An example of why it isn't always God

[Deadly_Nightshade]

There is no perspective. There is good, there is evil, and there is the morally debatable. To put so simple an idiot could understand it, "if you don't want it done to you don't do it to others" which is an extremely broad statement, I know. They're "evil" by both my religion and my moral beliefs. "flames are kewl right?" Srsly, only a moron thinks thats kewl.

 

How do you know that your religion is moral? The Abrahamic "God," if he/she/it actually exists, is a vile, murdering, hypocrite who, according to the Bible and Torah, has slaughtered thousands, if not millions, of people and commanded his* followers to murder countless other peoples. You claim that you are the ultimate morality, but why should we believe you? How is your system just? And if it is not, why should we adopt flawed morals?

 

No, this also is "evil", obviously not at the level of rape or murder, but evil nonetheless.

 

"All things are subject to interpretation whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth."** Everything is filtered trough a cultural or personal filter before it is judged to be "good" or "evil" - and those things are always changing. I do not believe that certain things are "good" and others "evil," for how can anything be completely positive or negative? You are making an asinine generalization about peoples' actions and providing no evidence to back-up your viewpoint.

 

If there were no god explain this: Where did everything about/in/on/of/with/attached/related/etc of science come from? Where did your special big bang bang from?

 

I do not know that, but I do know that there is no reason to believe some magic-man did it.

 

*I use words like "he" and "his" not because I believe that god, if such a being is real, is male, but due to the fact that I must have that part of speech there.

 

**Friedrich Nietzsche

[Humodour]

Can we keep this civil? It'd be a shame to lose the thread.

 

Yeah right, this thread is misery.

 

Sounds like somebody who doesn't know how to respond to criticism of his posts, so is aiming to bury the thread instead.

 

Tigranes: Nice post on what science is and isn't. Though I didn't make my post in an attempt to claim science is perfect; rather to demonstrate why beliefs like those of walkerguy ("I don't believe in the big bang... hey isn't it cool how I'm talking to you around the world through light waves?") are illogical. Science tends to be an all or nothing game.

 

Walkerguy: I don't know what came before the big bang; I wasn't there. Does that mean it was 'god'? How rare.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Yes you can kill in war or defense. Not genocide by all means.

 

But you were just explaining how morals are absolute - how is one type of killing any different from another unless you admit that you are using your personal perspective to justify that sentiment?

[walkerguy]

So science didn't do it. Ok, Krezack.

 

This is the same thing you pulled on Stargate Atlantis thread, this attitude.

Edited March 20, 2008 by walkerguy

[walkerguy]

I mean perspectives such as one where killing can be justified. Killing cannot be justified, unless it is in war or defense. I don't mean no killing at all. Hell, I'll step on plenty of ants today.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

So science didn't do it.

 

No, a natural process did - or at least that is the most likely explanation.

[walkerguy]

I was reffering to his piss poor response.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I mean perspectives such as one where killing can be justified. Killing cannot be justified, unless it is in war or defense.

 

You just justified killing, and thus undermined your initial claim. Please either explain this contradiction or admit that you are being hypocritical.

[Nick_i_am]

Yes you can kill in war or defense. Not genocide by all means.

 

But you said that killing PERIOD is evil, what you're doing is proving that there IS a moral grey-area. Why isn't war itself evil? Cirtainly some people think it is, but within your own moral system you can justify it as 'nasty, but sometimes nessesery'. I'm not even saying that this is 'wrong', but I AM saying that there's a moral grey area.

I am NOT saying that war or murder is good or evil, I am questioning your doublethink over the idea that killing is evil PERIOD, unless you say that it's okay, which obviously means that it's not evil PERIOD depending on the situation.

 

You also said that intention doesn't matter, but when an evil action leads to a good effect, for example, a rape child developing a cure for AIDS, does that mean the original act was good? After all, you also say that a sacrifice for good is good, and while, in the above example, the 'good' is retrospective, it's still enough to cast a moral gray area over what you've said.

I'm NOT saying that rape is good, I am questioning your claim that intention means nothing.

 

Don't take these posts as attacks, take them as oppotunities to clarify your points.

Edited March 20, 2008 by Nick_i_am

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I was reffering to his piss poor response.

 

I can see no problems with it other then a slight mocking tone - your responses on the other hand...

[Humodour]

So science didn't do it. Ok, Krezack.

 

I know you find it hard to comprehend even simple ideas, but I'll keep trying anyway: science doesn't know yet (string theory is promising, but so much time has passed it's possible we'll never know). That doesn't mean it was god.

