How do you define evil?

I think most of us hate evil. We oppose torture, cruelty, the causing of suffering, injustice. But I have been wondering about how different people define "evil."

I define evil as rebellion against God. I believe that God's will is moral. Hence, going against the will of God is by definition immoral.

I wonder how others define evil -- particularly those who have no belief in God. Is evil defined with reference to only what the individual actor believes is right? If so, it would seem to be an extremely relative and malleable concept that has no objective meaning.

Is an act "evil" if it will cause more suffering than not performing the act? Is an act "good" if it will cause more human pleasure than not performing the act? I don't think so. By this logic, unspeakable crimes and injustices to the innocent could be classified as "good" and noble sacrifices to save the innocent could be classified as "evil."

For those with no belief in God, how do you order your lives? How do you decide whether a particular act is moral or not? Are your decisions based solely on your subjective impulses, or is there any objective standard by which you live your lives? If you are ever unsure, how do you resolve the uncertainty? I would be interested in the perspectives of believers of various stripes as well as nonbeleivers on this issue.

Peace.

by god in the bible are situational and biased in the extreme.

i much perfer etics to morals ANY day of the week.

morals represent too absolute a vision.

is behavior that intentionally harms another person, whether mentally or physically.

I guess that is pretty basic.

I appreciate your opinion (I have been lurking on this site for some time and I have a lot of respect for your views, as expressed in your many thoughtful posts).

However, I disagree with this definition.

It seems to me that there are many scenarios in which intentionally harming another person is not evil, but good.

For example, when using force to defend an innocent person who is being physically attacked by a criminal. Or how about boxing? Are all boxers "evil" people, because they intentionally harm each other?

Although I think I know what you mean, I think that your definition of evil cannot be correct.

but you sure got me. A doctor intentionally "harms" a person to make him/her well again. I "harm" a child by reprimanding him/her but in order to train or educate.

So I shall modify. I think evil is intentionally harming another person, physically or mentally, with no regard for ultimate outcome.

Now, in some ways that is just semantics because in life I recognize evil as simply the opposite of goodness. I have been evil at times in my life. There have been times when I should have taken the high road and either said nothing or said something supportive but have snapped or barked discouraging words. I think it is also evil to talk negatively behind someone's back and I have surely done that.

As a matter of fact, it is the presence of evil in life (real, deep evil like the killing fields, Columbine, etc.) and the presence of good in life (humans helping others) that convinces me of a higher power. It's like puzzle pieces in a system.. too well fit to have been random.

Dare I say...INTELLIGENT DESIGN? hahahah stepping into flamesuit.

Yes, I agree. I have felt the real presence of evil and the real presence of good many times in my life.

I have succumbed to temptation and I have overcome temptation. From my own personal experience, I strongly disagree with those who hold that evil does not exist, or that it is just a relative term or that it is determined entirely by one's society.

Some may laugh at this, but I believe there is a real entity known as Satan, who is the enemy of God, and his goal is to tempt humans to do evil. To achieve this goal, he spreads lies and tries to trick people into believing that there is no God, or that God is unjust, or that God does not care about people. I believe that many have unfortunately fallen for these lies.

Best wishes to you and yours this Christmas, TallahasseeGrannie!:hi:

:evilgrin:

To "believe there is a real entity known as Satan" is to believe in another god.

I certainly do not regard Satan as a god. I do regard Satan as an entity far more powerful than I. It's like the passage from the old hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God."

For still our ancient foe
Doth seek to work us woe;
His craft and power are great;
And, armed with cruel hate,
On earth is not his equal.


I believe that Satan is a powerful spirit whose jealous and wicked goal is to employ deception and temptation to prevent as many human souls as possible from receiving salvation.

However, Satan is not a "god." Satan is a creature. Creatures cannot be gods.

Just my view of it.

Away up high in the Sierry Petes,
Where the yeller pines grows tall,
Ole Sandy Bob an' Buster Jig,
Had a rodeer camp last fall.

Oh, they taken their hosses and runnin' irons
And mabbe a dawg or two,
An' they 'lowed they'd brand all the long-yered calves,
That come within their view.

And any old doggie that flapped long yeres,
An' didn't bush up by day,
Got his long yeres whittled an' his old hide scorched,
In a most artistic way.

Now one fine day ole Sandy Bob,
He throwed his seago down,
"I'm sick of this cow-pyrography,
And I 'lows I'm a-goin' to town."

So they saddles up an' hits 'em a lope,
Fer it warnt no sight of a ride,
And them was the days when a Buckeroo
Could ile up his inside.

Oh, they starts her in at the Kaintucky Bar,
At the head of Whisky Row,
And they winds up down by the Depot House,
Some forty drinks below.

They then sets up and turns around,
And goes her the other way,
An' to tell you the Gawd-forsaken truth,
Them boys got stewed that day.

As they was a-ridin' back to camp,
A-packin' a pretty good load,
Who should they meet but the Devil himself,
A-prancin' down the road.

Sez he, "You ornery cowboy skunks,
You'd better hunt yer holes,
Fer I've come up from Hell's Rim Rock,
To gather in yer souls."

Sez Sandy Bob, "Old Devil be damned,
We boys is kinda tight,
But you ain't a-goin' to gather no cowboy souls,
'Thout you has some kind of a fight."

So Sandy Bob punched a hole in his rope,
And he swang her straight and true,
He lapped it on to the Devil's horns,
An' he taken his dallies too.

Now Buster jig was a riata man,
With his gut-line coiled up neat,
So he shaken her out an' he built him a loop,
An' he lassed the Devil's hind feet.

Oh, they stretched him out an' they tailed him down,
While the irons was a-gettin hot,
They cropped and swaller-forked his yeres,
Then they branded him up a lot.

They pruned him up with a de-hornin' saw,
An' they knotted his tail fer a joke,
They then rid off and left him there,
Necked to a Black-Jack oak.

If you're ever up high in the Sierry Petes,
An' you hear one Hell of a wail,
You'll know it's that Devil a-bellerin' around,
About them knots in his tail.


by Gail I. Gardner
Prescott, Arizona

http://dizzy.library.arizona.edu/swetc/jah/katielee_jah.html#note1

LOL! That there's some great song lyrics. I wish I could hear it performed. What a mental image! The Devil team-roped and tied!

Well, it's a good song, but it sure doesn't reflect what I believe about the relative power of Satan versus two guys. Kind of how I like "The Devil Went Down to Georgia," but it sure doesn't agree with my theology, either.



Well, who am I to tell God what to do? That's God's business, and He will get around to squashing Satan at the appropriate time as He chooses it. According to Revelations, it is going to happen, but not until after the battle of Armageddon.

I suppose that until that time, God allows Satan to hang around, because that way He can see whether we choose to follow God or Satan. We get to choose.

the more souls will be lost. Guaranteed.

That's sadistic. If God eliminated Satan right now, then EVERYONE from this point forward could go to heaven. But no, he's willing to send lots of people to eternal torment because it's all part of a great plan.

On that, we agree 100%.

:sarcasm:

:eyes:

Your premises do not reflect my beliefs.

1. If Satan were destroyed today, does that mean that everyone from this point forward would go to Heaven? I don't think so. That's certainly not what the Bible says. The Bible says exactly how it is all going to happen, in Revelations. It's quite detailed, and it certainly does not say that everyone will make it into Heaven.

2. As I understand it, it is not that God is "willing to send lots of people to eternal torment." God wants every human to love Him and to come to Him. But he gives us each a choice. Unfortunately, lots of people will condemn themselves to the pit.

you are going to a pit someplace.

Why do you think that?

It's much worse coming from someone who actually believes we're going to hell because we don't believe in their deity, IMNSHO.

You're pretty unfuckingbelievable, you know that?

What a piece of work.

I am not sure what has provoked this angry reaction. As I have said, my belief is that God loves every human being and wants everyone to choose to be with Him.

Neither I nor the God I worship harbors any ill will toward you or toward InaneAnanity. My reference to the pit was in the context of trotsky saying that God has chosen to send "lots of people" to "eternal torment." I was trying to explain that I disagree with that premise, because I don't believe that it is God who sends people to eternal torment. I believe that Hell is separation from God, and that people sometimes, unfortunately, choose that separation, of their own free will. In that sense, it is not God that condemns people; it is that people condemn themselves of their own volition to separation from God - which I believe to be a pit of despair.

By the way, I readily agree that if anyone deserves eternal damnation, I do. I just thought that InaneAnanity's comment was harsh in the context of an otherwise friendly discussion.

I respect your beliefs, and understand that there are many like you who do not have the same religious beliefs that I do. I have no problem with that.

I am sure that there are many other things that we could agree on. In any event, I am sorry to have offended you with my reply to trotsky's post.

:toast: Peace.

Reminds me of an old policeman's complaint that some fellow had struck him on the fist with his jaw....

That always convinces me of one's good intentions.:eyes:

A passive/aggressive sock puppet, how original.

I have more respect for the fundies who at least have the stones to stand behind their condemnation of atheists instead of wrapping it up in a poorly camouflaged sentiment of unity.

You're like one of those nasty yappy little kick-me dogs who snaps at the heels of the big dogs until they turn on them, at which point they pee all over themselves, yip in fear and rollover in submission to show that they didn't really mean to piss them off.

Yip yip yip!

You seem to have chosen to live your life with hate in your heart. Most people would tell you that isn't healthy.

Someday you will realize that your insults reflect poorly on you, not on the person that you are attempting to insult.

In any event, I will not be taunted into a pissing contest. You may determine your own life's direction, and I will do the same. Have a wonderful day!

"You'll pay one day, when you're burning in hell and I'm in heaven laughing at you!"

And you wonder why we find your religion (or at least your take on it) disgusting.

Nice try but hardly original-just like the patented and overused "Whut - evah!" (how is Sifl, by the way?)

Sorry, I've got zero tolerance for passive/aggressive bullshit.

Like I said, I have more respect for the fundies.

Save your backhanded insults and frippery for someone else.

As far as insults go, calling them as I see them doesn't qualify.

And since several other atheists have also commented on your posts, I'm quite certain my observations are dead on.



Here's where I would use the toast smilie and faux good wishes if I was being dishonest about my intentions.







Not there, are they?

"God doesn't send people to hell, they CHOOSE to be apart from him."

Who created hell?

Who made the rules?

A lot of Christians like you seem to want it both ways - God is the creator of everything, full of eternal love, etc., etc. but then when it comes to hell, all of a sudden it's out of God's hands, you chose, yada yada.

Personally I find the mere idea that any finite human being could ever deserve eternal punishment to be morally repulsive, no matter whether they are sent there or choose to go there.

But that's just me, an evil atheist who's going to burn in hell because I chose to reject your god's "wonderful" gift.

I believe it, I trust in it with all my heart.

Why is it harsh?? Believers say it to me all the time. I sure as hell can say it back to them.

Isn't that what a grave is? A pit?

Interesting.

Well, thanks for your response. At least now I know your mind is tightly closed and I don't need to waste any more time.
:hi:

Your view seems to be that anyone who is a believer is closed-minded. I understand that viewpoint, but can you see that, to a believer, your mind might appear to be closed?

I guess it all depends on your perspective.

Anyway, I wish you the best.

But a believer who thinks that the bible is to be taken literally. Yes, they are closed-minded.

Since you apparently regard yourself as open-minded (in contradistinction to the closed-minded believer in the Bible), I wonder if you would explain:

To what possibilities is your mind open, religiously speaking? Do you regard it as possible that the Christian belief may turn out to be correct? Or is your mind closed to that possibility?

I am always open to any idea, provided there is sufficient evidence to back it up.

Most atheists are skeptics when it comes to religion.

You have to believe that at least some aspects of the Bible are allegorical if you consider scientific and archaeological evidence to be valid at all. If you refuse to believe evidence when it contradicts your previously held beliefs, then you are closed-minded.

I always think of Jesus up there on the mountain with the devil...

Satan's saying, "All these glorious kingdoms of the world can be yours...

Jesus raises his hand and cuts Satan off. He looks at satan like he's some distasteful bug, and says, "Well, duh!"

That's not exactly how Matthew 4.1-11 goes, but maybe Matthew thought he had to explain things to his readers.

Way back when I was in college I lived in a pretty wild college town, and one of the many jobs I took was delivering pizzas.

One night I rang the doorbell of this apartment. The door opened, and clouds of marijuana smoke came billowing out, and standing in front of me was this gorgeous woman wearing a sheer blue and deeply open blouse. But I'm not noticing the blouse so much as what's underneath. The apartment is full of gorgeous women, and they are all very stoned and very drunk.

"Ummm, the woman says, we don't have enough money, but..." and she reaches down seductively... and I'm thinking... Well actually I'm not thinking, not upstairs anyways, and it's a miracle I didn't drop the pizzas when she touched me.

Noticing my terror and confusion, one of the other women in the apartment flashes me (okay, I only saw her bra) and then they all start hooting and laughing at me.

"But I still have pizzas to deliver," I squeak like a little trapped animal.

"It won't take long," the young woman says.

In a panic I look around the room for someone, anyone, to save me. I'm suffering complete and terrible brain freeze.

"Um, yes, it will," I squeak.

So they all start laughing and hooting even more, and then one of the women comes over to me, hands me money for the pizzas, and I leave that place as quickly as I can, my virginity still intact.

But was satan there?

I don't think so.

The only time I've ever been really troubled enough to think about satan is when the military offered me a job. I've got health problems that exclude me from the normal soldiering or sailoring, but I do have skills the military found interesting. They were all ready to set me up in a very nice "civilian" position, but I said no, partly in deference to my family's historical pacifism, and partly because it felt like some sort of temptation. This was probably a good choice, not because I think the military is inherently evil, but there are some pathways there that lead to working for people like Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld, and then you can never wash that smell of brimstone out of your hair or clothes.

I've always had a great deal of respect for Jimmy Carter. I'm pretty sure he was screwed over by the overtly satanist branch of our government, but that's another story. Right now I'm thinking about his infamous Playboy interview of November, 1976.



I don't see a lot of satan there either. Lord knows I wanted to be the pizza guy ravished by a roomful of gourgeous women. And now that I think of it, it would be damnedly cruel to confess these details to a Priest who wasn't gay, but I just can't see how satan is involved in these sorts of events. I do not believe the devil was out there throwing hookers into Jimmy Swaggart's lap either.

I do think organized religion sometimes uses our fear of satan against us, much as George W. Bush is using our fear of "terrorists" against us. If we are led to believe satan is hiding in every corner, in every little temptation, than perhaps we don't notice the greater deceptions around us.

Seriously, I gotta start delivering pizzas....

his adventures in the Castle Anthrax, and how he was saved from almost certain temptation. :D


I agree with you on Satan not being present in sexual temptation, but being present in hatred and in temptations towards violence, sort of like the dark side of the Force. I don't think of Satan as an actual entity, more as a metaphor. Of course I'm not really a theist in the conventional sense of the word, and definitely not a Christian.

("I bet you're gay."

"No, I'm not.")

Why is believing in Satan believing in another god?

Well, if you define "god" as any being more powerful then mankind (or at least more metaphyscial) then, sure he's a god.

God states that you should have no other gods before him. He is the one above all. So, maybe there are other beings of wonderous power out in the universe; doesn't mean we should worship them, or that knowing that they exist lessens the idea that God is God.

Satan is a fallen angel, a being created by God, therefore less then God.

Let me explain:

A man is injured in a car crash, and has to spend months in a hospital, leaving his family without his income. How evil.

But... He had long verbally abused his wife and made her feel less than human. She's gone out and gotten a job, the first step to regaining her self worth. How good.

But... Her children are now latch key kids, and they're starting to run into trouble with the law. How evil.

But... Abuse in a family hurts everyone, and those kids getting into troulbe have just been gotten into family therapy. How good.

And the list can go on and on and on. The present administration consider themselves to be the greatest good imaginable for liberating a country from what we all recognize to be a bad guy, Saddam Hussein. Somehow, I doubt those Iraqis whose homes were destroyed and families killed would agree with that assessment.

Here\'s my attempt:

Evil: Any thing/action that hurts, destroys, causes pain, maliciously controls or denigrates something else
Good: The opposite :7

The real bitch of the matter is that anything is both good and evil at the same time, depending on who or what you are. So as far as people go, your going to apply a weighted scale, with things more like you being more likely to be affected by evil in ones own perceptions than things less like you.

I appreciate the attempt, but I cannot agree with your definition.

Anything that hurts or causes pain? How about giving your child an immunization shot?

The shot causes pain, which is evil. But the good received in the shot far outweighs the evil of the pain, so the shot for people comes out on the whole good. However, imagine 2 shots, one that is painful, and one that is not. Clearly given the choice, to administer the painful shot would be a little evil. The painful shot is more evil. The trick of my definition is that everything general does contain some good and evil. Its just that, on the whole, for the perceiver, where does the balance lie? Something can be seemingly good, yet within it contain a dose of evil.

Imagine that same shot from the perspective of the disease being vaccinated. Though that disease doesn't think or perceive, it does exist, and the vaccination acts as a form of genocide to it. To the disease, the shot is pure evil. However, don't think I'm arguing to get rid of vaccinations! Being a person, I'm for what's good for people, people being more like me than diseases!

Well, you succeeded in making me laugh out loud.



Very thought-provoking also. Thanks.

"I define evil as rebellion against God. I believe that God's will is moral. Hence, going against the will of God is by definition immoral."

Is God capable of conceiving of the idea of God deliberately doing evil? Doesn't God choose to avoid doing evil? If whatever God chose to do were automatically not evil, no matter what God chose to do, then what would be the significance of the statement "God is not evil"?

When someone who does not actually believe in God says "God is subtle but not malicious", can you understand what is meant?

"I wonder how others define evil -- particularly those who have no belief in God. Is evil defined with reference to only what the individual actor believes is right? If so, it would seem to be an extremely relative and malleable concept that has no objective meaning."

In other words, to rely upon the concept "evil" is to rely upon some system of ethics. I agree. However, in this thread, you have not yet described a system of ethics. You have merely used the word "God."

evil is like a forest fire, it consumes everything and gives back nothing, it can be the
destruction of a human life, of a free society or of a community or of a nation. Evil sucks
out all the good and replaces with baseness, where once a society flourished you have greedy
narcissicists scooping out the last of the money, power, oil for their bulging purses. It has no respect for innocence, for goodness, for children, for the elderly, for god, for religion for anything. It will use any means to achieve its ends. It contains no truth and
will spout lies like truth. It cannot stand truth, science or objectivity. It feeds on
envy, hate, fear, greed and ignorance. It has not friends only jackals that follow for their own feeding.

Qualification: It's more the motivation that the actual act.

I've known a man who was hellbent on destroying his wife and her family any way he could. I can't and won't list what he did but his malevolence took my breath away. (He wanted to essentially steal the property that belonged to his wife's parents in order to both get it for himself and to prevent her and her siblings from receiving a valuable inheritance. Plus he really HATED her family.) His campaign to injure these people is my best example of evil incarnate.

...is an English language term describing one of the polar opposites of moral duality while existing in the field of time and space.

Belief in God, per se, seems to have nothing to do with moral values/definitions. There are those that believe in God who have perpetrated what most would define as both good and evil. So then, God seems to not be a constant in the structure of morality.

..there is no evil.

Can you elaborate?

If there is no such thing as evil, I guess the corrolary is that there is no good, either (since evil is the opposite of good).

If there is no good and no evil, how do you decide what to do? If you ponder taking an action (for example, cheating a business partner), how do you determine whether to take that action or not? Is it only a calculus of the likelihood of getting caught, and the personal consequences to yourself? If your decision involves taking into account the effect of your actions on others, how do you decide what is a favorable effect and what is an unfavorable effect, without reference to the concepts of good and evil?

There is no evil, and there is no ultimate good, either. Although the word "good" isn't the opposite of the word "evil"; there really is no opposite to the word "evil." The word "good", as commonly used, is the opposite of the word "bad."

As to your second paragraph, that is a common misconception among religious people, regarding atheists. Many of you guys seem to think that without religion, people can't have morals. That simply isn't the case.

Morals are derived from society. We are raised in a society, and taught right and wrong, but that right and wrong ian't an ultimate right and wrong; it only pertains to our particular society. So, you can act according to your morals without there being "good and "evil"; just understand that those morals are derived from your socialization, and not religion.

I don't think that. But I do think that without religious beliefs, your morals would have to be based on something transitory and malleable, such as "society's values."



This seems to be a logical response, but its implications take us to a place that I am not so sure most people would like to go.

In the 1960s in the South, the society's morals dictated that Blacks and Whites must have separate drinking fountains. So, by your definition (that morality is defined by what the society teaches is right), racial segregation of water fountains was moral and "good." Yet a few short decades later, the society in the South regards racial segregation of water fountains as "bad." Did racial segregation of water fountains really change from good to bad in the last 40 years? I don't think so. I think it was always bad, and that it was bad regardless of what the society's morals dictated.

In the Aztec society, the society's morals included killing innocent teenage girls atop a pyramid by cutting out their hearts with an obsidian knife. In some societies in Africa today, the society's morals dictate that women be sexually mutilated (so-called "female circumcision"). By your definition of morality, it would seem that those actions are moral and good, because they were approved by the contemporary local society.

I just do not see it that way at all. I believe that there is an OBJECTIVE morality. Some actions are GOOD and some are EVIL, and it is not dependent on what society at the time happens to regard as acceptable.

Religious hearsay?

...that there was no good?? I'm pretty sure I did.

I understand that most people don't want to go, with their mind, into a place where there is no good and evil, or ultimate right and wrong. It is easier to live with a mindset where things are clear like that, but that doesn't make it reality.

You are correct, in the 1960s, it was a crime for a black person to drink at a white drinking fountain. That doesn't make it a "good" thing, because there are no "good" things, but it was law at the time. You are only looking at it as morally wrong because you now live in a society where it is outlawed, and your morals are defined by today's world.

I thought that you meant that there was no "ULTIMATE good" but that what is REGARDED as "good" or "evil" is governed entirely by the morals of the society in which the act occurs. From that, I was saying that segregated drinking fountains in 1960s Alabama would have to be REGARDED as good, because they were approved by the local society at the time.

I, of course, disagree, and hold that having racially segregated drinking fountains is OBJECTIVELY evil, regardless of what the society teaches.

You read me right then. At the time, in the 1960s south, segregated drinking fountains were regarded as "good". Thats not an opinion, that's objective fact.

"In some societies in Africa today, the society's morals dictate that women be sexually mutilated (so-called "female circumcision")"

Most cultures view male circumcision as mutilation, but we do it all the time.

Everything is relative.

If you disagree, see the Simpleton in charge at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

I think he needs more help scaring the sheep.

Abu Ghraib is evil, what we did there to innocent women and children was evil, the fact that
we debate about superfical things like Merry or Happy Christmas/Holidays does not take away
from what we have done. Much evil has been done in our name during the last 5 years.

...is not evil to me.

It's a matter of perception.

Principles of the
Nuremberg Tribunal, 1950

War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or illtreatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm

I don't, however, think people, religions and countries are "evil".

That's no different than saying "The devil made me do it".

I don't let anyone off that easy.

We can't go on, ignoring what has been going on. We have a responsibility to this country
and to the world community.

:shrug:

I oppose black and white thinking.

Do I applaud fundies bashing people over saying Happy Holidays, no. But there has been many
evil acts pepertrated in the last 5 years. We have to acknowledge our mistakes and try
to correct our march towards global war and bestiality. Do I think we should nuke Iran, NO, NO and NO. Do I think that we should abandon the gulf coast on some sort of social
darwinism, ownership society phony baloney, No. Do I think that we should continue to torture people that we have herded into prisons with no warrants, No.

I don't think we disagree.

I regret that he never had to sit in a world court, listening to his crimes. With his suicide, he was demonized, people never had to deal with Hitler the leader that mislead.

There has been so much hair splitting in the last 5 years and it has always been to defend an illegal act. I didn't lie when I said that I never said Valerie Plame's name. I said
the wife of Joseph Wilson. I didn't say her name. I didn't say Tom Delay was innocent.
What I said was that he is presumed innocent until he is convicted of a crime. I never
said that Sadamm and 9-11 was connected.

I reject biblical notions of good and evil.

Evil does not exist as an entity.

It is not sentient.

It does not "consume" anyone.

but surely you must see that an individual who gets power from abusing children will escalate his behavior and each act will feed a need to assert himself more and be more
aggresive. That's what I meant by being consumed by evil.

I do not, for example, believe child molesters are "evil".

I believe they are mentally ill and need to be locked up and treated.


This is also one of the reasons why I oppose the death penalty.

To me, using the adjective "evil" is a cop out.

Hitler was addicted to narcotics, had suffered a stroke, was in the final stages of Parkinsons disease, and had suffered a tremendously abusive childhood. These explanations are much more descriptive and correct than "evil".

By labeling behaviour evil, we miss the opportunity to learn from it.

If you are not comfortable labeling Hitler as "evil," then how about using the term "immoral" to describe Hitler's conduct. Would you agree that Hitler's conduct was immoral? If so, how have you determined that? By using an objective standard? Or a subjective standard?

From my point of view, it is without question that Hitler's conduct was immoral, and the way I know that is by applying the objective standard of God's Word.

"Love your neighbor as yourself." Luke 10:27

"You shall not murder." Deuteronomy 5:17

"Do not murder." Romans 13:9

"I will bless those who bless you, and whoever curses you I will curse;
and all peoples on earth will be blessed through you." Genesis 12:3

I don't see how anyone could argue that Hitler's conduct was not objectively immoral.

"Immoral" is similarly ambiguous to "evil."

I think he was a sick, misguided, power-hungry man. Those are the words I use.

They think what Bush has done is just hunky-dory.

Just saying that "good" and "evil" aren't always crystal clear to people....

51% of recorded votes disagree with him. A good 3 or 4% of those votes are likely not real people.

...that the "evil" of this administration is hardly universally agreed upon.

weak atheists do to the word "certain" here. I really do not believe in the words "good" and "evil" the way everyone else uses them. I think that all moral pronouncements are really verbalizations of opinions (I do not believe in "objective values", read J. L. Mackie's "Inventing Right And Wrong" for how bizarre objective values would be), and are completely subjective. To me, they only differ in intensity of FEELING from matters of taste; they are not a different TYPE of thing. So while I use the words (because I am not disciplined enough to excise them from my vocabulary), I MEAN completely different things by them than 99.9999% of the world means when they use these words.

We are not talking about eating meat on Fridays or spitting on the sidewalk or individuals being gay, I think these things are not wrong and are leftover social taboos. The problem with demonizing people as amoral is that people lose all sense of right and wrong. You have to have certain laws. Read my post on Nuremeberg above. If you have no moral code, unscrupulous individuals will exploit the situation and innocent people will die. We went
into a defenseless nation of Iraq, and we have destroyed it, it is in ruins, we used
chemical weapons, we herded women and children (as young as 8) into prisons & tortured
them. What was done there was evil and we will be held accountable by the world for our
actions there.

Said I don't believe in good and evil the way other people do. To me, I can STRONGLY disapprove of murder, arson, violence of all sorts; or STRONGLY approve of good deeds and kindness. HOWEVER, these are all SUBJECTIVE judgments. There are no objective moral judgments, IMO.

have done wrong and should be held accountable for their actions?

with "right" and "wrong" as I do with "good" and "evil". Look, you and I would agree on much about morality; the differences are sort of metaphysical and thus not that important. You and the rest of the world believe that there are "objective" moral values (like facts); I do not. I think all moral judgments are subjective and personal. We band together as societies and agree on some (and disagree on others), but these laws are just "majority rule" on our individual "tastes" in morality.

When you go to Starbucks and hand the girl a $20.00, you want back an accurate amount of change, you don't want the girl to say what right does he have to the money, he's talking
on his cell phone so I give him back change for $5.00 dollars. When you call up and order
your Christmas presents, you don't want the individual stealing your card to do his Christmas shopping. You want treated with respect, you want a clean environment and you
don't want your neighbor's dog taking a dump in your yard. These are moral things and all
of us would not want these things to happen to us, we do have a strong sense of right and
wrong and hope the other guy does too.

Those are morals based on societal standards.

and that an individual can be "free" of moral claptrap means that he has no allegiance
to any sort of moral behavior, I just gave a few examples of society norms or morals,
the guy that gets drunk and runs a light could kill someone, if there is no moral
standards, no laws, then it is not wrong.

No.

quote from post above

When an individual commits an act, it is judged by the society in which he lives. Good and
evil are not perceptually bound in that an individual can not rationalize crimainal behavior.

Criminal acts aren't the same from culture to culture. Therefore, criminal acts are not evil.

A lot. Back in college when, as a philosophy student, I was FORCED to examine and defend my unconscious assumptions. All of my experiences show me that our "values" are learned and absorbed from our cultures, parents, churches, schools, and other surroundings. Of course, we as adults can change our values ourselves, too. But I do not see "objective values" floating around out there.

Look. Facts are relationships between objects (and energy) in certain places as time moves on. Facts, once they become established, are rarely disputed. The Earth not being round? You're a nut. The Sun revolving around the Earth instead of vise versa? Again, you're a nut. Everyone can agree on FACTS, because they are OBJECTIVE; outside of us for all to see.

But MORALITY? People have been disagreeing for thousands of years on what is moral and not, because there ARE NO OBJECTIVE FACTS about morality OUTSIDE of us. Two examples:

Example #1: Is abortion "right"? Is it "right" only in cases of rape and incest? is it "right" in the third trimester? Ask a hundred people, and the answers will be split roughly even. Why? If morality was "objective", we would all agree the sky is blue.

Example #2: What is "murder"? Would killing Hitler during world war II have been "murder"? Is killing an intruder in my house "murder"? What if they are attacking me? My wife/daughter/mother? Is a mercy killing (of someone in great pain, who will die in agony, and wants to die now) "murder"? Is assisting a suicide a "murder"? Is killing an enemy soldier in war "murder"? Every government on the planet throughout time has said no, but it is killing, isn't it? Many older cultures had sacrifices or practiced cannibalism, and it was approved by their culture. Is the death penalty "murder"? Half the population of this country will disagree with you no matter what you say, and you know why? Because values are subjective, not "objective" facts.

The fact that you are debating these actions proves moral judgment. Yes, values can be subjective. Okay, it's not wrong to go over the speed limit, many of us do it. But when
a driver kills a child. They say on the news, he was going double the speed limit. Then
it is wrong. I think most of us have a sense of right and wrong, good and evil. Society
cannot exist without it. We have to be able to draw the line, we have to be able to say
torture is wrong, it is wrong to drag people out of airports and torture them because they
are islamic, it is wrong to imprison children, it is wrong to lie under oath, it is wrong
to take bribes, it is wrong to lie the country into war, it is wrong to alter the election
results just because you can, it is wrong to take people's pension away, it is wrong to deny
people the right to vote based on race.

Not by god.

Just like I do when I talk about "right" and "wrong". We are both stating our opinions, nothing more.


BTW:

it's not wrong to go over the speed limit, many of us do it

I don't, I am that annoying person in the SLOW lane; always doing the speed limit. Go around me if you wish to break the law.:evilgrin:

but I was using that as an example of how we make moral judgments. The man who goes over the speed limit and remains a careful driver is okay while the individual who causes harm
to others is not.

Nice to see another non-speeder.:toast:

I remember when I learned to drive that they said the best thing between you and the car in
front is a cushion of air, give yourself time to stop.

:-)

while a speeder who doesn't isn't?

...who breaks no laws, but kills a child??

I abhor drunk driving as much as anyone and believe perpetrators should be punished, but trying to make it a crime of violence is absurd.

Not to mention a slap in the face of actual victims of violent crime.

Is that drinking is all over the TV screen, done in public places, in bars where clearly, some driving is going to occur, and that is perfectly legal. Then the law expects these people at these bars to somehow get home without driving.

Yet, most every other drug is illegal and criminal to use.

We encourage people to drink to excess, especially on the holidays

Since getting fucked up is a "sin", why should the government prevent me, an atheist, from doing just that?

Argh.

This is the kind of stuff I can't talk about at work.

...paternalistic laws totally. In general, it is better to let the people have freedom of choice, but in some cases I can understand the need for paternalistic law.

I just want some consistency. If the government decided to outlaw alcohol, like they have outlawed other drugs, I wouldn't support it but I would certainly understand. It would be consistent.

There is nothing inherently better about alcohol than marijuana, hash, or cocaine, or other drugs. There is no reason, other than commercialism, why consuming alcohol should be legal while pot is not.

I think the castles where they drank and partied all winter were good ideas.

hallucinogenic plants for no other reason than they apparently enjoyed the effects.

Look at our pets, they are clued into our sense of right and wrong. If they do something
that they know we don't approve of, they will act remorseful so that we will not punish
them.

Do you think they can arrest me for giving them catnip?

:rofl:

I notice on the talk shows the minute someone who is a fundie has someone disagree with them, they start cursing at that individual, here we agree, disagree, we can talk about
different sides & even joke. Well, I am off to bed, good night all.

I can count the number of believers on DU that I can't get along with without using my toes.

It was nice talking to you.

Goodnight.:hi:

I really think there is more government involvement in our personal lives than ever before.

Freepers don't want the disadvantaged to benefit from social programs but are perfectly fine with letting the government into our bedrooms.

I hope these hatemongers fade away soon, they spew lies and hate.

Read my post 87.

that it was a moral judgment made by the reporters, by the people in the street
that person would be condemned as "careless" "irresponsible" etc.

Gotcha.

You had me going there for a sec.:evilgrin:

morals and values don't jump off the library shelf, we come face to face with them every day. You get in the elevator and someone sneezes on you. You have a Seinfeld moment,
maybe you will get sick from it, maybe not, you think that person was rude, insensitive
to do that, why don't they carry a kleenix, etc. Most everyone here would have the same
response.

