And yet you've posted many times that you do believe that it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances) and you have even provided a circumstance in which you believe that would be the case.
This DOES NOT MATTER, because I am RIGHT.
Those "circumstances" specified are avoiding the alternative of MASS MURDER. If you'd choose this, only YOU are evil.
I have DEMONSTRATED MYSELF RIGHT, and you have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show otherwise in the SLIGHTEST WAY.
You have no point. Aside from all the other arguments you've failed to address, you are simply wrong that any action causing harm to one individual rather than millions of deaths (including millions of children) would be "evil" if it were the only way to prevent those deaths.
Since you seem to be unable to draw from your non-knowledge anything from either ethics according to religion or secular sources, I'll simply have to state this as such. Both disagree with you. You might not be doing more than pasting your claim again because you know you can't back it, or because you know not even enough about any system of ethics from any worldview to be able to speak. Either way.
You are, quite simply, wrong on your core "point" you persist in repeating without demonstration of how you are, in the face of the reality of the consensus of ethical systems, in any way justified in that opinion.
I don't know if you need shorter words, or what.
You--wrong. "Wrong" as in "not correct", "wrong" as in wrong according to -both sides- and their respective notions of ethics. You "answering" this by making no argument at all in attempted support of your wrong opinion, just leaves you at still wrong.
It'll be exactly the same situation after you spastically paste the same sentence yet again--you'll still be wrong, and there'll be no other conclusion to be made, by anyone, given your complete failure to show your position accurate in any way.
Not evil, even if it would you choose mass-murder instead.
That's the illogical part. One example, of many you've handily demonstrated.
Lying, because when faced with an argument your meager capabilities for reason can't handle, you take your only recourse.
Idiot, because you couldn't even start to handle even one of the dozens of counterarguments presented to you, and think simply cutting-and-pasting the same sentence dozens of times does anything.
Not really debatable, anyone at all can read the thread and see these facts for the facts they are.
Okay, I'm the example of you getting demonstrated to be an illogical lying idiot, and of a systematic and accurate counterargument to the "Problem of Evil".
Okay, so in summary, you have no counterargument to any of the refutations of your claims I've made, and you are just going to continue to repeat misrepresentations of what I said, and do nothing of what you -must- do to show I'm wrong.
Rape in almost all circumstances is evil. There could be certain extreme circumstances, such as certainty of death of millions of people, where it would not be evil in order to avoid that.
That's what I've said, that's my "believer's logic", theology -and- secular philosophy agree with me on this and disagree with you, you have offered absolutely nothing to refute this. My logic is completely correct, my conclusions completely correct, and you are unable to call them into question in any way through legitimate arguments.
Claiming that I suggested you're irrational for what I didn't say you were irrational for, and quoting what I actually said, where I said you'd be irrational for choosing mass-murder, as you would be, does not call anything I've said into question.
So, if you feel you want to continue call attention to how my logic, and I, are completely right, feel free, I suppose.
Your only other alternative would be to argue, successfully, that I'm wrong. Repeating yourself as to inaccurate claims of what I've said is not an argument, and only that will do anything other than call attention to me being right, and you being wrong. Repeating yourself as to your sometimes-accurate claims of what I've said, but having no objection other than presenting me showing I'm right, and suggesting I'm wrong for that, for some reason you wish was there, without further demonstration or elaboration, also does nothing that show me and my "believer's logic" as being right and you being wrong, and there's nothing else that can, or will, do.
Again, if I was lying, I'm sure you'd be able to quote me. But you cannot.
What do you mean, "again"? You have not requested this before, but now that you have, here you go:
Your claim as to what I said:
Just so the people reading this don't get confused, you're calling me irrational for my statement that raping a child is "evil".
What I actually said:
what is actually irrational is your steadfast refusal to counter the argument as given, and either a) lie and suggest that by saying in narrow, extreme scenario it could be considered "not evil" that I am saying it's "pretty-much okay period" or b) steadfastly just repeat the claim, offering no counterargument at all, as if your refutation is self-evident and needs no backing when it clearly, obviously isn't. It's the latter that puts you firmly into the "irrational" camp.
No mention whatsoever of you being irrational -for- your the statement you said, anywhere. Rather, I said you are irrational for entirely other reasons for which, indeed, you are irrational.
So, demonstrated lie.
Exactly. And, as I have stated before, my point is that the "logic" of a believer is such that they will claim that even raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
What is wrong with you? What do you think saying this yet -again- without showing I'm wrong, yet -again-, does, for any purpose?
And your posts in this thread are the examples of that "logic".
Correct logic, and above that you again just repeat yourself for no apparent useful reason. To say anything of any worth here, you need to show I'm wrong somewhere, not simply repeat yourself in merely repasting words previously said in the thread.
Okay, at this point I'll need to ask exactly what particular type of lying idiot you are, as this is getting ridiculous, and I'm mystified on why you are persisting.
Just so the people reading this don't get confused, you're calling me irrational for my statement that raping a child is "evil".
Just keeping that clear.:D
No, absolutely and obviously not, by reference to what I just said, verifiable by anyone who wishes to read the words of my immediately-previous post. You directly lying is not "keeping things clear". You are irrational for engaging in irrational statements that are so exactly for the reasons I said, and that's what I said, and it is correct. Obvious, outright lie, again, here.
But I can quote you exactly and link to your posts where you claim that raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
And you're still making that claim.:D
Go ahead and quote it, because it contradicts nothing I said. Yes, I said it would not be evil under certain extreme circumstances, and I am, and was, correct each time I say it. Repeating this again neither shows anything I said incorrect nor does the slightest thing to make an argument against it. Are you really so incompetent in discussion as to think that the equivalent of saying "lol" over and over is presenting a coherent philosophical argument?
Again, as I have stated many times, that is EXACTLY my point in this thread.
What? Your point that my completely-valid distinction between two very-different scenarios is valid? Yes, it is. And so?
Other people can see you (a believer) arguing that raping a child is NOT ALWAYS "evil".
Because it factually would not be always evil, such as if it were an unavoidable necessity to save millions of lives, and, it would in fact be you that would be evil in choosing mass-murder of millions of people. Both secular philosophy and religion agree thoroughly with me here, another "lol" on your part and failure to make, or even try to make, any counterpoint won't change my true statement from being true.
