87 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

I don't think "Evil" is inherently hard or easy for any person of any religion. It is easily shown by history that people of all religions commit all sorts of crime. There are good and evil people out there, to put it bluntly. If your religion/beliefs forbid you from doing something, that usually isn't the determining factor of whether or not you get the urge to do it. The same can be said for laws/criminals.

Not religions, non theists. Is it so hard for the non religious to deal, given their worldview, with EVIL?

[Deep Thought]

I don't need a reason to reject God, but a logical reason as to why I should believe in God.

[shadowhawk]

I don't need a reason to reject God, but a logical reason as to why I should believe in God.

I guess you want to ignore the topic. Don't need a reason to reject God? OK

You have no problem with evil as an atheist?

[Deep Thought]

I guess you want to ignore the topic.

No, by all means let's shift the discussion to "IS EVIL ONLY A PROBLEM FOR THEISTS?".

I don't need a reason to reject God, but a logical reason as to why I should believe in God.

Don't need a reason to reject God? OK

You misread. "I don't need a reason to reject God, but a logical reason as to why I should believe in God." is not equal to "Don't need a reason to reject God?."

I.e. I had no belief when I was born and I was never convinced that God existed. Therefore, to even consider believing in God, I need conclusive proof of his existence and you can't prove to me that God exists.

You have no problem with evil as an atheist?

What kind of evil? I can't read your mind.

[shadowhawk]

DEEP THOUGHT: No, by all means let's shift the discussion to "IS EVIL ONLY A PROBLEM FOR THEISTS?".

I am not shifting anything, that is the topic and always was.

You misread. "I don't need a reason to reject God, but a logical reason as to why I should believe in God." is not equal to "Don't need a reason to reject God?."

I.e. I had no belief when I was born and I was never convinced that God existed. Therefore, to even consider believing in God, I need conclusive proof of his existence and you can't prove to me that God exists.

OK, still off topic

What kind of evil? I can't read your mind.

Nor can I read yours. Do YOU have a problem with evil of any kind? Stay on topic.

Edited by shadowhawk, 26 September 2013 - 10:26 PM.

[ms95]

theres no such thing as evil, just apathy.

[shadowhawk]

theres no such thing as evil, just apathy.

So, in your view there is no evil. Is apathy evil?

[N.T.M.]

I know I shouldn't be in here, but I should mention that the very act of asking the question suggests a lack of moral integrity. An implication is that you need God to motivate moral acts, in which case the acts' value falls with the loss of choice. Let me be more explicit: Value is derived from choice, and in the absence of choice, no value can exist. The obvious rebuttal to this is something like, "Well Christians do have a choice; you just go to hell if you choose incorrectly." I'll just say that anybody incompetent enough to consider that as a choice is too intellectually deficient to be involved in a debate with that as its subject matter.

*edit*

theres no such thing as evil, just apathy.

Apathy is non-emotion; it's nothing; it's neutral. Evil is, by definition, deliberate and therefore doesn't fit the description. Yes, there is evil in the world, and it is a problem.

Edited by N.T.M., 17 October 2013 - 01:39 AM.

[shadowhawk]

I know I shouldn't be in here, but I should mention that the very act of asking the question suggests a lack of moral integrity. An implication is that you need God to motivate moral acts, in which case the acts' value falls with the loss of choice. Let me be more explicit: Value is derived from choice, and in the absence of choice, no value can exist. The obvious rebuttal to this is something like, "Well Christians do have a choice; you just go to hell if you choose incorrectly." I'll just say that anybody incompetent enough to consider that as a choice is too intellectually deficient to be involved in a debate with that as its subject matter.

*edit*

theres no such thing as evil, just apathy.

Apathy is non-emotion; it's nothing; it's neutral. Evil is, by definition, deliberate and therefore doesn't fit the description. Yes, there is evil in the world, and it is a problem.

Are you making a moral judgement when you suggest asking questions, “suggests a lack of moral integrity.”? T|he topic question is, “IS EVIL ONLY A PROBLEM FOR THEISTS?” Does this suggest a lack of moral integrity to you! If yes, as you seem to be saying, what do you base this on?

It is fun to read your argument with a self created straw man. Did you kick his Christian butt. However, you created a cartoon and it is off topic. I don’t think you get the question

You finally said, “Yes, there is evil in the world, and it is a problem.” For non theists? Is it a problem for your world view and how?

[N.T.M.]

Are you making a moral judgement when you suggest asking questions, “suggests a lack of moral integrity.”? T|he topic question is, “IS EVIL ONLY A PROBLEM FOR THEISTS?” Does this suggest a lack of moral integrity to you! If yes, as you seem to be saying, what do you base this on?

As I already explained, it's based on an axiom, the axiom that value can only be derived from choice.

An implication is that you need God to motivate moral acts, in which case the acts' value falls with the loss of choice. Let me be more explicit: Value is derived from choice, and in the absence of choice, no value can exist.

This is value specifically as it applies to morality, which, again, rests on axiomatic premises. So yes, I was making a moral judgement, and I presented my reasoning very clearly.

You finally said, “Yes, there is evil in the world, and it is a problem.” For non theists? Is it a problem for your world view and how?

This implies that evil is a dependent issue, meaning that it's dependent upon perception, which in turn implies that there is no such thing as absolute evil. I suppose you could consider this to be a tenet of moral relativism, but I'm digressing a bit. In short, I find it very odd that you'd ask the question. Obviously, having just employed axioms, I think that evil is absolute, in which case there is no contingency.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.: This implies that evil is a dependent issue, meaning that it's dependent upon perception, which in turn implies that there is no such thing as absolute evil. I suppose you could consider this to be a tenet of moral relativism, but I'm digressing a bit. In short, I find it very odd that you'd ask the question. Obviously, having just employed axioms, I think that evil is absolute, in which case there is no contingency.

OK I get it. Evil is also a problem for you. Choice js the source of evil? It is how you look at it, given your axiom. I find it odd that evil for you, is both absolute and non-absolute depending on your point of view but I think I understand how you got to that point..

Edited by shadowhawk, 18 October 2013 - 11:16 PM.

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M.: This implies that evil is a dependent issue, meaning that it's dependent upon perception, which in turn implies that there is no such thing as absolute evil. I suppose you could consider this to be a tenet of moral relativism, but I'm digressing a bit. In short, I find it very odd that you'd ask the question. Obviously, having just employed axioms, I think that evil is absolute, in which case there is no contingency.

OK I get it. Evil is also a problem for you. Choice js the source of evil? It is how you look at it, given your axiom. I find it odd that evil for you, is both absolute and non-absolute depending on your point of view but I think I understand how you got to that point..

Just absolute. If something were both absolutely and non-absolute it'd have to be, by definition, non-absolute because it encompasses two conflicting interpretations. Similarly, if you multiply a positive number by a negative number, you get a negative number, not a "half-positive" number.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.: This implies that evil is a dependent issue, meaning that it's dependent upon perception, which in turn implies that there is no such thing as absolute evil. I suppose you could consider this to be a tenet of moral relativism, but I'm digressing a bit. In short, I find it very odd that you'd ask the question. Obviously, having just employed axioms, I think that evil is absolute, in which case there is no contingency.

OK I get it. Evil is also a problem for you. Choice js the source of evil? It is how you look at it, given your axiom. I find it odd that evil for you, is both absolute and non-absolute depending on your point of view but I think I understand how you got to that point..

Just absolute. If something were both absolutely and non-absolute it'd have to be, by definition, non-absolute because it encompasses two conflicting interpretations. Similarly, if you multiply a positive number by a negative number, you get a negative number, not a "half-positive" number.

I think you are misapplying math here.

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M.: This implies that evil is a dependent issue, meaning that it's dependent upon perception, which in turn implies that there is no such thing as absolute evil. I suppose you could consider this to be a tenet of moral relativism, but I'm digressing a bit. In short, I find it very odd that you'd ask the question. Obviously, having just employed axioms, I think that evil is absolute, in which case there is no contingency.