I have those ALL the time.

If you could only hear the monologue running in my head all day long...(I work with a lot of freepers)

It must be very hard to listen all the time to freepers, it all comes down to might makes right. I can't listen to it anymore, I just tune out. I work with a woman who always says that Bush is a man of god. I find this very hard to deal with since his administration prides itself on lies and deception.

They decided to change the radio station to a Top 40 Country one out of Nashville.

Every day for over two weeks, the DJ's joked and laughed about how they couldn't wait for Tookie to fry.

They had call in times where they would laugh and mock anyone who disagreed with the death penalty.

And they were doing this while also complaining about how the godless liberals were trying to take god out of christmas.


I cannot tell you how it felt. I'm still having a rough time dealing with it.

they make them really small, I can download talk shows from the internet to my desktop then
I download them to my mp3. I bought mine on e-bay used for $60.00 and I listen at work. I tell my boss that it helps me concetrate and it does. There is no way that I could sit all day and listen to people joke about someone being executed.

Loudly.

We unplugged the speakers in my department but you can still hear it.


They have no right to force someone to listen to that.

Can you imagine the response (I live in the bible belt) if they piped Howard Stern's show into the plant?


I plan on addressing this once my probationary period is up.

What the hell, it won't be the first time I lost a job because I spoke up as a minority.

heck you could even say it was a hearing aid, the thing is that I work in a very busy office
and one of the women uses a speaker phone, it's very distracting especially when she's shooting the breeze. You charge it at home so they're are no wires and some of them resemble earrings. You can burn your songs from home onto it every easily. Once you insert
your earplugs, it's like wearing your own stereo system, you won't hear the PA music just
yours but no one else can hear it.

I'd have to play it at a loud volume.

We are moving to a new building in a few weeks and my department will be right in the middle of the plant.

No ceilings, just a cage and some partitions.

Perhaps that would work well if I can at least convince them that playing it at such a loud volume is distracting and unhealthy.

I have my entire music collection on my computer and I have been eyeballing IPods lately.

I will also be using a laptop...


Thanks for the suggestion, I can see a light at the end of the tunnel!

:hug:

I hope it works out.

"All of my experiences show me that our "values" are learned and absorbed from our cultures, parents, churches, schools, and other surroundings. <...>"

Could you also say the following?
"All of my experiences show me that the distinction between valid and invalid reasoning is learned and absorbed from our cultures, parents, schools, and other surroundings."


"But I do not see "objective values" floating around out there."

Do you see validity and invalidity floating around somewhere?

Even animals have certain behaviors which can be labeled moral. Is our desire to protect our children partly instinct for us and or is it driven by society's values. Much of our society is built around care of children, i.e. marriage (providing a safety net for child care). Many of our laws are based on a desire to provide redress for aggresive and violent behavior. Animals do this, they attack those that threaten them. We do it through our
court system. Animals fight just as much over their turf as we do over a parking space.
The animals fight for dominance of the pack does it resemble our political process.
We had to create a more formal way of keeping our social relationship going, hence the moral code and the emergence of a legal code. But I think there are certain morals which are commonly shared by most (like not eating other humans).

which are relationships among objects/energy and other objects/energy based on their spacial and temporal relationships. Meaning, how objects interact with each other in time and space. This is independent of what we think of those facts.

Then there are our opinions on those facts. Our opinions can be right (the Earth is more or less spherical), wrong (the Earth is flat), or simply individually based emotions (I like ice cream - not right or wrong, just my personal taste). I feel that moral statements fall in that third category.

The concepts of validity and invalidity, like all other CONCEPTS, are learned. Facts are facts, regardless of my opinions on them, and are in that sense valid regardless of my opinions. Tastes are always valid, being individual tastes (or moral positions).

I don't know if this answers your question, but it sums up my views on facts and morality.

If you are saying that any moral position is as valid as any other moral position, I must strongly disagree. Perhaps it depends on what you mean by "valid," but if you are saying that any moral position is as good as any other, that would seem to me to be manifestly incorrect.

If all moral positions were equally good, then you could never say that any act is better than any other. Murder would be as good as not-murder. Rape would be as good as not-rape. Injustice would be as good as justice; depravity as good as virtue.

If that were the case, it would be impossible to evaluate any act. Hitler's conduct would be as good as Mother Teresa's conduct; Republicans' conduct as good as Democrats' conduct, and so on.

....acts anyway???

what I am saying is rather clear. Morality is a matter of individual opinion. Can we agree? Of course. Are there huge disagreements? Of course (death penalty, abortion, what constitutes murder, etc.), because morality is not a fact (like the shape of the Earth, the color of the sun, etc.), it is subjective ( like liking ice cream).

I will begin with a couple of questions can probably be considered without re-reading earlier sections of this thread:

Are you able to distinguish between aesthetic judgments (i.e. judgments of beauty, taste, or quality) and ethical judgments (i.e. judgments of right and wrong)? If you are able to distinguish between them, then why would you wish to put them all into a single category?

You said that you don't know whether your response answers my questions. I will now attempt to indicate what kind of answers I am still seeking.

The first question was:
Could you also say the following?
"All of my experiences show me that the distinction between valid and invalid reasoning is learned and absorbed from our cultures, parents, schools, and other surroundings."

I would expect a "yes" or "no" answer, perhaps followed by some explanation that might include some comments on the words you wrote that prompted my question. Those words that you wrote are: "All of my experiences show me that our "values" are learned and absorbed from our cultures, parents, churches, schools, and other surroundings. <...>"

The second question was:
Do you see validity and invalidity floating around somewhere?
Note that the first question referred to "the distinction between valid and invalid reasoning" and was intended to set the context for the second question. However, it was probably an error for me to take the risk of sacrificing clarity to avoid a bit of monotony. Here is the revised second question: "Do you see the distinction between valid reasoning and invalid reasoning floating around somewhere?"

You wrote:
The concepts of validity and invalidity, like all other CONCEPTS, are learned. Facts are facts, regardless of my opinions on them, and are in that sense valid regardless of my opinions.

Do you see that the revised second question is not intended to be a question about the truth or falsehood of an assumption, conclusion, statement, or thesis? Do you see that the revised second question is intended to be about the kind of "validity" or "invalidity" that is a characteristic of some reasoning or argument?

One more thing. This is probably not very significant. You wrote:
"(I like ice cream - not right or wrong, just my personal taste). I feel that moral statements fall in that third category."

Suppose an acquaintance of yours makes homemade ice cream. Suppose you have eaten foods prepared by that acquaintance. Suppose that because of the odor, texture, taste, etc. of those foods, you regret having eaten them. Suppose the acquaintance knows nothing about your feelings regarding ice cream. Suppose that you decide to avoid social conflict by claiming: "I don't like ice cream." That would be a false claim, right? (Just to avoid any misunderstanding: I am NOT claiming that it would be unethical for you to make that claim in that situation.)

Are you able to distinguish between aesthetic judgments (i.e. judgments of beauty, taste, or quality) and ethical judgments (i.e. judgments of right and wrong)? If you are able to distinguish between them, then why would you wish to put them all into a single category?

They are all in the same category (subjective judgments) because IMO they all ARE subjective judgments (like circles, squares, and triangles are all two dimensional geometric figures). The fact that half the people disagree over simple things like whether abortion is "right" or "wrong", or whether the death penalty is "right" or "wrong" proves my point, I believe. People have been disagreeing about ethics for THOUSANDS of years, yet they can ALL agree that the sun is yellow, that grass is green, and that fire is hot. Facts can be agreed on because they at some point can be demonstrated to all but idiots/the insane; opinions and moral judgments are disagreed about because they are not facts; they are completely subjective.

I thought I answered your first question. Yes, valid and invalid reasoning principles are learned, like almost all other knowledge in life.

"Do you see the distinction between valid reasoning and invalid reasoning floating around somewhere?"

They are CONCEPTS, and as such are not THINGS (matter, energy, time, space), so they are not floating around out there.

Do you see that the revised second question is not intended to be a question about the truth or falsehood of an assumption, conclusion, statement, or thesis? Do you see that the revised second question is intended to be about the kind of "validity" or "invalidity" that is a characteristic of some reasoning or argument?

As far as I am concerned, there are facts, and then there are concepts and opinions. You can have concepts about facts, which would make the concepts true (valid) or false (invalid) depending on the fact(s) involved and your concept(s) involved. You can have opinions (including moral opinions, which IMO is ALL moral statements) about facts, which are your TRUE opinions, but are not themselves true or false (valid or invalid).

Example: The Earth is more or less spherical, rather than being more or less flat. This is a fact. You can have a concept that it is spherical (true, valid) or that it is flat (false, invalid). You can also have an opinion (I don't LIKE that the Earth is spherical), which is neither valid nor invalid, but your true opinion.

ie ice cream:
That would be a false claim, right?

That would be a false claim of your opinion, yes.

You said that moral values are learned and that you do not see moral values "floating around out there." If I understand you correctly, I believe that you attempted to conclude that a moral judgment cannot be correct or incorrect. Would you say that a judgment regarding the validity or invalidity of some reasoning cannot be correct or incorrect?

You wrote:
"People have been disagreeing about ethics for THOUSANDS of years, yet they can ALL agree that the sun is yellow, that grass is green, and that fire is hot."

Do you believe that the following is true or false?
"People have been lying and cheating for THOUSANDS of years, yet they can ALL agree that the sun is yellow, that grass is green, and that fire is hot."

Do you agree with me when I say that law should be based on principles of ethics? Not everyone agrees. Some people claim that it is more important to ensure that no law is retroactive than it is to enforce fundamental principles of ethics. The following might be an example: "After the war, only the Dutch government brought criminal charges against Japan. A number of Japanese military officers were prosecuted for forcing 35 Dutch women into prostitution (...) They were selected (i.e. Japanese military officers had selected them) from among the Dutch civilian internees who were residing in the Dutch East Indies (today's Indonesia) at the time of Japanese occupation of the island. In contrast, the survivors of other nationalities, including native women in Indonesia, had no recourse (...)"

Source:
http://www.icasinc.org/lectures/cssl1998.html


Do you agree with me when I say that ethics has wider application than law? For example, do you agree that some promises are not legally enforceable and are not just matters of etiquette, but are of ethical significance?

Suppose the physical facts of a case are established. Would you agree with me when I say that some people attempt to argue about the meaning of those facts? For example, could you imagine that someone caught testing to see whether doors in some neighborhood are locked might claim that he was merely trying to find out whether it would be a waste of time to try selling electronic security systems in that neighborhood?

Suppose the physical facts of a case are established and the meaning of those facts is clear. Would you agree with me when I say that some people attempt to argue about the law? For example, if the President of the USA said, "I am aware of the fourth amendment, but we are doomed to fail in our efforts to enforce the spirit of the Constitution if we focus on a single letter in it", then would you be surprised and amazed?

Suppose some facts are established and the meaning of those facts is clear and the issue is one of ethics, but not necessarily law. Would you agree with me when I say that some people attempt to argue about ethics?

For example, if a government official said, "That fatwa was officially withdrawn by this government in 1998. If a private organization in our country offers a reward for murdering a writer, then this government is not responsible. We can do nothing about it. Our laws cannot be changed because they were dictated by God. Our laws guarantee almost unlimited freedom for private organizations in this country. In any case, people have the right to discourage offensive and blasphemous statements from being made" then would you be surprised and amazed?

