"evil"

Demon wrote:It doesn't. That's my whole point. It only exists in the mind. Nothing in reality can be considered evil because evil does not exist beyond the mind.

That's like the third post on this topic you failed to follow. :­P

By the way, obs, evil does not exist in my mind because when I think of evil, the only thing I see is the word itself and nothing associated with it. Therefore, in my mind only the word itself exists.

Obsidian wrote:That's like the third post on this topic you failed to follow. :­P

Your misunderstanding of my posts is your failure, not mine.

Demon wrote:Your misunderstanding of my posts is your failure, not mine.

Where did I fail to understand one of your posts? They are all lowbrow enough for a preschooler to follow. :­P

Obsidian wrote:Where did I fail to understand one of your posts? They are all lowbrow enough for a preschooler to follow. :­P

If you understood my posts then you would also see that I am following these posts perfectly well while expressing my own opinions on the matter in the process. Your attempt to insult me simply because we disagree on this topic is rather amusing.

I find it very interesting you so quickly get to killing when referring to "evil"; why? Are there things more evil than bananas? More evil than killing?

Mhm, it looks like there is some misunderstanding:
1) I chose "killing" because normal people immediately associate killing with evil (easy)
2) Why are you associating bananas, that are part of the "fruit" array, with the "Evil" array, that is associated to a set of action and behaviors? I see Evil as a category and already stated that i don't necessarily give it the meaning of "right" and "wrong". Actually, i think there is no right and wrong in the first place.

no action is necessarily preferable to any other.

Obsidian wrote:Reality? How can you be so certain of that? To you it exists in your head and thoughts just as well as evil, unicorns, and mermaids. What's to say that it exists more? :­P

Demon wrote:It doesn't. That's my whole point. It only exists in the mind. Nothing in reality can be considered evil because evil does not exist beyond the mind.

I ask you why reality would exist more than evil and other things in your mind, and you answer that it doesn't, then you argue against your answer in the same sentence. You clearly did not get the question. :­P

Hmm...

Demon wrote:How would you describe evil?

Obsidian wrote:Reasoning you can't wrap your head around or accept. :­P

Demon wrote:I don't have to accept 'evil' or any reasoning behind it..

Here I gave my description and you pretty much answered it as if it was an accusation about you. What I meant with the you was that it was subjective.
And then you say 'evil or reasoning' when I clearly didn't separate them in my description.

See you didn't follow that post either. I try to ignore you not getting it a lot though, in hope of you catching on eventually. But that didn't seem to happen in any near future. :­P

Obsidian wrote:I ask you why reality would exist more than evil and other things in your mind, and you answer that it doesn't, then you argue against your answer in the same sentence. You clearly did not get the question. :­P

Reality naturally exists in reality or it wouldn't be called 'reality'. It was a stupid question. We're discussing the existence of evil in reality or, as far as I'm concerned, lack there of.

I try to ignore you not getting it a lot though

Maybe you should be clearer in your posts then. Two posts is hardly a lot.

You're lucky I even bother responding to your posts at all.

Demon wrote:Maybe you should be clearer in your posts then.

You're probably right about that. :­P

Demon wrote:Two posts is hardly a lot.

Because those two were the only ones. :­P

HumanityExiled wrote:The word "evil" is an illusion projected by the brainwashing lies of Christianity.
"Evil" or "sinful/against god" therefore does not exist since Christianity is a false hypocritical twisted lie, the word itself is therefore invalid.

The word is used all the time to describe someone or something that is "sinful".

Example: You may say some murders are wicked or unreasonable in your opinion, but you cannot say they are "evil", the word "evil" is invalid.
It would however make sense to describe peoples actions as being either reasonable or unreasonable.

This should make sense to anybody that understands logic.

few points:

- Christianity as a morality is no more a lie or illusion than science or medicine as a morality, where things that are 'bad for our health' become morally bad, inducing guilt for all those who accept the new religion of science and medicine.

in other words, all morality is an illusion (insofar as you believe in objective reality), because all morality is socially constructed (in fact, all thought and ideas are illusions, because in reality, there is no thought, only meaningless matter - if you accept the materialist's position, which is the most 'reasonable' in my opinion )

speaking of reason...

- I think on some level you could describe people's actions as either reasonable or unreasonable, BUT that wouldn't change the fact that moral factors and perspectives will be included (for anyone with a conscience)

so the negation of a Christian interpretation of an action, doesn't mean no morality will be applied to the interpretation of an action and valueless, objective 'reason' will prevail...

like what is reasonable to you? what is unreasonable? logic is not devoid of cultural influence. our thinking, whether we are aware of it or not, usually proceeds as follows: 'because we (or I) believe x, his actions were reasonable'

an action is logical or reasonable, so long as it conforms to a rule or value, whether that rule or value be 'self-interest' or 'benefit of the many', or whatever your culture values/believes in

but 'reasonable actions' are not a given, or a perception that is formed without reference to culture. and what is 'reasonable' in one culture will differ from what is reasonable in another because each culture appeals to different values and beliefs in their interpretation of the reasonable...

-- Sat Sep 08, 2012 3:48 am --

you could also say that people with Pds have a different culture from the mainstream culture of their society and so what is 'reasonable' to them will also differ

and people with pds do have a different culture - the pathogenic culture of their upbringing/home...

jacknife wrote:

I find it very interesting you so quickly get to killing when referring to "evil"; why? Are there things more evil than bananas? More evil than killing?

Mhm, it looks like there is some misunderstanding:
1) I chose "killing" because normal people immediately associate killing with evil (easy)
2) Why are you associating bananas, that are part of the "fruit" array, with the "Evil" array, that is associated to a set of action and behaviors? I see Evil as a category and already stated that i don't necessarily give it the meaning of "right" and "wrong". Actually, i think there is no right and wrong in the first place.

no action is necessarily preferable to any other.

" I chose "killing" because normal people immediately associate killing with evil "

This is more than a bit of projection. How about you define "normal people" before we ever try to figure out what your idea of "evil" is?