Religions > Atheism > Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws?
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Nico Demusopelous" |
| Date: |
20 May 2004 01:16:23 PM |
| Object: |
Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
In numerous posts, the Editor of EvilBible.com has ended with the
following:
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from
an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK
to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
Read more about the evils of the Bible at www.EvilBible.com.
This usually is found at the end of one of his "evil Bible quote of
the day" posts. The obvious implication being that Editor thinks
certain verses in the Bible are clearly "evil," which in turn implies
that Editor believes "evil" exists. I am curious, how does Editor
define "evil"? Does he believe in objective moral laws? If so, what is
his justification for such a position? If not, then wouldn't all
action be subjective, and the "evil" of a given quote or action be
relative?
.
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
21 May 2004 11:31:05 AM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405201016.30484770@posting.google.com...
In numerous posts, the Editor of EvilBible.com has ended with the
following:
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from
an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK
to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
Read more about the evils of the Bible at www.EvilBible.com.
This usually is found at the end of one of his "evil Bible quote of
the day" posts. The obvious implication being that Editor thinks
certain verses in the Bible are clearly "evil," which in turn implies
that Editor believes "evil" exists.
I don't see how my quote implies an existence for evil. Yes there are evil
things, but I don't see how this implies that evil exists. There are red
things, soft things and heavy things. That doesn't imply that redness,
softness, and heaviness exist.
I am curious, how does Editor define "evil"?
I usually use definitions 1 and 2 below, from the American Heritage
Dictionary:
EVIL:
ADJECTIVE: Inflected forms: e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. 2. Causing ruin,
injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet. 3. Characterized
by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens. 4. Bad or
blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation. 5. Characterized by
anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
NOUN: 1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. 2.
That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do
both good and evil. 3. An evil force, power, or personification. 4.
Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction:
the social evils of poverty and injustice.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/53/E0255300.html
Does he believe in objective moral laws?
I don't believe that moral laws have a physical existence. I believe that
moral laws can be derived and analyzed objectively. ("Objective" being
defined here as: 3a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an
objective critic. See synonyms at fair1. b. Based on observable phenomena;
presented factually: an objective appraisal
http://www.bartleby.com/61/88/O0008800.html)
If so, what is his justification for such a position?
Evil is "that which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction" in definition 2
above. Harm, misfortune, and destruction are "observable phenomena" (from
definition 3b of "objective") so evil can be objectively determined.
If not, then wouldn't all
action be subjective, and the "evil" of a given quote or action be
relative?
"Objective" and "subjective" are not contradictory. See this link:
http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
25 May 2004 04:47:34 PM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message news:<mIidncSiEsxWszPdRVn-tw@adelphia.com>...
I don't see how my quote implies an existence for evil. Yes there are evil
things, but I don't see how this implies that evil exists. There are red
things, soft things and heavy things. That doesn't imply that redness,
softness, and heaviness exist.
Fair enough.
I am curious, how does Editor define "evil"?
I usually use definitions 1 and 2 below, from the American Heritage
Dictionary:
EVIL:
ADJECTIVE: Inflected forms: e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. 2. Causing ruin,
injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet. 3. Characterized
by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens. 4. Bad or
blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation. 5. Characterized by
anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
NOUN: 1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. 2.
That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to do
both good and evil. 3. An evil force, power, or personification. 4.
Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction:
the social evils of poverty and injustice.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/53/E0255300.html
Going by these definitions, if X is "morally wrong," then X is evil.
But then this begs the question of what is morally wrong. Is
homosexuality "morally wrong"? Is bening a non-Muslim or non-Christian
"morally wrong"? Is having sexual intercourse with a nine year old
girl "morally wrong"? I would think the answer differs from person to
person, showing that this definition is more subjective than
objective. As for causing injury, ruin or pain, I will get to that
below...
Does he believe in objective moral laws?
I don't believe that moral laws have a physical existence. I believe that
moral laws can be derived and analyzed objectively. ("Objective" being
defined here as: 3a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an
objective critic. See synonyms at fair1. b. Based on observable phenomena;
presented factually: an objective appraisal
http://www.bartleby.com/61/88/O0008800.html)
Ah, interesting. So, Editor feels that he can, essentially, determine
if a certain action is morally wrong or evil without resorting to
emotion (as per his definition of "objective"). So then, I would ask
how Editor determines that something like rape is wrong or evil. Can
he do this without making an appeal to emotion? He may claim that rape
is wrong because it is injurious to the victim, but then this begs the
question of why causing harm to another being is wrong. He may try to
make an appeal to the definition of evil above, but I would ask why we
should accept that definition. I'm sure I can cite many examples of
harming other beings that many do not consider evil, so this is not an
iron clad rule, accepted by all. Hence the reason for the question
about why causing harm to others is wrong (it seems to me this will
ultimately boil down to an appeal to emotion, but I'll await Editor's
actualy reasons for why rape, or killing, is wrong or evil, if he
actually holds to such a position).
If so, what is his justification for such a position?
Evil is "that which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction" in definition 2
above. Harm, misfortune, and destruction are "observable phenomena" (from
definition 3b of "objective") so evil can be objectively determined.
Suppose a man holds a knife to my infant child's throat, and I manage
to bring this to an end by shooting the man holding the knife. I have
clearly brought harm and misfortune to this man, and even caused
destruction (at least to part of his body), but very few people would
agree that this action is "evil". So then, it seems it does not
necessarily follow that if action X causes harm or misfortune, action
X is evil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Editor of EvilBible.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
25 May 2004 06:47:08 PM |
|
|
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405251347.84848be@posting.google.com...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:<mIidncSiEsxWszPdRVn-tw@adelphia.com>...
I don't see how my quote implies an existence for evil. Yes there are
evil
things, but I don't see how this implies that evil exists. There are
red
things, soft things and heavy things. That doesn't imply that redness,
softness, and heaviness exist.
Fair enough.
I am curious, how does Editor define "evil"?
I usually use definitions 1 and 2 below, from the American Heritage
Dictionary:
EVIL:
ADJECTIVE: Inflected forms: e·vil·er, e·vil·est
1. Morally bad or wrong; wicked: an evil tyrant. 2. Causing ruin,
injury, or pain; harmful: the evil effects of a poor diet. 3.
Characterized
by or indicating future misfortune; ominous: evil omens. 4. Bad or
blameworthy by report; infamous: an evil reputation. 5. Characterized by
anger or spite; malicious: an evil temper.
NOUN: 1. The quality of being morally bad or wrong; wickedness. 2.
That which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction: a leader's power to
do
both good and evil. 3. An evil force, power, or personification. 4.
Something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or
destruction:
the social evils of poverty and injustice.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/53/E0255300.html
Going by these definitions, if X is "morally wrong," then X is evil.
But then this begs the question of what is morally wrong. Is
homosexuality "morally wrong"? Is bening a non-Muslim or non-Christian
"morally wrong"? Is having sexual intercourse with a nine year old
girl "morally wrong"? I would think the answer differs from person to
person, showing that this definition is more subjective than
objective. As for causing injury, ruin or pain, I will get to that
below...
Does he believe in objective moral laws?
I don't believe that moral laws have a physical existence. I believe
that
moral laws can be derived and analyzed objectively. ("Objective" being
defined here as: 3a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an
objective critic. See synonyms at fair1. b. Based on observable
phenomena;
presented factually: an objective appraisal
http://www.bartleby.com/61/88/O0008800.html)
Ah, interesting. So, Editor feels that he can, essentially, determine
if a certain action is morally wrong or evil without resorting to
emotion (as per his definition of "objective"). So then, I would ask
how Editor determines that something like rape is wrong or evil. Can
he do this without making an appeal to emotion? He may claim that rape
is wrong because it is injurious to the victim, but then this begs the
question of why causing harm to another being is wrong. He may try to
make an appeal to the definition of evil above, but I would ask why we
should accept that definition.
You should accept that definition of "evil" because it is a commonly
accepted definition of the word. Look it up in any dictionary.
I'm sure I can cite many examples of
harming other beings that many do not consider evil, so this is not an
iron clad rule, accepted by all.
Since when does a single definition of "evil" have to be accepted by
*everyone*? You asked *me* what I considered evil and I told you. This
definition is also a very commonly used definition, accepted by most people,
that's why it's in the dictionary.
Hence the reason for the question
about why causing harm to others is wrong (it seems to me this will
ultimately boil down to an appeal to emotion, but I'll await Editor's
actualy reasons for why rape, or killing, is wrong or evil, if he
actually holds to such a position).