You wrote:
"To me, they (i.e. moral pronouncements) only differ in intensity of FEELING from matters of taste; they are not a different TYPE of thing."

Do you agree with me when I say that intensity of feeling associated with an aesthetic judgment should come after one has understood what it is that one is judging? For example, would you agree that one can only guess about the beauty of a symphony if one has neither heard it performed nor seen the score? For example, would you agree that a tape recorder can be used to record a performance of a symphony, but that a tape recorder does not itself judge the beauty of the symphony or the quality of the particular performance?

Do you agree with me when I say that intensity of feeling associated with a moral judgment should come after one has understood what it is that one is judging? Do you agree with me when I say that, to explain a specific moral judgment, one must provide a description of the specific fact situation that the judgment is about? Do you agree with me when I say that such a description can be formulated in or translated into the English language, but that, for example, a judgment of the quality of a symphony is a judgment of musical sounds and that such sounds cannot be formulated in or translated into the English language?

farther afield. I do not know what your continuing questions have to do with the original topic (which I believe I have answered in full several times), nor where you want to go with this expanding list of questions.

(sigh)

But for the moment, I will continue to answer.

I believe that you attempted to conclude that a moral judgment cannot be correct or incorrect.

IMO, moral judgments are no different in kind (though in degree of emotion; yes) from statements of opinion such as "I like ice cream". Therefore, they are as "correct" or "incorrect" as a statement such as "I like ice cream". Make of that what you will.

#1. "People have been disagreeing about ethics for THOUSANDS of years, yet they can ALL agree that the sun is yellow, that grass is green, and that fire is hot."

#2. Do you believe that the following is true or false?
"People have been lying and cheating for THOUSANDS of years, yet they can ALL agree that the sun is yellow, that grass is green, and that fire is hot."

Notice that in #1, both parts of the comparison are about AGREEMENT or DISAGREEMENT; therefore comparing apples to apples.

Your #2 is not doing that; therefore comparing apples to rocks.


Do you agree with me when I say that law should be based on principles of ethics?

Should, would, could; doesn't matter. As I have said before, laws are based on majority rule, or what those in power rule. All of these laws ultimately come down to what some number of individuals in power think is "right" based on their own "morality" (read morality = opinions). In our country, it is done more or less by majority rule, which still boils down to a bunch of people legislating their opinions. That's what laws are, IMO.

Suppose the physical facts of a case are established. Would you agree with me when I say that some people attempt to argue about the meaning of those facts?

(yawn) Happens all the time. That's what lawyers are for; to argue that black is white and night is day. The point is?

Suppose the physical facts of a case are established and the meaning of those facts is clear. Would you agree with me when I say that some people attempt to argue about the law?

Yeah, yeah. Again, happens all the time. Still don't see where this is going.

Would you agree with me when I say that some people attempt to argue about ethics?

I like ice cream. You hate it. We can argue all day.

ME: Ice cream is good!
You: Ice cream is bad!
Me: No, it isn't!
You: Yes, it is!

... and so on. Ethics = Ice cream.

Do you agree with me when I say that intensity of feeling associated with an aesthetic judgment should come after one has understood what it is that one is judging?

Do you agree with me when I say that intensity of feeling associated with a moral judgment should come after one has understood what it is that one is judging?

Should, could, would. Doesn't matter again. People can have intense feelings about things about which they know nothing. They can have no feelings about things they know a lot about, and all range of feelings and knowledge in between. People make judgments ALL THE TIME based on feelings; understanding may or may not have anything to do with that process.

Do you agree with me when I say that, to explain a specific moral judgment, one must provide a description of the specific fact situation that the judgment is about?

Ideally, yes. Life is not ideal.

a judgment of the quality of a symphony is a judgment of musical sounds and that such sounds cannot be formulated in or translated into the English language?

Doesn't matter. People judge things based on how they react to them. You hate Mozart, I love Mozart. Purely a matter of opinion, which as I have argued repeatedly is subjective.



I AM curious as to what your point is with these unending hypotheticals. I have made my position rather clear (I think) several times, and am starting to repeat myself because the answers are the same. Where are you going with this? :shrug: :wtf:

Strong Atheist wrote:
"We seem to be getting farther and farther afield."

I apologize. I will try to keep this and future messages briefer and more focused than my previous message.

Strong Atheist wrote:
"Notice that in #1, both parts of the comparison are about AGREEMENT or DISAGREEMENT; therefore comparing apples to apples. Your #2 is not doing that; therefore comparing apples to rocks."

Could you respond to #2 as though it were isolated from #1? Admittedly, there is a strong superficial resemblance between #1 and #2. However, do you agree with me when I say that one might have good reasons for organizing a list of questions so that one could say to oneself: "#1 is one type of question and #2 is another type of question"?

In any case, I hope that it is possible to consider #1 in isolation from #2.

Here is #1 again:
#1. "People have been disagreeing about ethics for THOUSANDS of years, yet they can ALL agree that the sun is yellow, that grass is green, and that fire is hot."

Is there an important difference between the persistence for many years of a lack of consensus on some matter and a situation where the vast majority of informed observers agreed about a certain matter for many years but now basically the whole world agrees that they were wrong?

***

Earlier you said two things (I hope you don't mind if I use labels for them):

LRN: "All of my experiences show me that our "values" are learned and absorbed from our cultures, parents, churches, schools, and other surroundings."

FLTNG: "I do not see "objective values" floating around out there."

You answered some of my questions by stating that the distinction between valid and invalid reasoning is learned and that it is not floating around out there.

Do you claim that the distinction between valid and invalid reasoning is subjective? If you do not make that claim, then could you explain the role that the statements LRN and FLTNG were intended to play in your reasoning?

#2. Do you believe that the following is true or false?
"People have been lying and cheating for THOUSANDS of years, yet they can ALL agree that the sun is yellow, that grass is green, and that fire is hot."

The COMPARISON is invalid. You are comparing ACTIONS of people to something people can AGREE or DISAGREE with. You will have to pardon me, but I have learned not to respond to invalid comparisons; many people (though I hope not you) once you have responded to an invalid comparison go on to prove that 1 + 1 = 3. When you complain, they say, "Oh, but my reasoning shows that to be true based on the invalid comparison that you agreed with."

Is there an important difference between the persistence for many years of a lack of consensus on some matter and a situation where the vast majority of informed observers agreed about a certain matter for many years but now basically the whole world agrees that they were wrong?

There are three separate points in this. Facts, and being correct or incorrect about them, and ethics/morality. Large numbers of people have been in agreement and WRONG about the facts, like the Earth is flat (wrong, but many people believe it). As scientific knowledge progressed, people learned WHAT THE FACTS really were.

The problem with morality/ethics is that people KNOW THE FACTS in many cases, do not DISAGREE about the facts in many cases, and still disagree about morality/ethics. We can argue all day about abortion, euthanasia, the death penalty, and suicide rights, because THERE ARE NO MORAL FACTS; stating a moral position is merely expressing your emotions on a subject. People tend to feel more strongly about moral positions than they do about other likes and dislikes, but that is the only difference, in degree. I hate murder = I dislike mushrooms; they both are expressing my SUBJECTIVE emotions on a factual state. When we disagree, we WILL NEVER AGREE, because we are arguing about our two separate emotional reactions. Again:

Me: Mushrooms are terrible!
You: No, they are great!
Me: No, they are terrible!
You: Wrong! They taste wonderful!

... and so on. Same with moral/ethical debates.

Repub: Abortion is EVIL
You: Abortion is NOT evil.
Repub: Yes, it is!
You: No it isn't!

... and on and on, because morality ethics is subjective, just like matters of taste.

Do you claim that the distinction between valid and invalid reasoning is subjective?

I did not want to do this, because I dislike it when others insist that I define something that I think is obvious, but I have to ask you to define what you mean by "valid" and "invalid" reasoning before I answer that question. I could state that they were learned without knowing specific definitions, because almost EVERYTHING is learned, IMO. To talk more about them, though, I need to know what you mean by them.

BTW: I still have no idea where this is going. I HAVE been pretty clear (IMO) about my beliefs on 'good', 'evil', and 'morality/ethics', which was the thrust of the OP.

Strong Atheist wrote:
"The COMPARISON is invalid. You are comparing ..."

Could you please quote at least one sentence (that I wrote) in which I am comparing #1 and #2? I have already asked whether you could respond to #2 as though it were isolated from #1. I have already said that I hope it is possible to consider #1 in isolation from #2.

Strong Atheist wrote:
"I did not want to do this, because I dislike it when others insist that I define something that I think is obvious, but I have to ask you to define what you mean by "valid" and "invalid" reasoning before I answer that question."

Could you tell me what words are available for me to use in my definition? If you do not see why I ask that, then the following example might help explain the motivation for my request.

What does "daughter" mean? In particular, what does it mean to say that "D is a biological daughter of P"? One possible attempt to answer that question: "D is female and P is a biological parent of D." Unfortunately, someone who is unsure of the intended meaning of the word "daughter" might be just as unsure about the intended meaning of the word "parent" and/or the word "female".

Strong Atheist wrote:
"BTW: I still have no idea where this is going. I HAVE been pretty clear (IMO) about my beliefs on 'good', 'evil', and 'morality/ethics', which was the thrust of the OP."

Twenty years from now, will you hold the beliefs that you now hold? Twenty years ago, did you hold the beliefs that you now hold? I do not understand why you believe what you believe.

I am not saying that you are comparing #1 and #2. I am saying that the comparison inside of #2 is not a good comparison. Forget #1 for now. Inside of #2:

#2. Do you believe that the following is true or false?
"People have been lying and cheating for THOUSANDS of years, yet they can ALL agree that the sun is yellow, that grass is green, and that fire is hot."

you are comparing actions of people

TO

things that people can agree or disagree about.

Actions are not = to agreement/disagreement about a subject, which is what the second part of #2 is about.


Could you tell me what words are available for me to use in my definition?

Any words you want. I just want to be clear on what I am discussing, before I start to talk about it.

Twenty years from now, will you hold the beliefs that you now hold? Twenty years ago, did you hold the beliefs that you now hold?

In order, it seems likely, and yes.

I do not understand why you believe what you believe.

Read the following:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=40163&mesg_id=40261

Strong Atheist wrote:
"I am not saying that you are comparing #1 and #2. I am saying that the comparison inside of #2 is not a good comparison."

If we consider a particular comparison inside of a particular statement, might it be an objective truth that the comparison is not good?

Alternatively, if we are considering the distinction between a comparison that is said to be good and a comparison that is said to be not good, then are we considering something that is a matter of subjective judgment?

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
"My experiences show me that the distinction between comparisons that are good and comparisons that are not good is learned and absorbed from our cultures, parents, schools, and other surroundings."

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
"I do not see the distinction between comparisons that are objectively good and comparisons that are objectively not good floating around out there."

Strong Atheist wrote:
"Read the following:"
Ok, I can be here for a short while this afternoon

When I wrote "I do not understand why you believe what you believe", I meant that I do not understand your reasoning. I am not much interested in debates about the question of whether or not there exists an entity that could appropriately be called "God."

I will probably answer tomorrow night.

I do not understand why you believe what you believe

Here is the way I see matters of "morality".


The universe can be broken up into "things" (matter and energy) and their relations to each other in time and space (which may also be "things", or A thing, but I am not going to worry about the physics here). Thing #1 is separated from thing #2 by a certain amount of space at time #1. It is separated by less space at time #2, etc.

These all fall into the category that I call "facts". They ARE relations, regardless of what anyone thinks of them.

Then there are thoughts/concepts/ideas. These can either be true, in that they accurately reflect reality (to some degree, I mean we are told that "solid" objects are mostly empty space, but for my purposes our senses on the macro level reflect A macro truth), or false because they do not reflect reality. "The Earth is more or less spherical" is a true concept, because it reflects reality. "The Earth is flat" is a false concept, because it does not even come close to accurately reflecting reality.

Finally, there are emotions/opinions. These are ideas about reality that are neither true nor false; they are SUBJECTIVE impressions of reality. They are "true" only to the individual. "I like ice cream" and "Murder is wrong" are both emoting statements that are neither true nor false IN REALITY; they express my opinions on facts.

Example: A finger squeezes a trigger. A bullet moves through space and time, and strikes a person in the chest, killing that person.

These are all facts. Any MORAL statements about them are opinions, and as such are subjective.

THAT is how I view things, to answer your question. WHY[/b} I believe it is because, after thought, it is what seems to be the case to me. That is, I think all of these views accurately reflect how things are.

Two people are away from an internet connection but they have a tape recorder, a blank tape, and a power source. One of those two people, using his or her recollections, tries to put forward the views that you expressed in this thread. The other person debates against that view. Later, the discussion of those two people is transcribed. Is it possible that you might believe that your view was misrepresented?

Consider this statement: "There is a significant difference between Strong Atheist's messages in this thread and what someone said when trying to put forward the views expressed by Strong Atheist in this thread." Might that be a fact about relations between matter and energy? Might it be a true thought/concept/idea? Or is it merely a subjective emotion/opinion?

How would you categorize the statement "A particular judgment about a matter of ethics cannot be correct or incorrect, but can only be a subjective opinion"? Is it a thought/concept/idea or an emotion/opinion?

Will respond tomorrow (Saturday).

(the yellow envelope). To PM someone, click on their envelope near their name.

"To me, they only differ in intensity of FEELING from matters of taste; they are not a different TYPE of thing."

Suppose two people are playing a game and the winner will receive a lot of money. Suppose the rules are somewhat complicated and the judges aren't very smart.

One player believes that a particular move is illegal and deliberately makes that move because it is likely to help achieve a win. That player insists that the move is legal and uses clever rhetoric to try to trick the judges into believing that the move is legal.

The other player is careful to only makes legal moves, but chooses a very unusual strategy.

You want to hire someone. Both players have expressed a desire to work for you. They are equally good at the kind of work that you want done, so you aren't going to make your judgment based on a difference in competence.

What issues would you consider in making your decision?

For example, suppose you like the color of one player's hair. That's a matter of your personal taste. Would hair color likely be an important issue for you?

someone who believes in the end justifies the means

The question is for the author of these words and for anyone who agrees with these words:

"To me, they only differ in intensity of FEELING from matters of taste; they are not a different TYPE of thing."

MissWaverly, I strongly suspect that you are not one of the people who agrees with those words.

We are at the point of losing our democracy. We can either go back to a moral way of life
where we respect the rights of others or we can to a "dog eat dog" society with a totalitarian government. If a society can not exist on honesty and respect for others
then what does it exist on. Unfortunately materialism and greed have been seen as realistic
virtues that people should aspire to. Our society is becoming tolerant of the ends justifies the means. What is that philisophy doing for us. We are hated around the world.

it is a matter of degree. Hair color is LESS IMPORTANT, than the other considerations that you mention, BECAUSE hair color in this example has NOTHING to do with the DECISION involved; your other factors WOULD be involved in THIS decision.

"Hair color is LESS IMPORTANT than the other considerations that you mention<...>"

It's your decision. You get to decide what issues to consider. Hair color is a matter of taste. Therefore ... what? Please provide a more complete explanation.

course. How important something is is completely up to the individual. An event can have scaring influences on one person, and not even be remembered by another.

Suppose that you have a list of many different issues that you might want to consider when you are trying to make future hiring decisions.

Would anything prevent you from organizing the list so that you could say to yourself, "this is one type of issue and that is another type of issue"?

and #55 tomorrow. Bedtime for me. Goodnight, all!

from organizing the list.

Evil in its purest form.

God's will is moral, rebellion against god is evil? I must be the most evil person on the planet, surely you would agree. I find the notion of a god to be childish, I mock jesus and all other "deities." The concept of evil is a malleable concept, morals are relative, this nonsense about a fixed moral compass is just religious poppycock.

I am sure you are joyous as I confirm the stereotype of the evil liberal elitist atheist.

Subjective impulses? Hmmm, so believers are guided by a higher calling and can do no wrong? A brief look at human history will easily dispute your claim. Religious folks are more likely to cause "evil" in this world than non-believers. How so? Believers supposedly out number the non-believer, in the U.S. the percentage has been quoted in the 90% range. I doubt all the crime is committed by the minority atheist population. Oh, but those committing crimes are not true believers like yourself.

The true believer? A pathological condition which afflicts religious individuals characterized by a belief that fervent subjugation to one's faith relieves the individual of responsibility to any unholy authority. Lets play a little subjective religious impulse.....

Thou shall not kill, seems pretty clear. A strong moral compass. Right?

Oops, the crusades, the Inquisition, the concordat with Hitler, witch burning, damn you religious folks are good at subjective rationalization. What about that strong moral compass?

The tenor of your post suggests that atheists are just a bunch of hedonistic dimwits motivated by our glands without the shining light of the lard to guide us. What a crock of fecal material. This wonderful president of ours has been elected by the religious conservatives, those which have a moral compass, a strong belief in the book which you quote.

A president which is in favor of the death penalty, a war based on lies, imprisons fellow human beings without due process, spys on the population claiming national security, acts to make homosexuals and women second class citizens and has a general disregard for enlightened thinking. All of that with a belief in your god. Nope, no thanks, religious belief does not appear to be a prerequisite to a stable life.

Yes, without your god I have given service to my country, I spend 110 hours a week treating the sick and infirm despite a very negative impact on my health, relationships, my life. I am pro-life, A woman's right to choose should be respected, pro-life means that humans should never kill, the death penalty is immoral and most wars are acts of immorality. Human rights should exist for all, for homosexuals, for women, for minorities, for "illegal aliens," for atheists, and even for the narrow minded religious right. Only by learning to live with each other will the world population succeed in establishing peace.

:rant: :evilfrown:

Stupendous!

You've outdone yourself!

:applause:

I'm not sure how I provoked that kind of a response with my original post. I'm not sure why hostility and derision should be necessary. But it's OK.

It sounds like you believe that you are a very moral person and that 90% of Americans are profoundly immoral. I just wonder what standard you are using to judge your own morality and the morality of others. In other words, how can you determine that your actions are moral?

All I asked in the original post was how people define evil, and what standard they use to make decisions in their lives. I certainly did not mean to imply all the things about atheists that you apparently inferred from the post.

In any event, thank you for your service to our country, and best wishes to you and to the sick and infirm people that you are treating!

Not sure how you provoked a negative response? Well, let us see, I don't believe in god, hence, by your definition I am in a state of rebellion and therefore I am evil. Thank you very much.

"Sounds like you believe 90% of Americans are profoundly immoral." I don't think that is what I posted, I merely pointed out that 90% of Americans believe in god, and by your definition they are moral. Simple deduction forces one to conclude that all evil must be done by those which rebel against god, and therefore evil must be contained to the 10% of non-believers. New christian math?

But enough of the banter, you proposed a question in the original post and I will try to offer an answer untainted by my initial emotional reaction to your post.

If a person does not believe in god, the bible, how does that person decide what is moral. Moral being a philosophy which determines what is right from wrong. We could discuss the limitations of the definition, reality is not so black and white, but I will assume an idealized world view for matters of discussion.

So how do morals develop? The individual develops morals in childhood, guided by parental and social interactions. However, morals vary between cultures and with time. What is considered morally reprehensible in our culture may not be so in other cultures or in other times. Morals are relative, religious pundits arguing from a christian perspective would beg to differ, but history does not support their position.

What I find to be interesting, and hypocritical, is the staunch belief that christian values are fixed, dictated by god two thousand years ago for all humankind to see, the bible. That seems to be the crux of your post. Turn to the word of god and you have a strong moral compass upon which to base your life, look away, and you will be lost to oblivion. Only through god can one achieve a proper moral bearing.

I would concede that christian values have played a large part in the construction of our legal code and our cultural sense of right and wrong. But it is only a part, and not a prerequisite. The authors of the bible were concerned with the dynamics of the human population, how can we all live together in peace? God was constructed, in my opinion, as a final judge, an arbitrator which could decide your immortal fate. Who wants to question that kind of authority? Eternal damnation or eternal life and joy. Big payoffs and big penalties. Smart guys, those bible authors.

But what where these people thinking about when constructing the bible. A means to produce an ordered society, thou shall not kill, thou shall not covet they neighbors wife etc. The evolution of modern society has woven together christian morals and the morals of other cultures to create what we today consider to be right and wrong. The evolution or moral values has proceeded beyond a need for a supernatural deity to dispense ever lasting damnation. Yes, an atheist can be moral, and most are very moral, even by Christan standards. I know right from wrong because of my genetics, my upbringing, my intellect, and yes, because society has incorporated the Christan ideals thousands of years ago. The mistake many religious folks make is to assume that a belief in god, a christian god, is a necessary requirement to be moral.

You and I may be moral, sickened by the current political system, a deep concern for our fellow human being, you believe in god, I do not, can there be peace?

Oops, I think I have become ranty again.:rant: :evilgrin:

Yes.
:pals:

Even cursory examination of the relevant texts will reveal numerous occassions when the will of the diety is that evil should occur, and occurs because of the will of the diety....

"Even cursory examination of the relevant texts will reveal numerous occassions when the will of the diety is that evil should occur, and occurs because of the will of the diety...."

(Although 'cursory' could be an issue in a complex document)

Let's take an example and explore, I'm curious....

The extermination of the Midianites might be one example. Most people would consider the organized massacre of an entire people an evil action....

That would be an evil act if God truly commanded them to slaughter the Midianites. But, did God truly command them to do it, or did man command them to do it? What was the context of that section in the book? Also, what is the context of that writing with the same writings of the ascribed author? Then look at what is the context of the book with the rest of the Biblical text, and then finally what is the context of that with what Jesus tells us?

The tale is in Numbers, part of the Pentateuch ascribed to Moses by believers on the diety and book in question, and the chapter commences with the claim that "The LORD spake unto Moses saying...." Those are pretty plain words, Sir, and either they mean what they say or they constitute a deliberate falsehood. The instruction given would land any modern military commander in the dock of the Hague, and oblige any soldier to state, "Sir, that is an illegal order that I must refuse to obey." The instruction, and action following, are wholly consistent with the surrounding incidents, and with the text as a whole. The opinion of a later preacher on the proximity of the End Times strikes me as irrelevant. If you wish to claim the books of Moses are not authentic, or are not inspired, or whatever, you will have no problem with the claim from me, but that book in its entirity does not command my regard as any more sacred than the Illiad or the works of Hesiod or the Epic of Gilgamesh, the Vedas, or the Koran, or any other you might care to name. The difficulty is one peculiar to believers, it seems to me, who are faced with the existance of what purports to be a sacred record that is rather badly out of tune with many of their claims concerning the diety who engages their allegiance.

I agree.

Peshat-Remez-Derash-Sod (scripture interprets scripture) will tell us the answer.

I will ask you this, is everything that the writers of the Bible claim is God speaking, actually God speaking? Or can you prove (within the scope listed below) that not everything attributed to God is actually God?

In Numbers and Deuteronomy, what is it that God consistently asks the Israelites to do when they invade the homeland of the -ites?

Then, what does man do?

Scope
Just so you know, the scope of this discussion that I am using is that God is real, the Bible is the Word that God wants us to have, it is a dialogue between imperfect man and his creator. God is unchanging and good. The Bible interprets the Bible. This is the scope I'm willing to discuss this topic within. Anything outside of this scope I would rather discuss in a separate thread to keep discussions coherent.

Your note on 'scope" lays down conditions that can hardly be granted by anyone who does not share your beliefs: not one element of it is either demonstrated fact, or self-evident to a disinterested observer.

If the statements of the writers of that text that they record the word of their deity are not to be treated at face value, what criteria for distinguishing the true claims from false ones can you offer? It would seem that the only one available is a personal view of what the diety in question is, and a resolve to pick those statements agreeable to that, and discard those that are not congruent with it. That does not strike me as a respectable use of intellect, to put it mildly. It is as if one began with the proposition that, say, a defendant on trial is innocent, and simply chose from among the evidence presented what would uphold that prior conviction, and discarded the rest, rather than assessing and weighing the whole of the evidence presented and coming to a conclusion that emerged from that examination.

Perhaps the closest thing to a defense that could be offered in this particular matter is that there is little room to doubt the events related did not actually take place, and that the entire farrago is a fiction. But that does not in the slightest alter the bloody nature of the tale, and the bloody-mindedness revealed as the will of the diety related in it. On the record presented, there is not the slightest reason to suppose the diety presented is good, nor, on the examination of human thought and perception of diety throughout history, that goodness is necessarily an attribute of the divine. Any number of dieties have been presented and believed in by numerous humans that lacked that attribute. Indeed, if one accepts the world as created by a divinity, and admits the general similarity between creator and created object generally applied in artistic endeavour, the most reasonable conclusion is that the creating divinity has tastes running rather towards the dark end of the spectrum, and a truely low sense of humor....

"Good" according to what standard?

It sounds like you must have in mind some standard of good and evil. Perhaps you could facilitate this debate by disclosing your standard.

It seems to me the essence of evil is a disregard for other human beings in favor of oneself, and acting towards others in ways one would protest if worked against oneself. Obviously the matter is less simple than the simple statement of it. The basic ethical question, indeed, is when one is acting properly to disregard the interests of another in favor of oneself: it is clear from the conditions of life that there are instances where this is proper, and equally clear that to act in such a manner always would be monstrous. It seems to me that one of the attractions of a resort to claimed absolutes is the hope these hold out of not having to judge what is proper in each instance, because that is a troublesome exercise, but it seems to me a necessary one. No system of absolutes can possibly anticipate every contingency; it woud be like trying to draw a landscape using only straight lines.

As to the particular item being discussed above with Mr. Brentos, it does not seem to me any great philosphizing is required to view an order to exterminate a populace as not an act of good, and to conclude that an entity issuing such an order is not a good one. Such an act may in some instances be expedient, even seemingly necessary from some pont of view, but it cannot be good.

To explain my point a bit more straightforwardly, the Biblical text shows that God does not order the Israelites to slaughter the any of the -ites. In fact, later chapters show that the Israelites did not slaughter the people and instead intermingled with the indigenous populations, as the archaeological records indicate. The biblical text has been added to over the years, and admittedly so. King David and Saul each added to the laws given by God (as the text tells us), and a careful understanding of the entire Biblical text and knowledge of how Jews write and see the world bears that out (They wrote in a circular structure, and they sometimes wrote on two sides of an issue instead of addressing the actual issue. Reading Judges and Samuel will show you some of this). It takes careful study of the Word to see this, it is not self evident from cursory reading, or from what is taught in seminary. I am willing to explore with you why this is, based on my scope. The scope defines how these conclusions are reached from the point of a believer. Anything outside of that scope is a different discussion. The point of my laying down my scope is to keep a discussion focused and not running over every conceivable topic. If the question is, how can a loving God ask humans to slaughter other humans, the simple answer is he doesn't, but it takes a deep understanding and careful reading of the text to understand this, and I am willing to show you how it does, if you are willing to stay within the scope, otherwise it discussion is a pointless debate if we move off onto tangents a debate the existence of God, the validity of the text, was Jesus God, etc., those are all separate discussions and change the point of the discussion.

What it takes is a prior conviction that the diety in question is as you describe it. To a person who does not share that view, your argument conveys no meaning, and you cannot dictate that a person who does not share your views must abide by them for the purposes of discussion with you.

That the account given in Numbers is a fiction seems quite likely, for it is contradicted by particulars given in other portions of the text that, though placed later as the book is ordered, likely were earlier in their origin. Judges is a particularly interesting text, because it contains so many mentions of things that are quite contrary to what later became accepted orthodoxies, and the only reason this could have occured is that such stories were so deeply engrained in the popular imagination through long re-telling that it was not safe to alter them, as persons would reject the idea the revised version was true if it did not contain elements they had heard at grand-pa's knee.

The basic problem remains the same. You acknowledge the text in question has been corrupted, that some elements of it are spurious, and yet, apparently, still expect it to be regarded as revealed truth concerning the diety and its actions. Though you are welcome to it yourself, it is impossible for me to acquiesce in that view. There is no criterion save personal taste for distinguishing among the validity of certain portions of the whole as you desire to do, and the exercise of attempting it seems to me a pointless one. There does not seem to be anything recoverable in it that relates to any diety save the statements of certain humans at certain times on the question, and there is no reason whatever to view these humans as more reliable on the subject than any other human beings. That there are occassional facts in the text subject to confirmation by archeology says nothing about the meaning ascribed to those facts in the text, and in the minds of believers on the diety in question. Even if, say, there were archeologic warrant for the tale that a conquering horde moved out of Egypt into Canaan at a date congruent with the text, that would not count in the slightest as proof that was an act divinely sanctioned and contrived. No one, for example, regards today that the fall of the Roman Empire in the West was the result of the rejection and neglect of the old gods of the City, though any number of persons prophesied in the years preceeding that event that it was sure to follow from those very things, and there is the actual event, quite universally attested, to prove them right.

Yes, you are correct, which is what I stated up front. To explain why I believe why I do, I must start this discussion from that point, else you will never understand why I believe what I do. If I don't use that scope, this discussion is pointless. And I'm not hiding from the other discussions, I just want to remain focused on the central point about how a loving God could order people to kill people. My contention is he does not, and everything is from that point forward in this discussion.



I wouldn't say fiction, but I would suggest that the numbers are typical hyperbole as seen in most documents of the time in most cultures of the time. Plus, many of the numbers are most likely symbolic, as the Jewish people were/are very big into numerology.



You will also find that the Jews never erased from their writings, they would only add-on. The Jews would (and I believe still do) get together once a year to go over the law. If a law was deemed un-doable by the majority of the people, it would be changed. This was perfectly acceptable in their culture. This creates contradictions and shows us when they changed things. You will read (for example) where God tells Moses to build his alter of only earth. Then the next sentence say that when you build with stone...here is what to do. The next sentence says you shouldn't build stairs to the alter. This last two sentences were added later (high level certainty based on using scripture interprets scripture.) as God didn't want mankind to build him alters or temples on high places. This first sentence is what he wanted. In post-exilic times or temple period times when the people wanted these things, they added to Gods word. And thankfully, they didn't subtract from God's word, or we wouldn't know this. This is part of the dialogue between God and man, part of what God wants us to read.



Yes, that is my position.



Not just me, but I can't control your possibilities. If you believe it is impossible, no amount of the evidence that I can provide will sway you if you shut yourself off.



Not true. The Jewish methodology of Peshat-Remez-Derash-Sod will show you that, but It takes work. Scripture interprets scripture. You need to study Peshat: What does the line mean. Remaz: What does the line mean in conjunction with the entire book. Derash: What does the line mean in conjunction with everything written by that author, for you cannot understand the intentions of writing without understanding everything by that author. Sod: What does the line mean in conjunction with the entire Bible. And my rabbi also adds what does that line mean in conjunction with what Jesus says. We can walk through certain examples, if you would like, such as did God order the Israelites to murder people. The outcome is, no. But to understand it, we need to walk through it logically through the text.



The exercise can mean everything to a believer. We wish to understand our God and our place with God. Not pointless at all. I wouldn't say understanding physics is pointless, or understanding philosophy, or my genealogy is pointless. There is a point to all of that.



Off topic. If you believe there is no reliable information, then there is no point to this discussion.



Off topic.



Off topic

What you think is beside the point strikes me as most pertinent. The large subject you seem bent upon is how can it be known that a text written by humans contains any reliable information concerning a diety. Given all the flaws flesh is heir to, it seems to me vanishingly unlikely that any human production can contain or supply such information, and statements and demonstrations to that effect are certainly pertinent to the discussion of the topic.

What you describe as a "method" for discriminating between true and false passages does not seem to differ at all from my point that any such attempt can only reflect personal taste, and be no more than a means of validating a preconcieved view of the case. That continues to hold even if one claims to be working within a particular school, as one will have chosen a school of interpertation that aligns with one's tastes, from among a variety available. My own inclination is to take people at their word: if a man says he heard a diety instruct him to behave in some manner, whether angelic or abominable, my view is to agree that that is what he believes: my own view on the subject of whether he actually heard a diety, or if that diety exists at all, is immaterial to assessing his own view of that diety and his actions in accordance with what he perceives to be its instructions. If, on his own plainly stated terms, it is impossible to regard the action as anything but evil, that is his own look-out, and nothing to do with me, and so is any judgement of the nature of the deity he proclaims as the real author of that action.

Well, then, as this goes beyond the scope of what I wish to discuss, we shall part on good terms. Thanks for the discussion, my friend.

It would appear you are of the "If God approves, it must be good" camp. I.e., if god woke up tomorrow morning and decided that rape was good, it would be.

Personally I think it's scary when someone has no rational basis for their morality but instead relies on what they think their god wants.

The big question, of course, is how do you know what your god wants? Different people will give different answers. The god of the fundies hates homosexuals, abortionists, atheists, liberals, etc. and wants them killed. I hope your god doesn't want that - or does he?

I assume this was addressed to me.



Yes, and no. I believe that what God wants us to do is the good and moral thing to do, even though, I, as a human don't always want that. I personally don't like abortion, and I know God wouldn't want it, but I also don't want it illegal. Yep, I'm not perfect, but I think it's best for our society that way. To your second point, God is constant and unchanging, thus won't wake up tomorrow morning and decide rape is good. That's a straw-man or some-such argument.




I think it's scary when each individual has no rational basis for their morality but instead relies on their own fears/needs/wants. Some people believe killing sinners is moral. I don't. Some think berating non-Christians is moral. I don't. I follow Jesus' teachings as best I can.



