EVIL!!!!!!!!

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

Moderators: AMod, iMod

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:36 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 6:58 pm
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 6:22 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Deal with how Atheism can speak of morality
Making this request yet again when it has already been answered multiple times
Atheism has absolutely nothing at all to say about morality as it is strictly amoral
Thank you! That's the point.

Now, let's get to the second point: granted Atheism as if it were truth -- namely, no God and a universe that is a cosmic accident -- why was Stalin an "evil" person?
FYI Stalin was an alter boy in an eastern orthdox church and studied for the priesthood.

so much for your atheism - evil

oh ya Pol Pot was a Bubbist (but i guess that don't count since thats not Christianity)

lol

most of the killers in Ruwanda in the 90s were roman chatholic Bishops

--------

but don't let historical facts get in the way of your bigotry.


carry on.

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:42 am

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.

.
not only that but god is a petty fearful pissant too. ""we" (what he fk is "we" BTW? must remove the OTHER TREE lest man become like "US" (HTF is US?.

the other tree of course is the one of immortality.

and no its not Christ! - it was a TREE for fuck sake, and the God/s removed it out of fear of man become THEIR equal.

They must have heard what happened to Chronos around that time. ;-).

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:48 am

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
Also even if objective morality did exist it would not necessarily come from God
correct, morality is the product of the godless process of natural selection/evolution. man is a social animal, his morality is a product of his existance as a surviving animal on earth.

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:54 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
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.
there is no meaning for life, just a function. the function of life is survival.

to maximize survival different species bread collective morality per their species.

man has his own version - one amoung many animals.

it really is that simple.

no God nothing to do with Athieism.

just simple DNA and evolution over eons of time.

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:57 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:47 pm


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

nope.

war and self defense are moral murders.

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:02 am

f12hte wrote:
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.
i simple and clear reading of genesis is that the eating of the Tree of Knwledge (wisdom - self awarness - for man became self aware and then understood how small he was and hide from God afterward)

Man Rose from just an animal to demigod - then the Gods became afraid of man overthowining then and removed that other Tree (Tree of Life (immortality)

Genesis is a judiac work borrowed from the polythiestic summarians, its clear as day reading it.

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:05 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
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

there is general agreement on morality. refer the the Noahide LAw.

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by gaffo » Mon Aug 26, 2019 5:08 am

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:28 pm


I Morality is not objective [ simply claiming that it is does not make it so as it has to be demonstrated ]
respectfully dissagree. i believe in an objective morality based on human DNA via evolution as a social animal.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:19 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:39 pm
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.
Note what I had not insisted what I proposed is conclusive but rather it is very feasible and tenable subject to the necessary tests.

Note my argument again. I stated it is more inferential [like science] than deductive;
  • 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.


At present Premise 2 is more of an abductive premise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning
  • Abductive reasoning (also called abduction,[1] abductive inference,[1] or retroduction[2]) is a form of logical inference which starts with an observation or set of observations then seeks to find the simplest and most likely explanation for the observations. This process, unlike deductive reasoning, yields a plausible conclusion but does not positively verify it.
    -wiki
Premise 2 is abductive and thus qualify for a hypothesis to be formed.

The next task we need to do is to test this hypothesis which is not yet done.
I had stated such a test can be done.
Based on my own personal convictions and observations of others, even you can confirm premise 2 is highly probable and true.

Once premise 2 is proven true conclusively in the future,
we can establish premise 3 [conclusion] as a secular moral absolute to be used as a guide.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Mon Aug 26, 2019 8:56 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:39 pm
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.
Do you really understand what is etymology.
Etymology (/ˌɛtɪˈmɒlədʒi/)[1] is the study of the history of words.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymology
Note the acceptance of the meaning of a word into a dictionary is based on its popularity and has nothing to to with 'truth' which must be verified philosophically.

For any philosophical discussion, it is critical that the definition used must be agreeable by both parties, otherwise it a no go.
I don't agree with your definition of 'atheism.'

Factually it is this;
You are a theist - one who believe a God exists as a real entity.
I am not theist, i.e. nothing to do with the sort of belief like yours above.
I don't see how you can dispute the above fact.
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.
This sort of view is of very low IQ.
It is obvious the discussion is confined to us as human beings.
I am not a theist but fundamentally I am a human being with a range of beliefs.
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.
I had defined 'what is evil' [secular] in the beginning.
My definition of what is evil is defined in terms of intentions and actions of humans only, i.e.
  • an evil act is any human act that is net-negative to the well-being of the individual, other individual[s], group[s] and to humanity.
e.g. morally, killing another human being will be a net-negative to the individual, the victim family, and humanity. Killing another person even if legalized by law as in war, etc. is still universally immoral.

The above is based on reality, if you don't like the term 'evil' you can label it 'rose' or whatever but the definition and its meaning is real within reality.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:11 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
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.
Note intended to be offensive, your response above is of low IQ.
(btw, note Golden Rule).

Introducing absolute moral rules do not mean one has to abandon some groundless term i.e. 'atheism' you insisted upon.
We introduce absolute moral rules because we are inherently moral human beings.

Note I have already demonstrated on the necessity to establish justified absolute moral rules as guides to facilitate the operation of an efficient moral and ethical system.
surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 5:32 pm
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.
In the first place, there is God that exist as real. God exists as an illusion in the minds of theists to deal with and soothe an existential crisis.

Humans are inherently moral beings and humans are the only ones who has to justify and establish absolute moral rules [theory] as guides to facilitate the continual improvement of their ethical [applied] state.
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.
As argued above your Morality itself is objective is groundless, baseless and leveraged upon a God that is illusory and an impossibility to be real.

I agree with objective true moral rules is the existence of a consensus of subjective morality of the individuals, i.e. intersubjective consensus morality.

