Evil does not exist. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light." - Albert Einstein.
What does everyone think of this quote? My friend and I were arguing about the existence of Cold and Darkness, and he said that according to Science, Cold doesn't exist, it is just the absence of Cold and Dark is the absence of Light. I said, however, that if you describe something, it must exist, because you can describe it.
Need some help with this one? Does cold/dark/evil/god exist???
Thanks!
The mere existence of the language sounds to which meaning is attributed does not give those sounds any cachet as having anything to do with reality.
The reality attribute is a primary manner of dealing with science.
"Evil" is simply a pair of language sounds that humanity (at least the English speakers) has chosen to associate with certain acts of humans; e.g., sociopaths.
Theocratic aspects are another area to which humans tend to associate word-sound meanings. Unfortunately, they do not relate to any objective verification and fall into what seems to ofter be called "true belief" which requires no element of reality.
The reality attribute is a primary manner of dealing with science.
"Evil" is simply a pair of language sounds that humanity (at least the English speakers) has chosen to associate with certain acts of humans; e.g., sociopaths.
Theocratic aspects are another area to which humans tend to associate word-sound meanings. Unfortunately, they do not relate to any objective verification and fall into what seems to ofter be called "true belief" which requires no element of reality.
Evil-- 
I was just thinking of that---Evil--does it exist? I keep on thinking of the two forces, the yin yang ya know? two opposite things--why do i keep on coming back to fission and fusion? aren't they the only real two things? so fusion would be "good" and fission would be "evil" right? Fusion is attraction, which leads to communication (or humping) and communication leads to understanding and bla bla bla, fusion--and evil, is fission, to separate, annihilate---but there's nothing to break apart without fusion--so fusion must have come first? Right?
I was just thinking of that---Evil--does it exist? I keep on thinking of the two forces, the yin yang ya know? two opposite things--why do i keep on coming back to fission and fusion? aren't they the only real two things? so fusion would be "good" and fission would be "evil" right? Fusion is attraction, which leads to communication (or humping) and communication leads to understanding and bla bla bla, fusion--and evil, is fission, to separate, annihilate---but there's nothing to break apart without fusion--so fusion must have come first? Right?
QUOTE
Fusion is attraction, which leads to communication (or humping) and communication leads to understanding and bla bla bla, fusion--and evil, is fission, to separate, annihilate
So when viruses fuse with your cell membranes, that's good?
And when the sugar molecules break apart in your body and give you energy, that's bad?
Try making imprecise generalisations from science concepts and you'll end up looking daft!
Good and Evil.. equate them with math as simple integers using a number line..
Evil..-3..-2..-1...0...1...2...3 Good
<-----|---|---|---0---|---|---|----->
I had a chance to look over a survey, it was a survey of (not to drop us into the pit of God Vs. no God again), they grouped people by their profession, mathematicians have the highest belief in God, if I remember correctly is was on the order of 94% did believe, while Psychologists have the lowest numbers that had a belief in God the numbers for the Psychologists were on the order of low teens something like 12 or 13% had a belief in God,(interestingly, the psychologists also had the highest suicide rate of ALL professions).
Evil..-3..-2..-1...0...1...2...3 Good
<-----|---|---|---0---|---|---|----->
I had a chance to look over a survey, it was a survey of (not to drop us into the pit of God Vs. no God again), they grouped people by their profession, mathematicians have the highest belief in God, if I remember correctly is was on the order of 94% did believe, while Psychologists have the lowest numbers that had a belief in God the numbers for the Psychologists were on the order of low teens something like 12 or 13% had a belief in God,(interestingly, the psychologists also had the highest suicide rate of ALL professions).
I have serious doubts on this being something Einstein actually said.
And yeah, I guess cold is the absence of heat - and dark the absence of light. These are fairly objective, they can be measured.
Good/evil - subjective concepts. No way to measure these... not even any real agreement on what they are.
I can describe the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Does this mean he must exist?
And yeah, I guess cold is the absence of heat - and dark the absence of light. These are fairly objective, they can be measured.
Good/evil - subjective concepts. No way to measure these... not even any real agreement on what they are.
I can describe the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Does this mean he must exist?
You cannot define good or evil - hitler may have prevented over population
Thanks to this post and some afternoon coffee my mind is back.... cant say i missed you.
Anyway i noticed most of these posts were speaking how good and evil dont exsist that it is just evil = absence of good. Good = absence of evil and such. I had a crazy thought on light. If darkness doesnt exsist it is just the absence of light lets have some fun as just for thought consider the other side. Light does not exsist it is just the absence of dark. Dark is more predominent then light so majority rules dark is what actually exsists. However, there is one big problem with enjoying this fun little exercise, the photon. However lets just say that as we used to think of light and dark we shall think of dark and light. Dark is everywhere and light is just these pesky little photons that cause small holes in the dark. Though they move so fast and are abundant when giving an abundant source that we perceive light as the dominate, umm "side". Anyway usless philosophy fun for anyone willing to embark.
Cheers
Anyway i noticed most of these posts were speaking how good and evil dont exsist that it is just evil = absence of good. Good = absence of evil and such. I had a crazy thought on light. If darkness doesnt exsist it is just the absence of light lets have some fun as just for thought consider the other side. Light does not exsist it is just the absence of dark. Dark is more predominent then light so majority rules dark is what actually exsists. However, there is one big problem with enjoying this fun little exercise, the photon. However lets just say that as we used to think of light and dark we shall think of dark and light. Dark is everywhere and light is just these pesky little photons that cause small holes in the dark. Though they move so fast and are abundant when giving an abundant source that we perceive light as the dominate, umm "side". Anyway usless philosophy fun for anyone willing to embark.
Cheers
I think that good and evil are more like positive and negative electrical charge than cold and heat or light and darkness. If one had an object with a relatively small amount of heat in it, he could describe it as "slightly warm" or "very cold." One could also describe a dimly lit room as "slightly light" or "rather dark." But nothing that is "good" can also be described as "slightly evil," nor can anything that is "evil" be described as "slightly good." Deeds are like objects that can be charged; they are either positive (good), negative (bad), or neutral. Also, just as a charged object can be "highly negative" or "slightly negative," a deed can be "cruel" or it can be "mean." (I am not suggesting that good and evil have any actual correlation with electrical charges, just that they are a good analogy for them.) I am inclined to think that good and evil do not have a relationship defined by the absence of one of them--rather, I think they are two opposite states that are mutually exclusive. Animals have no concept of "good", only of "practical"; but the lack of "goodness" in them does not make them evil.
As a counter to negative1's thought, I would offer the fact that once one removes all photons from a region, he has pure darkness. But there is no such thing as "pure light", because one can (theoretically) pack an infinite number of photons into a region of space. (Someone, please correct me if I am wrong.) At some point one cannot make a region any "darker," but one can always make it "lighter." In the same way, there comes a temperature (absolute zero) at which things can no longer become "colder," but there is no upper limit at which they can no longer become "warmer." It is this principle that makes light and heat the entities that the opposite state is defined as the absence of.
I would also argue that "good" and "evil" have an objective existence, rather than being constructs of our minds. They require rational beings (like us) to be realized, but they existed in principle before we existed. Just as the Mandelbrot set did not spring into existence at the moment it was discovered, the basic principles of good and evil have always been and apply to all rational beings everywhere (even in universes other than our own, if they exist). The fact that humans do not always agree about what is "good" and what is "evil" does not mean that there is no objective answer, just as the fact that mathematicians sometimes disagree about theories does not mean that there is no one theory that is the "right answer"; that is, one that accurately reflects mathematical reality.
As a counter to negative1's thought, I would offer the fact that once one removes all photons from a region, he has pure darkness. But there is no such thing as "pure light", because one can (theoretically) pack an infinite number of photons into a region of space. (Someone, please correct me if I am wrong.) At some point one cannot make a region any "darker," but one can always make it "lighter." In the same way, there comes a temperature (absolute zero) at which things can no longer become "colder," but there is no upper limit at which they can no longer become "warmer." It is this principle that makes light and heat the entities that the opposite state is defined as the absence of.
I would also argue that "good" and "evil" have an objective existence, rather than being constructs of our minds. They require rational beings (like us) to be realized, but they existed in principle before we existed. Just as the Mandelbrot set did not spring into existence at the moment it was discovered, the basic principles of good and evil have always been and apply to all rational beings everywhere (even in universes other than our own, if they exist). The fact that humans do not always agree about what is "good" and what is "evil" does not mean that there is no objective answer, just as the fact that mathematicians sometimes disagree about theories does not mean that there is no one theory that is the "right answer"; that is, one that accurately reflects mathematical reality.
My definition of evil is:
"Deliberately hurting another being, for no benefit"
Usually there is a benefit when someone hurts another, so it is tough for a person to perform a completely evil act. However, people can approach 'evil' through an action by increasing the: (a) deliberacy (b) damage © importance of the being; or by decreasing the benefit derived from the action.
"Deliberately hurting another being, for no benefit"
Usually there is a benefit when someone hurts another, so it is tough for a person to perform a completely evil act. However, people can approach 'evil' through an action by increasing the: (a) deliberacy (b) damage © importance of the being; or by decreasing the benefit derived from the action.
I would expand El Machinae's definition of evil to include "any deliberate action that benefits the rational being who does it, at the expense of another rational being." Actions which bring benefit at the expense of lower beings could be included also, but only on a limited basis; and I would not define defense of self or others to be "at the expense" of the aggressor.
Could one argue that something like killing one person for medical research is partly good and partly evil? I do not think so. The desire to cure diseases is good, but the act of killing someone to that end is not "good" in any sense, even though it may be "practical" or "beneficial."
Another thought regarding whether "cold" and "darkness" actually exist--I say they do, in a sense. The term "light" describes both an actual thing (a quantity of photons) and a state that a region can be in (containing a relatively large number of photons). "Dark," however, is only descriptive of a state (containing relatively few or no photons). Hence, "darkness" exists, but only as a state, not as an actual, physical thing. The same applies to "cold," unless you want to say that remaining fixed in one place (non-motion, motion of molecules being the definition of heat) is a distinct thing.
Could one argue that something like killing one person for medical research is partly good and partly evil? I do not think so. The desire to cure diseases is good, but the act of killing someone to that end is not "good" in any sense, even though it may be "practical" or "beneficial."
Another thought regarding whether "cold" and "darkness" actually exist--I say they do, in a sense. The term "light" describes both an actual thing (a quantity of photons) and a state that a region can be in (containing a relatively large number of photons). "Dark," however, is only descriptive of a state (containing relatively few or no photons). Hence, "darkness" exists, but only as a state, not as an actual, physical thing. The same applies to "cold," unless you want to say that remaining fixed in one place (non-motion, motion of molecules being the definition of heat) is a distinct thing.
Here are some more things that I would call "evil":
1) Allowing harm to come to someone when you are perfectly capable of preventing it. An example would be seeing an unconscious person bleeding to death and doing nothing to help.
2) Preventing the execution of justice.
3) Taking personal revenge, because God has reserved that action for Himself.
4) Not offering proper respect and/or service to those to whom it is due.
1) Allowing harm to come to someone when you are perfectly capable of preventing it. An example would be seeing an unconscious person bleeding to death and doing nothing to help.
2) Preventing the execution of justice.
3) Taking personal revenge, because God has reserved that action for Himself.
4) Not offering proper respect and/or service to those to whom it is due.
There is no darkness, thats just what everything is already, light is just photons that we use to see, no photons = cant see... but everything is still the same with or without photons, except "we" cannot see. But to a machine that uses other particles to "see", photons or not, it all looks exactly the same.
As for Evil, its simply a definition of Acts that Violate our consiousness emotions of whats right. Wich is diffrent from person to person. i mean, is killing someone really bad? what does it matter? if someone blows up the planet, does it matter? who will care? technically it dosent at all... hoever, it violates feeling/emotions that we have so it matters to us because of the way it makes us "feel". The universe and all the randomness of it, really dosent care weather we destroy ourselves or not, earth dont care if its explodes, the solar system dosent care... so really, evil/bad and good is only within our selves and applies to nothing else whatsoever. There is no good and Bad. its just definitions of what we value. we value our survival, our emotions, physical feelings... etc... anything that hurts us is evil, but it dosent matter to nature itselfe.
Far as Evil being absence of god... well thats silly, cause there athiest that arent evil, lol... besides, if you want to talk about it in that sence, if i recall, the bible says evil is from the devil, who was a fallen angel that God Created? was he not?
So technically, God is Evil, God is Good. God Created the devil.
As for Evil, its simply a definition of Acts that Violate our consiousness emotions of whats right. Wich is diffrent from person to person. i mean, is killing someone really bad? what does it matter? if someone blows up the planet, does it matter? who will care? technically it dosent at all... hoever, it violates feeling/emotions that we have so it matters to us because of the way it makes us "feel". The universe and all the randomness of it, really dosent care weather we destroy ourselves or not, earth dont care if its explodes, the solar system dosent care... so really, evil/bad and good is only within our selves and applies to nothing else whatsoever. There is no good and Bad. its just definitions of what we value. we value our survival, our emotions, physical feelings... etc... anything that hurts us is evil, but it dosent matter to nature itselfe.
Far as Evil being absence of god... well thats silly, cause there athiest that arent evil, lol... besides, if you want to talk about it in that sence, if i recall, the bible says evil is from the devil, who was a fallen angel that God Created? was he not?
So technically, God is Evil, God is Good. God Created the devil.
QUOTE
God is Evil, God is Good. God Created the devil.
Yeah! God created the evil. Evil and God are the same. They are one.
Anyways, why do we all care?? We are all evil!!
andy be quiet ok-virus is usually good--duh--and it is bad for the sugar to break apart--bad for the sugar--bad for your fat butt andy--
good and evil are defined by society. They are viewpoints really. Cold is the absence of heat but heat isn't the absence of cold. You can say, however, that evil is the absence of good and good is the absence of evil.
El_Machinae Posted on Today at 1:47 AM
Saavik Posted on Today at 5:25 AM
Here are some more things that I would call "evil":
1) Allowing harm to come to someone when you are perfectly capable of preventing it. An example would be seeing an unconscious person bleeding to death and doing nothing to help.
2) Preventing the execution of justice.
3) Taking personal revenge, because God has reserved that action for Himself.
4) Not offering proper respect and/or service to those to whom it is due.
i don't think it's possible to set "rules" for good and evil because some people see things very differently. What one sees as damaging, another may see as helping. What one sees as obstruction of justice, another may see as a necessary moral action.
gmilam Posted on Yesterday at 6:43 PM
Yeah, it does seem strange that he would have said something like this.
That cannot be true, or else procreation (which will eventually cause harm to another human being) and buying natural gas (which creates competition for life-giving essentials) would be evil.
They're not. It's not possible to live in this world and not compete with someone else for resources.
Good and evil are not defined by society. Society cannot define good and evil any more than it can say that grass and the sky are the same color, or that two plus two equals five.
Not society per-se, but each individual. So technically, yes society does "define" it. what do you teach you're kids? its bad to hit someone, its bad to do this and that, but now flash back like 5000-10000 years ago when this thing wasent tought and you get the exact opposit. we killed and hunted for survival, even over simple things. Good and Evil is somthing you learn, but also somewhat "genetic" but not as much as it seems. it only seems like you're logic, cause logic is what was defined soon as you were born. teach a kid to kill since its born and there isnt any logic in their mind that says otherwise to couter act what you teach it. unless you teach it. this is all over society today.
Not society per-se, but each individual. So technically, yes society does "define" it. what do you teach you're kids? its bad to hit someone, its bad to do this and that, but now flash back like 5000-10000 years ago when this thing wasent tought and you get the exact opposit. we killed and hunted for survival, even over simple things. Good and Evil is somthing you learn, but also somewhat "genetic" but not as much as it seems. it only seems like you're logic, cause logic is what was defined soon as you were born. teach a kid to kill since its born and there isnt any logic in their mind that says otherwise to couter act what you teach it. unless you teach it. this is all over society today.
Is destroying an equal to enrich one's own life wrong, in every circumstance? Yes. I do not say this because the thought of doing something like that offends my conscience or my feelings, but because it offends logic.
It violates what you've learnt, as well as emotions wich "is" you're logic, hehe. It only violates logic if the life you destroyed could of actually been of great benefit, but if you dont know that, then theres no violated logic. Also Punishment/Law in this "society" stops probably %50-%60 of the population from taking things in their own hands. So many people would take justice in their own hands if it were for society's laws. Some wont due to emotional "logic", wich is mostly built up from what you're learnt since you're boarn, but there are people today who dont have emotions, weather it be genetically inherited or tought... the proof is on the news.
Bringing some small benefit to oneself, at the expense of everything someone else has, makes no sense.
Again, it happends today, people get killed for no reason, look at the scueside bombers, lol.... but even more so back when you were cavement/Hunters. You fought for food, land, life.... you killed for very stupid things, wich werent actually stupid then. So somewhere along the lines, it was a change in society and how people are tought whats right and wrong.
Again, it happends today, people get killed for no reason, look at the scueside bombers, lol.... but even more so back when you were cavement/Hunters. You fought for food, land, life.... you killed for very stupid things, wich werent actually stupid then. So somewhere along the lines, it was a change in society and how people are tought whats right and wrong.
Someone might say, "In my opinion, it is right for me to kill you," but it is doubtful that the same person would say, "In my opinion, it is right for you to kill me."
Now, think out of you're mind and body.... sure killing someone is terrible, especially if someone wanted to kill you, you dont want to die, neither does anyone else... but WHAT's the benefits to living or dying?? if you killed someone whats the benefit to Nature it selfe? if you didnt kill someone whats the benefit? or non-benefit? Absolutely nothing at all! Like i said, nature dont care. if all the tree's died, fish, anamals, who cares? no one, only us cause it violates our logic since we need those to survive, but again its all about "US" and nothing else.... then if the planet dies, it dies, so do we, but does it really matter to the rest of the universe? Nope! It only matters to "US". Things are Created and destroyed in the galaxy all the time, theres no logic or emotion there... theres no reason we need to be here, no reason the planet needs to be here. We just make up reasons. There's no ultimate goal to reach, you just live, then you die. so if everything was destroyed tomorrow, the universe will still keep doing its thing with or without us.
Someone was saying that God created evil because He created the devil. That is not true. When God created the devil, the devil was good. Evil was simply a path that he later chose to follow. God did not create evil; it was just an option available to any creature with free will. And God gave his creatures free will because He wanted more than a group of robots, hard-wired to be good.
God dont really exist, but i was pointing out a flaw in the bible... hehe. So.... what you're saying is... god didnt actually create everything then? i mean, if he created everything, the universe and every particle in it, then he didnt create the possibility of "evil"? or was this actually a "flaw" in his own design? The almighty creator is the creator, so it says, and he could of created everything "Without" the so called "definition" of evil. All animals could love one another, none would die, same for humans, no one will kill cause it wasent programmed into them, hehe.
Far as its cause he gave free will, thats BS. Its quite ignorant of god in the story of adam and eve, where he gives them a choice of what tree to eat from, lol... to test their free will that he created?
How about the God has a plan thing? i'm not sure if thats in the bible, but it always says, god has a plan, god knows all... but how can he have a plan for everyone who's supopse to actually have free will? how could he know everything if everyone was suppose to be unpredictable?
Free will is just logic anyway, every desicion you make every day is based on things you've learn since you poped out of you're mother vagina. you dont remember those things, but they're put into consideration when making decisions. things you see on tv, ads, things you learn from other people.... There is SOOooo much information out there, used all the time, that desicions and thoughts end up looking completely random. randomness is really just alot of shuffled up information.... it can all be predicted, but not easily. course theres alot of things humans have in common that are predictable and definable, there wouldent by phychology and other types of professions if it was truly the work of random "Freewill"... and alot of marketing campains expliot this the most to sell you their products.
So much for Free Will. course, its still defined as free will, but its not the "Magical" force people want it to be.... in my opinion...
Keithbaker, you won't come up with a valid argument if you're going to pretend that God doesn't exists. Because God is an important factor here. You can't just erase him.
How much competition is 'fine'? There's a black and white line that you're not allowed to cross? What if I could get by without wearing a jacket, but I purchase a jacket anyway? I'm evil for doing that?
As well, "giving birth is a net benefit"? So the ends justify the means? How much 'benefit' does someone have to receive before an action is not evil? There's some line again?
No, I don't think so. It's not possible to measure how much competition is 'fine'. It's not possible to measure how much benefit is necessary to 'justify' a harm.
Keithbaker, you won't come up with a valid argument if you're going to pretend that God doesn't exists. Because God is an important factor here. You can't just erase him.
I didn't erase him. I said that if I'm wrong then I think the whole light dark theory of evil is right and then said but lets pretend I'm right for arguments sake.
Mary Jane smokin wild people
lol
lol
That's God. That's all. Charge, electrons, will, movement, vectors, something like that. When you see God as that, you cannot deny that it exists. To them, it's like God is mathematics, physics, geometry, get me? Humans try to make God into a humanoid intelligence, a being. Is that how you see it? Maybe you already know what I'm telling you. I'm a little slow
I don't like to think of god in those terms, because I think that is stretching the word god to include too much. I mean if you check out dictionary.com all of its definitions are make god to be one being. You could then say well...all of these forces combined together make one spiritual being or one life force all working together yada yada yada. Its just too much. I like your idea but i wouldn't define it as believing in god, and also I'm more of a 'there was energy and 20 jillion years later we eventually developed out of this energy' kind of a guy. Also I hope we have a soul because it sucks thinking this is it, but if we do have a soul and the Christians are right about Jesus being the only way then I'm kinda screwed. i like to think, probably because its a little less scary, that if i am wrong about the whole god thing that he wouldn't be as petty as he is supposed to be and condemn anyone to eternal damnation for coming to a reasonable and completely logical conclusion that he doesn't exist. I mean not for that reason alone.
I see...
I see...
That's God. That's all. Charge, electrons, will, movement, vectors, something like that. When you see God as that, you cannot deny that it exists. To them, it's like God is mathematics, physics, geometry, get me? Humans try to make God into a humanoid intelligence, a being. Is that how you see it? Maybe you already know what I'm telling you. I'm a little slow
Me too. I don't agree that science is a proof of God or even it is God. (here is the science v.s. god thing again) I'm sorry but I agree with keithbaker that God is not just a thing or a being or whatever. Anyway, I don't claim that I know God. Nobody knows. It's just too annoying for some people to conceptualize your god as if he's just a thing.
But here's the question:
If people belive in God, then why do they believe in evil??
Does the devil still works secretly. I mean, he's obvious, you know. Just look around and you'll see that he's doing all the work.
Because man believes what he cannot see. And that's a good thing.
Because man believes what he cannot see. And that's a good thing.
Evil and Good are perceptions and nothing else.
If those are only perceptions, then is there still a god? Or do we make ourselves the god because we decide what's good and what's evil?
Evil is good. Good is evil.
Whatever it means.
Because man believes what he cannot see. And that's a good thing.
Because man believes what he cannot see. And that's a good thing.
Evil and Good are perceptions and nothing else.
If those are only perceptions, then is there still a god? Or do we make ourselves the god because we decide what's good and what's evil?
Evil is good. Good is evil.
