Evidence of God = The Personal Test

[Christian]

Christian doctrine teaches that there will be a final judgement.

On every trial, each person will have an opportunity to defend him or herself against condemnation.

All the deeds will be shown and will demonstrate that the person was evil.

There's a way to test this doctrine. According to it, every person knows in his or her heart that he or she is evil because each is witness of his or her actions.

Unfortunately, it is an exclusive personal test. The only person that can verify the results is the person taking the test.

But, if we know we are evil, then that is evidence of God.

[Mr Clingford]

Huh? I'm not quite sure what you are intending with this.

[NarrMaster]

But, if we know we are evil, then that is evidence of God.

Err, a list of the steps involved from premise to conclusion would be nice. As it is it either:

a) Does not follow or
b) I don't see it.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Christian

Christian doctrine teaches that there will be a final judgement.

On every trial, each person will have an opportunity to defend him or herself against condemnation.

All the deeds will be shown and will demonstrate that the person was evil.

There's a way to test this doctrine. According to it, every person knows in his or her heart that he or she is evil because each is witness of his or her actions.

Unfortunately, it is an exclusive personal test. The only person that can verify the results is the person taking the test.

But, if we know we are evil, then that is evidence of God. Do you mean in the sense that, "There's none good but God?" Yes, but how do we differentiate between good and evil? Is this something we're supposed to automatically understand when we see it? And, what if it's determined that we're all evil? Does that mean there's no place in heaven for us? How does one accomplish good if one is inherently evil?

[kedo1981]

And again your every argument proves that Christianity is an evil dogma created by and adhered to by psychopaths.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Christian
There's a way to test this doctrine. According to it, every person knows in his or her heart that he or she is evil because each is witness of his or her actions.

But, if we know we are evil, then that is evidence of God. Except that in reality, every person thinks in his or her heart that he or she is good, not evil.

Hitler thought he was good.
George W. Bush thinks he is good.

If knowing we are evil is evidence of God,
and we know we are good,
then this must be evidence against God.

[maddafinga]

Well, I don't know in my heart that I'm evil. I wouldn't describe myself in that way at all. To the contrary, I've spent my life trying to be a good man. I'm also not superstitious in the least, so don't have any belief in God, or god, or gods even.

Out of curiosity, how did anyone come up with the process of what happens to a person after he/she dies? Is there any possible way that anyone could know that? I find it a bit more likely that the whole thing was cooked up as a way to mantin fear and control over the masses.

What do you mean by god exactly, I'm still confused on this point. In fact, I've alway been confused on that one, and nobody has ever explained it in a rational matter. Please enlighten me.

[Mr Clingford]

Originally posted by maddafinga
Out of curiosity, how did anyone come up with the process of what happens to a person after he/she dies? Is there any possible way that anyone could know that? I find it a bit more likely that the whole thing was cooked up as a way to mantin fear and control over the masses. One explanation for an afterlife is that in Judaism, at least, at first people believed that God was just and that if you lived a good life then good things would happen to you and vide versa. Of course bad things happen to good people and bad people prosper and one way to deal with this is to believe that this life now on earth is not all there is, ergo, there is an afterlife.

[DangerousBeliefs]

First define "good" and "evil"

(Ducks under table)

[Zep]

Situation: A man pulls out a gun and shoots his dog dead. Is he evil?

If it was because the dog just annoyed him and he just wanted to have a little target practice, you might have grounds for saying he was indeed evil. But what if the dog had been injured or was old and sick, and was in terrible irreversible pain? The death would have been a mercy, to end suffering, so the man could be judged the opposite of evil. Maybe the same man could be capable of both actions at two different times and places. Is he therefore good AND evil mixed together?

Unless the whole concepts of "good" and "evil" are too narrowly defined and non-contextual in your thinking...

[Christian]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Do you mean in the sense that, "There's none good but God?" Yes, but how do we differentiate between good and evil?

This is evil, according to the Bible:

Romans 1

29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, Godhaters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.

Romans 2

12All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) 16This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares.

Is this something we're supposed to automatically understand when we see it?

Yes.

And, what if it's determined that we're all evil? Does that mean there's no place in heaven for us? How does one accomplish good if one is inherently evil?

Romans addresses this (please note that the 3 passages cited come one after the other showing full context of the doctrine)

Romans 3

9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[b]? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written: “There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God. 12All have turned away,
they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good,
not even one.�[c] 13“Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.�[d] “The poison of vipers is on their lips.�[e]
14“Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.�[f] 15“Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways, 17and the way of peace they do not know.�[g]
18“There is no fear of God before their eyes.�[h]
19Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, so that every mouth may be silenced and the whole world held accountable to God. 20Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.


21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[i] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished– 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Beleth
Except that in reality, every person thinks in his or her heart that he or she is good, not evil.

Hitler thought he was good.
George W. Bush thinks he is good.

If knowing we are evil is evidence of God,
and we know we are good,
then this must be evidence against God.


You got the idea. If you are correct then you have falsified the *hypothesis*. According to this doctrine, every person knows in his or her heart that he or she is evil.

It is the we know it, but we wont admit it kind of thing.

[NarrMaster]

I'm still not seeing the steps involved from premise to conclusion. Someone, please, fill me in.

1) People know they are evil.
2 - x) ???
x+1) Ergo, God exists.

Please, someone fill in steps 2 through x, I am confused.

[Christian]

Originally posted by NarrMaster
I'm still not seeing the steps involved from premise to conclusion. Someone, please, fill me in.

1) People know they are evil.
2 - x) ???
x+1) Ergo, God exists.

Please, someone fill in steps 2 through x, I am confused.


I think the problem is the definition of evidence. There is no ergo God exists, only ergo one piece of evidence for God.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Christian
There is no ergo God exists, only ergo one piece of evidence for God.And if I pull a coin out of my pocket without looking at it and flip it and it comes up heads, that's one piece of evidence that it's a two-headed coin. It's not very good evidence, though, because coming up heads when flipped is reasonably likely even for regular coins. And the prior probability that my coin has two heads is so low that even after getting this piece of evidence in favor of two-headedness, I'm still almost certain that it's a regular coin. And, of course, if I see it come up tails, I would be rather amused if anyone suggested that, no, really it came up heads.

So, back to God: Under your conception of God, people would definitely believe they're evil. 1) Might they not believe that, even in the absence of God? If so, that they do believe it is not very good evidence for God. 2) Without this bit of evidence for God, how likely is it that he exists? If it was very unlikely before, it's still pretty unlikely. 3) Your "evidence" is not at all convincing to people who don't believe they're evil, and especially not to people who think that the whole concept of "evil" is not very well defined to begin with.

[Kopji]

But let's start at the opening post. Is this really Christian doctrine?


John 5:24 (New King James Version)
New King James Version (NKJV)
Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc.

24"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life.
o (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%205:24;&version=50;)


Bible versions vary, but the most common rendering is 'judgment'. Notably, NIV uses the less common word 'condemnation'.

The following is from a sermon outline site. This confirms that if Christian is posting something that is actually "Christian Doctrine", it is only one opinion. The Bible itself seems to glaringly refute the claim that ALL will be judged.


They know they will not be judged concerning their eternal relationship with the Lord. It is a privilege to have a relationship with the Lord who wants us to know judgment for salvation is a past experience. It is settled for those in Christ. There is no fear of losing this eternal life.
http://www.preachhim.org//5john24.htm


So how can the argument proceed from a false premise? The statements presented as 'Christian doctrine' are only one person's opinion, and need to be supported with some kind of evidence. Because the evidence from Christian sites says it is not good doctrine.

[swstephe]

i'm not sure which of the 34,000 denominations "christian" is a member of, but some things are a bit out of the mainstream.

i think that in the standard scenario, for the final judgement, nobody will get a chance to defend themselves. a trial is a means for us mortals to try and get at the truth, but for an omnicient god, every event is already known, so we can skip straight to the judgement.

the "good" vs. "evil" thing is relative. someone might consider themselves "good" in their personal assessment of a situation, but others might consider their actions evil. consider the iraqi insurgents, they most likely expect that their actions, while violent, are necessary for self defence and approved by god, while the soldiers and guard they attack might feel the opposite. in the end, it will be god to sort out the assessment, which will apparently be toward a god-biased view of what is "good" and "evil". since we don't have a universal consensus of what actions are preferable, then many of us are wrong about the situation most of the time. personal emotions are not a good indication about the reality of a situation.

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Christian
You got the idea. If you are correct then you have falsified the *hypothesis*. According to this doctrine, every person knows in his or her heart that he or she is evil.

It is the we know it, but we wont admit it kind of thing.


But this line of argumentation is predisposed for all kinds of No Ture Scotsman rationalisations along the lines of "If you really were honest" or "If you really looked into your heart you'd find the guilt."

Anyways, what you might get away with is saying that maybe we all know that we are imperfect (whatever the standart for perfection is), or, in Christian lingo, that we are fallible. Now I'd think that according to Christian doctrine those two - fallibility and evil - may be very close together if not even the same, but outside of Christianity you might run into problems.

[Tricky]

I'm not sure God is the right one to judge this "good and evil" stuff. After all, for God, the concepts of G&E are much more broad than they are for humans. For example, he might kill 100,000+ people in a tsunami, but have a very good reason for doing it, so it's not evil. Thus, he might also acquit Jim Jones on a techincality that he was preventing the spread of a dangerous religion by killing all of its diciples. Who can even conceive of what God considers evil, when His own actions are so unfathomable?

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by Christian
But, if we know we are evil, then that is evidence of God.
What you are forgetting is that my cat smells like cat food, and that's evidence that God doesn't exist.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by Beleth
Except that in reality, every person thinks in his or her heart that he or she is good, not evil.

Hitler thought he was good.
George W. Bush thinks he is good.

If knowing we are evil is evidence of God,
and we know we are good,
then this must be evidence against God.

EXACTLY! :D christians forget this simple truth. I also will NEVER understand why they only cite the bible when it appears to support what they WANT to believe. What about every other instance or book that say exactly the opposite?

One of the most disturbing texts (please christian explain it) is when in a book the bible says that satan told david to make a war, and in another book... it is god who tells david to do it!!! :D

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Christian
I think the problem is the definition of evidence. There is no ergo God exists, only ergo one piece of evidence for God.

I still don't understand. In what way is it any kind of evidence for God? If a person views himself as evil, it may be consistent with Christian doctrine, but so what? It's also consistent with a lot of other things -- plain old psychology, for starters.

Suppose the holy book of the Great Imaginary God Bipedalus says that people have two legs. Is the fact that I actually do have two legs evidence that Bipedalus really exists?

Jeremy

[hgc]

Originally posted by Christian
... every person knows in his or her heart that he or she is evil because each is witness of his or her actions.
...Not to be overly literal here, but what is this "knows in his or her heart" stuff? Your heart pumps blood. As far as I know, it's not a seat of knowledge.

Since I understood (and hope) that you didn't mean that literally anyway, how reliable is this know-it-in-your-heart business, eh? Come on, you don't know anything without you engage in dialog, starting with learning how to talk in the crib. But that dialog is necessarily an external exercise. For crying out loud, you never heard the word "evil," much less were able to define it, until you heard it described by your preacher and other spirit guides.

So, I add my voice to others in this thread in asking "what is evil?" I can't take into account what you say is evidence of God unless you tell me what in my own heart I should be looking for.

[AtheistArchon]

- This thread is an excellent example of how necessary it is for Christianity to sell to notion that you need to be saved from something, in this case, your own wickedness.

- I once saved a man's life by performing CPR. No reward, never met him again. I could have shrugged and let him die. Christianity: "you are wicked and without Jesus you're going straight to hell." Bullcrap... it's all just another emotional mindf*ck replicating itself amongst the assimilated.

- Know what the fun part is? I'm a fairly rough-edged person. I freely admit I'm not a saint in any respect. Lots and lots of stuff I do as a matter of GP would turn any whitebread minister in Red State XYZ green with surprise. But I'm also pretty confident and happy in the fact that I don't owe my moral guidelines to a book. Or fuzzy feelings. Or some old person talking about heaven and hell.

- You want me to test Christianity? Fine, let's TEST it. Explain to me exactly what it is you're selling, and convince me I'm not already better off without it. Y'all go first.

[Beerina]

Originally posted by Christian
Christian doctrine teaches that there will be a final judgement.

On every trial, each person will have an opportunity to defend him or herself against condemnation.

All the deeds will be shown and will demonstrate that the person was evil.

Yaweh: You are accused of having sex before marriage. Why did you do this?

Me: Because it felt good?

Yaweh: I have decreed this evil. You have violated this. You shall...

Me: Wait! Where did you decree this?

Yaweh: The Bible

Me: That clumsy, incoherent, ancient book filled with reused fables and unbelievable events of fantasy? You hold me to task for not believing in that?!?!?

Yaweh: Uhhhhh...

Judge: Case dismissed!

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Christian
According to this doctrine, every person knows in his or her heart that he or she is evil.

It is the we know it, but we wont admit it kind of thing. I'd modify that to say "every person familiar with Christianity knows in his or her heart that he or she has not strictly followed the tenets of Christianity."

That wording lets the reader decide for themselves whether or not the adjective "evil" accurately describes what they know in their heart about themselves.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- Know what the fun part is? I'm a fairly rough-edged person. I freely admit I'm not a saint in any respect. Lots and lots of stuff I do as a matter of GP would turn any whitebread minister in Red State XYZ green with surprise. But I'm also pretty confident and happy in the fact that I don't owe my moral guidelines to a book. Or fuzzy feelings. Or some old person talking about heaven and hell.(emphasis mine)

That's another good point I forgot to mention in my post above. We all think we're good, but at the same time, we all know that we could be better. If Christians interpret this room for improvement as being "evil", well, I don't think I can talk them out of that. All I can say is that I do not interpret it that way.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by Beleth
Hitler thought he was good.
George W. Bush thinks he is good. Great argument. Of course Bill Clinton thought he was good also.
Liberals think they are good. :)

[evildave]

And (just to fully derail the thread) lots of so-called 'conservatives' think that abandoning their American ideals and principles for a little perceived safety, and using torture is 'good'.

Of course, I call that cowardly and short-sighted.

[plindboe]

Originally posted by Art Vandelay Originally posted by Christian
But, if we know we are evil, then that is evidence of God.

What you are forgetting is that my cat smells like cat food, and that's evidence that God doesn't exist.

Indeed, when people are fanatical enough everything, no matter what, will be seen as evidence that supports their belief system.

[Christian]

Originally posted by 69dodge
3) Your "evidence" is not at all convincing to people who don't believe they're evil, and especially not to people who think that the whole concept of "evil" is not very well defined to begin with.

The point is that there should be no people who don't believe they're evil.

The definition of evil is very simple. You know you are, that's it. You are the judge of it.

[Z]

Originally posted by Christian
The point is that there should be no people who don't believe they're evil.

The definition of evil is very simple. You know you are, that's it. You are the judge of it.

Well, if this argument is contingent upon all people believing they are evil, then this argument is a flawed one, and its conclusions unsupported. There are people who don't believe they are evil, ergo, your system of argument fails. So is God, therefore, disproven?

[Christian]

Originally posted by Kopji
But let's start at the opening post. Is this really Christian doctrine?

Bible versions vary, but the most common rendering is 'judgment'. Notably, NIV uses the less common word 'condemnation'.

The following is from a sermon outline site. This confirms that if Christian is posting something that is actually "Christian Doctrine", it is only one opinion. The Bible itself seems to glaringly refute the claim that ALL will be judged.

You are correct, and I'm sorry if I implied differently (I don't think I did). Judgement is reserved for those who did not accept Christ as Savior (according to Christian doctrine).

[AtheistArchon]

The point is that there should be no people who don't believe they're evil.

- And I repeat: this is a superb example of the necessity of Christianity needing people to believe this. It's a necessary part of xianity! What use is the whole damn religion if you're already happy and content without it... there needs to be some evil to vanquish, and your religion preaches that it is us.

- We all know this part already Christian... what I want to know is how you're going to sell me the idea as being true. I'm not a child like most are when they are taught to buy the system so you can then buy the system.

The definition of evil is very simple. You know you are, that's it. You are the judge of it.

- Drivel. I know no such thing, and it's certainly not my fault (nor my concern) if Christians everywhere feel the immense guilt at being human that they purchased as part of the religious system they've grown to need.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Christian
The point is that there should be no people who don't believe they're evil.

The definition of evil is very simple. You know you are, that's it. You are the judge of it. I judge that I am not evil. I have on occasion done things that could be considered evil in themselves, but I do not judge that this makes me evil.

Hans

[Christian]

Originally posted by swstephe
i'm not sure which of the 34,000 denominations "christian" is a member of, but some things are a bit out of the mainstream.

i think that in the standard scenario, for the final judgement, nobody will get a chance to defend themselves. a trial is a means for us mortals to try and get at the truth, but for an omnicient god, every event is already known, so we can skip straight to the judgement.

I think this semantic difference is not relevant. What is revelant is that the judgement will demonstrate that the person knew he or she was evil.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Tricky
I'm not sure God is the right one to judge this "good and evil" stuff. After all, for God, the concepts of G&E are much more broad than they are for humans. For example, he might kill 100,000+ people in a tsunami, but have a very good reason for doing it, so it's not evil. Thus, he might also acquit Jim Jones on a techincality that he was preventing the spread of a dangerous religion by killing all of its diciples. Who can even conceive of what God considers evil, when His own actions are so unfathomable?

The point is that you judge yourself.

[Christian]

Originally posted by toddjh
I still don't understand. In what way is it any kind of evidence for God? If a person views himself as evil, it may be consistent with Christian doctrine, but so what? It's also consistent with a lot of other things -- plain old psychology, for starters.

Suppose the holy book of the Great Imaginary God Bipedalus says that people have two legs. Is the fact that I actually do have two legs evidence that Bipedalus really exists?

Jeremy

Jeremy, but there is no other religion that holds this concept. And I agree, it is the type of evidence that can be easely dismissed by anyone. It is also the kind that can be seriously considered by anyone. That is the choice.

[Christian]

Originally posted by hgc
So, I add my voice to others in this thread in asking "what is evil?" I can't take into account what you say is evidence of God unless you tell me what in my own heart I should be looking for.

Fair question. You should look at the actions that you yourself know are wrong (for whatever reason you have decided are wrong) and still you decide to do them.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Beerina
Yaweh: You are accused of having sex before marriage. Why did you do this?

Me: Because it felt good?

Yaweh: I have decreed this evil. You have violated this. You shall...

Me: Wait! Where did you decree this?

Yaweh: The Bible

Me: That clumsy, incoherent, ancient book filled with reused fables and unbelievable events of fantasy? You hold me to task for not believing in that?!?!?

Yaweh: Uhhhhh...

Judge: Case dismissed!

Ok, let's use this.

Yaweh: You are accused of having sex with your best friend's wife knowing full well that you where betraying his trust. Why did you do this?

Me: Because it felt good?

Yaweh: I have decreed this evil. You have violated this. You shall...

Me: Wait! Where did you decree this?

Yaweh: The Bible

Me: That clumsy, incoherent, ancient book filled with reused fables and unbelievable events of fantasy? You hold me to task for not believing in that?!?!?

Judge: You are guilty.

[Christian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Well, if this argument is contingent upon all people believing they are evil, then this argument is a flawed one, and its conclusions unsupported. There are people who don't believe they are evil, ergo, your system of argument fails. So is God, therefore, disproven?

The argument cuts both ways. How do you know they don't believe it? You are basing your conclusion on an assumption.

[Christian]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
I judge that I am not evil. I have on occasion done things that could be considered evil in themselves, but I do not judge that this makes me evil.

Hans

Excellent. This is the core of the idea. Only you know if you are lying or not. The evidence would be that you know you are lying. If you know you are not, then you have shown yourself that Christianity is false.

[Christian]

Originally posted by AtheistArchon
- And I repeat: this is a superb example of the necessity of Christianity needing people to believe this. It's a necessary part of xianity! What use is the whole damn religion if you're already happy and content without it... there needs to be some evil to vanquish, and your religion preaches that it is us.

- We all know this part already Christian... what I want to know is how you're going to sell me the idea as being true. I'm not a child like most are when they are taught to buy the system so you can then buy the system.

It seems you are clear about this topic and Christianity. I would not presume to convince you of anything let alone sell you anything.


- Drivel. I know no such thing, and it's certainly not my fault (nor my concern) if Christians everywhere feel the immense guilt at being human that they purchased as part of the religious system they've grown to need.

Your position is clear.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Christian
[B]This is evil, according to the Bible:


What does the bible has to do what good/evil is or is not? The bible has one set or moral codes. These codes are not universal codes that every one on earth submitts to. There are other codes of moral in the world. The moral code of jews seem to be diffrent form those of muslims, and those moral codes seem to be different from the codes tought by the followers of the hindu god Kali.

So therefore, you "Proof" of god, is as all "Proofs" of god, well, worthless. Sorry, but so it is...

/Anders

[Christian]

Originally posted by Anders
What does the bible has to do what good/evil is or is not? The bible has one set or moral codes. These codes are not universal codes that every one on earth submitts to. There are other codes of moral in the world. The moral code of jews seem to be diffrent form those of muslims, and those moral codes seem to be different from the codes tought by the followers of the hindu god Kali.

So therefore, you "Proof" of god, is as all "Proofs" of god, well, worthless. Sorry, but so it is...

/Anders


First, I don't think I mentioned moral codes. Second, the colective personal assesments of humans have created a universal concensus for evil. This is why humanism declares to have a higher moral standard to any and all religions. And lastly, proof is not the same as evidence.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Christian
[snip]Second, the colective personal assesments of humans have created a universal concensus for evil.[snip]
We have!?! Amzing, I didn't know that....I rally don't think Adolf Hitler and I had the same thought about good and evil! Do you think so?

[Z]

Originally posted by Christian
The argument cuts both ways. How do you know they don't believe it? You are basing your conclusion on an assumption.

Because I, for one, don't believe it. Since I am the only person whose inner self I can know, and since I do not believe that I am evil, nor that I have done evil, then your conclusions are wrong. Simple.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Anders
We have!?! Amzing, I didn't know that....I rally don't think Adolf Hitler and I had the same thought about good and evil! Do you think so?

Are you aware that humanism accepts the idea of universal principles of conduct? If you are, do you see the connection between that and a universal concensus of evil?

Can you consider the idea that Hitler knew he was evil and thought the being evil was the best strategy for life?

[Christian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Because I, for one, don't believe it. Since I am the only person whose inner self I can know, and since I do not believe that I am evil, nor that I have done evil, then your conclusions are wrong. Simple.

Then, it is settled. You have shown to yourself that Christianity is false with only that simple test.

On the other hand, if you know you are lying, then you have one more piece of data to ponder.

If you ask, how do you know you are lying? It is simple, if you consistently choose to do what is wrong when allowed, when no one can stop you from it, then you know you are lying. If conversely, you consistently choose to do what is right when allowed to do what is wrong, then you have falsified Christianity.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Christian
Are you aware that humanism accepts the idea of universal principles of conduct? If you are, do you see the connection between that and a universal concensus of evil?


Written and verbal communication are very different than being in some sort of "universal conciousness". There are some principles you could consider universal, but no matter what the principle, you'll have people who disagree. Get down to most religious decrees, and you'll have trouble getting a majority.


Can you consider the idea that Hitler knew he was evil and thought the being evil was the best strategy for life?

Can you consider the idea that homosexuality and premarital sex are not evil?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Christian

If you ask, how do you know you are lying? It is simple, if you consistently choose to do what is wrong when allowed, when no one can stop you from it, then you know you are lying. If conversely, you consistently choose to do what is right when allowed to do what is wrong, then you have falsified Christianity.

First off, there is a difference between doing what is right and wrong, and doing what is good and evil. Just because something is wrong doesn't make it evil.

Second, I'm not sure why, if we'll somehow accept that everyone has done evil and is evil, how that predisposes christianity at the only option. Don't you think there would be other possible explanations for such a society?

[evildave]

Well, if you pre-suppose Christianity is evil, then everyone being evil sort of fits Christianity like a glove.

[CorpusCallosum]

You wrote:

> But, if we know we are evil, then that is evidence of God.

No, this is not evidence of God. But, it is evidence of something. It is evidence of the human capacity to imagine and visualize that which is greater than what currently exists.

In the realm of technology, this is easy to see. I can imagine space elevators, universal wireless internet access, personal flying craft, and personal fusion power sources. If I compare our current society to what *might* exist in the future I might easily say that "our society is primitive and backward." But, our society is not primitive or backward... it simply *is*. Our society is what it is right now.

My capacity to call it primitive and backward is derived from my capacity to imagine greater things.

The same is true in the area of morality and social relationships. I can imagine a society where people work dilligently to better themselves rather than wasting their energy on gossip and cutting others down. I can imagine a society where people are friendlier, treat one another with more respect, cooperate more, and respect one anothers' rights. I can visualize life without fear, suspicion, petty bickering, lying, cheating, fraud, and violence.

If I compare these possibilities with the actuality of today then yes, we are all evil... and yes, I am evil, because I fail to live up to the standards that I can imagine myself living up to.

But this is not evidence of God. It is evidence for creativity. The capacity to imagine beyond the current state of things is one of the principal qualities of human intellect.

Religion has nothing to do with this, and in fact stands in the way of any possibility of achieving progress in morality or in any other area. That is because religion promotes laziness. By this I do not mean that religious people do not work hard. Rather, it promotes laziness on a deeper level; it promotes the laziness of "God will eventually fix everything so we should just wait around for God to make everything right for us..."

The purpose of our capacity to imagine is not to cause us to mindlessly submit to mystical fantasies. Rather, it's purpose is to provide a glimpse of what might be possible so that we may *work toward it*.

[Ossai]

Christian

... every person knows in his or her heart that he or she is evil because each is witness of his or her actions. Hgc
Not to be overly literal here, but what is this "knows in his or her heart" stuff? Your heart pumps blood. As far as I know, it's not a seat of knowledge. What about people that have heart transplants? Are they able to judge based on their new heart and are the sins associated with the old heart still kept by the heart or do they stay with the rest of the body? ;)

Excellent. This is the core of the idea. Only you know if you are lying or not. The evidence would be that you know you are lying. If you know you are not, then you have shown yourself that Christianity is false. Woo hoo, Christianity is false!

Second, the colective personal assesments of humans have created a universal concensus for evil. Wow, that’s a new one. Care to provide some actual evidence and not your version of evidence.

This is why humanism declares to have a higher moral standard to any and all religions. False And lastly, proof is not the same as evidence.True

Can you consider the idea that Hitler knew he was evil and thought the being evil was the best strategy for life? But Hitler was Christian, or are you saying that Christians are evil?

Ossai

[maddafinga]

The bottom line here is that if there were real evidence that any religion was true, almost the whole population of the world would be evangalized into that religion damn near to immediately. All it would take would be just one real piece of evidence. The problem however is that nothing of the such has ever happened. Not for christianity, or islam or any current religion, or any past religion either. Not once, not ever.

What has happened however, is that people who want or need to believe soemthing have tried to define evidence into being. No evidence is no evidence, all the juggling and rationalizing and explaining in the world will change that.

You can claim whatever you like as evidence, but the bottom line is that it's not. If you choose to see your "evidence" as a reason to believe in whatever god you choose to, then go right ahead. Just don't try to claim it as real evidence. It is not.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Christian
Fair question. You should look at the actions that you yourself know are wrong (for whatever reason you have decided are wrong) and still you decide to do them.

It looks like you're espousing moral relativism of the most extreme sort, here: defining "evil" to be whatever each person thinks it is. I thought Christianity generally tried to stay away from that?

Jeremy

[Z]

Originally posted by Christian
Then, it is settled. You have shown to yourself that Christianity is false with only that simple test.

On the other hand, if you know you are lying, then you have one more piece of data to ponder.

If you ask, how do you know you are lying? It is simple, if you consistently choose to do what is wrong when allowed, when no one can stop you from it, then you know you are lying. If conversely, you consistently choose to do what is right when allowed to do what is wrong, then you have falsified Christianity.

Not really. Not every sect within Christianity assumes that people are inherently evil. Some, in fact, claim that all that makes a person 'evil' is the sin of Eve, back when we were whooping it up in the Garden. This is why even babies, who have never had a chance to 'be evil', are still doomed from birth.

So your argument, again, stems from false assumptions. My being 'good' does not disprove Christianity.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by RussDill
[B]Written and verbal communication are very different than being in some sort of "universal conciousness". I believe he meant "consensus".

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Christian
The point is that there should be no people who don't believe they're evil.There should be no such people, if you're right. My point is that if there are, in fact, such people, it will be clear to them that you're wrong.The definition of evil is very simple. You know you are, that's it. You are the judge of it.That's not a useful definition. How can anyone even begin to judge whether he's evil or not without first knowing what "evil" means?

"Do you know in your heart that you're not glorp?

Aha! So, maybe you are glorp, then!"

See how silly that sounds?

Not everyone thinks about evil the same way you do. Briefly, I don't believe there is any such thing, at least not if the word is interpreted the way I suspect you interpret it. See the "Here's why morals cannot be absolute" thread in this "Religion and Philosophy" forum, where I (and others) expand on this idea.

Whenever anyone is faced with a hard decision, there are strong reasons in favor of each possible course of action. That's what makes it a hard decision. So, it's easy to understand why someone might wonder afterwards whether a different course of action might have been better, in one sense or another, than what he actually did. I don't see that this sheds any light on the question of the correctness of Christianity. It is simply due to the complexity of the human mind and of the world it has to deal with.

[Christian]

Originally posted by RussDill
Can you consider the idea that homosexuality and premarital sex are not evil?

Yes I can.

[Christian]

Originally posted by RussDill
First off, there is a difference between doing what is right and wrong, and doing what is good and evil. Just because something is wrong doesn't make it evil.

Second, I'm not sure why, if we'll somehow accept that everyone has done evil and is evil, how that predisposes christianity at the only option. Don't you think there would be other possible explanations for such a society?

I forget I have to be extra careful with my words here. Yes, you are correct, right and wrong is quite diferent form good and evil. But, please try to understand what I meant.

Yes, of course there could be. But we can acknowledge that Christianity is singular in this regards and the text puts this specific test as evidence. I understand it might not mean much to most, but it can be something to ponder for some.

[Christian]

Originally posted by CorpusCallosum
The same is true in the area of morality and social relationships. I can imagine a society where people work dilligently to better themselves rather than wasting their energy on gossip and cutting others down. I can imagine a society where people are friendlier, treat one another with more respect, cooperate more, and respect one anothers' rights. I can visualize life without fear, suspicion, petty bickering, lying, cheating, fraud, and violence.

If I compare these possibilities with the actuality of today then yes, we are all evil... and yes, I am evil, because I fail to live up to the standards that I can imagine myself living up to.


The Bible predicts that humans will never change, they will never evolve. This is exactly what I see, no evolution in this regards.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Christian
Christian doctrine teaches that there will be a final judgement.

On every trial, each person will have an opportunity to defend him or herself against condemnation.

All the deeds will be shown and will demonstrate that the person was evil.

There's a way to test this doctrine. According to it, every person knows in his or her heart that he or she is evil because each is witness of his or her actions.

Unfortunately, it is an exclusive personal test. The only person that can verify the results is the person taking the test.

But, if we know we are evil, then that is evidence of God.

All assuming that the subject believes in the Christian doctrine in question? Sure!

[Z]

Originally posted by Christian
The Bible predicts that humans will never change, they will never evolve. This is exactly what I see, no evolution in this regards.

That's funny - so I guess you've seen some Canadian nobility raping a 9-year old black slave girl in your town square, next to the folks on the rack guilty of insulting Martha Stewart in public, not far from the piles of plague victims tossed into a heap for later burning, then?

Or maybe has man evolved, just a bit??

[Christian]

Originally posted by Ossai
Wow, that’s a new one. Care to provide some actual evidence and not your version of evidence.

http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

But Hitler was Christian, or are you saying that Christians are evil?

Humans are evil

[Christian]

Originally posted by toddjh
It looks like you're espousing moral relativism of the most extreme sort, here: defining "evil" to be whatever each person thinks it is. I thought Christianity generally tried to stay away from that?

Jeremy

No. We, through analysis, can come to the understanding that some things are universally wrong. We know this.

[Christian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Not really. Not every sect within Christianity assumes that people are inherently evil. Some, in fact, claim that all that makes a person 'evil' is the sin of Eve, back when we were whooping it up in the Garden. This is why even babies, who have never had a chance to 'be evil', are still doomed from birth.

So your argument, again, stems from false assumptions. My being 'good' does not disprove Christianity.

Can you point to the sects that don't?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Christian
No. We, through analysis, can come to the understanding that some things are universally wrong. We know this.

Generally considered wrong, yes. Universally considered wrong, no. For any crime, there's someone out there who thinks it's okay. Some of them are insane, some of them are shaped by traumatic experiences, and yes, some of them just have different ideas of good and evil.

Jeremy

[Z]

Originally posted by Christian
Can you point to the sects that don't?

Evangelical Christians, generally, are those who believe in the inherent evil of Mankind. Arminian Christians are more of the opinion that each man has free will (with regards to good and evil), and, while being inherently fallible, are not inherently evil.

As a result, there are a number of Protestant sects which believe that men are not automatically evil by nature.

There is also Progressive Christianity, such as might be observed within Unitarian churches, etc., who believe that man chooses good or evil, and that the outward expresssion of what one chooses is far more important than any formula for salvation.

Many liberal Christian churches not only disbelieve in the inherent evil of Man, but even that unsaved people will go to Hell. In fact, there was an Episcopal Bishop, some time ago, if I recall, who declared that all Mankind had been saved via Christ's sacrifice, hands down, no faith required, thank you very much... and that what mattered, as a result, was how people behaved in THIS life, FOR THIS life. So people generally tend to do good. Consider, also, that even in cultures without Christianity, people tend to do the right thing. Really, only Evangelicals and Calvinists, Christian Identity and a few other sects believe in the inherent evil of people. Even the Roman Catholic church has largely replaced the idea that men are evil with the idea that men simply carry the burden of the First Sin.

Check out www.religioustolerance.org for more information on different Christian sects, and their specific beliefs. And, while you're there, check out some of the other wonderful religions our world has to offer, and what THEY believe about Human nature.

[Ladewig]

Wow. Quite a little thread you have here Christian.



Originally posted by Christian
The argument cuts both ways. How do you know they don't believe it? You are basing your conclusion on an assumption.

How might we know that some people in the world do not consider themselves evil?

I don't consider myself evil, I know several people who don't consider themselves evil, and several people who have posted in this thread do not consider themselves evil. Heck, in another thread I noted that outspoken Christian and self-appointed moralist Dr. James Dobson believes that he is without evil (the doctrine of sanctification has removed all sin from him and he is beyond evil now).

Why do you find it so hard to believe that others are telling the truth when they honestly examine their lives and find themselves to be not evil?

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Christian
This is evil, according to the Bible:

Romans 1:30... they disobey their parents;

No, Christian, that is not evil; that is horsepoop.

Let's look at it from a logical standpoint.
Bible doctrine 1: all people are evil.
Bible doctrine 2: disobeying parents is evil.
Conclusion: disobeying evil people that you are related to is evil.

Let's look at it from a practical standpoint.
There are tens of thousands of parents worldwide that physically or sexually abuse their children. Isn't it absurd to the point of being obscene to say that children who don't honor and obey these parents are by definition evil?

[Ossai]

Christian
Nice link, but it’s hardly universal.

[Christian]

Originally posted by 69dodge
[B]There should be no such people, if you're right. My point is that if there are, in fact, such people, it will be clear to them that you're wrong.That's not a useful definition. How can anyone even begin to judge whether he's evil or not without first knowing what "evil" means?

"Do you know in your heart that you're not glorp?

Aha! So, maybe you are glorp, then!"

See how silly that sounds?


I'm not sure how to address this because it seems clear to me glorp and evil are two completely different concepts. We may disagree on what evil is, but we have an understanding of the concept.

But, I define evil as acts that I clearly know will harm others directly or indirectly and I, without justification, decide voluntarily to execute them.

Not everyone thinks about evil the same way you do. Briefly, I don't believe there is any such thing, at least not if the word is interpreted the way I suspect you interpret it. See the "Here's why morals cannot be absolute" thread in this "Religion and Philosophy" forum, where I (and others) expand on this idea.

I understand that to humanists morality can only be relative but, morality is not the only type of norm system. (Morals by definition are norms) There are universally accepted norms. Without them, civilization would not be possible. This is why legal norms derive from natural law.

Whenever anyone is faced with a hard decision, there are strong reasons in favor of each possible course of action. That's what makes it a hard decision. So, it's easy to understand why someone might wonder afterwards whether a different course of action might have been better, in one sense or another, than what he actually did. I don't see that this sheds any light on the question of the correctness of Christianity. It is simply due to the complexity of the human mind and of the world it has to deal with.

This would not be the issue.

[Christian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
That's funny - so I guess you've seen some Canadian nobility raping a 9-year old black slave girl in your town square, next to the folks on the rack guilty of insulting Martha Stewart in public, not far from the piles of plague victims tossed into a heap for later burning, then?

Or maybe has man evolved, just a bit??

I think humans commit greater atrocities today than any done before. A man raping is 9 year old girl is nothing compared to the types of crimes we see today. We think that violent crimes are the worst (this because of the media). They are not, there are other types of crime that are much worse and that can only be perpetrated today.

[AWPrime]

Such as?

[Christian]

Originally posted by AWPrime
Such as?

http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials/erin_brockovich/erin_brockovich_ch2.htm

[Z]

Hmmm... I disagree. Industrial evil is necessarily of an entirely different category from personal evil. That we have more industrial evil now is no indicator of a lack of progress from humans; in fact, the very fact that there are levels set, and that this agency is now being taken to task for violating acceptable levels and causing illness and death, is a sign that evolution of morality is still continuing. Think about it: if man was showing no progress, then these agencies would be spewing filth a hundred times more terrible than they do; and there would be no oversight agencies to investigate the problem.

You are confusing the natural consequences of technological evolution with a failure to evolve morally. As technology advances, new moral issues arise; and these are being systematically addressed, when and where possible, in due course of time. Just think of the FDA, for example. Thanks to evolved industrial morality, we don't have to put up with food laced with narcotics, floating in mercury, etc. No, it's not perfect yet - but there is continual and systematic progress. The link was just one of many industrial crimes being propitiated; however, if you compare those agencies that are guilty of such behavior to the total number of similar agencies, you'd see that the last several decades have had a constant decline in such behaviors. I.E. - progress is happening.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Christian
Yes I can.

Then you can probably think of a number of things that many would be consider to be wrong, and some would consider evil, but you don't necessarily believe them to be so.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Christian
Yes, of course there could be. But we can acknowledge that Christianity is singular in this regards and the text puts this specific test as evidence. I understand it might not mean much to most, but it can be something to ponder for some.

OK...so a book that was written by men about the nature of men may have stuff in there that correctly matches the nature of men and therefore it must be from god? I'm not sure that I follow you

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Christian
No. We, through analysis, can come to the understanding that some things are universally wrong. We know this.

heh, you think its universally wrong for an employer not to offer holidays to employees? Some list of "universal" rights.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Christian
http://www.lawbuzz.com/famous_trials/erin_brockovich/erin_brockovich_ch2.htm

heh, you haven't a clue about the human history of genocide.

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Christian
No. We, through analysis, can come to the understanding that some things are universally wrong. We know this. Like what?

[Anders]

Originally posted by Christian
The Bible predicts that humans will never change, they will never evolve. This is exactly what I see, no evolution in this regards.
And there you are wrong. Evolution in the form of changes in the genome is taken place all the time. But if you are scientifically ignorent, you won't accept that. Single basepairs are changed, genes are rearrangened, genes are turned on or off. And that is the evolution that makes your children a bit different from you.

Ah, I forgot, your christian world is a magical world where science isn't valid. Am I right?

[Christian]

Originally posted by Ladewig
No, Christian, that is not evil; that is horsepoop.

Let's look at it from a logical standpoint.
Bible doctrine 1: all people are evil.
Bible doctrine 2: disobeying parents is evil.
Conclusion: disobeying evil people that you are related to is evil.

Let's look at it from a practical standpoint.
There are tens of thousands of parents worldwide that physically or sexually abuse their children. Isn't it absurd to the point of being obscene to say that children who don't honor and obey these parents are by definition evil?

I'm sure you would consider the idea that the passage is citing examples to make a point.

[toddjh]

Are you, Christian, an evil person?

Jeremy

[Christian]

Originally posted by Ossai
Christian
Nice link, but it’s hardly universal.

You guys are not trying to understand, just nitpick here and there. Ok, let's use the most obvious example: Civil law. That is pretty much universal (fundamental laws in Civil Law.) Property rights, contracts, obligations, etc. and remember that penal law derived from civil law.

[Christian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Hmmm... I disagree. Industrial evil is necessarily of an entirely different category from personal evil. That we have more industrial evil now is no indicator of a lack of progress from humans; in fact, the very fact that there are levels set, and that this agency is now being taken to task for violating acceptable levels and causing illness and death, is a sign that evolution of morality is still continuing. Think about it: if man was showing no progress, then these agencies would be spewing filth a hundred times more terrible than they do; and there would be no oversight agencies to investigate the problem.

You are confusing the natural consequences of technological evolution with a failure to evolve morally. As technology advances, new moral issues arise; and these are being systematically addressed, when and where possible, in due course of time. Just think of the FDA, for example. Thanks to evolved industrial morality, we don't have to put up with food laced with narcotics, floating in mercury, etc. No, it's not perfect yet - but there is continual and systematic progress. The link was just one of many industrial crimes being propitiated; however, if you compare those agencies that are guilty of such behavior to the total number of similar agencies, you'd see that the last several decades have had a constant decline in such behaviors. I.E. - progress is happening.

You are missing the point. Think of the people who were involved in each and every action (covering up, the actual dumping, the profiting). These people made choices. They acted and the consequences of their actions were far worse than just affecting one person's life.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Christian
You guys are not trying to understand, just nitpick here and there. Ok, let's use the most obvious example: Civil law. That is pretty much universal (fundamental laws in Civil Law.) Property rights, contracts, obligations, etc. and remember that penal law derived from civil law.
Nope, wrong again! Cummunist countries does not have the same property wrights. In muslim countries it is against the law to charged any intrest rates on loans.

I think you are very Amricano centric. But I hate to point it out to you, the USA is not the norm in the world, neither is Europe where I live. Have you been outside the USA? (man, would I look stupdi if you're like finish or dutch!)

[bluess]

Christian - I think this has been said a few different ways here already, but what the hay, I'll add to the choir.

Are you saying that if one believes one is evil then the christian* faith is proved, and that if one does not believe one is evil, then that faith is disproved?

If so, since I KNOW there are folks who don't think they're evil (me, I'm just irritable), does this disprove that faith generally?

Another comment regarding evolution - yes, you're in a nest of nitpickers - are you speaking of the biological process or of the general improvement in humanity's treatment of its members? If the former, I think a timescale of 2000 years isn't enough to make a judgement. If the latter, I think huge changes in racial discrimination and gender discrimination alone belie that assumption. Remember that those types of discrimination didn't only result in someone being barred from drinking at a fountain, but originally resulted in slavery at the least. I agree with a prior poster that the reporting and punishment of horrible acts shows that a large population of humans are trying to do good for each other.

Finally, what was the intended purpose of your original statement?


*amorphous definition

[Christian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Evangelical Christians, generally, are those who believe in the inherent evil of Mankind. Arminian Christians are more of the opinion that each man has free will (with regards to good and evil), and, while being inherently fallible, are not inherently evil.

As a result, there are a number of Protestant sects which believe that men are not automatically evil by nature.

There is also Progressive Christianity, such as might be observed within Unitarian churches, etc., who believe that man chooses good or evil, and that the outward expresssion of what one chooses is far more important than any formula for salvation.

Many liberal Christian churches not only disbelieve in the inherent evil of Man, but even that unsaved people will go to Hell. In fact, there was an Episcopal Bishop, some time ago, if I recall, who declared that all Mankind had been saved via Christ's sacrifice, hands down, no faith required, thank you very much... and that what mattered, as a result, was how people behaved in THIS life, FOR THIS life. So people generally tend to do good. Consider, also, that even in cultures without Christianity, people tend to do the right thing. Really, only Evangelicals and Calvinists, Christian Identity and a few other sects believe in the inherent evil of people. Even the Roman Catholic church has largely replaced the idea that men are evil with the idea that men simply carry the burden of the First Sin.

Check out www.religioustolerance.org for more information on different Christian sects, and their specific beliefs. And, while you're there, check out some of the other wonderful religions our world has to offer, and what THEY believe about Human nature.

I, as a Christian can see the difference as profound but, I don't see why a humanist would see the difference as purely semantic. Please read the link (Roman Catholic Position)

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1C.HTM#-EG

From there:
418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called "concupiscence").

419 "We therefore hold, with the Council of Trent, that original sin is transmitted with human nature, "by propagation, not by imitation" and that it is. . . 'proper to each'" (Paul VI, CPG # 16).

So, whether we call it an inclination, a definite predisposition, or whatever, in the context of my exposition, it should be the same.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Anders
Nope, wrong again! Cummunist countries does not have the same property wrights. In muslim countries it is against the law to charged any intrest rates on loans.

I think you are very Amricano centric. But I hate to point it out to you, the USA is not the norm in the world, neither is Europe where I live. Have you been outside the USA? (man, would I look stupdi if you're like finish or dutch!)

Communist countries have property rights as muslim countries. Property rights are universal. They are essential to civilizations.

Now, what kind of property right, that is a entirely diferent subject.

But, ok if you are going to be so obtuse about this, let me give one more, international law. (property rights) Please take a look at any map and see geographycal borders.

Now, let me show you universal property rights right in front of you. This website belongs to someone (or collective). Everyone on the planet has to abive by the rules of the onwer. That is universal.

I don't know why many skeptics have this idea that norms are relative, they are not. And the world is moving towards a unification of criteria in terms of norms. A good example is labor laws, with globalization, State are adopting homogeous standards. (e.g. child labor)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by Christian
A good example is labor laws, with globalization, State are adopting homogeous standards. (e.g. child labor)

"Are adopting" implies that some haven't yet. If such things are universal, then why is there a) disagreement, and b) change over time?

Also, I think you are making the classic error of confusing correlation and causation. It's true that there are certain norms that are present in every society, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these norms arise out of some inherent sense of morality in every individual. It may just mean that societies without these norms don't survive.

Certainly the vast majority of individuals agree on certain things -- that unprovoked murder of a peer is bad, for instance. But if only societies that possess those norms survive, and people's outlooks are shaped by the society in which they're raised, then it's quite easy to see how you can have common norms without any built-in universality.

Jeremy

[Christian]

Originally posted by bluess
[B]Christian - I think this has been said a few different ways here already, but what the hay, I'll add to the choir.

Are you saying that if one believes one is evil then the christian* faith is proved, and that if one does not believe one is evil, then that faith is disproved?

If so, since I KNOW there are folks who don't think they're evil (me, I'm just irritable), does this disprove that faith generally?

As I understand it, you can never prove anything, and as I said before, it is not the same to prove as to show evidence for. On the other hand, yes if with one piece of evidence one can disprove a theory.

Another comment regarding evolution - yes, you're in a nest of nitpickers - are you speaking of the biological process or of the general improvement in humanity's treatment of its members?

The latter.

If the former, I think a timescale of 2000 years isn't enough to make a judgement. If the latter, I think huge changes in racial discrimination and gender discrimination alone belie that assumption. Remember that those types of discrimination didn't only result in someone being barred from drinking at a fountain, but originally resulted in slavery at the least. I agree with a prior poster that the reporting and punishment of horrible acts shows that a large population of humans are trying to do good for each other.

I would not agree with this analysis. I would say that technology has allowed humans to move from slavery (remember slavery was the first economic system on the planet). IMHO, we didn't innovate to have a more just and fair system, we innovated to make our lives more comfortable, one consequence of this was the end of slavery.

Finally, what was the intended purpose of your original statement?

Critical thinking, I guess.

[Z]

How can anyone look at the cultural and social advancements of the last two millenium and NOT think man has improved? Of course, Man is becoming more liberal - perhaps this disturbs conservatives. And Man, on the whole, is slowly losing faith in religion - another trend that frightens some people.

