[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth, you’re confusing definition with causality.[/quote]
Wait, wait. Are you suggesting that humans don’t cause the existence of evil by defining what is evil?1
No, the parents weren’t prime movers and hence weren’t ultimately responsible for creating the soul/conscience of their evil child. As ultimate creator, your god is ultimately accountable.
On your second question, I’m suggesting that humans both define and create evil. Defining evil is different from acting according to that definition.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[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]
Okay. I get it. I know exactly why you can’t understand why I would not follow you into an attempt to eliminate good and evil by redefining them. Two things, and one of them I stated in my last post:
-
Wrong or evil are not a problem. (underlined for emphasis in the quote of your post) This concept of wrong or evil is an effective tool. I have no problem with it.
-
You assume negative consequences inherent in this guilt. Yes. I posit that it is most likely that wrong/evil is a construct of cultural cognition, and therefore we all share some responsibility in its existence. However, I see no downside to this responsibility. In fact, I embrace it as a positive result of our evolution.
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, the parents weren’t prime movers and hence weren’t ultimately responsible for creating the soul/conscience of their evil child. As ultimate creator, your god is ultimately accountable.
On your second question, I’m suggesting that humans both define and create evil. Defining evil is different from acting according to that definition.[/quote]
But defining evil is to be responsible for the existence of evil…or have we now jettisoned our little objection?
Edit: Oh, um, in the atheist-world, the parents are the prime-movers as far as the child is concerned. Or, did the stork stop by for a visit?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, the parents weren’t prime movers and hence weren’t ultimately responsible for creating the soul/conscience of their evil child. As ultimate creator, your god is ultimately accountable.
On your second question, I’m suggesting that humans both define and create evil. Defining evil is different from acting according to that definition.[/quote]
But defining evil is to be responsible for the existence of evil…or have we now jettisoned our little objection?[/quote]
Speaking for myself. No. I have not jettisoned that objection… because it is an objection to YOUR model not MY model. it is an objection to the LOGIC of an existence of an omnipotent prime mover. It is not an objection to the VALUE of right and wrong.
Heading to class.
And to your edit:
I have made a pretty damn extensive case for parents not being the prime mover in that scenario.
You are not presenting an argument here that is consistent with a common atheist’s world view.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
No, the parents weren’t prime movers and hence weren’t ultimately responsible for creating the soul/conscience of their evil child. As ultimate creator, your god is ultimately accountable.
On your second question, I’m suggesting that humans both define and create evil. Defining evil is different from acting according to that definition.[/quote]
But defining evil is to be responsible for the existence of evil…or have we now jettisoned our little objection?
Edit: Oh, um, in the atheist-world, the parents are the prime-movers as far as the child is concerned. Or, did the stork stop by for a visit?[/quote]
I never said defining evil is the same as creating evil. Obviously, there’s a difference between a value and whether or not actual behavior is consistent with that value.
I’m an agnostic, not an atheist, but to answer your question I don’t believe there are any prime movers in the universe. I think the universe has always existed, either as itself or as an infinite string of universes.
I’ve answered your question, but you have yet to answer mine. If your god is the prime mover, definitionally he is responsible for everything in the universe, including the souls/consciences of men. If someone chooses evil, it is because he has an evil soul, which ultimately was created by god. Where is the justice in creating good souls that choose right and are blessed for it, and evil souls that choose wrong and are punished for it?
to my fellow atheists :
i’m starting to think you do not understand the meanings of the words “choice”.
or maybe you love bad sophistry.
there is nothing inconsistent in Christian Theology, as long as you accept their definition of Free Will.
and if you don’t, you are not arguing their position internally but externally, and you should stop pretending.
another thing
most of you seems to understand good and evil as simple antonyms or polar opposites. balanced symmetrics.
what if they have not the same “weight” ?
in my eyes, just ONE good thing, a fragile and little good thing, in an otherwise entirely evil world would be enough to justify everything.
starting with hope and love.
(admittedly, this answer is more akin to jewish mysticism than catholic theology)
[quote]forlife wrote:
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]
Do you really find Tirib’s assertion that God has created us without free will any better? If God wanted us to love him, how could we if he didn’t allow his creation the option not to.
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
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. [/quote]
Sorry for entering and being late with this discussion, I have been busy studying and still am for a physics 2 test and organic chemistry.
Anyways if I chose to do something that has a positive or negative effect on the survival and success of our species why would that make me right or wrong according to your model? Wouldn’t it just state that what I did just happened to have had a positive or negative effect on the survival and success of our species. Evolution doesn’t care if it is successful or not or whether an entity does something that is wrong or not, it is just a mindless process.
I will also assert that there are many things that we as a society see as good and evil, or for you right and wrong that totally flies in the face for what is good for the survival and success of our species.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[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]
There are many things that we all believe and consider reasonable to believe that cannot be scientifically proven, such as logic, there are minds out there that are not my own and even science itself which presupposes logic.
[quote]kamui wrote:
another thing
most of you seems to understand good and evil as simple antonyms or polar opposites. balanced symmetrics.
what if they have not the same “weight” ?
in my eyes, just ONE good thing, a fragile and little good thing, in an otherwise entirely evil world would be enough to justify everything.
starting with hope and love.
(admittedly, this answer is more akin to jewish mysticism than catholic theology)[/quote]
An interesting point of view. An assertion that you may find interesting is that God allowed evil in the universe to bring about greater good that could be done by not allowing it in the first place(or no good at all for how can good come out of machina)
[quote]swoleupinya wrote:
It is not an objection to the VALUE of right and wrong. [/quote]
Stop it. The underlying principle is that right and wrong can’t be identified (much less have value), lest you become responsible for the wrong.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I never said defining evil is the same as creating evil.[/quote]
End of objection.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Where is the justice in creating good souls that choose right and are blessed for it, and evil souls that choose wrong and are punished for it?[/quote]
Don’t know. That’s not my theology/faith. You’ll have to find and talk to them (whatever adherents practice such a faith).
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
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]
Do you really find Tirib’s assertion that God has created us without free will any better? If God wanted us to love him, how could we if he didn’t allow his creation the option not to.[/quote]
Truth doesn’t depend on what I “find better”, I’m just pointing out the logical inconsistency. Any theory that posits a prime mover definitionally makes free will impossible. Think about it. What is the ultimate cause for a person’s choice to do evil? Whether it’s a bad soul, or a sickly conscience or whatever, that something was ultimately created by the hypothetical prime mover.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
[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]
There are many things that we all believe and consider reasonable to believe that cannot be scientifically proven, such as logic, there are minds out there that are not my own and even science itself which presupposes logic.[/quote]
As I’ve pointed out, religion is full of logical inconsistencies. For example, a prime mover is logically impossible because nothing created it…the whole idea is predicated on the necessity of a creator and the created, but it logically fails to answer what created the creator.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
Where is the justice in creating good souls that choose right and are blessed for it, and evil souls that choose wrong and are punished for it?[/quote]
Don’t know. That’s not my theology/faith. You’ll have to find and talk to them (whatever adherents practice such a faith).[/quote]
You suffer from the same logical fallacy, because you assert a prime mover while insisting on the existence of free will. So answer the question: what quality of a person causes them to choose evil or good?