Whatever it means.
god can be a being that represents good. but what we are saying is that god could represent evil as much as he represents good. what you think god made as "good" is just what society figured as right.
its possible to argue that we are nothing but what we learn. however, there are values and principles that arent taught but innate to everyone. now, short of a horribly immoral experiment, i have no idea how to test this theory. however, it remains uncertain whether someone who never knew compassion in his life would not appreciate it if he experienced it. i think its in our genetic makeup to want compassion and feel empathy.
logic only reaches so far. where good and evil are concerned, logic does not apply. you can not apply logic to values that lack measurements. short of mapping human responses and understanding every human reaction based on experience, environment and circumstance, we cant determine what constitutes good and evil
not to say thinking about such things isnt fun. but ive found its quite hard, short of dismissing a limitless amount of impossible-to-prove counter arguments, to settle into a established definition of good and evil.
El_Machinae Posted on Today at 1:47 AM
QUOTE
My definition of evil is:
"Deliberately hurting another being, for no benefit"
Usually there is a benefit when someone hurts another, so it is tough for a person to perform a completely evil act. However, people can approach 'evil' through an action by increasing the: (a) deliberacy (
damage © importance of the being; or by decreasing the benefit derived from the action.
"Deliberately hurting another being, for no benefit"
Usually there is a benefit when someone hurts another, so it is tough for a person to perform a completely evil act. However, people can approach 'evil' through an action by increasing the: (a) deliberacy (
damage © importance of the being; or by decreasing the benefit derived from the action. QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| My definition of evil is: "Deliberately hurting another being, for no benefit" Usually there is a benefit when someone hurts another, so it is tough for a person to perform a completely evil act. However, people can approach 'evil' through an action by increasing the: (a) deliberacy ( damage © importance of the being; or by decreasing the benefit derived from the action. |
Saavik Posted on Today at 5:25 AM
Here are some more things that I would call "evil":
1) Allowing harm to come to someone when you are perfectly capable of preventing it. An example would be seeing an unconscious person bleeding to death and doing nothing to help.
2) Preventing the execution of justice.
3) Taking personal revenge, because God has reserved that action for Himself.
4) Not offering proper respect and/or service to those to whom it is due.
i don't think it's possible to set "rules" for good and evil because some people see things very differently. What one sees as damaging, another may see as helping. What one sees as obstruction of justice, another may see as a necessary moral action.
gmilam Posted on Yesterday at 6:43 PM
QUOTE
I have serious doubts on this being something Einstein actually said.
Yeah, it does seem strange that he would have said something like this.
Good and evil are not defined by society. Society cannot define good and evil any more than it can say that grass and the sky are the same color, or that two plus two equals five. They are unalterable principles and it is society's job to explore and apply them, not define them.
Think about it. Is destroying an equal to enrich one's own life wrong, in every circumstance? Yes. I do not say this because the thought of doing something like that offends my conscience or my feelings, but because it offends logic. Bringing some small benefit to oneself, at the expense of everything someone else has, makes no sense. Someone might say, "In my opinion, it is right for me to kill you," but it is doubtful that the same person would say, "In my opinion, it is right for you to kill me."
Someone was saying that God created evil because He created the devil. That is not true. When God created the devil, the devil was good. Evil was simply a path that he later chose to follow. God did not create evil; it was just an option available to any creature with free will. And God gave his creatures free will because He wanted more than a group of robots, hard-wired to be good.
Think about it. Is destroying an equal to enrich one's own life wrong, in every circumstance? Yes. I do not say this because the thought of doing something like that offends my conscience or my feelings, but because it offends logic. Bringing some small benefit to oneself, at the expense of everything someone else has, makes no sense. Someone might say, "In my opinion, it is right for me to kill you," but it is doubtful that the same person would say, "In my opinion, it is right for you to kill me."
Someone was saying that God created evil because He created the devil. That is not true. When God created the devil, the devil was good. Evil was simply a path that he later chose to follow. God did not create evil; it was just an option available to any creature with free will. And God gave his creatures free will because He wanted more than a group of robots, hard-wired to be good.
QUOTE
I would expand El Machinae's definition of evil to include "any deliberate action that benefits the rational being who does it, at the expense of another rational being."
That cannot be true, or else procreation (which will eventually cause harm to another human being) and buying natural gas (which creates competition for life-giving essentials) would be evil.
They're not. It's not possible to live in this world and not compete with someone else for resources.
QUOTE
Good and evil are not defined by society. Society cannot define good and evil any more than it can say that grass and the sky are the same color, or that two plus two equals five.
Not society per-se, but each individual. So technically, yes society does "define" it. what do you teach you're kids? its bad to hit someone, its bad to do this and that, but now flash back like 5000-10000 years ago when this thing wasent tought and you get the exact opposit. we killed and hunted for survival, even over simple things. Good and Evil is somthing you learn, but also somewhat "genetic" but not as much as it seems. it only seems like you're logic, cause logic is what was defined soon as you were born. teach a kid to kill since its born and there isnt any logic in their mind that says otherwise to couter act what you teach it. unless you teach it. this is all over society today.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Good and evil are not defined by society. Society cannot define good and evil any more than it can say that grass and the sky are the same color, or that two plus two equals five. |
Not society per-se, but each individual. So technically, yes society does "define" it. what do you teach you're kids? its bad to hit someone, its bad to do this and that, but now flash back like 5000-10000 years ago when this thing wasent tought and you get the exact opposit. we killed and hunted for survival, even over simple things. Good and Evil is somthing you learn, but also somewhat "genetic" but not as much as it seems. it only seems like you're logic, cause logic is what was defined soon as you were born. teach a kid to kill since its born and there isnt any logic in their mind that says otherwise to couter act what you teach it. unless you teach it. this is all over society today.
Is destroying an equal to enrich one's own life wrong, in every circumstance? Yes. I do not say this because the thought of doing something like that offends my conscience or my feelings, but because it offends logic.
It violates what you've learnt, as well as emotions wich "is" you're logic, hehe. It only violates logic if the life you destroyed could of actually been of great benefit, but if you dont know that, then theres no violated logic. Also Punishment/Law in this "society" stops probably %50-%60 of the population from taking things in their own hands. So many people would take justice in their own hands if it were for society's laws. Some wont due to emotional "logic", wich is mostly built up from what you're learnt since you're boarn, but there are people today who dont have emotions, weather it be genetically inherited or tought... the proof is on the news.
QUOTE
Bringing some small benefit to oneself, at the expense of everything someone else has, makes no sense.
Again, it happends today, people get killed for no reason, look at the scueside bombers, lol.... but even more so back when you were cavement/Hunters. You fought for food, land, life.... you killed for very stupid things, wich werent actually stupid then. So somewhere along the lines, it was a change in society and how people are tought whats right and wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Bringing some small benefit to oneself, at the expense of everything someone else has, makes no sense. |
Again, it happends today, people get killed for no reason, look at the scueside bombers, lol.... but even more so back when you were cavement/Hunters. You fought for food, land, life.... you killed for very stupid things, wich werent actually stupid then. So somewhere along the lines, it was a change in society and how people are tought whats right and wrong.
Someone might say, "In my opinion, it is right for me to kill you," but it is doubtful that the same person would say, "In my opinion, it is right for you to kill me."
Now, think out of you're mind and body.... sure killing someone is terrible, especially if someone wanted to kill you, you dont want to die, neither does anyone else... but WHAT's the benefits to living or dying?? if you killed someone whats the benefit to Nature it selfe? if you didnt kill someone whats the benefit? or non-benefit? Absolutely nothing at all! Like i said, nature dont care. if all the tree's died, fish, anamals, who cares? no one, only us cause it violates our logic since we need those to survive, but again its all about "US" and nothing else.... then if the planet dies, it dies, so do we, but does it really matter to the rest of the universe? Nope! It only matters to "US". Things are Created and destroyed in the galaxy all the time, theres no logic or emotion there... theres no reason we need to be here, no reason the planet needs to be here. We just make up reasons. There's no ultimate goal to reach, you just live, then you die. so if everything was destroyed tomorrow, the universe will still keep doing its thing with or without us.
QUOTE
Someone was saying that God created evil because He created the devil. That is not true. When God created the devil, the devil was good. Evil was simply a path that he later chose to follow. God did not create evil; it was just an option available to any creature with free will. And God gave his creatures free will because He wanted more than a group of robots, hard-wired to be good.
God dont really exist, but i was pointing out a flaw in the bible... hehe. So.... what you're saying is... god didnt actually create everything then? i mean, if he created everything, the universe and every particle in it, then he didnt create the possibility of "evil"? or was this actually a "flaw" in his own design? The almighty creator is the creator, so it says, and he could of created everything "Without" the so called "definition" of evil. All animals could love one another, none would die, same for humans, no one will kill cause it wasent programmed into them, hehe.
Far as its cause he gave free will, thats BS. Its quite ignorant of god in the story of adam and eve, where he gives them a choice of what tree to eat from, lol... to test their free will that he created?
How about the God has a plan thing? i'm not sure if thats in the bible, but it always says, god has a plan, god knows all... but how can he have a plan for everyone who's supopse to actually have free will? how could he know everything if everyone was suppose to be unpredictable?
Free will is just logic anyway, every desicion you make every day is based on things you've learn since you poped out of you're mother vagina. you dont remember those things, but they're put into consideration when making decisions. things you see on tv, ads, things you learn from other people.... There is SOOooo much information out there, used all the time, that desicions and thoughts end up looking completely random. randomness is really just alot of shuffled up information.... it can all be predicted, but not easily. course theres alot of things humans have in common that are predictable and definable, there wouldent by phychology and other types of professions if it was truly the work of random "Freewill"... and alot of marketing campains expliot this the most to sell you their products.
So much for Free Will. course, its still defined as free will, but its not the "Magical" force people want it to be.... in my opinion...
This is a hella interesting topic. I like the darkness is the absence of light so evil is the absence of good (God) theory except for I'm an atheist so I think its completely wrong. Unless I'm wrong then I think it's right. But for arguments sake lets pretend I'm right and God doesn't exist. Then I would either say there is no such thing as evil because evil is the opposite of good and if there is no God then whats good? Or I would say its relative and no two people can ever have the exact same perception of evil so it is impossible to say whether evil exists for two different people. I mean like someone else used a Hitler example earlier in this post I'll say that him killing all those people is seemingly evil but theres alot of people who supported it and still do who say it wasn't. Neither me nor the nazi dudes are wrong if evil is relative. Example: if I'm traveling at the speed of light and I say that the light appears to stand still and you who are standing still say it appears to be moving really fast neither of us is wrong. Then again the argument could be proposed that nothing exists past one mind using this theory because if I see a small ball on the table and your perception is that its a normal sized ball then 'my ball' doesn't exist to you and 'your ball' doesnt exist to me. It wouldn't even have to be that drastic out perception of the ball is going to be different somehow no matter what or how minute.
Now I hope that someone hasn't already said what I have because I didn't read every post and I jumped in the game kinda late. If so then sorry.
Now I hope that someone hasn't already said what I have because I didn't read every post and I jumped in the game kinda late. If so then sorry.
QUOTE
But for arguments sake lets pretend I'm right and God doesn't exist. Then I would either say there is no such thing as evil because evil is the opposite of good and if there is no God then whats good?
Keithbaker, you won't come up with a valid argument if you're going to pretend that God doesn't exists. Because God is an important factor here. You can't just erase him.
Keith---don't listen to "how to think like god" ok--(why do people name themselves dumb shi* like that?) Anywho, Keith, I feel ya on the whole atheist thing, but check it out...Guess I'm kinda an atheist too...but I've been influenced by Indian beliefs, not west Indian, American.....I know......you're thinking, Mary Jane smokin wild people.First of all, I'm really Indian, half, half white. I've seen more than just what is written in books so....listen k? Maybe you're right, but they make me think of something.....They worship this "spirit" and say it is in everything, the rocks, trees, water...And they notice the interactions and the "system" of everything. They tell this story of a egotistical man....kinda like......"howtothinklikegod" --even being atheist is egotistical----to the Indians---that's me too Keith--so here we are, all full of ourselves and then............A BIG HAWK FLIES DOWN AND GRABS YOU!!and takes you up into the air.......and you see earth from far away, farther, space.....the milky way.......OHMYGAWD! the truth.....do you see it? Feel it? That's God. That's all. Charge, electrons, will, movement, vectors, something like that. When you see God as that, you cannot deny that it exists. To them, it's like God is mathematics, physics, geometry, get me? Humans try to make God into a humanoid intelligence, a being. Is that how you see it? Maybe you already know what I'm telling you. I'm a little slow 
Anywho, Keith, I feel ya on the whole atheist thing, but check it out...Guess I'm kinda an atheist too...but I've been influenced by Indian beliefs, not west Indian, American.....I know......you're thinking, Mary Jane smokin wild people.First of all, I'm really Indian, half, half white. I've seen more than just what is written in books so....listen k? Maybe you're right, but they make me think of something.....They worship this "spirit" and say it is in everything, the rocks, trees, water...And they notice the interactions and the "system" of everything. They tell this story of a egotistical man....kinda like......"howtothinklikegod" --even being atheist is egotistical----to the Indians---that's me too Keith--so here we are, all full of ourselves and then............A BIG HAWK FLIES DOWN AND GRABS YOU!!and takes you up into the air.......and you see earth from far away, farther, space.....the milky way.......OHMYGAWD! the truth.....do you see it? Feel it? That's God. That's all. Charge, electrons, will, movement, vectors, something like that. When you see God as that, you cannot deny that it exists. To them, it's like God is mathematics, physics, geometry, get me? Humans try to make God into a humanoid intelligence, a being. Is that how you see it? Maybe you already know what I'm telling you. I'm a little slow
Keith---and another thing---that ball you were talking about---if my perception is different than yours--you say your ball doesnt exist in my world?--you're wrong bro---it does exist to me---it's just bigger--but we both saw it--it was round---and bouncy---and on the table. If it rolled away, I could help you find it----It does exist to me--sure it's not an identical experience we share but....what is.....Don't you hope we have a soul Keith? I mean why do half the shi* I do if..........after this we don't exist? I would be more evil if I knew that to be true........Ya know?
OldWoman speaks the truth...
Or it "feels" like truth to me. In my view and understanding god is everything. NOT god created everything - god IS everything. God is the unanswered questions we all have. The big mystery.
But people have a need to give god human characteristics and even think that they can know what "god" "thinks". This is pure human arrogance.
And Keith... even if you go the speed of light, light will never appear to stand still to you. That's what the whole concept of relativity is about. The speed of light is the same to all observers.
Or it "feels" like truth to me. In my view and understanding god is everything. NOT god created everything - god IS everything. God is the unanswered questions we all have. The big mystery.
But people have a need to give god human characteristics and even think that they can know what "god" "thinks". This is pure human arrogance.
And Keith... even if you go the speed of light, light will never appear to stand still to you. That's what the whole concept of relativity is about. The speed of light is the same to all observers.
Those of us who believe that God is a rational, personal being did not just pull the idea out of thin air. We see evidence in the world for the existence of such a being. What is so arrogant about drawing conclusions from evidence?
To answer El Machinae--a certain amount of competition is fine. If a resource is scarce and only a certain number of people can have it, one is not necessarily harming the others by making sure he has it. (One could say, "Someone has to have it, why not I?) But if you take so much of the resource that you have more than you really need, and others suffer because of it, that is wrong. As for procreation, I think most people would say they are glad to have lived, so they receive a net benefit from that action. Saying that having a baby harms that baby would be like saying that a life-saving surgery is harmful to someone, only because it causes pain.
OODB--was the logic that you are trying to use to argue against me brainwashed into you when you were a child? If all our ideas are a function of the environment in which we were raised, and we cannot be certain that any of them are a reflection of the truth, then what is the point of having ideas or arguing about anything? You are using reason to argue against reason itself. Yes, people tend to unquestioningly believe what they are taught, especially when young, but if they do that is their fault. You say the universe does not care if we die. What does it matter what the universe does or does not care about? It is incapable of experiencing pain or desire, unlike sentient creatures.
To answer El Machinae--a certain amount of competition is fine. If a resource is scarce and only a certain number of people can have it, one is not necessarily harming the others by making sure he has it. (One could say, "Someone has to have it, why not I?) But if you take so much of the resource that you have more than you really need, and others suffer because of it, that is wrong. As for procreation, I think most people would say they are glad to have lived, so they receive a net benefit from that action. Saying that having a baby harms that baby would be like saying that a life-saving surgery is harmful to someone, only because it causes pain.
OODB--was the logic that you are trying to use to argue against me brainwashed into you when you were a child? If all our ideas are a function of the environment in which we were raised, and we cannot be certain that any of them are a reflection of the truth, then what is the point of having ideas or arguing about anything? You are using reason to argue against reason itself. Yes, people tend to unquestioningly believe what they are taught, especially when young, but if they do that is their fault. You say the universe does not care if we die. What does it matter what the universe does or does not care about? It is incapable of experiencing pain or desire, unlike sentient creatures.
I was raised with the belief that god is a personal caring being with "human" qualities. (Actually, that we were created in god's image.) It is through observing the evidence that I came to reject this idea.
Mother Nature can be very co-operative and competitive - compassionate and cruel. Watch a momma cat teach her kittens to hunt. She'll catch a mouse, wound it so it can't escape and then let her kids catch it over and over. The mouse probably considers the cat to be "evil". But the cat is not evil.. it's just being a cat - the way Mother Nature "designed" it.
Mother Nature can be very co-operative and competitive - compassionate and cruel. Watch a momma cat teach her kittens to hunt. She'll catch a mouse, wound it so it can't escape and then let her kids catch it over and over. The mouse probably considers the cat to be "evil". But the cat is not evil.. it's just being a cat - the way Mother Nature "designed" it.
QUOTE
a certain amount of competition is fine. If a resource is scarce and only a certain number of people can have it, one is not necessarily harming the others by making sure he has it. (One could say, "Someone has to have it, why not I?) But if you take so much of the resource that you have more than you really need, and others suffer because of it, that is wrong. As for procreation, I think most people would say they are glad to have lived, so they receive a net benefit from that action
How much competition is 'fine'? There's a black and white line that you're not allowed to cross? What if I could get by without wearing a jacket, but I purchase a jacket anyway? I'm evil for doing that?
As well, "giving birth is a net benefit"? So the ends justify the means? How much 'benefit' does someone have to receive before an action is not evil? There's some line again?
No, I don't think so. It's not possible to measure how much competition is 'fine'. It's not possible to measure how much benefit is necessary to 'justify' a harm.
QUOTE (Saavik+Apr 20 2006, 06:22 PM)
Those of us who believe that God is a rational, personal being did not just pull the idea out of thin air. We see evidence in the world for the existence of such a being. What is so arrogant about drawing conclusions from evidence?
To answer El Machinae--a certain amount of competition is fine. If a resource is scarce and only a certain number of people can have it, one is not necessarily harming the others by making sure he has it. (One could say, "Someone has to have it, why not I?) But if you take so much of the resource that you have more than you really need, and others suffer because of it, that is wrong. As for procreation, I think most people would say they are glad to have lived, so they receive a net benefit from that action. Saying that having a baby harms that baby would be like saying that a life-saving surgery is harmful to someone, only because it causes pain.
OODB--was the logic that you are trying to use to argue against me brainwashed into you when you were a child? If all our ideas are a function of the environment in which we were raised, and we cannot be certain that any of them are a reflection of the truth, then what is the point of having ideas or arguing about anything? You are using reason to argue against reason itself. Yes, people tend to unquestioningly believe what they are taught, especially when young, but if they do that is their fault. You say the universe does not care if we die. What does it matter what the universe does or does not care about? It is incapable of experiencing pain or desire, unlike sentient creatures.
Not brainwashed, just from inforfmation collected by simple analysis. Good and Evil just exists in our own sence, but not to everything else, animals dont even know what good and evil is. its rather just a definition defined by our own logical/emotional construct. hehe. People tend to put good and evil as some force, like a law of physics that we cant measure yet. but good and evil can be anything we want it to be, it changes over time with our evolution. Thats what i'm getting at. there is no force, no influence, no law that defines it except within ourselfes as humans.
And yes, there is absolutely no point in even being here talking, lol. Especially on a forum over the internet. There is no benefit other than to just express opinion and get people to read and soak up more information to use in their daily lives.
Course, since i'm human and have all this logic and emotion, some values? here i am. lol.
To answer El Machinae--a certain amount of competition is fine. If a resource is scarce and only a certain number of people can have it, one is not necessarily harming the others by making sure he has it. (One could say, "Someone has to have it, why not I?) But if you take so much of the resource that you have more than you really need, and others suffer because of it, that is wrong. As for procreation, I think most people would say they are glad to have lived, so they receive a net benefit from that action. Saying that having a baby harms that baby would be like saying that a life-saving surgery is harmful to someone, only because it causes pain.
OODB--was the logic that you are trying to use to argue against me brainwashed into you when you were a child? If all our ideas are a function of the environment in which we were raised, and we cannot be certain that any of them are a reflection of the truth, then what is the point of having ideas or arguing about anything? You are using reason to argue against reason itself. Yes, people tend to unquestioningly believe what they are taught, especially when young, but if they do that is their fault. You say the universe does not care if we die. What does it matter what the universe does or does not care about? It is incapable of experiencing pain or desire, unlike sentient creatures.
Not brainwashed, just from inforfmation collected by simple analysis. Good and Evil just exists in our own sence, but not to everything else, animals dont even know what good and evil is. its rather just a definition defined by our own logical/emotional construct. hehe. People tend to put good and evil as some force, like a law of physics that we cant measure yet. but good and evil can be anything we want it to be, it changes over time with our evolution. Thats what i'm getting at. there is no force, no influence, no law that defines it except within ourselfes as humans.
And yes, there is absolutely no point in even being here talking, lol. Especially on a forum over the internet. There is no benefit other than to just express opinion and get people to read and soak up more information to use in their daily lives.
Course, since i'm human and have all this logic and emotion, some values? here i am. lol.
El Machinae, my belief is that there is a black-and-white dividing line. A given action is either "okay" or it is "bad." I am sure that you use a decision process like this frequently in everyday life. (Here is a more practical than ethical example: "May I eat that cinnamon roll safely, or would that push my daily intake of sweets to an unhealthy level?" The answer is yes or no.) And yes, if you could get by without a jacket and you could save people from dying of starvation by not purchasing it, I would say do not purchase it.
Animals are unaware of good and evil because they have no inclination to think about them; they are not logical and introspective like us. And if logic is always changing as we evolve then what good is it? You draw your arguments about morals from reasoning processes in your mind, and I draw mine from reasoning processes in my mind. If my conclusions are not a reflection of truth, but a mere construct of my mind, then so are yours!
Animals are unaware of good and evil because they have no inclination to think about them; they are not logical and introspective like us. And if logic is always changing as we evolve then what good is it? You draw your arguments about morals from reasoning processes in your mind, and I draw mine from reasoning processes in my mind. If my conclusions are not a reflection of truth, but a mere construct of my mind, then so are yours!
QUOTE (Saavik+Apr 21 2006, 02:22 PM)
"May I eat that cinnamon roll safely, or would that push my daily intake of sweets to an unhealthy level?" The answer is yes or no.
Maybe... if I don't have that Dr Pepper this afternoon...
Yup, it's quite subjective.
Maybe... if I don't have that Dr Pepper this afternoon...
QUOTE
You draw your arguments about morals from reasoning processes in your mind, and I draw mine from reasoning processes in my mind. If my conclusions are not a reflection of truth, but a mere construct of my mind, then so are yours!
