Atheism and evil

[Resha Caner]

Because I am not judging the Amalekites just as I am not judging Saul. These were men of war doing what men of war did during those times. It would not be fair to judge the morality of ancient men of war by today's standards; if I lived during that time and was taught by the standards of that day I would have probably done the same thing.

This doesn't make sense. You're not judging the Amalekites; you leave them to Amalekite standards. You're not judging Saul; you leave him to his own standards. But you're judging God by your standards.

Further, I don't understand the yesterday vs. today thing. Genocide was OK then, but not today? Why is that? If the conditions of yesterday were duplicated tomorrow, would genocide be OK tomorrow? What would those conditions be?

So do you think perhaps Jesus should not have made that statement?

Of course not.

And what did I say that misrepresented what Jesus said?

I provided an additional passage to balance the verse you quoted. No comment on that?

Early in this discussion, you were insistent that the details of the situation would determine what you would do. Now you're plucking a single statement out of it's context and pretending your presentation of that statement is supposed to apply in all times and all places.

 

[Ken-1122]

This doesn't make sense. You're not judging the Amalekites; you leave them to Amalekite standards. You're not judging Saul; you leave him to his own standards. But you're judging God by your standards.

Of course what they did was wrong; but that's not the point! Nobody is suggesting mankind should follow Saul's moral standards; but if we are going to follow God's moral standards, he is supposed to be better than us.

Further, I don't understand the yesterday vs. today thing. Genocide was OK then, but not today? Why is that? If the conditions of yesterday were duplicated tomorrow, would genocide be OK tomorrow? What would those conditions be?

Don't get me wrong; don't assume that because in this particular conversation I am not judging those men of war; that I agree with what they did!

Of course not

So you say Jesus was in error when he made those statements?

I provided an additional passage to balance the verse you quoted. No comment on that?

The passage you provided was more of a contradiction IMO than a balance. I am sure you can find plenty of verses in the bible that goes against that message Jesus preached. But if you feel Jesus was in wrong when he said that; you and I agree. I just have a problem with some of the actions of the men of war; and of course I don't think God actually told them to do that stuff, I believe they did what they wanted and used God to justify their actions.

Early in this discussion, you were insistent that the details of the situation would determine what you would do. Now you're plucking a single statement out of it's context and pretending your presentation of that statement is supposed to apply in all times and all places.

I said that because I was under the impression you agreed with everything Jesus said. Had I known you felt Jesus was wrong, I would not have made that point.

Ken

 

[Linehogs]

I'm not quite sure. I think evil and good is different for everyone. For instance, ISIS or any terrirost group. They truly think they are doing good for their religion. But, in reality they are considered "evil". So, I don't think I can give you a definite answer

Or they are evil men using their religion to justify doing evil things......

Of course evil exists. And so does good. Even if you don't believe in the story.... Adam and Eve ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Viewing evil as an abstract thing usually means you have not directly experienced it. Do you think a rape victim says to herself.... "Well... what he did was evil for me.... but in his way.... it was good. He was just twisted and needed to destroy the life of another human being in order to satisfy his own temptations." ...... I doubt it. I think the rape victim would say that it was clearly evil. And she might have to fight herself to avoid pure hatred of not only the person who violated her.... but all who look like him.... perhaps even all men? And that is one of the primary symptoms of evil.... it perpetuates itself.

We all have dark emotions. We are all tempted by evil things. We have a sin nature. It is divided. On one hand.... we are created in the image of god. Therefore we are pure and loving creatures. On the other... we are responsible for original sin. We are tempted by it.

As far as evil in a non human sense..... well.... what is music in a non human sense? Does music exist in the universe in some abstract form? Is music not the repetition of mathematical waves scattered in and out. Is the universe not constructed of vibrating things? I would dare to assume that if music exists outside of the human experience... yet in a much more abstract way... then so does evil. I cannot say that destruction alone is evil. Because they are not the same. Evil requires intent. It is not evil to accidentally hit someone with your car. But it is evil to choose to do so. In order for you to believe in the concept of pure good and pure evil you must determine a universal intent. Being an atheist... I doubt you will. However you being one man.... a tiny spec on the universe... living in breaths that are counted as tiny specs on the timeline.... I don't think it's wise to discard the concept or reality of a universal being with such a limited function.

