Why does God hate babies who have not sinned?

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Greatest I am, Oct 10, 2012.

  1. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    Yes, but those predispositions aren't value-based, but gullibility-based, and perhaps a yearning for order and purpose. In other words, a fundamentalist Christian isn't born believing that abortion is wrong.

    Recognizing sweetness is not the same as preferring it.

    I think the difference is merely in your perception of it. The former is unconscious, based on past-experience and conditioning. The latter is merely the rationalization of it, which of course takes longer than the visceral reaction.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    First off - I said "If so maybe we need to just focus on the claim that "evil" must be perceived by these beings even if it is just chocolate ice cream or bad smells, which i (obviously) disagree with". Secondly, cool, I was wondering how you could possibly argue against this. I appreciate your creativity here, but the fact remains that the worst experience of smell is not as bad as the worst experience of what you could possibly eat, is not as bad as the worst experience of having a finger removed, is not as bad as the worst torture. It can all be called an experience, so you have no support behind your artificial categorization of the worst of all experiences, into ever smaller sub-genres. You can also go the other way if you want to keep categorizing, so that the worst candy i have eaten is better than the worst candy i have eaten today, which is better than the worst candy i am eating right now, until all things can be categorized as "that which is". Why not decide what is "the worst thing i could be experiencing while i am typing at a keyboard in my home", as opposed to the worst of all possible experiences. If we are going to categorize, we can draw the lines anywhere, not just where you want to pretend they are solid. There is zero reason to ask me not to compare a car and a skateboard to decide the "worst" of means of transportation, or even which is the "worst" thing to transport myself into a drained swimming pool with.
    oh but i can if i wish to, fortunately i won't here. The worst of all possible experiences? Eating candy or being tortured? I think it would be safe to say the "worst" candy is not "evil". It is called english. Your categories are arbitrary, and as such, easily dismissed.
    i am not addressing the ice cream example as something you have or have not said, nor am i implying what you meant by your example. I am simply using an expedient descriptive experience by which to provide contrast to what i consider an actual evil.

    No actually i couldn't say that or the world would actually contain an evil that would happen. In this (imaginary) world, evil does not occur. i have already explained many possible reasons for the possibility that the evil would not occur.

    talking about how animals think is a black hole of conjecture. I have done a little research on the subject but i am not qualified to answer as to how animals think.
    I don't know about animals, perhaps if i knew exactly what they were thinking i could answer that question. I am assuming we aren't talking about imagining what animals think but about what they actually think, in which case i reserve judgement until more knowledge on animal consciousness is gathered.
    See above the logic that proves your categories arbitrary.
    i was merely responding to your unsupported assertion that ancestor worship fades over time, by pointing out the opposite "could" be true, and is actually more likely in a world where behaviors are positively reinforced. We can toss both the idea that ancestor worship fades and also the idea that it increases - that is perfectly agreeable to me.
    ok so the person who claims "evil must exist" must prove it. Cool. Keep trying to do that. There is a logical proof necessary, not a simple, "evil must exist because it exists here now" will suffice.
    no we aren't talking about whether evil exists in this world, that would be a very, very, VERY short discussion.
    Don't tell me you didn't read "Candide" and laugh along with voltaire's criticism of Liebniz and his "best of all possible worlds is the one that exists" Pangloss ideas. Saying "evil must exist in our world because it exists", is the same argument as leibniz got panned for in the reverse wording. Saying "wherever you go, there you are" is cute, but not meaningful. Nobody denies that evil exists in our world. Saying "evil must exist in all possible worlds because it exists in ours" is no more useful than saying, "this is the only inhabited world in the universe, so forget the question". Here you are trying to change the conversation into being about something i have never argued, i.e. that evil physically must exist, or exist in this world, or whatever. I have a solution to this - let's BOTH be required to create a proof that goes one way or the other, because until there is one, there isn't one. And unlike your evidence for evil in this world, there still can be one even though there isn't one currently. The possibility is implied by the imagining (overly optimistic) that we (you) could act cordially.

    only according to your arbitrarily categorized definition of evil. I suggest another definition that has some objectivity to it. Saying "highest sensible moral value to an average western citizen, or perhaps inhabitant of earth" would at least allow for a discussion to be had about what should be considered in accordance with that, but your infinitely sliding relative categories does not.
    let's not even begin to pretend egoism is the accepted reality. It isn't accepted that all human behavior is selfish, but rather that is one (often argued against) idea. I understand that we see in others what we see in ourselves, but fortunately some of us have had examples of kindness and goodness. Actually it isn't relevant to the discussion as to whether these safeworlders do good things because it makes them happy, or that they experience goodness as inconvenient but essentially productive. You would still have to show that there is more satisfaction to be had in deviating from the norm and somehow becoming evil than in following the herd, and it seems to me that the herd would be quite content on safeworld.

    since you want to have a discussion about the only possible world you can imagine, i guess we are wasting time, although you did provide me a chance to straighten out the idea that pure relativism is just as arbitrary, and less functional, than limiting the use of the word "evil" to some sensible idea.

    you claim "1. Personal self-interest, self-preferential optimal happiness" as the determining factor, insisting that the most happiness can be had by causing other people suffering. I claim that optimal happiness consists of the "most possible happiness", so if a thousand people are very happy, that is better than one person being a little bit happier and 999 people suffering for it. That is pretty obvious. Of course that doesn't even take into account the negatives that mentally healthy people feel when causing suffering. Maybe you should defend your point instead of typing unsupported objections.
    already explained many ways in which things could be done better.
    So, do you mean an animal acting in a way which is required by their nature, and they cannot do otherwise? We answered that question already when we agreed that freewill necessitates a choice.
    that doesn't tell us what is possible, only what exists now, which AGAIN is not a discussion but rather a given.
    first of all your word for evil is not applicable to my world, as in my world, smells are not evil except in some strange slang sense, which i have never heard , and only in slang where "bad" can be "good", and "dope" can be a positive. Secondly i have no problem attributing all responsibility to the appropriate entities. If God, for example created a being with freewill who chose to do wrong and through time become evil, then yes, god is ultimately responsible for not curtailing the behavior. If we want to talk about a necessary evil, we could have a metaphysical discussion, but that is not what is happening here for me, because i am focused on a false LOGIC that requires evil due to pure relativism, where any system would apply the, now meaningless, word "evil" arbitrarily wherever it can. Another false LOGIC is that we need evil to keep us motivated to go to work in the morning, or that what is here now is the ideal.

    you were the one asserting evil is relative. I was saying that your line of reasoning leads to a lack of clarity in what can be considered evil. In your purely relative idea of evil, we can use the word "evil" to describe the "worst" in the video game category, and also use the same word "evil" in the sexual behavior category. That sentence alone should be enough to show you why you cannot insist on using these categories, because the worst video game and the worst sexual act will have the same word "evil" describing their ethics. In safeworld pedophilia doesn't exist because people value children. there is no reason for you to think pedophilia is a natural expression of behavior and therefore would occur. I believe a person who is not able to act within reasonable bounds is probably mentally ill (to a large degree in this case), and there is no reason to think mental illness would exist in a safeworld. Pedophilia is an unnatural behavior which i believe is universally condemned on our planet, so the fact that you insist it would naturally develop on any world against social norms is only, once again, saying "because it is that way here". Mental illness is cured, children are sacred, pedophilia does not exist - this situation is imaginable and therefore there is no reason to say evil must exist in that situation. I need a specific evil that must exist, but that is ridiculous until we drop the absolute relativism and make a definition.

    I've already pointed out about the safeworlders "i certainly don't suppose they are just the humanity that we know now, transported to another safer place while retaining all their conditioning from our world". I don't care what these people are, we certainly have tried to attribute some human qualities to them, but again, if we are just talking about this world and it's people, we're not having a dicussion about the logic behind the idea of "there must be evil" but rather the physical reality of it, which was never even assumed to be a question. I would like to report myself to moderators for trying to create (in a thought experiment) an imaginary world, and I didn't have the whole thing defined up front. Is that a requirement for starting a thought experiment, to be finished with it? I was exploring an idea. I do appreciate your objections though, otherwise I would have had to explore the idea using an unexpressed concept that evil is not completely relative and bad smells can't be called evil, instead of proving it. Without your arbitrary categories argument i wouldn't have had such clarity. But i am glad you are done responding to me because you are clearly not an amiable person who wants to enjoy a nice discussion.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    By predispositions I mean more like character predispositions - qualities (and some convictions related to them) that a person tends to keep even if they convert from one religion to another.

    This seems quite evident in people who convert as adults. For example, many people who convert to Christianity as adults seem to be quite similar by character. They seem to have a certain forcefulness, aloofness, dominance in them, an aggressive style of communication (even if they otherwise look like the proverbial grey mice).
    I've yet to see an adult convert who would use the assertive communication style, for example.


    That is an attempt at explaining it.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Syne Sine qua non Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,515
    Yep, absolutely nothing of intellectually honest value worth responding to.
     
  8. Balerion Banned Banned

    Messages:
    8,596
    I don't understand. A predisposition is not a quality or trait in and of itself, but a tendency towards something. And I would even say that those predispositions are also learned. For example, are people who tend to be pushy that way because they were born pushy, or is it more likely that they were raised in such a way that such behavior became the norm?

    I completely disagree with that generalization. I've known several "born again" Christians, and while they all seemed to have a certain enthusiasm for their faith, I wouldn't characterize them as forceful or aloof. I think you're mistaking the evangelical nature of that particular branch of Christianity for a personal trait.


    I know. I'm just saying that just because explaining it requires reflection while the visceral reaction doesn't doesn't mean that your initial reaction is something inherent to you.
     
  9. cole grey Hi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,999
    as expected the quest for pure relativity as being useful fizzles out. we have to describe evil to talk about it. obviously.
     

Share This Page