Atheism

[henry quirk]

It isn't evil; I don't hold with the concept of evil.

How about rounding up and killing Jews? Or how about kidnapping black people and enslaving them? Or what about pedophilia and rape? Also "not evil"?

If there is no "concept of evil"...then what, exactly, can you say about them that would guide the uninformed, justify the legal system, or inform public policy on the subject of them?

Those things are just morally wrong.

Why?

[henry quirk]

So, Harbal, admits, quite courageously, there's no foundation, for him, to declare cannibalism (or anything) as evil or wrong.

No, henry, you are knowingly misrepresenting my views here. If you can't ague your case honestly, perhaps you haven't got a case.

According to him: Our sense of morality -right and wrong- comes from within as preference, not as a function of moral fact (natural rights).

Yes, I can go along with that.

I wasn't clear in my first line, let me amend...

So, Harbal, admits, quite courageously, there's no foundation, for him, to declare cannibalism (or anything) as objectively evil or wrong.

...better?

[Gary Childress]

So, Harbal, admits, quite courageously, there's no foundation, for him, to declare cannibalism (or anything) as evil or wrong.

No, henry, you are knowingly misrepresenting my views here. If you can't ague your case honestly, perhaps you haven't got a case.

According to him: Our sense of morality -right and wrong- comes from within as preference, not as a function of moral fact (natural rights).

Yes, I can go along with that.

I wasn't clear in my first line, let me amend...

So, Harbal, admits, quite courageously, there's no foundation, for him, to declare cannibalism (or anything) as objectively evil or wrong.

...better?

HENRY!!! Pull your head out of your ass! You are not a genius. I am not a genius and neither are you. Stop pretending to be one.

[Dontaskme]

Searching for yourself by using conceptual thought,is like looking for a pet in the meat market.

Two meats were supposed to meat at a meeting.
Damn, I missed the meating.
It's high steaks.
Oh mama meta.
I could get the chop.
Aww, they're just ribbing you.
It's an understandable mis-steak.
I have no beef with that.
What a load of old tripe.
Don't worry, come on liver little.
I would if I cud.


However, one can use inquiry to question concepts so as to discover who one is not. What remains? No idea. Hi, so pleased to meat you.

[Gary Childress]

Searching for yourself by using conceptual thought,is like looking for a pet in the meat market.

Two meats were supposed to meat at a meeting.
Damn, I missed the meating.
It's high steaks.
Oh mama meta.
I could get the chop.
Aww, they're just ribbing you.
It's an understandable mis-steak.
I have no beef with that.
What a load of old tripe.
Don't worry, come on liver little.
I would if I cud.


However, one can use inquiry to question concepts so as to discover who one is not. What remains? No idea. Hi, so pleased to meat you.

OK, Dontaskme. I need to let go of AJ and save you and Harbal. I tried my best AJ, but you refuse to be sane. I only know insanity when I see it and you have it. Good luck with it. I hope you fare better than I did with insanity. And I hope you don't fare worse with it. My fingers are crossed for you if that will make any difference whatsoever.

Dontaskme, Harbal, I'm just going to back off of AJ and let the others work with him. We need to end this improvisation while there's still a happy ending for AJ. That's all AJ wants, a happy ending and I am unable to guarantee him one that is as happy as he would seem to like. I'm sorry AJ. You just wouldn't listen to me. I tried. I tried the only way I know how. I will leave you alone and to yourself. You have made your choice. I didn't make the choice for you. I'm sorry, friend. You will be a Chinese puppet. If you want to be with your master, then I would seek help from Xi Jinping. We can only hope that Jinping will take care of you but he doesn't share much about himself so we don't know anything about him. We can only hope that he will do the right thing.

Again, please thank your Improv Team:

Alexis Jacobi

For today's improv. He's gets the one and only top billing because he's only in it for himself. The rest of us don't matter.

[Dontaskme]

Nope, and I'm not an atheist.

Who told you that?

Even religious people forget that religion is man-made.

[henry quirk]

Who told you that?

Me.

[Immanuel Can]

It isn't evil; I don't hold with the concept of evil.

How about rounding up and killing Jews? Or how about kidnapping black people and enslaving them? Or what about pedophilia and rape? Also "not evil"?

If there is no "concept of evil"...then what, exactly, can you say about them that would guide the uninformed, justify the legal system, or inform public policy on the subject of them?

Those things are just morally wrong. I don't like the word "evil" because of its religious connotations. I can accept it as simply a word for extreme cruelty or maliciousness, but I avoid using it myself.

I understand the antipathy to conceding a "religious" concept in the middle of a discussion that might be had on a more neutral basis. That makes sense to me. However, I think your answer might just reduce the whole matter to a game of semantics. We can say "bad," or "cruel" or "malicious," or "extreme," even, and we're already implying that we know a "moral" basis from which to launch such an accusation. So it's perfectly within court for our discussion partner to rephrase, and simply to ask us, "How do you know that Jew killing, or slavery or rape or pedophilia are to be rightly classified as bad, cruel or malicious?"

And they would ask us this NOT because they don't themselves feel they want to agree with such assessments, but because they'd want to reassure themselves that you have your own good reasons for using these value-heavy terms, and perhaps even good reasons they could use to be helpful in their own thinking, or to guide a justice system, or to help direct public policy in such matters.

So do you have good reasons, reasons other people could use, that would justify your claim that these things are, in a general and compelling sense, "bad" rather than, say, merely incidental, neutral, optional -- or even laudable, if they serve some purpose like engineering a new kind of desired society or maximizing, at least, the perpetrator's sense of pleasure?

[Alexis Jacobi]

How about rounding up and killing Jews? Or how about kidnapping black people and enslaving them? Or what about pedophilia and rape? Also "not evil"?

If there is no "concept of evil"...then what, exactly, can you say about them that would guide the uninformed, justify the legal system, or inform public policy on the subject of them?

First, a clarification. There is nothing evil, and there can be nothing evil, in the natural world.

But then there is ‘the human world’ and it is there we need to focus. In a proto-human existence (Australopithecus say) could we identify moral evil? I do not think so.

So at some point man developed, or discovered, moral conceptualism.

Revelation, in my view, is metaphysical discovery. But what is it? And where did it come from? That is, the moral idea, the moral imperative.

It is as real as anything else.

The closer to ‘nature’ then, the closer to amorality. To become ‘truly moral’ involves separation, distance — renunciation.

The more involved in the world, the more inevitable is moral wrong.

Thus: our human condition.

[Gary Childress]

How about rounding up and killing Jews? Or how about kidnapping black people and enslaving them? Or what about pedophilia and rape? Also "not evil"?

If there is no "concept of evil"...then what, exactly, can you say about them that would guide the uninformed, justify the legal system, or inform public policy on the subject of them?

Those things are just morally wrong. I don't like the word "evil" because of its religious connotations. I can accept it as simply a word for extreme cruelty or maliciousness, but I avoid using it myself.

I understand the antipathy to conceding a "religious" concept in the middle of a discussion that might be had on a more neutral basis. That makes sense to me. However, I think your answer might just reduce the whole matter to a game of semantics. We can say "bad," or "cruel" or "malicious," or "extreme," even, and we're already implying that we know a "moral" basis from which to launch such an accusation. So it's perfectly within court for our discussion partner to rephrase, and simply to ask us, "How do you know that Jew killing, or slavery or rape or pedophilia are to be rightly classified as bad, cruel or malicious?"

And they would ask us this NOT because they don't themselves feel they want to agree with such assessments, but because they'd want to reassure themselves that you have your own good reasons for using these value-heavy terms, and perhaps even good reasons they could use to be helpful in their own thinking, or to guide a justice system, or to help direct public policy in such matters.

So do you have good reasons, reasons other people could use, that would justify your claim that these things are, in a general and compelling sense, "bad" rather than, say, merely incidental, neutral, optional -- or even laudable, if they serve some purpose like engineering a new kind of desired society or maximizing, at least, the perpetrator's sense of pleasure?

IC, give it a rest. Harbal is OK. He doesn't need you to tell him what is reality right now. He needs to come to that conclusion himself. He will come to that conclusion based on his experiences in life. Then he will need to make choices. He can choose what he chooses when the time comes for him to make the right choice. If someone doesn't make the right choice, then you will know there is something wrong with them, but you will not know what is wrong or why until he himself is confronted with the need to make a choice. God works in mysterious ways. I see that now. That is my choice among many others.

[Dontaskme]

Who told you that?

Me.

Have you ever seen this 'me' that told you? can you tell yourself what the 'me' that told you what you are not looks like?

And also would you like to share what a 'not an atheist'' looks like?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Even religious people forget that religion is man-made.

One can grasp why this idea seems true. It is an idea that attempts to solve a problem. It reduces moral concepts to being constructs or tools like a primitive blade made from chert or a clay pot or a lever. Ah, that explains morals! Pure inventions!

No. They (moral concepts and moral imperatives) must originate with the manifestation. And if that is so they existed in some un-manifested form. And if there is a dissolution of existence, those concept will still exist.

Guénon and Evola seek to disqualify or dethrone theism in favor of divinity defined in other terms.

That’s the conceptual path I have taken.

[Dontaskme]

That’s the conceptual path I have taken.

Concepts are known, and that which is known, knows nothing. Concepts know nothing of their existence.

[Gary Childress]

Even religious people forget that religion is man-made.

One can grasp why this idea seems true. It is an idea that attempts to solve a problem. It reduces moral concepts to being constructs or tools like a primitive blade made from chert or a clay pot or a lever. Ah, that explains morals! Pure inventions!

No. They (moral concepts and moral imperatives) must originate with the manifestation. And if that is so they existed in some un-manifested form. And if there is a dissolution of existence, those concept will still exist.

Guénon and Evola seek to disqualify or dethrone theism in favor of divinity defined in other terms.

That’s the conceptual path I have taken.

Good luck, AJ. Thank you for being here. I wish the best for you. Just always do the right thing if you know what it is. That is all the advice I can give you at this point. But I can't give you any more, because I don't know any more advice to give you. I will be here in this forum for as long as I am able and will not turn you away if you come in peace. I promise.

[Sculptor]

All she asked was that this thread be dedicated to what she wants to dicuss. She didn't use any foul language toward you.

I regard her/his words as insulting.
When a person insults me, i tell them to fuck off. Simple. WHy would I be patient with him or her?
And we have history, of which you are unaware.

Asking people to take their ''Ukraine war talk'' to the 'Ukraine Crisis' thread is not an unreasonable request,

You are as blind as you accused me of being.
Or maybe you have selective memory.