Yes, we're making this life more comfortable for everyone. For everyone. Lifespans are longer, health and nutrition are greatly improved; the common man today knows more and has access to more knowledge than a learned scholar of 1000 years ago. Life is better on average now than ever before.

I disagree entirely that we innovated to 'make life more comfortable'. Abolishing slavery only improved the comfort of the slaves; it seriously harmed the economy of slavery and the social comfort of the majority of slave owners and nobles.

The same can be said of most major social change. Such changes are invariably uncomfortable for the majority, while greatly inconveniencing or even crippling the elite supported upon the old system.

As for the 'cover up' at the plant concept: each person MAY know that they did right or wrong; their CHOICE was entirely individual in nature. And we certainly still have people who will rape infants and murder people based on skin tone, as well. But social acceptance of such acts is practically nil, and society / mankind continues to evolve, including in legal terms, so that such evils are eventually rooted out and abolished. So even in this example, man is evolving in his moral nature continuously.

[c4ts]

In the long run, the quality of life improves, but it appears to worsen with each immediate change. This is because nothing will be the same as you remember it.

[Ladewig]

Originally posted by Christian
Christian doctrine teaches that there will be a final judgement.

On every trial, each person will have an opportunity to defend him or herself against condemnation.

All the deeds will be shown and will demonstrate that the person was evil.

There's a way to test this doctrine. According to it, every person knows in his or her heart that he or she is evil because each is witness of his or her actions.

Unfortunately, it is an exclusive personal test. The only person that can verify the results is the person taking the test.

But, if we know we are evil, then that is evidence of God.

Let's back up to the original syllogysm.

Using the Bible, one can posit:

The Bible states the nature of man is to be a sinner (or to be evil)
So, if all of the Bible is true
then
mankind is evil.

But the rules of logic do not allow us to work backwards:

If mankind really is evil
and
the Bible states that the nature of man is to be a sinner
then
all parts of the Bible are true.



. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .


Furthermore, I still maintain that I and a large number of others are not evil.
'

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Lastly, I put forth that any definition of evil that includes "disobeying one's parents," (even as a simple example) is so overly broad as to be useless.

[swstephe]

some of you guys are such optomists. mankind isn't necessarily becoming better. better health and longer lives mean overpopulation and pollution. many new inventions, like guns and nuclear bombs make us both more secure, (if you have it), and less secure, (if the other guy has it). sure, we have things that "kings and emperors of old never dreamt", but we also have horrors and disasters that people previously never imagined.

culturally? it is just different, that's all. imagine if the people at the beginning of the rennaisance had television? they would never had gotten anything done and advancement would have stagnated. imagine what we could do today without it? what about the industrial revolution? people became virtual slaves to industry and jobs when they had previously been mostly dependent on natures bounty.

morally? that's where you have to define what is "moral". conservative people are blinded by their own personal view of what *should* be moral, so they never see that it never was moral to start with. you look at the past close enough and there are quite a few horror stories for a reduced population. a few months back, i ended up getting a dvd of a movie about time travel, but it turned out to be a christian evangelical movie. in the story, someone travels from the 1800's to the present time and is outraged by the morality. funny thing, though, i was a bit outraged at the fictitious view of the 1800's. there was no mention of child labor, class war, or slavery.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Christian
Excellent. This is the core of the idea. Only you know if you are lying or not. The evidence would be that you know you are lying. If you know you are not, then you have shown yourself that Christianity is false. Cool. So I won't go to hell no matter what I do as long as I sincerely feel in my heart that it is not evil, or even that despite doing some evil things, I am not really evil.

And, just because I'm curious, where in the Bible do you find support for THAT??

Also, I thought God would know if I'm lying or not??

Hans

[Z]

Setting aside better health and longer lives - tell me the dark side of continually improving racial equality; the dissolution of rigid social classes; the end of slavery and reductions of child labor; increased education for large numbers of people; the opportunity to pull yourself up from nothing to something!

Of course, I'm being Americentric - but when I think about the path of my life and how it might have been, even 100 years ago? I can't help but believe that mankind is continually improving in every possible way. We're still sadly clinging to conservativism and religion, but I think even this will give over in time. Meanwhile, life continues to become easier, more comfortable, more pleasant, with more opportunities to do things that we actually enjoy. I consider that improvement! Some do not. I consider the fact that I don't have to fear the local baron deciding that my 10-year old daughter would be a suitable sex partner a good thing. I figure the fact that my sons aren't working 18 hour days in a factory just so we can afford bread and water is a good thing. I think that the fact that I, who have almost no money, can go over to the hospital and get quality health care any time I need it is a great thing. Or the fact that, at my fingertips, I have access to more information (and disinformation) than entire universities had access to 200 years ago. OR the fact that I can take the time and effort to appreciate the value of every life, and can actually make the ethics decisions I want to make.

I know not every country has even reached halfway to where we are, but I do believe that, ultimately, every nation will. And I believe that most nations are advancing, in their own way, every century.

If that makes me an optimist, at least I'm an optimist who can spell and use capital letters... :D

[bluess]

What zaayrdragon said!

For those with a romanticized ideal of even the 1800s, take a look at the book 'The Good Old Days - They Were Terrible!' by Otto Bettner.

But, back on topic. I really don't understand the point of Christian's original statement. Is it meaningful to anyone other than him?

[Correa Neto]

Zaayrdragon,

You are not being americentrist. I would not like to live in XIX century Brazil. I would not like to live in 1950s or 1960s´ Brazil either. Some things got worse (music comes to mind)? Yes, but as a whole, life standards have improved.

And, back on track (OK, sort of), my standard question for those who belive in the Bible:

Why quote the Bible as holding the truth?

Why not The Holy Qur'an? Or a sacred text from any other religion?

Questions for any Christian around:

(1) If you were raised by a Muslim family in a Muslim country, do you think you would be able to recognize that the true word of god is in -and only in- the Bible and follow Jesus´ teachings?
(2) Do you think that, failing to acknoweledge the above, it would be fair and just if you were doomed to hell by god?

Note: "If its god´s will I would accept" is not accepted is an answer.

[Ossai]

Christian
You guys are not trying to understand, just nitpick here and there. Ok, let's use the most obvious example: Civil law. That is pretty much universal (fundamental laws in Civil Law.) Property rights, contracts, obligations, etc. and remember that penal law derived from civil law. Again nice concept, but hardly universal. Give some concrete examples.

But, ok if you are going to be so obtuse about this, let me give one more, international law. (property rights) Please take a look at any map and see geographycal borders. Which map and who published it? Different countries correct perceived border miscalculations.

Ossai

[Z]

Isn't part of the Qu'Ran occasionally interpreted to state that one cannot convert to Islam, but can only be born to it? What does that say, if only Muslims are spared from hell?

[swstephe]

Isn't part of the Qu'Ran occasionally interpreted to state that one cannot convert to Islam, but can only be born to it? What does that say, if only Muslims are spared from hell?

Not at all. There are some verses which are interpreted to state that *everyone* is a muslim at birth, then get corrupted into other religions by their parents and others, (from Hadith). For this reason, many Muslim converts prefer the term "reverts". There are some places, however, where it is stated that nobody can really convert, except if Allah guides/allows it to happen.

However, there is often an attitude in many muslim societies that people who are "born muslims" are superior to converts. They seem to forget that all of the companions of the prophet muhammad were considered converts, and those same companions are considered infallible sources of guidance for their Hadiths.

Perhaps you are thinking of Zorastrianism? In that religion it is very difficult to join if you are not born into it. As a result, the numbers of followers is dwindling, (about 140,000 right now). From what I have heard, they believe that all souls will be judged and enter into heaven, if they followed the good spirit, regardless if they are Zorastrian.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally posted by swstephe
There are some places, however, where it is stated that nobody can really convert, except if Allah guides/allows it to happen.There are Christians who believe something similar: the saved are "elected" by God.

However, there is often an attitude in many muslim societies that people who are "born muslims" are superior to converts. They seem to forget that all of the companions of the prophet muhammad were considered converts, and those same companions are considered infallible sources of guidance for their Hadiths.[/quote]And Muhammad himself was a convert. I don't think this is so much a religious concept as a racist one with a thin patina of religious "justififcation".

[Beleth]

Originally posted by Christian
Communist countries have property rights as muslim countries. Property rights are universal. They are essential to civilizations.

Now, what kind of property right, that is a entirely diferent subject.I think we're talking at different levels here.

If you are saying that property rights are "universal" because every culture has the concept of property rights, then I would agree with you. But I think you would be hard-pressed to take it down a level and show any particular property right that is universal amongst every culture that has ever existed.

But, ok if you are going to be so obtuse about this, let me give one more, international law. (property rights) Please take a look at any map and see geographycal borders.I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that because geographical borders exist, that those borders are universally respected? I hope not!

Now, let me show you universal property rights right in front of you. This website belongs to someone (or collective). Everyone on the planet has to abive by the rules of the onwer. That is universal.No, they don't. They do if they want to be an accepted member of this community, but that is not a universal desire. The recent Mark Lewis series of events demonstrates that quite nicely.

[Christian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
How can anyone look at the cultural and social advancements of the last two millenium and NOT think man has improved? Of course, Man is becoming more liberal - perhaps this disturbs conservatives. And Man, on the whole, is slowly losing faith in religion - another trend that frightens some people.

Yes, we're making this life more comfortable for everyone. [b]For everyone. Lifespans are longer, health and nutrition are greatly improved; the common man today knows more and has access to more knowledge than a learned scholar of 1000 years ago. Life is better on average now than ever before.

You are missunderstanding. There is no doubt human life has improved. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying humans haven't improved in their nature. Because of the work of a few people, (technology wise) most have benefited, and that vehicle (which ever technology it might be) has made life better.

I disagree entirely that we innovated to 'make life more comfortable'. Abolishing slavery only improved the comfort of the slaves; it seriously harmed the economy of slavery and the social comfort of the majority of slave owners and nobles.

Slavery was not abolished out of an ethical question. It disappeared because it was not sustainable and it was at a disadvantage with new forms of economy. Do you know why slavery existed in the first place?

The same can be said of most major social change. Such changes are invariably uncomfortable for the majority, while greatly inconveniencing or even crippling the elite supported upon the old system.

What are you talking about?

As for the 'cover up' at the plant concept: each person MAY know that they did right or wrong; their CHOICE was entirely individual in nature.

Exactly, this is my point. All the people involved chose to do the wrong thing.

And we certainly still have people who will rape infants and murder people based on skin tone, as well. But social acceptance of such acts is practically nil, and society / mankind continues to evolve, including in legal terms, so that such evils are eventually rooted out and abolished. So even in this example, man is evolving in his moral nature continuously.

You are confusing volition with coersion. That humans can't rape and murder has more to do with systems of control than anything else. The best evidence for this is that the more economically advanced the State, the greater body of legal norms they have and enforce.

[maddafinga]

Much of the problem here, I think, is that Christian is posting extremely vague, ill defined questions, then getting frustrated when different posts in response. We're not sure what you're saying exactly, so we're probably not posting the replies you're looking for. Help this debate out a bit and clarify your point some. Take one post and boil it down. I'm not really sure what you're after here.

I'll say again though, there is no real evidene of god, if there were, all the disbelievers would convert. The only evidence are vague things like this thread, where people try to shoehorn god into things where he doesn't fit.

[Christian]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Cool. So I won't go to hell no matter what I do as long as I sincerely feel in my heart that it is not evil, or even that despite doing some evil things, I am not really evil.

Yes, exactly. You will make your case that you were a good person and that you don't deserve to be condemned. According to the Scripture, God will show that you are lying with every deed and action that demostrates it.

The only exemption is a person who never had the opportunity to reject Christ.

And, just because I'm curious, where in the Bible do you find support for THAT??

Oh boy, can we leave that for another time? As you can see this thread has my hands full, with my time constraints is hard for me to follow up.

Also, I thought God would know if I'm lying or not??

Hans

Absolutely.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Beleth
[B]I think we're talking at different levels here.

If you are saying that property rights are "universal" because every culture has the concept of property rights, then I would agree with you. But I think you would be hard-pressed to take it down a level and show any particular property right that is universal amongst every culture that has ever existed.

The problem is, again, a missunderstanding. Universality does not come from some genetic imprint or code. It is the result of human intellect. Just as all humans now use the spoken word as language universally, they have develop rules that make civilization possible. Property rights are indispensible. Property rights are as old as society. They have evolved.

Let's not forget the main point I'm making. I know when I'm taking something that does not belong to me and I shouldn't take it. My assertion is that humans will take what does not belong to them when able to get away with it.

I'm not sure where you are going with this. Are you saying that because geographical borders exist, that those borders are universally respected? I hope not!

I'm saying that sovereingty is an understanding we have now and it is accepted as such. And yes, if humans could conquer, they would. We stop doing it when all the nations decided to have armed forces for defense and nuclear weapons.

No, they don't. They do if they want to be an accepted member of this community, but that is not a universal desire. The recent Mark Lewis series of events demonstrates that quite nicely.

Yes, they do. All follow the rules. All won't post child pornography in this site. All do. They can post child pornography (big risk) else where, but not here. That is rule. Property rights.

[Z]

None of this shows a thing about your arguments. Humans are clearly improving. You say it is only society and/or technology that is improving? Yet people are behind those societies and technologies. And human nature is, in part, determined by society, environment, opportunity. So, you see, by improving technology and social norms, we improve the environment which helps produce improved human nature. They are mutually interdependent effects.

You also seem to believe that everyone is evil, in some way, and those who claim not to be are lying, and God will show them this fact. That is a simple statement of a faith that most of us here do not share. I am no more concerned with being tried by God than I am being weighed on Thoth's scales.

People sometimes tell me that 'The Bible says you're going to Hell because Witches worship the Devil' to which I usually reply that the Bible, Hell, and the Devil are all concepts I have no fear of, since they don't exist/are untrue in my faith.

The same holds true here. I don't believe there's any 'end of the world' for Man sponsored by God. I don't believe there's any 'final judgement', nor that, if there is a God, this God would be so insanely cruel as to simply declare everyone 'evil' and destroy them. After all - God made evil, too... so even if this were 100% true, this would still not offer reason to worship this God, but to revile Him.

Anyway, what proof do you have that human 'nature' has never evolved/is not getting better? Please - demonstrate. Provide numbers, graphs, exact case studies.

[Christian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
None of this shows a thing about your arguments. Humans are clearly improving. You say it is only society and/or technology that is improving? Yet people are behind those societies and technologies. And human nature is, in part, determined by society, environment, opportunity. So, you see, by improving technology and social norms, [b]we improve the environment which helps produce improved human nature. They are mutually interdependent effects.

No, you are making an unjustified logical leap. It is absolutely possible to improve the environment without improving human nature.

And it is very easy to demonstrate.

You also seem to believe that everyone is evil, in some way, and those who claim not to be are lying, and God will show them this fact. That is a simple statement of a faith that most of us here do not share. I am no more concerned with being tried by God than I am being weighed on Thoth's scales.

But that is not the point. The point is simply to examine the premise. The whole idea is that anyone can ponder on the scenario. If there were to be a final judgment and if all my deeds where to be displayed, would they show that indeed I was lying when I said I was a good person?

People sometimes tell me that 'The Bible says you're going to Hell because Witches worship the Devil' to which I usually reply that the Bible, Hell, and the Devil are all concepts I have no fear of, since they don't exist/are untrue in my faith.

Point taken. I have done no such thing.

The same holds true here. I don't believe there's any 'end of the world' for Man sponsored by God. I don't believe there's any 'final judgement', nor that, if there is a God, this God would be so insanely cruel as to simply declare everyone 'evil' and destroy them.

Point taken as well. I'm just saying anyone can take this as a simple mental excercise and consider the result.

After all - God made evil, too... so even if this were 100% true, this would still not offer reason to worship this God, but to revile Him.


Yes, if we follow your reasoning, at that final judgement, you would tell Him you prefer Hell to worship a god like Him.

Anyway, what proof do you have that human 'nature' has never evolved/is not getting better? Please - demonstrate. Provide numbers, graphs, exact case studies.

Just think of the obesity problem in the US (60%). When a pill is invented (hopefully), that problem will go away.

Also consider the dot.com craze. It was exactly the same as any other greed frenzy. And in a very short time, you will see one for nano-technology and biotechnology.

Why do you think the philosophers human nature of most ancient times are still as relevant today as they were in their days? Military leaders still consider The Art of War the best book on strategy ever written. All because human nature remains the same; the only thing that has changed is the stage.

[Christian]

Originally posted by toddjh
"Are adopting" implies that some haven't yet. If such things are universal, then why is there a) disagreement, and b) change over time?

Because of critical mass. When every person gets a computer, everyone will use e-mail.

Also, I think you are making the classic error of confusing correlation and causation. It's true that there are certain norms that are present in every society, but that doesn't necessarily mean that these norms arise out of some inherent sense of morality in every individual. It may just mean that societies without these norms don't survive.

I did not say that, nor do I think I implied it. To me this universality is a the product of the inevitable nature of humans. Human civilization irrevocably leads to these universal norms. How can a society survive if one can't own things!!! So, the point is, I know I'm not suppose to take what is not mine. Yet I do.

Certainly the vast majority of individuals agree on certain things -- that unprovoked murder of a peer is bad, for instance. But if only societies that possess those norms survive, and people's outlooks are shaped by the society in which they're raised, then it's quite easy to see how you can have common norms without any built-in universality.

It is as simple as the golden rule. That is why that rule is universal, it is common sense. If I don't want someone to strike in the face for no reason because it hurts, my intellect tells me not to strike others for no reason. It is as simple as that.

[maddafinga]

But that is not the point. The point is simply to examine the premise. The whole idea is that anyone can ponder on the scenario. If there were to be a final judgment and if all my deeds where to be displayed, would they show that indeed I was lying when I said I was a good person?

Okay, now that is something we can work with. I've pondered the scenario, if there was a final judgement, I still say I'd not be a liar for calling myself a good person. How does this prove or disprove a god? It doesn't. I'll assume a final judgement for your exercise, but I don't in real life. I don't buy into a final judgement at all, nor do I buy into a god. It's an interesting exercise, but futile for proving a diety.

[Z]

Soooo... obesity and greed are signs that humans never change? Um... if I recall correctly, obesity is a fairly modern problem in general, and one not universally applied to humankind. Not all humans, given the option without consequence, will choose overindulgence. Likewise with greed - in fact, they are much the same thing. However, greed can be said to be a primal instinct of humans. Simple survival. The more you can acquire of resources, etc. the more likely that you will survive, breed, etc.

However, when comparing obesity and the dot.com craze to the Holocaust, the Inquisition, and the common social / class problems of the world from the 1800s and back - especially compared to times when other 'races' weren't even considered 'human' - I'd have to say that humans are definitely evolving, ethically, socially, technologically, and intellectually.

But this is all waaaaay off point - the problem with your original premise is that, looking within, whether or not one senses evil within oneself is no indicator whatsoever of the existence or non-existence of God. Not even the Biblical God. After all, Christ died for the sins of all mankind, and even freed all the souls in Hell, personally taking the 'keys to hell' from Satan. This would appear to be a blanket saving, no faith required. I always wonder why most Christians don't grasp that concept; why they can't just accept that everyone is saved, period, and not to worry about the niggley details?

To summarize: Your initial premise is neither proof nor disproof of the Biblical God.

[maddafinga]

Thanks for saying that better than I could.

[Christian]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Soooo... obesity and greed are signs that humans never change? Um... if I recall correctly, obesity is a fairly modern problem in general, and one not universally applied to humankind.

Yes, it is. The causes of obesity and greed are signs that humans haven't changed.

Not all humans, given the option without consequence, will choose overindulgence. Likewise with greed - in fact, they are much the same thing. However, greed can be said to be a primal instinct of humans. Simple survival. The more you can acquire of resources, etc. the more likely that you will survive, breed, etc.

Suffice to say, we have a different concept of greed.

However, when comparing obesity and the dot.com craze to the Holocaust, the Inquisition, and the common social / class problems of the world from the 1800s and back - especially compared to times when other 'races' weren't even considered 'human' - I'd have to say that humans are definitely evolving, ethically, socially, technologically, and intellectually.


That is wishfull thinking. It is difficult to sustain that position with the surge of racism in Europe in recent years, for example.

But this is all waaaaay off point - the problem with your original premise is that, looking within, whether or not one senses evil within oneself is no indicator whatsoever of the existence or non-existence of God. Not even the Biblical God.

I don't agree.

After all, Christ died for the sins of all mankind, and even freed all the souls in Hell, personally taking the 'keys to hell' from Satan. This would appear to be a blanket saving, no faith required. I always wonder why most Christians don't grasp that concept; why they can't just accept that everyone is saved, period, and not to worry about the niggley details?

Because it is not the Christian dogma.

To summarize: Your initial premise is neither proof nor disproof of the Biblical God.

As I said before, it can only serve as disproof (as you say).

[Ossai]

Christian
And, just because I'm curious, where in the Bible do you find support for THAT??

Oh boy, can we leave that for another time? As you can see this thread has my hands full, with my time constraints is hard for me to follow up. No. You’ve claimed numerous point but have yet to actually present evidence for even a single one. This is as good a place to start as any.

Property rights are indispensible. Property rights are as old as society. They have evolved. You’re contradicting yourself. You claim property rights are universal then claim that they have evolved. If they were universal (as in the sense of being correct and applied to all - perfect) to begin with, why did they change?

After all - God made evil, too... so even if this were 100% true, this would still not offer reason to worship this God, but to revile Him.
Yes, if we follow your reasoning, at that final judgement, you would tell Him you prefer Hell to worship a god like Him. Depends on whose definition of hell. If it’s a separation from the Christian god then I’m sure most people would enjoy hell.

Also consider the dot.com craze. It was exactly the same as any other greed frenzy. And in a very short time, you will see one for nano-technology and biotechnology. Also consider rail roads, flight, etc. All made a very broad far reaching impact on humanity.

Ossai

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Christian
Yes, exactly. You will make your case that you were a good person and that you don't deserve to be condemned. According to the Scripture, God will show that you are lying with every deed and action that demostrates it.

The only exemption is a person who never had the opportunity to reject Christ.

And, where exactly does this leave your "proof of God"? SInce you are so busy, I'll answer for you: It leaves it on the great big junkyard of circular arguments.

Oh boy, can we leave that for another time? As you can see this thread has my hands full, with my time constraints is hard for me to follow up.

Evasion noted. You may have your hands full, but hey, YOU brought up this subject, so now saying that unfortunatly you haven't got time to support it is a tad lame.

*snip*

Hans

[Loki]

Christian,

So you're back! How are the girls? Have a good Xmas?

Still talking to yourself I see, and getting frustrated that no one else seems to follow what you call 'logic'. Oh well...

Are you aware that humanism accepts the idea of universal principles of conduct? If you are, do you see the connection between that and a universal concensus of evil?
You have a wierd idea of humanism. I'd suggest that a better portrayal of humanist concepts might be to say that humanism teachs the need to find the best principles of conduct to achieve a desired set of social goals, within the framework of human limitations. This is not (directly) related to any concept of "evil".

I think you're problem in grasping this is your constant need to resolve human behaviour into black/white. Humanism tends towards a view of human behaviour as a sliding scale from "beneficial" through to "destructive", whereas you constantly prefer a binary model. Of course this is a common christian motif - saved/condemed, good/evil, etc.

Too bad it's such a simplistic view of the world - hey, but then again that's a larege part of what you're REALLY looking for isn't it? A nice simple world view and some sort of nice equation that you feel will get your and your loved ones into the promised land?

If you ask, how do you know you are lying? It is simple, if you consistently choose to do what is wrong when allowed, when no one can stop you from it, then you know you are lying. If conversely, you consistently choose to do what is right when allowed to do what is wrong, then you have falsified Christianity.
Again, what if you're inconsistant in your behaviour? Sometimes doing right when not forced to, sometimes doing wrong when you can. What then? A bit evil? What about the concept of redemption, and making up for past mistakes? How long does "evil" last - does it wear off if you don't do it for a while? How many 'right acts', over what time frame, are required to eliminate the taint of evil left by murdering a child? Or is just one single act of evil at any time in your life enough to leave a permanent stain?

I don't know why many skeptics have this idea that norms are relative, they are not.
Norms both reflect the past, and form the future. You agree with me that the details 'evolve', you simply believe that there are some basic "universal principles". I agree only in the sense that there are 'limits' within which human society must remain if it it to survive. Think of it as being the same as physical limits - you can't hold your breath underwater for an hour for example. Some "norms", if broken, simply undermine a society to the point of collapse. The existence of such limits/norms is simply a reflection of that fact we are physical entities existing in a real world. Not everything is possible, either for a single human to do (we can't fly, for example), or for human society (we can't kill all children before their first birthday, for example).

The only exemption is a person who never had the opportunity to reject Christ.
Surely this leads to the logical conclusion that we should ban the bible and all forms of christian worship as quickly as possible, so as to guarantee that 100% of the world's population are saved?

But really the key thing is the question you've been ducking christian ... are you evil, when you look inside you?

[Christian]

Originally posted by Loki
Christian,

So you're back! How are the girls? Have a good Xmas?

Hey, happy new year. The girls are excellent, thanks for asking.

Still talking to yourself I see, and getting frustrated that no one else seems to follow what you call 'logic'. Oh well...

:D

You have a wierd idea of humanism. I'd suggest that a better portrayal of humanist concepts might be to say that humanism teachs the need to find the best principles of conduct to achieve a desired set of social goals, within the framework of human limitations. This is not (directly) related to any concept of "evil".

Ok, I'll accept that definition.

I think you're problem in grasping this is your constant need to resolve human behaviour into black/white. Humanism tends towards a view of human behaviour as a sliding scale from "beneficial" through to "destructive", whereas you constantly prefer a binary model. Of course this is a common christian motif - saved/condemed, good/evil, etc.

I follow you. But can you follow this? There is a point where for the particular individual his or her behavior is a choice of black/white. There will be a set of actions in that *binary model* for each and every individual.

Too bad it's such a simplistic view of the world - hey, but then again that's a larege part of what you're REALLY looking for isn't it?

If you were to look at this from a diferent context, you would appreacite that simple is good.

A nice simple world view and some sort of nice equation that you feel will get your and your loved ones into the promised land?

No, I think that simple is the best way to go. Think of it as a form of Oca.. razor.

Again, what if you're inconsistant in your behaviour? Sometimes doing right when not forced to, sometimes doing wrong when you can. What then? A bit evil? What about the concept of redemption, and making up for past mistakes? How long does "evil" last - does it wear off if you don't do it for a while? How many 'right acts', over what time frame, are required to eliminate the taint of evil left by murdering a child? Or is just one single act of evil at any time in your life enough to leave a permanent stain?

Yes, this is the exercise. At the end, you should be sure of the answer.

Norms both reflect the past, and form the future. You agree with me that the details 'evolve', you simply believe that there are some basic "universal principles". I agree only in the sense that there are 'limits' within which human society must remain if it it to survive. Think of it as being the same as physical limits - you can't hold your breath underwater for an hour for example. Some "norms", if broken, simply undermine a society to the point of collapse. The existence of such limits/norms is simply a reflection of that fact we are physical entities existing in a real world. Not everything is possible, either for a single human to do (we can't fly, for example), or for human society (we can't kill all children before their first birthday, for example).

So, no moral judgements are needed? Just rules for the survival of physical entities. This is the only conclusion for a MA (remember?)

Surely this leads to the logical conclusion that we should ban the bible and all forms of christian worship as quickly as possible, so as to guarantee that 100% of the world's population are saved?

Too late.

But really the key thing is the question you've been ducking christian ... are you evil, when you look inside you?

Without a doubt.

[chance]

Christian

Ok a small problem,

Person takes the test,
Determines that there is evil,
Also determines that other religions hold similar ideals regarding evil, while others do not!

By your own logic you now have proof for, and against, a variety of god/s!

What is the next step?

[Christian]

Originally posted by chance
Christian

Ok a small problem,

Person takes the test,
Determines that there is evil,
Also determines that other religions hold similar ideals regarding evil, while others do not!

By your own logic you now have proof for, and against, a variety of god/s!

What is the next step?

No, as I understand it, there is no other religion that puts forth this idea.

Basically, the idea is we are evil. The only way to salvation is Christ. But, I think you know the dogma.

[Ossai]

Christian
There are three Abrahamic religions. Christianity is only one of the three.
So to repeat Chance
By your own logic you now have proof for, and against, a variety of god/s!

What is the next step?

Ossai

[Loki]

There are three Abrahamic religions. Christianity is only one of the three.
And I'd just like to add that there is a wide variety of flavours of "christianity". Christian says : "The only way to salvation is Christ" - that's not even strictly true for the catholic faith.

But I'm still trying to get my head around christian's logic. Is it something like this?

1. God creates christian dogma.
2. Men write down this dogma in the bible.
3. Bible say all humans are evil.
4. Experience shows that all humans are evil
5. Therefore bible is correct.
6. Therefore god exists.

That about it?

[chance]

Christian No, as I understand it, there is no other religion that puts forth this idea.

Basically, the idea is we are evil. The only way to salvation is Christ. But, I think you know the dogma. Restrict your answer to Loki’s wide variety of flavours of "christianity". and you will still have the same dilemma. Cherry picking biblical passages to make a point inevitably lead to someone else being able to find a contrary point or different interpretation.

You would be on firmer ground if your original question asked if guilt was a universal human trait, and that if it could be discovered by self questioning.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Ossai
Christian
There are three Abrahamic religions. Christianity is only one of the three.
So to repeat Chance


Ossai


I don't see the connection here. What I'm talking about is unique to Christianity and it definitely in contrast to Judaism and Islam.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Loki
And I'd just like to add that there is a wide variety of flavours of "christianity". Christian says : "The only way to salvation is Christ" - that's not even strictly true for the catholic faith.

But I'm still trying to get my head around christian's logic. Is it something like this?

1. God creates christian dogma.
2. Men write down this dogma in the bible.
3. Bible say all humans are evil.
4. Experience shows that all humans are evil
5. Therefore bible is correct.
6. Therefore god exists.

That about it?

1. God creates human nature.
2. Men, a priori, write down this information in the Bible. (a relevation of objective information without use of the scientific method)
3. Bible says all humans are evil.
4. Experience shows that all humans are evil.
5. Therefore, Bible is correct in this specific area.
6. Therefore, we see one piece of evidence for the existence of God.

That about it.

[Christian]

Originally posted by chance
Christian Restrict your answer to Loki’s "wide variety of flavours of "christianity". " and you will still have the same dilemma.

If only that were true, but the premise is incorrect. As I said many, many times, the fundamental tenent of Christianity is universally accepted by Christians.

To me, that argument is extremely weak (the argument being: you guys have so many contradicting beliefs, so how do you know who is right)

Cherry picking biblical passages to make a point inevitably lead to someone else being able to find a contrary point or different interpretation.

As you clearly demonstrate above.

You would be on firmer ground if your original question asked if guilt was a universal human trait, and that if it could be discovered by self questioning.

And I see you understand full well the test. And that should be enough.

[maddafinga]

Originally posted by Christian
1. God creates human nature.
2. Men, a priori, write down this information in the Bible. (a relevation of objective information without use of the scientific method)
3. Bible says all humans are evil.
4. Experience shows that all humans are evil.
5. Therefore, Bible is correct in this specific area.
6. Therefore, we see one piece of evidence for the existence of God.

That about it.


I think you'll find that many people won't agree with your premesis. I won't give you the existance of god. Prove that to me, then proceed down the chain.

Also, how are you defining god?

How are you defining evil?

[Kitty Chan]

Christian

Glancing through the thread it seems that no one (of course) wants to admit shortcomings and perhaps they are evil.

So what about the opposite can someone (not you Christian) name anybody who is good. (Not even a bit of evil.)

[Loki]

Christian,

1. God creates human nature.
2. Men, a priori, write down this information in the Bible. (a relevation of objective information without use of the scientific method)
3. Bible says all humans are evil.
4. Experience shows that all humans are evil.
5. Therefore, Bible is correct in this specific area.
6. Therefore, we see one piece of evidence for the existence of God.

Okay, good, that's sort of what I expected...

So now, try this :

1. "Random Nature" creates human nature.
2. Men, via observation, write down this information in the Bible. (a relevation of objective information through use of scientific method)
3. Bible says all humans are evil.
4. Subsequencet experience shows that all humans are evil.
5. Therefore, Bible is correct in this specific area.
6. Therefore, we see one piece of evidence for the existence of Nature.

Why is your proof more, or less, likely than mine? Since the point of this is to try and establish some sort of conclusion (point 6) that in some way validates the initial premsie (point 1) - dubious logic anyway, christian - why is yours in any way "more likely" than mine?

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Christian
1. God creates human nature.
2. Men, a priori, write down this information in the Bible. (a relevation of objective information without use of the scientific method)
3. Bible says all humans are evil.
4. Experience shows that all humans are evil.
5. Therefore, Bible is correct in this specific area.
6. Therefore, we see one piece of evidence for the existence of God.

That about it.

Please tell me you did not just accept that! If anything, you should deny that the tangled mess of bad logic is an understanding of Christianity!

Allow me to explain: It's begging the question, and the transition from 5 and 6 commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent.

Let's take a look at 1:
1. God creates human nature.
and now 6:
6. Therefore, we see [in human nature] one piece of evidence for the existence of God.
The conclusion is that there is evidence that God is responsible for human nature. But wait, the premise is that God is responsible for human nature, and all the other steps follow that first statement! Basically, you are saying there is a God because God is responsible for human nature. We call that "circular logic," or "begging the question" and it's utterly useless, becuase in order to believe that the premises are true we must already agree that the conclusion is true. It proves nothing, not even what you set out to prove.

Now, let's talk about affirming the consequent. That's when you do something like this:

1. If A, then B
2. B
3. Therefore A

Or in more concrete terms:

1. If it is raining then the grass is wet
2. The grass is wet
3. Therefore it is raining

And in your case:

1. If God exists, then human nature is evil
2. Human nature is evil
3. Therefore God exists

The problem with the argument structure is that B might be the consequence of something other than A. Even if the premise is true (although you haven't proved it), the conclusion can still be false. In the first example, the grass might be wet because someone spilled water on it, and in your example, human nature might be evil because your idea of "evil" has to include human nature by definition. Or human nature could be evil because Mighty Cthulhu wills it, or because I want it to be evil and I have powers over human nature. The point is that there are other possibilities, likely or unlikely, and you haven't ruled them out. So it's not one piece of evidence for God as you said it was.

(Shall we go further to inquire whether or not human nature is actually evil? That's really up to you, I'm only critiquing the logic, not the premises.)

Now, let's take a look at 2, 3, and 4 in relation to 5 and 6:
2. Men, a priori, write down this information in the Bible. (a relevation of objective information without use of the scientific method)
3. Bible says all humans are evil.

4. Experience shows that all humans are evil.
I'm not even going to argue with the premise, highly suspect as it is. 2, 3, and 4 are supposed to resolve 5 and 6, but they don't. Here's why:

Remember what I said about 1 and 6? Well, 2 follows from 1, because you have to assume God exists and created human nature in order to say God gave the information to humans. That means you need to prove 6 in order to prove 2. Yet again, you have to finish the argument before you can start it, and that's impossible!

3 is an observation, (actually 3 is an interpretation but I won't get into that because it isn't relevant) but without 2 having been proven, it could have been written without a God. That means until you prove 1, all observations supporting 3 are meaningless, especially a questionable observation such as 4. But you need them to prove 6, and 6 assumes 1 is true. Round and round she goes!

I hope that is enough logical critique. Now for the factual critique of your "corrected" argument.

1. God creates human nature.
If you can verify that claim, you can win Randi's million.

2. Men, a priori, write down this information in the Bible. (a relevation of objective information without use of the scientific method)
That certainly raises a lot of questions.

The objective information was relevated above what? Or was it relevated out of something? Please explain.

And whoever said the Bible was objective? I know of four guys who would say otherwise, and they wrote the second half! The entire New Testament is composed of different accounts of the same subject, and they all say different things. Testimonial is, by its very nature, not objective, let alone a way to be objective without the scientific method. Not that you can't be objective without the scientific method, but this is not how you do it. Four different accounts of a made-up event do not turn it into reality, so if all you have is accounts, why would that make the Bible true or objective?

I'm not even sure what your whole statement means. Are you being metaphorical when you say the Bible came from God, or do you think every story in that thing is factually true?

3. Bible says all humans are evil.
Where?

4. Experience shows that all humans are evil.
You need more than experience to show that they are, because it is my experience that no humans are naturally evil, nor are they naturally good, but either neutral or a mix of the two.

5 and 6 aren't facts, or stated as such, so I won't bother.

So always think before you accept, instead of applauding something else that looks kind of like what you believe.



Or maybe this really is what you believe.

[chance]

Christian Originally posted by chance
Christian Restrict your answer to Loki’s "wide variety of flavours of "christianity". " and you will still have the same dilemma.
Originally posted by Christian
If only that were true, but the premise is incorrect. As I said many, many times, the fundamental tenent of Christianity is universally accepted by Christians.

To me, that argument is extremely weak (the argument being: you guys have so many contradicting beliefs, so how do you know who is right)
The fundamental tenant is not in question, only the interpretations around the edges, e.g. I’m sure no Christian questions the fundamental tenant of birth, resurrection, and the existence of Jesus, however, there are those that disagree on the depth to which passages in the bible should be interpreted literally or metaphorically. So the premise is correct as I was not questioning fundamental tenant.

Originally posted by chance > Cherry picking biblical passages to make a point inevitably lead to someone else being able to find a contrary point or different interpretation.
As you clearly demonstrate above. A general principle for any discipline.


Originally posted by chance > You would be on firmer ground if your original question asked if guilt was a universal human trait, and that if it could be discovered by self questioning.
And I see you understand full well the test. And that should be enough. Understanding the test is not the problem, but the drawing of certain conclusions is. That nagging feeling when you tell a lie need not be any from some god given source, rather an evolutionary trait from, living as a social primate

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Christian

Glancing through the thread it seems that no one (of course) wants to admit shortcomings and perhaps they are evil.

So what about the opposite can someone (not you Christian) name anybody who is good. (Not even a bit of evil.)


IIRC the point was rather what humans think about themselves and no so much what they actually are. Moreover, "shortcomings" does not necessarily equal "evil," regardless of whether we believe that ourselves or not.

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Lord Emsworth
IIRC the point was rather what humans think about themselves and no so much what they actually are. Moreover, "shortcomings" does not necessarily equal "evil," regardless of whether we believe that ourselves or not.



Ok who thinks they have done nothing wrong.

Shortcomings was being polite . . . .

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Ok who thinks they have done nothing wrong.


No, "who thinks they are evil" and not "who thinks they have done nothing wrong."

"Glancing through the thread it seems that no one (of course) wants to admit shortcomings and perhaps they are evil. "

;)

[Kitty Chan]

alright

who thinks they are evil

who thinks they are good

also

name someone who is evil

name someone who is good



Ok then ? nothing wrong was also polite, its a pain being Canadian :)

[kimiko]

Originally posted by Ossai
There are three Abrahamic religions. Christianity is only one of the three.
There are two more, but they are rather new and many people haven't heard of them: Babism and the Bahai Faith.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Loki
Christian,

Okay, good, that's sort of what I expected...

So now, try this :

1. "Random Nature" creates human nature.
2. Men, via observation, write down this information in the Bible. (a relevation of objective information through use of scientific method)
3. Bible says all humans are evil.
4. Subsequencet experience shows that all humans are evil.
5. Therefore, Bible is correct in this specific area.
6. Therefore, we see one piece of evidence for the existence of Nature.

Why is your proof more, or less, likely than mine? Since the point of this is to try and establish some sort of conclusion (point 6) that in some way validates the initial premsie (point 1) - dubious logic anyway, christian - why is yours in any way "more likely" than mine?

Ok, let's try this:

1. God predestines Israel to be the most powerful nation on earth.
2. Men, a priori, write down this information in the Bible.
3. Bible says Israel will be the most etc..
4. Subsequent experience shows that Israel becomes the most etc.
5. Therefore, Bible is correct in this specific area.
6. Therefore, we see one piece of evidence for the existence of God.


So, I would argue that that (that we are evil) is not the kind of information one can obtain through observation or the scientific method. Instead, it is a personal test that will give each evidence, personal evidence.


Originally posted by c4ts

So always think before you accept, instead of applauding something else that looks kind of like what you believe.

c4ts, I've been here a long time, (BTW, thanks for the analysis, it's no harm in reviewing yet again those celebrated fallacies [specially *begging the question*) and Loki is an old (dare I say) forum friend which I have learned to interact with. He usually likes to do that little order exercise just to have something to work with.

I have to admit it is easier for me just to work with it than to correct his or make up my own, and I feel that its more important to get my point across (as Kitty Chan demonstrates) than to go on endless tangents.

That brings me back to the main thing. What's important (my point) that once a person takes the test, not once but through out his life, he or she will inevitably come to the same conclusion, that being, *yes, I'm evil*. And then a consideration of a final judgement might, just might, make him or her think of the possiblity of a God.

I'm sure you know what I mean.

[69dodge]

Originally posted by Christian
What's important (my point) that once a person takes the test, not once but through out his life, he or she will inevitably come to the same conclusion, that being, *yes, I'm evil*. And then a consideration of a final judgement might, just might, make him or her think of the possiblity of a God.Isn't that kind of backwards? Without God (and a very particular sort of God at that), there's no final judgement nor any firm definition of "evil" to begin with.I'm sure you know what I mean.I think you mean "Pascal's wager," but you don't want to say so explicitly, because no one would take you seriously if you did. So you pretend to present a different sort of argument, but the whole purpose is just to get people thinking about that awful final judgement.

Of course, if someone really doesn't believe in such things, it won't work. And I don't. So it doesn't. :D

[Lord Emsworth]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
alright

who thinks they are evil

who thinks they are good


1. Christians apparantly
2. Maybe you should read Ayn Rand, where man is portrayed as noble.


Originally posted by Kitty Chan
also

name someone who is evil

name someone who is good


Which standards?


Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Ok then ? nothing wrong was also polite, its a pain being Canadian :)


But having done something wrong does not necessarily mean that you are evil. In Christianity, maybe, but outside?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Christian
1. God creates human nature.
2. Men, a priori, write down this information in the Bible. (a relevation of objective information without use of the scientific method)
3. Bible says all humans are evil.
4. Experience shows that all humans are evil.
5. Therefore, Bible is correct in this specific area.
6. Therefore, we see one piece of evidence for the existence of God.

That about it.

It isn't really evidence if a book written by men tells us qualities that men think they have. If they bible said that men are horny and want the sex, I wouldn't be taking it as evidence either.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Ok who thinks they have done nothing wrong.

Shortcomings was being polite . . . .

Kitty...I don't care what people have told you but taking the cookie from the cookie jar isn't evil. Having lustful thoughts isn't evil. Not going to church on sunday isn't evil. Yelling at someone, isn't evil.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by kimiko
There are two more, but they are rather new and many people haven't heard of them: Babism and the Bahai Faith.

My girlfriends roommate was from china and was a bahaist. Took me a while to figure out what her calendar was. Is it christian? Is it muslim?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Christian
Ok, let's try this:

1. God predestines Israel to be the most powerful nation on earth.
2. Men, a priori, write down this information in the Bible.
3. Bible says Israel will be the most etc..
4. Subsequent experience shows that Israel becomes the most etc.
5. Therefore, Bible is correct in this specific area.
6. Therefore, we see one piece of evidence for the existence of God.


I'm unaware of any point in history when isreal was the most powerful nation on the earth. Please point me to one.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
alright

who thinks they are evil

who thinks they are good

also

name someone who is evil

name someone who is good


If we can agree on a list of people who are good, then can we end this thread? If we can even agree on one single human being who was good, can we end this thread?

[bluess]

If you want to end the thread then you know in your heart you're evil. :D

[RussDill]

Originally posted by bluess
If you want to end the thread then you know in your heart you're evil. :D

shucks

[Kitty Chan]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan
alright

who thinks they are evil

who thinks they are good
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply by Lord Emsworth
1. Christians apparantly
2. Maybe you should read Ayn Rand, where man is portrayed as noble.

Sticking with what Christian said and the intent of the thread. While you may have a point of what an average christian thinks and possibly what Ayn Rand thinks. What do you think? :)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kitty Chan
also

name someone who is evil

name someone who is good
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Which standards?.

Standards of good and bad that everyone seems to know.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Kitty Chan
Ok then ? nothing wrong was also polite, its a pain being Canadian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But having done something wrong does not necessarily mean that you are evil. In Christianity, maybe, but outside?.

Wrong was polite as I said. The actual word was evil.

In christianity evil is the nature of man, all men even non christians. Mans first inclination is to follow that. It DOES not mean he wont do some good just that the easier path is to do whatever one wants rather than think of the best thing or what would be good for others rather than himself.

Another way to think of the whole thing something that most seldom think of is humility. But thats associated with weakness, so most dont want to go there either.

Along those lines :)

[Ossai]

name someone who is good
Any newborn baby. (remember no qualifier was placed included.)

[Christian]

Originally posted by Kitty Chan

Wrong was polite as I said. The actual word was evil.

In christianity evil is the nature of man, all men even non christians. Mans first inclination is to follow that. It DOES not mean he wont do some good just that the easier path is to do whatever one wants rather than think of the best thing or what would be good for others rather than himself.

Another way to think of the whole thing something that most seldom think of is humility. But thats associated with weakness, so most dont want to go there either.

Along those lines :)

There is no doubt in my mind that the posters involved in this discussion know exactly what I'm talking about and the intent of the thread.

But, of course, if the test's outcome is compatible with Christian doctrine, that is not something to admit.

Originally posted by Ossai

Any newborn baby. (remember no qualifier was placed included.)

This answer would be one confirmation of the test.

How do you know? Because, as any parent will attest to, children are inclined to cruelty, selfishness, etc. Act that we would consider evil among adults. We excuse such behavior because we know we must educate them. We try our best to extinguish this inclination for these types of behavior.

And you know what, children are a good evidence that humans are inclined to evil.

Please, please, (because I'm sure skeptics are salivating at the chance to pounch at this) I'm not saying children are evil in the secular sense. And I want to emphazise this is the most forceful way. I'm referring to a philosophical concept of evil, that all humans are inclined to do what is wrong, knowing full well it is wrong and children exemplify this characteristic in humans.

[Ossai]

Christian
How do you know? Because, as any parent will attest to, children are inclined to cruelty, selfishness, etc. Act that we would consider evil among adults. We excuse such behavior because we know we must educate them. We try our best to extinguish this inclination for these types of behavior.
1. You are stating that when a baby dies it goes straight to hell.
2. You are also attacking a strawman – I specifically said newborn, not 2 year old, 1 year old or even 1 month old.


I'm referring to a philosophical concept of evil, that all humans are inclined to do what is wrong, knowing full well it is wrong and children exemplify this characteristic in humans. But very young children don’t know their actions are wrong.

What about the mentally handicap that can’t grasp the concept of good or evil? Are they immediately bound to hell because they can’t ask for and understand forgiveness?

Ossai

[Christian]

Originally posted by Ossai
Christian

1. You are stating that when a baby dies it goes straight to hell.

No, I'm not.

2. You are also attacking a strawman – I specifically said newborn, not 2 year old, 1 year old or even 1 month old.

Listen, it is obvious what you doing. But, you are missing that with that answer you are confirming the test. Think of it, if only newborns are not evil simply because they don't have the mental capacity to be evil, then you have admitted that once the mental capacity is there, humans are evil.


But very young children don’t know their actions are wrong.

How do you know this? How young?

What about the mentally handicap that can’t grasp the concept of good or evil? Are they immediately bound to hell because they can’t ask for and understand forgiveness?

No, they are not. And again by using this example you confirm the outcome of the test (at least in your mind) because you are saying only someone without normal mental capacity can't be evil? Yes, also people on comas can't be evil.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Christian

No, they are not. And again by using this example you confirm the outcome of the test (at least in your mind) because you are saying only someone without normal mental capacity can't be evil? Yes, also people on comas can't be evil.

So lemme follow the logic:

a) all men are evil
b) jesus was a man
c) jesus is evil.

[Krandal2]

Christian,

I agree that by the definition provided in the bible all men are evil but isn't it a case of circular logic to suggest that this fact proves something in the bible is true?

[chance]

Christian Think of it, if only newborns are not evil simply because they don't have the mental capacity to be evil, then you have admitted that once the mental capacity is there, humans are evil. Bit of a logical leap that, it would be more correct if you had stated, “once the mental capacity is there, humans have the capacity to be evil�.

[Ossai]

Christian
How do you know? Because, as any parent will attest to, children are inclined to cruelty, selfishness, etc. Act that we would consider evil among adults.
1. You are stating that when a baby dies it goes straight to hell.
Listen, it is obvious what you doing. But, you are missing that with that answer you are confirming the test. Think of it, if only newborns are not evil simply because they don't have the mental capacity to be evil, then you have admitted that once the mental capacity is there, humans are evil. Now you are saying that once a certain degree of intelligence is reached people automatically become evil. Are you agreeing with my first statement that newborns are not evil? If you are, then you’ve just agreed that your test is faulty. If you are not then you are stating that if a baby dies it goes straight to hell. Which BTW, was official church doctrine until purgatory was invented. The protestants did away with purgatory and said babies/children were innocent and went straight to heaven.

No, they are not. And again by using this example you confirm the outcome of the test (at least in your mind) because you are saying only someone without normal mental capacity can't be evil? Yes, also people on comas can't be evil. You are very good at erecting starwmen. If you read what I wrote I was asking you a question, not making a statement.

Ossai

[maddafinga]

Originally posted by Christian
There is no doubt in my mind that the posters involved in this discussion know exactly what I'm talking about and the intent of the thread.

But, of course, if the test's outcome is compatible with Christian doctrine, that is not something to admit.

Yes, I know what your intent was, but I won't give you the premise that god exists, so your test is extremely faulty Prove that to me and I'll fall right in line with you.

Just because something is compatable with christian doctrine, doesn't mean that as an atheist I avoid it like the plauge. I believe in things and act in many ways that are completely compatable with christian doctrine, I just don't have the belief in god.




How do you know? Because, as any parent will attest to, children are inclined to cruelty, selfishness, etc. Act that we would consider evil among adults. We excuse such behavior because we know we must educate them. We try our best to extinguish this inclination for these types of behavior.

And you know what, children are a good evidence that humans are inclined to evil.

Please, please, (because I'm sure skeptics are salivating at the chance to pounch at this) I'm not saying children are evil in the secular sense. And I want to emphazise this is the most forceful way. I'm referring to a philosophical concept of evil, that all humans are inclined to do what is wrong, knowing full well it is wrong and children exemplify this characteristic in humans.

Once again though, and most importantly, how are you defining evil?? You've used the word in ways that don't really add up to me, since when is there a secular meaning of evil seperate from a religious one? To me there is a pretty vast difference between doing something evil and doing something wrong. Stalin was evil, Yakoff Smirnoff is just wrong.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Krandal2
Christian,

I agree that by the definition provided in the bible all men are evil but isn't it a case of circular logic to suggest that this fact proves something in the bible is true?

Yes, indeed.

This tests proves nothing, and as I've said repeteadly, for most it shows nothing either.

But, there will be a few that will ponder on the idea, and consider it.

Specifically, make people say they are moral and good, knowing full well that that is a front, that it is not true.

[Ossai]

Christian
Yes, indeed.

This tests proves nothing, and as I've said repeteadly, for most it shows nothing either. So the only test you have to provide any evidence, not even proof but merely the hint of evidence, is meaningless. And this is the best you can come up with in support of your god? Wait, it doesn’t even limited to your god since a number of others would also fit the bill.

Ossai

[Christian]

Originally posted by maddafinga

Once again though, and most importantly, how are you defining evil?? You've used the word in ways that don't really add up to me, since when is there a secular meaning of evil seperate from a religious one? To me there is a pretty vast difference between doing something evil and doing something wrong. Stalin was evil, Yakoff Smirnoff is just wrong.

I have defined evil. I will do it again. I know I'm evil because I know something is wrong but I still do it. I can give you multiple examples.

1. Downloading music without paying for it
2. Using company time for personal use.
3. Driving under the influence.

You might say, hey, that is not evil, it's wrong but not evil.

I would say that those are evidence of what people do when they could get away with it. But, if there weren't any laws against other types of crimes, we would commit them, if we were able to get away with them.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Ossai
Christian
So the only test you have to provide any evidence, not even proof but merely the hint of evidence, is meaningless. And this is the best you can come up with in support of your god? Wait, it doesn’t even limited to your god since a number of others would also fit the bill.

Ossai

It can be meaningless to you. And forgive me, your assumption is wrong. I don't have to come up with anything in support of my God.

[Ossai]

Christian
It can be meaningless to you.
It is meaningless, you even said as much. (color mine)
This tests proves nothing, and as I've said repeteadly, for most it shows nothing either.


And forgive me, your assumption is wrong. I don't have to come up with anything in support of my God. If god can support himself then why doesn’t he?

I don’t see your god coming up with anything in support of himself or in support of anyone else for that matter.

YHWH, the deadbeat god.

Ossai

[wollery]

Originally posted by Christian
I have defined evil. I will do it again. I know I'm evil because I know something is wrong but I still do it. I can give you multiple examples.

1. Downloading music without paying for it
2. Using company time for personal use.
3. Driving under the influence.

You might say, hey, that is not evil, it's wrong but not evil.

I would say that those are evidence of what people do when they could get away with it. But, if there weren't any laws against other types of crimes, we would commit them, if we were able to get away with them. Absolute cobblers!

I've had plenty of opportunities to get away with things that were utterly illegal, not to say immoral, with absolutely no chance that anyone would catch me. Did I take these opportunities? NO. Because it would have been wrong of me to take advantage of these situations. There was no fear of punishment, as I said, there was no chance of me being caught.

You say that the only thing that stops us committing crimes or hurting other people is fear of punishment, either in this life or the next. But I don't believe in god, and thus don't believe in eternal punishment for sins, and I wasn't afraid of being caught and punished, so what do you think stopped me from taking advantage of my opportunities?

[wollery]

Actually I've spent the last few minutes thinking about this some more, and it's terrifying the crap out of me.

If you believe that the only reason not to do things is fear of eternal punishment then you can justify anything on the basis that you won't be eternally punished for it. Such as denying the rights of atheists (George Bush Snr said that he didn't consider atheists to be American citizens, so much for the ideas that everyone is created equal and has the freedom to believe what they want!). From there it's not much of a leap to including muslims, jews, or anyone of a different religion. After all, they're not christians, so they're going to hell anyway, aren't they? You should try to convert them, and punish them if they won't convert (the Spanish inquisition got that idea a few hundred years ago), it's gods will after all, so you won't be punished for it. Of course, you have to stop them trying to spread their ungodly beliefs, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to simply wipe them from the face of the Earth, god won't mind, in fact he'll be pleased as punch that you're ridding the world of false prophets, unbelievers and heretics. So now you're into genocide, but you're free to do it with a smile on your face and whistling your favourite tune, because god won't punish you for it, it's his will that you do it.

Is that how you see the world Christian?

If the church leaders said that it was okay to kill muslims and the US government passed a law to make the killing of muslims no longer a crime, would you go out and kill muslims?

Well would you?

Because that's what your posts suggest, and in my book that makes you a scary b@stard.

[maddafinga]

Originally posted by Christian
I have defined evil. I will do it again. I know I'm evil because I know something is wrong but I still do it. I can give you multiple examples.

1. Downloading music without paying for it
2. Using company time for personal use.
3. Driving under the influence.

You might say, hey, that is not evil, it's wrong but not evil.

I would say that those are evidence of what people do when they could get away with it. But, if there weren't any laws against other types of crimes, we would commit them, if we were able to get away with them.

I would in fact say that two of those things are in fact wrong, none is evil. I think you need to seriously examine the meaning of evil versus behaving selfishly or doing something wrong. Read a book on John Wayne Gacy or Joe Stalin or Hitler, or any number of people who really were evil. Wasting time on the company clock is not in remotely the same league, in fact, not even on the same planetary system as say, being a mass murderer or child molester.

I refrain from committing all sorts of crimes all the time, not because I fear punishment, but because I'm not a criminal. I try to be a good person and do the right thing, because I think that's the way to be.

Let me further say that the fact someting is illegal never ever stopped that thing from being done. Murder is illegal, yet murders still occur. The same goes for armed robbery or any number of other crimes. All illegality does is establish punishments for people committing those acts.

There is an article you should read, it's on this very site. Read "The Reagan Doctrine" by Isaac Asimov.
http://www.randi.org/jr/062504interesting.html#3. It addresses some of the concerns people should have with your line of reasoning.

[Christian]

Originally posted by wollery
Absolute cobblers!

I've had plenty of opportunities to get away with things that were utterly illegal, not to say immoral, with absolutely no chance that anyone would catch me. Did I take these opportunities? NO. Because it would have been wrong of me to take advantage of these situations. There was no fear of punishment, as I said, there was no chance of me being caught.


It would have been wrong? Why?

You say that the only thing that stops us committing crimes or hurting other people is fear of punishment, either in this life or the next. But I don't believe in god, and thus don't believe in eternal punishment for sins, and I wasn't afraid of being caught and punished, so what do you think stopped me from taking advantage of my opportunities?

Well, the thing is, society as a whole doesn't trust you (or anyone else). We live in a world where we take the opposite as the premise. And I, for one, would not take your word for it.

Let me go further. If I were to put my materialist-atheist hat on, I don't see any argument against taking full advantage of every posible situation. If survival is the ultimate goal (remember, we only get one shot on life). Then, in the name of survival, anything goes.

[Christian]

I want to make something very clear. With the comments that follow I'm only attacking a philosophy by showing the logical conclusion where the philosophy lead. (materialism leads to that conclusion) Clearly, a view which I don't hold.

Originally posted by maddafinga
I would in fact say that two of those things are in fact wrong, none is evil. I think you need to seriously examine the meaning of evil versus behaving selfishly or doing something wrong. Read a book on John Wayne Gacy or Joe Stalin or Hitler, or any number of people who really were evil. Wasting time on the company clock is not in remotely the same league, in fact, not even on the same planetary system as say, being a mass murderer or child molester.

Why would an atheist call anyone evil? Why are they not in the same leage in terms of evil? Clearly not in the same leage in terms of physical consequences, but what difference is there in terms of doing something you are not suppose to do?

I refrain from committing all sorts of crimes all the time, not because I fear punishment, but because I'm not a criminal. I try to be a good person and do the right thing, because I think that's the way to be.

Why do you thing this is the way to be? The way you say it, sound like it's a matter of taste.

Let me further say that the fact someting is illegal never ever stopped that thing from being done. Murder is illegal, yet murders still occur. The same goes for armed robbery or any number of other crimes. All illegality does is establish punishments for people committing those acts.

From my experience, punishment stops most people from doing something illegal. And most (if not all) who commit them, thought that they could get away with it.

[Ossai]

Christian
I want to make something very clear. With the comments that follow I'm only attacking a philosophy by showing the logical conclusion where the philosophy lead.
Given by Christian doctrine:
1. Babies are innocent and immediately go to heaven when they die
2. No matter who you are or what you’ve done, you can sincerely ask forgiveness from god/Jesus and have it granted
3. When a child ‘comes of age’ / reaches the age of accountability they are responsible and if they die without asking forgiveness they go straight to hell

Therefore:
Since a vast number of people and countries are non-christian, a Christians duty should be to kill as many unbelievers as early as possible to insure that the largest number go to heaven.

So Christian, when are you going to starting the bombings?

Ossai

[username]

Originally posted by Christian
I want to make something very clear. With the comments that follow I'm only attacking a philosophy by showing the logical conclusion where the philosophy lead. (materialism leads to that conclusion) Clearly, a view which I don't hold.

No, you are only attacking a caricature of the view. Your own Christian worldview believes that other worldviews are of the devil and your faith system cannot tolerate evidence to the contrary therefore you see only what you wish to see which is why you attack strawmen. You aren't lying to us with your , you are lying to yourself as you are the only one who cannot see.

Why would an atheist call anyone evil? Why are they not in the same leage in terms of evil? Clearly not in the same leage in terms of physical consequences, but what difference is there in terms of doing something you are not suppose to do?

Some xian sects have this philosophy/theology that sin is sin in the eyes of god. However among us mere mortals we are more nuanced and we draw distinctions among the various types of wrongs. When one allows for distinctions or degrees it is easy to see that Hitler was worse than the shoplifter who stole to feed his family.

From my experience, punishment stops most people from doing something illegal. And most (if not all) who commit them, thought that they could get away with it.

Well there are many reasons people will avoid doing things. The most primative of those reasons is fear of punishment. This is what primative religions like xianity and Islam are based upon. Conform or be killed, tormented for eternity. Significantly more evolved is the notion of universal rights, or the idea that I need to treat people as I want them to treat me because we all have the same rights. If I am to have my rights respected I must respect the rights of others.

Certainly there are many criminals would thought they would get away with their wrong deeds, but it is also certain that there are more people who avoid doing wrong because they accept it is wrong and therefore simply shouldn't be done.

[Loki]

Christian,

I'm only attacking a philosophy by showing the logical conclusion where the philosophy lead.
Then if it's so clear and logical, present it as a formal logical proof, with premises leading to conclusion. Please. Otherwise I'm forced to conclude that what you really mean here is that it's "your opinion" and it "feels right" to you.

(username wrote): The most primative of those reasons is fear of punishment. ... Significantly more evolved is the notion of universal rights
ssshh!! That's an very elitest thing to say - Christian doesn't like any inference that his faith is perhaps past it's use-by date.

[wollery]

Originally posted by Christian
It would have been wrong? Why?Because it is wrong to hurt other human beings, either physically or emotionally.

Forget laws and religious commandments, there is a far greater driver - do as you would be done by. If I don't respect other people's lives, property, feelings, then why should they respect mine. I treat everyone as I would wish them to treat me. No need for religion or laws, I already have a personal moral code that prevents me doing harm to others.
Well, the thing is, society as a whole doesn't trust you (or anyone else). We live in a world where we take the opposite as the premise. And I, for one, would not take your word for it.Would you take the word of a committed christian? Because US jails are full of them.

Let me go further. If I were to put my materialist-atheist hat on, I don't see any argument against taking full advantage of every posible situation. If survival is the ultimate goal (remember, we only get one shot on life). Then, in the name of survival, anything goes. You don't have a materialist-atheist hat. You have no idea what it's like to not believe in god, and your argument is a strawman. You are a committed christian, and you have your moral belief system utterly based in christian dogma.

I notice that you haven't responded to my second post, so here it is again. Please answer the questions.
If you believe that the only reason not to do things is fear of eternal punishment then you can justify anything on the basis that you won't be eternally punished for it. Such as denying the rights of atheists (George Bush Snr said that he didn't consider atheists to be American citizens, so much for the ideas that everyone is created equal and has the freedom to believe what they want!). From there it's not much of a leap to including muslims, jews, or anyone of a different religion. After all, they're not christians, so they're going to hell anyway, aren't they? You should try to convert them, and punish them if they won't convert (the Spanish inquisition got that idea a few hundred years ago), it's gods will after all, so you won't be punished for it. Of course, you have to stop them trying to spread their ungodly beliefs, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to simply wipe them from the face of the Earth, god won't mind, in fact he'll be pleased as punch that you're ridding the world of false prophets, unbelievers and heretics. So now you're into genocide, but you're free to do it with a smile on your face and whistling your favourite tune, because god won't punish you for it, it's his will that you do it.

Is that how you see the world Christian?

If the church leaders said that it was okay to kill muslims and the US government passed a law to make the killing of muslims no longer a crime, would you go out and kill muslims?

[Christian]

Sorry to respond so so late. But anyway...

Originally posted by wollery
Because it is wrong to hurt other human beings, either physically or emotionally.

Why is it wrong? Who can rightfully dictate what is wrong? Please don't confuse this question with, who can rightfully dictate what is legal or illegal. That has an obvious answer.

Forget laws and religious commandments, there is a far greater driver - do as you would be done by. If I don't respect other people's lives, property, feelings, then why should they respect mine.

But your conclusion is faulty, it just does not follow. That you respect other people's lives, property, feelings, etc. does not equate to them respecting yours and vice versa. That should be obvious. It's a nice idea, but it has no basis in reality.

I treat everyone as I would wish them to treat me. No need for religion or laws, I already have a personal moral code that prevents me doing harm to others.

Ok, but that does not translate into others treating you as you would like to be treated and your personal moral code does not prevent others from doing harm to you.

Would you take the word of a committed christian? Because US jails are full of them.

That's the point. I don't take the word of anyone. I believe in a higher power. If there is no higher power, them any action is good or bad depending on who is doing the acting and the effects of it.

You don't have a materialist-atheist hat. You have no idea what it's like to not believe in god, and your argument is a strawman. You are a committed christian, and you have your moral belief system utterly based in christian dogma.

This is irrelevant. From the materialist-atheist view, qualitatively the source is the same, a human being, whatever you want to call it. So, how do you determine which source is better?

Why is the golden rule a qualitatively better rule than the survival of the fittest. The latter seems to work just fine in the animal kingdom.

I notice that you haven't responded to my second post, so here it is again. Please answer the questions.

Not intentional.

If you believe that the only reason not to do things is fear of eternal punishment then you can justify anything on the basis that you won't be eternally punished for it. Such as denying the rights of atheists (George Bush Snr said that he didn't consider atheists to be American citizens, so much for the ideas that everyone is created equal and has the freedom to believe what they want!).

Now, this IS a strawman.

From there it's not much of a leap to including muslims, jews, or anyone of a different religion. After all, they're not christians, so they're going to hell anyway, aren't they? You should try to convert them, and punish them if they won't convert (the Spanish inquisition got that idea a few hundred years ago), it's gods will after all, so you won't be punished for it. Of course, you have to stop them trying to spread their ungodly beliefs, and one of the easiest ways to do that is to simply wipe them from the face of the Earth, god won't mind, in fact he'll be pleased as punch that you're ridding the world of false prophets, unbelievers and heretics. So now you're into genocide, but you're free to do it with a smile on your face and whistling your favourite tune, because god won't punish you for it, it's his will that you do it.

And the strawman continues.

Is that how you see the world Christian?

No.

If the church leaders said that it was okay to kill muslims and the US government passed a law to make the killing of muslims no longer a crime, would you go out and kill muslims

No.

[Loki]

Christian,

Why is the golden rule a qualitatively better rule than the survival of the fittest. The latter seems to work just fine in the animal kingdom.
At the individual level - because 'survival for the fittest' cannot be embraced equally by all individuals. The strongest will love it, and weakest will hate it. It can't be universally accepted, because it isn't universally applicable. Therefore half the people in such a system are always trying to overturn it.

[Roboramma]

Originally posted by Christian
But your conclusion is faulty, it just does not follow. That you respect other people's lives, property, feelings, etc. does not equate to them respecting yours and vice versa. That should be obvious. It's a nice idea, but it has no basis in reality.
Here, I'll make it simple, at least as applies to my own views of morality.
I feel that I have the right to be treated a certain way. This includes a lot of things, but here's one, the right not to be tortured. What do I base this right on? The fact that I don't want it to happen to me and the fact that I feel wronged if it is. Where this feeling comes from is inconsequencial - I think I comes from my brain's physiology, but that doesn't matter, I still have the feeling.
But then a problem arises, is I grant myself this right, and I can see no difference between myself and anyone else - they all experience pain for instance - then in order to be logically consitent I must extend this right to them as well.


Ok, but that does not translate into others treating you as you would like to be treated and your personal moral code does not prevent others from doing harm to you.

Of course not. My personal moral code (and I think the poster you were responding to) just says that it's wrong for them to do that. And that by extension it would be wrong for me to do wrong to them.

Now here's a question for you. If your morality is based entirely on what god says, then is it wrong for someone who is being physically abused by their father to disobey their father?
If not, why not? (note that I am not suggesting that you think it would be wrong for this person to disobey his/her father, just to justify that with the belief that morality comes from god, ie. tell me where god says this is ok.)

[Roboramma]

Originally posted by Christian
Christian doctrine teaches that there will be a final judgement.
Accepted for the sake of arguement.

All the deeds will be shown and will demonstrate that the person was evil.
You have absolutely no proof of this statement. Nor does anyone. Proof aside though, I'd like you to give at least some reason to believe it is true.
You may be able to say that you are evil, but what reason do you have to believe that everyone is evil?
Is it because the bible says so? Do you see how circular that argument is?
1. The bible says everyone is evil.
2. The bible is always right.
3. Thefore everyone is evil.
4. Thefore the bible is correct.
????


There's a way to test this doctrine. According to it, every person knows in his or her heart that he or she is evil because each is witness of his or her actions.
Change knows that to knows if so that you aren't assuming your conclusion and I'll say maybe. But only maybe. Because you are also assuming that people really do know if they are evil. Alas human nature tends toward self-deception and rationalisation, often times we do this without even realising it, so self-analysis might not uncover it. You haven't offered any evidence whatever that evil people really do know in their hearts that they are evil.


Unfortunately, it is an exclusive personal test. The only person that can verify the results is the person taking the test.
Given. But what is it a personal test of? Whether or not a person thinks they are evil? Okay, sure, no problem there.
But if you claim it's a test of the existance of God, I really don't follow your logic. Please spell it out. And if you claim that it's evidence of the existance of your god, I really don't follow.

Oh, and by the way, this test cannot by your own definition give evidence that all people are evil. Unless you mean that one person's belief that he is evil is evidence that all people are evil.

But, if we know we are evil, then that is evidence of God.
Why is that again?

Oh, and by the way, I don't think I'm evil. Nor do alot of people on this forum. Why do you disbelieve us? Is it because of your religous belief? If so, how can this be used as evidence of your religious belief?

[Robin]

I am assuming that the OP is based on C.S Lewis argument that we all know what the moral law is but we do not follow it. It is contained in "Mere Christianity" and is summarised in the introduction to "The Problem of Pain".

It seems to me that if we do wrong and we know it is wrong and we feel sorry for it then we are not evil. It seems that an evil person would be rather pleased with themselves. So I do the wrong thing and feel bad about it, then I don't think that I am evil.

I look around and see people who look out for friends and family, do favours with no expectation of return, sacrifice for their children etc... I see people risking or losing their lives for their country. Then I cannot see that people on the whole are evil, quite the opposite.

Of course when people are evil they get a lot of attention and so are disproportionately prominent in our minds, but we must look at the majority and ask if they are represented by such people - I believe they are not, why else do we feel that such people are evil?

The doctrine of human wickedness or depravity seems to be on the whole rather opposite to what I observe, and so I am forced to reject the idea.

Now why would an atheist have morality? It appears to me that morality is based on the inherent traits of compassion and empathy that humans have. We do not know exactly why we have these traits but it does not seem unlikely that this can be an important survival characteristic for animals that depend on social groupings.

While there is a general agreement on the basics of morality (not surprising in that we all have basically the same model brains) there are fairly large areas of disagreement, even within a single religious grouping. It is unlikely that the Metropolitan Community Church and the Southern Baptist Convention will agree on much or Shelby Spong and Jerry Falwell. The Church of England appears to be tearing itself apart internationally over differences in morality.

So on the whole the idea that humanity is evil does not have much supporting evidence and any belief system that depended on this idea would have to be suspect.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Loki
Christian,


At the individual level - because 'survival for the fittest' cannot be embraced equally by all individuals. The strongest will love it, and weakest will hate it. It can't be universally accepted, because it isn't universally applicable. Therefore half the people in such a system are always trying to overturn it.


Being universally accepted is relevant because? And this idea does not only apply to individuals. It also applies to nations, systems, groups, subgroups, etc. So, the individual level might just be irrelevent.

And that would be one route of many. How about the idea of "domination of the powerful over the weak. Why wouldn't that idea be qualitatively equal to any other option?

[Christian]

Originally posted by Roboramma

I'd like you to give at least some reason to believe it is true.
You may be able to say that you are evil, but what reason do you have to believe that everyone is evil?

Wait, I say that if everyone is evil, then that shows evidence of God.

Is it because the bible says so? Do you see how circular that argument is?
1. The bible says everyone is evil.
2. The bible is always right.
3. Thefore everyone is evil.
4. Thefore the bible is correct.
????


The bible says everyone is evil.

If everyone is evil, then the Bible is correct in this respect.

That predictive power shows evidence of God.

Change knows that to knows if so that you aren't assuming your conclusion and I'll say maybe. But only maybe. Because you are also assuming that people really do know if they are evil.

Yes, correct. I have to assume that people have the capacity to know they are.

Alas human nature tends toward self-deception and rationalisation, often times we do this without even realising it, so self-analysis might not uncover it. You haven't offered any evidence whatever that evil people really do know in their hearts that they are evil.

Alas, it is the ultimate personal test. You know and you know for certain. (when I say you, I don't mean you)


Oh, and by the way, this test cannot by your own definition give evidence that all people are evil. Unless you mean that one person's belief that he is evil is evidence that all people are evil.


Why is that again?

Because of the predictive power of the Bible.

Oh, and by the way, I don't think I'm evil. Nor do alot of people on this forum. Why do you disbelieve us? Is it because of your religous belief? If so, how can this be used as evidence of your religious belief?

1. If you don't think you are evil, then you have, in fact, disproved (at least to you) that God exists.
2. I do not disbelieve you. I make no judgements. It is a personal test. Only you and you alone know if you act immorally according to your own standards. (that you break the rules that you yourself know are wrong to break)

[Christian]

Originally posted by Robin

So on the whole the idea that humanity is evil does not have much supporting evidence and any belief system that depended on this idea would have to be suspect.

You are kidding right. Africa???

[Loki]

Christian,

I'll ignore our last exchange, and return to the original point you've made. There seems to a lack of clarity at the very start...

Why is the golden rule a qualitatively better rule than the survival of the fittest. The latter seems to work just finethe animal kingdom.
"Work just fine" is a poorly defined phrase. Species die out all the time in the 'animal kingdom'. Survival of the fittest gives no species a guarantee of survival, simply a chance. And like any system involving chance, sometimes you lose. "Survival of the fittest" works not just within a species, but between species.

So if we want to maximise the chance of humanity surviving (as a species) then we need to find the best possible process - "survival of the fittest" has a chance of failure, so looking for something better is a reasonable approach don't you think?

So if we assume we are looking for something better, then why does the 'golden rule' fit the bill? I'd say that when people cooperate they achieve more. We are heard/social animals and need to move in groups. We work better in groups. Cooperation increases positive outcomes. "Survival of the fittest" reduces cooperation. The 'golden rule' increases cooperation.

[arthwollipot]

I don't think I'm evil. I have never felt an urge to hurt or kill anybody. I guess that means that God doesn't exist.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Christian

The bible says everyone is evil.

If everyone is evil, then the Bible is correct in this respect.

That predictive power shows evidence of God.



The bible is correct in many respects. It mentions Egypt, and Egypt clearly exists and existed in the past.

Just because the bible says something right, doesn't mean it's all right, especially if it was written by humans and was not divinley inspired.

Oh, and I don't believe that everyone is evil anyway.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Christian
If you ask, how do you know you are lying? It is simple, if you consistently choose to do what is wrong when allowed, when no one can stop you from it, then you know you are lying. If conversely, you consistently choose to do what is right when allowed to do what is wrong, then you have falsified Christianity. Great. I've just falsified Christianity according to you. Let me give you an example. When I go shopping, I check my change, and tell the shopkeeper when s/he's undercharged/overchanged me. I could just walk off with the money --- it's an undetectable crime, and even if someone did subsequently notice, there would be no way to prove that I'd noticed. Hence this would be a profitable crime which could under no circumstances be brought home to me. According to you, my preference of right over wrong under these circumstances refutes Christianity.

Of course, since the whole of your argument seems to rest on calling people liars, I suppose you could wriggle out of this by calling me a liar. But you'd only be convincing yourself.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Christian
How can a society survive if one can't own things!!! So, the point is, I know I'm not suppose to take what is not mine. Yet I do. What do you steal?

If you stopped stealing --- for example, if you were somehow made to feel that right is better than wrong --- would this be an argument against Christianity?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Christian
... the predictive power of the Bible ... "The world also shall be stable, that it be not moved." 1 Chronicles 16:30

"The pillars of the earth are the LORD's, and he hath set the world upon them." 1 Samuel 2:8

"Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof." --- Job 38:4-6

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" --- Isaiah 40:22

"Bless the LORD... who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain...who walketh upon the wings of the wind... Who laid the foundations of the earth, that it should not be removed for ever." Psalms 104:1-5

"Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth: the world also shall be established that it shall not be moved." Psalms 96:10
:dl:

[Loki]

Um.. Dr,

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" --- Isaiah 40:22


Christian has actually used this example (2 years ago here on the JREF) to show the predictive power of the bible! If you were to view earth from the moon, it would like a circle - so clearly the author of Isaiah was somehow able to know this information. This, the bible is true.

[Hawk one]

Originally posted by Loki
So if we assume we are looking for something better, then why does the 'golden rule' fit the bill? I'd say that when people cooperate they achieve more. We are heard/social animals and need to move in groups. We work better in groups. Cooperation increases positive outcomes. "Survival of the fittest" reduces cooperation. The 'golden rule' increases cooperation.

I would have to disagree a bit with you here. THe way I see it, "Survival of the fittest", or rather "natural selection" won't reduce or increase co-operation in itself. However, for some species it will in certain situations (depending on the enviroment) be an advantage to co-operate. And in those cases, if individuals are born that are more capable of co-operation, they will gain an advantage from this, thus increasing (but not ensuring, of course) that they will manage to breed, and create more individuals that co-operate, etc.

Or to put it another way: I believe people seem to forget that co-operation is also a possible way to fit in with your enviroment and thus (possibly) live longer.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Loki
Christian,

I'll ignore our last exchange, and return to the original point you've made. There seems to a lack of clarity at the very start...

"Work just fine" is a poorly defined phrase. Species die out all the time in the 'animal kingdom'. Survival of the fittest gives no species a guarantee of survival, simply a chance. And like any system involving chance, sometimes you lose. "Survival of the fittest" works not just within a species, but between species.

So if we want to maximise the chance of humanity surviving (as a species) then we need to find the best possible process - "survival of the fittest" has a chance of failure, so looking for something better is a reasonable approach don't you think?

So if we assume we are looking for something better, then why does the 'golden rule' fit the bill?

From the materialist-atheist point of view it would be one of worst strategies for the ultimate survival of humans. Just look at the numbers.

http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldpop.html


I'd say that when people cooperate they achieve more. We are heard/social animals and need to move in groups. We work better in groups. Cooperation increases positive outcomes. "Survival of the fittest" reduces cooperation. The 'golden rule' increases cooperation.

If materialism-atheist is true, the golden rule is the sure way to destroy the entire human race. If all humans continue to survive, there will be a point where the resources will simply not be enough for everyone. I know you see my point.

[Christian]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
Great. I've just falsified Christianity according to you. Let me give you an example. When I go shopping, I check my change, and tell the shopkeeper when s/he's undercharged/overchanged me. I could just walk off with the money --- it's an undetectable crime, and even if someone did subsequently notice, there would be no way to prove that I'd noticed. Hence this would be a profitable crime which could under no circumstances be brought home to me. According to you, my preference of right over wrong under these circumstances refutes Christianity.

Of course, since the whole of your argument seems to rest on calling people liars, I suppose you could wriggle out of this by calling me a liar. But you'd only be convincing yourself.

Who's calling anyone a liar? You and you alone know the strength of your argument and that is sufficient.

[username]

The bible says that even man's best deeds are like filthy rags to god. Basically the standard to please this god is set so high that it is unattainable.

Thus, we are all evil because we are unable to meet this god's standard no matter how hard we try.

Pretty ridiculous standard if you ask me.

Why bother trying for that which is unattainable? I mean if failure is guaranteed and trying means having less fun and being more of an ass to those around me, why bother when I end up in eternal hellfire for eternity anyway?

Perhaps the most logical part of the bible is when it says "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die".

That is one piece of biblical advice I follow every day.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Christian
Who's calling anyone a liar? You and you alone know the strength of your argument and that is sufficient. Er... it's by your argument and not mine that this disproves Christianity.

I think the argument is rubbish. But it's yours.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Christian
If materialism-atheist is true, the golden rule is the sure way to destroy the entire human race. If all humans continue to survive, there will be a point where the resources will simply not be enough for everyone. I know you see my point. No, I don't see your point.

In a world with high population and scarce resources, everyone would wish that everyone else would keep their reproductive rate low and use fewer resources. Applying the golden rule, then, everyone would do so themselves. Problem solved.