[walkerguy]

Technically, I was, which is a trivial point. Just know that I meant it the way it was being discussed earlier- check the posts such as this: !!!

[walkerguy]

Yes you can kill in war or defense. Not genocide by all means.

 

But you said that killing PERIOD is evil, what you're doing is proving that there IS a moral grey-area. Why isn't war itself evil? Cirtainly some people think it is, but within your own moral system you can justify it as 'nasty, but sometimes nessesery'. I'm not even saying that this is 'wrong', but I AM saying that there's a moral grey area.

I am NOT saying that war or murder is good or evil, I am questioning your doublethink over the idea that killing is evil PERIOD, unless you say that it's okay, which obviously means that it's not evil PERIOD depending on the situation.

 

You also said that intention doesn't matter, but when an evil action leads to a good effect, for example, a rape child developing a cure for AIDS, does that mean the original act was good? After all, you also say that a sacrifice for good is good, and while, in the above example, the 'good' is retrospective, it's still enough to cast a moral gray area over what you've said.

I'm NOT saying that rape is good, I am questioning your claim that intention means nothing.

 

Don't take these posts as attacks, take them as oppotunities to clarify your points.

 

Yes, a "morally debatable" area as I put it.

Also that would be an evil an intention and good coming of it. As long as evil prevails at least we can hope for that.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...check the posts such as this: !!!

 

Good and evil are labels we put on things based on the beliefs shaped by our society and our own individual experiences. Nothing is inherently good or evil, and to claim some issues are black and white whilst others are gray is to arrogantly assume your views are the right ones

 

I see nothing wrong with this statement.

[Nick_i_am]

Actually, people missed the point of Hell Kitties post. He was in no way justifing the actions, but simply showing them from the perspective of the person commiting them, and thus showing that there isn't an absolute in evil because it depends entirely on ones perspective and moral standpoint.

 

To phase it more simply. The killer doesn't think they're evil, so does that mean they are just because we think so? It doesn't mean they arn't, it just means that we have to consider perspective and intent clearly, showing that there is no absolute.

[walkerguy]

So science didn't do it. Ok, Krezack.

 

I know you find it hard to comprehend even simple ideas, but I'll keep trying anyway: science doesn't know yet (string theory is promising, but so much time has passed it's possible we'll never know). That doesn't mean it was god.

 

I know you find faith hard to understand, and you take comfort in science since you think that there won't be a god in control, that people are.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Yes, a "morally debatable" area as I put it.

But you also claimed that morals are black and white, set in stone - please make up your mind.

[walkerguy]

...check the posts such as this: !!!

 

Good and evil are labels we put on things based on the beliefs shaped by our society and our own individual experiences. Nothing is inherently good or evil, and to claim some issues are black and white whilst others are gray is to arrogantly assume your views are the right ones

 

I see nothing wrong with this statement.

 

 

Actually, people missed the point of Hell Kitties post. He was in no way justifing the actions, but simply showing them from the perspective of the person commiting them, and thus showing that there isn't an absolute in evil because it depends entirely on ones perspective and moral standpoint.

 

To phase it more simply. The killer doesn't think they're evil, so does that mean they are just because we think so? It doesn't mean they arn't, it just means that we have to consider perspective and intent clearly, showing that there is no absolute.

 

These are the exact things I argue against. I don't care if an axe murderer thinks its funny to kill, that is evil. The fact that this is in question shows how far the world has crept into darkness. Being serious, say a Hutu was raised to hate Tutsis and kill, he is still evil! Just because he thinks he is correct doesn't change the fact that it is evil. Say my perspective is incorrect and so called goodness- and the "correct" way is killing and raping. I'd argue that I feel much more at peace and happy when I'm not killing and raping, but instead caring and helping. Every person can agree with that, I hope.

Edited March 20, 2008 by walkerguy

[Deadly_Nightshade]

...you take comfort in science since you think that there won't be a god in control, that people are.

 

I see no evidence that a "god" is in control, nor have I seen anything that negates free-will (although there are some who argue that we are just living according to causation) and the idea that people are independent entities. But let's not get off-topic.

[walkerguy]

Yes, a "morally debatable" area as I put it.

But you also claimed that morals are black and white, set in stone - please make up your mind.

 

****! Morally debatable issues! Not everything in the world is debatable. That is why it is a category. Killing is not in that category. I feel like you're in attack mode, and if you'd please stop and not give an excuse "im trying to understand your ideas" I'd appreciate it.

