EVIL!!!!!!!!

[attofishpi]

There are some written material left from eg.Goebbels and Hitler. To me it seems, having read parts of his diary, like Goebbels was evil. Cunning, intelligent and sly, Hitler was less evil but worse. He really believed he was right. His suicidal letter was written with no remorse, his hate of jews was unquenced. The kind of attitude that makes people even more dangerous. Evil is bad, bad conviction is worse.

This context that you are using evil - with mere mortal man is not true evil. It is just stupid bigoted egocentric power hungry controlling scum with no regard for human life at best.

TRUE evil is when you are trying to Live while eviL via the 3rd party intelligence is being done to you.

Please explain for a poor scandinavian with english only being the 2nd language.

Ok. What I am saying is rather simple...although I don't want to sound arrogant, but I have had great insight since 1997. Many around this forum get pissed off with what I state, and really don't listen...oh well.
Hell and Heaven exist here on Earth. God - the 3rd party intelligence - has two sides and everything in between. I can't speak for everyone, but in my case - since I crossed a line when I was young, I guess I ate from the Tree of Life - since then if I ate from the Tree of Knowledge, I would be tested in the most terrible ways - up to three months at a time. Now that I am not crossing the line set my a sage and the God system, I'm pretty much in heaven - it's rather dandy. It's pretty amazing what this entity is actually capable of.
Those terrible thoughts that you had - you need to understand that ALL matter is at the behest of God, REAL_IT_Y is 'generated' by it.
The matter within you brain is also able to be controlled (IT knows everything within your mind).
When you had those terrible thoughts after eating from the tree, your synapses were being switched to show you the evil, it is a nasty ride i know!
Trust me, ultimately - there is nothing to fear, just learn from it.

If you really are interested, I implore you to view my art Gallery site - start at the headings from left to right (you can skip the cyberpunk stuff!) - the poetry section also may give you some insight where I play on the quirks - anomalies within the English language (a construct of this 3rd party intelligence)
www.androcies.com

[Immanuel Can]

Not everyone is as fortunate as you in immediately obtaining a conscience out of the bible instead of having to develop one revealing in a virtual flash the ultimate mandate of morality and its underpinnings.

And yet, you have nothing at all. Zero. Zip. Nada.

[Dubious]

Not everyone is as fortunate as you in immediately obtaining a conscience out of the bible instead of having to develop one revealing in a virtual flash the ultimate mandate of morality and its underpinnings.

And yet, you have nothing at all. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Since it pleases you so much to think so all I can say is, I was glad to help in assisting you in confirming your own moral superiority. After all how could a poor troll like me compare to the grandeur of your biblically revealed moral order! Strange to say, I feel completely comfortable and vindicated in my zero, zip, nada manifestation of values allowing me a more open expression of whatever free will I may have compared to one mentally incarcerated by a holy book in which god is only presented as imagined by humans.

[Immanuel Can]

And yet, you have nothing at all. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Since it pleases you so much to think so...

It neither pleases nor displeases me.

However, I have offered you several chances to make a better account by providing something -- even a modestly plausible grounds, for defining "evil." But you have provided nothing, so there is no other conclusion reasonable.

And if that's not true, then feel free to provide it now.

[Dubious]

And yet, you have nothing at all. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Since it pleases you so much to think so...

It neither pleases nor displeases me.

However, I have offered you several chances to make a better account by providing something -- even a modestly plausible grounds, for defining "evil." But you have provided nothing, so there is no other conclusion reasonable.

And if that's not true, then feel free to provide it now.

I supplied my reasons a number of times. It doesn't suffice for you because it's opposite to yours and conclude as always that no proper reasons or definitions were given. I defined evil a number of times which is simply my version of it and, I believe, understood by most whether or not they agree but never received a response as to how YOU define it since mine was inadequate. I also defined conscience in how I think it works when asked but according to you I didn't define that either! How is it possible for you to argue so much against all my non-definitions?

But there's really no point in getting serious about any of this. Whatever is written on any philosophy forum amounts to nothing anyways regardless of whatever qualities it may have. Anything you, I or anyone writes on these forums is worth zilich, nada, nothing, nix whatever its subject or merit. In short, consumed by indifference, nothing ever to be taken seriously.

So feel free to keep presenting the same totally insane argument - which you've been doing consistently for years - that while theists like you possess the mandate of morality through the bible, able to explain and confirm why they are moral, non-theists, though they may possess some morals, don't know, can't explain or give any reasons as to why they too are moral. Their morality exists in a vacuum without cause or motive while yours descended from Mount Sinai inscribed by the fingers of god! Such ideas truly belong to the Non Campus Mentis variety of thinking.

If this isn't one of the most laughable claims ever made totally medieval in its logic then any conception of twisted escapes me!