I do believe that rape and murder are evil, and I told you why. Of course
these crimes invoke an emotional response in most people, but that doesn't
mean that they are only considered evil because of emotions. These crimes
cause harm to others, that's why they are objectively evil.
If so, what is his justification for such a position?
Evil is "that which causes harm, misfortune, or destruction" in
definition 2
above. Harm, misfortune, and destruction are "observable phenomena"
(from
definition 3b of "objective") so evil can be objectively determined.
Suppose a man holds a knife to my infant child's throat, and I manage
to bring this to an end by shooting the man holding the knife. I have
clearly brought harm and misfortune to this man, and even caused
destruction (at least to part of his body), but very few people would
agree that this action is "evil". So then, it seems it does not
necessarily follow that if action X causes harm or misfortune, action
X is evil.
You need to consider the totality of the situation. The action of killing
the criminal with the knife is less harmful than not killing the criminal.
The criminal could reasonably be expected to kill and maybe rape the child
and probably do this to many other children if he was not stopped. Other
people may not come to the same conclusion and they may think that killing
the man was causing more harm. This is a problem that has to do with a lack
of facts, not with a difference in morality.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Cole" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
26 May 2004 02:04:01 AM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:mfidnXPqpMeIRi7d4p2dnA@adelphia.com
"Nico Demusopelous" <nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com> wrote in message
news:2c68d44e.0405251347.84848be@posting.google.com...
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message
news:<mIidncSiEsxWszPdRVn-tw@adelphia.com>...
Hence the reason for the question
about why causing harm to others is wrong (it seems to me this will
ultimately boil down to an appeal to emotion, but I'll await Editor's
actualy reasons for why rape, or killing, is wrong or evil, if he
actually holds to such a position).
I do believe that rape and murder are evil, and I told you why. Of
course these crimes invoke an emotional response in most people, but
that doesn't mean that they are only considered evil because of
emotions. These crimes cause harm to others, that's why they are
objectively evil.
Since Editor didn't fully answer this question, may I put my nose in. The
reason why "why causing harm to others is wrong", is that it comes down to
self-preservation. The "others" in the argument may become me. In other
words, if I allow others to be harmed, then they will quite possibly allow
me to be harmed. As such, if I stick up for them, then maybe they will
stick up for me. Otherwise known as "The Golden Rule".
(Another version of "The Golden Rule" is that "He who has the gold, makes
the rules", but I digress...)
--
Regards,
Michael Cole
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nico Demusopelous" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
03 Jun 2004 06:26:09 PM |
|
|
"Editor of EvilBible.com" <Dont_Reply@Here.com> wrote in message news:<mfidnXPqpMeIRi7d4p2dnA@adelphia.com>...
Ah, interesting. So, Editor feels that he can, essentially, determine
if a certain action is morally wrong or evil without resorting to
emotion (as per his definition of "objective"). So then, I would ask
how Editor determines that something like rape is wrong or evil. Can
he do this without making an appeal to emotion? He may claim that rape
is wrong because it is injurious to the victim, but then this begs the
question of why causing harm to another being is wrong. He may try to
make an appeal to the definition of evil above, but I would ask why we
should accept that definition.
You should accept that definition of "evil" because it is a commonly
accepted definition of the word. Look it up in any dictionary.
The problem is that it has not been demonstrated that just because an
action is injurious to another, it is actually "evil". The reason for
not accepting this definition is because *many* people can point to
*many* actions that are injurious to others that they themselves do
not consider evil. Furthermore, many people also can point to actions
that are not apparently injurious to others (such as homosexuality,
masturbation, drinking alcohol, painting a portrait of your cat, et
cetera) that they sincerely believe to be evil. It seems the
definition of "evil" is still wide open, and far from objective.
I'm sure I can cite many examples of
harming other beings that many do not consider evil, so this is not an
iron clad rule, accepted by all.
Since when does a single definition of "evil" have to be accepted by
*everyone*? You asked *me* what I considered evil and I told you. This
definition is also a very commonly used definition, accepted by most people,
that's why it's in the dictionary.
I think if we examined the definition you have sided with, "most
people" would start to agree with me that it needs to be refined
significantly. In other words, "most people" can think of actions that
are both injurious to others and not evil in their mind. The point of
this exercise was, indeed, to see how you defined evil, and if there
was any good foundation for that position.
Hence the reason for the question
about why causing harm to others is wrong (it seems to me this will
ultimately boil down to an appeal to emotion, but I'll await Editor's
actualy reasons for why rape, or killing, is wrong or evil, if he
actually holds to such a position).
I do believe that rape and murder are evil, and I told you why. Of course
these crimes invoke an emotional response in most people, but that doesn't
mean that they are only considered evil because of emotions. These crimes
cause harm to others, that's why they are objectively evil.
No, that's why you personally would consider it evil, but that does
not objectively demonstrate that such actions are evil.
Suppose a man holds a knife to my infant child's throat, and I manage
to bring this to an end by shooting the man holding the knife. I have
clearly brought harm and misfortune to this man, and even caused
destruction (at least to part of his body), but very few people would
agree that this action is "evil". So then, it seems it does not
necessarily follow that if action X causes harm or misfortune, action
X is evil.
You need to consider the totality of the situation. The action of killing
the criminal with the knife is less harmful than not killing the criminal.
The criminal could reasonably be expected to kill and maybe rape the child
and probably do this to many other children if he was not stopped. Other
people may not come to the same conclusion and they may think that killing
the man was causing more harm. This is a problem that has to do with a lack
of facts, not with a difference in morality.
Okay, so assuming the man was not going to kill other children (and
maybe we can assume my child was mentally retarded while the man was a
brilliant scientist), then shooting the man was an evil action
commited on my part? I strongly disagree, and I think many others
would disagree as well. It does not boild down to an issue of knowing
the facts, because even under the conditions just described, "most
people" would agree that my action was not evil, despite the fact that
it brought harm and misfortune to another human being.
Your definition states that if an action brings harm and misfortune to
another human being, then it is "evil." But "most people", I think,
could easily imagine situations in which the antecedent of the
definition is true (i.e. the action brings harm and misfortune), but
the consequent is false (i.e. the action was still not evil). That is
very good philosophical grounds on which to reject your simplistic
definition of evil.
With that, seeing that, thus far, you have been unable to give a good
definition of evil, I wonder where you get off trying to convince
others that the Bible is "evil". Just because the Bible is rendered
"evil" according to your own highly subjective sense of morality, does
not mean it actually is evil. It seems your entire site boils down to
this.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "eyelessgame" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
21 May 2004 03:56:52 AM |
|
|
(Nico Demusopelous) wrote in message news:<2c68d44e.0405201016.30484770@posting.google.com>...
In numerous posts, the Editor of EvilBible.com has ended with the
following:
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from
an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK
to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
Read more about the evils of the Bible at www.EvilBible.com.
This usually is found at the end of one of his "evil Bible quote of
the day" posts. The obvious implication being that Editor thinks
certain verses in the Bible are clearly "evil," which in turn implies
that Editor believes "evil" exists. I am curious, how does Editor
define "evil"? Does he believe in objective moral laws? If so, what is
his justification for such a position? If not, then wouldn't all
action be subjective, and the "evil" of a given quote or action be
relative?
I'm curious: to the believer, are evil things evil because God
designates them so, or does God designate them as evil because of some
standard He applies? If there is such a standard (i.e. if evil is not
wholly arbitrary), than this standard (that the believer says God
uses) can presumbly be discovered even by the unbeliever, and indeed
would still exist even in a universe devoid of a god.
If on the other hand God's choice of what is good and evil is
arbitrary, then yes an unbeliever would not discover the objective
standard, but that is because no objective standard exists for an
arbitrary differentiation, and the notion that good and evil is
objective stands in opposition to the claim that it is arbitrary.
As examples: God equivocally objects to killing (i.e. under certain
circumstances but not others). He unequivocally objects to the eating
of shrimp, the wearing of mixed fabrics, and male homosexuality.
Which of these is objectively evil? Since God condemns mixing fabrics
unequivocally, but condemns only the killing of Israelites and other
favored people (and indeed the Bible repeatedly orders the killing of
groups of innocent people), is combining cotton and wool a worse evil
than killing people? If not, on what basis does the Christian
substitute his own notion of evil for God's given word?