OK I get it. Evil is also a problem for you. Choice js the source of evil? It is how you look at it, given your axiom. I find it odd that evil for you, is both absolute and non-absolute depending on your point of view but I think I understand how you got to that point..

Just absolute. If something were both absolutely and non-absolute it'd have to be, by definition, non-absolute because it encompasses two conflicting interpretations. Similarly, if you multiply a positive number by a negative number, you get a negative number, not a "half-positive" number.

I think you are misapplying math here.

Not at all, but it's not really a mathematical parallel that I'm drawing now, is it? It's much more general than that. My point was that when presented with two points people often intuitively assume that the mean of the two points must be correct, but clearly this is false.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.: This implies that evil is a dependent issue, meaning that it's dependent upon perception, which in turn implies that there is no such thing as absolute evil. I suppose you could consider this to be a tenet of moral relativism, but I'm digressing a bit. In short, I find it very odd that you'd ask the question. Obviously, having just employed axioms, I think that evil is absolute, in which case there is no contingency.

OK I get it. Evil is also a problem for you. Choice js the source of evil? It is how you look at it, given your axiom. I find it odd that evil for you, is both absolute and non-absolute depending on your point of view but I think I understand how you got to that point..

Just absolute. If something were both absolutely and non-absolute it'd have to be, by definition, non-absolute because it encompasses two conflicting interpretations. Similarly, if you multiply a positive number by a negative number, you get a negative number, not a "half-positive" number.

I think you are misapplying math here.

Not at all, but it's not really a mathematical parallel that I'm drawing now, is it? It's much more general than that. My point was that when presented with two points people often intuitively assume that the mean of the two points must be correct, but clearly this is false.

So where do you find evil?

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M.: This implies that evil is a dependent issue, meaning that it's dependent upon perception, which in turn implies that there is no such thing as absolute evil. I suppose you could consider this to be a tenet of moral relativism, but I'm digressing a bit. In short, I find it very odd that you'd ask the question. Obviously, having just employed axioms, I think that evil is absolute, in which case there is no contingency.

OK I get it. Evil is also a problem for you. Choice js the source of evil? It is how you look at it, given your axiom. I find it odd that evil for you, is both absolute and non-absolute depending on your point of view but I think I understand how you got to that point..

Just absolute. If something were both absolutely and non-absolute it'd have to be, by definition, non-absolute because it encompasses two conflicting interpretations. Similarly, if you multiply a positive number by a negative number, you get a negative number, not a "half-positive" number.

I think you are misapplying math here.

Not at all, but it's not really a mathematical parallel that I'm drawing now, is it? It's much more general than that. My point was that when presented with two points people often intuitively assume that the mean of the two points must be correct, but clearly this is false.

So where do you find evil?

I suppose I would contrast it with respect to universal morality. Any reasonable person, for example, would consider murder without provocation to be an evil act. I suppose it would make sense to define a given evil act as a point lying on a spectrum where the spectral ends are opposites reflecting a single axiom, such as (as Sam Harris has said), "The best possible world is better than the worst possible world." This, of course, implies some definitional links to evil as it relates to this axiom and things have the potential to get very complicated very quickly, but you get the idea. Ultimately, everything stems from axioms, and although you may be able to assign a given act to a certain spectrum, it's usually impossible to prove where it lies exactly. This has some implications regarding absolutism, too, but I'll stop here.

[sthira]

[So where do you find evil?

You may find many examples of God's evil in the bible. For example:

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4)

[N.T.M.]

[So where do you find evil?

You may find many examples of God's evil in the bible. For example:

"When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are about to enter and occupy, he will clear away many nations ahead of you: the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. These seven nations are all more powerful than you. When the LORD your God hands these nations over to you and you conquer them, you must completely destroy them. Make no treaties with them and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them, and don't let your daughters and sons marry their sons and daughters. They will lead your young people away from me to worship other gods. Then the anger of the LORD will burn against you, and he will destroy you. (Deuteronomy 7:1-4)

I find it hard to reconcile the Christian God with any notion of benevolence.

[sthira]

I find it hard to reconcile the Christian God with any notion of benevolence.

