Theistic Versus Non-Theistic Morality and Ethics.

[Dontaskme]

You cannot kill what you ARE you can only kill what you are not.

What are you not?

You are.

What you are is not you.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You claim all these texts are evil...but what is evil?

V.A. has yet to demonstrate that evil exists. If it exists in the same sense "cold" or "dark" exist, then "evil" is the absence of something, a privation, not something that has real existence.

I have defined 'what is evil' somewhere in this thread and provided some clues. It is off topic to this OP.

"Evil" [as defined] exists on a basis of empirical evil acts, deeds and thoughts [as expressed].

[Lacewing]

You cannot kill what you ARE you can only kill what you are not.

What are you not?

You are.

What you are is not you.

So there is no distinction in your statement "You cannot kill what you ARE you can only kill what you are not"? Is this babbling in circles meant to show that there are no distinctions at all?

[Eodnhoj7]

You claim all these texts are evil...but what is evil?

V.A. has yet to demonstrate that evil exists. If it exists in the same sense "cold" or "dark" exist, then "evil" is the absence of something, a privation, not something that has real existence.

I have defined 'what is evil' somewhere in this thread and provided some clues. It is off topic to this OP.

"Evil" [as defined] exists on a basis of empirical evil acts, deeds and thoughts [as expressed].

Examples and definition are separate things. Empirical evil still does not define evil other than observing that "evil" is derived through the senses...it does not define what evil is.

Provide a list or define what evil is, otherwise you are using a premise subject to the fallacy of equivocation where is may have multiple and illusive meanings.

[Dontaskme]

You are.

What you are is not you.

So there is no distinction in your statement "You cannot kill what you ARE you can only kill what you are not"? Is this babbling in circles meant to show that there are no distinctions at all?

The distinction has been made in the statement. Look again.

.

[Lacewing]

You are.

What you are is not you.

So there is no distinction in your statement "You cannot kill what you ARE you can only kill what you are not"? Is this babbling in circles meant to show that there are no distinctions at all?

The distinction has been made in the statement. Look again.

Does the word "you" always have the same meaning?

[Reflex]

So just as one has to 'kill the Buddha on sight' one has to kill the idea of a permanent soul and eternal God as something permanent and eternal.

You cannot kill what you ARE you can only kill what you are not.

This is incomprehensible to anyone closely identified with what they are not.

[Lacewing]

You cannot kill what you ARE you can only kill what you are not.

This is incomprehensible to anyone closely identified with what they are not.

My question was, "what are you not"?

I think we are all of it. So what is it that you and DAM think you are not vs. what you think you are?

[Reflex]

You cannot kill what you ARE you can only kill what you are not.

This is incomprehensible to anyone closely identified with what they are not.

My question was, "what are you not"?

I think we are all of it. So what is it that you and DAM think you are not vs. what you think you are?

Nonsense question.

[Lacewing]

Nonsense question.

So you’re not able to explain what you claim is "incomprehensible to anyone closely identified with what they are not” -– even when the question is so simple as: WHAT IS THAT? What are you not?

[Reflex]

Nonsense question.

So you’re not able to explain what you claim is "incomprehensible to anyone closely identified with what they are not” -– even when the question is so simple as: WHAT IS THAT? What are you not?

The question is nonsensical because it’s circular: the expectation of a “not” from a “not.” (DAM amy not agree.)

[Lacewing]

So you’re not able to explain what you claim is "incomprehensible to anyone closely identified with what they are not” -– even when the question is so simple as: WHAT IS THAT? What are you not?

The question is nonsensical because it’s circular: the expectation of a “not” from a “not.” (DAM amy not agree.)

I think DAM's statements are circular.

I'm simply asking you what the fuck YOU mean by this that you said: "incomprehensible to anyone closely identified with what they are not".

Just explain further. Don't claim that something is incomprehensible (like an arrogant dick) if you can't do a better job of explaining your meaning other than little snippy replies that go in circles and reveal you to be a fraud.

[Greta]

Morality is mostly individual. Kindly people of whatever creed (or lack) will be kind. Ditto those inclined towards selfishness and cruelty.

At present, of course, there is a war going on so some people who would otherwise be kind will transform from good Samaritan to enemy combatant. So it goes.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You claim all these texts are evil...but what is evil?

V.A. has yet to demonstrate that evil exists. If it exists in the same sense "cold" or "dark" exist, then "evil" is the absence of something, a privation, not something that has real existence.

I have defined 'what is evil' somewhere in this thread and provided some clues. It is off topic to this OP.

"Evil" [as defined] exists on a basis of empirical evil acts, deeds and thoughts [as expressed].

Examples and definition are separate things. Empirical evil still does not define evil other than observing that "evil" is derived through the senses...it does not define what evil is.

Provide a list or define what evil is, otherwise you are using a premise subject to the fallacy of equivocation where is may have multiple and illusive meanings.

I posted this in another thread.
As I had stated we are not chasing after ontological evil.
There is no universal 'evil' like Plato's that is free floating waiting for humans to discover it.

For secular 'evil', there cannot be a fixed meaning nor universal re the term 'evil'.
The critical issue is merely arriving at a proper definition of 'evil' as a placeholder or a pigeon-hole that is acceptable by the majority.

What is critical is we identify all the human acts that can be put into that pigeon-hole tag as 'evil'.

For a start, human acts like genocides, mass rapes, murders, tortures are acts that ordinary people will agree as very detrimental and a bane [net-negative] to the well being on individual[s] and humanity.
Most will not dispute if we label them 'evil'. It is not difficult to list what is evil from all known human acts and thoughts. Whatever acts are disputable, ambiguous and marginal can be set aside for further deliberations.

At present the term 'evil' [secular] is being thrown around everywhere and I don't see any serious disputes within it secular users.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/evil

[Reflex]

So you’re not able to explain what you claim is "incomprehensible to anyone closely identified with what they are not” -– even when the question is so simple as: WHAT IS THAT? What are you not?

The question is nonsensical because it’s circular: the expectation of a “not” from a “not.” (DAM amy not agree.)

I think DAM's statements are circular.

I'm simply asking you what the fuck YOU mean by this that you said: "incomprehensible to anyone closely identified with what they are not".

Just explain further. Don't claim that something is incomprehensible (like an arrogant dick) if you can't do a better job of explaining your meaning other than little snippy replies that go in circles and reveal you to be a fraud.

As I said.....