical source. I think it's fair to use remarks by such atheists for support of the morality - God association, because all human beings are hard - wired the same way; that is they are made to function in the correct, proper manner, when the are living morally. The moral awareness is a part of God's general self - revelation. We see something of God in the moral order of the universe.




The concept of morality is a tricky one to grasp given that many people do, in fact, acknowledge such a sensation and intuitive awareness of right and wrong, however, they cannot pinpoint its cause or connotation without first acknowledging a diving being in the sense of God. Here is an elegant little explanation I came across of the God - morality relationship...



"Theism is the more natural...Given materialistic, impersonal, non-conscious, valueless, deterministic processes, the atheist is hard pressed to account for personal self-consciousness, valuable, morally responsible persons. Theism offer a better fit, and this fit is one important basis for affirming one context (in this case theism) and rejecting another (naturalism). The reason theism makes more sense here is that personhood and morality are necessarily connected. That is, moral values are rooted in personhood. Without God (a personal being), no persons - and thus no moral values - would exist at all.



Finally, in sum, the moral assertion for proof of God's existence via the presence of morality and human dignity claim that there is the necessity for such a divine being. The argument points to a personal God to whom the human race is responsible. Therefore, only if God exists can such moral properties found in the world be realised and logically affirmed through such reasoning.



Regards



Dachshund (Der Uberweiner) WOOF !! WOOF!!


PS: I read a piece in "The Guardian,- (a left-leaning, "progressive", English newspaper typically read by cosmopolitan, "chattering class" neo-Marxist intellectuals who have never done a day's work in a real job in their lives) -, reporting how C.S. Lewis' and his Narnia Chronicles had been viciously attacked by a clique of modern day writers of children's fantasy books. Leading the assault was an author called Phillip Pullman. Pullman had written a popular trilogy called His Dark Materials" which was awarded a number of British literary awards, and three or so other fantasy books He is an outspoken atheist (and moral relativist) and has generated controversy in respect of the explicit anti-Christian content in his books. For example, In his trilogy, a young girl, Lyra, becomes enmeshed in an epic struggle against a nefarious church called the Magisterium. Another character, an ex - nun turned particle physicist - named Mary Molone, describes Christianity as " a very powerful and convincing mistake." and so on. According to Pullman every single religion that has a monotheistic god ends up by persecuting other people and killing them. In an essay he wrote for "The Guardian" entitled "The Dark Side of Narnia." Pullman took a meat-cleaver to Narnia in this piece, condemning the Chronicles as: "morally loathsome"; laden with "nauseating drivel"; "misogynistic", "sexist", Racist"; a celebration of "sado-masochistic violence", life-despising and teaching that "death is better than life", "filthy", "evil"; "detestable", "exploitative"; "propagandistic" and so on. Well a well-educated, middle-aged, Englishman unleashes this kind of poisonous invective against a colleague (now deceased) I think it is a classic example of ressentiment, of curdled, bitter vengeance against a man, Lewis, whom he always knew was his superior in the literary world. This in, turn, would suggest that Pullman is a high-brow socialist. It's all enough to make me lose my faith in human nature, I swear ! :roll: :roll:
Last edited by Dachshund on Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:39 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:48 am
Note the OP is not about atheism, it is about 'evil' [as defined].
We're right on topic then. The proposition is that some suppositional bases have a way of grounding a conception of evil, and some don't. We're examining whether or not Atheism does.
Since "ism' is generally derogatory
It isn't. You selected one of several sections of definition, and are now stating it's the only nuance the suffix can imply. It isn't even the primary meaning of "ism."

"ism" simply indicates a belief. When Jews refer to their belief as "Judaism," they aren't insulting themselves. When Hindus speak of "Hinduism," they are not being derogatory to themselves. And Atheists? "Atheism" is the name of their one-precept suppositional basis.