That's what always confused me about atheism. You are essentially saying that you.... a tiny human with a tiny brain... living maybe 80 cycles of this Earth around the sun when it has seen billions.... are completely discarding the idea of a universal consciousness. The very concept of which is irrational. How could you....a finite creature.... possibly contemplate or understand the reality of an immortal being capable or perfectly designing the universe from the largest stars to the tiny hairs on your head. That is what perplexes me.... It's not that you don't believe it.... it's that in order to be an atheist you must outright deny it. Otherwise you would be Agnostic. It just reminds me of some of the stupid and rigid things people have proclaimed in the past. Atheists look at Christians as being unintelligent and foolish. But by the very nature of atheism you would have been more inclined to say the Earth was Flat hundreds of years ago. There is nothing in the bible of the Earths form. Nor does it say the Sun revolves around the Earth. Thos were creations of the Catholic Church hundreds of years after Christ. But scientifically speaking.... the available evidence said the Earth was flat lol. If you are inclined to completely dismiss the existence of something you are in now way shape or form capable of understanding.... then my guess is... if you lived long ago... your nature would also lead you to conclude the Earth was in fact flat.

..... Much like atheists now conclude there is no such thing as true evil... or true good... without man's interpretation. Once again for such a thing to exist... it requires intent.... which means universal beings. You deny the existence of them.... without any shred of evidence I must add.... and therefore deny the symptoms of them as well.... ie good and evil.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

That's what always confused me about atheism. You are essentially saying that you.... a tiny human with a tiny brain... living maybe 80 cycles of this Earth around the sun when it has seen billions.... are completely discarding the idea of a universal consciousness. The very concept of which is irrational. How could you....a finite creature.... possibly contemplate or understand the reality of an immortal being capable or perfectly designing the universe from the largest stars to the tiny hairs on your head. That is what perplexes me.... It's not that you don't believe it.... it's that in order to be an atheist you must outright deny it. Otherwise you would be Agnostic.

That's not accurate. One can be an agnostic and an atheist. Most atheists are also agnostics.

It just reminds me of some of the stupid and rigid things people have proclaimed in the past. Atheists look at Christians as being unintelligent and foolish. But by the very nature of atheism you would have been more inclined to say the Earth was Flat hundreds of years ago. There is nothing in the bible of the Earths form. Nor does it say the Sun revolves around the Earth. Thos were creations of the Catholic Church hundreds of years after Christ. But scientifically speaking.... the available evidence said the Earth was flat lol.

That's a common historical misconception. Awareness of the sphericity of the Earth predates the Catholic Church.

 

[quatona]

dp

 

[quatona]

That's what always confused me about atheism.

That´s because you are mistaken about the tenets atheists hold.

You are essentially saying that you.... a tiny human with a tiny brain... living maybe 80 cycles of this Earth around the sun when it has seen billions.... are completely discarding the idea of a universal consciousness.

No.

The very concept of which is irrational. How could you....a finite creature.... possibly contemplate or understand the reality of an immortal being capable or perfectly designing the universe from the largest stars to the tiny hairs on your head.

If it exists I can not understand it. That´s why I am (as opposed to Christians) do not even dare to make statements about it.

That is what perplexes me.... It's not that you don't believe it.... it's that in order to be an atheist you must outright deny it.

No, you don´t have to, in order to be an atheist. In order to be an atheist you just don´t believe in the claims theists make.

Otherwise you would be Agnostic.

You can be both.

Atheists look at Christians as being unintelligent and foolish.

Please don´t tell me what I think. I look at unintelligent statements as being unintelligent, and I look at foolish things being foolish - if the person issuing stupid or unintelligent things happens to be a Christian I don´t necessarily see a causal connection.

But by the very nature of atheism you would have been more inclined to say the Earth was Flat hundreds of years ago.

Please explain what you think "the nature of atheism" is and how it suggests anything about the shape of the earth.

There is nothing in the bible of the Earths form.

Genesis makes quite a few statements about it.

But scientifically speaking.... the available evidence said the Earth was flat lol.

I don´t think there was much scientific evidence either way available thousands of years ago. But even if I would grant you the benefit of the doubt: the good thing about the scientific method is that it improves our knowledge.

If you are inclined to completely dismiss the existence of something you are in now way shape or form capable of understanding.... then my guess is... if you lived long ago... your nature would also lead you to conclude the Earth was in fact flat.

Well, firstly I don´t live thousands years ago. I base my convictions on the currently available evidence, as hopefully do you. And I am thankful to science for providing a method for eventually finding out about things that neither atheism nor theism could provide any conclusive answers for thousands of years ago (nor could today).
Secondly, I am not quite sure I understand how being a theist thousands of years ago would have more likely led to believing the earth was spheric than being a theist. It seems like you forgot to explain that part.

..... Much like atheists now conclude there is no such thing as true evil... or true good... without man's interpretation. Once again for such a thing to exist... it requires intent.... which means universal beings. You deny the existence of them.... without any shred of evidence I must add.... and therefore deny the symptoms of them as well.... ie good and evil.

Now, as long as there is no evidence for something, I think it is quite reasonable to reject subscribing to those claims for which there is no evidence. Which doesn´t mean I am not eagerly but patiently waiting for you to substantiate your idea that there is a God, that there´s "true evil" (in your definition) etc.
Until then, I will remain an agnostic atheist, and - I may add - am baffled how a person who makes unsubstantiated truth claims accuses those who ask for substantiation of making unwarranted conclusions. The irony is mind blowing.

 

[Resha Caner]

Of course what they did was wrong; but that's not the point!

But it is the point. You can't talk about the 3 actors in this narrative as if each exists in a vacuum. They interact. If the Amalekites had sought peace, the whole situation would have been different. If Saul had pleaded for the lives of "innocent" Amalekites, the whole situation would have been different. You're the one who insisted the details of the situation are important, and now you're trying to ignore them.

Nobody is suggesting mankind should follow Saul's moral standards; but if we are going to follow God's moral standards, he is supposed to be better than us.

But you don't think he is. So let's put that aside for the moment. It's granted God doesn't agree with your morals.

And let's put the magic wands aside as well.

Would it have been moral to spare those infants the sword, walk away, and leave them to whatever end nature designs for them?

Are you saying death is the worst possible moral action? Maybe an appeal to those cute, cuddly, Amalekite infants making that pathetic little wail would temporarily soften a few hearts, and somebody adopts them. But the next morning they wake up to the harsh realities of life - scratching food out this land is tough, and now they have extra mouths to feed. Infant mortality is incredibly high. These infants have brought additional disease into the tribe. If some survive, they now have angry teens yelling at them, "You killed my parents! I hate you!" Or, the Israelites kids are taunting them, "Amalekite! Amalekite! John is a dirty Amalekite!"

So you say Jesus was in error when he made those statements?

No, I'm saying the verse you chose makes your point very poorly. I could have chosen one that would have made your point better. In fact, I think I offered you a few additional verses.

What does it mean to "pray for someone"? It means to appeal to God for them. I'm saying Saul should have done just that. But what point does this make for your objection regarding God? He should appeal to himself?

What does it mean to "bless" someone? That can vary according to context. It can mean to congratulate someone. Or it can be an expression of hope - hope that God will bestow good things on the person. So, again, an appeal to God. Therefore, the point is the same as above.

I think you missed my comment about the anthropomorphic nature of these narratives. Given finite, fallible actors are participating in the narrative, God often tries to prompt a discussion. But in this case it didn't happen until after Saul had failed - until after he appropriated God's command as an excuse for his own ends.

The passage you provided was more of a contradiction IMO than a balance.

Indeed. I realized many posts back that this is how you see it. But it does me no good to point that out to you. I'm the bad guy in this conversation, so you're not going to accept those types of statements from me. You have to come to that realization on your own ... and that may have some parallels to this narrative as well.

This is a very Greek way of thinking. Whenever tension or conflict occurs, it must be due to a contradiction. So, the Greek identifies what is true and what is false (right/wrong, good/evil). Hebrew thought is different than that, as is Zen thought and Hegelian thought. There are many different ways to approach the conflict in this story.

Given your position that morality is subjective, I'm a bit surprised you would take a Greek approach to this story. I would have expected a more synthetic, Hegelian approach (assuming your atheism is complete - leading you into secular streams of thought rather than Zen approaches).

 

[Linehogs]

I suppose I stand corrected about atheism. Every experience I've had with atheists has been the denial of a higher power. Why make the distinction between Atheism and Agnostic if they are one in the same? Agnostic's believe there is a higher power but do not know what. And Atheists only believe in what can be proved by the physical world. To my knowledge.... those definitions are correct.

I must also apologize. I was writing in satire. I do not mean to insult people. That is a debate tactic and it's not useful for generating knowledge. Most of my dealings with Atheists have been bad experiences. I typically do not like them. Even prior to becoming a Christian.... most Atheists I knew.... were simply anti-Christian which I viewed as petty. However I have acted petty here. I insulted people knowing it.... and intentionally doing it through sarcasm. It is a natural reaction. But being a Christian... I am a representative of god... and I should not act in such a way.

However the one legitimate point that I wanted to shed light on..... still applies.

Evil requires intent. It is impossible for an inanimate object to be evil. If you were in a cartoon... and an anvil fell on your head... the anvil would not be evil. Nor would a supernova destroying the Earth. Nor is a person evil for accidentally hitting another person with their car etc etc etc. That is why.... people who do not believe in a higher power.... deny the concept of pure evil. Evil exists in man. But in order for it to be universal... it must also exist without the human perspective. In order for that to happen.... there must be intent... and in order for intent to exist... there must be a universal consciousness. Therefore by debating the concept of evil... you are essentially debating the existence of a universal consciousness.

 

[jacknife]

I suppose I stand corrected about atheism. Every experience I've had with atheists has been the denial of a higher power. Why make the distinction between Atheism and Agnostic if they are one in the same? Agnostic's believe there is a higher power but do not know what. And Atheists only believe in what can be proved by the physical world. To my knowledge.... those definitions are correct.

for example I am a agnostic atheist. i am agnostic towards the idea of a universal deity, but i am atheist towards personal deity's. (agnostic as in i dont know if there is or not.)

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I suppose I stand corrected about atheism. Every experience I've had with atheists has been the denial of a higher power. Why make the distinction between Atheism and Agnostic if they are one in the same? Agnostic's believe there is a higher power but do not know what. And Atheists only believe in what can be proved by the physical world. To my knowledge.... those definitions are correct.

Here is one way of visualising it.

I must also apologize. I was writing in satire. I do not mean to insult people. That is a debate tactic and it's not useful for generating knowledge. Most of my dealings with Atheists have been bad experiences. I typically do not like them. Even prior to becoming a Christian.... most Atheists I knew.... were simply anti-Christian which I viewed as petty. However I have acted petty here. I insulted people knowing it.... and intentionally doing it through sarcasm. It is a natural reaction. But being a Christian... I am a representative of god... and I should not act in such a way.

Thank-you for your sincere apology.

However the one legitimate point that I wanted to shed light on..... still applies.

Evil requires intent. It is impossible for an inanimate object to be evil. If you were in a cartoon... and an anvil fell on your head... the anvil would not be evil. Nor would a supernova destroying the Earth. Nor is a person evil for accidentally hitting another person with their car etc etc etc. That is why.... people who do not believe in a higher power.... deny the concept of pure evil. Evil exists in man. But in order for it to be universal... it must also exist without the human perspective. In order for that to happen.... there must be intent... and in order for intent to exist... there must be a universal consciousness. Therefore by debating the concept of evil... you are essentially debating the existence of a universal consciousness.

I'm not sure what point you are driving at here.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I suppose I stand corrected about atheism. Every experience I've had with atheists has been the denial of a higher power. Why make the distinction between Atheism and Agnostic if they are one in the same? Agnostic's believe there is a higher power but do not know what. And Atheists only believe in what can be proved by the physical world. To my knowledge.... those definitions are correct.

Actually, those definitions are not correct.

In a nutshell, here's the correct definitions:

Theist: Someone who believes one or more than one god exists
Atheist: Someone who does not hold a belief that a god exists (note: this does not mean they assert a god doesn't exist, only that they have not been convinced one exists)

Gnostic: Someone who claims knowledge/certainty of their position
Agnostic: Someone who does not claim knowledge/certainty of their position.

So, you have four possible positions:

Gnostic Theist: Someone who believes a god exists, and holds this belief to a high degree of certainty
Agnostic Theist: Someone who believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know for sure
Agnostic Atheist: Someone who doesn't believe a god exists, but doesn't claim to know for sure
Gnostic Atheist: Someone who doesn't believe a god exists, and holds this belief to a high degree of certainty.

Hope this helps!

I must also apologize. I was writing in satire. I do not mean to insult people. That is a debate tactic and it's not useful for generating knowledge. Most of my dealings with Atheists have been bad experiences. I typically do not like them. Even prior to becoming a Christian.... most Atheists I knew.... were simply anti-Christian which I viewed as petty. However I have acted petty here. I insulted people knowing it.... and intentionally doing it through sarcasm. It is a natural reaction. But being a Christian... I am a representative of god... and I should not act in such a way.

Well, a lot of atheists are pretty critical of Christianity because they are former Christians. When you are raised in a system which systematically indoctrinated you and fed you lies for a great deal of your early life, that tends to make you mad when you find out it was all a sham.

Furthermore, as you pointed out here your post was directly insulting to Atheists. There's an awful lot of anti-atheist vitriol coming from the Christians in a great deal of the society in which we live, which also tends to make us mad as well.

At least you had the good taste to apologize, and your apology is accepted.

However the one legitimate point that I wanted to shed light on..... still applies.

Evil requires intent. It is impossible for an inanimate object to be evil. If you were in a cartoon... and an anvil fell on your head... the anvil would not be evil. Nor would a supernova destroying the Earth. Nor is a person evil for accidentally hitting another person with their car etc etc etc. That is why.... people who do not believe in a higher power.... deny the concept of pure evil. Evil exists in man. But in order for it to be universal... it must also exist without the human perspective. In order for that to happen.... there must be intent... and in order for intent to exist... there must be a universal consciousness. Therefore by debating the concept of evil... you are essentially debating the existence of a universal consciousness.

Why does intent require a universal consciousness? I don't see how you justify that. Humans can have intent to do evil, and do so quite often.

 

[quatona]

I suppose I stand corrected about atheism. Every experience I've had with atheists has been the denial of a higher power. Why make the distinction between Atheism and Agnostic if they are one in the same? Agnostic's believe there is a higher power but do not know what. And Atheists only believe in what can be proved by the physical world. To my knowledge.... those definitions are correct.

Well, no, they aren´t.
Atheism and agnosticism are answers to very different questions:
Atheism answers the question "Do you believe there is a God?" no.
Agnosticism answers the question "Do you think the existence of a God can be known?" no.
So they aren´t one and the same.
On another note, an atheist can believe in whatever non-physical he likes - except for a God or Gods. The term you were looking for here was probably "naturalist" or "materialist". Not all atheists are materialists.

I must also apologize. I was writing in satire. I do not mean to insult people. That is a debate tactic and it's not useful for generating knowledge. Most of my dealings with Atheists have been bad experiences. I typically do not like them. Even prior to becoming a Christian.... most Atheists I knew.... were simply anti-Christian which I viewed as petty. However I have acted petty here. I insulted people knowing it.... and intentionally doing it through sarcasm. It is a natural reaction. But being a Christian... I am a representative of god... and I should not act in such a way.

In my opinion we shouldn´t act that way even if we are only representatives of humanity or ourselves.

However the one legitimate point that I wanted to shed light on..... still applies.

Evil requires intent.

Yes. That´s how I understand this concept, as well.

It is impossible for an inanimate object to be evil. If you were in a cartoon... and an anvil fell on your head... the anvil would not be evil. Nor would a supernova destroying the Earth. Nor is a person evil for accidentally hitting another person with their car etc etc etc. That is why.... people who do not believe in a higher power.... deny the concept of pure evil. Evil exists in man. But in order for it to be universal... it must also exist without the human perspective. In order for that to happen.... there must be intent... and in order for intent to exist... there must be a universal consciousness. Therefore by debating the concept of evil... you are essentially debating the existence of a universal consciousness.

If I understand you correctly, you are basically saying:
The concept of "universal evil" would require us to conceptualize a "universal consciousness".
I would agree with that.
Personally, I see no reason to assume that any concept exists outside the human perspective or to assume that a "universal consciousness" exists.
Being aware that "evil" is often used with a theistic load, and also as a result of the experience that other terms are better suited to communicate my views on ethics and morality, "evil" is not in my active vocabulary.

 

[WindStaff]

There is such thing as good and evil, and yet they are not objects or concepts.
They are like an equation, there is nothing arbitrary or relative about them.

Moral relativism is a flat out philosophical falsehood.

 

[quatona]

There is such thing as good and evil, and yet they are not objects or concepts.

...but what?
They are like an equation, there is nothing arbitrary or relative about them.[/quote]
Please explain.

Moral relativism is a flat out philosophical falsehood.

Fortunately, moral relativism isn´t the topic of this thread.

 

[WindStaff]

Fortunately, moral relativism isn´t the topic of this thread.

Moral relativism is an inevitable subject to atheism and evil.

 

[quatona]

Moral relativism is an inevitable subject to atheism and evil.

You seem to be big at making blanket assertions.
I´m sure this will score you points with those who already agree with you.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Moral relativism is an inevitable subject to atheism and evil.

Except I'm an atheist, and I don't accept moral relativism.

Therefore, I am a living demonstration that your point is wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

But it is the point. You can't talk about the 3 actors in this narrative as if each exists in a vacuum. They interact. If the Amalekites had sought peace, the whole situation would have been different. If Saul had pleaded for the lives of "innocent" Amalekites, the whole situation would have been different. You're the one who insisted the details of the situation are important, and now you're trying to ignore them.

The reason I was ignoring them is because though wrong, I didn’t expect any better from them

But you don't think he is. So let's put that aside for the moment. It's granted God doesn't agree with your morals.

And let's put the magic wands aside as well.

Would it have been moral to spare those infants the sword, walk away, and leave them to whatever end nature designs for them?

No that would be just as bad. It would have been better had they

*Adopted them as their own and raise them to worship the right God.
*Or they could have spared some of the adults, took away their weapons; made them slaves; second class citizens, or even equal citizens provided they follow the rules, and worship the God of Israel.
*Or the Israelites could have controlled the land by putting a puppet Government in place that meets the approval of Israel, not allow them to have an army, and become their allies; sorta they way we did Japan after WW-2

No, I'm saying the verse you chose makes your point very poorly. I could have chosen one that would have made your point better. In fact, I think I offered you a few additional verses.

Really? Do you know the point I was trying to make?

What does it mean to "pray for someone"? It means to appeal to God for them. I'm saying Saul should have done just that. But what point does this make for your objection regarding God? He should appeal to himself?

.
No. My point regarding God is he should not have allowed them to be in a position where genocide is the only option.

Indeed. I realized many posts back that this is how you see it. But it does me no good to point that out to you. I'm the bad guy in this conversation, so you're not going to accept those types of statements from me. You have to come to that realization on your own ... and that may have some parallels to this narrative as well.

This is a very Greek way of thinking. Whenever tension or conflict occurs, it must be due to a contradiction. So, the Greek identifies what is true and what is false (right/wrong, good/evil). Hebrew thought is different than that, as is Zen thought and Hegelian thought. There are many different ways to approach the conflict in this story.

Given your position that morality is subjective, I'm a bit surprised you would take a Greek approach to this story. I would have expected a more synthetic, Hegelian approach (assuming your atheism is complete - leading you into secular streams of thought rather than Zen approaches).

It appears I’ve offended you and I can assure you that was not my intention. I will sometimes make the mistake of forgetting what it is like to have something as sacred as you hold God; attacked, or picked apart as I have been doing during our back and forth. If you bare with me I will attempt to choose my words a little more carefully so they don’t come across so offensive.

Peace
Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

people who do not believe in a higher power.... deny the concept of pure evil. Evil exists in man. But in order for it to be universal... it must also exist without the human perspective.

I disagree; evil only exist within the human perspective. Evil does not exist by itself; what we call evil are simply value judgments we put upon human actions. Where there are no humans human actions; there is no evil

Ken

 

[Eudaimonist]

Evil requires intent. It is impossible for an inanimate object to be evil.

It can't be morally evil, yes. It is still possible to view natural disasters as "an evil" because they are harmful to human life, but they aren't morally evil, of course. The word "evil" refers to more than one concept. Consider how we may also consider nutritious food "good", as in good for us.

That is why.... people who do not believe in a higher power.... deny the concept of pure evil.

I have no idea why the word evil needs to be qualified with the word "pure".

Evil exists in man.

It exists in some human intent, yes.

But in order for it to be universal... it must also exist without the human perspective.

I'm not sure what it means for evil to be universal. Universal across what? Human beings? The universe? It is universal in the sense that the capacity for (at least some) evil exists in us all. It is only realized through intent and action.

In order for that to happen.... there must be intent... and in order for intent to exist... there must be a universal consciousness.

In order for intent to exist there simply have to be intending beings such as human beings. But I guess you are talking about the "pure" part. I don't believe in metaphysical evil. That's just human beings projecting human evil onto the universe.

Therefore by debating the concept of evil... you are essentially debating the existence of a universal consciousness.

No... I suspect the word "pure" is raising its ugly head here. I believe in evil, but not "pure" (metaphysical) evil.


eudaimonia,

Mark