No. You asked if the child being raped was a MAMMAL.
A "mammal" is an "animal", idiot, and the exact same dilemma you have before you stands, and is exactly the valid, with either term I or you choose. I think we can fairly conclude you know you have no answer at all to this, as this is just another "lol" without any attempt at a meaningful response you know you couldn't make. Whether that's because you read the argument I already pre-stated and realize you can't, or just (accurately) consider yourself that universally incompetent, I can't say for sure at this point. Either way.
My point was to use this thread to show the "logic" of a believer that causes them to argue that raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
And... -so what-? The "logic of a believer" is a completely-accurate position that destroys you before you even get started, so you sit there stammering the same irrelevant sentence? If that isn't your conclusion, you've done absolutely nothing in this thread to show otherwise.
You are... astonishing. Truly. Mind if I ask, as a point of personal curiosity, if you've graduated from any educational institution at any level?
Sure, I'll happily call you irrational for irrational claims and forms of "thinking". On the face of it, you are claiming that, in a scenario where there is no other choice, causing temporary harm to one individual as a necessary action to avoid the death of millions, is, by definition, "evil". Well, no, even most secular notions of ethics thoroughly disagree with you, and I happen to know quite a range of constructs. This, I suppose, in itself is simply poor knowledge or ability to apply it--what is actually irrational is your steadfast refusal to counter the argument as given, and either a) lie and suggest that by saying in narrow, extreme scenario it could be considered "not evil" that I am saying it's "pretty-much okay period" or b) steadfastly just repeat the claim, offering no counterargument at all, as if your refutation is self-evident and needs no backing when it clearly, obviously isn't. It's the latter that puts you firmly into the "irrational" camp.
No, my logic doesn't require there be no scenarios that are evil at all, and I've thoroughly refuted this notion many ways--that not stopping an evil action is not necessarily evil in itself (not responded to by you even in the face of examples), that the notion that there is anything at all that is unalloyed "good" or "evil" is false, and the relative merits of an action including it's consequences must be weight for what is best on the -spectrum- of good, that we can clearly say there are subjectively evil things without asserting this can be used as an objective yardstick to make a definitive determination of absolute good, etc., etc., etc.
It is only in your personal fantasy world that I'm compelled to say it is not "evil" because otherwise I must say God is evil, because I've been presented with an airtight argument. No, each and every one of my counterarguments above, none of which have you addressed, makes it quite unnecessary for me to "have to" say it is not evil. In the scenario given, I (subjectively) say it would not be an evil act for that person (again, don't just lie again and say I'm saying something I'm not, I mean -in that scenario-) to do so, based on the relative harm, which is, in fact, completely unproblematic in such arguments as whether we should have dropped the atomic bomb to quickly end World War 2 (and literally thousands of other equivalent examples I, or most anyone, can name without any effort). So, no, my reason for saying so is that the evaluation is correct for the scenario as described. Again, no actual response to the valid argument at all from you, just a useless (useless regardless of which opinion anyone held) repetition of asserting you are right with no backing at all, with a little attempted emotional manipulation thrown in to substitute for the logical argument you are unable to perform. And, of course, like always, followed up with your outright misrepresentation/lie that I've said that it is acceptable in the general case. I have not, and disclaim it, and you know I have not, and know I have already disclaimed the accuracy of your lie as to the simple question of what I said. Yes, I know you'll probably lie again and repeat the same thing. Fine. Anyone can review the thread themselves to verify I said I consider it "not evil" in that particular extreme scenario, and "evil" in other cases.
I'm getting tired of explaining this to you, but I'll restate it again. My question is equivalent to asking "Are the individuals animals"? If you say "yes" (as you'd be hard-pressed not to, as an apparent atheist/naturalist, as that much is scientific fact), and you cannot justify a characteristic that puts them -also- into a category justifying moral agency, your argument fails completely and immediately. You cannot (or at least will not), and so your argument fails utterly, within the context of -your- position. My position doesn't have that problem--specifically because I'm not an atheist/naturalist. Your posi
As I have stated, and with which you agree, or you are irrational. Same scenario, millions of deaths otherwise, you can't even lie to yourself convincingly that you would find that morally condemnation-worthy, under the circumstances. And if you could lie to yourself as well as me about that, then by your own terms, you would be a mass-murderer for failing to prevent the nuclear launch when you could. And this would be even if you had anything that would back any moral judgment you did make, ever, anywhere, of any type, by any rational connection to anything. You have none--all such connections, all such possible moral force, exist -only- in my position, and are -actively denied- by yours. You simply pretend it's otherwise, and think merely tossing out the word "evil" means you have anything behind it other than what's completely and only creditable only to my worldview, and contradicts yours, and to which you have nothing to offer, by choice and demonstration of your failure to define or support your usage of the term "evil" in any way whatsoever. Your approach is simply repeating it with more of a suggestion that you mean something by it, when -only I can-, and -you've demonstrated that by your failure to elaborate-. A complete moral and rational void, as you repeatedly demonstrate. All -possible- morality in this case and any other from my position, absolutely none -possible- from yours. But, you have a manipulative anecdotal argument, and a demand your unstated, unaccountable, feelings about it be primary over everything, to throw out as a disingenuous lie not even convincing to yourself.
Using the words aren't enough. You have to be able to give them rational meaning, that you don't have to try to invalidly and parasitically acquire by simultaneously implying, while denying, the backing and content of your opposition, as the only backing and content on the table.
I am naturally unclear on what you mean by it, as you haven't specified your meaning, and would be immediately destroyed by self-contradiction the moment you stopped the ongoing cowardly evasion and attempted to.
It is your responsibility to define your terms when presenting your argument.
This is going nowhere, and I am done with you now.
Although you're already clear on it at the exact moment your fingers are typing the claim you are not, I do think that I should clarify one point:
I am perfectly clear on the issues of moral evil of rape, and can reference a hundred specific ways that my worldview supports condemning it, by direct logical connection. I both have reasons to see the moral evil, and have the justification for addressing it, connected directly to my worldview.
You have nothing. It is you, quite simply, who neither see the moral issues nor can offer anything other than dumbly repeating the exact same empty claim that I do not know what I clearly do, in lieu of you having -anything- to support or back any limitation against the act, by -your own choice-. You are both willfully ignorant of, and morally ineffectual against, the actual moral issues here, and in both respects, both the only immoral party here, and a -purely- immoral party.
How do we know this? You've demonstrated it thoroughly, and continue to do so.
"Only when there is a question of what the terms mean in the given context."
There's a question by virtue of the fact there's a question, and I provided it. I have no idea what you mean by it. Apparently you don't either.
As for the mammal-animal issues and your dancing around it... precisely the same thing. What do you mean by "evil" in a context (that is, you and your argument), where you cannot differentiate yourself from animals in general in terms of moral agency. Until you can answer that, your position is immediately, completely bankrupt. Makes no difference if you, I, or Sally next door brought it up or how much any person repeated it. Your stance contradicts itself and you yourself, and that's all there is to it.
Okay, attempt to bluff that you have some content where you clearly have none, or you'd present it... by... not presenting and instead giving vague "i disapprove" non-arguments.
Yes, it would be "not evil" under the circumstances. This is probably as clear to you as anyone right while you claim the opposite, but yes, the interests of the millions would outweigh the individual interest here. So, yeah, your claim's broken, as you know as you go ahead and lie otherwise. If you could be less obvious about it that'd probably be good, though.
And yes, not acting to prevent an action is not morally equivalent to committing the action (I assume you don't want to further your demonstrations of personal hypocrisy by having me ask about your personal moral culpability that there are starving children in the world).
What's that? You can't alter the situation for starving children without examining the wider effects of that? Right, absolutely, and as I said from the outset, the implication of removing free will from humans outweighs precluding all the instances where something "evil" is done, by humans.
So yes, human act: evil. God: good. God not preventing evil: No logical connection to the human act due to different implications, and moral status indeterminate until all the effects are factored in. Only being capable of knowing all the effects for a given case, and so the sole possible determiner of whether something is objectively "good" or "evil": God. Concluding God not acting on case of evil is logically connected, much less the required inference from the human's act being evil: Complete non-sequitur.
Does that clarify? Hopefully, because nobody's going to be able to make it easier for you to understand than the easiest possible something could be for you to understand.
Finally, though I had previously the impression you were intelligent enough to infer it from context, clearly I have to spell it out:
If you have no basis for differentiation of bipedal, clothes-wearing animals from any other type of animal, you are completely ejected from the realm of making any functional moral stance at all with respect to your question. You have no such basis. Show otherwise, or show you aren't a complete hypocrite by not being able to provide a clear differentiator between yourself and a cow you ate with ketchup and fries. My answer's easy, as a theist. "I have a soul, the cow doesn't". What's yours? Your DNA includes the "magic rights-conferring DNA sequence"? You wear strips of fabric around your body? Literally nothing else will serve as a differentiator you can claim from a naturalist perspective, that isn't shared by animals you don't confer rights to. And no, the fact that your position is philosophically incoherent, does not mean that mine is. Yours is precisely, and accurately described as such, for the exact reasons stated, and mine is coherent, for precisely and accurately, the reasons I've stated.
But, feel free to continue and dig that hole deeper. Tell us more (that is, anything whatsoever, finally) about what -you- mean by "evil", precisely, as a universally-understood requirement of you using the term in an actual rational argument.
Yes, the semi-retarded changing of the thread name with every post is kind-of cute.
And, sorry, my position on the nature of the argument is absolutely correct, as given, not as a question of religion but as a fact of the entire history of Western philosophy.
Yes, you must define your terms. No, you cannot stipulate that my usage is correct as the sole basis for concluding it is incorrect.
Your argument is, simply, profoundly full of holes at this point. If this is the "mind of a believer", so be it, my is objectively correct, yours is a complete fail. Who says so? Well, absolutely any professor who has taught Philo 101. So, feel quite free to reference my posts.
Beyond that, I assume you know continuing will simply demonstrate how bankrupt your argument is, and you'll continue to evade presenting your subjective notions of ethics (which, you won't even be able to back on the level of -subjective- notions, I expect, you've failed and evaded so far, and so evidence suggests...) as an objective yardstick by which to measure "God".
There's literally layers of fail on your part here, simply factually speaking. Your "mind of a believer" ad-hominem poseur bluff won't change that. Sorry.
And yes, my scenario does involve an official change-of-name of a prominent politician, explained, no doubt, by a protracted period of interpersonal frustration from arguments with certain recalcitrant members of the Council of Ministers of the Union of Russia and Belarus.:p
I should probably lose this thread on typos alone. Eh, I'll stick to content and see where that takes us.
Additionally, to get your red-herring out of the way, so we can move on to the substantive points, I'll name a scenario in which I would consider it "not evil". If Alexander Putin threatened to launch is entire arsenal of nuclear missiles at the U.S. and Europe unless someone on his staff raped a sixteen-year-old he disliked intensely, and it was clear that he both had the means to launch the missiles and the certain intent to do so, and the person had no alternative to avoid the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, I would consider the act "not evil". There's your requested scenario. Now let's move on, and you can go ahead and start providing... well just anything at all, anywhere, in any way, toward the necessities of the presentation of your argument, per what is required of you with respect to all valid arguments.
Okay, I guess I've been insufficiently clear. I propose, and would need evidence to suggest otherwise, that you have no definition to present for your use of "evil", and per your metaphysical system, the term would be meaningless and unsupportable.
In that respect, there is no difference between what you are asking me and "Give me an instance where rape would be grmuphcag." Your term, as you present it, has neither any meaning or any logical weight or justification behind it, merely your feelings and whatever you can conceptually parasite off of -my- worldview to ascribe meaning to the letters e-v-i-l. I propose you have absolutely no meaning appropriately ascribable to the word, and therefore no meaning to your question, that is in any way derivable from, supported by conceptually, or in any way enforcing with respect to it, is present anywhere within anything you can validly reference.
Since you are posing the question, step one to answer it is, quite simply, that you define your terms, as it is unanswerable as given. The only thing I can do is apply -my- meaning to the term "evil" as you have offered none, and i propose -can- offer none. Substituting my meaning for what is your responsibility to define, does not move us forward to resolving anything but determining that you're mildly clever at conceptually parasiting off of others' worldviews for issues your own ability, and content derivable from -your stance-, is a complete void.
Again, I want to neither answer the question "Is rape sdurgak?", or "Is rape always evil, using your meaning of evil as stipulated as correct while I assert it's wrong, in lieu of me actually presenting any meaning at all". I'd prefer the effort to be theoretically valuable.
And yes, part of the question comes down to your definition of the parties involved, definitionally. To answer your question in its totality, I need to know if you can differentiate this case from similar interaction between humans and animals per se--that is, that you have some attribute you can point to that, from your perspective, is merely a different configuration of DNA that, mysteriously, in one case confers great moral import to.
I submit you have no such differentiator you can name, and so, to answer your question thoroughly, I need to know how you are using terms from -your- worldview, not yours-when-it's-to-your-advantage, mine-when-it's-to-your-advantage. Your terms, used validly within -your- worldview, is the only way to answer -your- question.
If I'm going to be requested to offer an opinion, you need to define the context clearly, rather that simply presume correctness.
Why you think I've "lost" when I already stated my opinion that the scenario would be "evil" (in the sense such has meaning, as I described) is beyond me, but since you clearly lack seriousness in addressing the topic in the most pithy, clearly-manipulative, rhetorical way, I'll have to leave it at that.
Good luck continuing to assume your opposition's defensible stances (from their worldview) that happen correspond in their conclusions (validly for them) to ones you deny a basis for from your stance (and therefore you hold them invalidly), though... mammal.
Right, you so far have stayed with it because it is rhetorically effective, when the question of principle is across the broader range of such harmful events.
And no, i directly said i would consider it "evil", along with the remainder of what I said about it, that being what I actually said, and that being accurate.
To be clear, though, the OP argument is based on events that are "evil", not your false-dichotomy notion that the alternatives are "absolute evil" and "absolute good". Even if I hadn't said "evil", even though I directly did, I still therefore would not be saying the event is "good".
Let's try another round on seeing if you can get to the point of basic intellectual honesty here, though, and define your terms this time. Just for curiosity.
What, specifically, is the age of the entity you're describing hypothetically, and are that entity, and the other aggressor entity, both mammals?
Specific answers to the exact, specific words I actually, in reality, used, please.
Well, I think we're really switching over to more of a theological interpretation debate here, and I don't do inter-theist arguments here, and really addressing your post thoroughly on that level would probably lead to a lot of branching of the discussion to address your points...
...but...
To approach it briefly, I'd agree if we were to divorce the notion of "punishment" from the notion of "improvement". I would say we could take a variant of the main argument here and say God -cannot- have punishment that doesn't lead to improvement (in this life or the next), and remain "good". So, my way of looking at the punishment issue would be to question whether that type of gratuitous punishment ever occurs. I do not believe it does. "Punishment" still can, though, as opposed to "automatically making everyone perfect" as required by the OP argument, because there I would similarly argue that having people be irrelevant to their own progress is not a "possible world".
And, well, I was going to address you second paragraph separately, but I think my response is essentially the same. "No gratuitous punishment". Even if, as it seems, you've been exposed to a fairly narrow set of interpretations of the nature of hell.
There are lots of such acts, and you've move from one to another in your argument, the most rhetorically-effective to the most commonplace, if and when one or the next one were addressed in its particulars. There are absolutely no events that could not be framed as "evil" in some respect, as long as we drop context and drop the -necessary- implications of withdrawing -necessary- components to the overall evaluation.
Are zero-gas, free-energy flying cars better than the one I have? Well, sure, except zero-gas, free-energy flying cars don't exist. Therefore, I wouldn't be ready to stipulate that the pollution and risk to human health of buying gas is "evil" in -possible worlds-.
Similarly, the issue isn't this particular case, neither to me nor to you, except for what this issue buys you for rhetorical argument, for emotional argument rather than rational argument. The issue is the elimination of all such cases of any morally questionable nature of any degree whatsoever (because, I'm fully aware you'd not be satisfied until naming all of them, were they all sequentially individually intervened on by God, down to unpaid parking tickets)--at the cost of eliminating the capacity for humans to do such things, that is, eliminating their free will.
As a net question, to answer, I would consider such an act "evil", the elimination of all cases of such to be more "evil", and hence a net loss to "the good", which, is a spectrum, not a particular absolute point of unalloyed, in-every-conceivable-way "good".
As for evolution having nothing to do with this discussion, that makes literally no sense. We simply would not exist without hundreds of thousands of years biological change driven by a bloodbath of anarchy. To eliminate the class of instances such as you speak of, and morally-equivalent outright killings, we'd have to eliminate ourselves as an outcome of that process. Or, did you just care about this -one- morally-problematic occurrence, as you see it as furthering your argument?
I suppose, with regard to the last, you could argue that God could address it by turning us all into fish. Well, aside from the potential theological implications of "fish" in this context, you should probably clarify your stance on this before I proceed with my side of the argument...
No, it doesn't have a clear "answer" for you as an atheist, or you'd provide your definition, clearly, and demonstrate that by logical force this instance must fall into that case. Given your definition, we should find that I am unable to name any cases which strongly seem to not fall under your definition on the face of it, yet meet your definition as given. That, being crucial to the argument, actually needs to happen here, and I'm feeling up to it.
In short, you don't have a clear answer, or you'd present it. You have a strong feeling, or instinctual reaction. Along with it, you have a strong feeling you'll be able to peer-pressure me into agreeing to what you haven't demonstrated, as the clear reason you selected this particular scenario. There is a world of difference between those feelings and logical demonstration, when we're addressing metaphysics and normative absolutes.
No, because we can only evaluate something as "good" or "evil" within the context of all of its dependencies--of which the implications of eliminating free will in this case would have to be included when stipulating God can and should do something about it.
There's one I'll enumerate specifically. Of course, we cannot call anything good or evil in an absolute sense before enumerating -all- of the implied dependencies.
One of which being, for a consequence you might find personally more relevant, to eliminate evolution.
Slashdot Mirror
And yet you've posted many times that you do believe that it is "not evil" to rape a child (in certain circumstances) and you have even provided a circumstance in which you believe that would be the case.
This DOES NOT MATTER, because I am RIGHT.
Those "circumstances" specified are avoiding the alternative of MASS MURDER. If you'd choose this, only YOU are evil.
I have DEMONSTRATED MYSELF RIGHT, and you have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to show otherwise in the SLIGHTEST WAY.
Seriously, HOW STUPID ARE YOU?
You have no point. Aside from all the other arguments you've failed to address, you are simply wrong that any action causing harm to one individual rather than millions of deaths (including millions of children) would be "evil" if it were the only way to prevent those deaths.
Since you seem to be unable to draw from your non-knowledge anything from either ethics according to religion or secular sources, I'll simply have to state this as such. Both disagree with you. You might not be doing more than pasting your claim again because you know you can't back it, or because you know not even enough about any system of ethics from any worldview to be able to speak. Either way.
You are, quite simply, wrong on your core "point" you persist in repeating without demonstration of how you are, in the face of the reality of the consensus of ethical systems, in any way justified in that opinion.
I don't know if you need shorter words, or what.
You--wrong. "Wrong" as in "not correct", "wrong" as in wrong according to -both sides- and their respective notions of ethics. You "answering" this by making no argument at all in attempted support of your wrong opinion, just leaves you at still wrong.
It'll be exactly the same situation after you spastically paste the same sentence yet again--you'll still be wrong, and there'll be no other conclusion to be made, by anyone, given your complete failure to show your position accurate in any way.
You're wrong. You fail. You're dismissed.
Not evil, even if it would you choose mass-murder instead.
That's the illogical part. One example, of many you've handily demonstrated.
Lying, because when faced with an argument your meager capabilities for reason can't handle, you take your only recourse.
Idiot, because you couldn't even start to handle even one of the dozens of counterarguments presented to you, and think simply cutting-and-pasting the same sentence dozens of times does anything.
Not really debatable, anyone at all can read the thread and see these facts for the facts they are.
Indeed, it is good to have an example.
Okay, I'm the example of you getting demonstrated to be an illogical lying idiot, and of a systematic and accurate counterargument to the "Problem of Evil".
Happy to be your example, idiot.
Okay, so in summary, you have no counterargument to any of the refutations of your claims I've made, and you are just going to continue to repeat misrepresentations of what I said, and do nothing of what you -must- do to show I'm wrong.
Rape in almost all circumstances is evil. There could be certain extreme circumstances, such as certainty of death of millions of people, where it would not be evil in order to avoid that.
That's what I've said, that's my "believer's logic", theology -and- secular philosophy agree with me on this and disagree with you, you have offered absolutely nothing to refute this. My logic is completely correct, my conclusions completely correct, and you are unable to call them into question in any way through legitimate arguments.
Claiming that I suggested you're irrational for what I didn't say you were irrational for, and quoting what I actually said, where I said you'd be irrational for choosing mass-murder, as you would be, does not call anything I've said into question.
So, if you feel you want to continue call attention to how my logic, and I, are completely right, feel free, I suppose.
Your only other alternative would be to argue, successfully, that I'm wrong. Repeating yourself as to inaccurate claims of what I've said is not an argument, and only that will do anything other than call attention to me being right, and you being wrong. Repeating yourself as to your sometimes-accurate claims of what I've said, but having no objection other than presenting me showing I'm right, and suggesting I'm wrong for that, for some reason you wish was there, without further demonstration or elaboration, also does nothing that show me and my "believer's logic" as being right and you being wrong, and there's nothing else that can, or will, do.
So... enjoy, I suppose. Carry on.
Again, if I was lying, I'm sure you'd be able to quote me. But you cannot.
What do you mean, "again"? You have not requested this before, but now that you have, here you go:
Your claim as to what I said:
Just so the people reading this don't get confused, you're calling me irrational for my statement that raping a child is "evil".
What I actually said:
what is actually irrational is your steadfast refusal to counter the argument as given, and either a) lie and suggest that by saying in narrow, extreme scenario it could be considered "not evil" that I am saying it's "pretty-much okay period" or b) steadfastly just repeat the claim, offering no counterargument at all, as if your refutation is self-evident and needs no backing when it clearly, obviously isn't. It's the latter that puts you firmly into the "irrational" camp.
No mention whatsoever of you being irrational -for- your the statement you said, anywhere. Rather, I said you are irrational for entirely other reasons for which, indeed, you are irrational.
So, demonstrated lie.
Exactly. And, as I have stated before, my point is that the "logic" of a believer is such that they will claim that even raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
What is wrong with you? What do you think saying this yet -again- without showing I'm wrong, yet -again-, does, for any purpose?
And your posts in this thread are the examples of that "logic".
Correct logic, and above that you again just repeat yourself for no apparent useful reason. To say anything of any worth here, you need to show I'm wrong somewhere, not simply repeat yourself in merely repasting words previously said in the thread.
What is wrong with you?
Okay, at this point I'll need to ask exactly what particular type of lying idiot you are, as this is getting ridiculous, and I'm mystified on why you are persisting.
:D
:D
Just so the people reading this don't get confused, you're calling me irrational for my statement that raping a child is "evil".
Just keeping that clear.
No, absolutely and obviously not, by reference to what I just said, verifiable by anyone who wishes to read the words of my immediately-previous post. You directly lying is not "keeping things clear". You are irrational for engaging in irrational statements that are so exactly for the reasons I said, and that's what I said, and it is correct. Obvious, outright lie, again, here.
But I can quote you exactly and link to your posts where you claim that raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
And you're still making that claim.
Go ahead and quote it, because it contradicts nothing I said. Yes, I said it would not be evil under certain extreme circumstances, and I am, and was, correct each time I say it. Repeating this again neither shows anything I said incorrect nor does the slightest thing to make an argument against it. Are you really so incompetent in discussion as to think that the equivalent of saying "lol" over and over is presenting a coherent philosophical argument?
Again, as I have stated many times, that is EXACTLY my point in this thread.
What? Your point that my completely-valid distinction between two very-different scenarios is valid? Yes, it is. And so?
Other people can see you (a believer) arguing that raping a child is NOT ALWAYS "evil".
Because it factually would not be always evil, such as if it were an unavoidable necessity to save millions of lives, and, it would in fact be you that would be evil in choosing mass-murder of millions of people. Both secular philosophy and religion agree thoroughly with me here, another "lol" on your part and failure to make, or even try to make, any counterpoint won't change my true statement from being true.
No. You asked if the child being raped was a MAMMAL.
A "mammal" is an "animal", idiot, and the exact same dilemma you have before you stands, and is exactly the valid, with either term I or you choose. I think we can fairly conclude you know you have no answer at all to this, as this is just another "lol" without any attempt at a meaningful response you know you couldn't make. Whether that's because you read the argument I already pre-stated and realize you can't, or just (accurately) consider yourself that universally incompetent, I can't say for sure at this point. Either way.
My point was to use this thread to show the "logic" of a believer that causes them to argue that raping a child is "not evil" (under certain circumstances).
And... -so what-? The "logic of a believer" is a completely-accurate position that destroys you before you even get started, so you sit there stammering the same irrelevant sentence? If that isn't your conclusion, you've done absolutely nothing in this thread to show otherwise.
You are... astonishing. Truly. Mind if I ask, as a point of personal curiosity, if you've graduated from any educational institution at any level?
Go ahead, call me irrational for that. :D
Sure, I'll happily call you irrational for irrational claims and forms of "thinking". On the face of it, you are claiming that, in a scenario where there is no other choice, causing temporary harm to one individual as a necessary action to avoid the death of millions, is, by definition, "evil". Well, no, even most secular notions of ethics thoroughly disagree with you, and I happen to know quite a range of constructs. This, I suppose, in itself is simply poor knowledge or ability to apply it--what is actually irrational is your steadfast refusal to counter the argument as given, and either a) lie and suggest that by saying in narrow, extreme scenario it could be considered "not evil" that I am saying it's "pretty-much okay period" or b) steadfastly just repeat the claim, offering no counterargument at all, as if your refutation is self-evident and needs no backing when it clearly, obviously isn't. It's the latter that puts you firmly into the "irrational" camp.
No, my logic doesn't require there be no scenarios that are evil at all, and I've thoroughly refuted this notion many ways--that not stopping an evil action is not necessarily evil in itself (not responded to by you even in the face of examples), that the notion that there is anything at all that is unalloyed "good" or "evil" is false, and the relative merits of an action including it's consequences must be weight for what is best on the -spectrum- of good, that we can clearly say there are subjectively evil things without asserting this can be used as an objective yardstick to make a definitive determination of absolute good, etc., etc., etc.
It is only in your personal fantasy world that I'm compelled to say it is not "evil" because otherwise I must say God is evil, because I've been presented with an airtight argument. No, each and every one of my counterarguments above, none of which have you addressed, makes it quite unnecessary for me to "have to" say it is not evil. In the scenario given, I (subjectively) say it would not be an evil act for that person (again, don't just lie again and say I'm saying something I'm not, I mean -in that scenario-) to do so, based on the relative harm, which is, in fact, completely unproblematic in such arguments as whether we should have dropped the atomic bomb to quickly end World War 2 (and literally thousands of other equivalent examples I, or most anyone, can name without any effort). So, no, my reason for saying so is that the evaluation is correct for the scenario as described. Again, no actual response to the valid argument at all from you, just a useless (useless regardless of which opinion anyone held) repetition of asserting you are right with no backing at all, with a little attempted emotional manipulation thrown in to substitute for the logical argument you are unable to perform. And, of course, like always, followed up with your outright misrepresentation/lie that I've said that it is acceptable in the general case. I have not, and disclaim it, and you know I have not, and know I have already disclaimed the accuracy of your lie as to the simple question of what I said. Yes, I know you'll probably lie again and repeat the same thing. Fine. Anyone can review the thread themselves to verify I said I consider it "not evil" in that particular extreme scenario, and "evil" in other cases.
I'm getting tired of explaining this to you, but I'll restate it again. My question is equivalent to asking "Are the individuals animals"? If you say "yes" (as you'd be hard-pressed not to, as an apparent atheist/naturalist, as that much is scientific fact), and you cannot justify a characteristic that puts them -also- into a category justifying moral agency, your argument fails completely and immediately. You cannot (or at least will not), and so your argument fails utterly, within the context of -your- position. My position doesn't have that problem--specifically because I'm not an atheist/naturalist. Your posi
As I have stated, and with which you agree, or you are irrational. Same scenario, millions of deaths otherwise, you can't even lie to yourself convincingly that you would find that morally condemnation-worthy, under the circumstances. And if you could lie to yourself as well as me about that, then by your own terms, you would be a mass-murderer for failing to prevent the nuclear launch when you could. And this would be even if you had anything that would back any moral judgment you did make, ever, anywhere, of any type, by any rational connection to anything. You have none--all such connections, all such possible moral force, exist -only- in my position, and are -actively denied- by yours. You simply pretend it's otherwise, and think merely tossing out the word "evil" means you have anything behind it other than what's completely and only creditable only to my worldview, and contradicts yours, and to which you have nothing to offer, by choice and demonstration of your failure to define or support your usage of the term "evil" in any way whatsoever. Your approach is simply repeating it with more of a suggestion that you mean something by it, when -only I can-, and -you've demonstrated that by your failure to elaborate-. A complete moral and rational void, as you repeatedly demonstrate. All -possible- morality in this case and any other from my position, absolutely none -possible- from yours. But, you have a manipulative anecdotal argument, and a demand your unstated, unaccountable, feelings about it be primary over everything, to throw out as a disingenuous lie not even convincing to yourself.
Using the words aren't enough. You have to be able to give them rational meaning, that you don't have to try to invalidly and parasitically acquire by simultaneously implying, while denying, the backing and content of your opposition, as the only backing and content on the table.
SDG
I am perfectly clear on what I mean by it.
I am naturally unclear on what you mean by it, as you haven't specified your meaning, and would be immediately destroyed by self-contradiction the moment you stopped the ongoing cowardly evasion and attempted to.
It is your responsibility to define your terms when presenting your argument.
This is going nowhere, and I am done with you now.
Although you're already clear on it at the exact moment your fingers are typing the claim you are not, I do think that I should clarify one point:
I am perfectly clear on the issues of moral evil of rape, and can reference a hundred specific ways that my worldview supports condemning it, by direct logical connection. I both have reasons to see the moral evil, and have the justification for addressing it, connected directly to my worldview.
You have nothing. It is you, quite simply, who neither see the moral issues nor can offer anything other than dumbly repeating the exact same empty claim that I do not know what I clearly do, in lieu of you having -anything- to support or back any limitation against the act, by -your own choice-. You are both willfully ignorant of, and morally ineffectual against, the actual moral issues here, and in both respects, both the only immoral party here, and a -purely- immoral party.
How do we know this? You've demonstrated it thoroughly, and continue to do so.
Well, that was... just stupid.
I really don't know what to say.
"Only when there is a question of what the terms mean in the given context."
There's a question by virtue of the fact there's a question, and I provided it. I have no idea what you mean by it. Apparently you don't either.
As for the mammal-animal issues and your dancing around it... precisely the same thing. What do you mean by "evil" in a context (that is, you and your argument), where you cannot differentiate yourself from animals in general in terms of moral agency. Until you can answer that, your position is immediately, completely bankrupt. Makes no difference if you, I, or Sally next door brought it up or how much any person repeated it. Your stance contradicts itself and you yourself, and that's all there is to it.
Okay, attempt to bluff that you have some content where you clearly have none, or you'd present it... by... not presenting and instead giving vague "i disapprove" non-arguments.
Here you go. You clearly need this.
Yes, it would be "not evil" under the circumstances. This is probably as clear to you as anyone right while you claim the opposite, but yes, the interests of the millions would outweigh the individual interest here. So, yeah, your claim's broken, as you know as you go ahead and lie otherwise. If you could be less obvious about it that'd probably be good, though.
And yes, not acting to prevent an action is not morally equivalent to committing the action (I assume you don't want to further your demonstrations of personal hypocrisy by having me ask about your personal moral culpability that there are starving children in the world).
What's that? You can't alter the situation for starving children without examining the wider effects of that? Right, absolutely, and as I said from the outset, the implication of removing free will from humans outweighs precluding all the instances where something "evil" is done, by humans.
So yes, human act: evil. God: good. God not preventing evil: No logical connection to the human act due to different implications, and moral status indeterminate until all the effects are factored in. Only being capable of knowing all the effects for a given case, and so the sole possible determiner of whether something is objectively "good" or "evil": God. Concluding God not acting on case of evil is logically connected, much less the required inference from the human's act being evil: Complete non-sequitur.
Does that clarify? Hopefully, because nobody's going to be able to make it easier for you to understand than the easiest possible something could be for you to understand.
Finally, though I had previously the impression you were intelligent enough to infer it from context, clearly I have to spell it out:
If you have no basis for differentiation of bipedal, clothes-wearing animals from any other type of animal, you are completely ejected from the realm of making any functional moral stance at all with respect to your question. You have no such basis. Show otherwise, or show you aren't a complete hypocrite by not being able to provide a clear differentiator between yourself and a cow you ate with ketchup and fries. My answer's easy, as a theist. "I have a soul, the cow doesn't". What's yours? Your DNA includes the "magic rights-conferring DNA sequence"? You wear strips of fabric around your body? Literally nothing else will serve as a differentiator you can claim from a naturalist perspective, that isn't shared by animals you don't confer rights to. And no, the fact that your position is philosophically incoherent, does not mean that mine is. Yours is precisely, and accurately described as such, for the exact reasons stated, and mine is coherent, for precisely and accurately, the reasons I've stated.
But, feel free to continue and dig that hole deeper. Tell us more (that is, anything whatsoever, finally) about what -you- mean by "evil", precisely, as a universally-understood requirement of you using the term in an actual rational argument.
Yes, the semi-retarded changing of the thread name with every post is kind-of cute.
And, sorry, my position on the nature of the argument is absolutely correct, as given, not as a question of religion but as a fact of the entire history of Western philosophy.
Yes, you must define your terms. No, you cannot stipulate that my usage is correct as the sole basis for concluding it is incorrect.
Your argument is, simply, profoundly full of holes at this point. If this is the "mind of a believer", so be it, my is objectively correct, yours is a complete fail. Who says so? Well, absolutely any professor who has taught Philo 101. So, feel quite free to reference my posts.
Beyond that, I assume you know continuing will simply demonstrate how bankrupt your argument is, and you'll continue to evade presenting your subjective notions of ethics (which, you won't even be able to back on the level of -subjective- notions, I expect, you've failed and evaded so far, and so evidence suggests...) as an objective yardstick by which to measure "God".
There's literally layers of fail on your part here, simply factually speaking. Your "mind of a believer" ad-hominem poseur bluff won't change that. Sorry.
And yes, my scenario does involve an official change-of-name of a prominent politician, explained, no doubt, by a protracted period of interpersonal frustration from arguments with certain recalcitrant members of the Council of Ministers of the Union of Russia and Belarus. :p
I should probably lose this thread on typos alone. Eh, I'll stick to content and see where that takes us.
Additionally, to get your red-herring out of the way, so we can move on to the substantive points, I'll name a scenario in which I would consider it "not evil". If Alexander Putin threatened to launch is entire arsenal of nuclear missiles at the U.S. and Europe unless someone on his staff raped a sixteen-year-old he disliked intensely, and it was clear that he both had the means to launch the missiles and the certain intent to do so, and the person had no alternative to avoid the deaths of hundreds of millions of people, I would consider the act "not evil". There's your requested scenario. Now let's move on, and you can go ahead and start providing... well just anything at all, anywhere, in any way, toward the necessities of the presentation of your argument, per what is required of you with respect to all valid arguments.
Okay, I guess I've been insufficiently clear. I propose, and would need evidence to suggest otherwise, that you have no definition to present for your use of "evil", and per your metaphysical system, the term would be meaningless and unsupportable.
In that respect, there is no difference between what you are asking me and "Give me an instance where rape would be grmuphcag." Your term, as you present it, has neither any meaning or any logical weight or justification behind it, merely your feelings and whatever you can conceptually parasite off of -my- worldview to ascribe meaning to the letters e-v-i-l. I propose you have absolutely no meaning appropriately ascribable to the word, and therefore no meaning to your question, that is in any way derivable from, supported by conceptually, or in any way enforcing with respect to it, is present anywhere within anything you can validly reference.
Since you are posing the question, step one to answer it is, quite simply, that you define your terms, as it is unanswerable as given. The only thing I can do is apply -my- meaning to the term "evil" as you have offered none, and i propose -can- offer none. Substituting my meaning for what is your responsibility to define, does not move us forward to resolving anything but determining that you're mildly clever at conceptually parasiting off of others' worldviews for issues your own ability, and content derivable from -your stance-, is a complete void.
Again, I want to neither answer the question "Is rape sdurgak?", or "Is rape always evil, using your meaning of evil as stipulated as correct while I assert it's wrong, in lieu of me actually presenting any meaning at all". I'd prefer the effort to be theoretically valuable.
And yes, part of the question comes down to your definition of the parties involved, definitionally. To answer your question in its totality, I need to know if you can differentiate this case from similar interaction between humans and animals per se--that is, that you have some attribute you can point to that, from your perspective, is merely a different configuration of DNA that, mysteriously, in one case confers great moral import to.
I submit you have no such differentiator you can name, and so, to answer your question thoroughly, I need to know how you are using terms from -your- worldview, not yours-when-it's-to-your-advantage, mine-when-it's-to-your-advantage. Your terms, used validly within -your- worldview, is the only way to answer -your- question.
Clearer?
Okay, evade.
If I'm going to be requested to offer an opinion, you need to define the context clearly, rather that simply presume correctness.
Why you think I've "lost" when I already stated my opinion that the scenario would be "evil" (in the sense such has meaning, as I described) is beyond me, but since you clearly lack seriousness in addressing the topic in the most pithy, clearly-manipulative, rhetorical way, I'll have to leave it at that.
Good luck continuing to assume your opposition's defensible stances (from their worldview) that happen correspond in their conclusions (validly for them) to ones you deny a basis for from your stance (and therefore you hold them invalidly), though... mammal.
Right, you so far have stayed with it because it is rhetorically effective, when the question of principle is across the broader range of such harmful events.
And no, i directly said i would consider it "evil", along with the remainder of what I said about it, that being what I actually said, and that being accurate.
To be clear, though, the OP argument is based on events that are "evil", not your false-dichotomy notion that the alternatives are "absolute evil" and "absolute good". Even if I hadn't said "evil", even though I directly did, I still therefore would not be saying the event is "good".
Let's try another round on seeing if you can get to the point of basic intellectual honesty here, though, and define your terms this time. Just for curiosity.
What, specifically, is the age of the entity you're describing hypothetically, and are that entity, and the other aggressor entity, both mammals?
Specific answers to the exact, specific words I actually, in reality, used, please.
Well, I think we're really switching over to more of a theological interpretation debate here, and I don't do inter-theist arguments here, and really addressing your post thoroughly on that level would probably lead to a lot of branching of the discussion to address your points...
...but...
To approach it briefly, I'd agree if we were to divorce the notion of "punishment" from the notion of "improvement". I would say we could take a variant of the main argument here and say God -cannot- have punishment that doesn't lead to improvement (in this life or the next), and remain "good". So, my way of looking at the punishment issue would be to question whether that type of gratuitous punishment ever occurs. I do not believe it does. "Punishment" still can, though, as opposed to "automatically making everyone perfect" as required by the OP argument, because there I would similarly argue that having people be irrelevant to their own progress is not a "possible world".
And, well, I was going to address you second paragraph separately, but I think my response is essentially the same. "No gratuitous punishment". Even if, as it seems, you've been exposed to a fairly narrow set of interpretations of the nature of hell.
There are lots of such acts, and you've move from one to another in your argument, the most rhetorically-effective to the most commonplace, if and when one or the next one were addressed in its particulars. There are absolutely no events that could not be framed as "evil" in some respect, as long as we drop context and drop the -necessary- implications of withdrawing -necessary- components to the overall evaluation.
Are zero-gas, free-energy flying cars better than the one I have? Well, sure, except zero-gas, free-energy flying cars don't exist. Therefore, I wouldn't be ready to stipulate that the pollution and risk to human health of buying gas is "evil" in -possible worlds-.
Similarly, the issue isn't this particular case, neither to me nor to you, except for what this issue buys you for rhetorical argument, for emotional argument rather than rational argument. The issue is the elimination of all such cases of any morally questionable nature of any degree whatsoever (because, I'm fully aware you'd not be satisfied until naming all of them, were they all sequentially individually intervened on by God, down to unpaid parking tickets)--at the cost of eliminating the capacity for humans to do such things, that is, eliminating their free will.
As a net question, to answer, I would consider such an act "evil", the elimination of all cases of such to be more "evil", and hence a net loss to "the good", which, is a spectrum, not a particular absolute point of unalloyed, in-every-conceivable-way "good".
As for evolution having nothing to do with this discussion, that makes literally no sense. We simply would not exist without hundreds of thousands of years biological change driven by a bloodbath of anarchy. To eliminate the class of instances such as you speak of, and morally-equivalent outright killings, we'd have to eliminate ourselves as an outcome of that process. Or, did you just care about this -one- morally-problematic occurrence, as you see it as furthering your argument?
I suppose, with regard to the last, you could argue that God could address it by turning us all into fish. Well, aside from the potential theological implications of "fish" in this context, you should probably clarify your stance on this before I proceed with my side of the argument...
No, it doesn't have a clear "answer" for you as an atheist, or you'd provide your definition, clearly, and demonstrate that by logical force this instance must fall into that case. Given your definition, we should find that I am unable to name any cases which strongly seem to not fall under your definition on the face of it, yet meet your definition as given. That, being crucial to the argument, actually needs to happen here, and I'm feeling up to it.
In short, you don't have a clear answer, or you'd present it. You have a strong feeling, or instinctual reaction. Along with it, you have a strong feeling you'll be able to peer-pressure me into agreeing to what you haven't demonstrated, as the clear reason you selected this particular scenario. There is a world of difference between those feelings and logical demonstration, when we're addressing metaphysics and normative absolutes.
No, because we can only evaluate something as "good" or "evil" within the context of all of its dependencies--of which the implications of eliminating free will in this case would have to be included when stipulating God can and should do something about it.
There's one I'll enumerate specifically. Of course, we cannot call anything good or evil in an absolute sense before enumerating -all- of the implied dependencies.
One of which being, for a consequence you might find personally more relevant, to eliminate evolution.
Sorry, like all arguments, he has to be able to define what the terms in his own argument mean, for, at minimum, the purposes of his own argument.
Otherwise, upon closer inspection, nothing has actually been said.