Maybe it's easier to reconcile the Christian God with the notion of confusion rather than benevolence. Their god wants us flabbergasted. The bible is just ancient lit, but this idea from it I like:

"Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Romans 13:8-10

[N.T.M.]

I find it hard to reconcile the Christian God with any notion of benevolence.

Maybe it's easier to reconcile the Christian God with the notion of confusion rather than benevolence. Their god wants us flabbergasted. The bible is just ancient lit, but this idea from it I like:

"Owe no man anything, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law." Romans 13:8-10

Yes, it does have a lot of good parts, too. You just have to be very selective.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.: This implies that evil is a dependent issue, meaning that it's dependent upon perception, which in turn implies that there is no such thing as absolute evil. I suppose you could consider this to be a tenet of moral relativism, but I'm digressing a bit. In short, I find it very odd that you'd ask the question. Obviously, having just employed axioms, I think that evil is absolute, in which case there is no contingency.

OK I get it. Evil is also a problem for you. Choice js the source of evil? It is how you look at it, given your axiom. I find it odd that evil for you, is both absolute and non-absolute depending on your point of view but I think I understand how you got to that point..

Just absolute. If something were both absolutely and non-absolute it'd have to be, by definition, non-absolute because it encompasses two conflicting interpretations. Similarly, if you multiply a positive number by a negative number, you get a negative number, not a "half-positive" number.

I think you are misapplying math here.

Not at all, but it's not really a mathematical parallel that I'm drawing now, is it? It's much more general than that. My point was that when presented with two points people often intuitively assume that the mean of the two points must be correct, but clearly this is false.

So where do you find evil?

I suppose I would contrast it with respect to universal morality. Any reasonable person, for example, would consider murder without provocation to be an evil act. I suppose it would make sense to define a given evil act as a point lying on a spectrum where the spectral ends are opposites reflecting a single axiom, such as (as Sam Harris has said), "The best possible world is better than the worst possible world." This, of course, implies some definitional links to evil as it relates to this axiom and things have the potential to get very complicated very quickly, but you get the idea. Ultimately, everything stems from axioms, and although you may be able to assign a given act to a certain spectrum, it's usually impossible to prove where it lies exactly. This has some implications regarding absolutism, too, but I'll stop here.

I appreciate that you are rationally staying on topic instead of attempting to, as so many atheists do, to change the subject and attack theists instead. I noticed examples of this in later posts here. I will address this topic again when I have time.

Do you think evil is more than a definition on a scale? What is murder as opposed to killing and isn’t some killing justified?

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M.: This implies that evil is a dependent issue, meaning that it's dependent upon perception, which in turn implies that there is no such thing as absolute evil. I suppose you could consider this to be a tenet of moral relativism, but I'm digressing a bit. In short, I find it very odd that you'd ask the question. Obviously, having just employed axioms, I think that evil is absolute, in which case there is no contingency.

OK I get it. Evil is also a problem for you. Choice js the source of evil? It is how you look at it, given your axiom. I find it odd that evil for you, is both absolute and non-absolute depending on your point of view but I think I understand how you got to that point..

Just absolute. If something were both absolutely and non-absolute it'd have to be, by definition, non-absolute because it encompasses two conflicting interpretations. Similarly, if you multiply a positive number by a negative number, you get a negative number, not a "half-positive" number.

I think you are misapplying math here.

Not at all, but it's not really a mathematical parallel that I'm drawing now, is it? It's much more general than that. My point was that when presented with two points people often intuitively assume that the mean of the two points must be correct, but clearly this is false.

So where do you find evil?

I suppose I would contrast it with respect to universal morality. Any reasonable person, for example, would consider murder without provocation to be an evil act. I suppose it would make sense to define a given evil act as a point lying on a spectrum where the spectral ends are opposites reflecting a single axiom, such as (as Sam Harris has said), "The best possible world is better than the worst possible world." This, of course, implies some definitional links to evil as it relates to this axiom and things have the potential to get very complicated very quickly, but you get the idea. Ultimately, everything stems from axioms, and although you may be able to assign a given act to a certain spectrum, it's usually impossible to prove where it lies exactly. This has some implications regarding absolutism, too, but I'll stop here.

