General Discussions
The Root of all Evil : The God Delusion
POSTED BY: Calhoun
UPDATED: Thursday, December 17, 2015 06:12
VIEWED: 49488
PAGE 16 of 32
Saturday, May 26, 2007 5:47 PM
Quote:You mean if I go kill someone because he crossed into my territory or because I wanted to eat him. Or maybe I just thought he looked good to eat, so I just maimed him and left him to die. Or maybe I take control of the country and kill all the children who aren’t born from my sperm. You wouldn’t consider those actions to be evil or at least wrong?
Originally posted by Khyron:
Yes they do, almost always in order to survive or for related reasons. That's not evil. In most cases a person killing somebody for his survival isn't evil either. A murderer, though, doesn't kill for his own survival, and his actions would be evil.
Quote:God didn’t give man a gun to play with. Man created the gun and how to use it and chooses to use it.
Originally posted by Khyron:
No, but he gave us the choice and so he has to share the responsibility. If a parent gives a child a gun to play with and it kills someone, is it the child's fault or the parent's fault?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:02 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I do believe that organized religion should be "stomped out" since the potential for abuse is very high and the benefit of organized religion over personal religion is small.
I've often heard that people oppose "organized" religion. You'll have to explain what this means, and what the difference between that and "personal" religion is.
Also, people can use steak knives to do tremendous evil (cf. with the guy in Japan who killed school kids with one). The mere fact that something might produce bad side effects can't mean that it should be banned. Because then everything would be banned!
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:04 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
God, to me, is not a judging entity or living father figure, but rather the indifferent order of the universe. Indifference I can deal with, but not the pretense of caring.
That wouldn’t seem to solve your problem though. There are just as many consequences to disobeying the laws of the Universe. We are as much slaves to the laws of the universe as to god.
But the universe doesn't assume some moral high-ground, nor does it threaten us with inescapable hell after we die.
Order of the universe, as already in the word, is a set of rules (as in direct consequences to certain actions). It doesn't pretend a benevolence to its basic structure.
If we can stand the consequences of our bad choices, we can make them. We don't go to the hot place even though we have no regrets. That's free will to me.
There is nothing to worship, nothing that demands being praised for no reason other than supposedly existing and having made us. (What's to be grateful for in something we had no say in??) None of that self-agrandizing vanity and greed.
Just facts. That's the difference.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:06 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:That wouldn’t seem to solve your problem though. There are just as many consequences to disobeying the laws of the Universe. We are as much slaves to the laws of the universe as to god.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
God, to me, is not a judging entity or living father figure, but rather the indifferent order of the universe. Indifference I can deal with, but not the pretense of caring.
Finn, I've always wanted to disobey a law of the universe, can you explain to me how it's possible?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:13 PM
Quote:It also doesn’t provide use with a heaven after we die or the ability to distinction good from bad. This is just rhetoric.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But the universe doesn't assume some moral high-ground, nor does it threaten us with inescapable hell after we die.
Quote:So what? The consequence for making the “wrong” choice is still there. The universe always has moral high-ground. If you don’t believe me, convince yourself you can fly and then jump off a building. See if the universe doesn’t smack you with a dose of its own self-righteous moral high ground.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Order of the universe, as already in the word, is a set of rules (as in direct consequences to certain actions). It doesn't pretend a benevolence to its basic structure.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:17 PM
Quote:You could try to fly. Gravity is likely to take some serious issue with that.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Finn, I've always wanted to disobey a law of the universe, can you explain to me how it's possible?
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:20 PM
Quote:If you or some other civilised human did any of that then sure it's evil. But applied to animals in a natural environmental setting there's a reason for that sort of behaviour.
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
You mean if I go kill someone because he crossed into my territory or because I wanted to eat him. Or maybe I just thought he looked good to eat, so I just maimed him and left him to die. Or maybe I take control of the country and kill all the children who aren’t born from my sperm. You wouldn’t consider those actions to be evil or at least wrong?
You're making a mistake by looking at nature and seeing evil, even if you only do it for the sake of argument. There is no evil in nature, the concept of evil only arose once humans became civilised enough to identify behaviour that is detrimental to the overall well-being of a society, and should only be applied in that context. Outside of civilised society there is no evil, and any claims of seeing evil in nature is a case of a person looking at it with 'civilised bias'.
Quote:I think you either completely missed the point of the analogy or you're saying that humans created free will (which, assuming the existence of God, would have been created by him).
God didn’t give man a gun to play with. Man created the gun and how to use it and chooses to use it.
Questions are a burden to others. Answers are prison for oneself.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
I do believe that organized religion should be "stomped out" since the potential for abuse is very high and the benefit of organized religion over personal religion is small.
I've often heard that people oppose "organized" religion. You'll have to explain what this means, and what the difference between that and "personal" religion is.
Organized religion is when there is a structure (say the Catholic Church) that takes a conceptual religion and forces it's interpretations on it's followers and demands their obedience. Personal religion is when you take a conceptual religion and have everyone make what they will of it. I don't dislike the idea of religion so much as the power structure that forms which enforces specific beliefs and compels people (through force of arms, social pressure or some other means) to follow those specific beliefs.
Now of course you can make the argument that people can choose to be part of a organized religion or not, and this is somewhat true, but the organized religions push the concept that you MUST be part of the organization to be a good member of said religion, and most times people are indoctrinated from childhood to believe that the organized religious structure is the way things are supposed to be. When someone is indoctrinated in a belief from the time they can comprehend speech it's much less of a choice.
Quote:
Also, people can use steak knives to do tremendous evil (cf. with the guy in Japan who killed school kids with one). The mere fact that something might produce bad side effects can't mean that it should be banned. Because then everything would be banned!
Right. But here's my point, are there alternatives to steak knives that are less dangerous but do the exact same job at least as well if not better? I think that we have potential alternatives to religion (and I know we have alternatives to organized religions) that are at least as good without the potential for abuse.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:22 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:It also doesn’t provide use with a heaven after we die or the ability to distinction good from bad. This is just rhetoric.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But the universe doesn't assume some moral high-ground, nor does it threaten us with inescapable hell after we die.
It's not. Heaven and hell being absent factors, all we have to consider are the direct consequences of our actions in the here and now.
Good and bad are disctinctions we have drawn from those consequences, those being suffering or pleasure. Our ability to empathize is an integral part to that structure, as well, as it connects the pleasure and suffering of others to our own.
Basic building blocks. No outwardly imposed moral structure that would necessitate an outwardly imposed heaven or hell.
Quote:Quote:So what? The consequence for making the “wrong” choice is still there. The universe always has moral high-ground. If you don’t believe me, convince yourself you can fly and then jump off a building. See if the universe doesn’t smack you with a dose of its own self-righteous moral high ground.
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Order of the universe, as already in the word, is a set of rules (as in direct consequences to certain actions). It doesn't pretend a benevolence to its basic structure.
I'm not talking about physical laws. (Those aren't moral, either, btw. They're also indifferent.) I'm talking about human interaction, society, our attitude towards ourselves.
A lot more grey area there, without taking away the concept of consequences.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Saturday, May 26, 2007 6:25 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:You could try to fly. Gravity is likely to take some serious issue with that.
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Finn, I've always wanted to disobey a law of the universe, can you explain to me how it's possible?
Right, it's not possible. You are saying that rules that cannot be broken are equivalent to rules that can.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME