Kyry
Oh, what predictability! I love to see my prophecies come true so quickly! 
So did you have a point?
Well the atheist do not have to accept the theist’s perspective at all. You can simply treat the theist as deluded. Here is the opportunity for the enlightened atheist to tell the world whether or not there is evil from his perspective; and if there is, then why evil exist?
Isnt it evil itself to lead others to believe that there is no evil? Is it not evil not to tell the blind that he is walking towards an abyss but instead to let and even encourage him continue to walk towards it? Isnt it most devilish when Satan appears as an angel of light instead of as Satan himself?
But if you say evil is in you, and since you are in the world, is evil not in the world too, through you: in your thoughts, words and acts, or lack thereof.
So is there or is there not evil in the world? You are very muddled.
chanbengchin… please read ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … b37dc9a21a
I think we did a great job discribing how there is no evil.
So is there or is there not evil in the world? You are very muddled. How so, isnt that just what you think, its not a fact. There is no evil in the world.
*Nods head in a Baptist church way and says “aaaamen†*
The moment that we as individuals encounter something we find disagreeable, then it becomes “evil” or “intolerable.”
However, the theistic explanation is often that when we as individuals find something disagreeable, then it becomes “evil” or “intolerable” to “God.”
Evil, in my opinion, is simply a product of emotional frustration that defies personal preference. However, and I do think the theistic perspective is at fault here and unacceptable for me, is to project this emotional frustration that defies personal preference (“evil”) as a universal absolute due to some faulty reference from a perfect creator that created something on purpose only to dispise it. That is simply irrational. And it is very irrational in my opinion to propose that there are universal absolutes on good and evil that coincidentally match this superior figure which reigns over all others that match the emotional frustations of the individual advocating such axioms.
What I think is evil doesn’t have to be mutual. However, theists impose that how they define evil should be a mandate for all.
Nothing but projected egotism that imposes that one has a superior bias through ancient myth in my opinion. And if it is imposed that this is the definition of “evil” that I am required to adhere to, then certainly the source should be rational and it is clearly not in my opinion.
Kyry
[i]“Great. Tell that to all the holocaust victims, or the victims of the Rwanda genocide, or any of the many other horrific evils in the world.
No one can rationally believe there is no evil in the world. And even if you try (somehow) to suggest evil is but an illusion, the illusion itself is evil.â€[/i]
“Horrific evils?†Where do you get the justification for this opinion? I’ll tell you. It has been drummed into you for so many years that such things, (as those you refer to,) are evils, that you’re afraid even to question such matters.
‘Investigate the possibility that I may believe lies to be truth? No it’s impossible!’
Of course, changing your ideas would rock you to the foundations and you’d be obliged then to revise all your theories. Better then stick to the relative safety of your conservatism. For you, and the vast majority of humankind, and virtually all the philosophy textbooks, evil exists as you say, and you have never questioned it. To do so would be taboo, it would be tantamount to brazenly admitting in public that one were a cannibal or a paedophile. So you deny yourself the possibility of freedom of speech! What irony!
The real ‘victims’ of the Rwanda genocide are all those involved who, (like yourself,) believe(d) in external good and evil. You expect me to go and address these ‘victims’ and tell them that they’re wrong? They’d tear me limb from limb. They’d do to me, (i.e., my body,) what they did to those poor Americans in Iraq the other day. Why? Because they’re completely uneducated in the most simple matters, e.g., the true nature of the good and of the evil. And so long as I entertain false ideas about such things I am no better than they, in fact, I’d go even further and say this, so long as I believe in the myth of external good and evil I am responsible for every single ‘outrage’ in the world.
Isn’t this what the great and noble Jesus actually saw? And he took the sins of the world upon himself, and set an example to you. This is where your false beliefs lead. Can you not see? Jesus crucified is telling you, ‘This is what your ideas logically lead to. Is this what you fools want?’
And your reply is still to believe in external good and evil! In false gods! What does it take for you to get it into your thick skulls?
It is irrational to believe there is evil in the world. The world is indifferent.
(By the way, you made my point for me!)
Chanbengchin
“Isn’t it evil itself to lead others to believe that there is no evil?”