I appreciate that you are rationally staying on topic instead of attempting to, as so many atheists do, to change the subject and attack theists instead. I noticed examples of this in later posts here. I will address this topic again when I have time.

Do you think evil is more than a definition on a scale? What is murder as opposed to killing and isn’t some killing justified?

It seems logical to me that evil would have to be defined as a point on a spectrum where, as I said before, the ends are defined by an axiom (To answer your question: In a strict sense, no). You may be able to assign a half of the spectrum to a given point (which half you think it occupies), but it's nearly impossible to prove anything more specific. It's just one of the consequences of not having any absolutes.

And to answer your other question, acts of murder are technically a subset of the larger set, killing; the former is more specific. And yes, some killing is certainly justified, which is why I included the provision without provocation in my original post.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M. t seems logical to me that evil would have to be defined as a point on a spectrum where, as I said before, the ends are defined by an axiom (To answer your question: In a strict sense, no). You may be able to assign a half of the spectrum to a given point (which half you think it occupies), but it's nearly impossible to prove anything more specific. It's just one of the consequences of not having any absolutes.

And to answer your other question, acts of murder are technically a subset of the larger set, killing; the former is more specific. And yes, some killing is certainly justified, which is why I included the provision without provocation in my original post.

Some killing is justified if it is "provoked?" What does it take to provoke a justified killing?

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M. t seems logical to me that evil would have to be defined as a point on a spectrum where, as I said before, the ends are defined by an axiom (To answer your question: In a strict sense, no). You may be able to assign a half of the spectrum to a given point (which half you think it occupies), but it's nearly impossible to prove anything more specific. It's just one of the consequences of not having any absolutes.

And to answer your other question, acts of murder are technically a subset of the larger set, killing; the former is more specific. And yes, some killing is certainly justified, which is why I included the provision without provocation in my original post.

Some killing is justified if it is "provoked?" What does it take to provoke a justified killing?

You're wandering into the realm of the morally gray, good sir. As I said in my last post, although you may be able to assign a spectral half, it's hard to prove anything beyond that. To answer your question specifically, then, I'd have to venture with nothing more than my opinion, which even I place little value on (I define an opinion as something that's not objective or not predicated on facts, which would clearly be the case here.).

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M. : You're wandering into the realm of the morally gray, good sir. As I said in my last post, although you may be able to assign a spectral half, it's hard to prove anything beyond that. To answer your question specifically, then, I'd have to venture with nothing more than my opinion, which even I place little value on (I define an opinion as something that's not objective or not predicated on facts, which would clearly be the case here.).

Interesting, would you say this is where you have difficulty with value and ethical judgements?

[DukeNukem]

Here's a link to a list of God's evils. This God guy is truly a nutcase, a cold-hearted murderer that sets the bar higher than any human ever could.

http://rationalwiki...._killing_people

When you cruelly kill 42 children just for making fun of a bald guy, then you know you are in need of serious professional help. And people actually pray to this loon!

[shadowhawk]

Here's a link to a list of God's evils. This God guy is truly a nutcase, a cold-hearted murderer that sets the bar higher than any human ever could.

http://rationalwiki...._killing_people

When you cruelly kill 42 children just for making fun of a bald guy, then you know you are in need of serious professional help. And people actually pray to this loon!

OFF TOPIC. ANSWERED HERE IF INTERESTED.
http://www.longecity...es/#entry619652

Edited by shadowhawk, 24 October 2013 - 08:34 PM.

[N.T.M.]

N.T.M. : You're wandering into the realm of the morally gray, good sir. As I said in my last post, although you may be able to assign a spectral half, it's hard to prove anything beyond that. To answer your question specifically, then, I'd have to venture with nothing more than my opinion, which even I place little value on (I define an opinion as something that's not objective or not predicated on facts, which would clearly be the case here.).

Interesting, would you say this is where you have difficulty with value and ethical judgements?

Of course. I can't be confident in asserting something that's categorically uncertain.