Yup, it's quite subjective.
Evil = Ignorance.....Ignorance exists!
QUOTE (howtothinklikegod+Apr 20 2006, 06:32 AM)
Keithbaker, you won't come up with a valid argument if you're going to pretend that God doesn't exists. Because God is an important factor here. You can't just erase him.
I didn't erase him. I said that if I'm wrong then I think the whole light dark theory of evil is right and then said but lets pretend I'm right for arguments sake.
QUOTE
Mary Jane smokin wild people
lol
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Mary Jane smokin wild people |
lol
That's God. That's all. Charge, electrons, will, movement, vectors, something like that. When you see God as that, you cannot deny that it exists. To them, it's like God is mathematics, physics, geometry, get me? Humans try to make God into a humanoid intelligence, a being. Is that how you see it? Maybe you already know what I'm telling you. I'm a little slow
I don't like to think of god in those terms, because I think that is stretching the word god to include too much. I mean if you check out dictionary.com all of its definitions are make god to be one being. You could then say well...all of these forces combined together make one spiritual being or one life force all working together yada yada yada. Its just too much. I like your idea but i wouldn't define it as believing in god, and also I'm more of a 'there was energy and 20 jillion years later we eventually developed out of this energy' kind of a guy. Also I hope we have a soul because it sucks thinking this is it, but if we do have a soul and the Christians are right about Jesus being the only way then I'm kinda screwed. i like to think, probably because its a little less scary, that if i am wrong about the whole god thing that he wouldn't be as petty as he is supposed to be and condemn anyone to eternal damnation for coming to a reasonable and completely logical conclusion that he doesn't exist. I mean not for that reason alone.
QUOTE
I didn't erase him. I said that if I'm wrong then I think the whole light dark theory of evil is right and then said but lets pretend I'm right for arguments sake.
I see...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I didn't erase him. I said that if I'm wrong then I think the whole light dark theory of evil is right and then said but lets pretend I'm right for arguments sake. |
I see...
That's God. That's all. Charge, electrons, will, movement, vectors, something like that. When you see God as that, you cannot deny that it exists. To them, it's like God is mathematics, physics, geometry, get me? Humans try to make God into a humanoid intelligence, a being. Is that how you see it? Maybe you already know what I'm telling you. I'm a little slow
Me too. I don't agree that science is a proof of God or even it is God. (here is the science v.s. god thing again) I'm sorry but I agree with keithbaker that God is not just a thing or a being or whatever. Anyway, I don't claim that I know God. Nobody knows. It's just too annoying for some people to conceptualize your god as if he's just a thing.
But here's the question:
If people belive in God, then why do they believe in evil??
"But here's the question:
If people belive in God, then why do they believe in evil?? "
Simple. We have to persive everything in symetrical way. For God to exist, evil has to be there too. And vise-versa. For every piece of matter there is anti-matter. For everything there is anti-everything. We create all that, so our feeling of balance is confirmed. Ed Witten made a breakthrough when he realised that symetry exists in math.
Is it something we need in order to understand everything? I don't know....
If people belive in God, then why do they believe in evil?? "
Simple. We have to persive everything in symetrical way. For God to exist, evil has to be there too. And vise-versa. For every piece of matter there is anti-matter. For everything there is anti-everything. We create all that, so our feeling of balance is confirmed. Ed Witten made a breakthrough when he realised that symetry exists in math.
Is it something we need in order to understand everything? I don't know....
"Yup, it's quite subjective. "
Is the statement "An assertion and its opposite cannot both be true" subjective? I am arguing that some moral principles stem from very elementary logic; logic that everyone would recognize, if we could be completely honest with ourselves.
"i like to think, probably because its a little less scary, that if i am wrong about the whole god thing. . ."
Basing beliefs on what you would like to be true is a very bad idea. Perhaps you should give this some serious consideration and figure out exactly why you think this, and whether this belief truly merits your confidence. I do not think the God of the Bible would actually condemn anyone for "coming to a reasonable and completely logical conclusion that he doesn't exist." I say this because the Bible places a high premium on truth, and to be truly reasonable and logical is to love the truth. The problem occurs when people who do not want to believe in God convince themselves that there are logical reasons for His nonexistence, when in fact there are not. Maybe there are some honest atheists, but I believe that all such people will realize that there is a God before they die.
"Is the statement "An assertion and its opposite cannot both be true" subjective? I am arguing that some moral principles stem from very elementary logic; logic that everyone would recognize, if we could be completely honest with ourselves.
"i like to think, probably because its a little less scary, that if i am wrong about the whole god thing. . ."
Basing beliefs on what you would like to be true is a very bad idea. Perhaps you should give this some serious consideration and figure out exactly why you think this, and whether this belief truly merits your confidence. I do not think the God of the Bible would actually condemn anyone for "coming to a reasonable and completely logical conclusion that he doesn't exist." I say this because the Bible places a high premium on truth, and to be truly reasonable and logical is to love the truth. The problem occurs when people who do not want to believe in God convince themselves that there are logical reasons for His nonexistence, when in fact there are not. Maybe there are some honest atheists, but I believe that all such people will realize that there is a God before they die.
Who stands to benefit if evil does not appear to exist?
Evil obviously.
The devil doesn't want you to believe in his existence so he can go about his work unquestioned.
Evil obviously.
The devil doesn't want you to believe in his existence so he can go about his work unquestioned.
QUOTE
The devil doesn't want you to believe in his existence so he can do his work in secret.
Does the devil still works secretly. I mean, he's obvious, you know. Just look around and you'll see that he's doing all the work.
⊙ An individual with a violently divided mind is often diagnosed as ‘mentally ill’, or ‘schizophrenic’, but a society with identical symptoms is considered ‘civilised’. There is something fundamentally wrong with that way of thinking.
⊙ People are scared of Reality because they inwardly know that their particular version of it simply isn’t true. Therefore, to prevent themselves being exposed as dishonourable frauds, they will defend their own delusions, usually to the point of death!
⊙ The ongoing search for a quite mind culminates in acceptance. Once we accept, we can learn. Once we learn, we see the futility of arguing, because we then understand that we were only arguing with ourselves all along!
⊙ Sanity comes at a price, and the price is Acceptance!
⊙ Anything that has to resort to unnecessary violence to prove it is ‘right’, cannot, in fact, do so, as all it can ever prove is how ‘wrong’ it equally is!
⊙ ‘Opposites’ are our excuse for making decisions, within a 3D environment!
⊙ Believing that we are anything other than part of our true origin is psychologically unsound, and leads to trauma in whichever way you look at it!
⊙ It is not necessary for us all to agree on every little thing. It is this will to do battle over every tiny nuance that causes mistrust, where there really need not be any. Surely, we can accept differing opinions, when we understand that they all have good intentions? The pavement of good intentions need not lead to hell, if we can all agree on leading it to a ‘non-hellish’ place!
⊙ It is no good to look with open eyes, if we still insist on interpreting what we see with a closed mind. All doors need to be open to interpret the true Infinite perspective.
⊙ Unnecessary harm is the only true ‘madness’, and there aren’t many of us who can honestly say they have never caused unnecessary harm!
⊙ A certain amount of Chaos has to be allowed for, as a counter-balance to any extreme order. It is the true Nature of all things to possess, at very least, a modicum of Chaos. This is the Universal force that gives new breath to all things, and it can be channelled as successfully into creativity as it can destruction. Wisdom involves the knowing of which is which.
⊙ Dualistic thinking is merely ‘controlled schizophrenia’.
⊙ 'Satan' is a stagnant 'God', for 'God' and Nature must, of necessity, be the same thing, and Nature, being ‘of’ 'God', is opposed to stagnation. Therefore, ‘God’ must also evolve, and indeed, ‘it’ does, through itself, which is partly WE. ‘Satan’ = Non-evolution. No movement. ‘Christians’ opposed to Evolution are therefore doing the devils work.
⊙ It’s not so much that power corrupts, but more that power corrupts your sanity!
⊙ The same people, who blindly dismiss another’s faith, are the very people who blindly accept their own.
⊙ Sometimes its good to lose, if winning makes us less than human…
⊙ There is no reality to an ‘us and them’ situation. It’s more like ‘us, or nothing’!
⊙ What we haven’t learned from WW2 is that Nazism is only just under the surface of Everyone’s skin… All you need is ignorance.
⊙ If creatures such as Dolphins can develop compassion without the concept of ‘hate’, as a duality, why can’t Humans? Can we seriously consider ourselves more ‘intelligent’, based on such evidence?
⊙ People cannot believe that life is GOOD, without some ‘problem’, so they invent a ‘problem’ to give the illusion that if they ‘fix’ the ‘problem’ life will then be good again, and that THEY have made it that way. Life is GOOD, with or without US!
⊙ Everything in existence either works in symbiosis with another, or even opposite, energy form, or it ceases to work.
⊙ There is only one species on this planet…Life! There is only one war…On ourselves!
⊙ We are either ALL the sons (and daughters) of God, or no one is.
⊙ If God is in everything, and everything is evolving, then surely God must be evolving too.
⊙ Acceptance = Unity = Life … Division = Conflict = Death.
⊙ Once Humans equate the proportions of order to chaos in the universe, they have only to transfer the findings to their own minds to find the reality of themselves.
⊙ There can be no deeper sleep than the belief of being awake.
⊙ For to see the wisest future, we must use the wisest eyes…
...I heart you from the very thank of my bottom!
k.
⊙ People are scared of Reality because they inwardly know that their particular version of it simply isn’t true. Therefore, to prevent themselves being exposed as dishonourable frauds, they will defend their own delusions, usually to the point of death!
⊙ The ongoing search for a quite mind culminates in acceptance. Once we accept, we can learn. Once we learn, we see the futility of arguing, because we then understand that we were only arguing with ourselves all along!
⊙ Sanity comes at a price, and the price is Acceptance!
⊙ Anything that has to resort to unnecessary violence to prove it is ‘right’, cannot, in fact, do so, as all it can ever prove is how ‘wrong’ it equally is!
⊙ ‘Opposites’ are our excuse for making decisions, within a 3D environment!
⊙ Believing that we are anything other than part of our true origin is psychologically unsound, and leads to trauma in whichever way you look at it!
⊙ It is not necessary for us all to agree on every little thing. It is this will to do battle over every tiny nuance that causes mistrust, where there really need not be any. Surely, we can accept differing opinions, when we understand that they all have good intentions? The pavement of good intentions need not lead to hell, if we can all agree on leading it to a ‘non-hellish’ place!
⊙ It is no good to look with open eyes, if we still insist on interpreting what we see with a closed mind. All doors need to be open to interpret the true Infinite perspective.
⊙ Unnecessary harm is the only true ‘madness’, and there aren’t many of us who can honestly say they have never caused unnecessary harm!
⊙ A certain amount of Chaos has to be allowed for, as a counter-balance to any extreme order. It is the true Nature of all things to possess, at very least, a modicum of Chaos. This is the Universal force that gives new breath to all things, and it can be channelled as successfully into creativity as it can destruction. Wisdom involves the knowing of which is which.
⊙ Dualistic thinking is merely ‘controlled schizophrenia’.
⊙ 'Satan' is a stagnant 'God', for 'God' and Nature must, of necessity, be the same thing, and Nature, being ‘of’ 'God', is opposed to stagnation. Therefore, ‘God’ must also evolve, and indeed, ‘it’ does, through itself, which is partly WE. ‘Satan’ = Non-evolution. No movement. ‘Christians’ opposed to Evolution are therefore doing the devils work.
⊙ It’s not so much that power corrupts, but more that power corrupts your sanity!
⊙ The same people, who blindly dismiss another’s faith, are the very people who blindly accept their own.
⊙ Sometimes its good to lose, if winning makes us less than human…
⊙ There is no reality to an ‘us and them’ situation. It’s more like ‘us, or nothing’!
⊙ What we haven’t learned from WW2 is that Nazism is only just under the surface of Everyone’s skin… All you need is ignorance.
⊙ If creatures such as Dolphins can develop compassion without the concept of ‘hate’, as a duality, why can’t Humans? Can we seriously consider ourselves more ‘intelligent’, based on such evidence?
⊙ People cannot believe that life is GOOD, without some ‘problem’, so they invent a ‘problem’ to give the illusion that if they ‘fix’ the ‘problem’ life will then be good again, and that THEY have made it that way. Life is GOOD, with or without US!
⊙ Everything in existence either works in symbiosis with another, or even opposite, energy form, or it ceases to work.
⊙ There is only one species on this planet…Life! There is only one war…On ourselves!
⊙ We are either ALL the sons (and daughters) of God, or no one is.
⊙ If God is in everything, and everything is evolving, then surely God must be evolving too.
⊙ Acceptance = Unity = Life … Division = Conflict = Death.
⊙ Once Humans equate the proportions of order to chaos in the universe, they have only to transfer the findings to their own minds to find the reality of themselves.
⊙ There can be no deeper sleep than the belief of being awake.
⊙ For to see the wisest future, we must use the wisest eyes…
...I heart you from the very thank of my bottom!
k.
I'd like to believe there is some kind of higher power or some place we go when we die. I don't think this higher power is God though. I think its something people can't describe scientifically and if there is something I have found out about scientists is they hate to say we don't know so they choose to say it doesn't exist. If more scientists and doctors and stuff learned to say I don't know they might just learn something.
"Evil does not exist. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes when there is no heat or the darkness that comes when there is no light." - Albert Einstein.
What does everyone think of this quote?
It's fraudulent; albert Einstein never said it or anything like it.
Why is it that, the more fiercely someone believes in God, the more likely they are to be a liar?
And do any scientists post here, or just fundies?
What does everyone think of this quote?
It's fraudulent; albert Einstein never said it or anything like it.
Why is it that, the more fiercely someone believes in God, the more likely they are to be a liar?
And do any scientists post here, or just fundies?
I'd like to believe there is some kind of higher power or some place we go when we die. I don't think this higher power is God though. I think its something people can't describe scientifically and if there is something I have found out about scientists is they hate to say we don't know so they choose to say it doesn't exist. If more scientists and doctors and stuff learned to say I don't know they might just learn something.
I'd like to believe that you aren't an arrogant fool, but unfortunately the evidence suggests otherwise.
On the one hand we have scientists, virtually every one of whom is driven by a great curiosity and wonder about the world and a desire to understand how it works -- which necessarily implies that they don't yet know, and are aware that they don't know. Any scientist who doesn't have anything they don't know is out of business. And scientists are always talking about what they don't know, which you would know if you had ever met or spoken to any scientists. The claim that scientists hate to say they don't know is grossly ignorant and foolish.
On the other hand we have someone who believes things simply because he wants to. He has absolutely no other basis to believe it, no evidence, no inference from evidence ... he can't even describe it, "scientifically" or in any other way.
It should be clear which of these just might learn something from the other.
I'd like to believe that you aren't an arrogant fool, but unfortunately the evidence suggests otherwise.
On the one hand we have scientists, virtually every one of whom is driven by a great curiosity and wonder about the world and a desire to understand how it works -- which necessarily implies that they don't yet know, and are aware that they don't know. Any scientist who doesn't have anything they don't know is out of business. And scientists are always talking about what they don't know, which you would know if you had ever met or spoken to any scientists. The claim that scientists hate to say they don't know is grossly ignorant and foolish.
On the other hand we have someone who believes things simply because he wants to. He has absolutely no other basis to believe it, no evidence, no inference from evidence ... he can't even describe it, "scientifically" or in any other way.
It should be clear which of these just might learn something from the other.
I think the statement arrogant fool is a little combative. I simply have seen reports done by scientists on tv and in books and even though there is plain evidence that scientiffically these things can exist or the evidence is inconclusive some how they still find a way to deny it. I am not saying all scientists go out purposly to make a mockery of the supernatural but most do I have the utmost respect for any scientist willing to admit that these things may be possible.
Anyway for the people out there who still have respect for another person's ideas and beliefs. Evil only exists in your mind if you believe something to be evil then it is for example if a man kills someone for burning down his house. The man feels justified because the person he killed burned down his house but you or I might see it as evil because he took a human life. The only true evil is a personal or religeous perseption of evil. I mean some people believe its evil to be black or gay but most of us think thats pretty dumb but in that person's mind its true.
Anyway for the people out there who still have respect for another person's ideas and beliefs. Evil only exists in your mind if you believe something to be evil then it is for example if a man kills someone for burning down his house. The man feels justified because the person he killed burned down his house but you or I might see it as evil because he took a human life. The only true evil is a personal or religeous perseption of evil. I mean some people believe its evil to be black or gay but most of us think thats pretty dumb but in that person's mind its true.
Good and Evil are mostly interchangeable, depending on who's doing the telling. No matter what conflict is going on, one side ALWAYS things the other side is wrong or "evil" (duhh nobody wants to fight the right or good guys)
It's all just a point of view. Isn't it funny that always after a war is over, the "evil" side always happens to be the side that lost? That's because the people telling the story are always the people that won.
I do think there is a ying-yang effect though. However I don't believe any side of that poster is "evil", I think they're just opposites.
It's all just a point of view. Isn't it funny that always after a war is over, the "evil" side always happens to be the side that lost? That's because the people telling the story are always the people that won.
I do think there is a ying-yang effect though. However I don't believe any side of that poster is "evil", I think they're just opposites.
QUOTE (Guest+Jun 1 2006, 02:47 AM)
And do any scientists post here, or just fundies?
The scientists are over on the threads that have something to do with science.
The scientists are over on the threads that have something to do with science.
I've said this before but who stands to gain if people do not think evil exists?
Why evil of course. It doesn't want you to know how it is operating through you.
Why evil of course. It doesn't want you to know how it is operating through you.
If evil is the absence of good or the absence of God, then how do you explain the Holocaust? Did all of the cremated Jews lack goodness? Did God choose to absent him or her self from the sites of the Holocaust?
QUOTE (martin gray+Jun 1 2006, 11:23 PM)
If evil is the absence of good or the absence of God, then how do you explain the Holocaust? Did all of the cremated Jews lack goodness? Did God choose to absent him or her self from the sites of the Holocaust?
We are completly going off topic here. the holocaust has nothing to do with "god" or what we are discussing. So many people keep bringing that stupid point up "god went on vacation and so the holocaust happened", "the holocaust happened so where was god?" what are we? a bunch of 3 year olds? Make your own ideas for once! Stop rambling on other lesser educated people's concepts from centuries ago. Thank you.
Now back to what we were saying.
Good and Evil can be described as simple contrasts in a world already full of them.
Hot - Cold
High - Low
Light - Dark
Rough - Smooth
Tall - Short
Thick - Thin
You perceive good as something taught to you already. As something that makes your mind feel right, at ease. We call it "good" just by convention. If society evolved differently we might of even have called the same feeling "evil" and the opposite "wrong" feeling "good". They both exist as perceptions of what you think is right and wrong. Just like every other contrast.
For example: Emagine a completly different society from ours. Based on completly different social standards and laws. And that people live their lives each day normally just like we do. But that each day one person in this society is killed because... well lets just say that he had to be killed. Now according to our perception, thats really evil right? But according to THAT society, its completly normal, maybe even "good" because its just what they do. And if they saw our society and the fact that we DONT kill one person each day (though we do) they might even belive that WE are evil.
What im trying to say is that Evil and Good are just perceptions of your mind. Evolution or whatever you want to call it, made it so that we prefer the one that we called "good". Just remember that they are just perceptions that we have, they can differ from individual to individual. Hey, an alien race from outer space might even think that eating each other is actually a great thing to do every once in a while! (as long as they dont lessen their population too much)
All the contrasts in the universe exist only as opposites of the other.
We are completly going off topic here. the holocaust has nothing to do with "god" or what we are discussing. So many people keep bringing that stupid point up "god went on vacation and so the holocaust happened", "the holocaust happened so where was god?" what are we? a bunch of 3 year olds? Make your own ideas for once! Stop rambling on other lesser educated people's concepts from centuries ago. Thank you.
Now back to what we were saying.
Good and Evil can be described as simple contrasts in a world already full of them.
Hot - Cold
High - Low
Light - Dark
Rough - Smooth
Tall - Short
Thick - Thin
You perceive good as something taught to you already. As something that makes your mind feel right, at ease. We call it "good" just by convention. If society evolved differently we might of even have called the same feeling "evil" and the opposite "wrong" feeling "good". They both exist as perceptions of what you think is right and wrong. Just like every other contrast.
For example: Emagine a completly different society from ours. Based on completly different social standards and laws. And that people live their lives each day normally just like we do. But that each day one person in this society is killed because... well lets just say that he had to be killed. Now according to our perception, thats really evil right? But according to THAT society, its completly normal, maybe even "good" because its just what they do. And if they saw our society and the fact that we DONT kill one person each day (though we do) they might even belive that WE are evil.
What im trying to say is that Evil and Good are just perceptions of your mind. Evolution or whatever you want to call it, made it so that we prefer the one that we called "good". Just remember that they are just perceptions that we have, they can differ from individual to individual. Hey, an alien race from outer space might even think that eating each other is actually a great thing to do every once in a while! (as long as they dont lessen their population too much)
All the contrasts in the universe exist only as opposites of the other.
Okay...I'm new to this forum but I can tell that alot of people on here aren't getting the point.
What we say is evil and good is just our POINT OF VIEW, to say that evil would want us to think that they don't exist is neither here or there. Nobody thinks that they are evil.
You might think they are because they have a different point of view than you have, and even if their point of view is really screwed, they don't consider themselves evil.
Hitler didn't think he was evil, he thought the Jews polluting the world were evil (I know this may ruffle some feathers, but I'm not racist and i I don't agree with Hitler or anything so nooo comments about that plz).
We think he is evil because he lost. If he won people would have thought he was a pioneer who "cleansed" the earth.
Just for the record, I am deeply christian, so I know all the arguments about Satan, and his influence on the world, even so, nobody is evil, they might do things that we see as horrible, but in their mind they have a good explanation for it.
What we say is evil and good is just our POINT OF VIEW, to say that evil would want us to think that they don't exist is neither here or there. Nobody thinks that they are evil.
You might think they are because they have a different point of view than you have, and even if their point of view is really screwed, they don't consider themselves evil.
Hitler didn't think he was evil, he thought the Jews polluting the world were evil (I know this may ruffle some feathers, but I'm not racist and i I don't agree with Hitler or anything so nooo comments about that plz).
We think he is evil because he lost. If he won people would have thought he was a pioneer who "cleansed" the earth.
Just for the record, I am deeply christian, so I know all the arguments about Satan, and his influence on the world, even so, nobody is evil, they might do things that we see as horrible, but in their mind they have a good explanation for it.
I agree with the other answer. Evil and Good are perceptions and nothing else.
If hitler thought is he right and felt good about it, he has every right to do so, as he is doing something that is putting him to ease. If the world thinks Hitler is the scum of the earth, they have every right to do so.
"A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet it always was..."
If hitler thought is he right and felt good about it, he has every right to do so, as he is doing something that is putting him to ease. If the world thinks Hitler is the scum of the earth, they have every right to do so.
"A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet it always was..."
hello,
I agree w/ Guest_Bob - we MUST stop deifying "good" and "evil" and associating them w/ so-called deities. It's nonsense, all of it.
I have a better question - Why does the overwhelming bulk of humanity believe in things that have absolutely zero evidence of proof and in many cases, can disprove the supernatural nature of anything??!!!?
-angrily spinning my solids
I agree w/ Guest_Bob - we MUST stop deifying "good" and "evil" and associating them w/ so-called deities. It's nonsense, all of it.
I have a better question - Why does the overwhelming bulk of humanity believe in things that have absolutely zero evidence of proof and in many cases, can disprove the supernatural nature of anything??!!!?
-angrily spinning my solids
QUOTE
Why does the overwhelming bulk of humanity believe in things that have absolutely zero evidence of proof and in many cases, can disprove the supernatural nature of anything??!!!?
Because man believes what he cannot see. And that's a good thing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why does the overwhelming bulk of humanity believe in things that have absolutely zero evidence of proof and in many cases, can disprove the supernatural nature of anything??!!!? |
Because man believes what he cannot see. And that's a good thing.
Evil and Good are perceptions and nothing else.
If those are only perceptions, then is there still a god? Or do we make ourselves the god because we decide what's good and what's evil?
Evil is good. Good is evil.
Whatever it means.
QUOTE (howtothinklikegod+Jun 2 2006, 05:28 PM)
QUOTE
Why does the overwhelming bulk of humanity believe in things that have absolutely zero evidence of proof and in many cases, can disprove the supernatural nature of anything??!!!?
Because man believes what he cannot see. And that's a good thing.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why does the overwhelming bulk of humanity believe in things that have absolutely zero evidence of proof and in many cases, can disprove the supernatural nature of anything??!!!? |
Because man believes what he cannot see. And that's a good thing.
Evil and Good are perceptions and nothing else.
If those are only perceptions, then is there still a god? Or do we make ourselves the god because we decide what's good and what's evil?
Evil is good. Good is evil.
Whatever it means.
god can be a being that represents good. but what we are saying is that god could represent evil as much as he represents good. what you think god made as "good" is just what society figured as right.
Ok Mr. Deeply Christian, if you've heard all the arguments about Satan, can you clarify this doozy for me? Satan goads God into punishing Job, God sends Satan down to do it. Later in the same book Satan is said to come up to heaven and visit occasionally (or perhaps it's a different book). How the hell can you believe in a religion that destroys it's own context through anomaly on a regular basis? It's like anomaly on anomaly on anomaly. You're worse than one of those star wars fan boys who explains some editing error with Darth Vader's costume away with a five page explanation about Blogondorian battle droids and planet Biggerpoo.
A man in a pointy hat is all like, "Hey, look over there at those sinners while I diddle this little boy!" and all the parish goes, "YES DEMONS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR GOADING US INTO THIS EVIL, DEMONS!"...
Okay, I think I've vented enough bile about western religion for this five minutes.
A man in a pointy hat is all like, "Hey, look over there at those sinners while I diddle this little boy!" and all the parish goes, "YES DEMONS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR GOADING US INTO THIS EVIL, DEMONS!"...
Okay, I think I've vented enough bile about western religion for this five minutes.
QUOTE
Not society per-se, but each individual. So technically, yes society does "define" it. what do you teach you're kids? its bad to hit someone, its bad to do this and that, but now flash back like 5000-10000 years ago when this thing wasent tought and you get the exact opposit. we killed and hunted for survival, even over simple things. Good and Evil is somthing you learn, but also somewhat "genetic" but not as much as it seems. it only seems like you're logic, cause logic is what was defined soon as you were born. teach a kid to kill since its born and there isnt any logic in their mind that says otherwise to couter act what you teach it. unless you teach it. this is all over society today.
its possible to argue that we are nothing but what we learn. however, there are values and principles that arent taught but innate to everyone. now, short of a horribly immoral experiment, i have no idea how to test this theory. however, it remains uncertain whether someone who never knew compassion in his life would not appreciate it if he experienced it. i think its in our genetic makeup to want compassion and feel empathy.
logic only reaches so far. where good and evil are concerned, logic does not apply. you can not apply logic to values that lack measurements. short of mapping human responses and understanding every human reaction based on experience, environment and circumstance, we cant determine what constitutes good and evil
not to say thinking about such things isnt fun. but ive found its quite hard, short of dismissing a limitless amount of impossible-to-prove counter arguments, to settle into a established definition of good and evil.
evil is live backwards
good is live forwards
i am the god of hellfire
and i bring you...water
good is live forwards
i am the god of hellfire
and i bring you...water
As long as we have marketing departments and used car salesmen there will be evil in the world.
[quote]Ok Mr. Deeply Christian, if you've heard all the arguments about Satan, can you clarify this doozy for me? [quote]
Dude, it sounds like you have some pent up frustration that you need to deal with on your own, but on the Job thing, I'll try and explain it to you.
The story of Job is meant to teach us a lesson about faith. The book first starts out with the highly religous and God-fearing Job having all this land and wealth. So satan said to God that ofcourse Job loves you, you have given him everything he ever wanted, he has no reason not to (satan was claiming that Job's love for God was superficial).
To prove the devil wrong God let the devil put Job through some trials and tribulations. He burned all his crops, took all his money from him, even killed his family.
But surprisingly through the whole thing Job NEVER lost his faith, he prayed to God everyday, and even though he got really depressed (even wanted to kill himself) he never gave up on God.
And if you read to the end (which people hardly ever do, or just choose to ignore it) God replenished Job with more wealth land and overall happiness than he ever had.
The lesson is that there will be hard times in your life, you can't get around that, but you have to stay faithful through it all and if and when you do, you will be rewarded for it.
Dude, it sounds like you have some pent up frustration that you need to deal with on your own, but on the Job thing, I'll try and explain it to you.
The story of Job is meant to teach us a lesson about faith. The book first starts out with the highly religous and God-fearing Job having all this land and wealth. So satan said to God that ofcourse Job loves you, you have given him everything he ever wanted, he has no reason not to (satan was claiming that Job's love for God was superficial).
To prove the devil wrong God let the devil put Job through some trials and tribulations. He burned all his crops, took all his money from him, even killed his family.
But surprisingly through the whole thing Job NEVER lost his faith, he prayed to God everyday, and even though he got really depressed (even wanted to kill himself) he never gave up on God.
And if you read to the end (which people hardly ever do, or just choose to ignore it) God replenished Job with more wealth land and overall happiness than he ever had.
The lesson is that there will be hard times in your life, you can't get around that, but you have to stay faithful through it all and if and when you do, you will be rewarded for it.
calnpals,
The story of Job is not true. It's just a tale...
Does that answer the question??
I don't believe in God that much. That's why I believe in evil. And this is a very great experience.
i'M loving it....
Does that answer the question??
I don't believe in God that much. That's why I believe in evil. And this is a very great experience.
i'M loving it....
As long as we have marketing departments and used car salesmen there will be evil in the world.
As long as Earth possesses a being called HOMO SAPIENS, there will always be evil...
Yes, very deep. The best trick the Devil ever pulled, and all that. Perhaps we are missing something here though: perhaps evil is another attribute of god(s)? In some polytheistic mythologies, there are gods that are evil. Those gods are not necessarily beings that are to be maligned, either - it can be required to worship and sacrifice to those gods in order to avoid their wrath. Other monotheistic cultures have a god with what might be considered evil tendencies. Even the god of the bible's old testament demanded genocide, which modern peoples generally consider evil.
Isn't it fun discussing evil on one of the most evil of days: 6/6/6?
The story of Job is not true. It's just a tale...
QUOTE
The lesson is that there will be hard times in your life, you can't get around that, but you have to stay faithful through it all and if and when you do, you will be rewarded for it.
Does that answer the question??
I don't believe in God that much. That's why I believe in evil. And this is a very great experience.
i'M loving it....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The lesson is that there will be hard times in your life, you can't get around that, but you have to stay faithful through it all and if and when you do, you will be rewarded for it. |
Does that answer the question??
I don't believe in God that much. That's why I believe in evil. And this is a very great experience.
i'M loving it....
As long as we have marketing departments and used car salesmen there will be evil in the world.
As long as Earth possesses a being called HOMO SAPIENS, there will always be evil...
QUOTE
I've said this before but who stands to gain if people do not think evil exists?
Why evil of course. It doesn't want you to know how it is operating through you.
Why evil of course. It doesn't want you to know how it is operating through you.
Yes, very deep. The best trick the Devil ever pulled, and all that. Perhaps we are missing something here though: perhaps evil is another attribute of god(s)? In some polytheistic mythologies, there are gods that are evil. Those gods are not necessarily beings that are to be maligned, either - it can be required to worship and sacrifice to those gods in order to avoid their wrath. Other monotheistic cultures have a god with what might be considered evil tendencies. Even the god of the bible's old testament demanded genocide, which modern peoples generally consider evil.
Isn't it fun discussing evil on one of the most evil of days: 6/6/6?
That's another of the devil tricks Sinned: blur the lines between good and evil. Are you innocent when you don't know which side your on? The answer is NO. You are as guilty as Sin!!!
QUOTE (Nick+)
That's another of the devil tricks Sinned: blur the lines between good and evil.
Life is all about shades of grey, and it is very difficult to differentiate good and evil sometimes. People will do things that can be viewed by others as evil or wrong, but have good intentions. For some people, the end justifies the means. There are few things in life that are completely black and white, and that's not because there is a red-skinned fellow who is the embodiment of evil running around whispering into peoples' ears.
Life is all about shades of grey, and it is very difficult to differentiate good and evil sometimes. People will do things that can be viewed by others as evil or wrong, but have good intentions. For some people, the end justifies the means. There are few things in life that are completely black and white, and that's not because there is a red-skinned fellow who is the embodiment of evil running around whispering into peoples' ears.
QUOTE (Nick+)
Are you innocent when you don't know which side your on?
This comment just shows what a simplistic view you seem to have of the world. It is not so easy to label an act or a person as "good" or "evil". Very rarely will you find there are only two "sides" in any given situation.
This comment just shows what a simplistic view you seem to have of the world. It is not so easy to label an act or a person as "good" or "evil". Very rarely will you find there are only two "sides" in any given situation.
QUOTE (Nick+)
The answer is NO. You are as guilty as Sin!!!
Sin? Look at my nickname - I am quite familiar with the Abrahamic religions' definition of "sin". By the Christian definition, I have sinned (am sinned?) and fall short of the glory of god, and there is no redeeming me without the shedding of blood, etc, etc. I am beyond "sin". I work for the good of myself, my family, my friends, and I do what I can to further human civilization in the way that I hope will help it to continue to successfully exist. I have no need for an interstellar father/mother figure to tell me how to live my life, because my parents and fellow humans have already taught me how to think and act in a civilized manner.
Sin? Look at my nickname - I am quite familiar with the Abrahamic religions' definition of "sin". By the Christian definition, I have sinned (am sinned?
) and fall short of the glory of god, and there is no redeeming me without the shedding of blood, etc, etc. I am beyond "sin". I work for the good of myself, my family, my friends, and I do what I can to further human civilization in the way that I hope will help it to continue to successfully exist. I have no need for an interstellar father/mother figure to tell me how to live my life, because my parents and fellow humans have already taught me how to think and act in a civilized manner.
QUOTE (Nick+Jun 6 2006, 10:40 PM)
That's another of the devil tricks Sinned: blur the lines between good and evil. Are you innocent when you don't know which side your on? The answer is NO. You are as guilty as Sin!!!
Wow, you're a little extreme...
Well okay then from your point of view then EVERYBODY is evil, because everybody sins. In fact, to even THINK that you haven't sinned is to sin because that would insinuate that you think you are worthy of the presence of God, which is a nono.
Romans 3-23 "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"
So what you're suggesting is that everyone on earth is evil? Are YOU evil? No ofcourse not(well I don't know about you). To say that people "sin" isn't to say that they are evil, it's to say that they aren't "perfect".
And last time I checked we don't have to be perfect to be good. And like sinned34 has said(can't say I'm too crazy about the name btw) things are hardly black and white. If you find someone tied down in an abandoned warehouse with a bomb strapped to him that has a count down of 5 mins. But he has a knife beside him, should you let him out? How about if you recognized him as a serial murderer and that he PROMISED if ever released again, he would kill innocent children again, what should you do? Cut him free or leave him to his fate?
What would be evil, saving a terrorist's, or being the cause of ending the life of innocent others?
Wow, you're a little extreme...
Well okay then from your point of view then EVERYBODY is evil, because everybody sins. In fact, to even THINK that you haven't sinned is to sin because that would insinuate that you think you are worthy of the presence of God, which is a nono.
Romans 3-23 "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God"
So what you're suggesting is that everyone on earth is evil? Are YOU evil? No ofcourse not(well I don't know about you). To say that people "sin" isn't to say that they are evil, it's to say that they aren't "perfect".
And last time I checked we don't have to be perfect to be good. And like sinned34 has said(can't say I'm too crazy about the name btw) things are hardly black and white. If you find someone tied down in an abandoned warehouse with a bomb strapped to him that has a count down of 5 mins. But he has a knife beside him, should you let him out? How about if you recognized him as a serial murderer and that he PROMISED if ever released again, he would kill innocent children again, what should you do? Cut him free or leave him to his fate?
What would be evil, saving a terrorist's, or being the cause of ending the life of innocent others?
For all have sinned?
What about Jesus Christ?
Case in point.
To become more perfect as our God in Heaven is the goal.
Jesus is not an excuse for you to sin.
I see you wish to keep bluring the lines Sinned.
What about Jesus Christ?
Case in point.
To become more perfect as our God in Heaven is the goal.
Jesus is not an excuse for you to sin.
I see you wish to keep bluring the lines Sinned.
QUOTE (Nick+)
For all have sinned?
What about Jesus Christ?
Case in point.
To become more perfect as our God in Heaven is the goal.
Jesus is not an excuse for you to sin.
Not interested in that theological discussion at this point. Suffice it to say I long ago stopped believing fairy tales about a god that requires death as compensation for disobedience. I'm certain that is something that we will never agree upon.
What about Jesus Christ?
Case in point.
To become more perfect as our God in Heaven is the goal.
Jesus is not an excuse for you to sin.
Not interested in that theological discussion at this point. Suffice it to say I long ago stopped believing fairy tales about a god that requires death as compensation for disobedience. I'm certain that is something that we will never agree upon.
QUOTE (Nick+)
I see you wish to keep bluring the lines Sinned.
There are no lines to be blurred. You can draw your imaginary lines in the sand all you like, but people and actions can't so easily be slapped into two little boxes marked "good" and "evil". I notice you didn't even bother responding to Calnpals decent example of a difficult decision. Is it okay to murder someone if they might kill someone else? Is it okay to lie in order to save someone's life? How about to save someone's soul? Should content that might lead someone away from Jesus be banned? Welcome to the universe; please notice all the different shades of grey and the decided lack of black and white.
BTK, Adolf Hitler, take your pick. There are more where they came from.
I don't treat them as someone soooo evil. I tend to understand the reason why they did it. Bin Laden created terrorism because it's his gift for the gods. He said that. And it's more than what the media is telling...
We all have an evil aspect in ourselves. It just differ on how intense it is or how much it controls us. Anyway.... the best thing to do is to be who you are and think that evil thoughts are just normal. Just don't let it control you....
There are no lines to be blurred. You can draw your imaginary lines in the sand all you like, but people and actions can't so easily be slapped into two little boxes marked "good" and "evil". I notice you didn't even bother responding to Calnpals decent example of a difficult decision. Is it okay to murder someone if they might kill someone else? Is it okay to lie in order to save someone's life? How about to save someone's soul? Should content that might lead someone away from Jesus be banned? Welcome to the universe; please notice all the different shades of grey and the decided lack of black and white.
QUOTE (Calnpals+)
can't say I'm too crazy about the name btw
Fear not, I didn't derive the name in the manner in which you think, I'm certain. But I'd be lying if I didn't think that it's a cool nick.
Fear not, I didn't derive the name in the manner in which you think, I'm certain. But I'd be lying if I didn't think that it's a cool nick.
QUOTE (Topic Title+)
Does Evil Exist?
BTK, Adolf Hitler, take your pick. There are more where they came from.
BTK, Adolf Hitler, take your pick. There are more where they came from.
QUOTE
BTK, Adolf Hitler, take your pick. There are more where they came from.
I don't treat them as someone soooo evil. I tend to understand the reason why they did it. Bin Laden created terrorism because it's his gift for the gods. He said that. And it's more than what the media is telling...
We all have an evil aspect in ourselves. It just differ on how intense it is or how much it controls us. Anyway.... the best thing to do is to be who you are and think that evil thoughts are just normal. Just don't let it control you....
QUOTE (555Joshua+Jun 9 2006, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (Topic Title+)
Does Evil Exist?
BTK, Adolf Hitler, take your pick. There are more where they came from.
Dude, have you not been reading all the posts so far?
These people weren't evil, no matter how much you want them to be. They might have done some terrible things from your point of view, but I guarantee that when they were doing them they weren't thinking, "man I LOVE being evil, lets just go and kill some more people." No, they all thought they had a very valid reason for what they were doing.
Furthermore, think of all the "evil" people in history that you can think of, EVERY-ONE OF THEM. Notice anything in common? THEY ALL LOST. Since it's always the winning side that tells the story, it's always the losing side that turns out being evil.
Anyone remember two cities called Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The Americans bombed the poopoo out of those places hundreds of thousands of innocent people died, and somehow history gives them a good reason to, so why do they come out looking like the good guys? BECAUSE THEY WON (or at least didn't lose). Imagine if Japan had won and grown to be the current world super-power, how evil the USA would look for doing that.
They'd be right up there with Adolf and the KPG.
That's why I'm saying that good and evil are just point of views, mainly those of the winners.
Politicians lose sometimes....
Politicians lose sometimes....
LOVE being evil, lets just go and kill some more people
Some people think that way. Some people kill for fun. They're insane people.
Sometimes, I find it interesting to explore my dark side. Up to what limit will I go? And how much of this world will I be able to conquer?? I've been asking myself those questions though I don't know if being evil is the right solution to explain them.
I'm really trying to be a good girl....
No. You cannot judge a person by his profession. And if I will let myself belong to millions of people who believes that politicians are evil, then not a single person would still want to be a politician at all...
I respect them. Without them, the government will be nothing but an empty trash can. I know they sometimes do wrong but what the hell.....no one's perfect, anyway. I bet all of them wants the best for their country.
BTK, Adolf Hitler, take your pick. There are more where they came from.
Dude, have you not been reading all the posts so far?
These people weren't evil, no matter how much you want them to be. They might have done some terrible things from your point of view, but I guarantee that when they were doing them they weren't thinking, "man I LOVE being evil, lets just go and kill some more people." No, they all thought they had a very valid reason for what they were doing.
Furthermore, think of all the "evil" people in history that you can think of, EVERY-ONE OF THEM. Notice anything in common? THEY ALL LOST. Since it's always the winning side that tells the story, it's always the losing side that turns out being evil.
Anyone remember two cities called Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The Americans bombed the poopoo out of those places hundreds of thousands of innocent people died, and somehow history gives them a good reason to, so why do they come out looking like the good guys? BECAUSE THEY WON (or at least didn't lose). Imagine if Japan had won and grown to be the current world super-power, how evil the USA would look for doing that.
They'd be right up there with Adolf and the KPG.
That's why I'm saying that good and evil are just point of views, mainly those of the winners.
QUOTE
Furthermore, think of all the "evil" people in history that you can think of, EVERY-ONE OF THEM. Notice anything in common? THEY ALL LOST.
Politicians lose sometimes....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Furthermore, think of all the "evil" people in history that you can think of, EVERY-ONE OF THEM. Notice anything in common? THEY ALL LOST. |
Politicians lose sometimes....
LOVE being evil, lets just go and kill some more people
Some people think that way. Some people kill for fun. They're insane people.
Sometimes, I find it interesting to explore my dark side. Up to what limit will I go? And how much of this world will I be able to conquer?? I've been asking myself those questions though I don't know if being evil is the right solution to explain them.
I'm really trying to be a good girl....
QUOTE (howtothinklikegod+Jun 9 2006, 07:19 PM)
Politicians lose sometimes....
Are you saying that you think politicians are evil or not? Cuz I know some people do.
Are you saying that you think politicians are evil or not? Cuz I know some people do.
QUOTE
Are you saying that you think politicians are evil or not? Cuz I know some people do.
No. You cannot judge a person by his profession. And if I will let myself belong to millions of people who believes that politicians are evil, then not a single person would still want to be a politician at all...
I respect them. Without them, the government will be nothing but an empty trash can. I know they sometimes do wrong but what the hell.....no one's perfect, anyway. I bet all of them wants the best for their country.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
BTK, Adolf Hitler, take your pick. There are more where they came from.
QUOTE (HTTLG+)
Some people think that way. Some people kill for fun. They're insane people.
Good observation, HTTLG - some people DO find killing enjoyable. Most people do not view hunters who kill animals for sport as evil. If a soldier enjoys killing the "enemy" in combat, does that make them evil? We generally look at soldiers that kill civilians or even unarmed prisoners of war as criminals, yet have no problems with dropping bombs on an almost 100% civilian population in "enemy" cities and buildings.
As a social species, we've been forced to develop general "rules" in order for civilization to be successful (most religions developed as a codification of these rules). One rule almost all humans generally agree upon is that killing other humans is wrong, and it should be condemned as evil, but people will disagree when it becomes acceptable to break that rule.
Good observation, HTTLG - some people DO find killing enjoyable. Most people do not view hunters who kill animals for sport as evil. If a soldier enjoys killing the "enemy" in combat, does that make them evil? We generally look at soldiers that kill civilians or even unarmed prisoners of war as criminals, yet have no problems with dropping bombs on an almost 100% civilian population in "enemy" cities and buildings.
As a social species, we've been forced to develop general "rules" in order for civilization to be successful (most religions developed as a codification of these rules). One rule almost all humans generally agree upon is that killing other humans is wrong, and it should be condemned as evil, but people will disagree when it becomes acceptable to break that rule.
QUOTE (Calnpals+)
That's why I'm saying that good and evil are just point of views, mainly those of the winners.
Excellent point that I would agree with. History is written by the triumphant, and all that they write about their enemies reflects how those enemies are viewed by future generations.
Excellent point that I would agree with. History is written by the triumphant, and all that they write about their enemies reflects how those enemies are viewed by future generations.
That's funny. Blur the lines about bluring the lines Sinned.
QUOTE (Nick+)
That's funny. Blur the lines about bluring the lines Sinned.
I'm sorry, I don't quite follow what you mean. I was trying to give an EXAMPLE of what I meant by shades of grey. Please feel free to actually RESPOND to my comments, instead of attempting to dismiss it with a wave of your magic wand. Unless, of course, you are merely going to continue attempting to avoid the actual subject presented.
<Insert reciprocal baiting ad hominem comment here>
I'm sorry, I don't quite follow what you mean. I was trying to give an EXAMPLE of what I meant by shades of grey. Please feel free to actually RESPOND to my comments, instead of attempting to dismiss it with a wave of your magic wand. Unless, of course, you are merely going to continue attempting to avoid the actual subject presented.
<Insert reciprocal baiting ad hominem comment here>
QUOTE (calnpals+Jun 9 2006, 02:00 PM)
QUOTE (555Joshua+Jun 9 2006, 05:31 PM)
QUOTE (Topic Title+)
Does Evil Exist?
BTK, Adolf Hitler, take your pick. There are more where they came from.
Dude, have you not been reading all the posts so far?
These people weren't evil, no matter how much you want them to be. They might have done some terrible things from your point of view, but I guarantee that when they were doing them they weren't thinking, "man I LOVE being evil, lets just go and kill some more people." No, they all thought they had a very valid reason for what they were doing.
Furthermore, think of all the "evil" people in history that you can think of, EVERY-ONE OF THEM. Notice anything in common? THEY ALL LOST. Since it's always the winning side that tells the story, it's always the losing side that turns out being evil.
Anyone remember two cities called Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The Americans bombed the poopoo out of those places hundreds of thousands of innocent people died, and somehow history gives them a good reason to, so why do they come out looking like the good guys? BECAUSE THEY WON (or at least didn't lose). Imagine if Japan had won and grown to be the current world super-power, how evil the USA would look for doing that.
They'd be right up there with Adolf and the KPG.
That's why I'm saying that good and evil are just point of views, mainly those of the winners.
BTK -> Bind, Torture, Kill. He enjoyed terrorizing people and binding, torturing and killing. He once bound a woman and tortured her daughter right in front of her eyes for pleasure. Is that not evil? The BTK apparently did think to himself "man I LOVE being evil, I'll just go and kill some more people." That's not evil? He wasn't doing it for the good of anybody. He did it for his own pleasure. If you think that's not evil you must agree with him.
Adolf Hitler had those consitration camps, remember? Those places where he gased and tortured jews for being jews. Sure he did it because he blamed the bad economy on them, and he thought he was doing good, but does thinking you are doing good mean you are doing good? Do you have to think you are being evil in order to be evil? Do you have to think you are good in order to be good? Hardly.
BTK, Adolf Hitler, take your pick. There are more where they came from.
Dude, have you not been reading all the posts so far?
These people weren't evil, no matter how much you want them to be. They might have done some terrible things from your point of view, but I guarantee that when they were doing them they weren't thinking, "man I LOVE being evil, lets just go and kill some more people." No, they all thought they had a very valid reason for what they were doing.
Furthermore, think of all the "evil" people in history that you can think of, EVERY-ONE OF THEM. Notice anything in common? THEY ALL LOST. Since it's always the winning side that tells the story, it's always the losing side that turns out being evil.
Anyone remember two cities called Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The Americans bombed the poopoo out of those places hundreds of thousands of innocent people died, and somehow history gives them a good reason to, so why do they come out looking like the good guys? BECAUSE THEY WON (or at least didn't lose). Imagine if Japan had won and grown to be the current world super-power, how evil the USA would look for doing that.
They'd be right up there with Adolf and the KPG.
That's why I'm saying that good and evil are just point of views, mainly those of the winners.
BTK -> Bind, Torture, Kill. He enjoyed terrorizing people and binding, torturing and killing. He once bound a woman and tortured her daughter right in front of her eyes for pleasure. Is that not evil? The BTK apparently did think to himself "man I LOVE being evil, I'll just go and kill some more people." That's not evil? He wasn't doing it for the good of anybody. He did it for his own pleasure. If you think that's not evil you must agree with him.
Adolf Hitler had those consitration camps, remember? Those places where he gased and tortured jews for being jews. Sure he did it because he blamed the bad economy on them, and he thought he was doing good, but does thinking you are doing good mean you are doing good? Do you have to think you are being evil in order to be evil? Do you have to think you are good in order to be good? Hardly.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
BTK -> Bind, Torture, Kill. He enjoyed terrorizing people and binding, torturing and killing. He once bound a woman and tortured her daughter right in front of her eyes for pleasure. Is that not evil? The BTK apparently did think to himself "man I LOVE being evil, I'll just go and kill some more people." That's not evil? He wasn't doing it for the good of anybody.
By general human codes of conduct and how most people consider the definition of "evil", yup, most people would consider Dennis Rader as evil. A psychiatrist could probably cite other reasons for why BTK found pleasure in murder and torture, besides merely labeling him "evil". I think part of the discussion here is that the word "evil" is usually a catch-all phrase used to describe any actions (or people) that offend certain human moral standards. Standards that are not necessarily universal.
By general human codes of conduct and how most people consider the definition of "evil", yup, most people would consider Dennis Rader as evil. A psychiatrist could probably cite other reasons for why BTK found pleasure in murder and torture, besides merely labeling him "evil". I think part of the discussion here is that the word "evil" is usually a catch-all phrase used to describe any actions (or people) that offend certain human moral standards. Standards that are not necessarily universal.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
If you think that's not evil you must agree with him.
I think there is at least SOME middle ground between disagreeing that BTK's actions were "evil" and "agreeing with" those actions.
I think there is at least SOME middle ground between disagreeing that BTK's actions were "evil" and "agreeing with" those actions.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
Adolf Hitler had those consitration camps, remember? Those places where he gased and tortured jews for being jews. Sure he did it because he blamed the bad economy on them, and he thought he was doing good, but does thinking you are doing good mean you are doing good? Do you have to think you are being evil in order to be evil? Do you have to think you are good in order to be good? Hardly.
Once again, I believe this is the point that many have made in this thread: "evil" is generally not universal. The Nazis attempted genocide on European Jews (and other minorities), and most people agree that this was "evil". The Jews, according to the bible, attempted (I'm not clear how successful they were) genocide upon at least two other competing civilizations. Most Jews and Christians certainly wouldn't equate the two, despite the fact that they are the exact same crime. How does one choose who has the correct definition of "evil"?
Once again, I believe this is the point that many have made in this thread: "evil" is generally not universal. The Nazis attempted genocide on European Jews (and other minorities), and most people agree that this was "evil". The Jews, according to the bible, attempted (I'm not clear how successful they were) genocide upon at least two other competing civilizations. Most Jews and Christians certainly wouldn't equate the two, despite the fact that they are the exact same crime. How does one choose who has the correct definition of "evil"?
It's not who does it that makes it evil. It's what is done. If all jews did and still do such they would be evil. Do they? Hell no. So, no. They are not evil. It's like calling Germans evil for what Hitler did. Not all Germans did it and none still do. You cannot be responsible for what others do.
My definition of evil: attaching fairly random abstract meanings, consequences and relations to concrete facts, words, sounds and events and then arguing fruitlessly with other people for not attaching the exact same meanings to the exact same items.
Ah, the joys and frustration of language... Let's play some tennis instead!
Ah, the joys and frustration of language... Let's play some tennis instead!
QUOTE (555Joshua+Jun 13 2006, 01:42 PM)
It's not who does it that makes it evil. It's what is done. If all Jews did and still do such they would be evil. Do they? Hell no. So, no. They are not evil. It's like calling Germans evil for what Hitler did. Not all Germans did it and none still do. You cannot be responsible for what others do.
Hitler did not think he was evil.
The Jews trying to wipe out the Muslims did not think they were evil.
Hell, even the BTK didn't think they were evil.
You might think they were, but that's another point of view, you have one just like everyone else does, INCLUDING THEM. People decide what is commonly acceptable to themselves, and whatever doesn't fit into that mold gets labeled as evil.
4000 years ago it was "evil" to speak the name of God in certain tribes(in fact it was thought to be even worse than murder), so are we all evil today, no we just have a differnt POINT OF VIEW.
3000 years ago, it was "evil" to farm or tend to cattle on Saturdays, are we evil because we do that today, no we have a different POINT OF VIEW.
2000 years ago they crucified the Son of God, were they evil, no they just had a different POINT OF VIEW.
1500 years ago in certain Aztec tribes, it was thought evil not to sacrifice your son to the gods, are we evil because we don't go killing our children today, no we have a different POINT OF VIEW.
I hope you guys are getting the point of this. Hell, if we were back in the BC times and we acted like we do now, we would be seen as demons, what with all the drugs and pre-marital sex, but do we see these people as "evil" NO
NO NO NO NO...We might think they are a little misguided but not evil, but again that's our POINT OF VIEW.
In conclusion, we all have in our mind the way the world should be, and what people should do, and whatever doesn't fit into our own personal view is seen as "evil", so we all have our own definition of "evil", we may agree on alot of points, and we may disagree on alot of points, buttttt...say it with me now...that's just our......PPOOIINNTTT OOFFF VIIIEEWWWWW.
To say someone is evil doesn't even make sense in its very basic terms. If "evil" is a "real thing" then if someone was/is evil, then they would be so no matter what ANYONE thinks, it would be fact, it would be an internal state, not an external one.
Eg. I have a banana on my shoulder, if I say that, and it's the truth, then I have a banana on my shoulder, even if you think from your point of view that I DON'T have a banana on my shoulder, that doesn't change the fact that I do, your just simply wrong. That ISN'T a matter of point of view(external). That's a matter of fact(internal). All internal states have one truth, and it's true for everyone. If I have a banana on my shoulder, then in your reality I have a banana on my shoulder, in my reality I have a banana on my shoulder, in Santa's reality I have a banana on my shoulder, it doesn't change from person to person.
But as we see "evil" is not like this, one can be genuinely "evil" to one person and not "evil" to another person. I don't see someone as "evil" if they've gotten laid before marriage, but a priest 2000 years ago would see you as the devil, and we'd both be right IN OUR REALITY.
But if evil was a "real thing" then it CAN'T be true that someone isn't evil to me but is to someone else, and we BOTH be right, unless "evil" is and external state aka a...oh I'm not even gonna say it again...
The End
Hitler did not think he was evil.
The Jews trying to wipe out the Muslims did not think they were evil.
Hell, even the BTK didn't think they were evil.
You might think they were, but that's another point of view, you have one just like everyone else does, INCLUDING THEM. People decide what is commonly acceptable to themselves, and whatever doesn't fit into that mold gets labeled as evil.
4000 years ago it was "evil" to speak the name of God in certain tribes(in fact it was thought to be even worse than murder), so are we all evil today, no we just have a differnt POINT OF VIEW.
3000 years ago, it was "evil" to farm or tend to cattle on Saturdays, are we evil because we do that today, no we have a different POINT OF VIEW.
2000 years ago they crucified the Son of God, were they evil, no they just had a different POINT OF VIEW.
1500 years ago in certain Aztec tribes, it was thought evil not to sacrifice your son to the gods, are we evil because we don't go killing our children today, no we have a different POINT OF VIEW.
I hope you guys are getting the point of this. Hell, if we were back in the BC times and we acted like we do now, we would be seen as demons, what with all the drugs and pre-marital sex, but do we see these people as "evil" NO
NO NO NO NO...We might think they are a little misguided but not evil, but again that's our POINT OF VIEW.
In conclusion, we all have in our mind the way the world should be, and what people should do, and whatever doesn't fit into our own personal view is seen as "evil", so we all have our own definition of "evil", we may agree on alot of points, and we may disagree on alot of points, buttttt...say it with me now...that's just our......PPOOIINNTTT OOFFF VIIIEEWWWWW.
To say someone is evil doesn't even make sense in its very basic terms. If "evil" is a "real thing" then if someone was/is evil, then they would be so no matter what ANYONE thinks, it would be fact, it would be an internal state, not an external one.
Eg. I have a banana on my shoulder, if I say that, and it's the truth, then I have a banana on my shoulder, even if you think from your point of view that I DON'T have a banana on my shoulder, that doesn't change the fact that I do, your just simply wrong. That ISN'T a matter of point of view(external). That's a matter of fact(internal). All internal states have one truth, and it's true for everyone. If I have a banana on my shoulder, then in your reality I have a banana on my shoulder, in my reality I have a banana on my shoulder, in Santa's reality I have a banana on my shoulder, it doesn't change from person to person.
But as we see "evil" is not like this, one can be genuinely "evil" to one person and not "evil" to another person. I don't see someone as "evil" if they've gotten laid before marriage, but a priest 2000 years ago would see you as the devil, and we'd both be right IN OUR REALITY.
But if evil was a "real thing" then it CAN'T be true that someone isn't evil to me but is to someone else, and we BOTH be right, unless "evil" is and external state aka a...oh I'm not even gonna say it again...
The End
Hi calnpals, dapascha, 555Joshua, sinned34 et al,
While some issues about humankind are up to us to decide values there are some things we can say "approach" a single point of truth such as Science facts. The way we can tell if this is a relative truth or not is to test it with an experiment... this ensures that the Universe actually gets a chance to put its point-of-view over and above our philosophical intuiting with our minds "unaided" by "divine intervention". While it is never "absolute truth" we can say that if this experiment indicates a more "sublime" interpretation of our world... then it is better interpretation that previous attempts at interpretations of this aspect that did not address this "sublime" point.
As to the matter of evil, it is really a human trait to endow the world with personal meaning. All religions have the "golden rule" in one form or another. This is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This is a value that we have added to our World that makes it all worthwhile. You may say it is an entirely human value but all societies be they human or animal respect much of this principle if not in word but in deed. It usually applies to their own kind and usually does not extend to other species. There are exceptional cases though that show us that we are not alone on the Earth with a moral or ethical set of values. We and other species will also cross that boundary of common decency even within their own species. This does confer a short term benefit but usually results in "tit-for-tat" payback. Human society has the idea of an "eye for an eye"... some smart animals do have a similar code. They will turn on a rouge animal and either drive it away or kill it. Humans do likewise.
There are rituals among apes when one of their kind dies and also among elephants. After a member of the herd dies they are often found assembling together after the event at sunset to mourn the passing of the lost member and communally gaze off into the sunset. They do not seem to do this at other times. I think that animals are at least as good as humans in deciding a moral code that works in their lives and I think that for all the simplicity it has a clarity that our complex religions do not possess. It is possible that morality may be innate to the Universe itself, we have just not found a way to "possess it" beyond our religions which can be used for such great evil as well as limited good. It seems to me our religions simply empower a "priesthood" to sanction acts mindlessly for the entire congregation. At least individual animals respond in "clarity"... you know they are "thinking" when they hunt you as prey. That is sometimes not so clear with our "neighbors" or even our "friends".
Next time when you see a bird by the roadside keeping a vigil over its dead mate that has been hit by a car you know that they can feel loss just as much, perhaps more in some cases, than we do. My view is that we should not kill unnecessarily. We need to eat and we need protection... beyond that we have risen to such a position of awareness and power that we are de facto stewards of all life on this planet. My view is do not kill what we cannot restore to life. All life shares our common genetic code... let them live... and we alongside them.
Cheers
While some issues about humankind are up to us to decide values there are some things we can say "approach" a single point of truth such as Science facts. The way we can tell if this is a relative truth or not is to test it with an experiment... this ensures that the Universe actually gets a chance to put its point-of-view over and above our philosophical intuiting with our minds "unaided" by "divine intervention". While it is never "absolute truth" we can say that if this experiment indicates a more "sublime" interpretation of our world... then it is better interpretation that previous attempts at interpretations of this aspect that did not address this "sublime" point.
As to the matter of evil, it is really a human trait to endow the world with personal meaning. All religions have the "golden rule" in one form or another. This is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This is a value that we have added to our World that makes it all worthwhile. You may say it is an entirely human value but all societies be they human or animal respect much of this principle if not in word but in deed. It usually applies to their own kind and usually does not extend to other species. There are exceptional cases though that show us that we are not alone on the Earth with a moral or ethical set of values. We and other species will also cross that boundary of common decency even within their own species. This does confer a short term benefit but usually results in "tit-for-tat" payback. Human society has the idea of an "eye for an eye"... some smart animals do have a similar code. They will turn on a rouge animal and either drive it away or kill it. Humans do likewise.
There are rituals among apes when one of their kind dies and also among elephants. After a member of the herd dies they are often found assembling together after the event at sunset to mourn the passing of the lost member and communally gaze off into the sunset. They do not seem to do this at other times. I think that animals are at least as good as humans in deciding a moral code that works in their lives and I think that for all the simplicity it has a clarity that our complex religions do not possess. It is possible that morality may be innate to the Universe itself, we have just not found a way to "possess it" beyond our religions which can be used for such great evil as well as limited good. It seems to me our religions simply empower a "priesthood" to sanction acts mindlessly for the entire congregation. At least individual animals respond in "clarity"... you know they are "thinking" when they hunt you as prey. That is sometimes not so clear with our "neighbors" or even our "friends".
Next time when you see a bird by the roadside keeping a vigil over its dead mate that has been hit by a car you know that they can feel loss just as much, perhaps more in some cases, than we do. My view is that we should not kill unnecessarily. We need to eat and we need protection... beyond that we have risen to such a position of awareness and power that we are de facto stewards of all life on this planet. My view is do not kill what we cannot restore to life. All life shares our common genetic code... let them live... and we alongside them.
Cheers
Hi people,
Not a poster here, but felt like maybe answering something I see as an important principle in its foundations turning flawed.
[QUOTE] It's not who does it that makes it evil. It's what is done. If all Jews did and still do such they would be evil. Do they? Hell no. So, no. They are not evil. It's like calling Germans evil for what Hitler did. Not all Germans did it and none still do. You cannot be responsible for what others do.[/QUOTE]
Too many factors involved in these scenarios and complex lexicology in processes. To keep it very simple...
On the whole, spot on! No doubt everyone has their own value to each act/deed/matter/characteristic etc...thats what causes differences in individuals/peoples ways/attitudes/principles/behaviours/cultures etc. In consequence ones "right" can be anothers most hated/feared "wrong" and vice versa...as has been times aplenty. This by time and in the way society is now dictated, is becoming levelled out.
But what is done is judged nevertheless by a certain body/law/criterion. If this differs in principle as to its perspective/understandings then so does the meaning/interpretation/outcome and perception. But WHO judges others?
Today, its judged by "co-human" law-makers, who have no doubt set the standards accepted/tolerated & not accepted by society based on Western culture norms and philosophies, as well as through experience and knowledge as it is claimed, which have become the ultimate ideologies to being DECENT, CIVIL, RESPECTABLE and SUCCESSFUL in life.
But in many a civilisations of the past and present, societies, cultures, sects...its still somone other who is followed/idolised/worshipped. To name one is the Jews & another being the so called "9/11 bombers" religion Islam.
[QUOTE]Hitler did not think he was evil.
The Jews trying to wipe out the Muslims did not think they were evil.
Hell, even the BTK didn't think they were evil.
You might think they were, but that's another point of view, you have one just like everyone else does, INCLUDING THEM. People decide what is commonly acceptable to themselves, and whatever doesn't fit into that mold gets labeled as evil.[QUOTE/]
These peope were NOT trying so ardently just to be evil...thats where their determination and patience came from, strong belief which is deriven by your sense of justification and reward of being right! They were ultimately doing what is perfectly RIGHT in their ideologies just like any decent leader today will do, or any teacher to his/her students.
[QUOTE]I hope you guys are getting the point of this. Hell, if we were back in the BC times and we acted like we do now, we would be seen as demons, what with all the drugs and pre-marital sex, but do we see these people as "evil" NO
NO NO NO NO...We might think they are a little misguided but not evil, but again that's our POINT OF VIEW.[/QUOTE]
EXACTLY true...the point is very elaborate and clear here. Its unequivocal.
[QUOTE]All religions have the "golden rule" in one form or another.
This is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".[/QUOTE]
That is an error. It does not exist but in certain interpretations only, of most religions. For example in Islam...its only to do good to others as you would like it to be done to yourself not for the reason a person should want others to respect him/her or please them, but to please God ultimately. But when any law is broken or "bad" is done it is to "STOP the train in its tracks". In essence to halt such a thing in the prescribed manner, and if not, then cautiously whatever it may take to...as US did with Afghanistan and Iraq with its own instincts following its beliefs.
[QUOTE]Human society has the idea of an "eye for an eye"... some smart animals do have a similar code.[/QUOTE]
Precisely, though in humans that has changed much, with sentences/punishments which are seen as "eye for an eye", but not literal as the archaic interpretations.
[QUOTE]My view is that we should not kill unnecessarily.[/QUOTE]
No mass religion/age/society instructed its followers/citizens (i.e. like the foreign policies of the US) to kill others unjustly according to their subjective view or most definitely, without a reason seeming justified to themselves.
Thus the loss is justified and not perceived/felt by them. Its all a part of conditioning.
Good Elf, your view in simple, is generated from the scientific approach and methodology to life and its surroundings. You surely know, most human inhabitants of the Earth, for many given reasons, do not support/hold this approach/belief/understanding.
Each part always believes itself or acts in itself as being in the right...thats why all petty feuds to major global wars occur. Each judges itself right!
EDIT: However, not all people/actions have decent/just motives from the heart i.e. Jesus crucifixion! Perpertrators and evil characteristiscs/ intentions DO exist and always have.
Thanks
Not a poster here, but felt like maybe answering something I see as an important principle in its foundations turning flawed.
[QUOTE] It's not who does it that makes it evil. It's what is done. If all Jews did and still do such they would be evil. Do they? Hell no. So, no. They are not evil. It's like calling Germans evil for what Hitler did. Not all Germans did it and none still do. You cannot be responsible for what others do.[/QUOTE]
Too many factors involved in these scenarios and complex lexicology in processes. To keep it very simple...
On the whole, spot on! No doubt everyone has their own value to each act/deed/matter/characteristic etc...thats what causes differences in individuals/peoples ways/attitudes/principles/behaviours/cultures etc. In consequence ones "right" can be anothers most hated/feared "wrong" and vice versa...as has been times aplenty. This by time and in the way society is now dictated, is becoming levelled out.
But what is done is judged nevertheless by a certain body/law/criterion. If this differs in principle as to its perspective/understandings then so does the meaning/interpretation/outcome and perception. But WHO judges others?
Today, its judged by "co-human" law-makers, who have no doubt set the standards accepted/tolerated & not accepted by society based on Western culture norms and philosophies, as well as through experience and knowledge as it is claimed, which have become the ultimate ideologies to being DECENT, CIVIL, RESPECTABLE and SUCCESSFUL in life.
But in many a civilisations of the past and present, societies, cultures, sects...its still somone other who is followed/idolised/worshipped. To name one is the Jews & another being the so called "9/11 bombers" religion Islam.
[QUOTE]Hitler did not think he was evil.
The Jews trying to wipe out the Muslims did not think they were evil.
Hell, even the BTK didn't think they were evil.
You might think they were, but that's another point of view, you have one just like everyone else does, INCLUDING THEM. People decide what is commonly acceptable to themselves, and whatever doesn't fit into that mold gets labeled as evil.[QUOTE/]
These peope were NOT trying so ardently just to be evil...thats where their determination and patience came from, strong belief which is deriven by your sense of justification and reward of being right! They were ultimately doing what is perfectly RIGHT in their ideologies just like any decent leader today will do, or any teacher to his/her students.
[QUOTE]I hope you guys are getting the point of this. Hell, if we were back in the BC times and we acted like we do now, we would be seen as demons, what with all the drugs and pre-marital sex, but do we see these people as "evil" NO
NO NO NO NO...We might think they are a little misguided but not evil, but again that's our POINT OF VIEW.[/QUOTE]
EXACTLY true...the point is very elaborate and clear here. Its unequivocal.
[QUOTE]All religions have the "golden rule" in one form or another.
This is to "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".[/QUOTE]
That is an error. It does not exist but in certain interpretations only, of most religions. For example in Islam...its only to do good to others as you would like it to be done to yourself not for the reason a person should want others to respect him/her or please them, but to please God ultimately. But when any law is broken or "bad" is done it is to "STOP the train in its tracks". In essence to halt such a thing in the prescribed manner, and if not, then cautiously whatever it may take to...as US did with Afghanistan and Iraq with its own instincts following its beliefs.
[QUOTE]Human society has the idea of an "eye for an eye"... some smart animals do have a similar code.[/QUOTE]
Precisely, though in humans that has changed much, with sentences/punishments which are seen as "eye for an eye", but not literal as the archaic interpretations.
[QUOTE]My view is that we should not kill unnecessarily.[/QUOTE]
No mass religion/age/society instructed its followers/citizens (i.e. like the foreign policies of the US) to kill others unjustly according to their subjective view or most definitely, without a reason seeming justified to themselves.
Thus the loss is justified and not perceived/felt by them. Its all a part of conditioning.
Good Elf, your view in simple, is generated from the scientific approach and methodology to life and its surroundings. You surely know, most human inhabitants of the Earth, for many given reasons, do not support/hold this approach/belief/understanding.
Each part always believes itself or acts in itself as being in the right...thats why all petty feuds to major global wars occur. Each judges itself right!
EDIT: However, not all people/actions have decent/just motives from the heart i.e. Jesus crucifixion! Perpertrators and evil characteristiscs/ intentions DO exist and always have.
Thanks
QUOTE (calnpals+Jun 13 2006, 11:41 AM)
Hitler did not think he was evil.
The Jews trying to wipe out the Muslims did not think they were evil.
Hell, even the BTK didn't think they were evil.
A man spends his whole life giving to the poor and picking up trash in the streets. He makes sure hundreds of kids have a Christmas. When asked for a comment, he says, "I only do what I feel is right." Does that not make him good? Do you have to think you are doing good in order to actually do good? Good is only the opposite of evil. If evil doesn't exist neither does good. In my opinion, it's not thinking what you are doing is evil, it's doing. I don't have to think if I go to an orphanage with a pickup truck load of toys every Christmas JUST TO TAUNT THE KIDS is evil in order for it to be evil. All I have to do is do it. If anyone thinks that that is not evil they themselves are just the same. Surely you don't find good fun in making sad kids miserable. There is a universal definition of evil. It does not rely on what people think is evil, but what is. I could think going to church is evil. Does that make it evil? Not necessarily. It depends on whether it is or not based on the universal definition. What you are saying is that just because I think it's good that makes it good.
The Jews trying to wipe out the Muslims did not think they were evil.
Hell, even the BTK didn't think they were evil.
A man spends his whole life giving to the poor and picking up trash in the streets. He makes sure hundreds of kids have a Christmas. When asked for a comment, he says, "I only do what I feel is right." Does that not make him good? Do you have to think you are doing good in order to actually do good? Good is only the opposite of evil. If evil doesn't exist neither does good. In my opinion, it's not thinking what you are doing is evil, it's doing. I don't have to think if I go to an orphanage with a pickup truck load of toys every Christmas JUST TO TAUNT THE KIDS is evil in order for it to be evil. All I have to do is do it. If anyone thinks that that is not evil they themselves are just the same. Surely you don't find good fun in making sad kids miserable. There is a universal definition of evil. It does not rely on what people think is evil, but what is. I could think going to church is evil. Does that make it evil? Not necessarily. It depends on whether it is or not based on the universal definition. What you are saying is that just because I think it's good that makes it good.
QUOTE (same+)
You might think they were, but that's another point of view, you have one just like everyone else does, INCLUDING THEM. People decide what is commonly acceptable to themselves, and whatever doesn't fit into that mold gets labeled as evil.
But that's not the definition of evil. Let's invite our good friend, Webster:
Evil:
1. having bad moral qualities; bad; sinful; wicked; corrupt; perverse (look up perverse, if you will: it's not the same as the perverse we know); as, evil thoughts; evil deeds.
2. causing pain or trouble; harmful; injurious.
...
Bad moral qualities mean you think what you are doing is right, but it's not actually. Just because the many think something evil is right, doesn't make it right. Evil is not based on popular opinion.
But that's not the definition of evil. Let's invite our good friend, Webster:
Evil:
1. having bad moral qualities; bad; sinful; wicked; corrupt; perverse (look up perverse, if you will: it's not the same as the perverse we know); as, evil thoughts; evil deeds.
2. causing pain or trouble; harmful; injurious.
...
Bad moral qualities mean you think what you are doing is right, but it's not actually. Just because the many think something evil is right, doesn't make it right. Evil is not based on popular opinion.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
4000 years ago it was "evil" to speak the name of God in certain tribes(in fact it was thought to be even worse than murder), so are we all evil today, no we just have a differnt POINT OF VIEW.
They had bad moral qualities. In which case, they were evil.
They had bad moral qualities. In which case, they were evil.
QUOTE (same+)
3000 years ago, it was "evil" to farm or tend to cattle on Saturdays, are we evil because we do that today, no we have a different POINT OF VIEW.
Bad moral qualities?
Bad moral qualities?
QUOTE (calnpals+)
2000 years ago they crucified the Son of God, were they evil, no they just had a different POINT OF VIEW.
Oh really? it's not evil to crucify someone out of jealousy? Many people then thought is was evil, many people still do. In order to know if it's evil you have to have a strong grasp on right and wrong. You cannot be the judge of whether or not YOU have good moral qualities, of course you're going to say yes. What you need is a universal definition of right and wrong. Is it wrong to kill someone because he called you a hypocrite? I'd think so. Does killing him make you evil? I don't see why it wouldn't. Just because you think it's evil doesn't make it evil. Just because you think it's good doesn't make it that, either.
Oh really? it's not evil to crucify someone out of jealousy? Many people then thought is was evil, many people still do. In order to know if it's evil you have to have a strong grasp on right and wrong. You cannot be the judge of whether or not YOU have good moral qualities, of course you're going to say yes. What you need is a universal definition of right and wrong. Is it wrong to kill someone because he called you a hypocrite? I'd think so. Does killing him make you evil? I don't see why it wouldn't. Just because you think it's evil doesn't make it evil. Just because you think it's good doesn't make it that, either.
QUOTE (same+)
1500 years ago in certain Aztec tribes, it was thought evil not to sacrifice your son to the gods, are we evil because we don't go killing our children today, no we have a different POINT OF VIEW.
Again, they had bad moral qualities. In which case, THEY were evil.
Again, they had bad moral qualities. In which case, THEY were evil.
QUOTE (same+)
I hope you guys are getting the point of this. Hell, if we were back in the BC times and we acted like we do now, we would be seen as demons, what with all the drugs and pre-marital sex, but do we see these people as "evil" NO
NO NO NO NO...We might think they are a little misguided but not evil, but again that's our POINT OF VIEW.
Well actually, you'd have to be a jew.
NO NO NO NO...We might think they are a little misguided but not evil, but again that's our POINT OF VIEW.
Well actually, you'd have to be a jew.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
In conclusion, we all have in our mind the way the world should be, and what people should do, and whatever doesn't fit into our own personal view is seen as "evil",
Again, it's not thinking it's evil that makes it evil. It's actually its being evil that makes it evil. Remember that.
Again, it's not thinking it's evil that makes it evil. It's actually its being evil that makes it evil. Remember that.
QUOTE (same+)
so we all have our own definition of "evil", we may agree on alot of points, and we may disagree on alot of points, buttttt...say it with me now...that's just our......PPOOIINNTTT OOFFF VIIIEEWWWWW.
And what if our point of view has bad moral qualities? That makes us evil.
And what if our point of view has bad moral qualities? That makes us evil.
QUOTE (same+)
To say someone is evil doesn't even make sense in its very basic terms. If "evil" is a "real thing" then if someone was/is evil, then they would be so no matter what ANYONE thinks, it would be fact, it would be an internal state, not an external one.
Is that so?
"I am lonely
"
"Yeah, you are."
"No she's not, she had a cat."
Does everyone have to think she's lonely in order for her to actually be lonely? And it's just the same this way:
"You are sooooooo lonely "
"Yeah, I see it, too."
"No I'm not, I have a cat."
Does she have to think she's lonely in order for her to actually be lonely? I think not.
Is that so?
"I am lonely
""Yeah, you are."
"No she's not, she had a cat."
Does everyone have to think she's lonely in order for her to actually be lonely? And it's just the same this way:
"You are sooooooo lonely
""Yeah, I see it, too."
"No I'm not, I have a cat."
Does she have to think she's lonely in order for her to actually be lonely? I think not.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
Eg. I have a banana on my shoulder, if I say that, and it's the truth, then I have a banana on my shoulder, even if you think from your point of view that I DON'T have a banana on my shoulder, that doesn't change the fact that I do, your just simply wrong.
You'recontradicting yourself.
What you are saying is that evil is just a point of view. In order for something to be evil everyone would have to see it as evil. Thus, if someone thinks you DON'T have a banana on your shoulder, that MUST MEAN you don't. Because everyone must agree you have a banana on your shoulder.
You'recontradicting yourself.
What you are saying is that evil is just a point of view. In order for something to be evil everyone would have to see it as evil. Thus, if someone thinks you DON'T have a banana on your shoulder, that MUST MEAN you don't. Because everyone must agree you have a banana on your shoulder. QUOTE (same+)
That ISN'T a matter of point of view(external). That's a matter of fact(internal). All internal states have one truth, and it's true for everyone. If I have a banana on my shoulder, then in your reality I have a banana on my shoulder, in my reality I have a banana on my shoulder, in Santa's reality I have a banana on my shoulder, it doesn't change from person to person.
Evil is wrongfully defined by culture. What you see is defined by the eyes. Everyone has eyes that only see what's there. But people come from many cultures. You're example is very bad.
Evil is wrongfully defined by culture. What you see is defined by the eyes. Everyone has eyes that only see what's there. But people come from many cultures. You're example is very bad.
QUOTE (same+)
But as we see "evil" is not like this, one can be genuinely "evil" to one person and not "evil" to another person. I don't see someone as "evil" if they've gotten laid before marriage, but a priest 2000 years ago would see you as the devil, and we'd both be right IN OUR REALITY.
You mean CULTURE. If a banana is on your shoulder in one culture it'll be on your shoulder in another.
You mean CULTURE. If a banana is on your shoulder in one culture it'll be on your shoulder in another.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
But if evil was a "real thing" then it CAN'T be true that someone isn't evil to me but is to someone else, and we BOTH be right, unless "evil" is and external state aka a...oh I'm not even gonna say it again...
...a bad moral quality?
...a bad moral quality?
QUOTE (555Joshua+Jun 14 2006, 12:27 PM)
But that's not the definition of evil. Let's invite our good friend, Webster:
Evil:
1. having bad moral qualities; bad; sinful; wicked; corrupt; perverse (look up perverse, if you will: it's not the same as the perverse we know); as, evil thoughts; evil deeds.
2. causing pain or trouble; harmful; injurious.
You obviously do not know what a point of view is. If something is not FACT, then it is OPINION aka POINT OF VIEW. Your obviously still in high school so go ask your English teacher which category each of these statements fall into before school ends.
That guy has bad moral qualities...(opinion)
That guy is bad...(opinion)
That guy is sinful...(opinion)
That guy is peverse...(opinion)
That guy is evil/has evil thoughts/ does evil deeds...(opinion)
ALL OPINIONS...NOT FACTS...as I've been saying all along, to say someone/something is "evil" does not nor ever could make that a fact, no more than saying that something is "pretty" or something smells "nice" could, because they are ALL OPINIONS. It seems like your coming up with different ways to argue the same dying point that I've been exposing the flaw in through this whole thread.
Unless you can find a way to prove without a doubt that "evil" is a FACT not an OPINION nor POINT OF VIEW, and that it is in existence in the universe and not just in people's opinions, "evil" will remain a POINT OF VIEW.
Secondly, the second definition is actually trying to say UNJUSTLY causing pain, trouble, harm or injuries, not just the fact of doing it. For example no one thinks torturing a captive terrorist to find the location of a nuke in downtown LA is "evil", although that act is troublesome, harmful AND injurious.
But then we come back to the same problem, because to say something is "unjust" is also a point of view.
No, I am not contradicting myself, you're not understanding the example. I am not saying that everybody has to see something as evil for it to be evil. If everyone thinks that something is pretty does that statement become fact? No, it is still an opinion, no matter how many people believe it.
Fact is another story. Fact is absolute truth, no matter how many people do NOT believe it, quite the opposite. For example, my birthday is January 4th. That is fact. If someone does not believe that, then they are wrong, no wiggle room. This is similar to the banana on the shoulder statement, I guess I made that one to complicated.
Lastly, all your other reasoning is flawed in the same way.
To summarize, evil is OPINION. Evil is POINT OF VIEW. Evil is not FACT.
Stop beating a dead horse.
Evil:
1. having bad moral qualities; bad; sinful; wicked; corrupt; perverse (look up perverse, if you will: it's not the same as the perverse we know); as, evil thoughts; evil deeds.
2. causing pain or trouble; harmful; injurious.
You obviously do not know what a point of view is. If something is not FACT, then it is OPINION aka POINT OF VIEW. Your obviously still in high school so go ask your English teacher which category each of these statements fall into before school ends.
That guy has bad moral qualities...(opinion)
That guy is bad...(opinion)
That guy is sinful...(opinion)
That guy is peverse...(opinion)
That guy is evil/has evil thoughts/ does evil deeds...(opinion)
ALL OPINIONS...NOT FACTS...as I've been saying all along, to say someone/something is "evil" does not nor ever could make that a fact, no more than saying that something is "pretty" or something smells "nice" could, because they are ALL OPINIONS. It seems like your coming up with different ways to argue the same dying point that I've been exposing the flaw in through this whole thread.
Unless you can find a way to prove without a doubt that "evil" is a FACT not an OPINION nor POINT OF VIEW, and that it is in existence in the universe and not just in people's opinions, "evil" will remain a POINT OF VIEW.
Secondly, the second definition is actually trying to say UNJUSTLY causing pain, trouble, harm or injuries, not just the fact of doing it. For example no one thinks torturing a captive terrorist to find the location of a nuke in downtown LA is "evil", although that act is troublesome, harmful AND injurious.
But then we come back to the same problem, because to say something is "unjust" is also a point of view.
QUOTE
You'recontradicting yourself. laugh.gif What you are saying is that evil is just a point of view. In order for something to be evil everyone would have to see it as evil. Thus, if someone thinks you DON'T have a banana on your shoulder, that MUST MEAN you don't. Because everyone must agree you have a banana on your shoulder.
No, I am not contradicting myself, you're not understanding the example. I am not saying that everybody has to see something as evil for it to be evil. If everyone thinks that something is pretty does that statement become fact? No, it is still an opinion, no matter how many people believe it.
Fact is another story. Fact is absolute truth, no matter how many people do NOT believe it, quite the opposite. For example, my birthday is January 4th. That is fact. If someone does not believe that, then they are wrong, no wiggle room. This is similar to the banana on the shoulder statement, I guess I made that one to complicated.
Lastly, all your other reasoning is flawed in the same way.
To summarize, evil is OPINION. Evil is POINT OF VIEW. Evil is not FACT.
Stop beating a dead horse.
Hi bang4thebuck, 555Joshua, calnpals et al,
QUOTE (bang4thebuck Posted on Yesterday at 6:57 PM+)
Good Elf, your view in simple, is generated from the scientific approach and methodology to life and its surroundings. You surely know, most human inhabitants of the Earth, for many given reasons, do not support/hold this approach/belief/understanding.
I realize that... humans do have a complex methodology for justifying what they may or may not do...
I realize that... humans do have a complex methodology for justifying what they may or may not do...
QUOTE (bang4thebuck Posted on Yesterday at 6:57 PM+)
EDIT: However, not all people/actions have decent/just motives from the heart i.e. Jesus crucifixion! Perpetrators and evil characteristiscs/ intentions DO exist and always have.
The crucifixion of Jesus was a "just" act carried out by the ruling authority with the sanction of the local religious hierarchy. I look at what the man was and his "crimes" seen with my "simple eyes" and I do not see anything to justify his death. I look around in the world with this same "simple eye" and I believe there is still injustice being done and men are still carrying out "just" acts, people are being put to death and women and children are suffering.
All of creation suffers because of the "just" acts of the elected authority. What of the world of nature and our fellow species who have no voice and the very world that supports us. No one speaks for them and they are still "put to death" for the crime of being "fellow travelers" on a very small world and in "competition" with a rapacious elect that cannot ever be satisfied with "enough".
Cheers
All of creation suffers because of the "just" acts of the elected authority. What of the world of nature and our fellow species who have no voice and the very world that supports us. No one speaks for them and they are still "put to death" for the crime of being "fellow travelers" on a very small world and in "competition" with a rapacious elect that cannot ever be satisfied with "enough".
Cheers
QUOTE (calnpals+Jun 14 2006, 09:44 AM)
You obviously do not know what a point of view is. If something is not FACT, then it is OPINION aka POINT OF VIEW. Your obviously still in high school so go ask your English teacher which category each of these statements fall into before school ends.
That guy has bad moral qualities...(opinion)
That guy is bad...(opinion)
That guy is sinful...(opinion)
That guy is peverse...(opinion)
That guy is evil/has evil thoughts/ does evil deeds...(opinion)
You obviously are not familiar with relativity. Have you ever heard of the absolute referrence frame?
That guy has bad moral qualities...according to the absolute referrence frame...?(fact)
That guy is bad...according to the absolute referrence frame...?(fact)
That guy is sinful...according to the absolute referrence frame...?(fact)
That guy is peverse...according to the absolute referrence frame...?(fact)
That guy is evil/has evil thoughts/ does evil deeds...according to the absolute referrence frame...?(fact)
The absolute referrence frame (in this case) is what it actually is. For example, is it right to kill someone for fun? NO. Is it right to rob the poor to feed the rich? NO. Is it right to torture for pleasure? NO! NO! NO! These are things NO ONE SANE will find as good. Anyone who does them is evil.
That guy has bad moral qualities...(opinion)
That guy is bad...(opinion)
That guy is sinful...(opinion)
That guy is peverse...(opinion)
That guy is evil/has evil thoughts/ does evil deeds...(opinion)
You obviously are not familiar with relativity. Have you ever heard of the absolute referrence frame?
That guy has bad moral qualities...according to the absolute referrence frame...?(fact)
That guy is bad...according to the absolute referrence frame...?(fact)
That guy is sinful...according to the absolute referrence frame...?(fact)
That guy is peverse...according to the absolute referrence frame...?(fact)
That guy is evil/has evil thoughts/ does evil deeds...according to the absolute referrence frame...?(fact)
The absolute referrence frame (in this case) is what it actually is. For example, is it right to kill someone for fun? NO. Is it right to rob the poor to feed the rich? NO. Is it right to torture for pleasure? NO! NO! NO! These are things NO ONE SANE will find as good. Anyone who does them is evil.
QUOTE (same+)
ALL OPINIONS...NOT FACTS...as I've been saying all along, to say someone/something is "evil" does not nor ever could make that a fact, no more than saying that something is "pretty" or something smells "nice" could, because they are ALL OPINIONS.
Then I guess nothing is pretty, nothing is ugly, nothing is smart, nothing is fat, because it is all just an opinion of somebody! NOTHING IS ANYTHING! NO, wait, that's YOUR opinion.
Then I guess nothing is pretty, nothing is ugly, nothing is smart, nothing is fat, because it is all just an opinion of somebody! NOTHING IS ANYTHING! NO, wait, that's YOUR opinion.
QUOTE (same+)
It seems like your coming up with different ways to argue the same dying point that I've been exposing the flaw in through this whole thread.
The only flaw I see is the flaw in your own thinking. Everything MUST be whether. Just because it's not what everybody thinks it is doesn't mean it's nothing.
The only flaw I see is the flaw in your own thinking. Everything MUST be whether. Just because it's not what everybody thinks it is doesn't mean it's nothing.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
Unless you can find a way to prove without a doubt that "evil" is a FACT not an OPINION nor POINT OF VIEW, and that it is in existence in the universe and not just in people's opinions, "evil" will remain a POINT OF VIEW.
But that is just your point of view.
But that is just your point of view.
QUOTE (same+)
Secondly, the second definition is actually trying to say UNJUSTLY causing pain, trouble, harm or injuries, not just the fact of doing it. For example no one thinks torturing a captive terrorist to find the location of a nuke in downtown LA is "evil", although that act is troublesome, harmful AND injurious.
It's not evil? I got the impression from all these prison scandals that it is. On the other hand, your saying it's not evil is just your opinion.
It's not evil? I got the impression from all these prison scandals that it is. On the other hand, your saying it's not evil is just your opinion.
QUOTE (same+)
Fact is another story. Fact is absolute truth, no matter how many people do NOT believe it, quite the opposite. For example, my birthday is January 4th. That is fact. If someone does not believe that, then they are wrong, no wiggle room.
But you are certain your birthday is Jan 4th. You know. For someone who knows a subject is evil as well as you know your birthday then there is not wiggle room there, either. Either people think it's evil or they're wrong.
But you are certain your birthday is Jan 4th. You know. For someone who knows a subject is evil as well as you know your birthday then there is not wiggle room there, either. Either people think it's evil or they're wrong.
QUOTE (555Joshua+Jun 14 2006, 04:29 PM)
QUOTE (calnpals+Jun 14 2006, 09:44 AM)
You obviously do not know what a point of view is. If something is not FACT, then it is OPINION aka POINT OF VIEW. Your obviously still in high school so go ask your English teacher which category each of these statements fall into before school ends.
That guy has bad moral qualities...(opinion)
That guy is bad...(opinion)
That guy is sinful...(opinion)
That guy is peverse...(opinion)
That guy is evil/has evil thoughts/ does evil deeds...(opinion)
You obviously are not familiar with relativity. Have you ever heard of the absolute referrence frame?
Your use of a reference frame is as useless when used in this context as anything else you have written to date. You are still not able to realize the difference between fact and opinion. However, instead of using YOUR opinion you're using a "reference frame".
When used in astronomy or oceanography, a reference frame is a factual reference point. But to use a reference frame in morality takes you right back to opinion. You merely substitute your own for the common collective opinion of the current society, otherwise known as a "reference frame".
What you are actually saying is:
Society thinks that guy has bad moral qualities...society's opinion
Society thinks that guy is bad...society's opinion
So on and so on. Trying to pass off another opinion as fact gets you nowhere.
As I previously stated, 4000 years ago society thought it was "evil" to pronounce the name of God(that was the reference frame). But now, the reference frame states that it's not. The mere fact that the "reference frame" and along with it your "dictation of evil" changes over time with society, proves that "evil" is no more than what society sees as morally distasteful...OPINION...POINT OF VIEW.
This is just simply childish. To say that another time in society got the reference frame wrong, but we ACTUALLY have it now is also useless, because it is just YOUR opinion, at NO time in society would they think that their reference frame was flawed, or they would just changed it as they saw fit. Stating that you think it's flawed now is just more proof that "evil" is point of view.
Makes no sense.
No I am not saying that. You still don't understand what an opinion is. Opinions are changeable, fact is concrete.
Someone may think something is pretty when someone else does not, neither of them are wrong.
Someone may think something is ugly and someone else may not, neither of them are wrong.
Someone may think someone is "evil" and someone else may not, neither of them are wrong, it depends on each person's point of view.
If someone thinks my birthday is January 4th and someone else does not, one of them is right and one of them are wrong.
If someone thinks 5+5=10 and someone else does not, one of them is right and one of them is wrong.
If someone thinks a banana is on my shoulder and someone else does not, one of them is right and one of them is wrong.
My birthday is on January 4th= fact
That guy is evil=opinion
No I am not saying that. You still don't understand what an opinion is. Opinions are changeable, fact is concrete.
