There is no such thing as evil
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-06-2014, 09:16 PM (This post was last modified: 16-06-2014 09:19 PM by Shadow Fox.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
Well, good and evil are nothing more than human concepts and extra words put in place of "very bad" and "very good" etc.

Evil is nothing more than an extreme social Misbehavior and nothing more. Most social species animals would see needless and savage killing as something they would need to put a stop to. For example, a pack of wolves where one wolf decides for some strange reason to start eating the cubs of the pack and BAM! He gets eaten himself.

We humans have far more complex societies due to our more efficient brain and the way we evolved over time. So what we call an extreme disbehavior is Evil.

Evil in itself is nothing more then a REALLY negative action that impacts the social group or order.

With every society of humans, there is a difference in opinion on what evil is.

What some deem evil, others think nothing of it as its normal life for them.


Example:

My Definition of evil

Killing!

1. Killing of itself - Bad. But not evil. Depends on what the context of WHY is really.

2. Killing for fun and non profit - Evil....

3. Boiling babies in a pot of tomato juice. -FUCKING EVIL....Fuck you...fuck your Context, Fuck your Christian God and Fuck Jesus Christ AND YOU if you "Think" they told you to do this....Your worst then evil...your a mother fucking Monster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Shadow Fox's post
16-06-2014, 09:46 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
Come on people, we all know Walker is too stupid and delusional to grasp the subtly and nuance here. Why do you even bother? If there is one constant, it's that he's as dead set as he can possibly be on remaining an ignorant Jesus-fellating apologist. Garbage in, garbage out; it's all he's good for folks.


[Image: hB5347933]

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like EvolutionKills's post
16-06-2014, 10:21 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(16-06-2014 09:16 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  3. Boiling babies in a pot of tomato juice. -FUCKING EVIL....Fuck you...fuck your Context, Fuck your Christian God and Fuck Jesus Christ AND YOU if you "Think" they told you to do this....Your worst then evil...your a mother fucking Monster!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So true. You never boil babies in pots, only Irish atheists do that. You gotta slow roast to perfection! Drooling

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like evenheathen's post
16-06-2014, 11:59 PM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
If 'evil' is used as an adjective then what it is applied to can exist.

If 'evil' is used as a noun then it cannot exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Mathilda's post
17-06-2014, 02:13 AM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2014 02:22 AM by Reltzik.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(16-06-2014 06:57 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  There is no such thing as evil.
Good and evil is a bunch of crap.
An atheist who is a member of this forum has made these two statements recently.
How many agree?

(Nuanced response here. It might be above your grade level.)

I regard the labels of good and evil, for all practical purposes, as subjective judgements imposed by individuals or cultures. Even if we were to postulate that there were some sort of underlying objective morality*, our ability to access that moral code is dubious at best. We have no plausible methodology for identifying some moral judgement or action as objectively wrong, nor for conclusively demonstrating the rightness of a particular moral code. Absent that, we will never be able to advance beyond guesswork and unsubstantiated assertions regarding what is good or evil, nor will we even be able to demonstrate that any objective standard exists. In this sense, calling evil and good nonexistent "crap" makes a great deal of sense. However, I think the words themselves serve a purpose in conveying forms of condemnation or approbation, as well as in situations of shared (though still subjective) moral consensus, and would not call them crap in that sense.

*
And what would it even mean for something to be objectively moral? You dodged that question a couple months back and to the best of my knowledge haven't ever come back to answer it. You obviously mean SOMETHING by it because you used the words in an attempt to convey some idea, but you weren't willing to explain what. Is it that your hypothetical God is thought to decree some things good and others evil, and if so, how would that be more than just God's subjective morality? Is it somehow ingrained into the fabric of the universe, like a law of karmic retribution, and if so is it something we can test statistically? Or perhaps we shouldn't assume that moral behavior always results in positive outcomes, shouldn't assume that no good deed goes punished. What does this concept of objectivity even mean in the context of morality?

(16-06-2014 10:21 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  So true. You never boil babies in pots, only Irish atheists do that. You gotta slow roast to perfection! Drooling

Eh. Roasting is... adequate at best. I recommend broiled Stuffed Infant (stuffing consisting primarily of rice and large chunks of apple and pear, but with bits of sweet onion, pineapple, and jalepeno) in a Teriyaki sauce.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Reltzik's post
17-06-2014, 03:04 AM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2014 03:10 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(17-06-2014 02:13 AM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(16-06-2014 10:21 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  So true. You never boil babies in pots, only Irish atheists do that. You gotta slow roast to perfection! Drooling
Eh. Roasting is... adequate at best. I recommend broiled Stuffed Infant (stuffing consisting primarily of rice and large chunks of apple and pear, but with bits of sweet onion, pineapple, and jalepeno) in a Teriyaki sauce.

Really, this Turducken skit needs to be brought up anytime we talk about food. Tongue





The proper order is Hummingbird < Sparrow < Cornish Hen < Chicken < Duck < Turkey < Bigger Turkey (it's Thanksgiving) < Penguin < Peacock < Eagle < Albatross < Emu < Ostrich < Leopard (for presentation) < Pterodactyl < Boeing 747.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
17-06-2014, 03:09 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
What do you mean by "good" and "evil"?
The religious, objective concepts? Those don't exist, because morality is not objective (though you should note that you'll find non-religious atheists who disagree; I know at least one, and he claims to know several more).
If you mean the subjective terms humans use to classify actions like murder, rape, helping the disabled, donating (your own) blood, curing diseases, flipping a coin to decide if you should shoot yourself and other people, and so on? Obviously those exist, but they are subjective, like what constitutes a "hot" individual.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2014, 04:51 AM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2014 05:07 AM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
I am glad that you guys raise this topic. This is a valid topic, one of the most important questions in the world.

I have an objective definition of good and evil.
Of course, the proof is kind of long and requires logical skills, which few people have. The skill of debunking Christianity and apologetics is not enough! I am not interested in convincing people about the definitions of good and evil if they don't care about good, evil or universal, trans-atheistic logical skills.
I already know my definition is correct, because it jibes with other works and everything. I don't need more confirmation from anyone here.

No, it has nothing to do with culture, genetics, evolution and so on. It's not relative, nor any other cheap cop-out. It's trans-human, it's philosophical, it's expressible in general systems theory.
It is a logical necessity derived from the ways things in reality behave, or the first principles. In pure form it has little reference to reality, but it is enormously useful to identify and justify other, more concrete formulations of moral theory and action.
So, who's in?

Just to give you the end conclusion, good is maximal freedom. Freedom means potential variability of a system. Variability is maximal in a certain kind of order, which is a cybernetic hierarchical arrangement, the arrangement from the greatest complexity to the lowest. Systems with greater complexity can express more abstract ideas than less complex systems, which can only express more concrete ideas. Abstract ideas can express the concrete, but it does not work vice versa. This is the principle of hierarchy of abstraction / variability / freedom.
Good is all that strives to evaluate all things and values and institutions, cultural or otherwise in terms of variability and put them into a correct order, that allows for maximal variability. It's kind of difficult to imagine, unless you know something from cybernetics... CPU has more transistors than all the perifery devices, to arrange them differently would be to limit the variability of CPU and the whole computer.
Evil is of course that which perverts the logical hierarchy of abstract values and places more concrete things in control of the more abstract things.

For example, a human being has a great variability, so it will be pretty high in the hierarchy. Can an idea be superior to a human being? Yes, an abstract idea can be superior to people, because it may be an idea of the first principles, which allow for logic, science and consistent behavior and greatly extend the capability of human being and the whole society. The idea may be simple, it doesn't have to be big or complex, only abstract (general). It is worthy to die for an idea, but even better to live for it.
On the other hand, idols like Bible or state symbols or power and violence, these are very concrete things, not very abstract, with very little variability. Putting them in charge of a human being is limiting people's potential and thus it is evil. Mastery of one person over other persons is the same kind of evil. However, parental supervision greatly extends possibilities (and safety) of a child, thus parenting is good.

(16-06-2014 07:07 PM)RobbyPants Wrote:  I think the concepts of good and evil are subjective. I don't believe in any universal good or evil.

(16-06-2014 07:07 PM)sporehux Wrote:  They are labels, like happy and sad.
They exist only in the context where they are being evaluated.

They are concepts which would cease to exist without man to invoke them. Evolved social concepts that would likely predate homosapian.

OK. So what would you do if I provided you an objective definition of good and evil? What difference would it make in your life? Do you have a deep, almost religious desire to be a good person and to do good? Is caution about definitions the last thing stopping you from spreading and teaching the message of good and fighting evil?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-06-2014, 05:06 AM
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(17-06-2014 04:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I have an objective definition of good and evil.

Provide it and prove that it is, in fact, objective.

(17-06-2014 04:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Of course, the proof is kind of long and requires logical skills, which few people have. The skill of debunking Christianity and apologetics is not enough!

How amazing it is that you just happen to have these skills that are beyond any normal human... You're amazing! Facepalm

(17-06-2014 04:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I am not interested in convincing people about the definitions of good and evil if they don't care about good, evil or universal, trans-atheistic logical skills.

I care about good and evil. Everyone who's not a psychopath, sociopath, brain-dead, or fully dead cares about good and evil. Dunno what are "universal, trans-atheistic logical skills", though. Last I checked, logic wasn't "atheistic", so, technically, any logical skills are trans-atheistic (although the prefix "trans" smells like new-age bullshit to me in this context). The "universal" comment also reveals your egocentric/narcissistic nature. Now I'll wait for you to focus on these comments to avoid providing your definition, since you know your definition is bullshit, or you would have provided it already. Either that or you're just an attention whore and don't just want to tell other people things; you want them to ask (maybe even beg) you to tell them things, which, in your mind, implies that they somehow admire you. Time will tell regarding the attention whore thing, but I can already say we do not admire you.

(17-06-2014 04:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I already know my definition is correct, because it jibes with other works and everything.

So your objective definition "jibes" with human-made and subjective works? Incredible!

(17-06-2014 04:51 AM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't need more confirmation from anyone here.

Not with your astounding "universal, trans-atheistic logical skills".

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like One Above All's post
17-06-2014, 05:18 AM (This post was last modified: 17-06-2014 05:30 AM by Luminon.)
RE: There is no such thing as evil
(17-06-2014 05:06 AM)One Above All Wrote:  I care about good and evil. Everyone who's not a psychopath, sociopath, brain-dead, or fully dead cares about good and evil. Dunno what are "universal, trans-atheistic logical skills", though. Last I checked, logic wasn't "atheistic", so, technically, any logical skills are trans-atheistic (although the prefix "trans" smells like new-age bullshit to me in this context). The "universal" comment also reveals your egocentric/narcissistic nature. Now I'll wait for you to focus on these comments to avoid providing your definition, since you know your definition is bullshit, or you would have provided it already. Either that or you're just an attention whore and don't just want to tell other people things; you want them to ask (maybe even beg) you to tell them things, which, in your mind, implies that they somehow admire you. Time will tell regarding the attention whore thing, but I can already say we do not admire you.
OK, please refresh the page, read the updated post and tell me what do you think. I have a couple dozen pages of this stuff (not in English), mostly more evidence and parallels to physical reality, but that is the essence.

By trans-atheistic logical skills I mean that I am pissed at people who debunk Church nonsense, but swallow the same bullshit arguments when their government says them without the god part. Or parents. The bullshit runs deep and losing faith is just scratching the surface. All that it means to de-convert nowadays is that bullshit needs to be secular to pass under people's radar.

Hey, I may be narcissistic, but
a) I do therapy
b) My definition is just generalized definition of other people's definitions of good, which means it includes them all. The fun part is, I arrived at it independently, which makes me proud.
c) It is supposed to provoke you into curiosity and desire to prove me wrong.
d) I don't want people to admire me, my stuff is intrinsically rewarding. I'm just not going to be modest unless I get a good argument for modesty. So far, every time I tried to be modest, it turned out to be underestimation of myself or avoiding responsibility.
I want them to love goodness and hate evil, both with passion and reason combined. That kind of passion tends to awaken once we really see there are sharp tools to cut through bullshit. I try to provide people the sharp tools, so they can start. Cutting through bullshit is an intrinsically rewarding activity and I want to extend this activity into secular sphere, such as government, culture, family, personal relationships and self-knowledge. However, this is an extremely difficult discipline and few people have the potential and drive. Maybe one in thousand, maybe one in ten thousand.
e) I think I might have found a way to define a relationship between the subjective mind and objective physics, which is something like a unified field theory of philosophy. This is kind of cool. But I really don't want to translate the stuff for someone who is not passionate and reasonable about this sort of thing.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: