Total Posts:76|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can a Christian Define What is Evil?

matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 6:05:35 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
It is important to define what evil is if society expects to hold people accountable for evil actions.

I had started a topic a few days ago called Defining Evil. What I found interesting is that Theists, in particular, had trouble defining evil in order to know what evil is. They make claims that the Bible tells them what is evil but they cannot come up with a consistent definition of evil.

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Three Christians responded to these scenarios but not one could provide a definition as to how to identify evil.

@jerry947 claimed that it was acceptable for the Israelites to kill the families and kidnap the virgins because the enemies were evil. He also claimed that just because warring men kidnap virgins does not mean they rape them.

I was having a dialogue with @geogeer but he never responded when I asked the above questions.

@12_13 said that it is permissible for men to kill the families and keep the virgins for their own use but only if they are "righteous" Jews.

I find it peculiar that theists make a claim that only they really know what evil is yet they cannot provide a definition which someone can use to identify evil.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 7:40:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 6:05:35 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is important to define what evil is if society expects to hold people accountable for evil actions.

I had started a topic a few days ago called Defining Evil. What I found interesting is that Theists, in particular, had trouble defining evil in order to know what evil is. They make claims that the Bible tells them what is evil but they cannot come up with a consistent definition of evil.

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Three Christians responded to these scenarios but not one could provide a definition as to how to identify evil.

@jerry947 claimed that it was acceptable for the Israelites to kill the families and kidnap the virgins because the enemies were evil. He also claimed that just because warring men kidnap virgins does not mean they rape them.

I was having a dialogue with @geogeer but he never responded when I asked the above questions.

@12_13 said that it is permissible for men to kill the families and keep the virgins for their own use but only if they are "righteous" Jews.

I find it peculiar that theists make a claim that only they really know what evil is yet they cannot provide a definition which someone can use to identify evil.

Evil is not doing God's will
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 7:43:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 7:40:46 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/26/2016 6:05:35 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is important to define what evil is if society expects to hold people accountable for evil actions.

I had started a topic a few days ago called Defining Evil. What I found interesting is that Theists, in particular, had trouble defining evil in order to know what evil is. They make claims that the Bible tells them what is evil but they cannot come up with a consistent definition of evil.

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Three Christians responded to these scenarios but not one could provide a definition as to how to identify evil.

@jerry947 claimed that it was acceptable for the Israelites to kill the families and kidnap the virgins because the enemies were evil. He also claimed that just because warring men kidnap virgins does not mean they rape them.

I was having a dialogue with @geogeer but he never responded when I asked the above questions.

@12_13 said that it is permissible for men to kill the families and keep the virgins for their own use but only if they are "righteous" Jews.

I find it peculiar that theists make a claim that only they really know what evil is yet they cannot provide a definition which someone can use to identify evil.

Evil is not doing God's will

Can you explain how that applies to the two questions?
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 8:30:30 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Evil is coercing others to be immoral. Democrats/Liberals are evil.

Israel acted to liberate themselves from Canaanite evil.

The US war in Afghanistan is evil, because the Afghans were not coercing Americans to be immoral. Rather, the other way around.
PureX
Posts: 1,533
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 8:35:47 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
To increase our own well-being by deliberately decreasing the well-being of others, is 'evil'.
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 8:52:16 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 6:05:35 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is important to define what evil is if society expects to hold people accountable for evil actions.

I had started a topic a few days ago called Defining Evil. What I found interesting is that Theists, in particular, had trouble defining evil in order to know what evil is. They make claims that the Bible tells them what is evil but they cannot come up with a consistent definition of evil.

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Three Christians responded to these scenarios but not one could provide a definition as to how to identify evil.

@jerry947 claimed that it was acceptable for the Israelites to kill the families and kidnap the virgins because the enemies were evil. He also claimed that just because warring men kidnap virgins does not mean they rape them.

I was having a dialogue with @geogeer but he never responded when I asked the above questions.

@12_13 said that it is permissible for men to kill the families and keep the virgins for their own use but only if they are "righteous" Jews.

I find it peculiar that theists make a claim that only they really know what evil is yet they cannot provide a definition which someone can use to identify evil.

Christians don't have a definition for evil because their book doesn't have a definition. When you have a book to tell you what is immoral, you give up your responsibility and don't think deeply about the issue and figure it out for yourself.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 9:02:41 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 8:52:16 PM, janesix wrote:
At 5/26/2016 6:05:35 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is important to define what evil is if society expects to hold people accountable for evil actions.

I had started a topic a few days ago called Defining Evil. What I found interesting is that Theists, in particular, had trouble defining evil in order to know what evil is. They make claims that the Bible tells them what is evil but they cannot come up with a consistent definition of evil.

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Three Christians responded to these scenarios but not one could provide a definition as to how to identify evil.

@jerry947 claimed that it was acceptable for the Israelites to kill the families and kidnap the virgins because the enemies were evil. He also claimed that just because warring men kidnap virgins does not mean they rape them.

I was having a dialogue with @geogeer but he never responded when I asked the above questions.

@12_13 said that it is permissible for men to kill the families and keep the virgins for their own use but only if they are "righteous" Jews.

I find it peculiar that theists make a claim that only they really know what evil is yet they cannot provide a definition which someone can use to identify evil.

Christians don't have a definition for evil because their book doesn't have a definition. When you have a book to tell you what is immoral, you give up your responsibility and don't think deeply about the issue and figure it out for yourself.

Exactly. I don't think they can definitively state that kidnapping and raping young girls is always wrong and why. If they don't know the answer to that, how can they be qualified to say what is objectively moral?

So far, all the Christians I have asked about this cannot give a straight answer.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 9:02:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 6:05:35 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is important to define what evil is if society expects to hold people accountable for evil actions.

I had started a topic a few days ago called Defining Evil. What I found interesting is that Theists, in particular, had trouble defining evil in order to know what evil is. They make claims that the Bible tells them what is evil but they cannot come up with a consistent definition of evil.

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Three Christians responded to these scenarios but not one could provide a definition as to how to identify evil.

@jerry947 claimed that it was acceptable for the Israelites to kill the families and kidnap the virgins because the enemies were evil. He also claimed that just because warring men kidnap virgins does not mean they rape them.

I was having a dialogue with @geogeer but he never responded when I asked the above questions.

@12_13 said that it is permissible for men to kill the families and keep the virgins for their own use but only if they are "righteous" Jews.

I find it peculiar that theists make a claim that only they really know what evil is yet they cannot provide a definition which someone can use to identify evil.

I am happy you made another thread on this. I read the thread you are pulling these responses and all i could think is... if i every met them in person... The theists that have responded to you disgust me. Here is what i don't care about... if they are right or wrong. What i care about is that these things are in their "holy book." Since they are in a book that is suppose to be the word of god and perfect, canon like this can be easily misinterpreted. Even if it is not now (which it is), 20 years down the line the new generations can pick the book up, rape, and justify it. This is the poison of organized religion, clearly seen in the responses you got from those users, a lack of intellect, logic and reason. Thankfully, i do not think religion will be rising in 20 years but falling, giving room to free thinkers.

I found both your scenarios to be immoral, for a child would not know if they have an evil family. The invaders would have killed the families and told the virgins that they are with "good" now... so marry me. Now, taken into context... today, we would help the children find a family or put them in some kind of child services... not marry them. I am not well versed enough about history to know how it would have worked then, but it was a primitive morality to find that forcing them into marriage was okay. Lets look at it through human eyes... the families were killed and here are a bunch of virgins... Did they get past around? They did have a choice in the matter? Were they scared? Did it take manipulation to make them okay with the situation? ... or was it just "god said it's okay?" Anyway i look at it... i don't see any moral behavior that can come out of taken prisoners as brides in these scenarios. In the context of its time, i can understand how this may have been common practice... but, that only proves that primitive man wrote the Bible, which is the point here i think.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 9:04:33 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Evil to someone is anything inconsistant with what they desire that is coming against them.That means there are billions of definitions. God can define in the same way. "Anything that comes against what I desire." Now it is simple. You look at Him, examine Him, and decide. Am I with Him or am I against Him. If I'm with Him, then I'm with Him to the end, to the very end, to any end. That's what love does. If you do not love Him as He is and choose to be against Him, you must now ask yourself one simple question,"If I'm not with Him then what am I with?"
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Redfordnutt
Posts: 222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 9:09:05 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 6:05:35 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is important to define what evil is if society expects to hold people accountable for evil actions.

I had started a topic a few days ago called Defining Evil. What I found interesting is that Theists, in particular, had trouble defining evil in order to know what evil is. They make claims that the Bible tells them what is evil but they cannot come up with a consistent definition of evil.

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Three Christians responded to these scenarios but not one could provide a definition as to how to identify evil.

@jerry947 claimed that it was acceptable for the Israelites to kill the families and kidnap the virgins because the enemies were evil. He also claimed that just because warring men kidnap virgins does not mean they rape them.

I was having a dialogue with @geogeer but he never responded when I asked the above questions.

@12_13 said that it is permissible for men to kill the families and keep the virgins for their own use but only if they are "righteous" Jews.

I find it peculiar that theists make a claim that only they really know what evil is yet they cannot provide a definition which someone can use to identify evil.

I don't believe in any sort of objective evilness. Ergo I believe evil is subjective and open to interpretation.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 9:11:36 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 8:30:30 PM, Rukado wrote:
Evil is coercing others to be immoral. Democrats/Liberals are evil.

Israel acted to liberate themselves from Canaanite evil.

The US war in Afghanistan is evil, because the Afghans were not coercing Americans to be immoral. Rather, the other way around.

Were Israelite men moral for kidnapping young girls for their use after killing their whole families, including small boys and the elderly?

If your answer is yes, how would you word the rule that says that was ok in that case but not in the case of the US soldiers/Afghanistan?

For example, would it be:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil; however it is permissible for men to kidnap young virgins for their own use only if the ethnic group from where they originate is not predominantly Christian.

We are trying to define when someone can know what is evil and it seems that these actions are evil sometimes and good other times. If the above definition of evil is not what you intended, how exactly would you change it?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 9:14:19 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 8:35:47 PM, PureX wrote:
To increase our own well-being by deliberately decreasing the well-being of others, is 'evil'.

Based on that, how would you answer to the following:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

We are trying to determine how one can know what is evil. So far, our definition is:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Feel free to edit as much as you would like.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 9:22:56 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 9:04:33 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
Evil to someone is anything inconsistant with what they desire that is coming against them.That means there are billions of definitions. God can define in the same way. "Anything that comes against what I desire." Now it is simple. You look at Him, examine Him, and decide. Am I with Him or am I against Him. If I'm with Him, then I'm with Him to the end, to the very end, to any end. That's what love does. If you do not love Him as He is and choose to be against Him, you must now ask yourself one simple question,"If I'm not with Him then what am I with?"

Wow, that's a moving target if I ever saw one. Are you saying that sometimes kidnap and rape of young girls is moral and sometimes it is not? How do you know when it is OK?

Pretend I am a Christian US soldier. I tell you that my pastor told me that kidnapping a 13 year old virgin for my own use after killing her mother, father, 3 year old brother and grandparents is permissible in God's eyes. I also tell you that I prayed about it and God told me that he wanted me to do it, not to mention there is a precedent in the Bible. Am I doing a good thing or evil thing and why?
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 9:25:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 9:11:36 PM, matt8800 wrote:
Were Israelite men moral for kidnapping young girls for their use after killing their whole families, including small boys and the elderly?

Were Israelite men moral for sparing some women? I think so.

If your answer is yes, how would you word the rule that says that was ok in that case but not in the case of the US soldiers/Afghanistan?

The US war on Afghanistan was not about self-defense and was based on lies. (The Afghan government offered to turn over Obama bin Ladin if provided evidence of Osama's terrorist activity , but Bush infamously replied that he doesn't negotiate with those who harbor terrorists.


For example, would it be:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil; however it is permissible for men to kidnap young virgins for their own use only if the ethnic group from where they originate is not predominantly Christian.

We are trying to define when someone can know what is evil and it seems that these actions are evil sometimes and good other times. If the above definition of evil is not what you intended, how exactly would you change it?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 9:32:12 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 9:09:05 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
At 5/26/2016 6:05:35 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is important to define what evil is if society expects to hold people accountable for evil actions.

I had started a topic a few days ago called Defining Evil. What I found interesting is that Theists, in particular, had trouble defining evil in order to know what evil is. They make claims that the Bible tells them what is evil but they cannot come up with a consistent definition of evil.

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Three Christians responded to these scenarios but not one could provide a definition as to how to identify evil.

@jerry947 claimed that it was acceptable for the Israelites to kill the families and kidnap the virgins because the enemies were evil. He also claimed that just because warring men kidnap virgins does not mean they rape them.

I was having a dialogue with @geogeer but he never responded when I asked the above questions.

@12_13 said that it is permissible for men to kill the families and keep the virgins for their own use but only if they are "righteous" Jews.

I find it peculiar that theists make a claim that only they really know what evil is yet they cannot provide a definition which someone can use to identify evil.

I don't believe in any sort of objective evilness. Ergo I believe evil is subjective and open to interpretation.

Fair enough. Although I don't agree with that, that is a simple explanation.

It is the theists that claim everyone should follow their objective morality. I'm trying to see if they can define when something is evil and when it is not. I don't think they can do it so their morality arguments are irrelevant until they can do so.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 9:35:06 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 9:25:02 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/26/2016 9:11:36 PM, matt8800 wrote:
Were Israelite men moral for kidnapping young girls for their use after killing their whole families, including small boys and the elderly?

Were Israelite men moral for sparing some women? I think so.

If your answer is yes, how would you word the rule that says that was ok in that case but not in the case of the US soldiers/Afghanistan?

The US war on Afghanistan was not about self-defense and was based on lies. (The Afghan government offered to turn over Obama bin Ladin if provided evidence of Osama's terrorist activity , but Bush infamously replied that he doesn't negotiate with those who harbor terrorists.




For example, would it be:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil; however it is permissible for men to kidnap young virgins for their own use only if the ethnic group from where they originate is not predominantly Christian.

We are trying to define when someone can know what is evil and it seems that these actions are evil sometimes and good other times. If the above definition of evil is not what you intended, how exactly would you change it?

OK, that still doesn't help much. I'm trying to define when it is moral and when it is not. You cant talk about objective morality if you cant tell someone how they know when they are doing evil.

Can you finish the below sentence?

It is immoral for men to kidnap young virgins for their own use under most circumstances, except when__________________________________.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 9:37:10 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 9:02:55 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 5/26/2016 6:05:35 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is important to define what evil is if society expects to hold people accountable for evil actions.

I had started a topic a few days ago called Defining Evil. What I found interesting is that Theists, in particular, had trouble defining evil in order to know what evil is. They make claims that the Bible tells them what is evil but they cannot come up with a consistent definition of evil.

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Three Christians responded to these scenarios but not one could provide a definition as to how to identify evil.

@jerry947 claimed that it was acceptable for the Israelites to kill the families and kidnap the virgins because the enemies were evil. He also claimed that just because warring men kidnap virgins does not mean they rape them.

I was having a dialogue with @geogeer but he never responded when I asked the above questions.

@12_13 said that it is permissible for men to kill the families and keep the virgins for their own use but only if they are "righteous" Jews.

I find it peculiar that theists make a claim that only they really know what evil is yet they cannot provide a definition which someone can use to identify evil.

I am happy you made another thread on this. I read the thread you are pulling these responses and all i could think is... if i every met them in person... The theists that have responded to you disgust me. Here is what i don't care about... if they are right or wrong. What i care about is that these things are in their "holy book." Since they are in a book that is suppose to be the word of god and perfect, canon like this can be easily misinterpreted. Even if it is not now (which it is), 20 years down the line the new generations can pick the book up, rape, and justify it. This is the poison of organized religion, clearly seen in the responses you got from those users, a lack of intellect, logic and reason. Thankfully, i do not think religion will be rising in 20 years but falling, giving room to free thinkers.

I found both your scenarios to be immoral, for a child would not know if they have an evil family. The invaders would have killed the families and told the virgins that they are with "good" now... so marry me. Now, taken into context... today, we would help the children find a family or put them in some kind of child services... not marry them. I am not well versed enough about history to know how it would have worked then, but it was a primitive morality to find that forcing them into marriage was okay. Lets look at it through human eyes... the families were killed and here are a bunch of virgins... Did they get past around? They did have a choice in the matter? Were they scared? Did it take manipulation to make them okay with the situation? ... or was it just "god said it's okay?" Anyway i look at it... i don't see any moral behavior that can come out of taken prisoners as brides in these scenarios. In the context of its time, i can understand how this may have been common practice... but, that only proves that primitive man wrote the Bible, which is the point here i think.

You and I agree that kidnapping and raping young girls is evil under all circumstances.

Christians think sometimes it is immoral and sometimes it is perfectly acceptable although they cannot tell you how to know the difference.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 9:54:19 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 9:35:06 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is immoral for men to kidnap young virgins for their own use under most circumstances, except when__________________________________.

Do you normally refer to POWs as kidnapped people?
janesix
Posts: 3,491
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 10:25:07 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 9:54:19 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/26/2016 9:35:06 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is immoral for men to kidnap young virgins for their own use under most circumstances, except when__________________________________.

Do you normally refer to POWs as kidnapped people?

Does it matter if they are kidnapped or POW's? Would either one make rape acceptable?
boognish
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 10:37:07 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Sam Harris makes a good point in the following video. He identifies the psychopathic core found within Divine Command Theory.
https://www.youtube.com...
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 11:20:02 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 9:54:19 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/26/2016 9:35:06 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is immoral for men to kidnap young virgins for their own use under most circumstances, except when__________________________________.

Do you normally refer to POWs as kidnapped people?

If you think there are exceptions, try finishing the sentence.

If you cant finish it, why is that?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 11:24:51 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 10:37:07 PM, boognish wrote:
Sam Harris makes a good point in the following video. He identifies the psychopathic core found within Divine Command Theory.
https://www.youtube.com...

Yeah, he nails it.

What surprises me is that, so far, not one Christian has said that kidnapping and rape of young virgins is wrong. It doesn't seem to bother them in the least yet they want to push their "morals" on everyone else.

When I was a Christian, I would have said it was wrong without blinking....which is one of many reasons I am no longer a Christian.
Redfordnutt
Posts: 222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 11:27:13 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 9:32:12 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/26/2016 9:09:05 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
At 5/26/2016 6:05:35 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is important to define what evil is if society expects to hold people accountable for evil actions.

I had started a topic a few days ago called Defining Evil. What I found interesting is that Theists, in particular, had trouble defining evil in order to know what evil is. They make claims that the Bible tells them what is evil but they cannot come up with a consistent definition of evil.

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Three Christians responded to these scenarios but not one could provide a definition as to how to identify evil.

@jerry947 claimed that it was acceptable for the Israelites to kill the families and kidnap the virgins because the enemies were evil. He also claimed that just because warring men kidnap virgins does not mean they rape them.

I was having a dialogue with @geogeer but he never responded when I asked the above questions.

@12_13 said that it is permissible for men to kill the families and keep the virgins for their own use but only if they are "righteous" Jews.

I find it peculiar that theists make a claim that only they really know what evil is yet they cannot provide a definition which someone can use to identify evil.

I don't believe in any sort of objective evilness. Ergo I believe evil is subjective and open to interpretation.

Fair enough. Although I don't agree with that, that is a simple explanation.

It is the theists that claim everyone should follow their objective morality. I'm trying to see if they can define when something is evil and when it is not. I don't think they can do it so their morality arguments are irrelevant until they can do so.

Thanks I tend to keep things short and sweet where possible.

Couldn't agree more with what you've said to be honest, objective morality is horrible. I don't want something to be deemed good/bad right/wrong just because a God says so. I want a morality that is reached by reasoned thought and intellectual conversation, not just because a God says so (God doesn't give reasons he just says so).
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 11:31:23 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 11:27:13 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
At 5/26/2016 9:32:12 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/26/2016 9:09:05 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
At 5/26/2016 6:05:35 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is important to define what evil is if society expects to hold people accountable for evil actions.

I had started a topic a few days ago called Defining Evil. What I found interesting is that Theists, in particular, had trouble defining evil in order to know what evil is. They make claims that the Bible tells them what is evil but they cannot come up with a consistent definition of evil.

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Three Christians responded to these scenarios but not one could provide a definition as to how to identify evil.

@jerry947 claimed that it was acceptable for the Israelites to kill the families and kidnap the virgins because the enemies were evil. He also claimed that just because warring men kidnap virgins does not mean they rape them.

I was having a dialogue with @geogeer but he never responded when I asked the above questions.

@12_13 said that it is permissible for men to kill the families and keep the virgins for their own use but only if they are "righteous" Jews.

I find it peculiar that theists make a claim that only they really know what evil is yet they cannot provide a definition which someone can use to identify evil.

I don't believe in any sort of objective evilness. Ergo I believe evil is subjective and open to interpretation.

Fair enough. Although I don't agree with that, that is a simple explanation.

It is the theists that claim everyone should follow their objective morality. I'm trying to see if they can define when something is evil and when it is not. I don't think they can do it so their morality arguments are irrelevant until they can do so.

Thanks I tend to keep things short and sweet where possible.

Couldn't agree more with what you've said to be honest, objective morality is horrible. I don't want something to be deemed good/bad right/wrong just because a God says so. I want a morality that is reached by reasoned thought and intellectual conversation, not just because a God says so (God doesn't give reasons he just says so).

Biologically hardwired empathy would say kidnapping and rape of young girls is wrong all the time.

Christians say kidnapping and rape of young girls is sometimes wrong, sometimes right.

Obviously, empathy is a far better guide to morality than the Christian Bible.
Redfordnutt
Posts: 222
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 11:36:55 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 11:31:23 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/26/2016 11:27:13 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
At 5/26/2016 9:32:12 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 5/26/2016 9:09:05 PM, Redfordnutt wrote:
At 5/26/2016 6:05:35 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is important to define what evil is if society expects to hold people accountable for evil actions.

I had started a topic a few days ago called Defining Evil. What I found interesting is that Theists, in particular, had trouble defining evil in order to know what evil is. They make claims that the Bible tells them what is evil but they cannot come up with a consistent definition of evil.

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Three Christians responded to these scenarios but not one could provide a definition as to how to identify evil.

@jerry947 claimed that it was acceptable for the Israelites to kill the families and kidnap the virgins because the enemies were evil. He also claimed that just because warring men kidnap virgins does not mean they rape them.

I was having a dialogue with @geogeer but he never responded when I asked the above questions.

@12_13 said that it is permissible for men to kill the families and keep the virgins for their own use but only if they are "righteous" Jews.

I find it peculiar that theists make a claim that only they really know what evil is yet they cannot provide a definition which someone can use to identify evil.

I don't believe in any sort of objective evilness. Ergo I believe evil is subjective and open to interpretation.

Fair enough. Although I don't agree with that, that is a simple explanation.

It is the theists that claim everyone should follow their objective morality. I'm trying to see if they can define when something is evil and when it is not. I don't think they can do it so their morality arguments are irrelevant until they can do so.

Thanks I tend to keep things short and sweet where possible.

Couldn't agree more with what you've said to be honest, objective morality is horrible. I don't want something to be deemed good/bad right/wrong just because a God says so. I want a morality that is reached by reasoned thought and intellectual conversation, not just because a God says so (God doesn't give reasons he just says so).

Biologically hardwired empathy would say kidnapping and rape of young girls is wrong all the time.

Christians say kidnapping and rape of young girls is sometimes wrong, sometimes right.

Obviously, empathy is a far better guide to morality than the Christian Bible.

All though it is obvious to you and I, the problem is the mind sets of the people who believe something to be evil just because their holy book says so. If they can believe the kidnapping and raping of girls is sometimes justifiable then what else will their bronze age book lead them to believe? It's quite scary to be honest.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 11:42:39 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
Democrats/Liberals should applaud the Isrealites for not allowing those bigoted Canaanite women to discriminate against Israelite suitors.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 11:44:46 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 9:54:19 PM, Rukado wrote:
At 5/26/2016 9:35:06 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is immoral for men to kidnap young virgins for their own use under most circumstances, except when__________________________________.

Do you normally refer to POWs as kidnapped people?

We are not talking about just people, we are talking about barely-pubescent girls.

To clarify the context, here is a reminder of what we are discussing specifically:

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Here is the sentence again to finish, if you can:

It is immoral for men to kidnap young virgins for their own use under most circumstances, except when__________________________________.
Chloe8
Posts: 2,614
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/26/2016 11:51:22 PM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 6:05:35 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is important to define what evil is if society expects to hold people accountable for evil actions.

I had started a topic a few days ago called Defining Evil. What I found interesting is that Theists, in particular, had trouble defining evil in order to know what evil is. They make claims that the Bible tells them what is evil but they cannot come up with a consistent definition of evil.

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Three Christians responded to these scenarios but not one could provide a definition as to how to identify evil.

@jerry947 claimed that it was acceptable for the Israelites to kill the families and kidnap the virgins because the enemies were evil. He also claimed that just because warring men kidnap virgins does not mean they rape them.

I was having a dialogue with @geogeer but he never responded when I asked the above questions.

@12_13 said that it is permissible for men to kill the families and keep the virgins for their own use but only if they are "righteous" Jews.

I find it peculiar that theists make a claim that only they really know what evil is yet they cannot provide a definition which someone can use to identify evil.

This is a brilliant point. The Christians are shying away from offering to answer the question properly because it is for them actually impossible to answer. All they can come up with is that kidnapping and raping young girls is ok because God said their parents are evil and it's apparently in the girls interest to marry some murderous warmongering pervert than be executed along with the rest of their family's, including babies.

These bible verses are strong proof against claims the bible is divinely influenced. Killing all adults and young males while keeping young females alive is an extremely primitive animalistic action often seen among animals in the wild. It shows that the author's of these verses were primitive unenlightened men not influenced by a god. A god would have no reason to think baby boys were all evil and deserved to be brutally killed in all circumstances while somehow girls escaped the evil influence of this supposedly horrendous culture until the day they first had sex. How could having sex suddenly make someone evil?

The absurdity of Christianity is mind boggling. Christians joined the attacks when I made threads about Islam condoning rape, paedophilia and polygamy. The hypocracy is astounding. Either they are ignorant to what the bible actually contains or just pretend the scripture in question doesn't exist.
"I don't need experience.to knock you out. I'm a man. that's all I need to beat you and any woman."

Fatihah, in his delusion that he could knock out any woman while bragging about being able to knock me out. An example of 7th century Islamic thinking inspired by his hero the paedophile Muhammad.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 12:11:29 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 11:51:22 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
At 5/26/2016 6:05:35 PM, matt8800 wrote:
It is important to define what evil is if society expects to hold people accountable for evil actions.

I had started a topic a few days ago called Defining Evil. What I found interesting is that Theists, in particular, had trouble defining evil in order to know what evil is. They make claims that the Bible tells them what is evil but they cannot come up with a consistent definition of evil.

After some discussion, some other atheists and agnostics were able to contribute some ideas but the closest we got to a definition of evil is the following:

Intentionally caused negative and avoidable effects to a conscious being is evil.

Lets look at 2 different scenarios:

1. Israelites invade neighboring peoples, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (note: Since many girls married soon after they are sexually mature in those days, most virgins would probably be considered around 13 years old or younger).

2. US troops invade Afghanistan, kill all the males and females that have ever slept with a man. The invading men take the virgins for themselves. (Since girls marry very young in that culture, many virgins would be somewhere around 13-15ish)

Question for theists #1: Would you say that both, one or neither scenarios are immoral?

Question for theists #2: If one or neither, how would you propose changing the verbiage of the above definition of evil to fit your conclusion? (Stating that the Bible explains what evil is not a definition)

Three Christians responded to these scenarios but not one could provide a definition as to how to identify evil.

@jerry947 claimed that it was acceptable for the Israelites to kill the families and kidnap the virgins because the enemies were evil. He also claimed that just because warring men kidnap virgins does not mean they rape them.

I was having a dialogue with @geogeer but he never responded when I asked the above questions.

@12_13 said that it is permissible for men to kill the families and keep the virgins for their own use but only if they are "righteous" Jews.

I find it peculiar that theists make a claim that only they really know what evil is yet they cannot provide a definition which someone can use to identify evil.

This is a brilliant point. The Christians are shying away from offering to answer the question properly because it is for them actually impossible to answer. All they can come up with is that kidnapping and raping young girls is ok because God said their parents are evil and it's apparently in the girls interest to marry some murderous warmongering pervert than be executed along with the rest of their family's, including babies.

These bible verses are strong proof against claims the bible is divinely influenced. Killing all adults and young males while keeping young females alive is an extremely primitive animalistic action often seen among animals in the wild. It shows that the author's of these verses were primitive unenlightened men not influenced by a god. A god would have no reason to think baby boys were all evil and deserved to be brutally killed in all circumstances while somehow girls escaped the evil influence of this supposedly horrendous culture until the day they first had sex. How could having sex suddenly make someone evil?

The absurdity of Christianity is mind boggling. Christians joined the attacks when I made threads about Islam condoning rape, paedophilia and polygamy. The hypocracy is astounding. Either they are ignorant to what the bible actually contains or just pretend the scripture in question doesn't exist.

I predict that this thread will die out quickly. Christians know they don't have an answer on how to identify evil but that doesn't disturb them in the least. Furthermore, they wont dispute my definition of how to identify evil and my definition shows their bible is evil.
Rukado
Posts: 527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/27/2016 12:45:11 AM
Posted: 6 months ago
At 5/26/2016 11:51:22 PM, Chloe8 wrote:
This is a brilliant point. The Christians are shying away from offering to answer the question properly because it is for them actually impossible to answer. All they can come up with is that kidnapping and raping young girls is ok

Don't be such a stupid hypocrite. Why should those women have the right to discriminate against Israelite men?

Don't you support the killing of millions of innocent babies in the womb, so why are you complaining about the Israelites killing children (and, you're complaining even louder about those the Israelites didn't kill).

Evil is coercing others to do immoral things. Democrats/Liberals are evil.

Wiping out the Canaanites was justice and defense of the innocent.. The real question is, why didn't God just directly destroy that Canaanite trash himself, as he did in Sodom, rather than cause the Israelites to break fingernails, or worse, executing God's judgement.