Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.
ringo
Member (Idle past 412 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 241 of 390 (752445)
03-11-2015 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Stile
03-11-2015 12:40 PM


Re: Evil Summary
Stile writes:
I do not think rape is absolutely bad. That's why I keep saying that rape is only bad when the victim doesn't want to be raped.
But you still seem to think that rape is absolutely bad in that context.
Stile writes:
And society is made up of people affected by actions... which is who I'm saying decides what's good or bad. We seem to agree on this.
No we don't. I'm saying that the good or bad of an action has little or nothing to do with the opinion of the person it's done to. Good or bad is decided collectively, not just by insiders. A rape victim may or may not agree with society's opinion of rape. A rapist may or may not agree with society's opinion of rape and how rapists are treated by society.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Stile, posted 03-11-2015 12:40 PM Stile has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Stile, posted 03-11-2015 1:24 PM ringo has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 242 of 390 (752454)
03-11-2015 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by ringo
03-11-2015 12:49 PM


Society vs. Individual
ringo writes:
But you still seem to think that rape is absolutely bad in that context.
That's right.
Just like everything is absolute if you refine it's context and stay within that context.
You just told me that society decides what's good and bad.
So, is rape absolutely bad within the context of a society that has decided rape is bad?
I'm saying that the good or bad of an action has little or nothing to do with the opinion of the person it's done to. Good or bad is decided collectively, not just by insiders. A rape victim may or may not agree with society's opinion of rape. A rapist may or may not agree with society's opinion of rape and how rapists are treated by society.
That's another system to define morality, yes.
So, who's way is better? Yours or mine?
I'm saying your way of looking at it allows for corruption.
"Oh, you may not like it, but I'm going to keep doing it to you because our society has decided that this is a good thing. Therefore, I'm doing a good thing by hurting you over, and over, and over again..."
I'm saying my way of looking at it removes this ability for corruption to exist. And also retains all the subjective-explanatory power of the "society defines morals" system. All the good stuff, but removing some of the bad stuff. Improvement.
I'm not saying your way is impossible.
I'm not saying your way isn't how most people see things right now.
I'm not saying your way isn't explained in social psychology books.
I'm not saying my way is more popular.
I'm just saying my way removes the ability for corruption. And, if you agree that removing corruption from a system of morality is a good thing... then I'm also saying that my way is "better."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by ringo, posted 03-11-2015 12:49 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by ringo, posted 03-12-2015 11:54 AM Stile has replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 243 of 390 (752485)
03-11-2015 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Stile
03-11-2015 12:40 PM


Re: Evil Summary
ringo writes:
It's society that decides what's good or bad.
Stile writes:
Exactly. And society is made up of people affected by actions... which is who I'm saying decides what's good or bad. We seem to agree on this.
And yet if God exists, God is not limited by how society defines Him nor His actions.
The issue is whether God is responsible or whether we are responsible or both.
In my belief, God created potential evil which only became actual once it was chosen. Thus, why would God be responsible for our choice even if it was He who made the options?
  • Perhaps God is unconcerned with how we judge Him but only in how we handle the problems and challenges of society, regardless whether He initiated the possibilities or not.
  • Perhaps we are His miracles and through our actions, His miracles are being used.

    Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
    It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
    If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 240 by Stile, posted 03-11-2015 12:40 PM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 246 by Stile, posted 03-12-2015 11:44 AM Phat has replied

      
    Raphael
    Member (Idle past 462 days)
    Posts: 173
    From: Southern California, United States
    Joined: 09-29-2007


    Message 244 of 390 (752500)
    03-12-2015 1:06 AM
    Reply to: Message 229 by Stile
    03-08-2015 12:07 PM