Does the believing Christian consider slavery a lesser evil than
eating shellfish? The Bible forbids the eating of shellfish, but
carefully regulates and thus tolerates slavery. Does the Christian
likewise approve more of slavery than shrimp? If not, on what basis
does the Christian substitute his own notion of evil for God's given
word?
I suspect most Christians today consider killing and slavery to be
worse evils than mixing fabrics or eating shellfish. I don't
understand how they can consider this to be an "objective" judgement,
if they believe objective determination of good and evil can come only
from the Bible.
As for me, I know what acts are evil, to me, to those I love, to my
society and my time. I know that some of these acts would not be evil
to other people or in other times and places. But I can still call
them evil, because that's how we use the word, and because of the
things I value and my society values. It doesn't but me that termites
and Romans and Zorks from the planet Bzak might not call these things
evil; I am a human living here and now, and I know what right and
wrong are to me. And that, by definition, is what matters to me.
So do "objective" good and evil exist? Since I am subjective, living
here and now with my own priorities, and not living at all times and
all places with only universal priorities, I don't really care whether
objective good or evil exist; they can't possibly matter to me. There
is a good and an evil here and now. I strive do what's right for my
society and time, for my loved ones and myself, while simultaneously
striving to make my society and time better, and to make it strive
harder for what it claims are its ideals.
eyelessgame
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
20 May 2004 08:10:30 PM |
|
|
In article <2c68d44e.0405201016.30484770@posting.google.com>,
(Nico Demusopelous) wrote:
In numerous posts, the Editor of EvilBible.com has ended with the
following:
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from
an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK
to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
Read more about the evils of the Bible at www.EvilBible.com.
This usually is found at the end of one of his "evil Bible quote of
the day" posts. The obvious implication being that Editor thinks
certain verses in the Bible are clearly "evil," which in turn implies
that Editor believes "evil" exists. I am curious, how does Editor
define "evil"? Does he believe in objective moral laws? If so, what is
his justification for such a position? If not, then wouldn't all
action be subjective, and the "evil" of a given quote or action be
relative?
I can't speak for the editor, but I certainly do accept that there are
definitions of evil that can be determined objectively, as opposed to
the way Christians see them.
I think "evil" can be defined as any action that harms humanity. By this
definition, it's easy to determine that an awful lot of the history of
Christianity is decidedly evil. Much like the book-o-blood it is based
on.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
20 May 2004 09:36:46 PM |
|
|
In article <nemo0037-FE3DB1.21102920052004@news04.east.earthlink.net>,
nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net says...
In article <2c68d44e.0405201016.30484770@posting.google.com>,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) wrote:
In numerous posts, the Editor of EvilBible.com has ended with the
following:
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from
an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK
to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
Read more about the evils of the Bible at www.EvilBible.com.
This usually is found at the end of one of his "evil Bible quote of
the day" posts. The obvious implication being that Editor thinks
certain verses in the Bible are clearly "evil," which in turn implies
that Editor believes "evil" exists. I am curious, how does Editor
define "evil"? Does he believe in objective moral laws? If so, what is
his justification for such a position? If not, then wouldn't all
action be subjective, and the "evil" of a given quote or action be
relative?
I can't speak for the editor, but I certainly do accept that there are
definitions of evil that can be determined objectively, as opposed to
the way Christians see them.
I think "evil" can be defined as any action that harms humanity. By this
definition, it's easy to determine that an awful lot of the history of
Christianity is decidedly evil. Much like the book-o-blood it is based
on.
Right. Famine is evil. Pestilence is evil. Tornados ripping through
elementary schools are evil. Helicopter gunships firing on occupied
apartment buildings are evil. Flying airplanes into occupied buildings
is evil.
These are evil because they are bad for mankind.
--
Enkidu - AA# 2165
"Today is a fine day for reality . . ."
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
21 May 2004 04:16:20 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1b170b1a8d345434989768@news.west.cox.net>,
Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
In article <nemo0037-FE3DB1.21102920052004@news04.east.earthlink.net>,
nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net says...
In article <2c68d44e.0405201016.30484770@posting.google.com>,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) wrote:
In numerous posts, the Editor of EvilBible.com has ended with the
following:
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from
an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK
to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
Read more about the evils of the Bible at www.EvilBible.com.
