Evil Is Good And God Doesn't Exist???

@iconoclast,

Aedes, this isn't good, I am ahead of the clock by more than half a day yet I come in behind the post, with a simple response that looks bad on you. This retort will do me no good.

To hell with it, I will have my wicked way. No good is not evil.

By the way, saving one person from a burning car is not less good than saving two. Less would imply that to be good only two will do. Remember the first post, "good is good".

The only opposite with good and evil is you can undress evil and you can dress up good but it doesn't work the other way. That is the moral in the Bible, though that is not the only place you will find it.

0 Replies

@iconoclast,

Aedes,

:)You have me toying with the idea, but I am not sure your right as yet, although the judgement or evaluation is a biological statement, the terms themselves, must have some catagorical function. They define largely what is acceptable to the body, and being catagorical in this sense they are mutually defining. It is true that a sensation might fall in midrange and thus not be categorized as either, but closer to a mundane experience, this to would ultimately be filed between good and bad, mundane not being particularly good nor particularly bad. I think it comes down to pleasure, displeasure, if you do not know what pleasure is, you could not know displeasure, intellectually at anyrate, biologically yes, the distinction would never the less be experienced.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas wrote:

Yeah, we have to apply the terms for the terms to exist. How does this not make their meanings entirely mutually dependent?

Thomas,

:)The problem is a total, the two terms are two thirds of the problem, the missing third is the biology which defines both. Something can be said to be objectively good, only your own biology can confirm or deny that.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Thomas,

:)The problem is a total, the two terms are two thirds of the problem, the missing third is the biology which defines both. Something can be said to be objectively good, only your own biology can confirm or deny that.

I'm a bit curious as to see your perception of objectively good. Can you present me with an instance where my biology (evidently an 'entity', capable of judging) confirms or denies good or evil?

You were on the right track when you stated that we apply meaning to the concepts good and evil, as the universe is considered neutral. However, I don't quite see where you're going with this.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

I'm a bit curious as to see your perception of objectively good. Can you present me with an instance where my biology (evidently an 'entity', capable of judging) confirms or denies good or evil?

You were on the right track when you stated that we apply meaning to the concepts good and evil, as the universe is considered neutral. However, I don't quite see where you're going with this.

Zetherin,

:)Are you a new arrival Zetherin, if so welcome, glad to have you on board! Well, back to the discussion, these terms are not unlike the terms of any other situtation, each word is in a sense establishing an identity, and the process of establishing identity is exclusion, an exclusionary process, so, what is good to exclude, in the black and white world of good and bad, good excludes that which is bad. To put it another way, all words are qualifications and/or limitations, in the case of what is good, I would say good qualifies itself and excludes that which is bad. The biology aspect is just a reminder that it all rests on a biological foundation.

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Zetherin,

:)Are you a new arrival Zetherin, if so welcome, glad to have you on board! Well, back to the discussion, these terms are not unlike the terms of any other situtation, each word is in a sense establishing an identity, and the process of establishing identity is exclusion, an exclusionary process, so, what is good to exclude, in the black and white world of good and bad, good excludes that which is bad. To put it another way, all words are qualifications and/or limitations, in the case of what is good, I would say good qualifies itself and excludes that which is bad. The biology aspect is just a reminder that it all rests on a biological foundation.

Yes, I am a new arrival - seeking knowledge, brought here by my curiosity. I appreciate your warm welcome.

That's a great point, regarding words being limitations. Which lends to the point, again, that we don't even have the capacity to really fathom the world around us. The moment we believe we have a concrete understanding of something, the less we actually know. But, how can one live without attempting to understand? I don't think one can, which is why I'm here, which is why we're all here.

I think regarding the concept of "good" and "evil" as objective, which is what much of our society does, is simply not the right way to view the world. I believe we are spiraling downward as a whole, and I'm searching for a way to enlighten those around me. Religions, ideals, memes that lend to separation, not the benefit of our species. But, this doesn't make what I'm saying "right". Perhaps I'm completely wrong, and perhaps my idea of enlightening really isn't enlightening anymore at all. After all, I apply meaning to the word, as I apply meaning to anything.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

Your concerns about the state of values in society I share myself, though I rather think it is an overall decline of the moral fabric of society, the prognosis is frightening. I have already read a number of your posts, you appear to be a most welcome addition to our numbers, probably because I agreed with what I read. I can be bought cheaply, with but a little flattery or a coin. Very Happy

Again Welcome!!