Someone may think something is pretty when someone else does not, neither of them are wrong.
Someone may think something is ugly and someone else may not, neither of them are wrong.
Someone may think someone is "evil" and someone else may not, neither of them are wrong, it depends on each person's point of view.
If someone thinks my birthday is January 4th and someone else does not, one of them is right and one of them are wrong.
If someone thinks 5+5=10 and someone else does not, one of them is right and one of them is wrong.
If someone thinks a banana is on my shoulder and someone else does not, one of them is right and one of them is wrong.
My birthday is on January 4th= fact
That guy is evil=opinion
But that is just your point of view.
But that is just your point of view.
But you are certain your birthday is Jan 4th. You know. For someone who knows a subject is evil as well as you know your birthday then there is not wiggle room there, either. Either people think it's evil or they're wrong.
In fact I'm fairly convinced that you see the error in your logic, and have just reduced this to arguing for the sake of arguing. If you don't get it by now then perhaps you never will. Or just need way too much convincing than I am willing to give. Read it over though I'm sure it'll click.
Peace
C1,
It's not really who does the evil nor what evil is done. The most important thing to focus ourselves on is why evil is done. The act may appear to everyone as bad because perhaps, it harmed someone.... But the act, no matter how bad, if the reason is for the sake of good, maybe, it really isn't so evil after all.
People do evil things for a reason. Do you think Bin Laden would blow up the WTC and kill thousands of innocent people for fun?? No, he wouldn't. And no one would. Absolutely.
Peace on Earth
That guy has bad moral qualities...(opinion)
That guy is bad...(opinion)
That guy is sinful...(opinion)
That guy is peverse...(opinion)
That guy is evil/has evil thoughts/ does evil deeds...(opinion)
You obviously are not familiar with relativity. Have you ever heard of the absolute referrence frame?
Your use of a reference frame is as useless when used in this context as anything else you have written to date. You are still not able to realize the difference between fact and opinion. However, instead of using YOUR opinion you're using a "reference frame".
When used in astronomy or oceanography, a reference frame is a factual reference point. But to use a reference frame in morality takes you right back to opinion. You merely substitute your own for the common collective opinion of the current society, otherwise known as a "reference frame".
What you are actually saying is:
Society thinks that guy has bad moral qualities...society's opinion
Society thinks that guy is bad...society's opinion
So on and so on. Trying to pass off another opinion as fact gets you nowhere.
As I previously stated, 4000 years ago society thought it was "evil" to pronounce the name of God(that was the reference frame). But now, the reference frame states that it's not. The mere fact that the "reference frame" and along with it your "dictation of evil" changes over time with society, proves that "evil" is no more than what society sees as morally distasteful...OPINION...POINT OF VIEW.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4000 years ago it was "evil" to speak the name of God in certain tribes(in fact it was thought to be even worse than murder), so are we all evil today, no we just have a differnt POINT OF VIEW. Again, they had bad moral qualities. In which case, THEY were evil. |
This is just simply childish. To say that another time in society got the reference frame wrong, but we ACTUALLY have it now is also useless, because it is just YOUR opinion, at NO time in society would they think that their reference frame was flawed, or they would just changed it as they saw fit. Stating that you think it's flawed now is just more proof that "evil" is point of view.
QUOTE
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It seems like your coming up with different ways to argue the same dying point that I've been exposing the flaw in through this whole thread. The only flaw I see is the flaw in your own thinking. Everything MUST be whether. Just because it's not what everybody thinks it is doesn't mean it's nothing. |
Makes no sense.
QUOTE
Then I guess nothing is pretty, nothing is ugly, nothing is smart, nothing is fat, because it is all just an opinion of somebody! NOTHING IS ANYTHING! NO, wait, that's YOUR opinion.
No I am not saying that. You still don't understand what an opinion is. Opinions are changeable, fact is concrete.
Someone may think something is pretty when someone else does not, neither of them are wrong.
Someone may think something is ugly and someone else may not, neither of them are wrong.
Someone may think someone is "evil" and someone else may not, neither of them are wrong, it depends on each person's point of view.
If someone thinks my birthday is January 4th and someone else does not, one of them is right and one of them are wrong.
If someone thinks 5+5=10 and someone else does not, one of them is right and one of them is wrong.
If someone thinks a banana is on my shoulder and someone else does not, one of them is right and one of them is wrong.
My birthday is on January 4th= fact
That guy is evil=opinion
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then I guess nothing is pretty, nothing is ugly, nothing is smart, nothing is fat, because it is all just an opinion of somebody! NOTHING IS ANYTHING! NO, wait, that's YOUR opinion. |
No I am not saying that. You still don't understand what an opinion is. Opinions are changeable, fact is concrete.
Someone may think something is pretty when someone else does not, neither of them are wrong.
Someone may think something is ugly and someone else may not, neither of them are wrong.
Someone may think someone is "evil" and someone else may not, neither of them are wrong, it depends on each person's point of view.
If someone thinks my birthday is January 4th and someone else does not, one of them is right and one of them are wrong.
If someone thinks 5+5=10 and someone else does not, one of them is right and one of them is wrong.
If someone thinks a banana is on my shoulder and someone else does not, one of them is right and one of them is wrong.
My birthday is on January 4th= fact
That guy is evil=opinion
QUOTE
Unless you can find a way to prove without a doubt that "evil" is a FACT not an OPINION nor POINT OF VIEW, and that it is in existence in the universe and not just in people's opinions, "evil" will remain a POINT OF VIEW.
But that is just your point of view.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Unless you can find a way to prove without a doubt that "evil" is a FACT not an OPINION nor POINT OF VIEW, and that it is in existence in the universe and not just in people's opinions, "evil" will remain a POINT OF VIEW. |
But that is just your point of view.
QUOTE
Fact is another story. Fact is absolute truth, no matter how many people do NOT believe it, quite the opposite. For example, my birthday is January 4th. That is fact. If someone does not believe that, then they are wrong, no wiggle room.
But you are certain your birthday is Jan 4th. You know. For someone who knows a subject is evil as well as you know your birthday then there is not wiggle room there, either. Either people think it's evil or they're wrong.
In fact I'm fairly convinced that you see the error in your logic, and have just reduced this to arguing for the sake of arguing. If you don't get it by now then perhaps you never will. Or just need way too much convincing than I am willing to give. Read it over though I'm sure it'll click.
Peace
Calnpals and Josh,
Everything you're saying are all points of view so there's nothing wrong. An opinion could never be right and could never be wrong. Like you've said, it's just a perspective and nothing more. You're not forced to believe in each other...
So.....
Good luck on that fight....
Everything you're saying are all points of view so there's nothing wrong. An opinion could never be right and could never be wrong. Like you've said, it's just a perspective and nothing more. You're not forced to believe in each other...
So.....
Good luck on that fight....
Am bored so reading some of the threads and this caught my eye:
"It's not who does it that makes it evil. It's what is done. If all jews did and still do such they would be evil. Do they? Hell no. So, no. They are not evil. It's like calling Germans evil for what Hitler did. Not all Germans did it and none still do. You cannot be responsible for what others do. "
If evil is an absolute, and judged by the outcome not intent, are all who are cause traffic accidents, especially when resulting in someone else's death, 'evil'?
"It's not who does it that makes it evil. It's what is done. If all jews did and still do such they would be evil. Do they? Hell no. So, no. They are not evil. It's like calling Germans evil for what Hitler did. Not all Germans did it and none still do. You cannot be responsible for what others do. "
If evil is an absolute, and judged by the outcome not intent, are all who are cause traffic accidents, especially when resulting in someone else's death, 'evil'?
QUOTE
"It's not who does it that makes it evil. It's what is done.
C1,
It's not really who does the evil nor what evil is done. The most important thing to focus ourselves on is why evil is done. The act may appear to everyone as bad because perhaps, it harmed someone.... But the act, no matter how bad, if the reason is for the sake of good, maybe, it really isn't so evil after all.
People do evil things for a reason. Do you think Bin Laden would blow up the WTC and kill thousands of innocent people for fun?? No, he wouldn't. And no one would. Absolutely.
Peace on Earth
Thanks for the commentary, Howto, but I was asking Josh a pointed question about a pointed statement he made.
He categorically stated that Evil was determined by the outcome, not the intent.
I was curious about his answer to that.
You are making an excuse for him and twisting his words by caveating it with your opinion that, "But the act, no matter how bad, if the reason is for the sake of good, maybe, it really isn't so evil after all."
And here is the true rebuttal to both of your contentions that evil is absolute and objective.
1. you can't agree with each other on the subject, yet you hold the same opinion.
2. your arguments will change depending on the individual circumstances.
If one individual causing the death of another individual is always evil, then define the 'evil' person in these scenerios:
1. Man runs down a small child in a car, doesn't even try to stop, and keeps on driving after the child dies. There are many angry witnesses.
If everyone voted, the man is evil.
Now, introduce a bit of background. Man had pregnant wife in car who's in labor and the baby is being born. Man is in a panic. Man NEVER SAW THE CHILD, he was focused on getting his wife to the hospital in time for this first birth. She is bleeding and screaming and distracting him in his driving. He gets to the hospital and is arrested while in a complete daze.
Did he commit murder? Yes he did.
Is he evil?
He did not intend to kill anyone, but to all the witnesses, he did so, and in cold blood too.
He didn't know he killed anyone, to all the witnesses, he absolutely was aware of his actions but kept driving to avoid consequences.
Who is right?
He categorically stated that Evil was determined by the outcome, not the intent.
I was curious about his answer to that.
You are making an excuse for him and twisting his words by caveating it with your opinion that, "But the act, no matter how bad, if the reason is for the sake of good, maybe, it really isn't so evil after all."
And here is the true rebuttal to both of your contentions that evil is absolute and objective.
1. you can't agree with each other on the subject, yet you hold the same opinion.
2. your arguments will change depending on the individual circumstances.
If one individual causing the death of another individual is always evil, then define the 'evil' person in these scenerios:
1. Man runs down a small child in a car, doesn't even try to stop, and keeps on driving after the child dies. There are many angry witnesses.
If everyone voted, the man is evil.
Now, introduce a bit of background. Man had pregnant wife in car who's in labor and the baby is being born. Man is in a panic. Man NEVER SAW THE CHILD, he was focused on getting his wife to the hospital in time for this first birth. She is bleeding and screaming and distracting him in his driving. He gets to the hospital and is arrested while in a complete daze.
Did he commit murder? Yes he did.
Is he evil?
He did not intend to kill anyone, but to all the witnesses, he did so, and in cold blood too.
He didn't know he killed anyone, to all the witnesses, he absolutely was aware of his actions but kept driving to avoid consequences.
Who is right?
When I reread my note, I realized that I sounded more combative than I intended. I can tell that you both have gentle natures, and I have a strong tendency to write very technically.
That said, rather than set up the argument, I'm just going to state that I don't agree that life and the things in it are or could be absolute.
If something is true, it's always true, that is objectivity. When something is not always true that's subjectivity.
The exceptions that would make it not true are ones which change the nature of the question. That's why, despite not being a scientist, I fully appreciate science. I figure thru some kind of strange monitor osmosis, I'm going to absorb some of the science I'm reading here and understand it better:).
Evil or good are not objective perspectives, because it depends on who you are, always.
The mother who had her child killed by a bomb thinks the bomber is evil, and the nation that dropped that bomb is evil. She is no politician and doesn't care about national rights or needs. She cares about her family, and her baby is dead.
Nothing you can say or do will change her opinion of that person or that deed.
That person may see that he's defending his country, doing his job and his duty, he may be unaware of the child's death or the mother's pain. To his fellows and his nation, he is a hero, and his actions good.
There is no such thing as absolute evil or absolute good, it depends on who you ask.
That said, rather than set up the argument, I'm just going to state that I don't agree that life and the things in it are or could be absolute.
If something is true, it's always true, that is objectivity. When something is not always true that's subjectivity.
The exceptions that would make it not true are ones which change the nature of the question. That's why, despite not being a scientist, I fully appreciate science. I figure thru some kind of strange monitor osmosis, I'm going to absorb some of the science I'm reading here and understand it better:).
Evil or good are not objective perspectives, because it depends on who you are, always.
The mother who had her child killed by a bomb thinks the bomber is evil, and the nation that dropped that bomb is evil. She is no politician and doesn't care about national rights or needs. She cares about her family, and her baby is dead.
Nothing you can say or do will change her opinion of that person or that deed.
That person may see that he's defending his country, doing his job and his duty, he may be unaware of the child's death or the mother's pain. To his fellows and his nation, he is a hero, and his actions good.
There is no such thing as absolute evil or absolute good, it depends on who you ask.
QUOTE (curious1+Jun 17 2006, 01:25 PM)
Am bored so reading some of the threads and this caught my eye:
"It's not who does it that makes it evil. It's what is done. If all jews did and still do such they would be evil. Do they? Hell no. So, no. They are not evil. It's like calling Germans evil for what Hitler did. Not all Germans did it and none still do. You cannot be responsible for what others do. "
If evil is an absolute, and judged by the outcome not intent, are all who are cause traffic accidents, especially when resulting in someone else's death, 'evil'?
Why is the intent. I didn't mention why I was talking about who and what.
"It's not who does it that makes it evil. It's what is done. If all jews did and still do such they would be evil. Do they? Hell no. So, no. They are not evil. It's like calling Germans evil for what Hitler did. Not all Germans did it and none still do. You cannot be responsible for what others do. "
If evil is an absolute, and judged by the outcome not intent, are all who are cause traffic accidents, especially when resulting in someone else's death, 'evil'?
Why is the intent. I didn't mention why I was talking about who and what.
QUOTE (curious1+Jun 18 2006, 12:16 PM)
If one individual causing the death of another individual is always evil, then define the 'evil' person in these scenerios:
1. Man runs down a small child in a car, doesn't even try to stop, and keeps on driving after the child dies. There are many angry witnesses.
If everyone voted, the man is evil.
Now, introduce a bit of background. Man had pregnant wife in car who's in labor and the baby is being born. Man is in a panic. Man NEVER SAW THE CHILD, he was focused on getting his wife to the hospital in time for this first birth. She is bleeding and screaming and distracting him in his driving. He gets to the hospital and is arrested while in a complete daze.
Did he commit murder? Yes he did.
Is he evil?
He did not intend to kill anyone, but to all the witnesses, he did so, and in cold blood too.
He didn't know he killed anyone, to all the witnesses, he absolutely was aware of his actions but kept driving to avoid consequences.
Who is right?
My friend, he did not commit murder, he commited INVOLENTARY MAN SLAUGHTER.
1. Man runs down a small child in a car, doesn't even try to stop, and keeps on driving after the child dies. There are many angry witnesses.
If everyone voted, the man is evil.
Now, introduce a bit of background. Man had pregnant wife in car who's in labor and the baby is being born. Man is in a panic. Man NEVER SAW THE CHILD, he was focused on getting his wife to the hospital in time for this first birth. She is bleeding and screaming and distracting him in his driving. He gets to the hospital and is arrested while in a complete daze.
Did he commit murder? Yes he did.
Is he evil?
He did not intend to kill anyone, but to all the witnesses, he did so, and in cold blood too.
He didn't know he killed anyone, to all the witnesses, he absolutely was aware of his actions but kept driving to avoid consequences.
Who is right?
My friend, he did not commit murder, he commited INVOLENTARY MAN SLAUGHTER.
QUOTE (same+)
He did not intend to kill anyone, but to all the witnesses, he did so, and in cold blood too.
He should have been doing his job as a driver and WATCHING the road. I would never be able to live with myself if I ever did that.
He should have been doing his job as a driver and WATCHING the road. I would never be able to live with myself if I ever did that.
QUOTE (calnpals+Jun 14 2006, 12:46 PM)
Your use of a reference frame is as useless when used in this context as anything else you have written to date. You are still not able to realize the difference between fact and opinion.
I'm not the one. Absolute frame of referrence has no opinion. It is absolute.
I'm not the one. Absolute frame of referrence has no opinion. It is absolute.
QUOTE (same+)
When used in astronomy or oceanography, a reference frame is a factual reference point. But to use a reference frame in morality takes you right back to opinion. You merely substitute your own for the common collective opinion of the current society, otherwise known as a "reference frame".
No you don't, either. The absolute referrence frame is something we most likely will never know. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What it is is what is RIGHTFULLY evil, what is RIGHTFULLY good and what is RIGHTFULLY anything. What it is is what is. Just because you or I say it's one way doesn't mean it is. But it is something and it is some way. That DOESN'T mean that just because we all have different opinions and points of view about it it simply doesn't exist. Everyone has a different point of view about YOU. Everyone thinks they know YOU. Does that mean they do? No. It's JUST their point of view. And because according to anyone you are a different person from how someone else sees you doesn't mean you don't exist. What you are and what people think you are are two different things. What evil is and what people think evil is are two different things.
No you don't, either. The absolute referrence frame is something we most likely will never know. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What it is is what is RIGHTFULLY evil, what is RIGHTFULLY good and what is RIGHTFULLY anything. What it is is what is. Just because you or I say it's one way doesn't mean it is. But it is something and it is some way. That DOESN'T mean that just because we all have different opinions and points of view about it it simply doesn't exist. Everyone has a different point of view about YOU. Everyone thinks they know YOU. Does that mean they do? No. It's JUST their point of view. And because according to anyone you are a different person from how someone else sees you doesn't mean you don't exist. What you are and what people think you are are two different things. What evil is and what people think evil is are two different things.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
What you are actually saying is:
Society thinks that guy has bad moral qualities...society's opinion
Society thinks that guy is bad...society's opinion
Say it with me: society is NOT absolute.
Society thinks that guy has bad moral qualities...society's opinion
Society thinks that guy is bad...society's opinion
Say it with me: society is NOT absolute.
QUOTE (same+)
As I previously stated, 4000 years ago society thought it was "evil" to pronounce the name of God(that was the reference frame). But now, the reference frame states that it's not. The mere fact that the "reference frame" and along with it your "dictation of evil" changes over time with society, proves that "evil" is no more than what society sees as morally distasteful...OPINION...POINT OF VIEW.
Once you understand that society is not absolute you will find that this entire argument ^here^ is a waist of your time.
Absolute means absolute right or wrong. It's not based on someone's opinion. It's just what is.
Absolute means absolute right or wrong. It's not based on someone's opinion. It's just what is.
The only flaw I see is the flaw in your own thinking. Everything MUST be whether. Just because it's not what everybody thinks it is doesn't mean it's nothing.
Everything MUST be something.
Once you understand that society is not absolute you will find that this entire argument ^here^ is a waist of your time.
QUOTE
This is just simply childish. To say that another time in society got the reference frame wrong, but we ACTUALLY have it now is also useless, because it is just YOUR opinion, at NO time in society would they think that their reference frame was flawed, or they would just changed it as they saw fit. Stating that you think it's flawed now is just more proof that "evil" is point of view.
Absolute means absolute right or wrong. It's not based on someone's opinion. It's just what is.QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| This is just simply childish. To say that another time in society got the reference frame wrong, but we ACTUALLY have it now is also useless, because it is just YOUR opinion, at NO time in society would they think that their reference frame was flawed, or they would just changed it as they saw fit. Stating that you think it's flawed now is just more proof that "evil" is point of view. |
Absolute means absolute right or wrong. It's not based on someone's opinion. It's just what is.The only flaw I see is the flaw in your own thinking. Everything MUST be whether. Just because it's not what everybody thinks it is doesn't mean it's nothing.
Everything MUST be something.
QUOTE (calnpals+)
No I am not saying that. You still don't understand what an opinion is. Opinions are changeable, fact is concrete.
One person says she is pretty. Another says she is ugly, another says very, while another says she's downright beautiful. Who is right? You will look at her and decide based on YOUR OWN OPINION. The opinion of what something looks like is as varied as the opinion of what evil is. I can look at here and tell you she is kind of ugly but you could say she is very pretty. It is just our opinions. That doesn't mean pretty doesn't exist, it just means we can't agree on what pretty is.
One person says she is pretty. Another says she is ugly, another says very, while another says she's downright beautiful. Who is right? You will look at her and decide based on YOUR OWN OPINION. The opinion of what something looks like is as varied as the opinion of what evil is. I can look at here and tell you she is kind of ugly but you could say she is very pretty. It is just our opinions. That doesn't mean pretty doesn't exist, it just means we can't agree on what pretty is.
QUOTE (same+)
My birthday is on January 4th= fact
That guy is evil=opinion
But that guy might be evil--not based on opinion but based on absolute fact. We will never know because we are not in the position to know.
That guy is evil=opinion
But that guy might be evil--not based on opinion but based on absolute fact. We will never know because we are not in the position to know.
QUOTE (same+)
In fact I'm fairly convinced that you see the error in your logic, and have just reduced this to arguing for the sake of arguing. If you don't get it by now then perhaps you never will. Or just need way too much convincing than I am willing to give. Read it over though I'm sure it'll click.
I am truly sorry but I don't see any lack of logic in my argument.
I am truly sorry but I don't see any lack of logic in my argument.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
What evil is and what people think evil is are two different things.
QUOTE (555Joshua+)
The absolute reference frame is something we most likely will never know. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
So who or what determines what is actually "evil" in your absolute reference frame? And what use is that reference frame if nobody can agree on what is included in the frame? The reason beauty, art, good and evil can exist without everybody being able to fully agree upon what they are is because they are abstract concepts. They are a creation of the human mind, usually used to give meaning to some difficult to describe quality of an item, person, or action. The saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" can, in my opinion, easily be co-opted to state, "Evil and/or good is in the eye of the beholder".
So who or what determines what is actually "evil" in your absolute reference frame? And what use is that reference frame if nobody can agree on what is included in the frame? The reason beauty, art, good and evil can exist without everybody being able to fully agree upon what they are is because they are abstract concepts. They are a creation of the human mind, usually used to give meaning to some difficult to describe quality of an item, person, or action. The saying, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" can, in my opinion, easily be co-opted to state, "Evil and/or good is in the eye of the beholder".
Josh, you said: "My friend, he did not commit murder, he commited INVOLENTARY MAN SLAUGHTER."
That wasn't the question. The question was, is he evil?
Per himself, he isn't. How can he be evil if he didn't even know he committed the act?
Per the witnesses and family of the dead child, he is purely evil.
If evil is absolute, is he evil IN YOUR OPINION ( )?
Here you have 2 sides, one of which perceives him as evil, the other which does not.
You can apply this example to Hitler as well. Hitler may not have directly ordered the death of the jews, or any one particular jew, his officers carrying out his orders did. He did not physically take out his gun, car, knife and kill a single jew. The death of millions of jews were a direct consequence of his actions and policies, but not his personal willful action.
This same argument can be applied to the man driving the car. He was trying to get somewhere, the death was a consequence of his DRIVING. Hitler was trying to 'unify' Europe, the death and property seizures of the jews provided the funding to accomplish this.
When a nation succeeds in Unification, think China in 2500 BC, China and Mongolia under Genghis Kahn, Germany in the 1600s, the US in 1865 under Lincoln, Serbia under Milosevic, Iraq to Kuwait under Saddam Hussein, the ruler who succeeded is lauded a hero and 'good' for the nation (add to this list Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Rome under the Casaers, the Crusades). The losers are criminals and 'evil' in almost all cases (Milosevic, Saddam, Hitler)
What about Dafur genocide going on right this minute in Africa? Which 'side' is 'evil'? Which individual leader of each side is 'evil'? You can't tell right now because it's not over. So BOTH sides commit genocide. What about the Hutu and Tutsi in the 80s? They both committed willful acts of genocide, but because there was no 'clear' winner, there's no declaration of 'evil'.
