After witnessing the pure evil of 9-11, all I knew was that a loving, interventionist "Heavenly Father" type of a God didn't exist.
The God of Islam, Allah, especially died on 9-11, in my mind and in my heart.
The God of Joseph's Myth
The void left in my mind and heart by the loss of that God, felt like the smoldering black hole at Ground Zero.
The only thing that existed for me was the love of my family, friends and fellow men.
Had it not been for that, love, I wouldnt be here.
Id have given up hope for a better future for any of us.
Id have resigned myself to a downward spiral of fear, cynicism, Nihlism, Skepticism, materialism and despair.
I would have returned to the sea by now, if not for love. I love the sea. Love to me is the polar opposite of evil.
Now, is it love to claim your followers wives as your own, or is it evik?
Is it love to have sex with your followers wives and teenage daughters, or is it evil?
Was it love to deny blacks entry into temples because of tge color of teir skin, or is it evil?
Is it love to deny blessing to babies if their parents happen to be gay, or is it evil?
If thats not evil, i dont know what is.
You tell me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2016 04:04PM by koriwhore.

It's whatever a particular person or group of people, at a particular time, decide it is.

No matter how much we (you, I, others) might agree on some act being really, really nasty, our description of it as "evil" is still subjective. There's no objective "evil."

Personally (and this is totally subjective), I'd really like to get everyone to agree that causing any harm to any other human is "evil," and then maybe we'll all stop doing it. I don't think the prospects for that succeeding are too good, though. People like JS keep popping up. And those who followed him. And Mohammed and his followers. And so on and so on and so on. They have no problem harming people in extreme ways who aren't part of their group. Sigh.

Another, less common word for profound immorality, is "malevolent".
If we can't agree that the most profoundly immoral acts, like mass murder, are malevolent (aka, evil), we probably can't agree on much.
After 9-11 I found myself w/o an identity, w/o a tribe.
My world view seemed to align mostly with the "New Atheists" especially Sam Harris, whose book "The End of Faith" was the most intelligent response to 9-11, that I had read up until that point, IMO.
I frequented Richard Dawkins site and contacted the one local group of Atheists listed on Dawkins site, The South Sound Skeptics Society.
They were a small group that met at a Round Table Pizza Parlor every other Tuesday night, ironically, around a square table. It was 2 grumpy old men and a younger guy who, like me, had just left a dogmatic religious cult.
I met with them 3 times. The first two were cordial and polite conversations, although they were considerably more skeptical than Noam Chomsky.
The third meeting, my last, got pretty scary.
I brought up a new topic, "How to determine morality w/o religion" which led to a discussion of Good vs. Evil.
I said, "Evil, it seems to me, is the most profoundly malevolent behavior, like genocide, like the Hollocaust or 9-11."
The leader of this group objected to my use of the word 'evil' and insisted that there was no such thing. That it was just a religious word invented to sell us something that was always free, freedom from mental slavery.
I asked him if he thought the Holocaust was bad or good?
He said it just was.
So I asked him if he would respond the same way if it was his own Mother, Father, Sister he saw for the last time marching to the gas chambers if he would have the same opinion.
He said he would.
I said, "I'll take Ellie Weisel's word then."
As it turned out the leader of this group was a conspiracy theorist who was convinced 9-11 was an inside job.
I accept science. I accept evidence. I acceot reason. I accept prevailing scientifically proven facts. IF somebody had any of that to support their Red Flag theory, I would accept it. But he didn't.
If we can't agree on the meaning and use of common words in the English Language, like "good" and "evil", "love" and "hate", then there is no point in carrying on a conversation.
I found another "tribe" where I knew I didn't belong.
It took awhile longer to locate my tribe, but thats another story.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2016 01:30PM by koriwhore.

This is what came to mind when I read the title of your post....

"Evil" spelled backwards is "Live".

To me, evil is opposite to the goal of life.

The goal of life includes being happy, free, unobstructed, etc...we do our best under these conditions.

When evil is introduced to the goal of life, life becomes unlivable...therefore, evil is the opposition to life, and all the beauty it offers.

Similar to replies to your previous thread:. Why in the world is it necessary to define evil? Would that serve to make people be less evil? What is the conceivable advantage to a definition?
If the terrorists on 9-11 had a definition of evil would they not have done what they did?

Once again your brown eyes are showing.

Like every other word in the English language, the word, "Evil" has meaning in the English speaking world. It helps to communicate and despite it's heavily laden religious connotations, there really isn't a better word to describe that which is

Evil: profoundly immoral and malevolent. (I'd say Joseph's Myth meets that definition)

Synonyms:
corrupt, destructive, hateful, heinous, hideous, malevolent, malicious, nefarious, ugly, unpleasant, vicious, vile, villainous, wicked (all of those and more)

Antonyms:
agreeable, aiding, assisting, attractive, beautiful, benevolent, decent, delightful, friendly, gentle, good, helpful, honest, honorable, kind, lovely, nice, pleasant, pleasing, right, upright, virtuous, wonderful, worthy (Yeah, Joseph's Myth is none of those.)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2016 09:17PM by koriwhore.

Right, but you want to shoehorn a metaphysical discussion. This isn't discussing a definition but an idea.

"Similar to replies to your previous thread:. Why in the world is it necessary to define evil?"

--It isn't "necessary" to define evil. I suppose if I have to assign merit to defining it, I would have to say a definition, whether personal or as the standard of a society, might help people recognize it when they see it, thereby allow them to distance themselves from it as soon as possible.....which gets them back to that happier life I was alluding to :) One more thought....we assign definitions to words in order to use them within a standard context.....it facilitates human communication.


"Would that serve to make people be less evil?"

--My opinion is no, it wouldn't. The perpetrators of evil don't care about the definition. Does the @$$#ole co-worker care about the definition of being one in the work place? No, that's why they are one, many of them self admittedly. Do the @$$#oles coworkers care about it? Yes, if for nothing else they know who to avoid.

"What is the conceivable advantage to a definition?"

--I think a definition instills understanding, understanding instills knowledge, knowledge is a very powerful thing. I'm an engineer. A lot of my knowledge comes from having learned the "definition" of the principles, theories, formulas, etc. of the world around me. When I can define my ideas and convey them to others, much can be accomplished. I see that as an advantage.

Q 4 U: What is the conceivable advantage of NOT having a definition?

"If the terrorists on 9-11 had a definition of evil would they not have done what they did?"

-- See my second response.

"Once again your brown eyes are showing."

--I have blue eyes, with a hazel green/ yellow ring around the pupils.

Q 4 U: why the allusion to "brown eyes"? Does it somehow imply my thinking is inferior or incorrect? I've not heard it before. Are people with brown eyes more likely to arrive at false assumptions in your opinion?

And lastly....jeez...what's with the anti-lehi-nephi-definition thing? Its just an exchange of ideas. Rather benign actually. Why the caustic reaction?

Sorry to be tardy responding. I was with family all afternoon/evening.

Jonny, I apologize. Because of the way the replies fell in order it does read that I am giving you unwarranted shit. I didn't mean to at all. I respect your opinions, even if we disagree.

I meant to give koriwhore shit. He may certainly post anything he wishes, but it seems to me he delights in apparently asking questions, eg "What is evil", when he has a prepared answer in reserve that allows him to twist what he represents as a discussion topic into a soapbox. He asks what evil is but he is not interested in discussion. He is interested only in talking about how TSCC failed him on 9-11. If that is his problem, fine. But discuss it and move on to something more interesting.

He asks what evil is and then trots out the dictionary definition he had already looked up when he thinks he has his audience primed. If he knows what evil is, why ask the damned question?Maybe he thinks he is Socrates.

As far as your question for me:. One time I was loudly holding forth on a topic about which I knew nothing. My friend looked at me and said, "Spoonemore, you're so full of shit that your eyes are turning brown." Very much related to the idea of being as full of crap as the Christmas goose.

Oh, and Jonny, wasn't me concerned about anti-Lehi-Nephi or whatever. I don't even know what you are talking about.

Steve

Ive had good exmo friends who cant imagine how you define morality or good and evil, without religion.
Uh, how about with a dictionary?
Religion didn't invent Morals and ethics. Religion just codifies ethics and morals, by putting them in writting and claiming they came from God, their God in particular.
And all 'others' who dont subscribe to their own peculiar 'morals and ethics' are deemed evil sinners.
Religion is a way for their founders to gain control over their followers by convincing them they alone have the power to save them and everybody else, who doesnt believe that is doomed to hell.
Ir in the Mormons case, one of the,"lower kingdoms of Heaven", not tge one with Heavenly Whores and their Big Pimpin penis Holder Godlikec Hubbies.

You don't want a discussion of the meaning of evil. You only want a wheel upon which to grind your ax.

Grind away, koriwhore. 9-11 was a long, long time ago.

Hiw about a similar mass murder, no less significant today in Nice, which is the eitome of evil.
More importantly, the cause is even more evil, and its on its way to your hometown.
But we will just keep maintaining the badly broken status quo until we cant anymore.
We don't need religion to define common words in the English language, unless you're a MORmON, which I strongly suspect is the case if words are meaningless.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2016 11:45PM by koriwhore.

The sticking point on all these discussions comes down to your desire to take your understanding of evil and have others join you in agreement.

Most of us will agree when it comes to the obscene slaughter we see in Nice today, but even that event is not universally seen as evil. The man who perpetrated the murders likely believed he was doing a righteous thing.

Lacking a commonly accepted external or transcendent source for morality, definitions of evil are very much like regional dialects. You may gather a group around you that communicate with the common foundation, but there's no guarantee that around the next bend you won't encounter a group that embraces something entirely different.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2016 01:52AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

A whole raft of philosophers have spent a lot of time examining the questions of evil, good, morality and immorality both in the presence and absence of religion.

It may bore you, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthy of thought and discussion.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lacking a commonly accepted external or
> transcendent source for morality, definitions of
> evil are very much like regional dialects. You
> may gather a group around you that communicate
> with the common foundation, but there's no
> guarantee that around the next bend you won't
> encounter a group that embraces something entirely
> different.

Since we *are* lacking an external or "transcendent" source for morality, I guess that's where we're at. We're left with doing our best with what we have.
It's certainly no reason to make up some imagined "external or transcendental source for morality." As so many want to do.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Since we *are* lacking an external or
> "transcendent" source for morality, I guess that's
> where we're at. We're left with doing our best
> with what we have.
> It's certainly no reason to make up some imagined
> "external or transcendental source for morality."
> As so many want to do.


Well, yes and no. Culturally speaking, our founders built the country on a foundation that basic human rights have their origin in the transcendent and are not granted or created by a human construct. The Declaration of Independence notes this, and references that the role of government is to protect it.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, "

The creation of our purely secular government followed upon that belief with the Constitution. It's opening words dovetail with Declaration by stating, "We the people..." Though it has no direct reference to deity, it does assume one with its stated purpose to "secure the blessings of liberty." Then and now, "blessings" are a gift from the deity.

Feel free to allow your head to explode at my reference to deity influencing the framing of the Constitution. I'll save you some time. I'm not claiming we're a "Christian nation." I'm not claiming there is some holy mandate or religious founding to the country. I'm not citing the Declaration of Independence as a legal document. All I'm noting is the cultural truth embraced by our founding documents: Basic liberties are not granted by the Crown or by a governing body, and they cannot be denied by such. They are a basic human right granted by the deity. They are transcendent in origin.

If you're going to battle against this, please start with an explanation that defines the phrase in the Constitution of its stated purpose of "securing the blessings of liberty."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2016 11:52AM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

"Basic liberties are not granted by the Crown or by a governing body, and they cannot be denied by such."

Tell that to the slaves... Were their liberties not denied by "such"... Or how about prisoners? Doesn't the government deny them liberties? Yes, in response to their illegal actions, but their liberties are denied. If liberties couldn't be denied, then we couldn't have prisons. Slavery would never have happened, because liberties, according to you are God given and can not be denied.

Everything you've stated are ideas proposed by men. They were ideas that evolved over time and were put forth by very good men trying to setup the best government they could. They were not handed down by some transcendent being. There was no burning bush, no voice from an indeterminate source, Men wrote both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution using language understood and commonly used at the time.

"Then and now, 'blessings' are a gift from the deity."

Nope, not always. Being "blessed" doesn't necessarily refer to deity. A father can bless his child's wedding to another person. I can "Bless You" when you sneeze. I can bless you with my presence, all without any deity or transcendent ideals involved.

So, the "the blessings of liberty" to me are granted by the government, which is where my liberty actually does come from, not some unknown, not-present, God that has yet to provide any proof of it's existence.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, the "the blessings of liberty" to me are
> granted by the government, w

Well, you cannot define truth. Do you have a source anywhere in our founding documents that cites basic liberties as granted by the government?

"you cannot define truth."

Sure I can:

"truth: the quality or state of being true.
- that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality.
- a fact or belief that is accepted as true."

-- Google search "define: truth"

"Do you have a source anywhere in our founding documents that cites basic liberties as granted by the government?"

Well, since the documents were written by men creating the government, discussing the granting of liberties provided by the government, I'd think that these things would be self evident. As far as anyone can prove, those documents were written by men and the liberties and rights granted by those documents were granted by the government those documents created.

Anyway, you're the one making the claim that they are inspired documents with the blessing of a higher power. You're the one with the burden of proof here. Do you have any proof or source (outside of opinion) that these documents were inspired by a transcendent being?

Also, I did notice that you don't have a response to slaves being denied liberties by a government that you said that "they cannot be denied by such"... So, there's that too.

If you really need me to take a few minutes to define "culture" we may need to set aside a lot more time for this.

The culture that birthed our nation was one that is seen woven into our founding documents. They are not proof of nor an argument for the existence of deity. They assume the existence of a deity. You can argue against that, but the proof is in the documents.

Liberty and freedom are viewed in our country as transcendent gifts. Government has the allocated ability to restrict that, but only with the consent of the people. This is what occurred with slavery, and still happens with criminals. But this is government acting to restrict something our culture says is inherently given to every human at birth.

"They assume the existence of a deity. You can argue against that, but the proof is in the documents."

Even if the founding fathers were radical theists and wrote the constitution citing "God" for every other line, it doesn't mean that it's actually true. We can trace the ideas that the founding fathers used to create the constitution through history, they used ideas that came before them going all the way back through recorded history. The rights granted are granted by the government, for the people, by the people. No where does it state, "For the people, by God."

"Liberty and freedom are viewed in our country as transcendent gifts."

Not true, I and many like me view the liberties and freedoms granted by the government in the US and others like it to be created by people who researched history and believed that all people should have equal opportunities, and basic civil rights. Also, I like the whole "in our country" part. If they were "transcendent gifts" why are there so many governments on the earth that restrict the rights of their citizens.

So, Your "transcendent gifts" are not afforded to all people equally, so, that seems a little less than a transcendent truth to me.

"Government has the allocated ability to restrict that, but only with the consent of the people..."

Wait, so liberties can or can't be denied by a government? I'm confused, You've now said it both ways.

Also, I'm glad you agree that it's the people, not some transcendent being who is doing the consenting here.


"...inherently given to every human at birth."

You do realize that this is a relatively new idea. Something that has evolved over time. If it truly was a "transcendent truth" it would have always been this way. Instead, throughout history people have been defined by various classes, some with more liberties than others, many with none at all. Even the people who wrote the Declaration of Independence owned slaves, so they didn't get it completely right either.

It's only in the very recent history that the idea that all men are created equally has come about. You keep arguing that this is a "truth" that is "transcendent" or a "gift from the deity"... If that's the case, your deity has only recently decided that it applies to all people... well, some people, those with governments that happen to provide those freedoms. And even then, we're still having arguments over civil rights in the US today.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 07/15/2016 03:50PM by Finally Free!.

It's tough to read our founding documents and not understand the inherent rights that our founders believed were present with every human as a birthright. Your subsequent disagreement does not alter history.

You seem to be arguing for argument sake, and I have no interest in satisfying that desire. If you want to examine our founding documents and the prevailing culture that existed at the birth of our country, let's do that.

Take a peek at the founding documents for each of our states. They all reference God. Whether or not God actually exists, our foundational documents all assumed He exists and worked forward from that foundation. It was part of the culture that birthed our nation, and one that we have all benefited from. It was not and is not practiced purely, but that does not change the truth of its influence.

You're certainly free to disagree with the theism that influenced much of our nation's founding, but it's dishonest to claim there was no such influence.

You started by stating that there was a transcendent truth that has created the liberties and freedoms that we all have.

You are now stating that our founding fathers theism influenced their what they wrote and how they built the government. That's a far cry from their "origin in the transcendent and are not granted or created by a human construct".

One could say that a Mormon's belief in God helps make them better people. You hear all the time from never-mormons who have only simple interaction with them that they are good people if a little odd. But that doesn't mean that they get their goodness from God, it means that they are good people themselves.

I don't deny that people's belief in a "God" shaped some of how this country was formed, but I do deny that it was an actual "God" who did inspired it. Good and smart people researched history, debated and created our government, no inspiration needed.

So, our liberties evolved over time, they still are evolving. There is no "transcendent" truth that built it, if there were, it would have always been there and it wouldn't have had to have been invented by our founding fathers.

We can agree to disagree, I'm good with that.

Your entire conversation appears to based upon a misreading of my original post. I opened with the statement, "Culturally speaking, our founders built the country on a foundation that basic human rights have their origin in the transcendent and are not granted or created by a human construct."

This was the culture that prevailed at the time of our founding. It's not as dominant today, but our country was created with these beliefs. That was all I was saying.

Creator here means God, and cannot be taken to represent some disinterested force behind the workings of the universe. Blessings refer specifically to gifts given from a personal interested and moral Deity and cannot be taken to mean good things that have come to us by chance.

Thank you for clearing that up for the founding fathers who somehow failed to put all of that into words for us.

I suspect that mental illness is more a factor of this issue in Nice than anything else. Similar to what happened in Orlando last month.

Is mental illness evil?

So it isn't only the fact that some find the actions moral that clouds the discussion. It is the idea that actions themselves may not be representative of a properly functioning brain. If my car blows a tire and it causes an accident that harms another am I or my car evil?

This is the crux of this discussion.

BTW, what is good? Because there are plenty that view the unethical as good. Is anything inherently good?

And it harm none, do what ye will.

My definition: if it hurts yourself or other people, probably closer to evil on the scale. If it hurts no one, then probably close to "good" on the scale.

Also, what's with the black and white thinking? Is everything either good or evil?

Evil is whatever I disagree with.

Humans are instinctively good. The evil comes from the conflict between the instinct to be good and the consciousness that evolved after the instinct was in place. The constant conflict between the genetic orientation to be good and the human consiuosness is what leads to good and evil or the human condition. IN short, humans are psychological basket cases. However, if you know this you can deal with it a lot better.

"Evil" is a term that has multiple definitions, depending on who is speaking. To me, it's an act (not a thought) that results in less well-being to a person or persons.
It has nothing to do with God or Jesus, because those entities are strictly imaginary and mythical. It is simply a rational, scientific determination.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/16/2016 05:13PM by rationalist01.