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Zetherin,

Your concerns about the state of values in society I share myself, though I rather think it is an overall decline of the moral fabric of society, the prognosis is frightening. I have already read a number of you posts, you appear to be a most welcome addition to our numbers, probably because I agreed with what I read. I can be bought cheaply, with but a little flattery or a coin. Again Welcome!!

If you share my concerns, then why must we do nothing? A close friend of mine and I are thinking of attempting something. This internet is powerful tool.

I suppose I'm going off on a tangent here, but I'd really enjoy hearing your ideas on applying a more neutral base for humanity to flourish - one rid of parasitic ideals that are rarely though out. A more open-minded philosophy. If you think it's possible, or even necessary, I'm very interested.

(Please direct me to a suitable location, if needed)

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin wrote:

If you share my concerns, then why must we do nothing? A close friend of mine and I are thinking of attempting something. This internet is powerful tool.

I suppose I'm going off on a tangent here, but I'd really enjoy hearing your ideas on applying a more neutral base for humanity to flourish - one rid of parasitic ideals that are rarely though out. A more open-minded philosophy. If you think it's possible, or even necessary, I'm very interested. (Please direct me to a suitable location, if needed)

Zetherin,

I know of no such philosophy at present, nature however is in crisis, and humanity will learn, it is then, necessarily in crisis. What arises in the wake of the wrath of nature, will be a new way.-----sounds damn profound does not!! Kind of the order disorder leaves. Good luck with the internet thing! Wink

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Zetherin,

I know of no such philosophy at present, nature however is in crisis, and humanity will learn, it is then, necessarily in crisis. What arises in the wake of the wrath of nature, will be a new way.-----sounds damn profound does not!! Kind of the order disorder leaves. Good luck with the internet thing!

Do you believe that it would be beneficial for humanity to put their morality, ideals, and discriminations aside, and attempt to view the world without a viel across the eyes - much like you, I, and many others on this forum are attempting to do?

There are so few of us, those of us that are willing to live life without certainty, without a solid base for morality to rest, without a definite belief in a God, etc. Those that choose this path are considered "philosophers", or worse yet "insane".

Don't get me wrong, I don't think I'm better than anyone else - to think that would contradict my entire philosophy. However, I do believe the more people attempting to defy 'normal' societal beliefs - the parasitic ideals that have us all believing things are black and white. The more people that choose to think outside of the box, despite the fear and uncertainty that may overcome them, the better in my eyes.

Have you ever been interested in trying to spark something? I'd need a hell of a lot more than luck. I need people.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

What did you have in mind? At a forum like this a least you can express your concerns, what kind of medium are you thinking about, the internet. You are thinking of becoming an activist, what moves in that direct have you made? Be sure not to spam here, or recruit, though if you start a thread to work up enthusiasm that certain would not offened anyone.

Good Luck Zetherin:)

1 Reply

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

Zetherin,

What did you have in mind? At a forum like this a least you can express your concerns, what kind of medium are you thinking about, the internet. You are thinking of becoming an activist, what moves in that direct have you made? Be sure not to spam here, or recruit, though if you start a thread to work up enthusiasm that certain would not offened anyone.

Good Luck Zetherin:)

That's the thing - I am unsure as to the way to approach this. I don't want to seem as an elitist. That is, I don't want people to think I'm pushing this as "This is the way, all hail blah blah blah". That, to me, would be exactly like a religion. That's not what I'm aiming for, and I sure as hell don't want to spam. The prospect of an activist also doesn't seem like the right path. It's very tricky to understand the way I should express this. I don't immediately want to work up enthusiasm, as working up enthusiasm means I will also be working up disgust in others.

Somehow I need a way to spark thought in the majority, while not pushing people to lose comfortability immediately. And, somehow I would have to push the idea that a more open-minded philosophy would benefit humanity, without it sounding cultish, or a "what I say, goes" type of situation.

Perhaps I'm thinking of the impossible, and can't really transcend what I'm hoping to. But, a part of me still wants to enlighten.

Eh, maybe I should just get a 9 to 5 desk job and shut my ****ing mouth.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin,

:)If you feel inspired in something, go with it, you will find no shortage of negativity on this journey, but, negativity never created anything but a bad disposition in its holder.

1 Reply

@boagie,

Zetherin, consider something that resembles a four-way, tug-of-war. It can be any direction in opposition, this just works for description, the north south line is used for suspension, while the east west line keeps the ******** static, between of course is the weight that can be carried aloft of the surface.

Like this concept. In return for the Rosseta Stone, one of the Twin Spires and I think it is a complete bust of Nefrititi, Egypt will allow the English, French and Germans to enter into Egypt with companies willing to defabricate an ancient Pyramid and then rebuild and restore it. All information belongs to the four of the group but no artifacts are to be removed.

Sorry about this. I chose a word that is phalic in nature, though it was simply a descriptive term applied to something that stands erect or upright if this word gets edited as well. Sorry for the inconvenience.

0 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

infinidream,

:)The semantics of duality. I think you need to determine what constitutes good and what constitutes evil

I did make the mistake of not stating that I had the christian god, good, and evil in mind when I wrote my original premise. that was silly and vague of me to leave that out. Its funny how sometimes something is so present in your mind that you assume the other person knows what you mean.

1 Reply

@boagie,

I did make the mistake of not stating that I had the christian god, good, and evil in mind when I wrote my original premise. that was silly and vague of me to leave that out. Its funny how sometimes something is so present in your mind that you assume the other person knows what you mean.

0 Replies

@infinidream,

infinidream wrote:

I did make the mistake of not stating that I had the christian god, good, and evil in mind when I wrote my original premise. that was silly and vague of me to leave that out. Its funny how sometimes something is so present in your mind that you assume the other person knows what you mean.

infinidream, Smile

Christianity and its god have had two thousand years to save the world, what makes you think that is going to happen now? I am afraid I do not share you optimism of the power of religion to right the world, at present they do little but alienate one another. Religion appears just one more catagory of separation and alienation----the in group.

http://www.philosophyforum.com/forum/images/icons/icon13.gif

2 Replies

@boagie,

boagie wrote:

infinidream,

Christianity and its god have had two thousand years to save the world, what makes you think that is going to happen now? I am afraid I do not share you optimism of the power of religion to right the world, at present they do little but alienate one another. Religion appears just one more catagory of separation and alienation----the in group.

I couldn't agree more. It's almost ironic that the initial premise of religion was to bring us together, instigating peace to all. And what has it ultimately done? Separated us, and caused war.

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

I think you all have this last point wrong. It is not religion that seperates us but the church. It cannot be religion as they are virtually the same and the church (temple mosque or whatever) and its followers split the atom that is belief, to suit themselves.

1 Reply

@urangutan,

urangutan wrote:

I think you all have this last point wrong. It is not religion that seperates us but the church. It cannot be religion as they are virtually the same and the church (temple mosque or whatever) and its followers split the atom that is belief, to suit themselves.

What is the 'church'? Are you speaking of the Roman Catholic Church, speaking of the political power it holds?

As I've noted in another post, I relate religion to being in a cage - it strips the imagination, leaving your thoughts confined to a certain set of criteria. The ignorance, lack of understanding (or at the very least, an attempt to understand), and the strict adherence to a concrete set of morals are some of the problems. This leaves no room for abstract thinking. And even though this bothers me, I could live with it. The thing I cannot live with is the pushing of the religion onto me, my loved ones, with a disclaimer that this is the *one and only way*.

Many a war has started because of religion...the ideals behind such beliefs, not necessarily intervention by the church. With a belief such as, "If you're not Christian, you go to hell", what do you expect? And many people I know share this belief. They aren't even understanding of another religion, let alone an agnostic! People are literally shunned, and believed to be 'evil', just for different notions. Isn't that utterly upsetting to you?

So, while we could make arguments that YES the church (or political powers) behind such religions do do harm, it by no means means religion in general does no harm.

3 Replies

Evil Is Good And God Doesn't Exist???

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know