The fact that different people give different answers does not reflect upon God, only on our ability to imperfectly follow what God wants. If we study the writings he wants us to read carefully and fully, we will know what He wants. If we add our own thought/feelings/opinions in the mix, we get the crusades, the anti-gay movement, lynch-mobs, etc. It's not the God of the fundies that wants that, it's the interpretation of God's will funneled through fundie hate/distortion that hates these peoples. God loves all people. All people sin. The wages of sin are death. There is no gradient for sin, so we all sin equally in God's eyes. If we follow Jesus we are saved. That is the Christian belief, whether all follow it correctly or not.

But your responses are intriguing nonetheless.

God is constant and unchanging, thus won't wake up tomorrow morning and decide rape is good

Is eating shellfish OK? God used to disapprove of that (it was an "abomination", I believe).

What about planting two types of crops in your field, or wearing fabrics made of mixed fibers? God once said those things were bad too. Did he change his mind, or do you keep all those prohibitions to this day? (That had better not be a 50-50 cotton-poly T-shirt you have on!)

If you're really up to a challenge, let me know if God thinks men can sleep with other men.

If we study the writings he wants us to read carefully and fully, we will know what He wants.

I call bullshit. This answers nothing. I assure you, the fundies will say they have read the Scripture far more carefully and fully than you have, and that's why they will say they are right and you are wrong. Then you come back with, no, YOU have read them more carefully, and so on. This "no true Christian would do bad things" is the ultimate logical fallacy for believers. You don't get to exclude people from your club simply because you don't like what they did.

Thanks.



Doing what other cultures do to worship their gods is what was an abomination, not just the eating of the poor little shellfish. All of the food restrictions were based on what the other religions used in their worship. If they used it, it was an abomination. By the time of Jesus, those cults were gone and Jesus okay's eating everything. It was the worship of pagan gods that was behind this, not the food itself. God is very consistent about asking his people not to do what the other cultures are doing in worship.



Did God say this, or man. Which laws in the O/T were actually recorded from God, and which were later added by man. These are the questions you should ask first, they will lead you to those answers. Also, see the previous answer.




No, he doesn't. Nor does he think you should covet your neighbors wife, or steal, or many other laws. We all live in sin, and none of us is better then another. Based on Jesus' teachings, I would never (knowingly) condemn, hurt, disparage others. I can only try to be the best Christian that I can be. I also believe that homosexuality is 90-some percent genetic, just as my propensity to be attracted to women, even though I am married. We're both sinners, neither is better/worse then the other.




It's in the book, I'm not adding to nor subtracting from it. I can walk them through the steps, if they would wish. Reading any part of the Bible out of context is akin to pulling single lines of computer code and expecting to understand the program.

I never claimed, BTW, that "no true Christian would do bad things." Our history shows us to be the worst of the worst, more often then not; pretty shameful, actually. We are really bad, in general, at following God, and I have known many non-believers who follow Jesus better then those who profess to be Christian. The only True Christian did not do bad things, but only one has never sinned, the rest of us do.

Doing what other cultures do to worship their gods is what was an abomination, not just the eating of the poor little shellfish. All of the food restrictions were based on what the other religions used in their worship. If they used it, it was an abomination.

Where does it say that in the bible? And also, certain foods are used by other religions in their worship TODAY. Why doesn't your god ban their consumption anymore?

Which laws in the O/T were actually recorded from God, and which were later added by man.

Well, my answer to that question is that they were ALL made up by people. Pretty simple. But perhaps you can give everyone a nice, easy, hard-and-fast rule to determine exactly WHAT in the bible was "recorded from God" and what was "added by man."

When you come up with that rule, please do let the other billion Christians on the planet know so they can stop fighting over that very problem, mmmkay?

I also believe that homosexuality is 90-some percent genetic, just as my propensity to be attracted to women, even though I am married. We're both sinners, neither is better/worse then the other.

Ah, I see. You believe homosexuality is a sin. Love the sinner, hate the sin. Are you sure you're in the right party? It's the OTHER guys who don't want homosexuals to have sex or marry.

What does Jesus say about eating shellfish? When you read through the O/T you will see consistently God telling his people not to do as the other religions do. As to what was used in other cultures, you will need to study the anceint history/cultures/religions of the time.



Please read earlier up this thread for that answer, as there is no nice, easy, hard-and-fast rule. You need to study the Word, not skim it, not pull out-of-context quotes. If you would like to begin the learning process, I would be happy to walk through the process with you.



Please, no reason to be snarky.



Did I ever say that I don't want homosexuals to have sex or marry? I, in fact, equated myself with all sinners. I will repeat: We all sin. We are all equal sinners. I am a horrible sinner. Please read my initial response on homosexuality. I would never single out anyone for their sins, as almost everything we do every day is seeped in sin. Too many conservative Christians get hung up on one or two sins, and overlook the ones they commit every day, all day. We Christians can be the biggest hypocrites of all!

When you read through the O/T you will see consistently God telling his people not to do as the other religions do.

Sure you do. Like not cutting down a tree and decorating it, like the heathens do. (You don't have a Christmas tree in your house, do you?!? Sinner!) But in the many "abominations" listed, the context is not "don't do this because the pagans do it," it is simply "don't do it."

You need to study the Word, not skim it, not pull out-of-context quotes.

If it were really that simple, why doesn't every Christian agree with you? Why do many of them (certainly quite a few of them here on DU) believe that homosexuality is NOT a sin? That's the point of my "snarky" comment - to counter your arrogance in thinking that it's simple to determine what the bible really means, and that you've figured it all out. You, among the billions of Christians that have ever lived. You got it right, they all got it wrong. Because I can pretty much guarantee you, each one of them disagrees/disagreed with you on at least one item of Christian faith.

Did I ever say that I don't want homosexuals to have sex or marry?

Sure you did. In the code language typically used by the right wing, though. "We are all equal sinners." Let me guess at your reasoning here - you probably think that it's a sin to have sex outside marriage, heterosexual OR homosexual, right? But you don't believe homosexuals can marry. So while you believe that "we all sin," you give heterosexuals like yourself a way out: get married & hump all you want. But you don't allow that escape clause for homosexuals. Please let me know if I got any of that wrong.

We Christians can be the biggest hypocrites of all!

On that you and I are in 100% agreement.

I do have a Christmas tree. The section you are referring to is dealing with idolatry, not decorations. The context is idolatry. And the context for most of the OT law is "don't do this because the pagans do it". God wants his people set apart, to act differently. Not to sacrifice to Molech, not to worship at high places, not to create temples, not to have temple prostitutes, not to....etc. Because those practices mean that the people are not worshiping God. You can reverse almost all of the law to "Love me".



Too lazy to study the Word? To busy to spend years learning? I can't answer that, and that is irrelevant to this discussion, but I would discuss that in a separate thread.



I can only tell you what is in the text and how it relates to the rest of the Bible. I cannot tell you why someone else believes the way they do. But, remember, I also say that my lusting is a sin, so I am no different. Sin=sin=sin.



So, you do? They do? I do? I never claimed to arrogance nor did I say it is simple to determine what the Bible really means. Example, to take a decent overview course on the whole Bible takes 2 hours a week for 2 years. In depth study takes a life-time. I don't pretend to know everything, but I am willing to walk you through how I got to the belief, and you can accept/reject at that point. It is a long walk, though.



And every non-Christian agrees with you? I never claimed all or most or many Christians agree with what I am stating. I am only stating what is in the book after careful study. In fact, if you read earlier posts, much of this is not even taught in seminary.



No code. I'm straight forward.

So please, don't read into what I don't write, just ask.

I am pro civil unions, and for church marriages if that church chooses to accept it. I believe in civil unions or civil-gay-marriage on the legal-moral issues of our society (we don't live in a Christian theocracy). I also believe that a church can deny anyone religious marriage if they choose, and many do for many reasons, not just homosexuality, because it is their right to do so (separation of church/state), but I would rather be in a progressive church that allows it. I'm a liberal-Biblical-Christian-evolutionist-equal-righter-pro-choicer. Yep, my societal beliefs conflict with my religious beliefs, I'm only human, after all.

You say the context for most of the OT law is "don't do this because the pagans do it." The pagans decorated trees. So do you. Seems to me you're violating your god's law - UNLESS either because you aren't practicing idolatry (though there was no such condition in the original law), or because your god no longer cares (meaning he DID change). You can't get out of that conundrum unless you either admit error in your reasoning/interpretation of the bible, or admit that your god can indeed change its mind. Ouch.

Too lazy to study the Word? To busy to spend years learning? I can't answer that, and that is irrelevant to this discussion

On the contrary, this is actually quite central to the discussion. The original post was asking about what is evil. Certainly if you are holding up the bible as a guide indicating what is evil, the interpretation of said bible is incredibly relevant. Different people read the bible different ways, and if you are presenting it as a "standard," you need to provide an airtight method of always reading it the correct way for your standard to be valid. Considering that nine highly educated Supreme Court justices usually can't agree on words that were originally written in English just 2 centuries ago, I'm going to guess that you'll never have a foolproof way of interpreting the bible correctly, and thus it cannot be held as a standard for determining good and evil.

I never claimed to arrogance nor did I say it is simple to determine what the Bible really means.

You didn't claim arrogance, you merely demonstrated it. And you did make it sound quite simple to interpret the bible.

And every non-Christian agrees with you? I never claimed all or most or many Christians agree with what I am stating. I am only stating what is in the book after careful study.

Actually my point in stating that Christians disagree with you is to point out how your method of bible study must not be too convincing, or else more Christians would be on your side. Especially those at DU who see no "sin" at all in homosexuality. And again, you are trying to make bible interpretation seem simple - "what is in the book after careful study."

I'm a liberal-Biblical-Christian-evolutionist-equal-righter-pro-choicer.

That is indeed an interesting hodgepodge to put together. I am not sure how you justify belief that homosexuality is a "sin" with support for homosexuals to marry, but somehow in your mind I guess you rationalize it.

I would put it a different way: "If it is good, God approves of it."



God never sleeps, and He is just. Your hypothetical makes no sense to me. It is as if you suggested that God might declare that 1+1=3. God has already declared that rape is bad. Your hypothetical god is not the God I worship.



As far as I can tell, you have not disclosed your moral standard, at least not in this thread. Others have suggested that morality is entirely determined by the society that one is in. It is that view that I think is scary and nonsensical. As I pointed out in another post in this thread, if that were true, then rape would be morally equivalent to not-rape, murder to not-murder, and justice to injustice. I can't believe that anyone reasonable would actually have that view.



You may scoff at this, but it is actually pretty easy for me. I have Christ living in my heart.



No. He wants every man and woman to love Him and come to Him of their own free will.

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."

I agree 100% with that Einstein quote. To me, being a Christian is not about angling for a reward or trying to weasel out of punishment. If that is what you think, you have a misunderstanding of Christian beliefs.

As I view it, God has offered me an awesome gift, through His grace. I humbly accept the gift. I try to live my life in accordance with God's Commandments, not out of fear of punishment or hope for reward, but out of love of God, love of my fellow man, and gratitude for the gift that I have received.

I think that perhaps you have some misconceptions about me in particular, and Christians in general. I would urge you to keep an open mind and not jump to conclusions.

Have a nice day!:-)

edited to remove hateful content

Such a second thought is much appreciated. It is important to keep discussion of these matters civil and respectful of our differences.

it's the old carrot-and-stick. Accept "God's gift" and live in heaven. Reject it, and burn in hell.

Everything has the potential to become evil

Can you hate the evil in yourself enough to overcome it? That seems to be the question raised by the Psalmist.

...they intentionally harm another person, humanity as a whole, or nature for thier own pleasure or selfish gain.