Seems you are both without the uncommon common sense Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
AND that is exactly what every psycopath and sociopath believe as well and count on. You are in infamous company. Yet the harm and damage occuring all around us and even those who commit harm just for pleasure and we still don't call it what it is and that is evil. That is also very perverted. There is something disturbingly irresponsible and inhumane about those who think like you but believe this 'logic' somehow absolves you of any guilt or wrong, that anything is justifiable through logic. Your logic is low though you assume it isn't. Even i can see why you are saying it's subjective but i know evil exists because there are those who derive pleasure from others pain, not just for survival. AND You should know that is meaningless in every way possible and even more retarded a statement than it seems. As retarded, out of context, insane, non-sensical as saying all things are made of atoms, so everything is an atom as an answer to all. I know now that people who say or believe this fall into either of two categories: they are naive/stupid or evil progenitors themselves who would like for evil to be considered nonexistent or 'subjective' as you say, anyway to sterilize it. It makes you wonder what makes someone want to make such statements as in motivation. Since, it doesn't seem to matter to you as it's not objectively true. PLEASE VOLUNTEER TO BE MUTILATED/TORTURED, RAPED AND MURDERED for others viewing pleasure. If you are objectively for real, then you should objectively not have a problem with this, NO??? OH yes, but it's subjective so therefore you would feel pain, so that's the problem but either way evil is not objectively real. I was considering the deep web and how not only do they have every illegal activity people know of but child porn, mutilation and murder, human slavery, sick snuff/live executions for viewing pleasure etc. These are not unusual people. These are people who look and act as anyone else and live amongst; coworkers, school buddies, church members etc. I really have a problem with people who deny the existence of evil and i would say those who do are just as evil themselves to be so detached. there is something so disingenous and unreal about it. This is my serious message to Michael345 and those who believe evil does not really exist but merely a perception: I strongly wish for yourselves as well as your friends and family to be subject to the worst forms of harm and torture imaginable and to have your lives destroyed and then afterwards would like you to come back on sciforums and repeat again very detachedly and in the most sterile fashion that it doesn't exist. Best evidence will come from the horse's mouth. I detest people who think evil does not exist, they are just as much a problem of evil as those who commit it. That's the problem with evil, there is a lot of blame to go around and that is why i have known after some life experience, even the general public that likes to self-congratulate itself as being better people really aren't either. Even with the case of peter scully and his heinous actions really being just an example among many, thier own government and people running it are at fault as well as the culture for the oppressed became vulnerable. it's a domino effect just as society creates or breeds eventual problems through greed, immorality, insensitivity (like people who sterlize/minimize evil as on example), and stupidity.
I think there are things we can call evil, but that doesn't mean evil is objectively real. Is a shark evil for eating a person alive? What about a person who does the same thing to another person? Someone may think abortion is evil while another thinks it's morally neutral. Acknowledging the subjectivity of evil is not the same thing as endorsing evil acts.
No, doing what you have to do to survive is not the same as 'evil' and evil is personified by getting gratification from the suffering and pain of another or completely uncaring as well as gratuitous. there are people who specifically get off on hurting/damaging/suffering of innocence or even good/right and that would be a root/bulls eye definition of what evil is or it's motivation. if a person can't recognize that as evil, then they are not lucid or no more sentient than a computer. And if anyone thinks that a person that mutilates and rapes a baby, child, amputates and enslaves another just for their pleasure etc, laughs at executions etc is not evil, then something is seriously wrong. i would say evil is not subjective at all but that the acts may be because it's about what the purpose is and at what cost and to whom and why. Evil has a purpose as it's not just about the act itself, it's the effect it has on it's victim which is the discomfort, fear, pain, suffering, loneliness, etc that they want to elicit. they get off on the terrorism aspect of it. Not everything that is real is tangible as in an object you hold in your hand. it's more insidious but it definitely exists as it shows itself in motivation.
But this statement right here is more loaded than it seems and is not only an indicator but answer to why it is the way it is and why it probably will never be resolved. He is not the only one, it's quite popular amongst the atheist crowd as well as some theists. Furthermore, we know that society isn't problematic just because of what some scientists think are some archaic bible thumpers getting in their way of or suppressing attempts at universal investigation, essentially and those answers that defy their religious beliefs. We know the larger problem is the inhumanity and brutality of humanity as well as it's tendency to resort to corruption and oppression. And then you have the cold logic of non-theists which are no more helpful complaining about religion when either way, it's fucked. You've got a cold, uncaring universe as well as an imperfect ideology by imperfect people which are a product of the former anyways. It's a no-win situation when you can justify anything so atheists really are no more help in that area whatsoever. So why don't you STFU as well. Honestly, since your anecdotes of 'im as or more ethical than most or some christians' is meaningless when these ethics are subjective or so you say. How does that help anything, really? it doesn't. That's a greenlight to immorality and no real moral backbone practically speaking.
I take it you have surveyed every psycopath and sociopath before you make that assertion? How? I am unaware logic is quantifiable And I am astounded you are privy to my assumptions The remainder of the rant is to long for this crazy looney to use up the processing power of his 2 brain neurones to pick apart and debate in detail Thank you Everything that is real IS tangible Great We have a evil detection method I wonder how it would have reacted to the killing of people only a few years ago and still today but much less frequently The people I am thinking of were killed in order to prevent them from being wicked so their soul may go to heaven Oh yes they were killed by the good religious people of the time as a act of mercy So the motivation was GOOD so it cannot be EVIL This might be the most lucid part of the rants It, what ever it is - I presume it is the statement You should be aware that good and evil are subjective terms and do not exist in a objective sense, is an indicator of why things are the way they are but certainly not an answer Here you appear to have personified EVIL and assigned a purpose Can you detail the purpose please? I have no knowledge of the popularity or otherwise of statement Can you provide a % to the popularity please? And again the rest of the rant is to long to pick apart Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Sarkus: Yes, of course. Atheists have actually set out to correct the incorrect assumption that a lot of theists automatically make. Those theists assume that when somebody says "I'm an atheist" it means that the atheist holds a dogmatic position that God does not exist. Whereas, as most atheists appreciate, all it really means is that the atheist does not (currently) believe that God exists. There is no dogma in holding such a position, especially if one is open to changing one's mind should new evidence come to light. Some atheists have also made efforts to explain the point in a different way - by talking about a sliding scale of confidence in the existence of God - like a personal estimate of probability that God exists. If you ask just about anybody who is religious, they will almost immediately, without thinking about it, assert a 100% confidence that God exists. Like Jan, these people think they "just know" that God exists. On the other hand, ask most atheists and they might put their own position at 5% or 1%, or lower, but rarely, if ever, at zero. It is forgivable for a theist encountering an atheist for the first time to blunder into the mistake that "you're an atheist, so you must believe that God doesn't exist". But it is the height of rudeness for the theist to keep insisting on that once the atheist has explained what atheism really means.
MIA 2,000 years minimum We only give a missing person who we KNOW existed 7 years before they are deemed legally dead No evidence (I would question the use of the words new evidence which supposes any evidence existed) in 2,000 years coming forth About time I would say the HAVE YOU SEE THIS PERSON? IFYOU HAVE PLEASE NOTIFY A CHURCH OF YOUR CHOOSING HELP ARREST FALLING ATTENDANCE CALL 1800 HEISHERE FOR MORE DETAILS poster is taken down Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It just hit me, a marketing opportunity, all these people leaving the churches got to go somewhere.. So I am working on a new age model to capitalise on what would seem at potential market. I will share my vision send money.. Sortta build up from there. Alex
People are ahead of you, Alex... Scientology. And those at the top think it is working just fine, thank you, even if you have to (claim to) believe in some guff about extraterrestrial Thetans. So what will you have your flock believe that could possibly come close to usurping them as the shop selling the wackiest of tobacco? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Do you really really think that marketing god as a female whale who identifies as a transgender dolphin would work? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The beauty of the internet is there will be a percentage who will go for it. It would be interesting to see if you could create a huge following income stream etc just using your mobile phone. Just as an exercise for interest not the millions you would probably generate. Alex
So it's not the act itself, but the motivation of the person doing the act that makes it evil? And motivation is not a subjective determination?
I don't like that definition, because (1) it implies that new-born babies and even stones are atheists which seems ridiculous, and because (2) it is often part of a rhetorical strategy in which atheists insist that they have no burden of proof for their atheist assertions. I find that a little disingenuous. I prefer to define 'atheist' as it is most often defined in the academic world: "Atheism is ostensibly the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments. But these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods. Thus much Western atheism may be better understood as the doctrine that the Christian God does not exist." Oxford Guide to Philosophy p.64 ------------------------- "Atheism. Disbelief in the existence of any GODS or of God. This may take the form of (a) dogmatic rejection of specific beliefs, e.g. of THEISM, (b) skepticism about all religious claims, or (c) agnosticism, the view that humans can never be certain in matters of so-called religious knowledge (e.g. whether God exists or not). An atheist may hold belief in God to be false, or irrational, or meaningless." The Penguin Dictionary of Religions pp. 53-4 -------------------------- "Atheism. Denial of the existence of god. Broadly conceived, it indicates the denial of any principle or being as worthy of divinity. Specific meanings vary widely in accordance with the conception of god that is denied." The Perennial Dictionary of World Religions p.76 ___________________________ "According to the most usual definition, an "atheist" is a person who maintains that there is no God, that is, that the sentence "God exists" expresses a false proposition. In contrast, an agnostic maintains that it is not known or cannot be known whether there is a God, that is, whether the sentence "God exists" expresses a true proposition. On our definition, an "atheist" is a person who rejects belief in God, regardless of whether or not his reason for the rejection is the claim that "God exists" expresses a false proposition. People frequently adopt an attitude of rejection toward a position for reasons other than it is a false proposition. It is common among contemporary philosophers, and indeed it was not uncommon in earlier centuries, to reject positions on the ground that they are meaningless. Sometimes too, a theory is rejected on such grounds as that it is sterile or redundant or capricious..." Encyclopedia of Philosophy Paul Edwards ed., 1st ed. vol.I , p. 175 I think that it's the height of intellectual dishonesty for self-styled atheists to suggest that they possess no beliefs about God, religion or the transcendent that require any justification or defense. Especially when that assertion is often made immediately prior to launching into assertions that belief in God is unfounded, superstitious and unjustifiable, that religious belief has been the cause of no end of harm in human history, that religion is somehow incompatible with science and even with reason itself, and that the eventual elimination of religious belief is a desirable and "progressive" goal. It's exceedingly rare for atheists to be satisfied with 'I don't have any views on God, transcendence or the divine one way or the other'.
Very interesting discussion and might take a bit of time to digest While I digest your views and position can you help me with my problem of defining myself I believe in Satan Am I atheists (not believe in white robe version) or thesist (believe in the red cloak version) or satanists (equal to christians of the white robe version believers) or without (lacking god because he is not the white robe version) or any mix of the above? Again your post deserves a thoughtful reply which I hope to give later Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I am not sure how you arrive at that implication. Part of JamesR's implicit condition is that someone first says "I'm an atheist". Neither baby nor rock makes such a declaration. Yes. Like there is no burden of proof for the assertion of a lack of unicorns or orbiting teapots. Neither of these are extraordinary claims.
birch: This is pretty nasty, personal stuff, birch. Please consider dialing it back a bit. You could have made the same point without getting all personal like this. Also, using the term "retarded" as an insult is offensive. Please avoid in future.
Of course you don't like it, because you see atheists as individuals who are intellectual adversaries rather than atheism as the concept of a pure philosophical lack of a particular belief. Atheism isn't the opposing team, they don't find your arguments compelling. Atheist are redefining it. Lack of belief in God includes belief that god doesn't exist, so it' s a broader definition. Dictionaries are written by members of the dominant culture. Well it's the truth. You suggest there is a God, so you prove it. Until then, lack of belief in your proposition is logical. This is called the burden of proof. I do have a view on the arguments for god, which are not assertions, they are reactions to an assertion.
Yazata: I don't claim to speak for atheists in general, because atheists make a diverse crowd. The opinions I express here are just my own particular take on atheism. I agree with you. To hold a position on a question such as the existence of God, you need to understand the concept you're talking about, and you need to have considered the matter and made a conscious decision as to where you stand on the question. If you ask somebody "Do you believe in God?" and they say "What's God?" or "Goo goo ga ga?" or "I've never really thought about it" then I don't think it's fair to then label them "theist" or "atheist". So, there are no baby atheists in my world. On the other hand, I know that some people prefer things black or white, as as one-size-fits-all term, so they choose to carve up the world differently. For some, the "default" label is "atheist", and the theists are the only ones who need to make a conscious choice. I understand the motivation for that, but it's not the way I personally approach this. I am somewhat interested in what you regard as "atheist assertions". It seems to me that the only required thing an atheist needs to assert is that he or she does not believe in God. Anything beyond that has to do with other things. It is true that many atheists like to hold what they regard as an intellectually consistent position by rejecting the existence of the supernatural in general, along with God. But in my view it is quite possible to say there is no God while simultaneously believing in souls or ghosts or karma or the like. Buddhism comes to mind as a tradition that is, to a large extent, atheist, but there are still supernatural ideas in it. Most atheists would say that they reject all Gods, Christian or otherwise. The history of atheism as an idea is a largely Western tradition, so its interaction with Christianity is understandable. Also, atheism as an acceptable "practice" is generally more available to those in Western cultures than elsewhere at present. But many atheist philosophies actually date back at least to the ancient Greeks, with Epicurus being a particularly influential thinker. This seems reasonable. There are no doubt some atheists out there who reject belief in God dogmatically. Personally, I identify as a skeptic of all dogmatic claims, including, of course, religious ones. And I see agnosticism as more a question of method than belief, which was how that term was originally intended. I'm somewhat partial to the idea that one can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist, and I would put myself in the former category. A person need not be agnostic to be a theist or an atheist, though. I don't much like this one. "Denial" seems to imply that God exists but atheists are stubbornly refusing to recognise that fact. But maybe I'm importing a more modern usage of the word "denial" here (cf. "climate change denier", "holocaust denier", "God denier") than is intended in this dictionary. This definition sounds similar to the one that Jan Ardena is trying to push onto atheists in the current thread. No major complaints here. Moving on to your thoughts: Which atheists say they have no beliefs about religion? Since religions are mostly constructed around gods, it is surely inevitable that the atheist who does not believe in God will also have some thoughts on any religious traditions predicated on the existence of God. As for the "transcendent", that's a bit more slippery. If you were to ask me my views on the transcendent, I'd have to start by asking you to clarify what it is you have in mind, exactly. One other point: all atheists are "self-styled". Atheism, like theism, involves a conscious decision at some point. Atheism differs somewhat from religion in the sense that it is less organised and less authority-based. There's no high authority telling atheists what they have to do to be a "good atheist". There's no dogmatic "correct" way to be atheist, in a comparable sense to the way in which one should be a "good Catholic" or a "good Muslim". All of those things come after atheism, or in addition to atheism, except perhaps the parts about superstition and justifiability and foundedness (because those tend to be common reasons that atheists declare themselves as such). I think you'd be hard pressed to find any moderately-educated social person who had no opinion about whether religion was a force for good or ill. As for questions like whether religion is compatible with science, or whether it would be desirable to eliminate religion from the world, atheists differ among themselves on those questions. No all atheists have set opinions on such things; some haven't even considered the questions in any depth. I agree. Just as it is exceedingly rare for theists to hold an isolated belief in God, without any other views on religion, transcendence, the compatibility of religion and science, etc. I don't think there are many atheists who, if asked directly, would assert that they don't believe in God, but at the same time have no opinions on religion, on the supernatural apart from God, on life after death, on where morality originates, and so on. I think it is dangerous for anybody to assume that they will be able to predict a person's views on x, y and z based only on that person's declared position on whether God exists, especially if x, y and z are complicated matters. This is not to say that a person won't be more likely to have certain views rather than certain other views, correlated with his or her theism or atheism. It's probably fair to say that if you're a theist, you're more likely to belief in reincarnation than if you're an atheist, for example. But it's not guaranteed that any particular theist will believe in reincarnation, or that any particular atheist will reject that idea.