So you can relax on the "derogatory" thing. The suffix only becomes derogatory if it's derisively attached to something that is not at belief at all, such as "Trump-ism." or "Clinton-ism."
I don't believe those who are not-theist would accept their views are within 'atheism'.
Well, some non-Theists are agnostic, which means "admitting some level of ignorance" on the subject.
My proposal is non-theists can establish a moral and ethical system to deal with problem of secular evil based on an absolute moral principle [as justified above].
I'm sorry -- I must have missed the "justification" to which you refer. I've seen nothing that justifies the proposition that Atheism or "non-theism," if you prefer that term, can ground any concept of "evil" at all.

Please resummarize this justification for me.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:51 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 7:20 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
if one is an Atheist and wants to behave rationally and consistently with what one says one believes one is also obligated to believe there is no evil
The concept of evil can just as easily be understood by an atheist as it can by anyone
It's not "understanding" that's the problem: it's rational justification for the concept. That's what Atheism lacks.

Atheists have to "borrow" their concepts of evil illegitimately and irrationally, from other worldviews, because Atheism itself implies that such values have no objective reality at all.
So I therefore have no more of a problem comprehending it than you do for example

We may disagree on the origin or cause of it [ I say psychological / you say religious ] but not the fact of its actual existence
And to use an obvious example we would both agree that the Holocaust was evil so acknowledging it is not a problem for me
Any person who has been raised with any moral code has a conception of evil in his or her mind. The problem is that for Atheists, that conception has to remain ungrounded, unsubstantiatable, indefensible and irrational.

Given that Atheism were true, no conception of "good" or "evil" could have any substance at all, in fact. These would just we words that mean, "I like..." or "I don't like...," or in groups, "We like...." or "We don't like..." But they would have no reference to any actual state in the real world.

So Stalin's as "good" an Atheist as an Atheist who gives ice cream to orphans. And the one who gives ice cream to orphans is as "bad" as Stalin." Because neither the word "good" nor the word "bad" refer to any actual property of either actor or action, and there's nobody beyond the actor himself/herself who could possibly be more qualified to judge.

Can human being simply dispense with the whole concept of "evil"? Atheism entails that they would have to....assuming they want to be rational and realistic, rather than inconsistent and irrational in their beliefs.

And my question to you is not whether or not you would think an Atheist can just "borrow" a conception of evil that does not square with his worldview, or "intuit" a value his worldview is simply incapable of grounding, but can he live rationally consistently with Atheism -- and can we, his society live consistently with Atheist suppositions -- and just give up all conception of good and evil?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:57 pm

Dachshund wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:05 pm
I'm a great admirer of the English author, C.S. Lewis.
Yes, I've enjoyed Lewis too. He's a good place to start with common-sense thinking about Christianity. His essays, in particular, have many good thoughts to offer.

His style reminds me of two other writers: Chesterton and Orwell. All three, who came from somewhat different ideological backgrounds, have that marvellous ability to speak profound ideas plainly and simply, reaching the ear of the ordinary, thoughtful listener. I have always thought that was an ideal writing skill to have. I envy it.

Phillip Pullman? Completely forgettable.

User avatar
bahman
Posts: 2432
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by bahman » Sat Aug 24, 2019 3:25 pm

f12hte wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 pm
Evil. What is it's source?
Minds.
f12hte wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 pm
Is it just a subjective idea in each person's mind?
It is a subjective idea that we attach it to some situation/action.
f12hte wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 pm
If God made all things, then is he the ultimate source of evil?
Evil is not a thing. God made things. God, however, allowed evil.
f12hte wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 pm
Or is 'evil' even a thing? Or is it just a subjective idea?
Evil is not a thing but a subjective idea.
f12hte wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 pm
Or is it a human or even universal idea, in some respect?
It is a universal idea.
f12hte wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 pm
And if it is a universal idea, in what mind or matter does it exist?
Any mind has ability to do evil.
f12hte wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 pm
If evil exists, how did it come to be?
It is a quality of action/situation. It is unavoidable when you exist.
f12hte wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 pm
I hold a unique view of the world borne of my unique set of life experiences.

My unique worldview gives me a unique perspective on what is good and what is bad.

When I do a good thing, i think that the good reverberates down through the ages, since good actions engender knock-on good actions.

Ditto for when I do something that I consider bad.

So, the bad that I do is borne of my environment, filled with the knock-on effects of others' deeds, going back an eternity.

So evil, or at least culpability, has no origin? And if it has no origin, then how can it be said to exist?
Bad is not evil.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2702
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:58 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 1:39 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 6:48 am
Note the OP is not about atheism, it is about 'evil' [as defined].
We're right on topic then. The proposition is that some suppositional bases have a way of grounding a conception of evil, and some don't. We're examining whether or not Atheism does.
Since "ism' is generally derogatory
It isn't. You selected one of several sections of definition, and are now stating it's the only nuance the suffix can imply. It isn't even the primary meaning of "ism."

"ism" simply indicates a belief. When Jews refer to their belief as "Judaism," they aren't insulting themselves. When Hindus speak of "Hinduism," they are not being derogatory to themselves. And Atheists? "Atheism" is the name of their one-precept suppositional basis.

So you can relax on the "derogatory" thing. The suffix only becomes derogatory if it's derisively attached to something that is not at belief at all, such as "Trump-ism." or "Clinton-ism."
I don't believe those who are not-theist would accept their views are within 'atheism'.
Well, some non-Theists are agnostic, which means "admitting some level of ignorance" on the subject.
My proposal is non-theists can establish a moral and ethical system to deal with problem of secular evil based on an absolute moral principle [as justified above].
I'm sorry -- I must have missed the "justification" to which you refer. I've seen nothing that justifies the proposition that Atheism or "non-theism," if you prefer that term, can ground any concept of "evil" at all.

Please resummarize this justification for me.
Note I presented this syllogism [with some changes], not exactly deductive by more on inferential as in Science;
viewtopic.php?p=420780#p420780
  • 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
    2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.
    3. Therefore no living human being shall kill another human being.
The point of transference from 'want' to 'shall' is very logical.
  • If any living being dispute 3, i.e. they accept a living being can kill another living being they would have contradicted 2.

    Logically if 3 is not accepted but its opposite is proposed, i.e.
    'living human beings can kill other human being'
    and accepted as a maxim,
    then logically the human species will be extinct in principle since the last man standing cannot survive eventually.
See the solid reasoning behind the above argument!

In subsequent posts I have countered all your objections to the above, thus the secular absolute moral principle stands, i.e.
  • "no living human being shall kill another human being"
I stated the above is an ideal that can only be used as a guide within a moral and ethical system since no human can force the internal impulses of another human being.

What you have argued is the above is not proper because it is not operated within your definition of 'atheism' which is confined to Nietzsche, Dawkins, Hume, Rand and the likes.
Why should I conform to your definition of 'atheism' when I don't agree with it?
You are engaging in the definist fallacy.

Note my basis is, I am not-a-theist.
I have presented a justified non-theistic absolute moral principles [as above] which I believe is and will be very effective when practiced efficiently. If you insist [I don't agree with], that would be my sort of 'atheism'.

The OP is about 'evil' not 'atheism'.
Note 'atheism' is a very loose term and you cannot insist I go along with your bias definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
in discussing 'evil'. definist fallacy

Btw, I have argued theism itself is groundless, illusory and an impossibility.

What I have grounded upon is solid, i.e. "living human beings" which you, I and everybody can ground upon as fact.
Hypothetically, a poll on premise 2 will yield 99.99% agreement.

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

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:40 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
And my question to you is not whether or not you would think an Atheist can just borrow a conception of evil that does not square with his world view or intuit a value his worldview is simply incapable of grounding but can he live rationally consistently with Atheism - and can we his society live consistently with Atheist suppositions - and just give up all conception of good and evil ?
The existence of good and evil is an objective fact and as such one that is not conditional on any particular world view . So whatever anyone believes or does not believe is entirely irrelevant here . Therefore the rational thing is to accept their existence because not accepting them would be delusional and therefore irrational . As they exist and demonstrably so as well so the notion of giving them up is simply not possible

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:39 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:58 am
Note I presented this syllogism [with some changes], not exactly deductive by more on inferential as in Science;
viewtopic.php?p=420780#p420780
  • 1. ALL Humans exist as living beings [self-evident] grounded in reality.
    2. ALL living human beings [except rare exceptions] will NOT want to be killed.
    3. Therefore no living human being shall kill another human being.
Yes, I saw this. Unfortunately, it's neither a logical syllogism, as I pointed out before, and it's certainly not a justification. You've added yet another fault in it, upon which I did not remark, the fallacy of amphiboly, as it is called, or of the shifting middle term..."want" in no way logically conduces to "shall."
Logically if 3 is not accepted but its opposite is proposed, i.e.
'living human beings can kill other human being'
and accepted as a maxim,
then logically the human species will be extinct in principle since the last man standing cannot survive eventually.[/list]
This does not follow, unless for some reason you change "can" to "will," and unless you add the conditional "all" to the start of the claim. In other words, only a universal claim of the necessity of killing each other would conduce at all to your conclusion.
See the solid reasoning behind the above argument!
I would be delighted to, were it remotely solid. I'm having a great deal of difficulty locating enough substance even to guess what rationale would justify your conclusion.

Perhaps you have one; but I'm certain that this one is not it. It falls short, both formally and informally, of the standards of basic logic.

Sorry to be blunt, but this is plainly the case. It's neither a syllogism nor has the rational connections that produce a formal argument.
I stated the above is an ideal that can only be used as a guide within a moral and ethical system since no human can force the internal impulses of another human being.
In ethics, "impulses" are not relevant. What's relevant is duty -- what is it one's moral obligation to do, whether one wishes to or not. But you've touched on the key problem: if Atheism is true, there is no duty, no obligation, and no ethics...not even a duty to obey one's own impulses.
What you have argued is the above is not proper because it is not operated within your definition of 'atheism' which is confined to Nietzsche, Dawkins, Hume, Rand and the likes.
It has not been, and never was. I used these respected Atheist figures because they are considered definitive spokespersons for Atheism by most Atheists. But I alluded repeatedly as well to the other Atheists, such as the discussers on this very forum.
Why should I conform to your definition of 'atheism' when I don't agree with it?
You should agree if you know etymology or analytics of language, actually. But if you do not, since I have defined Atheism as a one-precept denial of the existence of a God or gods, your only alternative to that would be to deny Atheism itself. And that, I assume you do not wish to do.
Note my basis is, I am not-a-theist.
I do note it. In fact, this is the proposition I already said is the fundamental of Atheism. You're merely confirming what I already said about that.

However, this is not a "basis." A rock is not a Theist. A tree is not a Theist. A dog is not a Theist. Yet you would not regard them as Atheists, I presume. So you would have to do more than that to say anything about your real position.
The OP is about 'evil' not 'atheism'.
One must have a particular perspective in order to say anything about "evil." One must ask, "Whose definition of 'evil'? And surely, as an Atheist, you don't want to be left out of the party of those who can say something on the subject, do you? If you did, why would you be answering the OP?

If you've got a logical syllogism, I'd still love to see it. I'm sorry to say that this just isn't one yet.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:50 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:40 am
The existence of good and evil is an objective fact and as such one that is not conditional on any particular world view .
Well, I agree with that. But Atheism would make that untrue.
So whatever anyone believes or does not believe is entirely irrelevant here .
Not so.

If this world is the product of contingent material processes unregulated by any intelligence, as per Atheism, then there can be no reality to morals. There can also not be any particular meaning to be discovered behind it. The best humans can then do is to invent "morals" that are not objective, do not really exist, and have no authority behind them but temporary physical force. But there are not, and can never be, objective morals, if the world as Atheism conceives it is our world.
As they exist and demonstrably so as well so the notion of giving them up is simply not possible
Then Atheism must be false. For Atheism denies that there is any basis for us to believe in objective morals. Your argument, then, would be something like this:

Premise 1: Atheism necessarily denies the possibility of objective morals.

Premise 2: But objective morals do exist, "demonstrably," and giving them up is "simply not possible."

Conclusion: Therefore, Atheism is simply wrong.


This is what's known as "The Moral Argument," one of the many rational challenges against Atheism. You've just discovered it through the back door.

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

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:32 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Premise I : Atheism necessarily denies the possibility of objective morals

Premise 2 : But objective morals do exist demonstrably and giving them up is simply not possible

Premise I is false because the existence of morality is not conditional on atheism
Also even if objective morality did exist it would not necessarily come from God
Premise 2 is false because what is objectively true is the existence of subjective morality

f12hte
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:14 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by f12hte » Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:46 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 9:57 am
f12hte wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 pm
Evil. What is it's source? Is it just a subjective idea in each person's mind? If God made all things, then is he the ultimate source of evil?
That which makes all things is a concept known as God, God is just another word for every conceivable concept.

So yes, if a word can be conceived, then yes, God is the source of all evil, and God is one evil God.

God is everything. Being evil is no exception.

God is one hell of an evil son of a bitch so to speak. That's the nature of knowledge.

Go back to the garden to the time before you ate from the tree of knowledge if you don't want evil in your life. If you want goodness, then you have to have it all, you can't just have one half of the cake that suits you, you have to take on the whole cake. That's what being knowledgable is like.

.
Or maybe evil comes about due to the idea of separation. We each think that we have a 'self' which has wants desires and a moral code. Nobody has ever found evidence for this 'self', besides subjective declarations of self hood. So, if self were noting more than a persistent illusion, why should we hold the morals and wills of a putative self above the welfare of the group?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6382
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:47 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:32 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
Premise I : Atheism necessarily denies the possibility of objective morals

Premise 2 : But objective morals do exist demonstrably and giving them up is simply not possible

Premise I is false because the existence of morality is not conditional on atheism
Incorrect. It's automatically entailed by Atheism. There can be no form of Atheism in which the universe itself has a purpose to be discovered, or a set of morals that is obligatory. If you introduce either morals or meaning, you're going to have to abandon Atheism or answer the question, "Why is a person obligated to do/not do X?" That, Atheists cannot do.
Also even if objective morality did exist it would not necessarily come from God
It's the only place it could possibly come from, actually. But I'm open to addressing any alternate proposal you would have.
Premise 2 is false because what is objectively true is the existence of subjective morality
You've made a mistake there, by confusing two claims:

1. Morality itself is objective (e.g. murder is absolutely wrong, for example)

2. It is an objective fact that people want to believe (subjectively) in a thing called "morality." (i.e. People want to believe there's a reason why we can't murder, even though we can.)

You don't establish #1 by arguing for #2. That's what you've done there.

f12hte
Posts: 41
Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:14 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by f12hte » Sun Aug 25, 2019 6:38 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 9:57 am
f12hte wrote:
Sun Aug 11, 2019 4:19 pm
Evil. What is it's source? Is it just a subjective idea in each person's mind? If God made all things, then is he the ultimate source of evil?
That which makes all things is a concept known as God, God is just another word for every conceivable concept.

So yes, if a word can be conceived, then yes, God is the source of all evil, and God is one evil God.

God is everything. Being evil is no exception.

God is one hell of an evil son of a bitch so to speak. That's the nature of knowledge.

Go back to the garden to the time before you ate from the tree of knowledge if you don't want evil in your life. If you want goodness, then you have to have it all, you can't just have one half of the cake that suits you, you have to take on the whole cake. That's what being knowledgable is like.

.
So, eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, is the cause of evil?' Did you lift this idea from Genesis? A baby, innocent of knowledge, suffers no evil? I must be misunderstanding you.

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

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by surreptitious57 » Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:08 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
surreptitious57 wrote:
Also even if objective morality did exist it would not necessarily come from God
Its the only place it could possibly come from actually
Why then is there not universal consensus about morality within all of the major belief systems
Even within the three Abrahamic religions there are differences about what is and is not moral

So if you claim that morality can only come from God then there should not be any disagreement about it among his believers
Muslims and Christians and Jews as believers in the same God should all have an identical moral code but they do not do they

So whose morality is the truly objective one - they are different to each other and so cannot all be objectively true
And until you have satisfactorily answered this then your claim that an objective morality comes from God is invalid
Anything you say about atheism with regard to morality is therefore irrelevant until this question has been addressed

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests