Evil

[quatona]

sounds like a great discussion for another forum. why don't you post it? Think you could handle it? are you afraid every christian on cf would jump on you? bom bom buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuum.

Well, actually it was more like I noticed you were a great fan of his writings and I didn´t want to hurt your feelings. But whatever mindreadings float your boat....

 

[daniel777]

Well, actually it was more like I noticed you were a great fan of his writings and I didn´t want to hurt your feelings. But whatever mindreadings float your boat....

thats ok, you don't have to wory about hurting my feelings. but seriously, why don't you post it?

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
It is not needed.

On the contrary, you have made a claim, and a bold one at that. I am simply asking for your justification. If you cannot present it, then I will take that as a retraction.

No retraction, just no need in trying to prove what you already know to be true.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
You already do that because you are a human being and not an animal.

On the contrary, I would very much like to hear the screams of babies. I do not consider it an evil act, nor do I consider myself evil.
Prove me wrong.

It is not required. If you enjoy torturing babies to hear them scream and do not realize it is wrong, you are too mentally defective for me to prove anything to you. You don't have the mental capability of understanding it. Being evil is not about considering yourself evil. Being evil is about doing things to harm others. It has nothing at all to do with how you consider yourself to be.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
And they would be wrong.

Justification?

Not needed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
It is demonstrated because what I personally reconize as being unloving is also what you personally reconize as being unloving.

Nonsense. Do you have the same moral view as me on everything? Bestiality? Pornography? Abortion? Homosexuality? The death penalty?

No not on everything, just on some things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
And by pointing out something you also instinctivly know is not right, I have fulfilled that burden of proof.

Instinct is not knowledge. A simple proof of this is that instinct can be wrong. If my instinct tells me that someone is hiding in my closet, does that mean that someone is hiding in my closet?

Yes our conscience can be wrong. We can have it traumitized by enviroment or we can go against it so long, it is changed.

I say again: the burden is on you to prove that some things are not right irrespective of subjectivity.

And the burdern as been fulfilled by pointing things that you agree with me on even as you deny it.

 

[AuraTwilight]

I wouldn't call something like a mean joke as "Evil." Just "Dude, stop being a jerk."

Unless it regards inflicting suffering on someone else, nothing is evil/sinful. Unless it makes the world better even by a budge if just for one person, nothing is Good/virtuous. End of story.

Evil and Good exist because the human race decided to divide their moral scale into those two extremes.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No retraction, just no need in trying to prove what you already know to be true.

You assume I know it to be true. Why?

It is not required. If you enjoy torturing babies to hear them scream and do not realize it is wrong, you are too mentally defective for me to prove anything to you. You don't have the mental capability of understanding it. Being evil is not about considering yourself evil. Being evil is about doing things to harm others. It has nothing at all to do with how you consider yourself to be.

Ah, finally.

Being evil is about doing things to harm others.

Do you consider this to be an objective truth, or one you assume?

Not needed.

Of course it is. You made a claim. Justify it. Despite your bleating, there are only three things that a human actually knows: the Laws of Logic (and everything derived thereof), their own existance, and the existance of incoming sensory input.
Until you can demonstrate that I know what you claim I know (i.e., that your personal morality is correct), you statements will be groundless.

No not on everything, just on some things.

Yes our conscience can be wrong. We can have it traumitized by enviroment or we can go against it so long, it is changed.

Then how, pray tell, do they fulfil the burden of proof? A proof is unchanging and forever, it does not yield to the trauma of humans. If our instinct, or our mutual recognition, differ in any way, then your proof is invalidated. Your proofs are nothing more than 'Assume it is true. Therefore, it is true'.

And the burdern as been fulfilled by pointing things that you agree with me on even as you deny it.

That is your defence?
"You agree with me, you just don't know it".
Absurd.

 

[quatona]

thats ok, you don't have to wory about hurting my feelings. but seriously, why don't you post it?

Well, why would I?
I am here to discuss with persons. I am not here to talk about third persons´ books. If a person hasn´t even understood the arguments in a way that he can paraphrase them in his own words, I have no interest in discussing them with him. Don´t take it personally - it´s just my preferences, based on quite some experiences.

You gave me a book recommendation, and I kindly rejected it because what I have seen from this author didn´t convince me. This ought to be sufficient.
I didn´t expect the Spanish Inquisition.
I think a thorough criticism of C.S.Lewis´ work would be asked too much, and I simply do not want to spend my time on it. Let alone that I am not familiar with all of his works.
I have discussed some of his stuff here before, and - in my opinion - it is not worth the effort to do it over and over again.

One general point and one particular, though, so that you at least get an idea why I am not interested:

- He bascially has the same approach that you have: He comes up with things that may be effective to the already convinced and that give them a warm and fuzzy feeling, but which are by no means arguments in a discussion with non-believers. Ultimately, they are circular and begging the question.
- The LordLiarLunatic argument alone is so stupid that it hurts.

 

[Quietuss]

Good: in alignment with ones morality.

Evil: not in alignment with ones morality.

 

[IzzyPop]

I didn´t expect the Spanish Inquisition.

Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!

 

[daniel777]

- The LordLiarLunatic argument alone is so stupid that it hurts

actually the LordLiar(devil of hell)Lunatic argument was ment to point out the faulty logic in people who say Jesus was a GOOD teacher but not God. i hear that ripped out of context so much that it's "so stupid that it hurts" no i don't think you've discussed this as many times as you imply.

He bascially has the same approach that you have: He comes up with things that may be effective to the already convinced and that give them a warm and fuzzy feeling, but which are by no means arguments in a discussion with non-believers. Ultimately, they are circular and begging the question.

read it again. . . Q. why do people read things then rip everything the author says out of context just so their theories remain true in their own mind? did you know the only thing we agreed on was one of his arguments?

the inquisition thing was a bit of an overstatement on your part. no one's trying to kill you. i know you're afraid, but it's ok. i'm not going to let them take you. stand behind me, i have an ax. . . .


but away from all that, thankyou for listening it was a pleasure having this discussion with you.

 

[daniel777]

by wiccan_child Until you can demonstrate that I know what you claim I know (i.e., that your personal morality is correct), you statements will be groundless.
(i.e., that your personal morality is correct), you statements will be groundless.

unless your just beating around the bush.

and it's not necessary to explain that you know this when there is that possibility. here's where it is necessary. every other culture and civilization before you had pretty much the same basic moral principals. there are a few exceptions, but the resemblence is shocking.

Until you can demonstrate that I know what you claim I know . . .

and that's just plain ridiculous

Despite your bleating, there are only three things that a human actually knows: the Laws of Logic (and everything derived thereof), their own existance, and the existance of incoming sensory input.

you actually said both of these quotes in the same paragraph. . . . ok. lets apply your logic to this statement. Until you can demonstrate that I know what you claim I know your statements will be groundless.

the flaw is that your entire argument is based on this statement. the problem is, it leads absolutely to no conclusion but what you claim to know, which actually, in reality may or may not be true.

 

[quatona]

actually the LordLiar(devil of hell)Lunatic argument was ment to point out the faulty logic in people who say Jesus was a GOOD teacher but not God.

It still silently excludes some other options.

i hear that ripped out of context so much that it's "so stupid that it hurts" no i don't think you've discussed this as many times as you imply.

Me too, and guess who it is that usually use it for an apologetics argument? (That´s of course not Lewis´ fault, though).

read it again. . . Q. why do people read things then rip everything the author says out of context just so their theories remain true in their own mind?

I don´t know. You have already insinuated a reason in your question. Are you asking for a reason for the reason you are suspecting?

did you know the only thing we agreed on was one of his arguments?

I don´t understand what you are talking about here.Who agreed on one of whose arguments?

Whilst I will concede that LLL if not used as an apologetics argument is far less stupid, the general problem remains: Lewis talks to those who have already accepted a lot of the Christian teachings for premises.

the inquisition thing was a bit of an overstatement on your part.

Yes, it´s not funny if you are not familiar with Monty Python´s Flying Circus. So just in case I added a smilie.

no one's trying to kill you. i know you're afraid, but it's ok. i'm not going to let them take you. stand behind me, i have an ax. . . .

Thanks. I definitely need people to tell me what my mental state is.

but away from all that, thankyou for listening it was a pleasure having this discussion with you.

Thanks, same here.

 

[daniel777]

Thanks. I definitely need people to tell me what my mental state is.

hey friend, just something more we can agree on.

 

[elman]

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
No retraction, just no need in trying to prove what you already know to be true.

You assume I know it to be true. Why?

All humans have this knowledge.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
It is not required. If you enjoy torturing babies to hear them scream and do not realize it is wrong, you are too mentally defective for me to prove anything to you. You don't have the mental capability of understanding it. Being evil is not about considering yourself evil. Being evil is about doing things to harm others. It has nothing at all to do with how you consider yourself to be.

Ah, finally.

Being evil is about doing things to harm others.

Do you consider this to be an objective truth, or one you assume?

No I consider it a defintion of a term that can for a basis for discussion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Not needed.

Of course it is. You made a claim. Justify it. Despite your bleating, there are only three things that a human actually knows: the Laws of Logic (and everything derived thereof), their own existance, and the existance of incoming sensory input.
Until you can demonstrate that I know what you claim I know (i.e., that your personal morality is correct), you statements will be groundless.

Your denial is not convincing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
No not on everything, just on some things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
Yes our conscience can be wrong. We can have it traumitized by enviroment or we can go against it so long, it is changed.

Then how, pray tell, do they fulfil the burden of proof?

The burden of proof is fulfill by you knowing your own conscience.

A proof is unchanging and forever, it does not yield to the trauma of humans. If our instinct, or our mutual recognition, differ in any way, then your proof is invalidated. Your proofs are nothing more than 'Assume it is true. Therefore, it is true'.

No differences do not erase the similarities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by elman
And the burdern as been fulfilled by pointing things that you agree with me on even as you deny it.

That is your defence?
"You agree with me, you just don't know it".
Absurd.

I never said you did know. You do know but you deny you know so advance your argument.