This usually is found at the end of one of his "evil Bible quote of
the day" posts. The obvious implication being that Editor thinks
certain verses in the Bible are clearly "evil," which in turn implies
that Editor believes "evil" exists. I am curious, how does Editor
define "evil"? Does he believe in objective moral laws? If so, what is
his justification for such a position? If not, then wouldn't all
action be subjective, and the "evil" of a given quote or action be
relative?
I can't speak for the editor, but I certainly do accept that there are
definitions of evil that can be determined objectively, as opposed to
the way Christians see them.
I think "evil" can be defined as any action that harms humanity. By this
definition, it's easy to determine that an awful lot of the history of
Christianity is decidedly evil. Much like the book-o-blood it is based
on.
Right. Famine is evil. Pestilence is evil. Tornados ripping through
elementary schools are evil. Helicopter gunships firing on occupied
apartment buildings are evil. Flying airplanes into occupied buildings
is evil.
These are evil because they are bad for mankind.
I have no problem with your statements. Should I?
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
21 May 2004 07:23:56 AM |
|
|
In article <nemo0037-077D3E.05162021052004@news01.east.earthlink.net>,
nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net says...
In article <MPG.1b170b1a8d345434989768@news.west.cox.net>,
Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
In article <nemo0037-FE3DB1.21102920052004@news04.east.earthlink.net>,
nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net says...
In article <2c68d44e.0405201016.30484770@posting.google.com>,
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) wrote:
In numerous posts, the Editor of EvilBible.com has ended with the
following:
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from
an ancient book of myths and magic that says it is OK
to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
Read more about the evils of the Bible at www.EvilBible.com.
This usually is found at the end of one of his "evil Bible quote of
the day" posts. The obvious implication being that Editor thinks
certain verses in the Bible are clearly "evil," which in turn implies
that Editor believes "evil" exists. I am curious, how does Editor
define "evil"? Does he believe in objective moral laws? If so, what is
his justification for such a position? If not, then wouldn't all
action be subjective, and the "evil" of a given quote or action be
relative?
I can't speak for the editor, but I certainly do accept that there are
definitions of evil that can be determined objectively, as opposed to
the way Christians see them.
I think "evil" can be defined as any action that harms humanity. By this
definition, it's easy to determine that an awful lot of the history of
Christianity is decidedly evil. Much like the book-o-blood it is based
on.
Right. Famine is evil. Pestilence is evil. Tornados ripping through
elementary schools are evil. Helicopter gunships firing on occupied
apartment buildings are evil. Flying airplanes into occupied buildings
is evil.
These are evil because they are bad for mankind.
I have no problem with your statements. Should I?
They are not evil because "God" says they are evil. In fact, if the
Christian God exists, he is their author.
We can find a clear and objective definition of evil without reference
to the Bible. And when we do, we find that God and Jesus are evil.
--
Enkidu - AA# 2165
"Today is a fine day for reality . . ."
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
21 May 2004 07:41:46 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1b1794b9bbfa14f798976b@news.west.cox.net>,
Enkidu <enkidu@leaddogs.org> wrote:
I have no problem with your statements. Should I?
They are not evil because "God" says they are evil. In fact, if the
Christian God exists, he is their author.
Being an atheist, I can't say I disagree with you.
We can find a clear and objective definition of evil without reference
to the Bible. And when we do, we find that God and Jesus are evil.
I didn't refer to God or the Bible in my definition of "evil." Since God
and Jesus are mythical figures, they are no more intrinsically evil than
Zeus or Odin. Duller, true, but not more evil.
--
Enkidu - AA# 2165
"Today is a fine day for reality . . ."
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
20 May 2004 02:44:29 PM |
|
|
Nico Demusopelous wrote:
If not, then wouldn't all
action be subjective, and the "evil" of a given quote or action be
relative?
What would be wrong with this? He can still condemn an action
as being evil be his personal standards, or by the societal
standards of the day can't he?
He doesn't have to accept an action in the distant past just
because the people back then accepted it - he's not one of them!
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
20 May 2004 03:05:25 PM |
|
|
evil means immoral.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Graham Kennedy" |
|
| Title: Re: Does the Editor of EvilBible.com Believe in Objective Moral Laws? |
21 May 2004 10:20:06 AM |
|
|
wrote:
evil means immoral.
Yes, so what?
--
Graham Kennedy
Creator and Author,
Daystrom Institute Technical Library
http://www.ditl.org
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