No one tracks the death count or the genocide when successful. When the ruler fails, he's a mass murderer committing genocide.
By your willingness to qualify 'absolute evil', Hitler could be good, he had a 'good' goal of unification, his officers were directly involved in the extermination of jews, why stick that on Hitler the leader? Had he won, and also succeeded in genocide, would he have been declared 'evil'? If he won, we'd be speaking german, and our history books would be different. Judging by history, he'd be a hero, and up there with the epitome of 'good'. That is how history views most events. You don't read much about the victims of the winners (how many people remember the extermination of the Knights Templars? Historians mostly, yet it was a blot in France's history, an act of genocide)
Every war involves a degree of genocide, there's no specific numbers of death that determines what qualifies as genocide except when a historian labels it as such. So, given the numbers of dead southern and northern americans during the US Civil War, was Abe Lincoln also 'evil', or was Jefferson Davis 'evil' for leading the side that began the war? Neither personally killed anyone either.
You did say there was 'absolute' evil right? Who defines this? The observers? Then the witnesses and family victims of the accident are correct. The driver is evil.
By extension, the man who gave the order to start a war is also evil. Ergo, Hitler is evil. He was not evil to anyone in his administration or his people at the time, they saw him as a great leader who was reclaiming the pride of the 'fatherland' after the brutal shame and reparations from Germany's loss of WWI. Because he lost, his means were exposed to the world (stealing jewish assets and killing them to hide the evidence), he was then declared 'evil' by the witnesses and victims.
You cannot have it both ways.
For the record, I am NOT defending Hitler or any other despot. I am using this as an example to illustrate the absurdity of the claim for 'absolute' evil, which really boils down to a political label in most cases.
That wasn't the question. The question was, is he evil?
Per himself, he isn't. How can he be evil if he didn't even know he committed the act?
Per the witnesses and family of the dead child, he is purely evil.
If evil is absolute, is he evil IN YOUR OPINION (
)? Here you have 2 sides, one of which perceives him as evil, the other which does not.
You can apply this example to Hitler as well. Hitler may not have directly ordered the death of the jews, or any one particular jew, his officers carrying out his orders did. He did not physically take out his gun, car, knife and kill a single jew. The death of millions of jews were a direct consequence of his actions and policies, but not his personal willful action.
This same argument can be applied to the man driving the car. He was trying to get somewhere, the death was a consequence of his DRIVING. Hitler was trying to 'unify' Europe, the death and property seizures of the jews provided the funding to accomplish this.
When a nation succeeds in Unification, think China in 2500 BC, China and Mongolia under Genghis Kahn, Germany in the 1600s, the US in 1865 under Lincoln, Serbia under Milosevic, Iraq to Kuwait under Saddam Hussein, the ruler who succeeded is lauded a hero and 'good' for the nation (add to this list Napoleon, Alexander the Great, Rome under the Casaers, the Crusades). The losers are criminals and 'evil' in almost all cases (Milosevic, Saddam, Hitler)
What about Dafur genocide going on right this minute in Africa? Which 'side' is 'evil'? Which individual leader of each side is 'evil'? You can't tell right now because it's not over. So BOTH sides commit genocide. What about the Hutu and Tutsi in the 80s? They both committed willful acts of genocide, but because there was no 'clear' winner, there's no declaration of 'evil'.
No one tracks the death count or the genocide when successful. When the ruler fails, he's a mass murderer committing genocide.
By your willingness to qualify 'absolute evil', Hitler could be good, he had a 'good' goal of unification, his officers were directly involved in the extermination of jews, why stick that on Hitler the leader? Had he won, and also succeeded in genocide, would he have been declared 'evil'? If he won, we'd be speaking german, and our history books would be different. Judging by history, he'd be a hero, and up there with the epitome of 'good'. That is how history views most events. You don't read much about the victims of the winners (how many people remember the extermination of the Knights Templars? Historians mostly, yet it was a blot in France's history, an act of genocide)
Every war involves a degree of genocide, there's no specific numbers of death that determines what qualifies as genocide except when a historian labels it as such. So, given the numbers of dead southern and northern americans during the US Civil War, was Abe Lincoln also 'evil', or was Jefferson Davis 'evil' for leading the side that began the war? Neither personally killed anyone either.
You did say there was 'absolute' evil right? Who defines this? The observers? Then the witnesses and family victims of the accident are correct. The driver is evil.
By extension, the man who gave the order to start a war is also evil. Ergo, Hitler is evil. He was not evil to anyone in his administration or his people at the time, they saw him as a great leader who was reclaiming the pride of the 'fatherland' after the brutal shame and reparations from Germany's loss of WWI. Because he lost, his means were exposed to the world (stealing jewish assets and killing them to hide the evidence), he was then declared 'evil' by the witnesses and victims.
You cannot have it both ways.
For the record, I am NOT defending Hitler or any other despot. I am using this as an example to illustrate the absurdity of the claim for 'absolute' evil, which really boils down to a political label in most cases.
I spent a lot of time composing the last note, I hope those who think 'evil is absolute' will comment on it and provide rebuttals to my commentary.
My position is that 'evil' cannot possibly be absolute, because it's always a matter of perspective. There were several people who BELIEVED otherwise, surely there's something to say about my examples?
Unless I persuaded you and there's nothing else to say?
My position is that 'evil' cannot possibly be absolute, because it's always a matter of perspective. There were several people who BELIEVED otherwise, surely there's something to say about my examples?
Unless I persuaded you and there's nothing else to say?
QUOTE (curious1+Jun 20 2006, 06:00 PM)
I spent a lot of time composing the last note, I hope those who think 'evil is absolute' will comment on it and provide rebuttals to my commentary.
My position is that 'evil' cannot possibly be absolute, because it's always a matter of perspective. There were several people who BELIEVED otherwise, surely there's something to say about my examples?
Unless I persuaded you and there's nothing else to say?
The point you make here is as clear as it gets. "Evil" is in the eye of the beholder, NOT absolute. It changes from person to person in the same manner that beauty and niceness does, and is no more tangible. Evil just a description (to acts we see in OUR OPINION as unwarranted, bad, vile etc.), no more no less, we see it as something more because it relates to such a sensative topic.
My position is that 'evil' cannot possibly be absolute, because it's always a matter of perspective. There were several people who BELIEVED otherwise, surely there's something to say about my examples?
Unless I persuaded you and there's nothing else to say?
The point you make here is as clear as it gets. "Evil" is in the eye of the beholder, NOT absolute. It changes from person to person in the same manner that beauty and niceness does, and is no more tangible. Evil just a description (to acts we see in OUR OPINION as unwarranted, bad, vile etc.), no more no less, we see it as something more because it relates to such a sensative topic.
Hi Curious1 (hope you had a great time!, and sad that 'ghosts' seems to be dying) and all,
Interesting discussion! I'll take 'devil's advocate' since the talk is evil talk...
Beauty is physical loveliness. It's presence, absence, and level is a personal decision.
Niceness is a state of being pleasing or agreeable.
Evil is the act of doing harm, kinetically. It's potential first, even if by a googleth of a second.
A similarity between these three concepts is that they exist. They exist because we engage them, are affected profoundly by them, and do not live bereft of any of them - these three concepts and many more. Our use of them, and their effects on us, make them as real as can be.
I am reasonably sure that whatever adjective you would use to qualify evil, be it 'absolute', 'partial', 'necessary', whatever arguments you present to validate, condemn, exonerate, deny, and whatever conclusions coffeetable treatment of it provides, that no one forgets that they already know precisely what and when it is. Because if it happens to you there is not a doubt or careful consideration of it's realness now. You're in it, and it is explaining and defining it's simple straightforward self to you.
In that sense it is absolute, because you are absolutely sure of it. Be stabbed repeatedly for your cash, be hideously defiled, the extremity of evil is only limited by one's ability and power. See evil's signature in each victim, painstakingly, that dies in a war, each and every one, see them having met harm, and evil is seen correctly and not by conjecture. It is an unlimited potential that we merely mine for our intents. You can debate endlessly it's paramaters, but it is always recognisable when it reaches the victim, and sometimes you are the victim.
If one really says that a concept is not real, do you believe you are only stardust, only fields in flux? That's all we are physically! But mind conceives and changes it's world, and the concrete application of an abstract concept renders BOTH real, if you believe mind, and therefore you, are real. And a concept, seen as a quantity, is infinite because it is always available for use, and *does not decrease* as it is being utilized.
Evil for 'right' or 'wrong' is the same. It has to do with inflicting harm. In this sense it is absolute, and all our reasons for 'necessary evils' don't matter. So are we evil for driving our cars and poisoning the air? Absolutely. It's the desire to personally poison less, stemming from the inherent guilt that you are knowingly poisoning that makes some go out and buy a hybrid. To the extent we knowingly harm and continue to, have we employed evil in a rationality move, aided by 'power in numbers' and resignment to societal ways, to live how we want. Some feel guilty enough to give it all, or most, up, ie the lawyer who becomes a Foxfire-style live off the land type (to use an extreme example).
That's an example; there are millions more.
To sum up: evil is a thought and act which results in harm, degree notwithstanding.
it is a concept that is employed and has real results.
it affects ourselves, each other, and our world and as such it is real.
it is an infinite potential to draw from.
and it's unlimitedness, and worldwide recognition of it's results qualifies it to be absolute.
Absolute: def. #2 Webster - free from control or restriction.
def. #6 Random House - Viewed independant, not comparative or relative.
Note that there are at least 15 defs. Assuming the above are correct.
So, am I right? Does that make you wrong? But wait - are 'right' and 'wrong' absolutes?
peace,jb
Interesting discussion! I'll take 'devil's advocate' since the talk is evil talk...
Beauty is physical loveliness. It's presence, absence, and level is a personal decision.
Niceness is a state of being pleasing or agreeable.
Evil is the act of doing harm, kinetically. It's potential first, even if by a googleth of a second.
A similarity between these three concepts is that they exist. They exist because we engage them, are affected profoundly by them, and do not live bereft of any of them - these three concepts and many more. Our use of them, and their effects on us, make them as real as can be.
I am reasonably sure that whatever adjective you would use to qualify evil, be it 'absolute', 'partial', 'necessary', whatever arguments you present to validate, condemn, exonerate, deny, and whatever conclusions coffeetable treatment of it provides, that no one forgets that they already know precisely what and when it is. Because if it happens to you there is not a doubt or careful consideration of it's realness now. You're in it, and it is explaining and defining it's simple straightforward self to you.
In that sense it is absolute, because you are absolutely sure of it. Be stabbed repeatedly for your cash, be hideously defiled, the extremity of evil is only limited by one's ability and power. See evil's signature in each victim, painstakingly, that dies in a war, each and every one, see them having met harm, and evil is seen correctly and not by conjecture. It is an unlimited potential that we merely mine for our intents. You can debate endlessly it's paramaters, but it is always recognisable when it reaches the victim, and sometimes you are the victim.
If one really says that a concept is not real, do you believe you are only stardust, only fields in flux? That's all we are physically! But mind conceives and changes it's world, and the concrete application of an abstract concept renders BOTH real, if you believe mind, and therefore you, are real. And a concept, seen as a quantity, is infinite because it is always available for use, and *does not decrease* as it is being utilized.
Evil for 'right' or 'wrong' is the same. It has to do with inflicting harm. In this sense it is absolute, and all our reasons for 'necessary evils' don't matter. So are we evil for driving our cars and poisoning the air? Absolutely. It's the desire to personally poison less, stemming from the inherent guilt that you are knowingly poisoning that makes some go out and buy a hybrid. To the extent we knowingly harm and continue to, have we employed evil in a rationality move, aided by 'power in numbers' and resignment to societal ways, to live how we want. Some feel guilty enough to give it all, or most, up, ie the lawyer who becomes a Foxfire-style live off the land type (to use an extreme example).
That's an example; there are millions more.
To sum up: evil is a thought and act which results in harm, degree notwithstanding.
it is a concept that is employed and has real results.
it affects ourselves, each other, and our world and as such it is real.
it is an infinite potential to draw from.
and it's unlimitedness, and worldwide recognition of it's results qualifies it to be absolute.
Absolute: def. #2 Webster - free from control or restriction.
def. #6 Random House - Viewed independant, not comparative or relative.
Note that there are at least 15 defs. Assuming the above are correct.
So, am I right? Does that make you wrong? But wait - are 'right' and 'wrong' absolutes?
peace,jb
Hi Jb, I had a great time in China, I learned so much!
And yes, I'm very sad too that the ghosts thread is dying. I had hoped that the more scientific minded would put forth more effort on the thread, while the rest of us played cheerleaders, but it was too much to ask goodelf to battle the skeptics and at the same time provide everyone with the answers they seek. Maybe he'll come up with something and surprise us all, I hope so, it's one of those question marks that's remained a long time in my life.
Back to the note...
You said, "To sum up: evil is a thought and act which results in harm, degree notwithstanding.
it is a concept that is employed and has real results.
it affects ourselves, each other, and our world and as such it is real.
it is an infinite potential to draw from.
and it's unlimitedness, and worldwide recognition of it's results qualifies it to be absolute."
By the above definition, we are all evil and have committed evil. If you define this narrowly, especially caveating with 'degrees notwithstanding', each and every one of us commits evil multiple times a day. When we wake up, we go brush our teeth and kill millions of plaque and countless bacteria when we rinse... this only gets worse as the days progress. We step on bugs, we protect our gardens, we wash our driveway with non-biodegradable soap, etc.
Who doesn't say thoughtless things that cause harm, who doesn't inadvertently forget someone else's feelings at times, who doesn't eat meat, or vegetables, which by their growth in farms, distroys the habitat of wild animals by their mere existence? Who doesn't get in a car and sometimes accidentally cut off or irritate someone else, or think ugly thoughts of others who do the same?
When 1/2 of your existence can fit into the definition of 'evil', the term no longer has meaning. It only has meaning when you apply it in degrees, and the threshold has to be high, lest everyone violates it regularly, again, rendering the term meaningless.
So we set it high. Lets assume then that evil means killing ONLY. What if we set it higher yet and say, evil only means killing with INTENT. And what's the ULTIMATE act of evil by this definition? Killing MANY people by INTENT.
Then George Bush is evil. There's a body count for US military, we know how many died, 2000+ to date. Did anyone count how many Iraqi have died? Nope. I've seen estimates in the hundreds of thousands.
Do you consider George Bush 'evil'?
Few would put George Bush on the list of 'evil' people along with Hitler. Is this not individual perspective? If you ask the Iraqi jihadists and the terrorists, George Bush is evil personified. Few in the US would agree. Is this not subjective? It sure is.
Absolute by definition means what it says. For evil to be absolute, it cannot be subjective but only objective.
Choosing your Random House definition of, "Viewed independant, not comparative or relative." I doubt anyone would call George Bush 'evil', yet every Terrorist would. That's not independent, that's relative. So how can evil be absolute?
Webster says: "free from control or restriction." Well, if one SIDE considers something evil, and the other SIDE doesn't, how is the term free from control or restriction? The control is who's talking, and the restriction is which side you're on.
If it's in the category of 'beautiful', it's subjective, because what you consider beautiful, I may not and vice versa. No one will argue that beauty is not subjective. So if you're putting evil in the category of 'beautiful' or 'nice' (I can be nice to you, but not nice to him... how's this an objective or absolute term? It's not)
You are putting it into the subjective category already. And you're right, it's subjective. It depends on who's viewpoint you're seeing it from.
Back to the traffic accident. Even if you knew that the driver wasn't aware of running anyone over, it changes nothing. If it's your mother laying on that road, or your daughter, or your dog, that driver is EVIL, and NOTHING will change that.
I can't see how anything can be objective about the term at all, any way you can look at it.
And no, I don't think right and wrong are absolute either:P. What IS absolute? 2+2= 4 is absolute:).
And yes, I'm very sad too that the ghosts thread is dying. I had hoped that the more scientific minded would put forth more effort on the thread, while the rest of us played cheerleaders, but it was too much to ask goodelf to battle the skeptics and at the same time provide everyone with the answers they seek. Maybe he'll come up with something and surprise us all, I hope so, it's one of those question marks that's remained a long time in my life.
Back to the note...
You said, "To sum up: evil is a thought and act which results in harm, degree notwithstanding.
it is a concept that is employed and has real results.
it affects ourselves, each other, and our world and as such it is real.
it is an infinite potential to draw from.
and it's unlimitedness, and worldwide recognition of it's results qualifies it to be absolute."
By the above definition, we are all evil and have committed evil. If you define this narrowly, especially caveating with 'degrees notwithstanding', each and every one of us commits evil multiple times a day. When we wake up, we go brush our teeth and kill millions of plaque and countless bacteria when we rinse... this only gets worse as the days progress. We step on bugs, we protect our gardens, we wash our driveway with non-biodegradable soap, etc.
Who doesn't say thoughtless things that cause harm, who doesn't inadvertently forget someone else's feelings at times, who doesn't eat meat, or vegetables, which by their growth in farms, distroys the habitat of wild animals by their mere existence? Who doesn't get in a car and sometimes accidentally cut off or irritate someone else, or think ugly thoughts of others who do the same?
When 1/2 of your existence can fit into the definition of 'evil', the term no longer has meaning. It only has meaning when you apply it in degrees, and the threshold has to be high, lest everyone violates it regularly, again, rendering the term meaningless.
So we set it high. Lets assume then that evil means killing ONLY. What if we set it higher yet and say, evil only means killing with INTENT. And what's the ULTIMATE act of evil by this definition? Killing MANY people by INTENT.
Then George Bush is evil. There's a body count for US military, we know how many died, 2000+ to date. Did anyone count how many Iraqi have died? Nope. I've seen estimates in the hundreds of thousands.
Do you consider George Bush 'evil'?
Few would put George Bush on the list of 'evil' people along with Hitler. Is this not individual perspective? If you ask the Iraqi jihadists and the terrorists, George Bush is evil personified. Few in the US would agree. Is this not subjective? It sure is.
Absolute by definition means what it says. For evil to be absolute, it cannot be subjective but only objective.
Choosing your Random House definition of, "Viewed independant, not comparative or relative." I doubt anyone would call George Bush 'evil', yet every Terrorist would. That's not independent, that's relative. So how can evil be absolute?
Webster says: "free from control or restriction." Well, if one SIDE considers something evil, and the other SIDE doesn't, how is the term free from control or restriction? The control is who's talking, and the restriction is which side you're on.
If it's in the category of 'beautiful', it's subjective, because what you consider beautiful, I may not and vice versa. No one will argue that beauty is not subjective. So if you're putting evil in the category of 'beautiful' or 'nice' (I can be nice to you, but not nice to him... how's this an objective or absolute term? It's not)
You are putting it into the subjective category already. And you're right, it's subjective. It depends on who's viewpoint you're seeing it from.
Back to the traffic accident. Even if you knew that the driver wasn't aware of running anyone over, it changes nothing. If it's your mother laying on that road, or your daughter, or your dog, that driver is EVIL, and NOTHING will change that.
I can't see how anything can be objective about the term at all, any way you can look at it.
And no, I don't think right and wrong are absolute either:P. What IS absolute? 2+2= 4 is absolute:).
Just because people don't know what right and wrong are doesn't mean they don't exist. I live my life based on right and wrong. And as I get a better glimpse of what right and wrong are, I become a better person. Is it right to steal? Is it right to steal if it's your only means of survival? In order to get a better perspective you must think in the lines of, "do unto others as you would want others to do unto you". How would you feel if a guy stole from you to have enough money to feed his children? Before, when I just asked if stealing was wrong, opinions most likely differed. But when I added detail, calling it wrong became harder.
Is it wrong to steal because you're too lazy to get a job? There's as much info as before, but the opinion goes the opposite way. In the first example, the guy most likely wouldn't steal if he didn't have kids to take care of and probably feels bad about what he does. The second example is some punk who deserves jail time. So, you could say right and wrong depend on the situation at hand.
In order to decide if the man in the accident is evil, we must look at the TRUTH. That is, we can not be satisified with one perspective. We must have both. In order to ask if the man is evil, we must ask this: would he have stopped if he saw the kid? Does he care about what he did? Would he keep from doing it again? If no, no and no, then, yes, he is evil. He clearly does not care about the kid, or the family. All he cares about is himself. Yes, yes and yes, then, no, he is not evil. He is just a man who caused an accident for being human.
Is it wrong to steal because you're too lazy to get a job? There's as much info as before, but the opinion goes the opposite way. In the first example, the guy most likely wouldn't steal if he didn't have kids to take care of and probably feels bad about what he does. The second example is some punk who deserves jail time. So, you could say right and wrong depend on the situation at hand.
In order to decide if the man in the accident is evil, we must look at the TRUTH. That is, we can not be satisified with one perspective. We must have both. In order to ask if the man is evil, we must ask this: would he have stopped if he saw the kid? Does he care about what he did? Would he keep from doing it again? If no, no and no, then, yes, he is evil. He clearly does not care about the kid, or the family. All he cares about is himself. Yes, yes and yes, then, no, he is not evil. He is just a man who caused an accident for being human.
QUOTE (curious1+)
By extension, the man who gave the order to start a war is also evil. Ergo, Hitler is evil. He was not evil to anyone in his administration or his people at the time, they saw him as a great leader who was reclaiming the pride of the 'fatherland' after the brutal shame and reparations from Germany's loss of WWI. Because he lost, his means were exposed to the world (stealing jewish assets and killing them to hide the evidence), he was then declared 'evil' by the witnesses and victims.
Let's switch it around. This is happening in YOUR country. The government is taking YOUR classes belongings, while leaving the richer alone. They are taking YOU to consitration camps, were you are readily tortured for being "poor". The rich absolutely love what is happening to the economy and don't really give a damn about what's happening to you. "Every good thing comes with a sacrifice," they might say. But suppose they don't know what's happening to you? Suppose all they see is the thriving economy. Can you blame them for not thinking the government is evil? If you look at it from the side, seeing everything there is to see, then you will know. It's evil because they are taking your belongings and treating you like dirt. Just because the govermnent thinks it's good doesn't mean it is. You have to ask how it's done, and who gets screwed over. Just because the entire world thinks it isn't evil doesn't mean it isn't. That's what I tried to illistrate with the absolute point of view. You have to step aside and ask yourself, is that wrong?
Let's switch it around. This is happening in YOUR country. The government is taking YOUR classes belongings, while leaving the richer alone. They are taking YOU to consitration camps, were you are readily tortured for being "poor". The rich absolutely love what is happening to the economy and don't really give a damn about what's happening to you. "Every good thing comes with a sacrifice," they might say. But suppose they don't know what's happening to you? Suppose all they see is the thriving economy. Can you blame them for not thinking the government is evil? If you look at it from the side, seeing everything there is to see, then you will know. It's evil because they are taking your belongings and treating you like dirt. Just because the govermnent thinks it's good doesn't mean it is. You have to ask how it's done, and who gets screwed over. Just because the entire world thinks it isn't evil doesn't mean it isn't. That's what I tried to illistrate with the absolute point of view. You have to step aside and ask yourself, is that wrong?
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.