[Immanuel Can]

However, I have offered you several chances to make a better account by providing something -- even a modestly plausible grounds, for defining "evil." But you have provided nothing, so there is no other conclusion reasonable.

And if that's not true, then feel free to provide it now.

I supplied my reasons a number of times. It doesn't suffice for you because it's opposite to yours

Not "opposite": that doesn't bother me. I 'd be happy to see an answer different from mine, if it were legitimized properly.

But your answers so far rely on a blend of mere intuitionism, on the one hand, and uncritical traditionalism on the other. And there's no way you would -- or should -- allow anybody to get away with such thin answers. You should ask more questions. So that's what I'm doing.

I just want to offer you the chance to do better than what you've been able to offer so far. And all you'd have to do to do better is to say what proves to you that either a) your intuition is right, contrary to the intuition of others, of course, and b) how you know that the moral tradition you've inherited is right, contrary to the other moral traditions going around, of course.

Seems reasonable.

[Dubious]

However, I have offered you several chances to make a better account by providing something -- even a modestly plausible grounds, for defining "evil." But you have provided nothing, so there is no other conclusion reasonable.

And if that's not true, then feel free to provide it now.

I supplied my reasons a number of times. It doesn't suffice for you because it's opposite to yours

Not "opposite": that doesn't bother me. I 'd be happy to see an answer different from mine, if it were legitimized properly.

But your answers so far rely on a blend of mere intuitionism, on the one hand, and uncritical
traditionalism on the other. And there's no way you would -- or should -- allow anybody to get away with such thin answers. You should ask more questions. So that's what I'm doing.

I just want to offer you the chance to do better than what you've been able to offer so far. And all you'd have to do to do better is to say what proves to you that either a) your intuition is right, contrary to the intuition of others, of course, and b) how you know that the moral tradition you've inherited is right, contrary to the other moral traditions going around, of course.

Seems reasonable.

In case you haven't noticed yet what is expressed in philosophy forums are opinions and views on this and that, nothing more including your insane opinions on who has manifest morality in the eyes of god. You haven't been able to prove a single assertion of yours from day one yet you impose that condition on others to prove theirs which is how you manipulate arguments not least through distortion.

How would you or anyone know whether one's "moral tradition" is right. In what way would it be right compared to others who view themselves as equally right? How do you know that any of your theistic proclamations are right?? Do you know that the bible is the word of god and if so how? Do you have an answer for that? How does your morality as theist differ in quality from one who espouses the same general principles who is not a theist. Are you capable of an adequate response to any of these questions?

Unless you can justify yourself in the same manner you impose on others it would behoove thee to be less demanding on proof which in most cases isn't even possible.

Don't know how many times this has to be repeated that it's probability not proof which provides a level of credence to an argument. Do you accept this or not?

[Immanuel Can]

I supplied my reasons a number of times. It doesn't suffice for you because it's opposite to yours

Not "opposite": that doesn't bother me. I 'd be happy to see an answer different from mine, if it were legitimized properly.

But your answers so far rely on a blend of mere intuitionism, on the one hand, and uncritical
traditionalism on the other. And there's no way you would -- or should -- allow anybody to get away with such thin answers. You should ask more questions. So that's what I'm doing.

I just want to offer you the chance to do better than what you've been able to offer so far. And all you'd have to do to do better is to say what proves to you that either a) your intuition is right, contrary to the intuition of others, of course, and b) how you know that the moral tradition you've inherited is right, contrary to the other moral traditions going around, of course.

Seems reasonable.

In case you haven't noticed yet what is expressed in philosophy forums are opinions and views on this and that

In case you didn't see, the title of the forum is "Philosophy Now": not, "freeform and unjustified opinions now, but philosophy. And philosophers justify their claims with reasons.

There are good opinions, and there are bad ones. Philosophers question to find out which is which. They don't just accept what people say, if those same people say, "Well, it's MY opinion." The philosophical answer is, "Yes? Well, what have you got to show that opinion rational?"

How would you or anyone know whether their "moral tradition" is right.

Not that hard to answer, actually.

We can eliminate all implausible answers right away. What makes an answer demonstrably implausible is if we grant every assumption it requires, and still find that it has no justification for its morality. And in the case of the conversation we're having, it works this way.

I will grant you ever assumption of your worldview. Let's imagine there's no God. So far so good?

But I have to also grant you your claim that you know what evil is. And maybe you do. Still good?

Now, my question is simply this: "How"? How do you know when something is objectively evil? And your answer so far is, "I don't: I just feel it, and think that maybe it comes from the past somewhere, because my tradition of morality is right."

And I ask again: "How do you know"?

And you flip out.

But now, let's answer your question. You have asked:

How do you know that any of your theistic proclamations are right??

Well, grant me my assumptions, and I'll show you.

What if there IS a God? Note that here I'm not asking you to agree with me that there is, I'm only asking you to consider what will be the case IF there's a God. So far so good?

Now my answer is this: morality is what is consonant with the character and revealed purposes of God.

And your question will be:

Do you know that the bible is the word of god and if so how?

And my answer will be, I believe so. And I think my reasons are good. I believe there is a God, and there seems to me no plausible reason to think He is not capable of speaking and revealing morality. In fact, to do so is such a trivial thing that any human being can speak. So there's no wonder in that at all.

And you may also ask, "Yes, but how do you know you've got the right one?"

And my answer will be, read and find out for yourself. It's what I did. I think you will also be convinced.

Unless you can justify yourself in the same manner you impose on others it would behoove thee to be less demanding on proof which in most cases isn't even possible.

Here's the key thing.

IF Theism is true, and God exists, then to say that He has revealed morality to us is obviously an easy matter.

But...

IF Atheism is true, and there is no God, then even with all the fondest Atheist beliefs fully granted, there is still not any basis whatsoever for morality.

Get that? Even if we grant Atheism the win, Atheism still loses. It still cannot justify any account of morality. And you won't get a clearer evidence of the failure of an ideology that when it wins, it loses.

Don't know how many times this has to be repeated that it's probability not proof which provides a level of credence to an argument.

If we use that standard, then Atheism is still a failure, in respect to justifying any morality. It just cannot do it. So it's more than a matter of probability; it's a matter of certainty that Atheism is a morally desolate creed, with no rationally defensible answers in regard to the question, "What is evil?"

[Dubious]

How do you know that any of your theistic proclamations are right??

Well, grant me my assumptions, and I'll show you.
What if there IS a God? Note that here I'm not asking you to agree with me that there is, I'm only asking you to consider what will be the case IF there's a God. So far so good?
Now my answer is this: morality is what is consonant with the character and revealed purposes of God.

...and so you base your conclusion on a what-if statement since you cannot know IF there is a god or one that mandates your version of morality! I'd call that a quandary! How then does one make morality consonant with the revealed purposes of a what-if god scenario? The imposition of certainty based on such what-if speculations would normally be regarded as gross contradiction...for most people anyways.

Don't know how many times this has to be repeated that it's probability not proof which provides a level of credence to an argument.

If we use that standard, then Atheism is still a failure, in respect to justifying any morality. It just cannot do it. So it's more than a matter of probability; it's a matter of certainty that Atheism is a morally desolate creed, with no rationally defensible answers in regard to the question, "What is evil?"

There is no power that can justify any morality unless one can point specifically to that which upholds it but never in history existed beyond speculation. Therefore atheism has no reason to regard itself as failure since there is nothing known which specifically negates it. Atheism also neither is, was or requires a creed; instead it requires a conscience which determines what constitutes evil in its view which can be various.

Certainty, in summary, can never be a factor in what remains perennially uncertain. It remains for probability to do the measuring on a credence scale. All else is opinion or wishful thinking in hoping that one's wishful thinking is not merely opinion!

Not least, I'd rather have my conscience doing its own thing than being guided by creeds of human manufacture.

[Immanuel Can]

...and so you base your conclusion on a what-if statement...

No. Not at all. As I said, I'm not asking you to believe my "if." I'm just saying "if" something is true, "then" something else follows. I'm following through both suppositions to their logical conclusions, and showing what we get.

IF Theism is true, then the answer works out: there's such a thing as something objectively being evil. However, even IF Atheism is true, the answer still doesn't work out. There's no answer in Atheism to what makes anything "evil."

If we use that standard, then Atheism is still a failure, in respect to justifying any morality. It just cannot do it. So it's more than a matter of probability; it's a matter of certainty that Atheism is a morally desolate creed, with no rationally defensible answers in regard to the question, "What is evil?"

There is no power that can justify any morality

Well, there isn't IF Atheism were true. I would simply say, "Good thing it's not."

But let's keep chasing your supposition that it is true. If Atheism is true, then you're absolutely right to say there's no justification for any moral judgments at all. Right. Now we agree.

Atheism also neither is, was or requires a creed; instead it requires a conscience which determines what constitutes evil in its view which can be various.

Atheism doesn't "require" anything. It has no values, and grounds no values.

Not least, I'd rather have my conscience doing its own thing than being guided by creeds of human manufacture.

So would I.

But that won't be enough. Because according to Atheism, your "conscience" is not trustworthy. Your conscience is just a phenomenon of your psyche, an inexplicable intuition that is always telling you there are moral values associated with particular acts and things, whereas the truth is that, in reality, no such things exist. So your conscience is a self-deception. Why then should you trust it? All it's doing is lying to you.

That is, IF Atheism were true.

[attofishpi]

IF Atheism is true, and there is no God, then even with all the fondest Atheist beliefs fully granted, there is still not any basis whatsoever for morality.

Ridiculous. Even animals display their morality and they don't have a buy_bull. It's common sense for the benefit of a society in the animal kingdom (of which we are part).

[Immanuel Can]

Even animals display their morality and they don't have a buy_bull.

You know moral lions, who have reservations about pulling down gazelles? Know any moral foxes who have become vegetarians on principle?

In point of fact, you don't have a way of knowing that anything at all "displays" moral behaviour, because you can't rationally justify your claim that anything is actually moral.

However, we're not asking the question, "Can a person act morally without knowing why he/she does so," because that's a silly question. Of course they can. IF morality exists, then some behaviour is going to end up being moral by accident. Heck, even an axe-murderer doesn't murder everybody he meets. But that doesn't matter much to his being an axe murderer. And it won't prove that when he does kill someone, he's doing "evil"; just that he's doing something some people don't happen to like.

Rather, we're asking, "How can a person verify that whatever he/she does really IS moral?"

[attofishpi]

IF Atheism is true, and there is no God, then even with all the fondest Atheist beliefs fully granted, there is still not any basis whatsoever for morality.

Ridiculous. Even animals display their morality and they don't have a buy_bull. It's common sense for the benefit of a society in the animal kingdom (of which we are part).

You know moral lions, who have reservations about pulling down gazelles?

Yes, all of them. Haven't you noticed how after they have pulled the gazelle down, they go for the throat and suffocate it - a humane death. (then they eat - they usually don't rip it apart leaving it alive in great agony while consuming)

[Dubious]

As I said, I'm not asking you to believe my "if." I'm just saying "if" something is true, "then" something else follows. I'm following through both suppositions to their logical conclusions, and showing what we get.

All very nice but you have no way of knowing if your IF is in fact true causing it’s conclusions to be likewise true. The tenets of theism being thoroughly unprovable in every respect, the only option is to formulate What-If thought experiments whether this or that could be true as you have done which in turn subsumes any number of hypothetical conclusions. Logically then, it’s not possible to glean bona fide certainties based on a set of unsubstantiated premises as you continue to do.

In effect, you have no choice but to render an IF for something never verified as true or factual. It becomes the prime premise for every subsequent speculation which you invariably denote as fact based on a near zero probability of it being so. I’m in the same boat, as is everyone else who speculates on unknowns. The only difference is the credence applied for any such theories. Based on biblical studies and history, not to mention technologies now available that amounts to a fraction above zero at most.

Your entire system of belief is directly contingent on What-If speculations from which you draw equally unwarranted conclusions regarding atheism, morality, etc., non of which means anything if your prime premise has zero validation as to its verity.

There is no power that can justify any morality...

Well, there isn't IF Atheism were true. I would simply say, "Good thing it's not."

But let's keep chasing your supposition that it is true. If Atheism is true, then you're absolutely right to say there's no justification for any moral judgments at all. Right. Now we agree.

We don’t in the least agree. You conveniently and intentionally didn’t quote the rest of that sentence which changes the meaning entirely…

There is no power that can justify any morality unless one can point specifically to that which upholds it but never in history existed beyond speculation.

Always up to your old tricks!

Atheism doesn't "require" anything. It has no values, and grounds no values.

Strange! Whenever I talk to people, eschewing politics and religion, I can never tell who’s theist and who’s atheist, not that I care. However, I never realized that Atheists are so good hiding their true identities as zombies. I suppose being one myself, I’m not qualified to make these kinds of distinctions.

Your conscience is just a phenomenon of your psyche, an inexplicable intuition that is always telling you there are moral values associated with particular acts and things, whereas the truth is that, in reality, no such things exist.

If no such things exist then where, pray, does theism get its values from? If known by theists why would it be unknown to an atheist? Why, for example, would a moral imperative like Thou shalt not kill, steal or give false evidence (the latter especially pertains to you) mean something different for an atheist as it would for a theist who only believes in a god without knowing for certain there is one especially one who seeks to control human behaviour?

So your conscience is a self-deception. Why then should you trust it? All it's doing is lying to you.

...then why would god, in whom you trust, have endowed us with conscience in the first place if all that was necessary is to accept its rules? Is god a liar, a deceiver? Metaphorically one could claim that conscience took the place of rules when we were kicked out of Eden. That initial experience really gave us a bad hangover and that's when we knew we had a conscience. The All-Knowing god was well-aware that we were bound to screw-up sooner than later and kindly gave us one in advance!

[attofishpi]

Dubious Y R U bothering?

It's simple, according to Immanuel the animal kingdom displays no moral attributes, ergo God created evil.