Ban All Religions

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

SGTObvious RE:Intention also not a measure for evil. 3/30/2004 11:49:25 AM

FJV, you are confusing evil deeds with evil people. People may be misguided, misinformed, etc, but evil is another step. If you genuinely intend to aid another person but kill him in the attempt, you are not evil, in the USA we even have Good Samaritan laws to protect people in that exact situation. If your judgement is so warped that you cannot recognize a blatantly evil deed, we call that insane, not evil.

Quote Reply

celebrim RE: Green Dragon 3/30/2004 12:15:34 PM

"No, the constructive/destructive dualism is another subject, I was talking about a good/evil dualism, your analogy, while interesting, does not address my main point." No, indeed it does. You just don't see it as an answer to your main point. You have posed the assertion, "If we imagine a purely good universe it would be meaningless." I have responded that then you haven't imagined a purely good universe, but have created a straw man arguement in which you've called something purely good but by definition also evil. A purely good universe would not be vacuous, to which you seem to be responding, "But then it must contain evil." And to that I shake my head no and say, "Good can exist independently of evil just as construction can exist independently of destruction, and law can exist without law breakers." In other words, I don't agree that good and evil are inseparable, nor do I agree that they have equal weight. Just as darkness is nothing but the absence of light, so is evil merely the absence of good. If the world was purely good, it might be difficult for those who'd never seen evil to imagine it, but good could exist perfectly fine without the knowledge of evil. "You're missing the point, SYMBOLISM is one of the core foci of religion, the names can change, the inherent meaning lives on. If you, as a Christian, want to deny the origins of your ritual, then from my perspective, Christianity is a spiritual chop shop. I welcome your refutation, or anyone elses for that matter." I'm not at all missing the point. You are being self contridictory. Symbolism is not the core of a religion. Symbolism and ritual might be at the core of the participation in a religion but that's not the same thing. As you say yourself, "the names can change, the inherent meaning lives on." Symbols are nothing if they don't symbolize something. If the symbol lives on, but the meaning of it changes, the core of the practice is forgotten. By your argument, people who give thier child candy shaped like rabbits on Easter are still practising the Astereth religion when I contend that they aren't practicing a religion at all because the symbol lived on but's meaning died. In the same way, Easter rituals in many cases did become related to Isis cult practices, but that's hardly surprising because many of the early Christian converts where Isis cultists. The very early practice of the church was Jewish, and the first communions were no more than food fellowship rituals taking place in peoples homes. Yes, Isis rituals got chopped up and used in Christian practice. So what? There is alot of superficial similarity between Mithran blood baptism and Protestant water baptism, but that doesn't mean that they share a common meaning or even common purpose in the religion. Most orthodox Christian groups practice sprinkling baptism, which has almost nothing to do with Mithran blood baptism. "You completely missed the point so I will ask you to make a choice, is it best for humanity to strive for a lovey dovey sweetness and light good, or to evolve by subjugating our worst elements to our best?" No, I didn't miss the point. You keep missing the point. The question is wrong. You are assuming to things which I don't hold to be true - first that pure good leads to weakness, and secondly that evil leads to strength. The whole point of the question is wrong. Health leads to strength. Unhealth leads to weakness. Evil tends to lead to multilation of body, mind, and spirit. Evil destroys your ability to resist hardship, so you can't even make the arguement that it has some practical value. "...good day to you Sir." Doesn't sound particularly tickled to me...

Quote Reply

Green Dragon RE: Green Dragon 3/31/2004 5:28:16 AM

We definitely didn't pick on a harmless baby. >>So the Anti-war protests informed me, rather loudly as a point of fact. And, mind the slight segue, the Islamic world is chock full of predestinationalists >>I never questioned that, please correct my posts if I did. Hey, Do what thou wilt... >>What doest thou wilt? What do you really believe in, that is what sent Crowley to the bin! Do i know? No, I haven't got a f***ing clue! (neither did Crowley, hence the result). Will that stop me searching? Again, NO! Whatever you believe, or choose not to believe is fine by me, I care nothing for the 'A! A!' or the 'Order of Thelema', I seek truth in my own way, irrespective of whether you approve or not, an it harm none, do what thou wilt..

Quote Reply

Green Dragon RE: Green Dragon 3/31/2004 5:42:50 AM

Celebrim, That was a brilliant post! To continue, (if we are both prepared to). No, I didn't miss the point. You keep missing the point. The question is wrong. You are assuming t[w]o things which I don't hold to be true - first that pure good leads to weakness, and secondly that evil leads to strength. The whole point of the question is wrong. Health leads to strength. Unhealth leads to weakness. Evil tends to lead to multilation of body, mind, and spirit. Evil destroys your ability to resist hardship, so you can't even make the arguement that it has some practical value. If I ever asserted that pure good is weakness and that pure evil is strength, please point it out to me. I am not aware that I have ever stated that, however I will acknowledge that there are times I look before I leap, I am grateful for assistance in any way, shape or foem from anyone if I make mistakes. I am not arguing the debilitating nature of evil, rather, my initial response was 'how to identify?'

