[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Swole, were the actions of the Boston Strangler evil (if you’re uncomfortable with the word, ‘wrong’ will suffice)?[/quote]
We are not talking here about my definition of evil or wrong. [/quote]
Answer the question.[/quote]
Okay. I’ll play along - I think his actions were wrong.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Whatever the choice…
…If the choice defines evil…
…then he is responsible for evil.
[/quote]
So, can I take it you refuse to determine between good and evil acts, such as put foward in my question about the Boston Strangler?[/quote]
I don’t claim to be omnipotent![/quote]
Answer the question.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Swole, were the actions of the Boston Strangler evil (if you’re uncomfortable with the word, ‘wrong’ will suffice)?[/quote]
We are not talking here about my definition of evil or wrong. [/quote]
Answer the question.[/quote]
Okay. I’ll play along - I think his actions were wrong. [/quote]
You’re now responsible for creating and maintaing the evil of his acts.
To be more accurate, being Godless, you must hold yourself resonsible for helping to maintain the existence of evil in the world.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Swole, were the actions of the Boston Strangler evil (if you’re uncomfortable with the word, ‘wrong’ will suffice)?[/quote]
We are not talking here about my definition of evil or wrong. [/quote]
Answer the question.[/quote]
Okay. I’ll play along - I think his actions were wrong. [/quote]
You’re now responsible for creating and maintaing the evil of his acts. [/quote]
COME ON! Seriously… Sloth, I can confidently say that you are not this stupid.
I am not omnipotent.
Omnipotent - Having unlimited power; able to do anything. Having ultimate power and influence.
The concepts of right and wrong existed long before I did. But, they did not exist before your god, as you define him. The difference here is the most vast divide conceivable.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
To be more accurate, being Godless, you must hold yourself responsible for helping to maintain the existence of evil in the world.[/quote]
This I can actually agree to… and, I posit it is completely different from your other line of reasoning. This fits very well into my model of the origins of morality.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I am not omnipotent.
[/quote]
Makes zero difference. You have the capacity to–right here and right now–assure us that you will not continue to support the existence of evil. You can tell us that from this day foward you will not see any act as wrong/evil, and that you will try to advance this idea. The day we stop defining rape as evil, is the day the evil of rape will vanish from the world!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I am not omnipotent.
[/quote]
Makes zero difference. You have the capacity to–right here and right now–assure us that you will not continue to support the existence of evil. You can tell us that from this day foward you will not see any act as wrong/evil, and that you will try to advance this idea. The day we stop defining rape as evil, is the day the evil of rape will vanish from the word!
[/quote]
You are, to an astonishing degree, conflating causation and bolstering.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I am not omnipotent.
[/quote]
Makes zero difference. You have the capacity to–right here and right now–assure us that you will not continue to support the existence of evil. You can tell us that from this day foward you will not see any act as wrong/evil, and that you will try to advance this idea. The day we stop defining rape as evil, is the day the evil of rape will vanish from the word!
[/quote]
You are, to an astonishing degree, conflating causation and bolstering. [/quote]
You refuse, then?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
I am not omnipotent.
[/quote]
Makes zero difference. You have the capacity to–right here and right now–assure us that you will not continue to support the existence of evil. You can tell us that from this day foward you will not see any act as wrong/evil, and that you will try to advance this idea. The day we stop defining rape as evil, is the day the evil of rape will vanish from the word!
[/quote]
You are, to an astonishing degree, conflating causation and bolstering. [/quote]
You refuse, then?[/quote]
Sloth, there are any number of actions, behaviors, and cultural norms that have eventually and/or will eventually be defined as right or wrong, good or evil through the consensus of society.
I have repeatedly offered in my model that we have evolved from and may very well evolve into a state of culture that our current sensibilities would find repugnant.
This little snipe hunt which you have insisted that I follow you on simply does not address the role of a prime driver with the power of omnipotence. All it has done is deflect the discussion away from the logic of your model.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
All it has done is deflect the discussion away from the logic of your model.
[/quote]
Nope. What I’ve done is killed the objection by demonstrating it’s absurdity. Further, I hollowed it out by exposing the lack of faith in the underlying principle of the objection. The debate ended when you defined the actions of the Boston Strangler as wrong.
From this point, I will only respond further under one condition, someone brings me an honest atheist. One who honestly believes in this objection. What I mean is, they MUST propose (and believe) that a godless society should do away with defining what is evil, so that “evil doesn’t exist.” It doesn’t even take omnipotence to do as I’ve challenged. So, that’s not an excuse.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
God from all eternity did render the dawn, existence and progress of evil utterly and unavoidably certain whilst remaining entirely free from it’s production, guilt or the temptation thereunto.
[/quote]
Nothing existed before God, then He created everything. Including evil.[/quote]
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Cortes, I wasn’t trying to disparage the tilma…it was your own quote that referenced it as an apron.
My point is that religious people sometimes use pseudo science to bolster their supernatural claims, but inevitably when you test their claims in a controlled scientific setting they prove false. Any attempts to conduct these studies are dismissed as sacrilegious, as if their god is offended by actual proof and instead insists on faith, which is belief without proof.
Is it any wonder that faith gets such high billing in the religious world? Imagine what would happen if the tilma was actually tested in a controlled setting, and proved to be destructible like any other piece of cloth.
Take a step back and think for a minute. Science is based on the principle of repeatability. Any hypothesis that cannot be tested and replicated by an objective observer is useless, because it cannot be reliably confirmed or disconfirmed.
You may be firm in your religious beliefs, and unwilling to question whether they are grounded in reality. Just in case though, I highly recommend reading “Demon Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. He discusses these cognitive fallacies and the (imperfect but preferable) protection science offers from them. [/quote]
Ugh…I guess you don’t get it, yet. Not everything is repeatable. And, as Catholics not everything is true because “science” can prove it. We’re not skeptics, we’ll take something as truth because there are witnesses.[/quote]
Believing in something on hearsay, without the ability to repeat or scientifically confirm the claim, is tantamount to wishful thinking. This is why there are so many different religions, because nobody provides actual proof for their claims.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
All it has done is deflect the discussion away from the logic of your model.
[/quote]
Nope. What I’ve done is killed the objection by demonstrating it’s absurdity. Further, I hollowed it out by exposing the lack of faith in the underlying principle of the objection.
From this point, I will only respond further under one condition, someone brings me an honest atheist. One who honestly believes in this objection. What I mean is, they MUST propose (and believe) that a godless society should do away with defining what is evil, so that “evil doesn’t exist.” It doesn’t even take omnipotence to do as I’ve challenged. So, that’s not an excuse.
[/quote]
Holy shit… You really think that by comparing the effects of my decision-making with that of your supposed omnipotent being that you have absolved you omnipotent being from responsibility for his actions? That’s a bit arrogant. Don’t you think?
I’ll help you out, because I do know a bit about christian theology: the reason why your god is not responsible for evil is exactly because he is omnipotent. This grants him the power to absolve himself of responsibility.
This in itself is such a clusterfuck of logical fallacy that we could spend the next ten pages of this thread arguing about it. What it will come down to, though, is that the power of your god falls outside of the realms of logic and reason. And, here we will have reduced the argument to its end.
Incidentally, why should an atheist propose that society do away with defining what is “evil” as you put it?
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Incidentally, why should an atheist propose that society do away with defining what is “evil” as you put it?[/quote]
Glad you asked. So that no atheist is responsible for creating/maintaing the existence of evil.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Incidentally, why should an atheist propose that society do away with defining what is “evil” as you put it?[/quote]
Glad you asked. So that no atheist is responsible for creating/maintaing the existence of evil.[/quote]
Sure… that makes perfect sense… if we ALL AGREE on your definition of evil as an immutable externality.
You’ve just circumvented the entire process of free-will and reasoning.
To put it another way:
In my model, right and wrong are defined by their effect on the survival and success of the species. Because of this, I have no motivation to eliminate either as concepts.
In your model, right and wrong are not only externalities, but they have significance beyond the grave. At some level wrong = eternal damnation. So, you are most certainly could be motivated to eliminate the concept of wrong to the extent that you can.
Sloth, you’re confusing definition with causality. The issue is not with your god defining evil, but with your god creating the universe and everything contained within it, good and evil both.
It’s a copout to say god created everyone with free will, because it ignores that little something that causes someone to choose good vs. evil. Whatever you want to call that little something, willpower, conscience, soul, etc., your god created that too. Hence, your god is ultimately responsible for the evil choices that people make. How could it logically be otherwise?
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
Incidentally, why should an atheist propose that society do away with defining what is “evil” as you put it?[/quote]
Glad you asked. So that no atheist is responsible for creating/maintaing the existence of evil.[/quote]
Sure… that makes perfect sense… if we ALL AGREE on your definition of evil as an immutable externality.
You’ve just circumvented the entire process of free-will and reasoning. [/quote]
You don’t have to agree with me, and you don’t have to be omnipotent. You merely have to agree with the principle underlying the objection you and others put foward. That is, in not defining what is right or wrong, good or evil, we don’t have the problem of wrong/evil. That, in defining the act of rape as evil, you then become responsible for the existence of evil, and for the evil of the act, specifically. So, we mustn’t judge the act as evil or we make ourselves guilty of it’s evil, rapist or not.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Whatever you want to call that little something, willpower, conscience, soul, etc., your god created that too. [/quote]
So, what you’re suggesting is that we convict the parents of criminals?