good reading on 'evil'

Oh ok. Lol. But you are not being presumptuous at all when you label those that use the term evil as "obviously not very bright" . You're not being dishonest, intellectually unsophisticated, and...no...you are not presumptuous or egotistical at all. Lol. How did you get around to getting to "I'm not presumptuous enough" lol

Why don't you tell these people that they are "obviously not very bright" and "idiotic" who use the label?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Swinburne
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Baron-Cohen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Merrihew_Adams
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dallas_Willard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M._Scott_Peck

I already said I have no problem with people using the term poetically (like the people in your Wiki links). Of course, most people don't mean it poetically. Nice truncation of my quote btw, you could work for Fox or MSNBC as a journalist!

The thing I said was
I am not presumptuous enough to really label it evil and mean it, its just too idiotic.
 
I guess that defining 'evil', as well as deciding whether it really exists is part of the problem. Deciding that evil is not part of our lives is too laissez-faire, it implies a lack of standards. Then again (quite obviously) dividing everything up between those that are 'good' and those that are 'evil' implies black-and-white thinking, which is a sign of immaturity. My opinion is that evil exists, but that very few things, if anything is purely evil, while there is very rarely anything which is purely good.

Thanks for the reading recommendations, you guys.

Please define "evil"

After that please tell me who the ultimate judge on what evil is. Because without an ultimate judge, its completely subjective. Or "laissez-faire" Which is an ABSURD assessment and a symbol of black and white thinking you go on to denounce no more than a sentence later.
 
Billy, you are quick. I edited my post right after and posted that my post was meant to be read as friendly antagonizing.

How is their definition of the term evil poetic? What is the difference between the definition of evil that most people (the idiots) use and those people (you and the smarty pants) use?
 
Please define "evil"

After that please tell me who the ultimate judge on what evil is. Because without an ultimate judge, its completely subjective. Or "laissez-faire" Which is an ABSURD assessment and a symbol of black and white thinking you go on to denounce no more than a sentence later.

I don't understand. It's not black and white thinking to assess that because something is subjective and we are not able to pin it down yet means it doesn't exist?
 
I don't understand. It's not black and white thinking to assess that because something is subjective and we are not able to pin it down yet means it doesn't exist?
No, because I am using the facts. We cannot prove that some higher morality exists outside of the human system of thought. Therefore all morality is subjective and based on an individuals experiences. Morality exists within the sphere of human intellect, outside of it it does not exist because without humans to perceive it, its not there. We created morality and to pretend its bigger than us is absurd.There is no evidence that morality exists anywhere outside of our minds, if the earth is incinerated by the sun tomorrow and all humans perish, morality perishes with us, because morality, good, evil, purpose, meaning, love etc etc etc are all a part of the system we have built for ourselves socially. There is no judge for it. There is no law for it, its liquid and ever changing. So terms like "that is evil" are stupid because its a declarative statement of fact, which cannot be proven or disprove because its beyond the realm of fact.
 
Billy, you are quick. I edited my post right after and posted that my post was meant to be read as friendly antagonizing.

How is their definition of the term evil poetic? What is the difference between the definition of evil that most people (the idiots) use and those people (you and the smarty pants) use?

The difference is awareness of the absurdity of the statement. Philosophers and poets are often confounded at the limitation of language and its ability to describe a complex host of ideas and thoughts, so we are forced to use shitty terms like EVIL to describe something we find heinously immoral. They begrudgingly accept that this isn't the best word to use because of A. its baggage and B. its absolutism. But ifs better to try and fish with some yarn and a bone hook than it is to catch fish with no tools at all.

Idiot type people are completely unaware that their feelings and morality are utterly subjective. They use terms like this is EVIL! based on their extremely limited worldview (See every speech by George W Bush) 9/11 was the act of EVIL! I disagree. 9/11 is a fucking act of war committed by people we have been fucking in the ass for 100s of years. They have had enough, and they truly believe that they are going to heaven and doing gods will... so who is right? your god or their god? (even though its the same fucking God, the God of Abraham). Its subjective, there IS no right answer, no right choice, and yet these people will be the 1st to say "thats evil" and mean it with all certainty. That makes them an idiot IMO.
 
No, because I am using the facts. We cannot prove that some higher morality exists outside of the human system of thought. Therefore all morality is subjective and based on an individuals experiences. Morality exists within the sphere of human intellect, outside of it it does not exist because without humans to perceive it, its not there. We created morality and to pretend its bigger than us is absurd.There is no evidence that morality exists anywhere outside of our minds, if the earth is incinerated by the sun tomorrow and all humans perish, morality perishes with us, because morality, good, evil, purpose, meaning, love etc etc etc are all a part of the system we have built for ourselves socially. There is no judge for it. There is no law for it, its liquid and ever changing. So terms like "that is evil" are stupid because its a declarative statement of fact, which cannot be proven or disprove because its beyond the realm of fact.

So, you really believe there are no objective wrongs. Even if it all were to end tomorrow, there is no "wrong". You are comfortable with that? You do not hold to any objective wrong or right yourself? The Colorado shooter wasn't "wrong" when he killed innocent people for no reason and without remorse? Anyone that says that is "wrong" is stupid? If the earth is incarcerated by the sun tomorrow we wouldn't exist either. So, not only do our morals cease to exist but we cease to exist. So both meaning, morals, and love do not exist. Good doesn't exist. Meaning doesn't exist. Morality doesn't exist. Memories don't exist. Is it stupid to try to define love and use the term? If you tell someone you love them, or if you tell someone they don't really love you...are you idiotic to use the term?

There needs to be a judge for good and evil to exist...okay. So if objective morality was proven to exist at some point..then a God would HAVE to exist? What does that mean for the person that holds to objective morals but doesn't believe in God? Are they stupid? Delusional? Living outside their beliefs?
 
The difference is awareness of the absurdity of the statement. Philosophers and poets are often confounded at the limitation of language and its ability to describe a complex host of ideas and thoughts, so we are forced to use shitty terms like EVIL to describe something we find heinously immoral. They begrudgingly accept that this isn't the best word to use because of A. its baggage and B. its absolutism. But ifs better to try and fish with some yarn and a bone hook than it is to catch fish with no tools at all.

Idiot type people are completely unaware that their feelings and morality are utterly subjective. They use terms like this is EVIL! based on their extremely limited worldview (See every speech by George W Bush) 9/11 was the act of EVIL! I disagree. 9/11 is a fucking act of war committed by people we have been fucking in the ass for 100s of years. They have had enough, and they truly believe that they are going to heaven and doing gods will... so who is right? your god or their god? (even though its the same fucking God, the God of Abraham). Its subjective, there IS no right answer, no right choice, and yet these people will be the 1st to say "thats evil" and mean it with all certainty. That makes them an idiot IMO.

Ah, I see.

I do see your perspective now.

Inside this thread I assumed we were talking about evil as defined by Cohen-Baron which would line up with Scott Peck etc etc. You said with such absolute certainty and authority that evil doesn't exist I thought you were going as far as to call anyone using the term idiotic including those people and the people in this thread but sorta knew that wasn't what you meant but it all sounded so egotistical I wanted to antagonize you a bit. ;)
 
I don't understand what you're trying to say here, but I really want to. Think you could try it again, in a way I could get it? Why do you think that is what's happening when people label evil? I've only labeled two people "evil" but doing so seemed to give me a little control back over the situation. Are you saying I saw myself in them?
Their actions can be seen as evil, but they are not their actions. Some people are still in their bestial stage and one cant expect too much of them, especially when they are low on money or stressed out for they will act just like a starving animal who is aggressive and reactionary. (Plus a myriad of other issues causing people to act out in animalistic fear) Now, as for seeing yourself in others, the same goes for any good anyone has done as we all use the same consciousness. My mind processes it, your mind, Jesus's mind, Thomas Edisons, and even my kids will use it and the next generation for it is infinite and eternal and the source of all things. So the act of making someone an enemy or calling them evil has made oneself an enemy and evil, for evil even attacks evil and a divided house cannot stand.

People calling anything evil are obviously not very bright. There is no such thing as evil, evil is a point of view and so is good. Its cool to use in a poetic sense, but most people dont mean it that way, they mean it in the "this is something I disagree with, obviously its wrong and bad". I disagree with this sentiment. While I may see many things as bad or even harmful I am not presumptuous enough to really label it evil and mean it, its just too idiotic.
I love a good semantic discussion and I will agree with you in saying they dont exist, yet somehow we are still discussing them. If one can decide what is evil, does that make them judge over their own thoughts? If there is no objective perspective, then wouldnt that make our subjective perspective act as the objective one, regardless of it's validity?
 
So, you really believe there are no objective wrongs.
Correct

Even if it all were to end tomorrow, there is no "wrong". You are comfortable with that?
Correct, I would be uncomfortable believing otherwise.

You do not hold to any objective wrongs yourself?
Objective wrongs? No.

The Colorado shooter wasn't "wrong" when he killed innocent people for no reason and without remorse?
Of course I believe he was wrong, I dont believe in running around and hurting people. But thats not based on objectiveness. Its based on my personal worldview which is completely subjective.

Anyone that says that is "wrong" is stupid?
Youre mixing up what I said, I said people who say that is "evil" and mean it are stupid.

If the earth is incarcerated by the sun tomorrow we wouldn't exist either. So, not only do our morals cease to exist but we cease to exist. So both meaning, morals love cease to exist but so do we, so we don't exist either?

This is fallacious thinking. Of course we exist. We are physical beings made from organic material. Morals, love, and meaning are perceptions and ideas, they don't exist outside of us. In a sense they are "real" as in for us it exists but that doesnt mean that its real in the sense that without us to perceive it, it disappears. Meaning, morality can only ever be subjective, and not objective because it is not based on laws of nature it is based on the laws of human kind. Morality for example doesnt apply to animals.

So, love doesn't exist. Good doesn't exist. Meaning doesn't exist. Morality doesn't exist.
Love as defined doesnt exist, there are physical chemicals that run through our brains though that do in fact create the attachments we feel that we label "love" but I think you would be hard pressed to say that thats love.

Memories don't exist.
What?

Is it stupid to try to define love and use the term? If you tell someone you love them, or if you tell someone they don't really love you...are you idiotic to use the term?
Of course not. You are comparing apples to oranges. But you may look idiotic if they don't share your assessment. Again "love" as defined is a severely complicated series of emotions, attachments, and ideals, some based on real things like chemicals in our brains and memories (bits of data stored inside of our brain) And some of it is just subjective... but love as defined is not real. Any more than if I say I Reetogifunticulate you (a word i just made up) and then attribute dozens of other characteristics of well defined psychological and scientific principles to it. Thats how we use love... and I agree. Its much easier than saying "you induce reactions of attachment and neurological dependence and a releasing of dopamine and serotonin in me." Talking like that is both boring and tedious.


There needs to be a judge for good and evil to exist...okay. So if objective morality was proven to exist at some point..then a God would HAVE to exist?

I didn't say anything about god, but I think ultimately there would have to be one or some higher power of some sort that makes judgement in order for objective morality to exist yes. By the way Objective morality is an oxymoron by its truest nature.

What does that mean for the person that holds to objective morals but doesn't believe in God? Are they stupid? Delusional? Living outside their beliefs?
Highly unlikely. If I sat down with someone who told me they didn't believe in god or an intelligent creator force and they were only swayed by physical evidence, but that some "judge" gives objective status to their beliefs I would tell them that they are probably confused or mistaken, because its oxymoronic. Most atheists I have encountered completely agree that their moral and ethical beliefs are indeed subjective, but that doesnt mean you cant hold on to them. As I think most atheists are existentialists are heart the majority of the time and while that too is subjective, we accept that and let it be at that. There can be logical conclusions as to why a moral is beneficial to society or a group of people, but not not a reason for why its more right than any other belief.
 
Their actions can be seen as evil, but they are not their actions. Some people are still in their bestial stage and one cant expect too much of them, especially when they are low on money or stressed out for they will act just like a starving animal who is aggressive and reactionary. (Plus a myriad of other issues causing people to act out in animalistic fear) Now, as for seeing yourself in others, the same goes for any good anyone has done as we all use the same consciousness. My mind processes it, your mind, Jesus's mind, Thomas Edisons, and even my kids will use it and the next generation for it is infinite and eternal and the source of all things. So the act of making someone an enemy or calling them evil has made oneself an enemy and evil, for evil even attacks evil and a divided house cannot stand.


I love a good semantic discussion and I will agree with you in saying they dont exist, yet somehow we are still discussing them. If one can decide what is evil, does that make them judge over their own thoughts? If there is no objective perspective, then wouldnt that make our subjective perspective act as the objective one, regardless of it's validity?

No, if something is objective it is verifiable naturally. If it is subjective as in this case it is not. Not even if you could get every human on earth to agree tomorrow you are not counting the Trillions of humans that have already died or haven't been born yet.
 
No, if something is objective it is verifiable naturally. If it is subjective as in this case it is not. Not even if you could get every human on earth to agree tomorrow you are not counting the Trillions of humans that have already died or haven't been born yet.

If something is objective, it must be verified by a subjective source like your mind. So everything is objective before it is subjected to the interal processing of the human mind, even objectivity itself.
 
Their actions can be seen as evil, but they are not their actions. Some people are still in their bestial stage and one cant expect too much of them, especially when they are low on money or stressed out for they will act just like a starving animal who is aggressive and reactionary. (Plus a myriad of other issues causing people to act out in animalistic fear) Now, as for seeing yourself in others, the same goes for any good anyone has done as we all use the same consciousness. My mind processes it, your mind, Jesus's mind, Thomas Edisons, and even my kids will use it and the next generation for it is infinite and eternal and the source of all things. So the act of making someone an enemy or calling them evil has made oneself an enemy and evil, for evil even attacks evil and a divided house cannot stand.

Can't we label someone/thing/institution as evil and go as far as to make them our enemy, but not hate them or try to destroy them? Can we love our enemies?

I agree, letting evil infect our hearts turns us into what we hate. Nightmarish situation imo.

Actions are evil but not the person? I'm not sure I understand how an action can be evil. Lying isn't always evil and not all liars are evil, but some liars are evil. Stealing isn't always evil and not all thieves are evil, but some thieves are evil. Wouldn't it always be people that are evil and not the action itself? Sorry, I'm not sure what you mean.
 
Its much easier than saying "you induce reactions of attachment and neurological dependence and a releasing of dopamine and serotonin in me.

I had a guy say something very similar to me once. He was evil *wink* :)
 
If something is objective, it must be verified by a subjective source like your mind. So everything is objective before it is subjected to the interal processing of the human mind, even objectivity itself.
What? Dude do you even know what subjective vs objective means?
 
I might be swayed to marry a woman if she said that to me. :D And I think marriage is a joke.

Haha I hear you. I said something of that nature to a guy and I was appalled it came out of my mouth because it is not...a very "Cindy" thing to say. That's not like me. I said something along the lines of "I can feel the flood of chemicals bonding me to you right now" I don't know, something weird like that, and after I said that I wanted to die. Haha. For me, it is nothing more than a defense mechanism, not because I'm like, smart and stuff so my mind works that way or I even want it to work that way. Just a defense mechanism.
 
Last edited:
What? Dude do you even know what subjective vs objective means?

If evil doesn't exist save a subjective opinion of it, then neither does objectivity. Is it not our opinion of what it should be? Or would objectivity exist even if we weren't here to perceive it?
 
Dear [MENTION=1451]Billy[/MENTION],
I do not care whether or not you think evil exists. In fact, I do not care what you think at all. I was looking for reading recommendations, not a debate on semantics.

But since you were wondering who is the ultimate judge on good and evil, that person is MYSELF. ME.

You will all burn in hell for your sins.
 
Dear [MENTION=1451]Billy[/MENTION],
I do not care whether or not you think evil exists. In fact, I do not care what you think at all. I was looking for reading recommendations, not a debate on semantics.

But since you were wondering who is the ultimate judge on good and evil, that person is MYSELF. ME.

You will all burn in hell for your sins.

Implying hell exists.
Implying you're the person who has first hand knowledge of whats "Good or Evil."

Not sure if serious.
 
Back
Top