Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by Joobs: quote: Originally posted by MY HERO!!: quote: Originally posted by ©TM:
All evil is subjective, and meaningless outside of human interpretation.
Yeah. I'm sure psychopathic serial killers interpret their actions as not being evil or subjectively,from Adolf Hitlers point of view, he wasn't evil but thats what nutcases are bound to think. 'meaningless outside of human interpretation?'
So that would as TM correctly stated make the assessment subjective. Doh! Are you saying I respect the opinions of Serial Killers and Adolf Hitler,Homer? Evil is subjective to them because they're nutcases but objective to normal sane rational intelligent people.Doh! quote:
are you telling me that a dog
that is tortured doesn't consider its torturers
evil?
Yes, the dog may well fear or dislike its treatment and the creature supplying said but I doubt it understands the human concept of evil.
I don't doubt it at all. Why should a dog feel any differently towards its torturer than I would feel towards someone who tortured me. Why do I even consider torture evil = because I fear and dislike it and have empathy towards those who are subjected to it because they fear and dislike it. My idea of evil is based on emmotion and love,things I'm told originated early on in our evolution when we were still apes. Torture by the way is something I would consider to be universally and objectively evil even if it were a necessary evil I would still consider it evil and something to be avoided whenever possible just as I wince when I see an animal being experimented on wether it cures cancer or not,just as I hate the bombing of hiroshima even though it helped put an end to the war - evil is evil in my opinion,not subjective and not open to interpretation. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MY HERO!!:
Are you saying I respect the opinions of Serial Killers and Adolf Hitler,Homer? Evil is subjective to them because they're nutcases but
objective to normal sane rational intelligent people.Doh!
Evil is subjective to all people as it is based on opinion (whether purely personal or cultural). It is not and never has been an objective thing. That we, the majority, may feel Hitler and his henchmen were evil does not make it objective. It is still a subjective ruling. Anyway to say Hitler or a serial killer is evil is somewhat inane since really the title of evil should be applied with reference to specific actions only not the person. I know the why of this may be beyond you to comprehend but I will explain it if you desire. quote:
evil is evil in my opinion,not subjective and not open to interpretation.
That'll be the logic of a moron then. Oh well, since you have subjectively decided it isn't subjective then it mustn't be. LOL. So basically you don't really have any argument. Cheer, thanks for clearing that up. |
| |
|
|
Just an observation but shouldn't this thread, given the initial proposal and its inanity, have been called "Powers of Dumbness" instead of "Darkness"?  |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Joobs: quote: Originally posted by MY HERO!!:
1)I didn't say it was a supernatural entity.
Fine. So prove its existence. quote:
2)I said it would be harder but not impossible
because of the reasons given in my opening
post? How would you disprove the existence of a being(s) if that being(s) desires to stay hidden as one would assume 'powers of evil' might.
I do not postulate the argument and cannot prove a negative. The onus of proof lies with the proposer (you) so put up or shut up. quote:
3)I never said that I believed in "Powers of Evil", I said that,hypothetically,if I
did, I think it would be harder to make a convincing argument against their existence.
Well hypothetically I could say elves or unicorns exist but I don't know of any way to prove this so I don't make myself look a twit by stating such idiocy or asking people to disprove it. quote:
I may have only one braincell but atleast I have
eyes and read a post properly before responding to it.
Really? The very fact that you ask people to disprove rather than, you yourself, proving your argument shows your lack of intellect not my reading skills.
Nope. It's your eyes I'm afraid. If I write a post comparing how easy it is to disprove the existence of a horse with how easy it is to disprove the existence of a unicorn do I really need to prove that either a horse or a unicorn exist- prove something that is not essential for my argument? If you read my opening post more carefully you will see that what it is saying is that Satan or a force of evil would,if it existed have certain attributes such as a desire to hide its existence or activities and thus any evidence of it which would make disproving it difficult. God on the other hand is normally assumed to be a being that wants human beings to be aware of its existence and thus it is logical that if God exists then there should be evidence of it somewhere. In other words i'm saying disproving or proving Satans existence would be equivalent to catching a thief while disproving or proving the existence of God would be like finding or not finding a man waving a big placquard bearing the words "Over here,I'm god,look at me!" |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MY HERO!!:
Nope. It's your eyes I'm afraid.
In light of the dubious and nonsensical statements you've made so far I think I'll leave "who's eyes" for others to decide rather than trust your judgement. quote:
If I write a post comparing how easy it is to disprove the existence of a horse with how easy it is to disprove the existence of a unicorn do I really need to prove that either a horse or a unicorn exist
You could write such a post but it would be just as nonsensical as this "evil exists" one. But really, you think you can disprove the existence of a mythical creature (especially one which amongst its supposed attributes is the ability to disappear!). Care to tell us how (should be good for a short laugh). I grant you can show its existence highly improbable or unlikely but you can never claim to have totally disproven it. Sorry, but the more you post the more your obvious lack of intelligent argument is exposed. quote:
- prove something that is not essential for my argument?
If you claim something does exist then that is essential to your argument. Are you totally stupid? quote:
If you read my opening post more carefully you will see that what it is saying is that Satan or a force of evil would,if it existed have certain
attributes such as a desire to hide its existence or activities and thus any evidence
of it which would make disproving it difficult.
ROTFLMAO Disproving would always be impossible. What your argument is saying (but you are too stupid to see) is that it may be difficult to prove. Still does not change the fact that the onus of proof is still on you to prove your nonsense though. Put simply if you claim something exists then you must have evidence to support your claim (unless you are an idiot) - I am merely asking you to show your evidence. Why so reticent - is it because you are an idiot spouting nonsense without evidence. quote:
In other words i'm saying disproving
or proving Satans existence would be equivalent to catching a thief
So catch your thief or at least prove that he is responsible for the crime before making your claims. |
| |
|
|
MH
i don't get what you are trying to say at all....
ok so one can't DISPROVE the existence of 'a force of evil' anymore than you can disprove 'god'... but then equally you cant disprove invisible pink hippos, or fairies under the christmas tree, or elves helping out shoemakers... should we factor in all these things to our understanding of the world just because they not disprovable...
your argument that any 'force for good' would have a big sign out saying 'look at me' and therefore be identifibale is clearly flawed because it assumes human 'pride' in wanting actions to be noticed. how do you know that any 'force for good' would not want to be just as invisible and indetectable as any 'force for evil'?
something being 'invisible' or hidden is also not necessarily a barrier to its existence being demonstrated... i can't see quarks or time but i know they exist, and not because i *believe* in them but because their effects have been isolated and demonstrated under laboratory conditions and using coherent, testable theory that matches up to the evidence.
you're also continuing to try to concretely define something that is entirely abstract in nature, ie the concept of *evil*. you may have your idea that evil is 'not subjective and not open to interpretation', but you will not find that all people will agree with you on what constitutes *evil*, and this will largely be rooted in the cultural, social, moral and religious codes of different societies / groups.
you might consider it *evil* or *torture* to inflict bodily wounds onto another person, but scarification is a ritualistic practice to mark the transition into manhood in many tribal cultures.
a dog simply doesn't have enough cerebral cortex to manipulate concepts... it doesn't like being hurt and it wants to get away and it can learn to recognise the human that hurts it, but it has no capacity to symbolise hurting behaviour as *evil*.
so you can postulate that there exists a 'force for evil' (or a 'god') but that will be a faith based position, not one supported by direct or causal evidence of any sort, and indeed, requires you to ignore the direct/causal evidence in order for you to maintain it.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MizDemeanour:
MH
i don't get what you are trying to say at all....
ok so one can't DISPROVE the existence of 'a force of evil' anymore than you can disprove 'god'... but then equally you cant disprove invisible pink hippos, or fairies under the christmas tree, or elves helping out shoemakers... should we factor in all these things to our understanding of the world just because they not disprovable...
well 1)there is an important difference between Satan and 'elves' helping out shoe
makers or invisible pink hippos - we have
not as yet seen any magical shoe repairs which
would indicate elves or pink hippo droppings but
there is an enormous ammount of evil,pain and
suffering in the world. Theres no smoke without
fire and pink hippos aren't making any smoke.
2)I don't think you should 'factor in' anything.
I'm making a comparison of two beings that
are part of human folklore and how the qualities of one make it harder to prove or
disprove one than the other. I wouldn't
use pink hippos in this comparison (although
if they fitted my argument I might use unicorns or other magical creatures)because no one believes in the existence of pink hippos
but many cultures believe in the existence
of 'evil forces'.
your argument that any 'force for good' would have a big sign out saying 'look at me' and therefore be identifibale is clearly flawed because it assumes human 'pride' in wanting actions to be noticed.
wait a minute, when atheists try to disprove the existence of a creator god they are attacking an 'assumption' about God = that God,if god exists, created the universe. In my argument I was using another assumption that
the god I'm talking about is the 'burning bush'
'sending angels' type of god,the god that
is supposed to want humans to behave a certain way. If disproving something by attacking
'assumptions' about it is good enough for other
atheists why should I be any different.
how do you know that any 'force for good' would not want to be just as invisible and indetectable as any 'force for evil'?
If God is good then why hide? Why create
good aspects to religions unless you mean to
communicate to human beings? Why create human beings who search for you if you don't want to be found? Once you assume that god is good and
the creator of everything then all the other assumptions logically follow.
something being 'invisible' or hidden is also not necessarily a barrier to its existence being demonstrated... i can't see quarks or time but i know they exist, and not because i *believe* in them but because their effects have been isolated and demonstrated under laboratory conditions and using coherent, testable theory that matches up to the evidence.
[B]Do quarks have intelligence and a desire not
to be found or believed in?[b/]
you're also continuing to try to concretely define something that is entirely abstract in nature, ie the concept of *evil*. you may have your idea that evil is 'not subjective and not open to interpretation', but you will not find that all people will agree with you on what constitutes *evil*, and this will largely be rooted in the cultural, social, moral and religious codes of different societies / groups.
you might consider it *evil* or *torture* to inflict bodily wounds onto another person, but scarification is a ritualistic practice to mark the transition into manhood in many tribal cultures.
[b] Why would I consider ritual scarification
torture if the person who is being scarred is
happy then I'm happy? If the person being scarred felt tortured then I would say 'Stop.
If he feels tortured by it then it must be torture" notice that I'm not defining torture
as a specific type of practice but as a 'feeling
of being tortured' and that feeling is universal. If a person felt tortured by being
tickled with feathers I would say 'don't tickle him because he feels tortured and torture is evil'. If the person replied 'It's for his own good' I'd say, 'isn't there a better way that
doesn't involve him feeling tortured'.[b/]
a dog simply doesn't have enough cerebral cortex to manipulate concepts... it doesn't like being hurt and it wants to get away and it can learn to recognise the human that hurts it, but it has no capacity to symbolise hurting behaviour as *evil*.
[B]It doesn't have to symbolise hurting behaviour in order to have a concept of evil.
I don't! I know that torture hurts me and thus I
place it within my list of bad things,things which hurt. Torture hurts alot and that makes it
very bad. Very bad = evil. Simple as that. And
I know that Dogs understand 'bad' otherwise I've
been wasting my time shouting 'bad dog','thats
a bad thing - don't do that!' at my dog as many
dog owners and even Barbara Woodhouse did.[b/]
so you can postulate that there exists a 'force for evil' (or a 'god') but that will be a faith based position, not one supported by direct or causal evidence of any sort, and indeed, requires you to ignore the direct/causal evidence in order for you to maintain it.
[B]What? I'm not trying to maintain a belief.
I don't believe in 'powers of darkness' and its
no more unreasonable of me to make a statement
about disproving other peoples postulations
than it is for any other atheist [b/]
Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive!! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!!!
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MY HERO!!
i was going to reply in detail to your post, but frankly the thinking is so muddled that i cant be bothered... lets just recap the basics... you are postulating that, should a force of evil exist, it would somehow be harder to disprove than a force of good. this is based on your assumptions that a force for good would 'logically' want to be seen/found and a force for evil would not. you don't seem to be interested in debating your assumptions, or in the issues of proving vs disproving something, none the less you wish to state that evil is objectively identifiable, according to your subjective opinion of it... so it seems you just want to make an entirely subjective statement and reject any criticism of it on the grounds that you're entitled to make an entirely subjective statement. fine, but masturbation of the mental or physical variety is best done in the privacy of your own room, not on an internet forum.... incidentally, your dog can understand basic language commands, but not the words themselves let alone the concepts behind them. you could train your dog to sit to the word 'sausages' and teach him the word 'jesus' as the naughty command.... but in your case, i think the intelligence is on the wrong end of the lead. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MizDemeanour:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MY HERO!!
i was going to reply in detail to your post, but frankly the thinking is so muddled that i cant be bothered... convenient and 'subjective'  I'd say your understanding of my thinking is muddled. lets just recap the basics... you are postulating that, should a force of evil exist, it would somehow be harder to disprove than a force of good. this is based on your assumptions that a force for good would 'logically' want to be seen/found and a force for evil would not. you don't seem to be interested in debating your assumptions, or in the issues of proving vs disproving something, I have given reasons for my assumptions and
that's half a debate but it takes two to tango.none the less you wish to state that evil is objectively identifiable, according to your subjective opinion of it... my opinion may be subjective. My opinion of snow feeling cold is subjective but most people agree that snow feels cold. If you don't feel that the snow is cold perhaps you have a sensory problem that makes you unable to feel coldness but if your problem was cured then you
would realize that 'yes snow really does feel cold'.so it seems you just want to make an entirely subjective statement and reject any criticism of it on the grounds that you're entitled to make an entirely subjective statement. fine, but masturbation of the mental or physical variety is best done in the privacy of your own room, not on an internet forum.... I analyse criticisms and accept those which are valid while rejecting those which I observe to be invalid. I stated my reasons for rejecting
your criticism but they were obviously too 'muddled' for you to comprehendincidentally, your dog can understand basic language commands, but not the words themselves let alone the concepts behind them. you could train your dog to sit to the word 'sausages' and teach him the word 'jesus' as the naughty command.... but in your case, i think the intelligence is on the wrong end of the lead. my dog understands the meaning of 'bad'.
It means the same thing as wrong. My dog understands the effects of many 'bad' actions -
it understands,when
the effects are immediate
and simple,cause and effect.
Something is evil because it is 'dangerous'
and awareness of evil is purely practical.
Dogs are practical and even more so than many humans.Evil is just problem solving which any mouse in a moral maze could work out. My dog
understood the meaning of bad before I taught it
the word 'bad' which is why it doesn't do things
which it has learned,by itself, harm it or other members of its 'pack' = the family.
On the other hand many human beings,with their
larger ammount of 'cerebral cortex' still haven't mastered the meaning of 'bad'
Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive!! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound!!!
|
| |
|
|
My Hero,
I find your bizarrely random use of the return key puzzling.
Are you writing blank verse poetry?
Finally, a note on punctuation: commas are followed by a space, not used instead of one.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MY HERO!!: convenient and 'subjective' I'd say your understanding of my thinking is muddled.
Let's have a vote. Mine goes to MizD being correct and you being the muddled one. So assuming MizD and yourself believe you yourselves are not the muddled one then the vote so far for who is muddled is: MH - 2 MizD -1 Oops your subjective view may be erroneous. Never! Can't be true, can it?  quote:
I have given reasons for my assumptions and
that's half a debate but it takes two to tango.
And both dancers must have an idea of the steps involved. You are just making them up as you go along and then denying any wrong-doing so any meaningful debate is negated. quote:
none the less
It is one word, "nonetheless", try sticking to simpler synonyms like "however" if your English is poor. quote:
my opinion may be subjective. My opinion of snow feeling cold is subjective but most people agree that snow feels cold.
But in stating that you totally ignore the fact that the coldness of snow (or is it truly lack of heat? Sorry that's probably beyond you. ) can be objectively demonstrated and measured. This, despite being pointed out already, is where you completely fail in your premises. quote: quote: Originally posted by MizDemeanour:
fine, but masturbation of the mental or physical variety is best done in the privacy of your own room, not on an internet forum....
And in both instance one makes oneself look rather foolish when caught or exposed doing so. The best thing about his posts is the blank space in between his words. If only he would expand on this. quote:
I analyse
Yeah I believe you, NOT. Reading and then just rejecting criticism is not true analysis. All you have done is gainsay every argument put to you because you do not agree. quote:
I stated my reasons for rejecting
your criticism but they were obviously too 'muddled' for you to comprehend
Is this comprehension and acknowledgement of your own failings at last. quote:
my dog understands the meaning of 'bad'.
Yes, but only because it has learned so. quote:
It means the same thing as wrong.
No it doesn't, bad and wrong depend on the context in which the action take place not the action itself. Your dog crapping in your house is bad and wrong but it crapping outside isn't necessarily bad or wrong. See the difference? What a dolt. quote:
Evil is just problem solving which any mouse in a moral maze could work out.
So mice have a concept of evil too. Yawn. quote:
My dog understood the meaning of bad before I taught it the word 'bad' which is why it doesn't do things which it has learned
An illogical statement but it does not surprise me that you posted it. If it is a "learned" response then it cannot have known the action was "bad" beforehand. The two are mutually exclusive and you are a dumpling. quote:
On the other hand many human beings,with their
larger ammount of 'cerebral cortex' still haven't mastered the meaning of 'bad'
Another nonsense. Humans like all animals do what is best for themselves - they make a subjective judgement on "bad" and "good". If a human considers an action bad for themself or their own they likely won't do it. This does not mean they won't do something which is seen as bad but just that they'll weigh up the consequences and decide if the risk is worth the benefit. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Nigel Boilersuit:
My Hero,
I find your bizarrely random use of the return key puzzling.
His bad grammar I can live with, it is his nonsensical argument I find puzzling. |
| |
|
|
I declined to comment on that as you and MizDemeanour have it wrapped up.
|
| |
|
|
Welcome to the forum, Hero.
You'll be surprised how many people get this kind of welcome. Those who survive it rapidly learn to be quite careful what they post.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by LuisGarcia:
Welcome to the forum, Hero.
You'll be surprised how many people get this kind of welcome. Those who survive it rapidly learn to be quite careful what they post.
C'mon if he had posted something sensible then he would have been treated as such. It really is a case of "if the cap fits". Are you truly suggesting (as you seem to imply) that we should be kind or restrained just because someone is new to the fora? If Hero had lurked a bit to see the lie of the land before jumping in feet first with his nonsense then... maybe... |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Joobs:
C'mon if he had posted something sensible then he would have been treated as such. It really is a case of "if the cap fits". Are you truly suggesting (as you seem to imply) that we should be kind or restrained just because someone is new to the fora?
I totally agree, and I apologise if that's what I implied, I meant nothing of the sort. I think it's funny how many people blunder in here expecting it to be as wooly as the rest of the site only to get dynamite under their chairs. quote: Originally posted by Joobs:
If Hero had lurked a bit to see the lie of the land before jumping in feet first with his nonsense then... maybe...
Again, totally agreed. I think it's almost rude not to do that, because it means you get all kinds of people asking the same old nonsense-in-genesis guff time and time again without bothering to go over the numerous refutations that have gone before. |
| |
|
|
@Hero: As I understand it, you are trying to say that it is harder to prove the non-existance of the Devil than God. This is simply not true, for the fact that it is impossible to conclusively disprove the existance of anything - therefore both are equally impossible to disprove. It doesn't matter if you are talking about God, Satan, the Holy Teapot or Paris Hilton's sense of shame... If something doesn't exist, how could we prove it? There is always the possibility of some factor which hasn't been considered. Conversely, if something does exist, then by definition we will be unable to disprove it's existance. Your point, therefore, is somewhat moot.
------
"The lack of flying kangaroos patently proves that Darwinism is false." - blast99
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by LuisGarcia:
I think it's funny how many people blunder in here expecting it to be as wooly as the rest of the site only to get dynamite under their chairs.
this is the only C4 forum with any rigorous debate going on... most of the rest consist of personal opinions and prejudices, often poorly argued, ill informed or just plain risible, and defended by assertion of ego without substance... it can be pretty fierce in here and i guess i have to acknowledge that i've been on the delivery end of that as well as the receiving end, and it does seem to scare people off. but it does annoy me when people just abandon debates they've started.... on the doomesday thread for example, part way through a big debate, bridan threw a few insults around then said s/he didn't want to talk about it anymore and promptly disappeared... so shall i bother to reply to MH? TM has given an elegant summary of the problems in his/her reasoning, but somehow i don't think MH is going to 'get' it... wait and see i think.... |
| |
|
|
Come, come, Mizdemeanor I was not the only one throwing around insults. You did an excellent job yourself and I do believe that your good friend Joobs referred to me at one point as a "cretin". I have already posted on this thread. Since you have not read what I posted I shall quote it again. "Satan could not exist without God they are different sides of the same coin. If there were such beings they would need each other to justify their own existence. Good and Evil exist in the world but they are not borne of supernatural entities they are part of what makes us human. We as human beings are capable of great compassion and kindness but at the same time capable of great cruelty. We make those choices there is no outside force telling us to do it. God and the devil are just a big cop out. A way of us evading the responsiblity of our own choices and actions." Unfortunately I do not have empirical evidence to back this up just wild conjecture and a tin foil hat to keep the radio waves from Venus entering my CT skull. Live long and prosper!
"My Tin Foil Hat keeps slipping"
|
| |
|
|
