Good vs Evil

SavedByChrist94 said:

So if rape serves a persons rational interest, it would be right? in reality rape under all circumstances is wrong.

Click to expand...

But according to the bible, rape isn't such a big deal as long as you pay the father a few shillings and marry the daughter.

SavedByChrist94 said:

It's not a matter of agreeing, it's an Objective, Harm is Objectively wrong, just like size 13 objectively fits my feet.

Click to expand...

Really? If somebody wants to harm you and the only way to stop them is to HARM them will you not do it?

PaxThroughX said:

I would be considered a "Christian," though I believe differently from most. I believe in Theistic Evolution or view music differently etc. By no means was I trying to confuse you. I was just stating that the God I believe in is not how you described.

Well it would be pointless anyways. Really, I just see all of us going around in circles.

Click to expand...

I don't know how else I'd describe it, since that's pretty much what I grew up with for most if not all my life. So there's some lack of communication going on here, for certain.

lupusFati said:

According to your god, he's the rule maker so what he decides is Good must be Good. Since he's, erm, Good. Apparently. Obviously anything opposing that nature and ruleset is the opposite of Good, aka evil.

If you mean more of why humans in general view things in such black and white terms, I can't really say without going into some 3-4 month lecture, and I'd have to know my stuff pretty well first.

Click to expand...

I don't know what "erm" means; but you seem to have the idea: God is good, and those who oppose Him are evil. That's really simple, and I'm glad you understand it.

Thank you for not attempting a 3-4 month lecture. It takes a lot of effort to uphold lies; but upholding the truth is easy-peasy.

Shalom shalom

One of the problems in defining "Morality" is that "morality" is a socially diverse set of phenomenon. It would be like trying to define the true meaning of "but" when the term has so many uses (cigarette but etc).

So in the end I suppose that definitions are stipulative ("I stipulate morality is...") and we see how many people aggregate around our definiton.

That does not mean its all arbitrary, just that different feedback functions or consequences result from different conceptualisations of the moral life. I would say that in this sense morality is objectively relevant and objectively bound but an anthropologically plastic concept.

Btw mathematicians I just thought the term "recursive" might be relavant, in the sense that defining morality one might have to refer to someone elses morality (eg Aristotles) even if one does not agree with it. May it be allowed here?

PaxThroughX said:

I believe in Theistic Evolution...

Click to expand...

You must have a difficult time in reconciling a benevolent deity with something as brutal and cruel as evolution.

Upisoft said:

Really? If somebody wants to harm you and the only way to stop them is to HARM them will you not do it?

Click to expand...

Does this mean you believe that everything you do is good? That is one logical conclusion I can come to by your example. Couldn't you be doing a bad thing by doing the exact same thing to someone that you consider bad when done to yourself? Or is whatever a person does, that you would also do, good? That is a possibility as well seeing as if you define all of your own actions as good, then anyone else, acting in the same fashion, must be doing good. If you find it good to harm others, then it may it also be good for others to harm you. Perhaps your theory of morality here is more narcissistic? Does it contend that only what you do is good and anything that does not work toward your personal benefit is bad? I think that covers the possibilities brought up by your example.

I have always contended that morality is subjective but that does not make it either capricious or whimsical. Science is also subjective in that it relies strictly upon a set of arbitrary assumptions about the nature of reality that are self evident to a particular species of living creatures. I submit that morality is arrived at in the same way.

LogicDreamer said:

You must have a difficult time in reconciling a benevolent deity with something as brutal and cruel as evolution.

Click to expand...

Not difficult at all if one disposes of their preconceived prejudices about what constitutes benevolence. Is the chance to in some way find an opportunity to engage in the bashing of the Abrahamic God the subject of every thread for some?

grasping the after wind said:

Not difficult at all if one disposes of their preconceived prejudices about what constitutes benevolence. Is the chance to in some way find an opportunity to engage in the bashing of the Abrahamic God the subject of every thread for some?

Click to expand...

How am I bashing the Abrahamic God? If one claims to accept evolution as fact, one must either abandon benevolence entirely or maintain a double standard. If the attribute of benevolence is disposed of, I would assume that this deity would not have any justification to dictate morality to anyone.

PaxThroughX said:

What makes something good and what makes something evil? How do we know for sure if something is morally correct to us? Does this prove that humans=imperfection?

Click to expand...

Humans are perfect humans, so what do you mean by perfection?

PaxThroughX said:

What makes something good and what makes something evil?

Click to expand...

Most consider that which benifits society as good, and that which harms society as bad.

PaxThroughX said:

How do we know for sure if something is morally correct to us?

Click to expand...

we don't always know.

PaxThroughX said:

Does this prove that humans=imperfection?

Click to expand...

Yes

K

Ken-1122 said:

Most consider that which benifits society as good, and that which harms society as bad.

Click to expand...

Many things that are 'good' or 'bad' for society don't really have a moral component. For example new roads are 'good' for society and poor roads are 'bad', but neither carry a moral imperative. I think that a person's behavior and attitude toward another is the measure of morality. Of course the commandment of 'love your neighbor' embodied in the fulfilling nature of the last six of the ten commandments is the basic guideline for morality, or 'good'. Failure to do so is the guideline for immorality, or 'bad'.

If these concepts can be understood and mastered we need go no further. Sadly we've built our civilization on immorality. Without immorality civilization as we know it (this 'present evil world') would collapse.

LogicDreamer said:

How am I bashing the Abrahamic God? If one claims to accept evolution as fact, one must either abandon benevolence entirely or maintain a double standard. If the attribute of benevolence is disposed of, I would assume that this deity would not have any justification to dictate morality to anyone.

Click to expand...

The bolded is a completely unsubstantiated assertion. Since that is the case all of the speculation that follows is pointless.

grasping the after wind said:

The bolded is a completely unsubstantiated assertion. Since that is the case all of the speculation that follows is pointless.

Click to expand...

It is based on the definition of benevolence and the observations made of evolution. It is a double standard to believe God is benevolent, but then claim evolution is theistic.

PaxThroughX said:

Yes, I have a very difficult time of believing in something I have evidence to support. I also have a hard time swallowing down random comments that state a basis claim. How is evolution cruel if God did it? How do you know for sure that the Young Or Old Earth theory is correct?


EDIT: Theistic Evolution is "brutal and cruel," yet you stated in your bio page that you believe in Atheistic Evolution. That is good to know.

Click to expand...

Based on evidence, the Earth is far older than what YECs desperately cling to. Evolution is demonstrably brutal. Consider that 99% of the species on the planet had to parish in gruesome manners just to result in the 1% that exists today. As we speak, the planet is experiencing another mass extinction event, with over 10,000 species going extinct each year.

Yes, I accept atheistic evolution. I don't claim it is peaceful, I accept that evolution is violent and disgusting.

LogicDreamer said:

brutal and cruel as evolution.

Click to expand...

Is just as burtal and cruel as every scientific theory out there.