The Void
hiiiii
- 1,416
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- MOTHA RUSSIA
- Seen May 29, 2019
Is there such thing as evil? At what point do things stop being bad and start becoming evil?
listen, I don't mean to be judgmental or anything here, but with the amount of times you reference the Bible and say that you've scoured your Bible for an answer to something it just makes me feel like you're a troll. I'm not saying you are for certain but you kinda come off that way. I'm not damning you for being a Catholic either: frankly, I couldn't care less, you can believe what you want, but I don't think you need to relate every single D&D topic back to the Bible somehow. (and yes, I realize that evil is touched upon a lot in the Bible.)So I searched through my bible for "evil". I have concluded that
1. Evil exists
2. Places can be evil
3. People can be evil (wicked)
4. Actions can be evil
listen, I don't mean to be judgmental or anything here, but with the amount of times you reference the Bible and say that you've scoured your Bible for an answer to something it just makes me feel like you're a troll. I'm not saying you are for certain but you kinda come off that way. I'm not damning you for being a Catholic either: frankly, I couldn't care less, you can believe what you want, but I don't think you need to relate every single D&D topic back to the Bible somehow. (and yes, I realize that evil is touched upon a lot in the Bible.)
as for me, actions can be evil but people are not inherently evil. there are awful people in the world but they more than likely started out as a child who had no intention to engage in Hardcore Debauchery, they just kind of grew into it by falling into the wrong group of friends or something to that effect. things stop being bad and start becoming evil when people are harmed from the consequences of your actions.
ya it may have been ignorant for me to call you specifically a Catholic; should've worded that differently.I am displaying my opinion, and I generally base that off of the Bible. I'm Presbyterian, not Catholic (both are Christian denominations). I'm not a troll. Who would I be trolling? For what reason? Why would I use the Bible to troll? While you may get your opinions from a news article, your brain, or whatever, I get mine from the Bible. Different, yes, but same purpose. I could judge you for using other sources I dorm prefer, but I don't.
Matthew 5:39 - But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.
Can we avoid retorts regarding the bible please? Let the sinner have his way. Let them slap all of our cheeks. We'll see who has the last laugh.
I really appreciate you posting this. Although BadPokemon's posts fall pretty flat in scientific threads, pretty much anything else it is completely acceptable to take your point of view of something from the Bible. There seems to be an obsession with abolishing religion when you're on the internet and it's irritating because people forget the value of religion. It's not about "making people sheep" or "blind faith" or something stupid like that, religion has value in that it has a sort of meaning to the world. The reality is, is that we all are people and we all have the choice to believe one way or another. If I have one problem with BadPokemon's posts outside of scientific threads, it's that he shows an unwillingness to be perceptive of other people's beliefs, but that's to be said about a LOT of people here, not just BadPokemon. It's a little depressing really.That said, I am so sick of the culture warfare. Yes, the scientific approach has merit. This doesn't mean that other approaches do not have merit. Science is not the final or even the most deep source of truth. Evolution moves on - has moved on - and will continue to do so.
What actually doesn't hold any weight is assuming that because you've followed a scientific process, or gathered data from what you consider to be a reliable source, that your answer trumps and invalidates answers obtained from other methods. When you arbitrarily decide that you've collected enough data, or when the time has come to decide, you simply decide, spontaneously. Fundamentally, it's no more and no less arbitrary than I Ching or Tarot readings.
I will say again that the scientific method has merit. Specifically, it allows human beings to find common ground regardless of creed. Science makes claims that are falsifiable, allowing for verification of observations. And I will say again that other methods have merit. Specifically, mythology (aka shared values and beliefs) allow human beings to find common ground regardless of kinship and blood lineage.
Mythic-membership belief systems continue to be a source of meaning and value to many people. In fact, when you look at the developmental level of populations the world over, mythological systems are more common than rational ones. What is to be gained by destroying the only thing that makes sense to these people? Are you going to somehow use external means to force an inner change to come about? And most importantly, how can you expect people to reach the higher floors of human knowledge if you are hell-bent on demolishing the staircase?
You're implying something here that's not entirely clear to me, so I'm going to guess as to what you mean. It may do well for you to clarify what you mean.Evil is a construct. It's as simple as that, really. There is nothing in nature that is inherently good, evil, long, short, heavy, or light. All of those things are products of thinking and not of experience.
I assume you mean the rational ("scientific") approach to ethics, specifically. Science doesn't quite seem like the appropriate term to describe it, since we're not examining data or testing hypothesis, we're merely constructing theories based on logical reasoning.That said, I am so sick of the culture warfare. Yes, the scientific approach has merit. This doesn't mean that other approaches do not have merit.
Science is a description of what is (the practice of science is a bit more involved, but this definition is sufficient to describe its essence). Therefore, science is always truthful unless our observations are inaccurate or "what is" is a lie.Science is not the final or even the most deep source of truth.
I don't understand the relevance of this statement.Evolution moves on - has moved on - and will continue to do so.
That is correct. That alone does not "trump" other answers, in that it does not necessarily make those other answers false. However, in argument, the party making an affirmative claim bears the burden of proof. If those bearing other answers wish to convince anyone, they must be able to reason as to why their answers are right.What actually doesn't hold any weight is assuming that because you've followed a scientific process, or gathered data from what you consider to be a reliable source, that your answer trumps and invalidates answers obtained from other methods.
I think you're over-explaining based on this whole "science" thing you've come up with; like I said, ethical theory is more based in reason, not so much in evidence and data. I do find it odd that you would suggest that a decision made based on historical data would be "as arbitrary" as a decision not based on data, though.When you arbitrarily decide that you've collected enough data, or when the time has come to decide, you simply decide, spontaneously. Fundamentally, it's no more and no less arbitrary than I Ching or Tarot readings.
A rational basis would also have that effect, and I don't see many people going off on crusades to evangelize Kant. Plus, it has the added bonus of being a conclusion you can come to logically. If someone asks you why, you can explain why. With religion as the basis for ethics, your only reason for your belief is because that's what's written there. You tend to run into a lot of problems when different gods (or even the same one) say conflicting things; the only argument you can really use is "my deity's right and yours is wrong," followed by either grudging tolerance or a lot of gunfire.I will say again that other methods have merit. Specifically, mythology (aka shared values and beliefs) allow human beings to find common ground regardless of kinship and blood lineage.
I think people are free to believe what they will so long as they're not causing problems. I won't try to take their beliefs away, though I would be very happy if they would come to appreciate a rational basis for morality in the same way I do. But that's a pipe dream.Mythic-membership belief systems continue to be a source of meaning and value to many people. In fact, when you look at the developmental level of populations the world over, mythological systems are more common than rational ones. What is to be gained by destroying the only thing that makes sense to these people? Are you going to somehow use external means to force an inner change to come about? And most importantly, how can you expect people to reach the higher floors of human knowledge if you are hell-bent on demolishing the staircase?
1. Many scientists believe morality can be rationally constructed. Even if this wasn't the case, it's not a logical argument to the contrary; argumentum ad populum and appeal to authority are both logical fallacies.Not even most scientist tend to think science dictates morals. Like you said, science is the study of what is, not of what it should be. That's what philosophy and the like is for. Science isn't supposed to make guesses about things like morality and whether choices will have overall negative or positive outcomes, it's meant to learn and find out about things that can be truly measured or observed. You seem to think science can determine a clear-cut answer for literally anything, next you'll be arguing that my favorite game is bad because I didn't write a thesis and clear quantitative observations on why it's good.
Is our ecosystem the only thing of value? I say our consciousness is, itself, of value. In fact, I would value it significantly over our environment, with the caveat that if we harm our environment too much, we may end up self-destructing, which would kill us (which, by extension, would kill our consciousness).The only thing that's truly evil is our own consciousness, which is what made us become self-aware of our surroundings and rid of our natural animalistic instincts to be more "civilized", only to negatively harm our ecosystem via artificial selection the smarter we become, unless we were intended to be civilized, and that it's the other animals' fault for failing to adapt to the changes we've made and are becoming extinct.
Likely not, but given any rational theory of ethics, we can say (with respect to that theory) whether they are correct in their belief or not.One question: Do evil people think they are evil?
Also consider your own standpoint from their position.