True Evil cont.

[ShogunDynamite]

True evil...have you even taken under consideration the effects of one bad thing u have done. True evil lies within ones incapability of being perfect and so we are all truely evil. People fail to percieve the big picture, focusing on semantics and what not. We do not truely see what our actions are causeing. The only way to have a perfect scociety is to have its leader with the capability of knowing what each action has caused and will cause, and obedient subjects.

Evil-a harmful aspect, effect, or consequence. With that defined u can now debate.

[Gunmonk]

the ability to be good then by your definition is to know the future... so regardless you are speaking of natural depravity... :p yeah steve I went there... It is agreed that man is born with a naturla depravity... but where do we get this depravity? Some would argue that we do not... unitarians for example believe that. The real actual questing is are we capable of doing something thats actually unmotivated by greed, ambition, or some type of reward.

[ShogunDynamite]

the ability to be good then by your definition is to know the future... so regardless you are speaking of natural depravity....

Yes i am...by the definition of evil we are useing, all bad actions cause bad ends. Unless you have done good your entire life, you are a victim of ignorance, and so natural depravity. As a child must learn to not touch a hot stove, man must learn to do good, to place others before himself, and if there is learning involved we are ignorant. The ability to be perfect is to know the future, good can still be achieved.

[FrankZ]

People are people, they can choose to be with evil or with good. Same thing with a loaf of bread, it doesn't always come with a patty, does it? Sometimes it comes with PB&J, or sometimes it even comes sweet on its own. Being evil is entirely up to you, and doesn't mean that you're destined to be.

And, ShogunDynamite, welcome to WarBoards.

[ShogunDynamite]

Man is inherently evil but can choose to be good. And as for destiny, no man knows his own and it was not my point to say that evil is ur destiny. I am saying that mans nature is inherently evil, through his ignorant decision makeing and selfish attitude. Check my definition of evil above... and thank u for the welcoming

[FrankZ]

Man is inherently evil but can choose to be good. And as for destiny, no man knows his own and it was not my point to say that evil is ur destiny. I am saying that mans nature is inherently evil, through his ignorant decision makeing and selfish attitude. Check my definition of evil above... and thank u for the welcoming

Yes. You did not point out that evil is man's destiny. I did. It as just about synonymous to evil is man's nature. It was just like saying 'chocolate comes from cocoa' and 'cocoa will become chocolate'. ;)

As for destiny, no man knows his own as you pointed out, but man can make his own. Destiny comes from the word destination, and so man is does not come equipped with it naturally. In his life, he must follow certain roads and pathways in order to achieve his destiny--- and thinking that it was his life's mold to be there, forgets that it was himself that took him there. And if we imply evil as man's destiny, I was saying that evil can be man's destiny because it is a hindrance in man's path that he can either pick up, or brush off the road and continue his life's journey.

:) -FrankZ

[ShogunDynamite]

Evil as i defigned it comes from mans incapability of change...what if u were still the way u were as a child...innocent yet selfish and ignorant. I am saying the lack of knowlage is evil in it of itself because if u knew all u would know what not to do. Innocence and Ignorance are two very different things. From ignorance we must learn through expirience from the point of birth what not to do and so we do bad to know what is good...until we no longer have to learn, we will repeat the problems until they are finally solved. Thus, unless you are all-knowing you are evil, as defined above...there are good and bad choices you can make but good is different from Holy and bad is different from evil.

[Icarus]

With your definition of evil, man is hardly evil at all. The very basis of any community working together is to protect one another, and this is man's greatest work. It's an act that is in abundance all across the world.

I don't understand how man's "nature" is evil. Man does not even have a nature. There is no such diversity within any other species than man.

[ShogunDynamite]

With your definition of evil, man is hardly evil at all. The very basis of any community working together is to protect one another, and this is man's greatest work. It's an act that is in abundance all across the world.
Really...mans intention is to protect his fellow man? Not likely...i politely ask have u even read the whole argument?

There is no such diversity among any other species because they are completely based off of instinct, if man worked on that i dont want to know what would happen. Morals, rules all would be lost that built this community you spoke of. Mans nature is that of an animal...to surpass that nature is divine.

[Icarus]

I read your opening post, and skimmed the rest.

You failed to address any of the points in my post. My first point was that Civilization in itself acts for the better of man. When there is a threat, groups of people centralize in order to protect themselves. When people want a more enriched life, they do the same thing and form industries. How is this evil?

My second point was that man doesn't have a nature, because there is such a large gap from one individual man to the next.

So I basically posted the same thing again, and now you should address it.

[FrankZ]

Evil as i defigned it comes from mans incapability of change...what if u were still the way u were as a child...innocent yet selfish and ignorant. I am saying the lack of knowlage is evil in it of itself because if u knew all u would know what not to do. Innocence and Ignorance are two very different things. From ignorance we must learn through expirience from the point of birth what not to do and so we do bad to know what is good...until we no longer have to learn, we will repeat the problems until they are finally solved. Thus, unless you are all-knowing you are evil, as defined above...there are good and bad choices you can make but good is different from Holy and badis different from evil.

Highly doubtful. Evil is not similar to lack of knowledge. Lack of knowledge is still innocence, and innocence, if harnessed very ineffeciently, then leads to evil. In short, lack of knowledge alone is not yet evil, but are like stepping stones to evil.

If your kid was about three, and he accidentally ate soap (thinking that it was something edible. C'mon, three years old.), would tell him that: "Son, you are evil!"? No. You won't.

On the contrary, knowledge can be evil. Knowing a lot of things is not necessarily evil, though if you know a lot of things, you can do a lot of things, including evil ones.

Now these facts written above, are somethings we cannot disagree on. Now if you have some holes you found that you can plug in, feel free to post.

[femoimal]

errrr, i think there is no evil.

The natural laws know no evil, it is about survival and spreading genes (and getting your hands on resources in order to achieve this). Man is still an animal, so still behaves like animals do. He struggles to be successful in a complex society and tries to get away with it. How much harm he is ready to cause in order to be successful is what you call evil. But you should better call it egoism, or anti-group behavior.

I do not think we are born evil, nor that evil is necessarily a handicap or a disease that eats away people. Many evil people are very very successful and/or happy. There might be a divine justice hanging in the heavens, but i am sure that many cruel and maniac people get away fine with their acts. It is more risky to leave in total egoism, sure, but its still very manageable.

I can hardly state that a lion eating an springbok or killing another's male offspring is evil. 'Good' people support murder when it threatens their values. The slippery concept of evil, i conclude, must be a simplifying tool used by the ruling elites, in order to separate the 'us' from 'them', and goes hand-in-hand with the cult. Do i need to quote the last US president on this one ? Or the similar quotes of the iranian president ?


... so if there is no evil, true evil (putting the simple and very straightforward word "truth" and the other simple "evil" -how many people died for these 2 words?) gives you a strong, absolute and very dangerous weapon. So i guess, true evil is a weapon.

[Toucan]

I got to be honest, maybe I'm just to old. But I really don't even get what it is your trying to say.
Evil is what?? Not knowing the future? I don't get it, don't get it at all.

Would be very interested to see a response to this though.

The very basis of any community working together is to protect one another, and this is man's greatest work. It's an act that is in abundance all across the world.

Because that really is the underlining fact that caused community's to form in the first place.

So the point does deserve a bit more consideration than this:
Really...mans intention is to protect his fellow man? Not likely...i politely ask have u even read the whole argument?
If you disagree thats fine, why??
Speaking for myself I agree with 124167 here.

I would like to point out to you as well that just because a person disagrees with you doesn't mean they didn't read your post.

[ShogunDynamite]

Highly doubtful. Evil is not similar to lack of knowledge. Lack of knowledge is still innocence, and innocence, if harnessed very ineffeciently, then leads to evil. In short, lack of knowledge alone is not yet evil, but are like stepping stones to evil.

If your kid was about three, and he accidentally ate soap (thinking that it was something edible. C'mon, three years old.), would tell him that: "Son, you are evil!"? No. You won't.

On the contrary, knowledge can be evil. Knowing a lot of things is not necessarily evil, though if you know a lot of things, you can do a lot of things, including evil ones.

Now these facts written above, are somethings we cannot disagree on. Now if you have some holes you found that you can plug in, feel free to post.

True but knowledge and knowing how to use that knowledge are diffferent things. I'm sorry i didn't make that point clearer. If you know everything you know how to use the knowledge given to you. Once again Evil is as defined by the dictionary a harmful aspect or outcome...knowing is not knowing everything and so u will do evil and the outcome of this evil is evil. So unless u know everything u will do evil and so our nature is evil.

I read your opening post, and skimmed the rest.

You failed to address any of the points in my post. My first point was that Civilization in itself acts for the better of man. When there is a threat, groups of people centralize in order to protect themselves. When people want a more enriched life, they do the same thing and form industries. How is this evil?

My second point was that man doesn't have a nature, because there is such a large gap from one individual man to the next.

So I basically posted the same thing again, and now you should address it.

I apologize but until now i didn't know what points you were trying to make.

#1 I'm not talking about comunities, which are made of rules and morals to prevent evil from occuring. I am talking about the individual man who, without aid from an outside source, say God, which is highly doubtful u belive in him, could not find a "goats ass with a stick", as it were.
He provided the morals that began communities, before that we we just like the animals, just slightly smarter.

#2 Man does have a nature, history is deemed to repeat itself. Why? because man goes right back to his nature rather than trying to learn from his mistakes. However, one man is verry different from the other, and thank God. That does not give grounds to say that he has no nature. We all come from somewhere...we just learn differently.

And as a responce to Femoimal if there is no evil...there is no definition of evil, but since it has been defined, Evil is just as it is defined. If u just start dismising definitions this language would be null and void. Q.E.D. Evil is not understood through perception and no man is less evil than the next.

And to toucan...i realize that now that he has made his point more clear..but u are also guilty of what you have accused me of. To dismiss my topic because you don't understand it, u have to clarify what you don't quite understand...outside of generalization. Otherwise i would have to repeat what was said previously...I'm saying evil is not knowing how to use the knowledge given to you. But we also lack knowledge don't we...miscomunication is the cause of most of our problems. And yes, misscomunication is a lack of knowledge. In a since Evil is not knowing everything...No 1 is perfect. So you will commit evil in ignorace and so you are evil by nature. And its not that he dissagreed with me on that particular post...it's how.
As a side note, I mean all of my debates to be as good natured as possible.

[Mr.Bad]

Firstly, man is an animal, and therefore cannot be classified as smarter than animals, because that would mean that we are smarter than our selves, which makes no sense. Also, a large portion of Warboards is atheistic, and I doubt the resident atheists here appreciate you making a jibes about peoples belief or lack of belief in a God.

Now, evil has to be defined somewhere, and I'm not really sure where to define it. One point of view is that instinct is evil, and to transcend that instinct, to create artificial societies, with artificial rules and regulations, is good. However, when you see a cat fighting another cat for food, do think it is evil?

You yourself said that evil is equivalent to harm. But, what if you someone had to murder a person in cold blood to save the lives of dozens of people? Would you consider his act evil? That would be serving the 'Greater Good'. Do the ends justify the means?

[Gunmonk]

Firstly, man is an animal, and therefore cannot be classified as smarter than animals, because that would mean that we are smarter than our selves, which makes no sense.

Could it not be said that the fox is smarter than the sheep? The bird smarter than the worm? The Bear smarter than the fish? I grew up in Kansas, I may not know a fuckload about biology, but I do know this, Sheep are impossibly stupid, I have seen an entire herd, group, or what have you; stand by as a sheep was killed by a coyote, and not even run. Have you ever looked at Fido over here and said to him "damn Fido your one smart sumbitch, Einstein has nothing on you". But I digress in retrospect you are using circular logic, and a subsequent use of Genetic Fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html)


Now, evil has to be defined somewhere, and I'm not really sure where to define it. One point of view is that instinct is evil, and to transcend that instinct, to create artificial societies, with artificial rules and regulations, is good. However, when you see a cat fighting another cat for food, do think it is evil?

It is most certainly not, it can't be evil its the instinct for survival. But then the question may be asked, what about the taking of lands? Such as Hitlers taking of Poland, France, and Austria? Was that not evil? It is true that other animals will sometimes try to force other species into extinction. Is that evil? But then what of Hitlers genocidal campaign(s)? So is it true then we use different measures for Humanity than "Animals"?
God, I love Godwin


You yourself said that evil is equivalent to harm. But, what if you someone had to murder a person in cold blood to save the lives of dozens of people? Would you consider his act evil? That would be serving the 'Greater Good'. Do the ends justify the means?

Hell, what do you think? Hitler believed he was saving Humanity. Hell, David Koresh believed he was Jesus. Did any good come out of either one of their actions? They believed they were doing it for the same reasons, and look where it got them... nowhere. The only way to not do evil is to know the future, which unless you're GA or Aj, is impossible, and I highly doubt those two know either.

Did I mention I loved Godwin?

[femoimal]

And as a responce to Femoimal if there is no evil...there is no definition of evil, but since it has been defined, Evil is just as it is defined. If u just start dismising definitions this language would be null and void. Q.E.D. Evil is not understood through perception and no man is less evil than the next.




err okay, you start a discussion and lock the subject in stone. "Evil is just as defined". Right, do you want to talk about cooking ? I do not dismiss the definition, i give you mine (as wrong as it would be but heh that's the point it), and i say "How much harm he is ready to cause in order to be successful is what you call evil. But you should better call it egoism, or anti-group behavior."
If evil is not understood through perception, is it just from philosophy ?
and if no man is less evil than the next, then why even talk about it ? :D

Somehow, somewhere, i think i am missing something(s).

Quite interestingly, evil has always been associated, at least symbolically, with knowledge, especially forbidden one. Lucifer stories, Prometheus, the Snake, blablabla. 'Evil' is smarter, and 'good' wins by being obedient and strong. hmmmm... So, what, evil is freer and smarter ??

... and by the way, this "pure" thing is giving me shivers. The ones that use this word a lot are in general alchemists or eugenicists. None are very recommendable today. (Purity and human absolutes in general smell of a dead fish from afar).

[Oblongato]

The problem with tying evil to the absolute consequences is that there are no absolute consequences.

For example: you discover the cure to a disease, thereby saving millions of lives. Good, right?

But your cure causes the development of a more pernicious strain of the disease which wipes out all of mankind 200 years later. Bad?

A few million years later a new species is doing a little archeology and learns what happened. They realize that they have this disease to thank for clearing the way for the rise of their own civilization.

One action, three different perspectives from different periods of time. Of course, there are also multiple perspectives in the same time.

So is the action good or evil?

[FrankZ]

True but knowledge and knowing how to use that knowledge are diffferent things. I'm sorry i didn't make that point clearer. If you know everything you know how to use the knowledge given to you. Once again Evil is as defined by the dictionary a harmful aspect or outcome...knowing is not knowing everything and so u will do evil and the outcome of this evil is evil. So unless u know everything u will do evil and so our nature is evil.

True-- knowledge and knowing how to use knowledge are different things, if you have knowledge, as I said a while ago, even if you don't know how to use it, you still have evil knowledge. And when you figured out how to use it, still, that'll be evil put into application.

ShougunDynamite, I'm afraid you may have been misleading yourself from the true nature and reality of what evil is. The Dictionary, is not always true in terms of reality. Yes, what's written in it are true definitions, but in an objective point of view-- the view in which humans only see what it is and not what lies within it. Taken as an example is this:

In the Dictionary, December 25 is a mere holiday. But do you agree with it? I daresay, no you don't. December 25 is Christmas, and the birth of our Lord.

Now back on topic, sometimes you need to look deeper inside a word to find its true meaning. The Dictionary is not the best place to look at. Sometimes you have to use your own senses, your own intellect and what's inside you, to tell what true evil is. ;)

[Grizzly]

Now back on topic, sometimes you need to look deeper inside a word to find its true meaning.
I'd have to agree with that. I recently got into some trouble with the strict dictionary definition of the word "justice" and didn't consider the deeper philosphical meaning behind the word.

I believe that is what has happened here. Does true evil even exist? I would say so. (And to give equal service, true good exists as well). It it not so much the act that defines whether it is evil or not, but the intent behind the act. Some acts can be considered evil simple because of the act itself. One example would be rape. I can see no benevolent or defensible reason behind that act but many acts that are considered "evil" are only evil once the intent is known.

A person that kills for profit or pleasure has comitted what I would call an evil act. Another that kills in self defense of in defense of another has not.

Depending on intent, an act can be truely evil but I don't think a person can be labeled as such until after their death. No matter what thier acts or attitudes, a living person has at least a shot (theoretically) at redemption, so can not be thought to be (again theoretically) truely evil.

Don't know if this has been helful in the debate but that is my take on the OP's question.

[Toucan]

I'm not talking about comunities, which are made of rules and morals to prevent evil from occuring. I am talking about the individual man who, without aid from an outside source, say God, which is highly doubtful u belive in him, could not find a "goats ass with a stick", as it were.
He provided the morals that began communities, before that we we just like the animals, just slightly smarter.
Ahh, I knew that was coming, I did give you the benefit of the doubt, hence the reason I didn't understand what you where saying. Add the bible and it all makes sense.

Problem being there is only one possible debate Christians can have with atheists and that has been thrashed out beyond belief. Just accept that everyone doesn't believe the same thing and move on. Debating it truly changes nothing, it just consumes energy better spent elsewhere.

[ShogunDynamite]

Ahh, I knew that was coming, I did give you the benefit of the doubt, hence the reason I didn't understand what you where saying. Add the bible and it all makes sense.

Problem being there is only one possible debate Christians can have with atheists and that has been thrashed out beyond belief. Just accept that everyone doesn't believe the same thing and move on. Debating it truly changes nothing, it just consumes energy better spent elsewhere.
I'am not arguing for christianity. I just put that in there to make a side otption that maybe there is something higher governing us. The problem with beliefs is that they tend to change unless you have closed your mind to the possibilities.

And as for FrankZ...understood but Evil must be defined in order to maintain an orderly debate...even with this definition people are still straying from it...However you do have to look inside a word to understand its meanings...but one must have the right foundation b4 he attempts to do so. And if one knew how to use any knowledge he would know what was bad or good and if you knew all you would most certainly want to be good would you not? I mean if u truely knew everything. All aspects of every little thing.

[FrankZ]

I'am not arguing for christianity. I just put that in there to make a side otption that maybe there is something higher governing us. The problem with beliefs is that they tend to change unless you have closed your mind to the possibilities.

And as for FrankZ...understood but Evil must be defined in order to maintain an orderly debate...even with this definition people are still straying from it...However you do have to look inside a word to understand its meanings...but one must have the right foundation b4 he attempts to do so. And if one knew how to use any knowledge he would know what was bad or good and if you knew all you would most certainly want to be good would you not? I mean if u truely knew everything. All aspects of every little thing.

True, but yet, evil has no concrete definition, in short evil cannot be defined. Even if your definition was right, I'd jest it was wrong. ;)

Cheers,
F

[ShogunDynamite]

Evil must have a concrete definition, otherwise one could percieve it to be whatever he wants, and yes it is the right definition. Point is, evil is defined, as all words are, use evil as it is defined and other words as they are defined. If you go around useing Ideal definitions instead of concrete you end up in lost conversation. Find a more apropriate word for the Idea you speak of instead of useing simaler 1ns that could mean different things. Thats why definitions are there. Definition derived from the word definite, concrete, not idealistic.

[femoimal]

I'am not arguing for christianity. I just put that in there to make a side otption that maybe there is something higher governing us. The problem with beliefs is that they tend to change unless you have closed your mind to the possibilities.


The problem with belief is that it closes the very mind. And it does not change nor adapt. And about the higher thing that governs us, i think it is sex. Pure sex, naughty sex, evil sex. Pure evil sex, if you prefer.

Have a nice, pure evil day :smirk:

and give the Higher Governance my regards !

[FrankZ]

Evil must have a concrete definition, otherwise one could percieve it to be whatever he wants, and yes it is the right definition. Point is, evil is defined, as all words are, use evil as it is defined and other words as they are defined. If you go around useing Ideal definitions instead of concrete you end up in lost conversation. Find a more apropriate word for the Idea you speak of instead of useing simaler 1ns that could mean different things. Thats why definitions are there. Definition derived from the word definite, concrete, not idealistic.


ShogunDynamite, it'd be nice of you to clarify your things, because I just don't see a point in what you are trying to say. If you could lesser the abbreviations in your posts and correct the spellings, it'd rather be a much nicer conversation.

Onto the topic:
you have just pinned yourself. Your opening remark was the concrete definition of evil, yet in your last post above, you said that it's rather idealistic. The point is, your debating methods are lossy, which means you travel from one side of the points to another. Yet, you make points very unclear to the opposition. Next thing, evil if you ask our opinion, is not something you'd wish to define. Evil is the persistent opposite of God, and so God alone is indefiable and undefinable. So it's rather stupid for me do define something you can't and can't ever. To define evil, you must first define its contradiction--- God. Can you define God?

Next point is that you should not avoid talking about Christianity. Christianity is an essential part in this conversions, nevertheless, it is not off-topic and something we can and should add in our debate.

My last point, it'd be rather nice of you to define God. The challenge-- do not define the biblical nor dictionary's definition, instead look deeper in what God means. Else, if you can't, it would mean the same thing as losing in this debate.

Cheers,
F. :)

[Icarus]

#1 I'm not talking about comunities, which are made of rules and morals to prevent evil from occuring. I am talking about the individual man who, without aid from an outside source, say God, which is highly doubtful u belive in him, could not find a "goats ass with a stick", as it were.
He provided the morals that began communities, before that we we just like the animals, just slightly smarter.

But the individuals are subject to the civilization. That's what law essentially is.

Also, to assume that because few people are exceptionally evil, then all people are evil, is obviously logical fallacy, and it's called fallacy of composition.

#2 Man does have a nature, history is deemed to repeat itself. Why? because man goes right back to his nature rather than trying to learn from his mistakes. However, one man is verry different from the other, and thank God. That does not give grounds to say that he has no nature. We all come from somewhere...we just learn differently.

It's not man causing these "cycles", it's economic and social conditions. You claim that all civilizations exists in an evil and violent "cycle", but you see it's often ignored that throughout history there have been numerous countries that have lived peacefully in the background, especially in the modern day.
As a side note, I mean all of my debates to be as good natured as possible.
Funny... I thought you were inherently evil

[Gunmonk]

But the individuals are subject to the civilization. That's what law essentially is.

Also, to assume that because few people are exceptionally evil, then all people are evil, is obviously logical fallacy, and it's called fallacy of composition.

No, the law is meant to oppress and restrict. And if man is but an animal, is he not then subject to nature? If man is subject to this world then it is easily believable that man has a sinful nature, evil requires sentience. Heh... There is a short story in Star Wars Tales of The Bounty Hunters, where Boba Fett is talking about this, it makes allot of sense too, or at least the conclusion he comes to which is that evil requires sentience. So in retrospect, evil itself cannot be defined as something with a harmful outcome. For if that definition were true, then tornadoes would be evil, tsunamis, and forest fires would all be evil.

However you are wrong in calling it a fallacy of composition, you are better off calling it a hasty generalization, or a biased example.... its hardly a fallacy of composition. Is there such a thing as a good person? You say yourself, but have you ever hated someone? Have you ever lusted after someone? Have you ever lied? Have you ever stolen? If you can say yes to all of these then I will concede my argument that man is evil. Yes there are some who you say are "exceptionally" evil, but by saying exceptionally evil, either you admit that there is evil there to begin with, or it is subconsciously there. Either way, evil is at the center of selfishness, greed, hate... which could all be described as the basic instinct for survival, which is why Christ called us to deny thyself, take up thy cross, and follow me. but back to the subject... but by saying that man is good by nature, then it is a universal statement... which in most cases is false.


you have just pinned yourself. Your opening remark was the concrete definition of evil, yet in your last post above, you said that it's rather idealistic. The point is, your debating methods are lossy, which means you travel from one side of the points to another. Yet, you make points very unclear to the opposition. Next thing, evil if you ask our opinion, is not something you'd wish to define. Evil is the persistent opposite of God, and so God alone is indefiable and undefinable. So it's rather stupid for me do define something you can't and can't ever. To define evil, you must first define its contradiction--- God. Can you define God?

I'm pretty sure Shogun was expressing his disgust with your idealistic view of evil. Evil was just given a wrong definition, because as before stated, evil requires sentience to say otherwise however is to say that the earth is evil. You brought a great point to the table and then it went into the shitter, you say evil is the contradiction of God... LOLZ God cannot be contradicted, to those of you who say he can, I'll link you to nizkor until you turn blue. Fenoimal... you seriously think God would let himself be contradicted? Maybe if I were a Jedi Knight, and God were the Force, but God can not and will never be contradicted, I think what you looking for is the enemy or adversary of God. The contradiction of Evil is Good, so let us define good.

Also, I'm pretty sure it might be in Shogun and My best interests not to bring Christianity into this. Religion has already fucked up the world enough... I don't really need to play apologetics with those who refuse to listen once more, must I?

[femoimal]

gunmonk, the law is here to enforce power, sure, but also to protect you. Look at all the TV series with lawyers, that is law too. Law is basically about running the society smoothly. Laws bring justice. It restricts anti-social behavior. It oppresses, sure, if it shifts its cover from the citizen to the leaders. Ants have laws : neutral workers are forbidden to become sexualized and lay eggs, if they do, they are devoured (otherwise it would wreak havoc in the colony).

... errr there is too a quote that is not mine :P Cool i get credit from other people !

Gunmonk, when you say that " [...] evil is at the center of selfishness, greed, hate... which could all be described as the basic instinct for survival[...]", why not take the next logical step forward and say that evil is selfishness and survival instinct ? If we accept this, then evil is instinct, pure evil is pure instinct. Of course, then you are face with the problem of animals : they are pure instinct, so they must be evil ? Good is then what, counter-instinct ? Many animals instinctively act altruistically and put the good of the many in front of their own...
really, this thing goes nowhere... Am i wrong to say that evil, and especially pure evil, do not exist ? How can you get something pure out of something so subtle ? I think its all a matter of survival : mutualism, commensalism and parasitism.

[Gunmonk]

gunmonk, the law is here to enforce power, sure, but also to protect you. Look at all the TV series with lawyers, that is law too. Law is basically about running the society smoothly. Laws bring justice. It restricts anti-social behavior. It oppresses, sure, if it shifts its cover from the citizen to the leaders. Ants have laws : neutral workers are forbidden to become sexualized and lay eggs, if they do, they are devoured (otherwise it would wreak havoc in the colony).

... errr there is too a quote that is not mine :P Cool i get credit from other people !

Gunmonk, when you say that " [...] evil is at the center of selfishness, greed, hate... which could all be described as the basic instinct for survival[...]", why not take the next logical step forward and say that evil is selfishness and survival instinct ? If we accept this, then evil is instinct, pure evil is pure instinct. Of course, then you are face with the problem of animals : they are pure instinct, so they must be evil ? Good is then what, counter-instinct ? Many animals instinctively act altruistically and put the good of the many in front of their own...
really, this thing goes nowhere... Am i wrong to say that evil, and especially pure evil, do not exist ? How can you get something pure out of something so subtle ? I think its all a matter of survival : mutualism, commensalism and parasitism.

I think you are saying the same thing that Shogun and I have said all along, except, as I have said before, Evil requires sentience. So maybe evil is defined as "An act carried out by a sentient being, which brings about harm without positive byproduct."

[Icarus]

No, the law is meant to oppress and restrict. And if man is but an animal, is he not then subject to nature? If man is subject to this world then it is easily believable that man has a sinful nature, evil requires sentience. Heh... There is a short story in Star Wars Tales of The Bounty Hunters, where Boba Fett is talking about this, it makes allot of sense too, or at least the conclusion he comes to which is that evil requires sentience. So in retrospect, evil itself cannot be defined as something with a harmful outcome. For if that definition were true, then tornadoes would be evil, tsunamis, and forest fires would all be evil.

However you are wrong in calling it a fallacy of composition, you are better off calling it a hasty generalization, or a biased example.... its hardly a fallacy of composition. Is there such a thing as a good person? You say yourself, but have you ever hated someone? Have you ever lusted after someone? Have you ever lied? Have you ever stolen? If you can say yes to all of these then I will concede my argument that man is evil. Yes there are some who you say are "exceptionally" evil, but by saying exceptionally evil, either you admit that there is evil there to begin with, or it is subconsciously there. Either way, evil is at the center of selfishness, greed, hate... which could all be described as the basic instinct for survival, which is why Christ called us to deny thyself, take up thy cross, and follow me. but back to the subject... but by saying that man is good by nature, then it is a universal statement... which in most cases is false.

If man has any nature, it is to oppress nature and use it, just as it has over the years. That is what distinguishes him from all other "animals".

"good" "bad" and "evil" are relative terms, so of course there are good people.

I didn't say man was good in nature, in fact I said man doesn't have a nature.

[femoimal]

I think you are saying the same thing that Shogun and I have said all along, except, as I have said before, Evil requires sentience. So maybe evil is defined as "An act carried out by a sentient being, which brings about harm without positive byproduct."

Although you came to my line of reflection during the discussion (and not the reverse), i reject your idea of knowledge and future-forecasting linked to your idea of evil. Being good requires more sentience than being bad, i could even say: it requires more brains to be altruist and balance good deeds with communal reward than just do as your id tells you to.

So maybe evil may be defined as "egoism sublimed as anti-community and/or anti-ruling-elite behavior". Will 124167 agree with this ?

PS: ah, by the way, we should refrain using the archaic 18th century word "nature" as in "man's nature" or "nature" as ecosystem. There is no nature: there is instinct, and ecosystem (or biosphere or else). "Nature" is a disguised religious concept, a ballast we should get rid of.

[FrankZ]

PS: ah, by the way, we should refrain using the archaic 18th century word "nature" as in "man's nature" or "nature" as ecosystem. There is no nature: there is instinct, and ecosystem (or biosphere or else). "Nature" is a disguised religious concept, a ballast we should get rid of.

Ah, ah, ahaha! Wrong my friend, that is seriously wrong. The word nature is not a mere ballast we are talking about, it's a part of the conversation itself. Shogun opened up the topic with evil as man's nature, so it's an essential element of the debate itself. Also, do not take nature and nature ecosystem together in one post, it seem pretty ridiculous for you to do that.

Nature, my friend, is not (I can't put much more emphasis on not) a mere disguised religious concept, alas it is a hard rock humane concept, which implies not only to religion but also in every aspect of human life.

Back on topic:

ShogunDynamite, are you getting speechless, did your keyboard break, or did your PC explode? Why are you not responding to my question? All I was asking was to define God to define evil yet, its as if you have gone away. If you can't, I'm afraid you already lost this conversation, or more like, debate.

[femoimal]

franz, in fact i may be mistaken : "nature" is a philosophical term, isn't it? Purely philosophical or merely mis-used by the commoner, this word has to go if you want a precise conversation.
Wielding philosophical words in conversations is like trying to weld a silicon chip with a fission device: can get the job done but definitely not handy.

as for nature and ecosystem, its rather clumsy, but then again, think it over. How many times you heard the expression "its this way in nature" "its not like in nature" "nature prevails". Right, if this is not some sort of neopaganism, then what is it ? As if Gaia, Thetys or i do not know who, a weird anima, controls the spirits in living things. Its just biology.

Franz, can you define to me your defnition of "nature" applied to man ? (no wiki here man )

[FrankZ]

Nature, my friend, is simple. Grab you second grade science journal and it'll be something like this: "A diverse system of ecosystems. In which mammals and animals; fouls alike, inhabit in."

Now, that's not what you wanted to hear right? And right now, you are thinking that I am mistaken or misread you no?

How about take some words from the concept of nature above, and replace it with something else from the book of philosophy, and it'll end up like this:

"A diverse system of different properties, features, or human adjectives; that different human beings posses, being equal to their own ecosystem of human properties."

The point is simple, Femoimal, nature defines itself, and it depends on how you look at it. Clearly, I am correct when I said "Sometimes you have to look within a word to find its true meaning."

As for ShogunDynamite, for not participating in the debate anymore, time for me to answer all that I have asked you, as to avoid my own defeat. I asked you to define God, and thus God, is nature. He is a vast diversity of different properties, and that all he made--- especially humans, have the same characteristics as Him, as he have told us. If that's God, then evil would be something like this:

a vast diversity of different properties, and that everything God made,--- especially humans, can have a charactristic in contrary to Him, different from His own likeness, and not as he told us.

With this, I'd like to rather give my opinion, that evil is not necessarily the meaning of worse than bad, lest, evil is the opposite of God.

[femoimal]

Franz, i don't understand at all what you mean. Perhaps it is just because i am not fluent in english, or perhaps because you intrinsically make no sense at all. Pending the opinion of others, i just wait and try to get you.

nature, from my point of view, is
1- today's evolutionary state of biomass, including all complex dependencies established between different living organisms. We do not care about this one on the issue of evil.
2- Atavistic behavior of a superior vertebrate, its instinct.
3- Animist Deity

To illustrate the point, i'll give you the example of my mother. My dearest mother. She is a nice woman, 71 years of age, sweet and loving, rather average. She keeps talking about "nature" all the time. She loves nature, and praises its wisdom. She also deems that it is in the nature of men (males) to be morons. She means 3 things :
1- she loves nature : she likes plants
2- nature knows its ways: an ecosystem is a hugely interactive domain that seem to act intelligently, but its wisdom and intelligence are just emerging properties of its complexity.
3- Its the nature of men to be morons: well this one is about my father :) She thinks that men are instinctively thinking with their penis. That is, that their penis is robing them of their reason, overruling their frontal cortex. (She is right)

so we have the holy triad of nature here : ecosystem, animist deity, and instinct. Thank you mother ;)

so where does that put us with the human nature ? We may draw some parallels here.

[Gunmonk]

Ah, ah, ahaha! Wrong my friend, that is seriously wrong. The word nature is not a mere ballast we are talking about, it's a part of the conversation itself. Shogun opened up the topic with evil as man's nature, so it's an essential element of the debate itself. Also, do not take nature and nature ecosystem together in one post, it seem pretty ridiculous for you to do that.

Nature, my friend, is not (I can't put much more emphasis on not) a mere disguised religious concept, alas it is a hard rock humane concept, which implies not only to religion but also in every aspect of human life.

Back on topic:

ShogunDynamite, are you getting speechless, did your keyboard break, or did your PC explode? Why are you not responding to my question? All I was asking was to define God to define evil yet, its as if you have gone away. If you can't, I'm afraid you already lost this conversation, or more like, debate.

let me reittirate
Evil was just given a wrong definition, because as before stated, evil requires sentience to say otherwise however is to say that the earth is evil. You brought a great point to the table and then it went into the shitter, you say evil is the contradiction of God... LOLZ God cannot be contradicted, to those of you who say he can, I'll link you to nizkor until you turn blue. Fenoimal... you seriously think God would let himself be contradicted? Maybe if I were a Jedi Knight, and God were the Force, but God can not and will never be contradicted, I think what you looking for is the enemy or adversary of God. The contradiction of Evil is Good, so let us define good.

And now you claim that God is nature? God cannot be nature because if evil requires sentience, then so must good. God =/= nature. God is sentient and good, however he is not the contradiction evil. Your problem is that you have no concrete definition for evil or good. Furthermore, this also brings me to wonder about your beliefs. It looks to me like a cross between new age and post-modernism.

[FrankZ]

Femoimal, either you learn fluent english, or just quit arguing about things rather clear to the others. First of all, reread my statement. I don't wish to repost it again here, nor redefine what I just said.

Gunmonk. What makes you so sure that I'm so wrong? Check any bible or dictionary, and find the meaning of God. So what's God?

Next, don't contradict my statement without proving any worthy post. Nothing you said clarified my previous reply, and I don't ever recall saying that God is nature. ;P

Let's take this example:
Say that God is an apple, Evil is a jackfruit, and the grooves and spikes on the jackfruit is nature. Just because I said that Evil is the opposite of God [whom is defined as "infinite good"], doesn't mean that he's also nature. No. That's just like saying that just because an apple and a jackfruit are both fruits means that they both have grooves.

[Toucan]

A diverse system of ecosystems. In which mammals and animals; fouls alike, inhabit in
No, thats the biosphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere) Frank. Nature, as in "the nature of a man", "The nature of a woman" and "The nature of the beast" is clearly a philosophical term.

[FrankZ]

You guys can't really seem to understand the thought in my post no? Aww jeez. From now on, I'll stop extra-collabications. First one to understand the post, I'll give rep.

[femoimal]

Fenoimal... you seriously think God would let himself be contradicted? Maybe if I were a Jedi Knight, and God were the Force, but God can not and will never be contradicted, I think what you looking for is the enemy or adversary of God. The contradiction of Evil is Good, so let us define good.

well, the first sentence clearly makes me no more welcome in this thread. It is a grossly camouflaged and puerile attempt of proselytism while it could become some interesting philosophical discussion, such as the ones that oblongato loves :) I'd better piss in a violin, it would make more sense.

And now you claim that God is nature? God cannot be nature because if evil requires sentience, then so must good. God =/= nature. God is sentient and good, however he is not the contradiction evil. Your problem is that you have no concrete definition for evil or good. Furthermore, this also brings me to wonder about your beliefs. It looks to me like a cross between new age and post-modernism.

i gave you my definition several times before. Either you have the memory of a Drosophila Melanogaster, either you reboot yourself every morning whistling the microsoft tune. In any case, some kind of persistence and accumulative information concept is needed to make your arguments go anywhere. If you want to monologue about the psychology of your god or jungle in circles with autistic definitions of biblical concepts, well, the only thing you'll hear is your own voice echoing.
If you wonder about my beliefs, i do not about yours. Yours look to me like a cross (what else?) between old age and pre-simianism. re-read the post please. I admire your boldness in arguing with older people, and your willingness to defend the teachings you have absorbed. All that does not dispense you from making sense and developing an argumentation.

PS: in order to help your credibility, avoid mixing star-wars information in your posts. It kind of kills anything sensible you might say in it.

[Gunmonk]

PS: in order to help your credibility, avoid mixing star-wars information in your posts. It kind of kills anything sensible you might say in it.
excuse my blatant use of sarcasm.

Also at this point in time in my post I would like to express my apologies to fenoimal... apparently somehow I thought you posted what franz had posted. My sincerest apologies.

now back on topic.

Well... if we are talking about an all powerful God such as the one true one that I believe in then maybe... just maybe I might be right. However, the god you speak of is nature. I'm also assuming that god is us and we are god. So if you take a post modern approach to this, where there is no absolute truth (which is an absolute truth BTW), then evil is merely a suggestion in the minds of men. It is however with some thought that one may give to this situation, that if there are absolutes, then there is a clear distinction between good and evil.


God is not defined as infinite good, His actions may be but the infinite good stops there. God is not an ideal, nor an action. God is a being far more superior to us, and always does good. Evils contradiction is good, for evil is an ideal, not a being. If evil were a being, then you may be able to draw a comparison between god being the contradiction of evil and evil being gods contradiction. I dunno maybe I'm going crazy.

[Oblongato]

So God always does good? Yet his ways are mysterious... i.e. we cannot always see the good in them. God defines good and evil and then behaves in such a way that apparently does not correspond to the definitions he has provided.

I never did understand religion...

[Gunmonk]

So God always does good? Yet his ways are mysterious... i.e. we cannot always see the good in them. God defines good and evil and then behaves in such a way that apparently does not correspond to the definitions he has provided.

I never did understand religion...


He never gave us those definitions. We gave good a definition, as we did evil. God always does good, it is impossible for God to do evil. Saying that God works in mysterious ways, is saying that God works things out in his timing, hence we rely on God and not the other way around. Now what we perceive to be evil, and what we perceive to be bad are to different things in reality. Bad things are not necessarily evil, although we have in time viewed them as evil. So is it then that we have no understanding of evil? Wow, I've always thought I understood it until now. So how may we define evil then?


SHOGUN SHOW UP!!!

[Oblongato]

I see two possibilities here:

Either:

we define good and god does not in some situations correspond to our definition of good, and therefore in those situations does not do good.

Or:

god provides the definition of good (bible, ten commandments?) despite actions that are not, by god's own definition, good.

In either case, where do we (myself excepted, atheist) get off saying that god is good?

It just doesn't seem logical, somehow...

[Gunmonk]

I beggining to wonder if this conversation is about perspective... I mean certain elements are the same, I dunno. Maybe it is perspective, not moral relativism.

[Gearhard]

So.. Who has read the Lord of the Flies then? Story about a group of children who get stranded on an island. It represents a microcosm of society in general, and attempts to show what man would be like if the rules and laws of society no longer existed. Quite an interesting source for a debate such as this.

Before Humans developed speech and learnt to communicate with one another, we would have acted with our instincts. Instinct for humans, like every other creature is survival. At that point in time humans would of had no scruples about committing "Evil" deeds in order to further their own survival. It is the advent of speech and language that has made humans civilized and has restrained, but not eliminated the evil part of mankind. Still.. even with the ability to communicate it would be a long long time before humans truely started to think morally like we do today.

If we define an "evil" act as an action that benefits oneself while having a negative impact on another, then certainly we can think of human nature as being "evil". Without the laws and bonds of civilization and society every human would be at the others throat trying to get the best for him or her self. Don't try and tell me "I wouldn't be like that, I would be a kind individual!" because it's not true. Without education and morality burned into your mind at an early age, would you really know the difference between good and evil as we define it? If you had nothing to compare or relate your "evil" deeds to, how would you know they are "evil"? You wouldn't.

The evil in humans can still be seen today all over. Why is it, for example, that violence and death are gloified in the media and computer games? If Humans were not evil deep down then I doubt that games such as "Grand theft auto" or "Manhunt" would of reached the levels of popularity they have. I mean come on. One of the worlds most popular games involves committing various forms of evil. Murder, Theft, Torture, Assault, its all there for people to play and enjoy... If humans did not have an evil side then such a product would never of been considered, never mind becoming a world wide hit. Compare the number of violence orientated games with non-violence orientated games. If humans love of extreme violence in video games and films etc is not indicative that humans all have an evil side to them then I don't know what is.

Someone mentioned earlier that humans uniting together into societies and cooperating shows that humans are instinctively good, not evil. I disagree. Societies are necessary for humans to cooperate, which then invariably improves the standard of life of the individual as they benefit from the services of others while others benefit from the services they provide. Why does this qualify as showing the "goodness" in humanity? At the end of the day the need to form societies would have been a result of individuals wanting better security or a higher standard of living, which they could achieve through cooperation with others. A selfish motive or was it the spirit of human kindness shining through to unite the people? Somehow I doubt the latter is true. And what did these societies do once they were united? They made war on their neighbours! Why? In a great many cases war was caused by a want of natural resources or an issue of trade. The greed of the people who wanted to take from others what they did not have themselves. The same as an individual, but on a much larger scale.

[Toucan]

The first formation of human communities was driven by something much more primal than the desire for personal gain.
Reproduction and the fact that humans where beginning to have shorter gestation periods during pregnancy is why the added security of a community was needed. As a result of a shorter gestation period humans are less developed at birth and take longer and longer to grow to adulthood.
The more the human brain evolves and increases in size, the shorter human gestation periods become.

[femoimal]

gearhead has a point. If people group into clans, tribes and so, cooperate and are good to each other, they do in order to be evil on the other groups. The question here is whether one day, the group we feel belonging to will be the specie (no wars, then, no religions either as a famous singer said), the superior mammal range (no more killing of monkeys, dolphins and so), or even, the biosphere (no degradation of habitat).

I doubt i will see that during my lifetime.

-toucan are you sure about the gestation period thing ? Still, your educational point stands firm, except if you deem it only concerns resources and not inter-group interactions. For instance, if rearing a child is too expensive, there is an interest in abducting them ---> inter-group feuds.

[Toucan]

I thought I was suggesting inter-group interactions more than resources.
As the gestation period decreases humans are born requiring much more time to develop to a point that they might be able to fend for themselves.
I was stating that securing our offspring and ensuring the continuation of our species was the primary drive to the creation of the first human communities.

Though granted, after a community forms it would begin to evolve just like the people living with in it. Over time new drives and reasons for pursuits would no doubt evolve as well.

[ShogunDynamite]

Firstly who here has never done evil? My point...

Secondly man is not a product of his scosiety completly...he chooses to make his own choices does he not...therefore the blame of said action goes to him. Every man has done evil...

Thirdly, the more we know...the more we find out we do not know...how then do you expect to evolve into a state of complete understanding? Why not consider the rules that have been placed...Not that I am completely religious but lately I have found that if every1 followed the 10 commandments this world wouldn't need to evolve it's morals...Prove me wrong...what is wrong with the 10 commandments? Oh thats right no way we can follow them...

If man's nature was not evil he would not have to worry about ignorance or the persuite of "good knoledge", but we do do we not?

[migidu]

i dont believe humans are evil. i do believe it is easier to do evil than to do what is good. every body has their own definition of what is good and evil. it is right we think of the consequences are action will bring but only few people have this ability. no one was born to be evil or good. it is a decision and its society and culture that tells you what is evil and what is good. but of course there are universal laws that we all feel in similarity like evil is something that is not good like killing. we do agree that no one has the right to take away another one's life. but in all, we are influenced by our culture.

[Gunmonk]

Then if I may, what is absolute?

its really an honest question... what is absolute?

[Borgorb]

Evil is a point of view not a fact
it is an opinion that objects anothers opinion
waht is considered evil for some can be considered routine for others
A person is not born evil they are influenced by the people around them
if violence is ther upbringing they will naturaly see nothing wrong wiht it
evil cannot be defined by convetional means and certianly 'evil' people dont consider themselves evil

[migidu]

evil is something that people see as defying holy stuffs. in history enemies of the church are considered evil for political reasons. such beliefs was defined by the church and i think they gave birth to the satanists by saying what is evil. actually what is evil lies within oneself, when triggered there it goes. i just mean by this one can choose to be evil or not. other people will label you evil based on their own standard of what evil is or based on an agreed standard.

[ShogunDynamite]

We may be shaped by our community, but it is our choice to allow this influence to take hold. Those who have the emptyness and drive to search for what is real always find a way out of the grasp of the community and find what is true. We someimes see evil as the defiance of "Holyness" or "Religion", but it is in fact an action that would produce a harmfull consequence to you or anyone else. To deny this definition is to deny Webster...Argue with him not me :D...People do lack the foresight to see what there action would cause.

[mranderson]

We may be shaped by our community, but it is our choice to allow this influence to take hold. Those who have the emptyness and drive to search for what is real always find a way out of the grasp of the community and find what is true.

Young kids are easily influenced. Plato's cave is a good analogy for this (even for adults), because how do you know if it's fake if that's all you have ever learned? People don't really have choices when they are that young. So what happens when they grow up knowing what they learned is right, or say, "evil"?

That is a bold assumption to make that people will find their way out of their community though...