[walkerguy]

Nightshade!!! Re-read my post NOW! I SAID there IS NO EVIDENCE. Its called FAITH.

[Humodour]

So science didn't do it. Ok, Krezack.

 

I know you find it hard to comprehend even simple ideas, but I'll keep trying anyway: science doesn't know yet (string theory is promising, but so much time has passed it's possible we'll never know). That doesn't mean it was god.

 

I know you find faith hard to understand, and you take comfort in science since you think that there won't be a god in control, that people are.

 

Can you please stop posting in this thread?

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Being serious, say a Hutu was raised to hate Tutsis and kill, he is still evil! Just because he thinks he is correct doesn't change the fact that it is evil.

 

He might have been manipulated into accepting a harmful belief, but he, himself, is not necessarily evil.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Nightandshpae: BENEFITS OF GENOCIDE? Yes, the killers get some land, food, whatever. Maybe they even gain civil rights. The inflicted oppression or discrimination may of been wrong but committing genocide doesn't make things right. Blood doesn't heal wounds. Genocide = . PERIOD.

I am sure a demented Hutu or Sudanese killer thinks they are "doing great honours" but I'm sure they don't want to be hacked with a machete. On the other hand, likely a Tutsi or Sudanese national thinks they're doing right by discriminating and hating in turn, but both sides are wrong.. Goodness is acceptance, love, and caring. I'm not telling them to go have a Chilean pokemon* event, but differences must be thrown down and a greater unity instilled. I guess Hitler thought gassing Jews was enjoyable revenge as well, whereas the Jews thought Christians were radical and needed to be crucified. The kid down the block gave me a wedgie, but I stole his lunch money. Good to somebody and evil to another, evil acts are often done on both sides. Retaliation is not justice. Same day, 1000 years later, whatever. Defense is an acceptable measure but retaliatory violence is not.

 

Serial killer who kills other serial killers?

 

Well, evil, but doing good. Leave him well alone, he's a free bounty hunter.

 

The problem with what you're saying isn't that I may agree or disagree, the problem is that you're projecting your own moral standing onto the situation... I may even agree with some of your sentiments, I may not. You believe as many Christians believe, in regards to goodness being acceptance, love and caring. Lots of altruistic overtones.

 

Stating that Genoside = period, for example is very much you saying what you feel on the topic, it is both understood and noted by myself.

 

There cannot be ABSOLUTE moral facts, there is only a wide acceptance of the belief, which is subjectively fact to those believers. Naturally conviction itself of any belief in any moral standpoint indicates that such things should be spread amoung people, because in the event that everyone believed that genoside = then it could never be advocated and thusly never happen. Though even in that event it doesn't make it good, everyone would just believe it is, which certainly makes it easier to define good and evil, but that doesn't make it true.

 

If everyone believed in god, would that mean that god existed, as in undeniable fact? Or would it just mean that all people believed the same thing? I am inclined to the latter as belief in something doesn't make it fact.

 

Or here is a particular favourite, what if there was a god and said god was actually totally evil then wouldn't you be advocating something evil where you thought it good?

 

So as I was saying, you're projecting that belief, but I can say that IT IS A FACT, that people in this world hold other beliefs, and genoside has been advocated, and because of that what you present as good, and true cannot be true for all, and thus not good for all.

 

For example you appear to believe that violence is wrong... I may not, I may even believe that violence is good, I may even go so far as to say that war is a damn fine thing, it kills off the weak, keeps populations down etc... etc... All benefits from my hypothetical standpoint.

 

Now ask yourself this question... What do you do about all the people whom don't hold the same morality that you do?

[Nick_i_am]

I don't care if an axe murderer thinks its funny to kill, that is evil. The fact that this is in question shows how far the world has crept into darkness.

 

And yet, you'll argue that a war on forign soil is acceptable in cirtain circumstances. You claim peace and love, but look at the attitudes you showed towards china, you're hardly offering them an olive branch and whatever claims you have that 'they started it' are rended somewhat dubious by 'your' failure to stop it from happening in the first place.

 

After all, if actions are evil, inaction that leads to the same result can be just as evil, and by your own account, intention or even knowledge is no excuse.

 

The point isn't weather ANYTHING is good or evil, the point is that they're both just labels that we give to things based on our own experiences and morals. They can't be absolute or else everyone would agree with them.

 

Look at the old testiment, god purged the world full of sin of all its life, and yet, would it have only taken one good person killed in the flood to make the entire act 'evil'?