Every human [except the seriously mental ill] will not want to be killed.
Many killers are aware killing another human is immoral [reason] but they are driven to kill [psychological state] and they did it when their lust and impulse to kill overcome their reasoning.
So you cannot conflate and equivocate 'reason not to kill' with the 'uncontrollable lust that killed'.
Last edited by Veritas Aequitas on Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2678
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:33 am

Immanuel Can wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:39 pm
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.
Here is my improved version;
  • 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. The Golden Rule; Do not do unto others what you do not want others to do unto you.
    4. Therefore no living human being shall kill another human being.
Btw you have not responded to my query re premise 2, i.e. answer yes or no on the following;
  • In the ordinary every day circumstances,
    1. Do you want to be killed?
    2. Do your parents want to be killed?
    3. Do your siblings want to be killed?
    4. Do your relatives want to be killed?
    5. Do your closest friend want to be killed?
    6. Do your other friends want to be killed?
    7. Do all American want to be killed
    8. Does anyone of the 7+ billion humans on earth want to be killed.
What is your answer, Yes or No, to the above question, i.e. premise 2?

You can do your own survey from people in 2, 3, 4 or 5.
Even if you don't, I would like to know what you think will be their likely answer to the question and this will include 6, 7 and 8.

If any of the above answer yes, I am sure they [from 0.0001% of 7B] will be certified to be mentally ill by psychiatrists in that specific field or in terminal conditions certified by doctors, or in the most extreme conditions.

The above testing and potential findings is very scientifically based,
From our present reasoning anyone would be personally confident we can reason out an absolute moral rule [theory] to act as a guide for ethical considerations [applied].

Morality imposed by a God [unreal and illusory] based solely on the threat of Hell may be useful [had been useful] but it is limited and will be net-negative in the future, note Islamic morality driving jihad [holy war].

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6351
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:02 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:08 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:

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
Why would there be? Who says all "major (and presumably minor too: numbers aren't relevant, surely) belief systems" are supposed to have right answers? Where is it written that all people are equally guaranteed to come up with the right answer about anything? And logically, by Law of Non-Contradiction, we know that such a thing would be impossible, even if we were to imagine we were owed it.

What we should expect, and what we do find, is some wildly wrong answers, some better answers, and perhaps some best answers or the right answer, even. That's what we also find.
Even within the three Abrahamic religions there are differences about what is and is not moral
The term "Abrahamic religions" is an artificial construct. There is no such reality. Perhaps one might make and argument that Judaism "worships" Abraham, but I Jewish folks will deny that stridently and regard it as a slander. Christians respect Abraham as an important historical and symbolic figure, but they don't name their faith after him. And Islam doesn't even acknowledge the same "history" of Abraham as the other two agree upon, and would regard "Abrahamism" as a form of idolatry or man-worship.

So for none of these religions is that a correct term. All it captures is the vague idea that Abraham, as a figure, plays some role within the narratives and thinking of all three groups. It certainly does not promise agreement. And indeed, there is statistically a zero chance that if two of them have one history of Abraham, and the other has another, that they agree about what they say about him.
So if you claim that morality can only come from God then there should not be any disagreement about it among his believers
No, that does not follow.

Jews and Christians do indeed seek the same God, as the Christians acknowledge the Torah entirely. Muslims have a different view of Torah, which they claim has been Jewishly corrupted, and a different conception of God. For one thing, theirs is much more distant and fatalistic than anything you'll find in either of the other two. "His" commandments and wishes are quite different. He is described by different features. Neither his descriptions nor his purported character match up. The sole point of comparison is really that all agree there is only one God: but they disagree with Islam as to who this "God" is.
So whose morality is the truly objective one - they are different to each other and so cannot all be objectively true
Right. No problem. It's exactly what we should expect to find.
Anything you say about atheism with regard to morality is therefore irrelevant until this question has been addressed
Well, logically, that isn't true, of course. You may feel so, but logically, that won't make it so.

I might be completely wrong about the nature of God, if you wish to believe so; but that would not say anything about whether or not Atheism was capable of supporting a view of "evil" or "good." On that question, Atheism has to "man up" and stand on its own two feet, because it would be true regardless of what anybody said about the various religions.

If Atheism requires that there is no plan, no objective purpose and no teleological direction to the world, then it automatically leads to the conclusion that there's no such thing as any true moral criteria either. And even if other ideologies failed to the same degree that Atheism does, that would not help Atheism one iota in the matter of grounding morality itself.

But that's Atheism's problem, not anybody else's.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6351
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:09 pm

surreptitious57 wrote:
Sun Aug 25, 2019 8:28 pm
Immanuel Can wrote:
You have made a mistake there by confusing two claims :

I Morality itself is objective ( murder is absolutely wrong for example )

2 It is an objective fact that people want to believe ( subjectively ) in a thing called morality

( People want to believe there is a reason why we cannot murder even though we can )
I Morality is not objective [ simply claiming that it is does not make it so as it has to be demonstrated ]

2 What is objectively true is that the concept of morality exists [ but only subjectively so ]

These two statements are mutually compatible so there is no confusion here at all
Oh, so you're admitting that Atheism has no way of grounding an objective account of morality (we agree on that, it seems). But you're supposing that saying "a subjective (i.e. totally imagined) thing called "morality" has been invented -- that is, as a concept not as a reality, (so that's supposed to get Atheism off the hook)?

If that's it, then I'm pretty sure you can see what's wrong with that. To illustrate, people also have a concept called "unicorns"; that does not mean unicorns exist in the relevant sense. "The concept exists" is in no way conducive to the conclusion "morality exists."

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 6351
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: EVIL!!!!!!!!

Post by Immanuel Can » 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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Age and 6 guests