Quote Reply

American Kafir RE: Green Dragon 3/31/2004 7:42:40 AM

GD, I'm certainly not going to tell you which religion or belief is correct or right for you. I've got friends that won't even chew gum without saying grace first, and I've got friends who are avowed Satanists. I was raised Southern Baptist, but I've picked up and discarded beliefs from all manner of religions and philosophies along the way of my life. For around 5 years and up until a couple of months ago I considered myself an atheist. I probably would still consider myself an atheist if I weren't the lone political conservative at atheist gatherings, but that's another topic entirely. I guess my point is "the map is not the territory." No matter how you phrase the "golden rule" - "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - "An it harm none, do what thou wilt" - "your rights end at the tip of my nose" - etc. if the system of belief or motivating thought excludes or dismisses consideration of worldly consequences or effects of actions it enjoins you to partake in, it likely does resonate with evil. The worst of these are the ones that sound harmless and sacrifice-free. Feeling good doesn't pay the rent, as it were.

Quote Reply

FJV RE:Intention also not a measure for evil. 3/31/2004 11:13:32 AM

You may have a point. But something is nagging me which prevents me to fully accept the reasoning. The reasoning would make a Palestinian suicide bomber who honestly believes he's doing the right thing insane instead of evil. (I think that being bombarded for years and years by Arafats propaganda would create such beliefs) I would still think such a person is evil.

Quote Reply

SGTObvious You have a good point too, FJV 3/31/2004 12:12:51 PM

The line between insane and evil can be fuzzy. But a suicide bomber is clearly not trying to aid, but kill. Even he knows that. But if he truly beleives, truly, that its for a greater good... Is Evil a form of insanity? Well, like I've tried to say on the Eternal Wars Board once, if Good and Evil really were such clear cut absolute and objective concepts, perhaps we wouldn't need God. Or perhaps He wouldn't need us. One of the two. I don't have a good answer for that one.

Quote Reply

celebrim RE:Intention also not a measure for evil. 3/31/2004 1:36:58 PM

As I mentioned earlier, this is not an either/or concept. It's not that your intention totally determines whether something is good or evil, nor is it that you action totally determines whether something is good or evil. And indeed, it's also the case that the result and the motive plays a large role in determining whether something is good or evil. Let's take the case of the suicide bomber that thinks he is doing something to serve his community and his god. No, his motive maybe good, but that doesn't free him from blame. His intention maybe to to liberate his people from oppression, but that also doesn't free him from blame. His action - suicide and homicide - is one which is good only in the most strict of circumstances. He must be defending himself from an attacker while in his home while in a state of confusion, or else he must be appointed by a secular authority to be the guardian of the community and be carrying out duties related to protecting the community. Now we have a problem. The usual objects of a suicide bombing attack aren't 'attackers'. In fact, the fact that you never have a suicide bombing defence ought to raise some eyebrows. The usual objects of a suicide bombing attack are unarmed people - often women and children. The suicide bomber is acting with premediatation. He has not been ambushed. In many cases he is not even in his home. Is Hamas the appointed gaurdian of the community? Possibly so, but is a suicide attack truly something that protects the community and ensures the public peace? And here we get to the real heart of the matter. By no standard can we justify the result of the attack. Sending suicide bombers to Israel does not protect the Palistinian community. Sending suicide bombers to Israel does not insure the peace and order of the Palistinian community. In fact, the results of these actions incur exactly the opposite responce. The more suicide bombers you send to Israel, the more Palestinians die. This is verifiable. Palestinian deaths and attacks on Israel are strongly correllated. By contrast, the more incursions the IDF makes into Palestine - the fewer Israeli's die. IDF attacks on Palestinians are inversely related to Israeli deaths and have been for 20 years. The more they do it, the safer that they are. With no other moral considerations than the practical outcome of the behavior, any reasonable magistrate with the intention of protecting the Palestinian people would then demand that attacks on Israel and Israeli's desist where as any reasonable magistrate with the duty to protect the Israeli people would order that their enemies be attacked until such time as they yield. Beware of people that tell you that something is good no matter the result, as if good motivations and good intentions were justification enough. Beware also of people that justify things based on the result alone, as if they had perfect foreknowledge and God's strong right hand to overcome any difficulty. The ends do not justify the means, nor do the means justify the ends.

Quote Reply

FJV RE:Intention also not a measure for evil. 4/1/2004 12:03:48 PM

I would say that the unwillingness or the inability of a suicide bomber to critically examine his own intentions and actions would make him/her evil. Often people with good intentions feel that they don't need to look at their own actions and goals. They feel that because they have the best intentions in mind for everyone that these intentions and the actions stand above being critically examined. This makes it impossible for any kind of feedback to work and correct the evil behaviour.

Quote Reply

Green Dragon RE: Green Dragon 4/2/2004 5:41:32 PM

Oh I agree with your position entirely, I might have posted it myself. My personal position on this matter is to become a buddhist. I do this for a simple reason, I asked a fellow co-worker who is Buddhist if he could recall any incident of a Buddhist persecuting another Buddhist for heresy, he couldn't and neither could I so I decided then and there that I will be a red meat eating, alcohol guzzling, chain smoking Buddhist. Since I can be fairly certain that other Buddhists are not going to criticise me for my beliefs it is a little more comfortable than describing my personal philosophical and spiritual beliefs as 'mongrel'.

Quote Reply

PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT