God has all attributes including evil iniquity.

[Greatest I am]

I cannot name any iniquity that is good and only added the word evil because believers say that God only creates good things.

I think this has been answered millions of times already...

How would God give man free will without allowing for evil? How can people be free to choose if they are not free to make wrong choices?

Some could say that God is not all-powerful given that He is not powerful enough to solve the above conundrum. But what if God is already solving it, by teaching man to choose wisely? It may be taking time, but so did creation.

I'd like to make a comment on cherry picking from scripture: don't we do the same with science? We accept or discard theories based on how they agree or disagree with other theories. The goal of science is to have a body of theories that are in full harmony with each other (we're not there yet).

There is no reason not to cherry pick from the Bible unless you think it is the word of God. Seen as man's attempt to understand God, it is an excelent source of thought.

I agree on the bible but it's excellence and wisdom is lost on those who read it literally or historically and think it points to any given God.

That type of idiocy is what I fight. It leads to much harm.

As to evil and free will.

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Having said the above for the God that I do not believe in, I am a Gnostic Christian naturalist, let me tell you that it is all human generated. Evil is our responsibility.

Much has been written to explain what I see as a natural part of evolution.

Consider.
First, let us eliminate what some see as evil. Natural disasters. These are unthinking occurrences and are neither good nor evil. There is no intent to do evil even as victims are created.

Evil then is only human to human.
As evolving creatures, all we ever do, and ever can do, is compete or cooperate.
Cooperation we would see as good as there are no victims created. Competition would be seen as evil as it creates a victim. We all are either cooperating, doing good, or competing, doing evil at all times.

Without us doing some of both, we would likely go extinct.

This, to me, explains why there is evil in the world quite well.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks where it belongs. God or nature.

There is no conflict between nature and God on this issue. This is how things are and should be.

Regards
DL

[chaz wyman]

Morality is a human artifact

That is what Adolf Hitler claimed. And we all know where that line of thinking ends up.

Like it or not millions of German people considered Hitler's policies to be moral; the Spanish Inquisition was thought moral; Charles Mason thought he was on a moral crusade.

All of them were following and inspired by God.

What is your excuse?

[bravox]

I agree on the bible but it's excellence and wisdom is lost on those who read it literally or historically and think it points to any given God.

Whether one likes it or not, whether one believes in God or not, the Bible is the greatest book ever written. It's full of philosophical insights, mystery, adventure, romance, even sex. And it's full of poetic imagery. You can't dismiss it off-hand when countless generations have been inspired by it.

this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature.

With all respect for your ideas, the image of a god who creates the universe, puts humans in it, and then goes "oops, I screwed up on this one", is just too funny. Not saying it doesn't make sense, it's just I can't avoid laughing at the scene.

Evil then is only human to human.

It can also be human to animal, human to plant, even human to truth and beauty.

A beast is not evil for killing its prey. I feel immense guilt for killing the mice that infest my house.

Evil was created when humans learned the difference between right and wrong. In other words, when we lost our innocence and ceased to be like all other animals. Knowing right from wrong creates moral dilemmas. It's quite a burden for us to carry.

Be you a believer in nature, evolution or God, we should see that what Christians see as something to blame, evil, we should see that what we have, competition, deserves a huge thanks where it belongs. God or nature.

I see it more as a curse that we have to kill, cheat, betray, steal, in order to survive. Our fate has a striking resemblance to the notion of being expelled from paradise, which is probably why Genesis is such a powerful story.

Interesting ideas though, definitely worth thinking about.

[John]

If your only argument against the argument that morality is culturally constructed is saying Hitler believed it

Hitler has nothing to do with it.

Which is why you shouldn't have mentioned him.

The argument is that, even if we prove we have no basis to behave morally, we will still do.

Who said we have no basis to behave morally? Saying that morality is dependent on cultural is not the same as saying there is no morality.

Just look at the idea of survival. We have concluded that we are genetically programmed to survive, and that the universe doesn't care if we survive or not, nature is blind and indifferent to us. The logical conclusion is that we are slave to our genes

That is not the logical conclusion. Just because we have genetically derived predispositions does not make us "slaves to our genes". Genetics is a factor in our behaviour but there are also social factors.

that we should stay alive if we are enjoying it, and commit suicide if not.

That contradicts the claim that we are genetically programmed to survive.

Does that make any sense? We don't believe our own theories about ourselves so how can they possibly be true?

Many people have no problem believing the theories so maybe it's just you because you're uncomfortable with the conclusions you've reached.

it suggests you haven't thought about it enough as it's a complex question that lacks consensus.

I have thought about it more than you can imagine, and I realized that we won't believe any possible theory about morality, except one that implies we can't possibly escape punishment if we act immorally. Oh, by the way, such a theory already exists.

[/quote]

Can you elaborate on the punishment aspect you're referring to?

[John]

I feel immense guilt for killing the mice that infest my house.

Why do you kill them then?

[bravox]

That is not the logical conclusion. Just because we have genetically derived predispositions does not make us "slaves to our genes". Genetics is a factor in our behaviour but there are also social factors.

I have honestly no idea what you are talking about here.

That contradicts the claim that we are genetically programmed to survive.

I don't think we are genetically programmed to survive, hence no contradiction.

Many people have no problem believing the theories so maybe it's just you because you're uncomfortable with the conclusions you've reached.

I haven't reached any conclusions because I don't believe the theory to start with.

Can you elaborate on the punishment aspect you're referring to?

So you can refute it without first trying to understand it? No, thanks.

Why do you kill [mice] then?

That is immaterial. The real question is, why do I feel guilty? Why should I care about little mice when nature obviously doesn't? In fact, why should we care about anything if, as materialists claim, nothing really matters?

Have a good weekend.

[chaz wyman]

Why do you kill [mice] then?

That is immaterial. The real question is, why do I feel guilty? Why should I care about little mice when nature obviously doesn't? In fact, why should we care about anything if, as materialists claim, nothing really matters?

Have a good weekend.

1) no materialsist are saying nothing really matters. Where on earth do you get such an idea?
2) If your answer, why I feel guilty has some answer in the "god" section of the answers book, then you might like to ask why other people actually enjoy killing mice, and why others enjoy killing Jews or Muslims.

The materialist answer to moral sense is that humans in common to most higher animals have a discriminatory sense which variously inform the individual which are 'other' and which 'belong'. The determination of such is vital to the survival of the species and the identification of friends, enemies and threats. Such a discriminating skill has proven useful and has thus been preserved by natural selection. Such a trait is an evolved and more complex mode of discrimination that any aomeba has in order that it can distinguish between food and poison.
What forces the choice has to be a complex negotiation between inherent and learned factors, which are in part haphazard.

In your case the guilt you feel in killing a mouse probably has more to do with a childhood diet of Tom & Jerry, whilst the inhabitants of the Roman world the eating of mice gives a wholly different meaning to the word 'diet".

[John]

Can you elaborate on the punishment aspect you're referring to?

So you can refute it without first trying to understand it? No, thanks.

I'm asking you to explain it so that I can understand what you mean by it. If you're not interested in explaining what you mean then why are you here?

[Greatest I am]

[
I see it more as a curse that we have to kill, cheat, betray, steal, in order to survive. Our fate has a striking resemblance to the notion of being expelled from paradise, which is probably why Genesis is such a powerful story.

Interesting ideas though, definitely worth thinking about.

Thanks.

As to the bible, I stand by what I said about it being a book of wisdom but you might want to remember that it is a consolidation of many of the older religions.

Check the book of the dead for instance and you will see most of the wisdom of the bible was there first.

Elsewhere as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgksXcesXrA

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[

Can you elaborate on the punishment aspect you're referring to?

Yes and I wonder if this baby is worried about punishment.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 ... ty-100511/

Regards
DL

[bravox]

1) no materialsist are saying nothing really matters. Where on earth do you get such an idea?

From the writings of Richard Dawkins and such. I concede that I may be misunderstanding their position, but I have tried hard to understand where they find meaning and I just can't see it. I'm not alone.

2) If your answer, why I feel guilty has some answer in the "god" section of the answers book...

It's actually the other way. If there is absolute good then there must be something akin to the concept of God. If absolute good does not exist, then what we call "evil" is just something we don't like, and calling the likes of Hitler or Torquemada evil would amount to mere hypocrisy.

... then you might like to ask why other people actually enjoy killing mice, and why others enjoy killing Jews or Muslims.

Because I believe in absolute good, my answer is quite simple: those actions are evil.

The materialist answer to moral sense is that humans in common to most higher animals have a discriminatory sense which variously inform the individual which are 'other' and which 'belong'. The determination of such is vital to the survival of the species and the identification of friends, enemies and threats.

The only problem is, in my understanding of materialism I don't have to care about survival of my species. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Nothing matters.

If I'm misrepresenting that materialist position, I'd love to learn about it.