No. The only evil in this world lies in the heart of him who believes there is evil in the world outside his heart. (By ‘heart’ I mean innermost being.)
“Is it not evil not to tell the blind that he is walking towards an abyss but instead to let and even encourage him continue to walk towards it?”
No. Evil or good does not enter into the matter in that way. A man walking to an abyss may have wanted to commit suicide and he may then regard your interference as evil. (Of course he also would be wrong.)
“Isnt it most devilish when Satan appears as an angel of light instead of as Satan himself?”
Satan, as evil personified, amounts to illustration, nothing more, for children and the simple-minded. Likewise, angels need to be understood not as depicted in religious paintings but as parables, symbols, allegories, etc… The devil, Satan, symbolises that which traps the human mind into the kind of thinking that leads them astray, i.e., to believe that there is evil out there in the world.
“But if you say evil is in you, and since you are in the world, is evil not in the world too, through you: in your thoughts, words and acts, or lack thereof.”
The eternal battle between good and evil is that which occurs within our hearts and souls, bodies(passions) and minds all our days. That war should not be confused with events in an indifferent world.
“So is there or is there not evil in the world? You are very muddled.”
There is absolutely and finally, (and infallibly so,) no evil whatsoever in the world.
No I am not muddled, it’s simply that it is a very hard point to grasp, and even harder to explain, especially to those who are unwilling to hear.
Love and peace to you.
To phrygianslave, if there is no evil in the world what then do you call and how do you explain for the Rwanda massacres, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Cambodia, the Holocaust in WWII, the Tokyo subway gas attacks, the WTC, Bali and Madrid train attacks, etc etc.
Even if I agree with you that evil is all within you, isolated, contained and confined within each and every person, are there not still manifestations external to us that demand such descriptions as horror, monstrosity, gut-churning revulsion, inhumane, savage, etc etc. Do tell what are these if not evil by other names?
For all your evangelical blathering, you haven’t made a case for there being no evil in the world. You’ve just denied that there is. And none of your pronouncements, that you seem to be very impressed with and think very profound, do better.
How does sin exist, by your rationale? What is suffering to you?
And I suggest in the interests of manners if not philosophical courtesy that you refrain from telling me what I think, and why I think it.
Speak for yourself, man. Man is not naturally evil, man is naturally… natural. It is natural for any animal, man or otherwise, to pursue his own needs, wants or desires and to prioritize his own needs, wants and desires over the wants and desries of others. It is not evil to do what comes naturally, whether it’s a man killing another man, or a man killing an animal to eat, or a dog killing a cat to eat, or a cat killing a bug.
Men make up “evil” and define it subjectively, and when other men don’t conform and live in accordance with their narrow subjective definition of evil, then they are deemed evil. If a group of men says it is a sin to kill other men, then the man who follows his natural instinct and kills is deemed evil. If a group of men says it is a sin to smoke pot, then the men among them who do smoke pot are deemed evil.
To you, obfuscator, it is evil to not comply with the subjective whims of others, whereas with me, it is evil to expect or force others to comply with your own subjective whims. Of course, that’s not really evil, either… it is natural for a human being to expect and force others to comply with his own subjective whims… so… there is no such thing as “evil.”
EDIT: I don’t think Obfuscator wrote that, but I forget who did.
That proof is correct. It is claimed by theists that God is perfect, that he is all=knowing, all-powerful and all-loving. Theists claim that evil exists, but that God hates evil. Which begs the question, if God hates evil, then why does he allow it to exist? If God is all-powerful, then he could rid the world of evil, and if he is all-loving and all-merciful, then he certainly would. So either he is not all-powerful and can not rid the world of evil as he would like to do, or he is not all=loving and all-merciful and chooses to allow evil to continue to the detriment of every living being. This is a contradiction (paradox) that is proof that God, as defined by the overwhelming majority of theists and theist religions, does not exist.
It doesn’t completely prove that there is no God, but it does prove that the Gods of the primary religions of the world today does not exist as they describe him and that those who follow those religions believe in the existence of something that is impossible.
If there is a God, it can not be the Judeo-Christian God that most of the western and (mid-eastern) world believes in because:
- he (the Judeo-Christian god) is all-powerful and all-loving, and he would rid the world of that which the Judeo-Christians define as evil
- that which Judeo-Christians define as evil would not exist, but it does.
If there is a God, he can not be (or have said) what the Judeo-Christian religions describe him to be (or have said). Either he is not all-powerful, not all-loving, or does not hate evil or does not view evil as defined by those religions. No matter which one of these is true or untrue, it is evident that the Judeo-Christian religions are incorrect about at least one of these factors, and thus are not worth following since they are not purely correct.
I point out that an all-poweful and/or all-loving god is not refuted by this argument because I have already pointed out that the concept of evil is a concoction of a man or group of men used to force other men to comply with their subjective whims. If there is an all-loving and all-powerful god then either he doesn’t see man’s natural behavior as evil, or if he does view it as evil, he does not hate it.
The best way to rid the world of that which you subjectively view as evil is to use reason and alter your view of what is evil and use reason to convince others not to do things that you view as evil.
I don’t like the term evil, because of its subjectiveness, but personally, from my own subjective viewpoint, the only thing I view as evil (though I much rather say “immoral” than “evil”) is using (the threat of) force to compel others to behave in a specific manner when no rational jusitification exists for them to behave that way. No rational jusitification exists for a man to hand another man his wallet, watch and whatever other valuables are on his person, unless the other man (a mugger) is threatening to use force against him. No rational justification exists for a man not to smoke pot, which he finds pleasurable and not harmful to his own person, unless an authority threatens to use force against him if he does smoke pot.
phyrgianslave the “wise” says that atheism is a fancy word for impudence, but evil is merely a fancy word for “insubordination” to the subjective whims of a man or group of men. Those who are impudent are “guilty” of insubordination. He brings up the (unproven) fact that all men “can be bought” as proof that atheism is a myth, but omits that all theists can be bought, too. However, being “bought” may only cause a man to mimic the party line, it doesn’t necessarily actually change his belief. The price for which a man will tell lies to other people is not necessarily the same price for which he will tell lies to himself.
Anyway, to end this, the term evil is subjective to each individual’s system of morals (or lack thereof). If one’s morals are irrational, then what he deems to be evil will be irrational. If you irrationally believe that smoking pot or having sex is immoral, then you will deem those acts as evil. If you don’t, you won’t. As for victims of the holocaust and other victims of nature, they, in their own subjective view may deem those who killed them as evil, but that does not mean that they are in actuality evil, which they weren’t since they only did what was natural and forced upon them. If you want to avoid further holocausts, consider convincing the people who share your planet to be rational and to forbid unjustifiable irrational use of force to impose ideas and behavior, rather than trying to convince others that nature is “evil.”
How then can “evil” prove there is no God? All that exists is merely “natural”, tautologically speaking, and God exists without contradiction. It is like saying that the pegasus proves that horses can fly. We know there are no pegasuses and therefore horses dont fly, at least not on the basis of this “proof”.
And this reason is? What reason do I have to accept what I think, say and do as evil, when it is just me, naturally. For example it is entirely natural for me to to rob, lie and kill, for that’s what I need to do to survive, for all my life, or else I’ll be abused, raped and killed. So my use of force on you to rid you of your wallet and life is reasoned, rational and justified.
And so is organised crime, it is just a business. It is only a crime because some majority decided to call certain acts, like prostitution a crime, when it is an entirely natural and profitable profession even before there was money. And dont tell me that just because a business is legal it is not evil?
Evil by another name?
Kyry
“For all your evangelical blathering, you haven’t made a case for there being no evil in the world. You’ve just denied that there is. And none of your pronouncements, that you seem to be very impressed with and think very profound, do better.â€
What would constitute a ‘case’ for you? Would you be satisfied with anything I came up with? No. So, there’s no point in my trying to make any ‘case’ as you put it. I know human nature only too well. But when you’re ready, in your own good time, you may be fortunate, and gain understanding.
â€How does sin exist, by your rationale? What is suffering to you?â€
Sin exists because people allow themselves to be ruled by their lusts, their passions, their bodily needs, to the detriment of their true nature - all that which is heroic and god-like.
Suffering is putting up with ignorance, (and a lot of other stuff,) without finding fault or complaining. As soon as you whinge and whine you sin against god.
"And I suggest in the interests of manners if not philosophical courtesy that you refrain from telling me what I think, and why I think it.â€
Since when were you appointed censor-in-chief at ILP? I did not not literally tell you anything, I was speaking figuratively, I was merely employing literary device. So this is not permitted on your site?
How about if you give reasons why you think everyone who believes evil exists is wrong, why they are mistaken in using the word, and where lies the mistake in there even being such a word?
So what did the holocaust victims go through? Or the Rwandan victims? Or those who are victims of agonising diseases? Or anyone who is tortured?
Yes you did, and it was no literary device. I’m suggesting you actually argue a case, and do it with decorum.
Chanbengchin
“To phrygianslave, if there is no evil in the world what then do you call and how do you explain for the Rwanda massacres, the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia and Cambodia, the Holocaust in WWII, the Tokyo subway gas attacks, the WTC, Bali and Madrid train attacks, etc etc.â€
Why such a big deal about these things? Why not the example of the death of many oxen and many sheep and the burning and destruction of many nests of swallows or storks? So men’s bodies perished in the one case, and bodies of oxen and sheep in the other. The petty dwellings of men were burned, and so were the nests of storks. So why the big deal? What’s the problem. There is little difference between the bodies of men and the bodies of other creatures. There is little difference between the houses of men and the nests of storks. Where then is the evil? You tell me! Go on, tell me. I want to hear it.
â€Even if I agree with you that evil is all within you, isolated, contained and confined within each and every person, are there not still manifestations external to us that demand such descriptions as horror, monstrosity, gut-churning revulsion, inhumane, savage, etc etc. Do tell what are these if not evil by other names?â€
Socrates called these things masks or bugbears. They make little children jump with fright and run to their mother’s skirts.
You are merely giving examples of the peculiar phenomenon of the bug-word and its effects which others, (including yourself,) are taken in by, words like, “Weapons of Mass Destruction,†etc., but for those who are advanced in their studies such words are merely amusing.
Humans are inflicted with psychological suffering while your storks are not. Who are the ones who mourn the dead, its not the ones who die but the survivors and family. It is the ones who live that suffer not the ones who die. We cry over the injustice to those human beings we see perish and to there seemingly awful fates.
The living are stuck with the questions of why and what for. We suffer and therefore we call this evil. The man who survives a concentration camp while his whole family perishes and are denied life, is the one who truly suffers and this injustice he cannot comprehend therefore we deem it to be correct to call such a thing a monstrosity and an evil which is found in the tears of those who mourn.
Kyry
“How about if you give reasons why you think everyone who believes evil exists is wrong,â€
I never said that everyone who believes evil exists is wrong, only that everyone who believes it exists outside himself, i.e., outside his own moral purpose, is wrong.
“why they are mistaken in using the word,â€
The word is mistakenly applied to events in the external world. It is too easy to demonise and adjudge guilty, to make pronouncements on the merits and demerits of another’s actions, to find fault with our fellows, to demand the restoration of capital punishment, to argue in favour of bringing back the guillotine, to go to war with another country, to kill and maim our fellows, to send lifers to the electric chair…
And the cause of all this that you call evil? Why it begins with someone saying, ‘that is evil,’ and another argues, ‘no, that is good.’ Both wrong! Limit the good and evil to your own thoughts and actions, and leave others alone to do the same.
Externals are indifferent and under the control of no-one. Occurrences in the world do not belong to me. All that belongs to me is correct thinking about said occurrences. If I start calling everything that happens in the world good or bad I help to reinforce the fabrication of conflict scenarios and a hopelessly artificial worldview. For there is no unanimous agreement about the good and bad. (One man’s meat is another man’s poison.)
The word, ‘evil,’ is bandied about by the educated and uneducated alike, in our democratic western world of one-man-one-vote, but that doesn’t mean that those who employ it have got even the faintest idea of what it is they’re really talking about.
“and where lies the mistake in there even being such a word?â€
There is no mistake in there being such a word. The mistake is that human beings confuse art and life. A painting of S. George killing the dragon is to be understood as an allegory of the inner war between good and evil. Likewise, a film, or a documentary we see on the television, or a book we read, are works of art, not reality. They are to be understood as works of art, and they say what has to be said in terms of the work of art. Our minds are largely conditioned by art. Art, has necessarily, to be fairly literal in order to imprint the message of its author upon us. (It has to appeal to popular standards of taste, get to a large audience, etc., in order to get finance.)
I saw a film on the television last night. ‘The Enforcer,’ with Clint Eastwood. Made in 1976, and basically a decorative work in the ‘Shaft’ vein. The film was the usual cinematic version of reality in which good (hero) overcomes evil villain(s) – excellent! This was the superficial reading. But then I was amazed to suddenly find myself glued to the screen witnessing in microcosm America jack booting it’s way into Iraq. This was the reading on a deep level. It was uncanny. Change the faces, change the sets, change the dates, and there it was, America invading Iraq, twenty-five years before the event!
Now, the fact is, people generally understand the world very superficially. This is why Jesus ben Pantera spoke in parables. This is why comics and the cinema are popular. This is why people worship money and cars and things that are immediate and that they can touch and buy, (or steal.)
What I’m saying is that we need to be reminded about what evil and good actually and originally refer to. (And for you to mention such things as massacres and the suchlike really gets us nowhere. We’re just gonna be stuck forever in the same mud swamp.) Actually, I’d go so far as to say that it is a crime to withhold the truth about good and evil from people. Not just to withhold it but to deliberately deny it. The masses have been kept in ignorance for too long!
“So what did the holocaust victims go through? Or the Rwandan victims? Or those who are victims of agonising diseases? Or anyone who is tortured?â€
Not only the holocaust ‘victims’ but every single person in this world goes through a trial. Each one of us is tried and tested throughout life’s journey. Whoever said life was going to be easy was a fool, or else a very wise man. See my comments above about ‘bug-words.’
“Yes you did, and it was no literary device. I’m suggesting you actually argue a case, and do it with decorum.â€
I insist it was a literary device. I do my best to argue the toss in my own sweet way. OK, so I don’t tow the line but I’m a philosophical outsider and I have no intention of dancing to the tune of a system I regard with healthy disrespect. As for decorum, I don’t think I’ve exceeded any bounds.
Atheists get a very clear and distinct view of evil everytime they look themselves in the mirror. Atheism = Hitler.
Thank you Monk…that was very concise. I have a feeling Ben’s going to let you fool around here for a while under your new guise. However, a bit of advice: keep the bigotry to a minimum if you don’t want to get banned again.
That is you are saying that “evil” exists in this world.
And I suppose such “product” includes acts to eliminate or overcome these “emotional frustrations” or their sources, such as other people, yes?
Also can you say/discuss what is evil without any reference at all to theism? For certainly evil exists in a world for which the notion of God was never conceived or even inconceivable.
And there is nothing “wrong” with evil, for it is just the nature of things.
Not exactly. I was saying that “evil” exists in our emotional perception of the universe. Something becomes “evil” once it defies our personal expectations in an intolerable way.
Of course.
No, there is plenty “wrong” with “evil” from our own perspectives or it wouldn’t be “evil.” However, once we transcend our personal perspective of what is evil as being an axiom in the best interests for every perspective, then the “problems” occur which brings us to the problems with “God.”
It isn’t so much that evil is a problem for the universe or even ourselves as it is assumed to be for certain conceptions of “God.” God supposedly created us to have the capacity for “evil” through freewill only to be frustrated by it and punish us for it. This is irrational in my opinion. I can accept that I have freewill in which I personally decide what is “evil,” but I reject this notion that some supreme being gave me the capacity for something only to frustrated by it and punish me for it. It’s really tough to worship something that doesn’t have the sense to understand that if evil is a problem, then it shouldn’t have been introduced into the plan. And it had to be introduced at some point because all we can possibly understand is what the universe entails which was supposedly initiated by this “God.”