    Re: Can there be an Evil God?
    Stile writes:
    Like you said, it boils down to "Raphael trusts God" and "Stile does not trust God." And, no, I do not think we will change each other's minds. If the idea of a God works for you, and the Bible "rings true" to you as well, then yes, I would agree that you have adequately defended my argument from the Biblical standpoint. I try not to attack another's faith./qs
    I really appreciate that. That's why I love conversations like this. Understanding a different perspective fully is always the goal on my end, and I think it makes us more well-rounded. Questioning our own beliefs/ideas and considering a totally different view is always an invigorating mental exercise
    Of course, since I do not trust God, and neither does the Bible "ring true" to me... I find your defense personally unsatisfactory.
    I would suggest that my argument does indeed hold water as long as one does not put such trust in God and the Bible. My argument is more... mundane. And it is those mundane issues that I choose to argue against.
    Well you're right, that's really where we diverge here. You disagree with a biblical ontology, and so we would have to go back behind this discussion and I would need to prove to you that a biblical ontology is acceptable and credible. This argument here for me chooses a biblical ontology as a starting point, just as you do not use the biblical perspective in yours. We've both come here assuming our underlying assumptions about reality are correct, but we disagree on what those are.
    But, well, that's the difference. You trust in God to have things figured out, and I just... don't.
    I am open to learning about God's ideas, though. If God ever lets me in on the secret of how things actually are "figured out"... then I wouldn't hold anything against Him.
    Ideed.Which is understandable from your perspective. I do not know your personal life journey or experience, so have no way to simply stand here incredulous at the fact that you do not believe. Lol. My only encouragement, if you are ever interested, give scripture a(perhaps another?) go. It has a way of standing up for itself ;P.
    That is, I don't think there's ever a circumstance where (a God) creating/coming first would ever make an action right.
    Again, I think "right" is defined by those who are affected by the action.
    This creates an absolute frame-of-reference for myself where I am now restricted.
    I mean, it's not based on anything concrete... I just made it up... but within that context, there are absolutes.
    Interesting. I suppose the only thing is while I can see that to each person, "right" is (somewhat) clearly defined, at least in that what one desires done to them is "right," it just seems that that is subject to such change; people tend to be emotionally fickle, not to mention instances of damage. Take for instance those who have experience physical/sexual abuse. They may believe or be conditioned to believe that abuse done is them is "right," justified, or even deserved, but in reality, from a psychological health perspective, it is not. Therefore no matter who you are, what your circumstances or perspective is, even if you disagree, physical/sexual abuse is always negative and always harmful, regardless of whether or not one might agree. So then, in that case, who is right? The science of Psychology, or the individual?
    Therefore, in order for something coming first and being "right" is concerned, it would have to be more of a by-product and not really be based on "coming first." Like this:
    Let's say God created a world, and all the humans were very happy and approved the world they lived in and were extremely thankful that the God had made it the way He did......
    Here we have God creating/coming first and ending up good.
    But the "good" isn't decided on God creating/coming first... it's decided by those who were affected by the action. It's just a point-of-interest that God happened to create/come first. The creating/coming first doesn't have any bearing on the good/bad judgment.
    Ah gotcha. That helps me to understand what you are saying. I think in response I would say that the Biblical narrative has humans as secondary instead of main characters in the creation narrative. So instead of humans "feeling" like God's creation was good, God himself states that "it is good." God names it good because as creator he has the right and only pertinent perspective. We might then take the leap and say the same is true of morals, in that God, being the originator of all things good, the one setting the standard for what "good" looks like, therefore is the only pertinent perspective on what good and evil really are. Hence verses like the one Cat Sci mentioned, "I created evil." (I'll address that one in another post ;P).
    I agree. But I wouldn't say that they are "undeniably wrong." I would simply phrase it as "pretty much everybody agrees that they don't want these things to happen to them."
    .....
    I don't think everyone is against such actions because they are wrong.
    I think that these actions are wrong because everyone is against them.
    And that's where I disagree. I find comfort in the fact that there is a standard bigger than myself, something solid I can put my hope and faith in, something not hinging on my view of the world, my subjective opinion, my transient and fickle emotions. Emotions are untrustworthy in my opinion. How i feel about something can come and go with the wind; even my likes/dislikes and opinions on issues change with time. I love God because he is unchanging and constant.I love that. But, to each his own I suppose .

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 229 by Stile, posted 03-08-2015 12:07 PM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 245 by Stile, posted 03-12-2015 11:35 AM Raphael has not replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    Message 245 of 390 (752669)
    03-12-2015 11:35 AM
    Reply to: Message 244 by Raphael
    03-12-2015 1:06 AM


    Re: Can there be an Evil God?
    Raphael writes:
    Therefore no matter who you are, what your circumstances or perspective is, even if you disagree, physical/sexual abuse is always negative and always harmful, regardless of whether or not one might agree. So then, in that case, who is right? The science of Psychology, or the individual?
    This is a very good point, I've spent a lot of time thinking about it.
    My way of looking at things goes like this:
    If the abused person actually wants to be abused, then it's wrong for you to stop it.
    However, if you do stop it, and the abused person eventually comes to realize that it's better this way, and they are thankful that you stopped it... then it was good for you to stop it.
    This does leave the issue that if you stop the abuse, and the abused person is always angry/upset about no longer being abused... then the abuse was actually a good thing, and it was wrong of you to stop it.
    What's the alternative, though?
    What does your method do for the situation? Your method would involve forcing a person to stop doing something that they want to do. Who gets to decide that? For what other situations do they get to decide for everyone?
    What if someone likes to smoke, but we know that smoking is bad for us...
    According to your system, if it's bad for them, it's good for you to stop them from doing it? It's good for you to stop someone from smoking because we know it's bad for them? Regardless of whether or not they like smoking, understand the ramifications and choose to accept the consequences anyway?
    Yes, there is a difference between smoking and abuse. But where is that line drawn? Who draws that line? How do we prevent such lines being used to corrupt the system?
    It is a difficult situation, and both sides have issues.
    My side has the issue that the abuse will continue if the abuser really does want it to continue (is it still "abuse", even, then?)
    My side has the advantage that corruption can never enter the system at all.
    Your side has the advantage that abuse never happens (but, what if someone actually does want it?)
    Your side has the issue that such a precedent can be used for corrupt purposes to control people's habits in many other areas of interest.
    I deem the plus/minus of my way to be more desirable than the plus/minus of your way.
    So instead of humans "feeling" like God's creation was good, God himself states that "it is good." God names it good because as creator he has the right and only pertinent perspective.
    Yes, again, this is the difference in our positions.
    You trust that God has our best interests in mind for these absolute statements.
    I don't think people are absolute, so I don't think that any absolute statements work when dealing with a system of morality. Regardless of them coming from God or not.
    I find comfort in the fact that there is a standard bigger than myself, something solid I can put my hope and faith in, something not hinging on my view of the world, my subjective opinion, my transient and fickle emotions. Emotions are untrustworthy in my opinion. How i feel about something can come and go with the wind; even my likes/dislikes and opinions on issues change with time. I love God because he is unchanging and constant. I love that.
    I would love such a thing too.
    My problem is that this simply does not describe reality.
    In reality, people are different. People like different things. People are bothered by different things.
    Morality is a system that governs dealing with people.
    If we care about those people, we'll develop a system that accepts the fact that people are different and works with that.
    Some people are going to choose not to smoke because it's bad for you.
    Other people are going to choose to smoke because they accept the consequences and want to do it anyway.
    So, does the "unchanging God" say that smoking is good or bad?
    My method says that not smoking is good for those who don't want to smoke.
    And smoking is good for those who want to smoke (and understand/accept the consequences).
    God may be unchanging, but even God's method of dealing with people needs to account for the fact that people are not unchanging.
    Unless, of course, God's morality isn't concerned with caring about people... But that doesn't seem right, and you get back to the original paradox.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 244 by Raphael, posted 03-12-2015 1:06 AM Raphael has not replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    Message 246 of 390 (752670)
    03-12-2015 11:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 243 by Phat
    03-11-2015 6:19 PM


    Re: Evil Summary
    Phat writes:
    And yet if God exists, God is not limited by how society defines Him nor His actions.
    Of course not.
    Even people are not limited by how society defines them or their actions.
    But we can still judge people.
    And we can still judge God.
    Some of those people simple don't care about those judgments.
    It's quite possible that God doesn't care about our judgments.
    None of that makes the judgments go away. They're simply a statement of how the people feel about the situation.
    The issue is whether God is responsible or whether we are responsible or both.
    ...
    Thus, why would God be responsible for our choice even if it was He who made the options?
    Responsibility is not the issue.
    Even if God didn't create the world and wasn't responsible for us in any way, if He was still all-powerful and decides not to stop rapes... then He's still evil. Why wouldn't He be?
    Responsibility has nothing to do with it. "The ability to prevent evil" is all that is needed. If God has "the ability to prevent evil" at no risk to Himself, and is aware of the evil in our world, and chooses not to.. then God is evil.
    Perhaps God is unconcerned with how we judge Him but only in how we handle the problems and challenges of society, regardless whether He initiated the possibilities or not.
    Yes, quite possible. Maybe God just doesn't care about us getting hurt enough to prevent the damage. Maybe God has other priorities.
    Do those other priorities justify not stopping evil? That's the question.
    Perhaps we are His miracles and through our actions, His miracles are being used.
    Let's say this is true.
    Then God is still evil if He can prevent rapes and chooses not to.
    God's justification for allowing the evil to continue is "I'm using my miracles through you!"
    ...I would guess that such a justification would be unsatisfying to a rape victim.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 243 by Phat, posted 03-11-2015 6:19 PM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 250 by Phat, posted 03-13-2015 2:14 AM Stile has replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 412 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 247 of 390 (752672)
    03-12-2015 11:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 242 by Stile
    03-11-2015 1:24 PM


    Re: Society vs. Individual
    Stile writes:
    Just like everything is absolute if you refine it's context and stay within that context.
    So you're refining to the point where the word "absolute" is meaningless: It's absolute if it's absolute.
    Stile writes:
    So, is rape absolutely bad within the context of a society that has decided rape is bad?
    No. Individual cases will still differ.
    Stile writes:
    I'm saying my way of looking at it removes this ability for corruption to exist.
    You seem to be suggesting a system in which everybody defines his own absolute morality from his own viewpoint. If everybody is equally corrupt, how does that remove corruption?
    Stile writes:
    And, if you agree that removing corruption from a system of morality is a good thing...
    I might agree that flying pigs would be a good thing (although it would increase the price of bacon) but that doesn't make it possible.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 242 by Stile, posted 03-11-2015 1:24 PM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 248 by Stile, posted 03-12-2015 2:00 PM ringo has replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    Message 248 of 390 (752701)
    03-12-2015 2:00 PM
    Reply to: Message 247 by ringo
    03-12-2015 11:54 AM


    Re: Society vs. Individual
    ringo writes:
    So you're refining to the point where the word "absolute" is meaningless: It's absolute if it's absolute.
    That's right.
    I didn't bring the term into the discussion, you did. If you no longer want to use the term, I'm good with that.
    ringo writes:
    Stile writes:
    So, is rape absolutely bad within the context of a society that has decided rape is bad?
    No. Individual cases will still differ.
    If a society decides what's good or bad, but individual cases still differ.. then society isn't deciding what's good and bad, something else is.
    If individual cases still differ.. then perhaps it's the individuals involved who get to make the call. If so, then you agree with me.
    If not... who's making the call? Why should their call even matter?
    You seem to be suggesting a system in which everybody defines his own absolute morality from his own viewpoint.
    I'm not suggesting this, this is the way it is. Regardless of anyone using my system or your system or God's system or whatever... each individual is defining and using their own system. That's simply a fact.
    If everybody is equally corrupt, how does that remove corruption?
    I'm not saying that my system would make everyone turn into good people.
    I'm simply saying that my system would remove the ability for corruption... remove the ability to hide behind false information. Remove the ability to do an evil act and call it good and persuade others into thinking it's good just because someone says so.
    In my system, the only way someone could lie about something being good when it's actually bad, is if that person themselves is the only one getting hurt. That's not corruption, that's stupidity. I'm fine with allowing stupidity if it removes corruption.
    I might agree that flying pigs would be a good thing (although it would increase the price of bacon) but that doesn't make it possible.
    I would agree.
    But removing corruption (the ability to persuade others into thinking something is good when it's actually bad) from a system of morality certainly is possible. I've shown you how. All you have to do is allow the person affected by the action to be the judge on whether or not the action was good or bad.
    Allowing anyone else at all to be the judge only opens the door for someone to tell someone else what they like and dislike. That just doesn't make any sense at all.
    Edited by Stile, : No. I'm not telling anyone what I edited. My secrets are mine and mine alone!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 247 by ringo, posted 03-12-2015 11:54 AM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 251 by ringo, posted 03-13-2015 11:59 AM Stile has replied

      
    Raphael
    Member (Idle past 462 days)
    Posts: 173
    From: Southern California, United States
    Joined: 09-29-2007


    (1)
    Message 249 of 390 (752767)
    03-12-2015 5:51 PM
    Reply to: Message 233 by New Cat's Eye
    03-09-2015 12:19 PM


    Cat Sci writes:
    The argument doesn't require complete knowledge about God. It is a simple exercise in deductive logic.
    Sure, we make conclusions about what we know. We might be able to suppose that a god "X" is evil if He has miracles and does not use them. What I'm saying is my position is more complex than a god "X." I am positing the God of scripture, YHWH. Some information is revealed about Him in scripture, but not all. What I'm saying is scripture does not offer complete information, therefore you cannot really make "God is evil" as an accurate truth claim. "God might be evil" is really as far as we can take that.
    Sure, but the argument would be like this:
    Being wet is the property of having no resistance to shear stress.
    Water has no resistance to shear stress.
    Therefore water is wet.
    That also does not require having complete knowledge about water. It is a simple exercise in deductive logic.
    How would you know that water has no resistance to shear stress if you have never observed or interacted with water? It's an assumption based on your current pre-knowledge of water. the argument would look more like this:
    Being wet is the property of having no resistance to shear stress.
    Water might not have resistance to shear stress (we don't know since it has never been observed)
    Therefore water might be wet.
    It's just conjecture. If something has never been observed or understood definitive truths about it cannot be made. Instead, we live in the land of hypotheses and inferences, which is ok.
    Because the argument doesn't actually require full knowledge of the situation.
    The existence of evil is logically incompatible with a God that is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
    You cannot be all-powerful and all-good and also allow evil to exist.
    If you are all-powerful and you let evil exist, then you are not ALL-good.
    If you are all-good and evil still exist, then you are not ALL-powerful enough to stop it.
    Standard Epicurus's argument here. It's fair. And I won't try and conquer this age old argument haha. But, let's take a step away from arbitrary philosophy. Again, I am not positing a god "X," but the God of scripture, rooted in reality and not on philosophical ideas alone. I have two counter arguments:
    1)
    IF God is all-powerful and all-loving
    IF Love does not work unless the freedom to choose exists
    IF a god is equally all-loving as he is all-powerful
    THEN
    - He must allow creations to choose evil (even at the cost of damage to one another)
    - Love takes steps to limit evil, at times eradicating it almost completely, but always leaves a choice available
    - God is a paradox, in that He is all-powerful but in His very nature is limited by his equal all-loving nature
    - The goal of God is not to be "all-good" but to maintain his nature, which is Love.
    2)
    IF God has been accused of being unjust, controlling, and unloving
    IF an alternative reality (sin and selfishness) was proposed by the Devil
    IF God is truly all-loving and values the choice of creations
    THEN
    - He will allow evil to exist to prove that it is self-destructing and non-viable for existence
    - He will allow creations to choose evil in order to justify the claims that he is unjust/controlling
    - He will ultimately prove His all-loving nature by becoming a created being Himself, being killed by His creations, and then gifting them with life regardless
    &
    - When evil has been shown to be truly self-destructing, He will eradicate evil from the Universe
    So, since you cannot deny the logical deduction, instead you are claiming that we can't really know stuff like this about God.
    Perhaps God just breaks logic.
    So, maybe water really isn't wet. Since we cannot know everything about water, we cannot conclude that it is wet because maybe it breaks logic.
    Sorry, but that's a cop-out.
    Not really my friend. Your argument just tries to know the unknowable. It's like saying seriously: "A fight between Wonder-Woman and Superman initiated the Big Bang;" it's just simply unknowable territory. Someone knowledgeable about science would laugh at an assertion like that because the issue is far more complex and we only have so much information about the Big Bang, at least at this point in time. In the same way, we might hypothesize that superheroes had a part to play, for all we know this could be true (especially for those of you who have read DC 1 Million ) but not enough knowledge exists to make a conclusion. Therefore, we admit we simply do not know.
    Actually, Stile admitted just that. Even if God, for some illogical reason, actually doesn't really count as being evil, under these conditions (the premises that he is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent) we can conclude that he is evil for allowing evil to exist.
    Now, being evil does not mean that he cannot also be good. He's just evil too. And He's admitted as much:
    "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
    Sure A classically quoted verse. In response:
    1) As I stated in the 2nd argument above, it's more complex than that. I am not and have not been arguing that God is only "all-good." I have said that goodness is one of His qualities, part of His nature, but so are many other things.
    2) The hebrew word "evil" is a word, "ra" (רַע ) and means more along the lines of "bad, adversity, or calamity." "Evil" works too but Hebrew is an incredibly robust and vivid language with a wide range of meanings.
    All this to say that the idea that God cannot be truly good because evil exists is a little limiting and small in it's girth and workability. Perhaps some god "X" cannot be good because evil exists, but that is not my argument.
    A more robust argument considers all the information about the God of scripture, YHWH, and would probably conclude: God reveals himself to be loving and good, and we see many instances of this throughout scripture and his overall character. However, we also see instances of Him allowing evil to exist, and at times even causing calamity. In the face of such an apparent contradiction we simply don't know.. The evidence actually leans more to Him being good and loving, but there are always two sides to every coin .
    Regards!
    -Raph

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 233 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-09-2015 12:19 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

      
    Phat
    Member
    Posts: 18262
    From: Denver,Colorado USA
    Joined: 12-30-2003
    Member Rating: 1.1


    Message 250 of 390 (752797)
    03-13-2015 2:14 AM
    Reply to: Message 246 by Stile
    03-12-2015 11:44 AM


    Re: Evil Summary
    Stile writes:
    Even if God didn't create the world and wasn't responsible for us in any way, if He was still all-powerful and decides not to stop rapes... then He's still evil. Why wouldn't He be?
    Assume foir a moment that evil is carried and spread by humans. Tsunamis and hurricanes dont actually count. They are part of nature.
    My belief is that God wont stop evil---through humans---because it is our job to stop it ourselves.
    He set it up this way.
    He even told us that we would be hated because of our profession (In Christ)
    (Not to suggest a Martyr Complex... )

    Saying, "I don't know," is the same as saying, "Maybe."~ZombieRingo
    It's easy to see the speck in somebody else's ideas - unless it's blocked by the beam in your own.~Ringo
    If a savage stops believing in his wooden god, it does not mean that there is no God only that God is not wooden.(Leo Tolstoy)

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 246 by Stile, posted 03-12-2015 11:44 AM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 252 by Stile, posted 03-15-2015 10:56 AM Phat has replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 412 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 251 of 390 (752816)
    03-13-2015 11:59 AM
    Reply to: Message 248 by Stile
    03-12-2015 2:00 PM


    Re: Society vs. Individual
    Stile writes:
    If a society decides what's good or bad, but individual cases still differ.. then society isn't deciding what's good and bad, something else is.
    Not at all. It just means that rape isn't absolutely right or absolutely wrong.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 248 by Stile, posted 03-12-2015 2:00 PM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 253 by Stile, posted 03-15-2015 10:59 AM ringo has replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    Message 252 of 390 (752977)
    03-15-2015 10:56 AM
    Reply to: Message 250 by Phat
    03-13-2015 2:14 AM


    Re: Evil Summary
    Phat writes:
    Assume for a moment that evil is carried and spread by humans.
    Regardless of whether or not the rest of your ideas follow from this assumption... Why would we make this assumption in the first place?
    Is there any reason to think that this is true?
    Is there any benefits that come from thinking this is true?
    My belief is that God wont stop evil---through humans---because it is our job to stop it ourselves.
    I think it's everyone's job. Anyone who says they care, anyway.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 250 by Phat, posted 03-13-2015 2:14 AM Phat has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 256 by Phat, posted 03-16-2015 6:51 AM Stile has replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    Message 253 of 390 (752978)
    03-15-2015 10:59 AM
    Reply to: Message 251 by ringo
    03-13-2015 11:59 AM


    Re: Society vs. Individual
    ringo writes:
    It just means that rape isn't absolutely right or absolutely wrong.
    And I agree with that.
    Like I said before:
    Stile writes:
    I do not think rape is absolutely bad. That's why I keep saying that rape is only bad when the victim doesn't want to be raped.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 251 by ringo, posted 03-13-2015 11:59 AM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 254 by ringo, posted 03-15-2015 3:11 PM Stile has replied

      
    ringo
    Member (Idle past 412 days)
    Posts: 20940
    From: frozen wasteland
    Joined: 03-23-2005


    Message 254 of 390 (752983)
    03-15-2015 3:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 253 by Stile
    03-15-2015 10:59 AM


    Re: Society vs. Individual
    Stile writes:
    That's why I keep saying that rape is only bad when the victim doesn't want to be raped.
    And I say that rape is only bad when society says it's bad. The victim's opinion doesn't really enter into it. The victim is, after all, partial.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 253 by Stile, posted 03-15-2015 10:59 AM Stile has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 255 by Stile, posted 03-15-2015 4:24 PM ringo has replied

      
    Stile
    Member
    Posts: 4295
    From: Ontario, Canada
    Joined: 12-02-2004


    Message 255 of 390 (752994)
    03-15-2015 4:24 PM
    Reply to: Message 254 by ringo
    03-15-2015 3:11 PM


    Re: Society vs. Individual
    ringo writes:
    And I say that rape is only bad when society says it's bad.
    What happens when society deems something good, but an individual deems it bad?
    And you get this situation:
    "Oh, you may not like it, but I'm going to keep doing it to you because our society has decided that this is a good thing. Therefore, I'm doing a good thing by hurting you over, and over, and over again..."
    In my system, this cannot happen. Because the individual defines it as bad... so the person doing it to them either has to stop, or has to accept that they are doing something bad and look for justification (acceptance from the rest of society... bringing attention to the issue to the rest of society).
    With your system, it can simply continue? No one cares about that single person because "it's good anyway?" How are such things dealt with?
    Until what, enough individuals agree that it's bad so that they change the opinion of society? But.. that's the system I'm advocating anyway... that defining morally good/bad comes from individuals.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 254 by ringo, posted 03-15-2015 3:11 PM ringo has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 258 by ringo, posted 03-16-2015 12:03 PM Stile has replied
     Message 262 by Jon, posted 03-16-2015 5:34 PM Stile has replied

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024