In your case the guilt you feel in killing a mouse probably has more to do with a childhood diet of Tom & Jerry, whilst the inhabitants of the Roman world the eating of mice gives a wholly different meaning to the word 'diet".

But think about it: if it's OK to kill mice because they threaten my well-being, why should I listen to my conscience at all? Shouldn't I seek my well-being and ignore this notion of morality which, as has been claimed here, is just a cultural convention?

Someone asked about morals and punishment. Without writing a teatrise, the gist of the idea is quite simple: there is nothing that can save the world from selfish behaviour, except to make people afraid of selfishness. To turn selfishness against the selfish. If we had no punishment against crime, there would be a lot more crime. Most of our moral behaviour is imposed on us by society, but nothing prevents people from being "evil" if they have no prospect of being caught.

This is not to say people would behave immorally if they are afraid of punishment, only that truly selfish people can only be less selfish if they are afraid of punishment. Given that, any explanation of morality that can be apply to eveyone, not just most people, must necessarily explain morality in terms of the fear of punishment. Any other theory will fail to account for the moral behaviour of selfish people.

Would you like salt with that intellectual pretzel?

[chaz wyman]

1) no materialsist are saying nothing really matters. Where on earth do you get such an idea?

From the writings of Richard Dawkins and such. I concede that I may be misunderstanding their position, but I have tried hard to understand where they find meaning and I just can't see it. I'm not alone.

I'm willing to bet you have not even opened one of his books let alone read any of it.
You are talking rubbish.

2) If your answer, why I feel guilty has some answer in the "god" section of the answers book...

It's actually the other way. If there is absolute good then there must be something akin to the concept of God. If absolute good does not exist, then what we call "evil" is just something we don't like, and calling the likes of Hitler or Torquemada evil would amount to mere hypocrisy.

Ridiculous. Name one absolute good! It's a ridiculous idea as we shall see.

... then you might like to ask why other people actually enjoy killing mice, and why others enjoy killing Jews or Muslims.

Because I believe in absolute good, my answer is quite simple: those actions are evil.

What eating mice?. All you are doing is basing your pretended view of good on your personal opinion.
That makes you a dangerous species of person. Hitler thought the same about his view of good and evil and so do many other people. The point is that no one agrees just what that is - you are just blowing hot air.

Do you think ANY killing is for good?

The materialist answer to moral sense is that humans in common to most higher animals have a discriminatory sense which variously inform the individual which are 'other' and which 'belong'. The determination of such is vital to the survival of the species and the identification of friends, enemies and threats.

The only problem is, in my understanding of materialism I don't have to care about survival of my species. In the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter. Nothing matters.

And your problem with the truth of that is what?
In 100 years we will all be dead, another billion and all humans will be wiped off the face of the galaxy. That is just the truth.
Growing up in the Universe means realising that and making stuff that you care about matter.


If I'm misrepresenting that materialist position, I'd love to learn about it.

I'm a materialist, but there are many things that matter to me. QED you are wrong.

In your case the guilt you feel in killing a mouse probably has more to do with a childhood diet of Tom & Jerry, whilst the inhabitants of the Roman world the eating of mice gives a wholly different meaning to the word 'diet".

But think about it: if it's OK to kill mice because they threaten my well-being, why should I listen to my conscience at all? Shouldn't I seek my well-being and ignore this notion of morality which, as has been claimed here, is just a cultural convention?

ALL MORAL POSITIONS ARE CULTURAL CONVENTIONS. When you grow up and learn that, only then are you justified in making a judgement, otherwise all you are doing is imposing your own cultural conventions on to others.
Whe you get that figured out come back and tell me.



Someone asked about morals and punishment. Without writing a teatrise, the gist of the idea is quite simple: there is nothing that can save the world from selfish behaviour, except to make people afraid of selfishness. To turn selfishness against the selfish. If we had no punishment against crime, there would be a lot more crime. Most of our moral behaviour is imposed on us by society, but nothing prevents people from being "evil" if they have no prospect of being caught.

This is not to say people would behave immorally if they are afraid of punishment, only that truly selfish people can only be less selfish if they are afraid of punishment. Given that, any explanation of morality that can be apply to eveyone, not just most people, must necessarily explain morality in terms of the fear of punishment. Any other theory will fail to account for the moral behaviour of selfish people.

Would you like salt with that intellectual pretzel?

[chaz wyman]

[

Can you elaborate on the punishment aspect you're referring to?

Yes and I wonder if this baby is worried about punishment.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20 ... ty-100511/

Regards
DL

You do swallow some naive shit.