Is anything evil? Does evil exist?

In the thread: Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution Do we talk up or down to fundies?, a side issue developed that I think is worthy of a new thread.The questions are these:
1. Is anything evil?
Does evil exist?The comment was made by Hoot Mon in response to one of my own, that everything is natural. And I think that is a relatively common view. I disagree, and would like to respond to his comment, as well as Razd's to begin the thread.----------------------------------Hoot Mon:At least partially...But isn't it telling that we expect them not to be?I think human beings are far more complex than mere animals. If for no other reason, we expect them not to act like animals.Does that not give you pause?Because if you are correct, then what exactly did Cho do at Virginia Tech which was unnatural?And consider this... if everything is natural, then from where did the idea of that which is 'unatural' (religion) originate?Can Richard Dawkins claim that Christians are diseased, as though it is 'unnatural' or worse yet... 'evil'?If you really examine those questions carefully, I think you will quickly see that the moral implications are hideous. In fact, I believe Darwin made a remark to that extent (I'll try to find it).I am not suggesting that you or anyone else is supporting the philosophy I am about to invoke (so do not take this as such), but it is clear that it led to Hitler's conclusions. And that is not to deny Stalin or the others of their proper glory in the same boat.I am not saying that invoking this disjunction between morality and naturalism is a final answer either...I am suggesting you think about it. Some of these things you must see for yourself. It does me no good to declare them, if no-one takes the time to 'digest the offering'.------------------------ So are these faults and imbalances natural? And if so, why would we want to label them as faults or imbalances?Nature appears to be imbalanced in many respects. But if it is all 'natural' and therefore justly simply reality, then there is no difference between that which is 'in balance' and that which is 'out of balance'. It is what it is.Under your own philosophy, we have no basis upon which to judge Mr. Cho other than some illusory perception created by our society which itself is also perfectly natural. So there is no such thing as something illusory, or faults, or imbalances. There is no such thing as truth, and no such thing as a lie. You are Bush, and Bush is me, and I am a rock, and Hoot Mon is litterally an owl.Yep, that's pantheism... (not judging, just stating fact) Razd, according to your own philosophy... conceit is perfectly natural. Yet... you imply fault or imbalance is contained therein.

I like the second part of the topic and think that his would make a decent topic were it a bit shorter. Which Forum are you thinking of getting promoted into?Try and form a bit more concise and shorter opening statement and just use RAZD quotes from the latter half of this....and we can probably find a place in Mis. Topics c/e

In the thread: Miscellaneous Topics in Creation/Evolution Do we talk up or down to fundies?, a side issue developed that I think is worthy of a new thread.The questions are these:
1. Is anything evil?
Does evil exist?I believe it is absurd to label everything as natural. If we do, then we are positing an absolute that has horrific implications for our ability to protest anything with logical consistency. I would like to begin my support for that view, by addressing Razd's reply to a comment of mine in the other thread.------------------------ So these faults and imbalances are natural?
If so, why would we want to label them as faults or imbalances?Nature appears to be imbalanced in many respects. But if it is all 'natural' and therefore just simply reality, then there is no difference between that which is 'in balance' and that which is 'out of balance'. It is what it is.Perhpas the Cho's of our society, as well as the Bushes are only natures equivilant of a Black Hole. They clean up amongst societies as natures other destroyers clean up galaxies.Please note that my arguments are offered against the idea of everything being natural. They are only constructed as a devil's advocate so as to make my point. I include the name of president Bush because he is seen as an evil by those who tend to believe that all is natural. I personally find no moral equivilent between the two.Under your own philosophy, we have no basis upon which to judge Mr. Cho (or president Bush)other than some illusory perception created by our society (which itself is also perfectly natural). So there is no such thing as something illusory, or faults, or imbalances. There is no such thing as truth, and no such thing as a lie. You are Bush, and Bush is me, and I am a rock, and Hoot Mon is litterally an owl. Razd, according to your own philosophy... conceit is perfectly natural. Yet... you imply fault or imbalance is contained therein.Mis. Topics c/e

Is there a problem?

TOPIC HAS BEEN PROMOTED TO C/E