Observations and inanities by a second-shift assistant supervisor in the Puppy-Grinding division of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy® (our motto: "Sure it's cruel, but think of the jobs!"), your host, Brent Rasmussen.
What has been done in your name.
The C.I.A.’s interrogation program is remarkable for its mechanistic aura. “It’s one of the most sophisticated, refined programs of torture ever,” an outside expert familiar with the protocol said. “At every stage, there was a rigid attention to detail. Procedure was adhered to almost to the letter. There was top-down quality control, and such a set routine that you get to the point where you know what each detainee is going to say, because you’ve heard it before. It was almost automated. People were utterly dehumanized. People fell apart. It was the intentional and systematic infliction of great suffering masquerading as a legal process. It is just chilling.”
And:
A former member of a C.I.A. transport team has described the “takeout” of prisoners as a carefully choreographed twenty-minute routine, during which a suspect was hog-tied, stripped naked, photographed, hooded, sedated with anal suppositories, placed in diapers, and transported by plane to a secret location.
A person involved in the Council of Europe inquiry, referring to cavity searches and the frequent use of suppositories during the takeout of detainees, likened the treatment to “sodomy.”
And perhaps most chillingly, the effect it has on the interrogators:
The former officer said that the C.I.A. kept a doctor standing by during interrogations. He insisted that the method was safe and effective, but said that it could cause lasting psychic damage to the interrogators. During interrogations, the former agency official said, officers worked in teams, watching each other behind two-way mirrors. Even with this group support, the friend said, Mohammed’s interrogator “has horrible nightmares.” He went on, “When you cross over that line of darkness, it’s hard to come back. You lose your soul. You can do your best to justify it, but it’s well outside the norm. You can’t go to that dark a place without it changing you.” He said of his friend, “He’s a good guy. It really haunts him. You are inflicting something really evil and horrible on somebody.”
All that is from a long piece titled: The Black Sites for The New Yorker by Jane Mayer. Read it, if you want to see what evil has been done in your name.
Jim Downey
(Via Digby.)
Bookmark/Search this post with:
What evil?
Jim, I understand well how a theist can refer to evil. But for others, is evil really ontologically evil? What makes it evil rather than, say, a sociological numbers game at best, or personal preference at worst?
I'm not referring here to the CIA. Pick any perp. Was Chairman Mao's dictum (Right is determined by the muzzle of a gun) evil, or might it have just been natural selection in action?
-Col.
Understanding
I don't understand why you'd think evil, by definition, was a theological construct.
From m-w.com:
Main Entry: evil
Pronunciation: 'E-v&l, Britain often and US also 'E-(")vil
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): evil·er or evil·ler; evil·est or evil·lest
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English yfel; akin to Old High German ubil evil
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED [an evil impulse] b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct [a person of evil reputation]
2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE [an evil odor] c : DISAGREEABLE [woke late and in an evil temper]
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS [the evil institution of slavery] b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY
Atheists, by nature, are not amoral or immoral and while some "holy" books lay out appropriate behavior or a moral code morality is not something that religion has a lock on.
Naturalism in mind
Thanks, Rick:
The backdrop of my question was naturalism. Putting aside theism for the moment, if everything is only a schlogg off of the seashore somewhere, albeit developed, I have a difficult time seeing how something can be inherently "wrong". Painful, certainly. But what would make it wrong? Anymore wrong than any other "survival of the fittest" incident in nature.
I know there has been some discussion here about sentience, although I haven't read it all. Certainly sentience is a major factor, but if I am only the biological sum of my parts, is my forced non-existence (homicide) actually wrong?
-Col.
*shrugs*
Col.,
Call it what you will. It is evil, and to use it as a debating point is beneath you.
****************************
*sigh* Edited to add:
I should explain.
Philosophy prof of mine, back when I was in college, got us going on a big involved ethical discussion about the nature of evil, whether you could use violence justifiably to stop it, et cetera. Everyone in my nice liberal college class got themselves all wound up in the debate. As things culminated, the prof looked at us and said: "The ethics of violence are a good topic of debate, as is the question of evil. But when some bastard like Hitler comes along, you set aside the debate, pick up a gun, and go fight it."
Yeah, he was a Jew who saw family killed in WWII because of the failure of others to act.
So, when someone pulls this kind of debating trick, particularly when I am worn out and weary from trying to convince my mother-in-law that she now lives *here* for the last 45 minutes, I don't have a lot of tolerance. Especially when you've stated that "the question of evil" and the existence of God has already been 'solved' to the satisfaction of philosophers in favor of theism, even though I seem to have missed that memo.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Evil
I kinda think of evil in this way:
It's easily possible to do something that hurts someone else. Your reaction to that act can follow several different paths:
1. You might not notice that you've done it. That's not evil.
2. You might notice that you've done it, and be revolted by your own actions, and either make or not make an effort to fix it. That is at worst being socially aware, and at best compassionately determined to make up for an admitted mistake.
3. You might notice you've done it, but not care too much about making up for it. That's bad, but it's not evil.
4. You might notice you've done it, and then decide to do it again, because it's FUN to hurt other people. That makes you a rotten sonofabitch at the least, a little bit evil at worst.
5. But when you get to the point where you hurt other people, and know it full well, but don't even give a shit anymore because those people's lives are literally worth nothing to you – when you don’t even feel ANYthing about it anymore, when you see people as lab rats, or livestock, or clay pigeons, or draft horses, or garbage ... that's what I think of as true evil.
Playing with these numbers as a loose identifier only for the purposes of this post: Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly would be examples of a 4, but probably only because they're powerless to hurt people more than they do. Bush is a 5, but a sort of weak and wimpy one; Dick Cheney is a 5 on steroids.
Probably many or all Southern slaveholders were in the 5 range. Hitler and Pol Pot and Saddam Hussein were 5s. Note that I place Bush and Cheney in the same company as Hitler for intent, not for the numbers. Hitler was an enormously SUCCESSFUL 5. Someone like Cheney will never achieve the horror Hitler did because the current political system, broken as it is, still allows only limited range for the casually vicious impulses of a truly evil person.
...
That being said, one article I recently read said we're approaching a million dead in Iraq as a result of this war. Is that a true number? Did Saddam Hussein kill that many? In both cases, I don't know.
And a little side note: I think a lot of us tend to see most of the Republican Party as 4s, when they’re probably only 3s or less. But when they partner up with 5s, it’s becomes easy to mistake them for the evil they only enable. Yet, likewise, I sometimes see the Democrats as 4s for the same reason, when they’re probably 3s or only 2s – or perhaps even off this scale of harm altogether.
...
Side note to other commenters: I’m poking around inside myself to attempt to understand what I’m feeling in the moment before I post this comment, and I realize I have a serious dislike for Colonel. He’s so ... Eddie Haskell ... that even when he agrees with me, I feel somehow dirtied. Even when he asks what should otherwise be honest questions, such as the one above, there’s a kind of greasy snark in his posts that puts me off.
Jim, it’s decent of you to edit your comment to take some of the sting out, but I don’t think you should worry too much about hurting Col’s feelings. I really believe that some large measure of that greasy snark is deliberate, and I think he’s a master at it.
MOST OF THE TIME, in replying to Col, I feel that I’m wasting my time. Despite the high-toned language, he seems incapable of really hearing, or understanding, any least little part of what I’m saying. Also, I believe there’s some sort of conscious manipulation going on, and that he gets some kind of charge out of playing the rest of us. (In fact, sometimes I almost feel that he’s PRACTICING, honing his manipulative skills for some larger target.)
Looks that way to me, anyway.
Grease, snarks, and other evils
Sorry, Hank, don't know who Eddie Haskell is. Haven't been trying to "snark" or even reply in kind, and didn't know there was a bigger target.
I'm also sorry for making you feel dirtied when I agree with you, as, in fact, I do right now with much of your post's numbering system. I might wonder to myself what difference there is between "bad" and "evil" in number 3, but that is quite minor and neither here nor there for either of us, probably. I also agree that we are likely to cast shadows over whatever political party we do not espouse; shadows longer and darker than what they often deserve. By and large, though I might be simply naive, I still think most pols on both sides of the aisle have the good of America at heart, regardless of how adept or inept they are at implenting any good.
Very clearly, I have a worldview. It is different from yours and, frankly, everyone else's that typically posts here. It is the stuff of humanity to either concede another's point, or attempt to convince him of yours. Do I at times attempt to convince? Yep. Guilty. But, then, open-mindedness is what this site is about, isn't it? Am I wrong?
You don't mean this as simply a one-way street, do you? I am supposed to only listen (and understand) but never say anything? Do you ever try to listen or understand someone else's point--even if you're predisposed against it? I tend to think, plausibly wrongly, that your "serious dislike" for me is simply because I'm not an insider to you.
Hank, I've not tried to put you off. I'm sorry that I have. As I said before, if I have overstepped my bounds and it is the will of those over this site, I'll silently ride off into the sunset.
-Col.
Col.; I can't speak for
Col.;
I can't speak for others but, I have been subjected to listening to the point of view you seem to espouse all my life. Then when someone disagrees with you, the whining starts: "you're turning this into a one- way street".
Bullshit! It's been a one-way street for a looong time - Your way or no way. Don't know if you are actually a current or former col., you certainly sound like one used to having your way with no dissent by having the ability to punish anyone that has the balls to stand up to you. I saw plenty of that during my time in service. It's why I got out.
Did you read the link? I was raised overseas, and this type of endorsed behavior by representatives of our government (which anyone in the military is) makes me ASHAMED of being an American.
Objective Subject
My intent was not to say anything about U.S. policy. My only intent was to ask Jim, with whom I feel I have something of an understanding, about the concept of evil. It has piqued my interest here many times from other posts, and this was an opportunity. Politics were not my intent at all.
I, too, have been ashamed of what many Americans have done. I have never been, however, ashamed to BE and American, as I hold the American Idea, despite all of its zits and blemishes in practice, in very high esteem.
-Col.
Don't shirk your responsibility
Col-
Interesting take you have there. I couldn't disagree more. You can still be a proud American, but ashamed as well.
Your attitude is our problem as a country. You are ashamed of "what many Americans have done" but you are not willing to take personal responsibility. Even though I voted against this sick son of a bitch twice, I still have to take responsibility for his actions. We all do, including you. The rest of the world doesn't care if you personally tortured anyone. You are an American and you torture as far as they are concerned.
We both saw what was happening back in '04. We all knew this war was BS. There were no weapons, no imminent threat, no AQ in Iraq. I didn't do enough to help Kerry get elected and I accept my share of the blame for allowing this madman to act in my name. The next 16 months, I have to put in more time working on Dem campaigns. I have to write on more blogs. I have to give more of my money. I have to attend more rallies, than I did in previous election cycles.
Dirk
Perhaps semantics
Dirk, I'm also very ashamed of what white people have done. But I'm not at all ashamed to be white.
I am very ashamed of what people have done in America's name (which includes mine), but I am still very proud of what America really is (i.e. a democratic republic with freedom of multiple expressions and so forth).
I, too, vote every election, serve committees, lobby, appeal, etc. Government by the people is just one more thing that makes America great. There's always more to do.
-Col.
Please clarify your avoidance of responsibility
Colonel-
You should be proud to be an American because of the great things our nation stands for, but you also should be ashamed of some of the things that have happened here in the past.
I am not sure how these two things (White people and torture) are similar in your mind. Are you refering to slavery or modern day racism? If you are refering to slavery then I would not hold you personally responsible because that ended 150 years ago with the Civil War. However, the "White people" of the day, did take responsibility and fought a war when the South tried to succeed from the Union. If you mean modern day racism, then you should take responsibility and actively put a stop to it whenever you have a chance.
I am not sure what part of my statements you object to? Please clarify. Why won't you take responsibility for things that are happening right in front of both of us? If you are a citizen, you are responsible. Period.
Dirk
Very responsible
Yes! As Americans we are all responsible for what happens on our watch. I think we should act in every way and every day to make sure the mistakes of the past never happen again. That's why I have done and do the things I mentioned earlier; vote, lobby, dialogue, appeal, etc.
The distinction I make is one of essence and behavior. America in its essence is pretty hard to beat. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. But some atrocious behavior has occurred that I want never to see again. Slavery, racism, hatred, etc. But those things only mar the people that did them, not America per se (except in image and so forth). They did not mar the superior ideology of a democratic republic, the Bill of Rights, etc. The same goes for being white. White people have perpetrated some heinous things--things that any thinking person is ashamed of. But that doesn't mar "whiteness" per se (except in image and so forth).
Ugly things done by Americans can never despoil the grand nature of genuine America, anymore than ugly things done by white people cannot make simply being white an embarrassment in and of itself.
Again--we sure haven't arrived. There is unimaginable work to be done. And, yes, every American is responsible to do his/her part and a bit more.
Does this help?
-Col.
Patriotism vs Nationalism
Colonel-
It sounds like we agree, sort of. I don't agree with this statement:
I think our good name has suffered horribly, possibly permanently, over the past 5 years. It may be that Guantanimo and Abu Graib have irreparably disgraced our country. It will take decades to get our reputation back and for the world to forget these disgusting events. Maybe America is still number one in your eyes, but I think that is blind nationalism. There is a big difference between nationalism and patriotism. Mark Twain said that "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves". Right now, our government does not deserve support.
Dirk
Clemens may not be the best...
I wholeheartedly agree with Mark Twain's quote. (He may not be the best one either of us could use at this point, however, due to his heavy racism! Actually, I like very much of his clean humor. I frequently need to learn from his quote, "Better to say nothing and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.")
I'm attempting to get across something that I think you fully agree with. I'm not saying America has not suffered in terms of reputation. I'm saying that the very ideal of what America IS, viz. a great enterprise of liberty, justice, self-government--these are things that will always be great now matter how we fail as Americans. Do you see what I'm saying?
-Col.
Bloody hell
Man, you just go on and on and on.
Mark Twain was actually a great deal less racist than most of his contemporaries. He was an amazingly enlightened, thoughtful, deep man. Brilliant, mostly self-educated, delightfully cynical. And just by the by, an atheist.
"Better to say nothing and be thought a fool ..." -- If Mark Twain said it, he was probably quoting someone else. It's also been attributed to Confucius, Lincoln, Groucho Marx, the Bible -- hell, probably even Redd Foxx said it at one time or another.
Oh, yeah: "That's a beautiful dress, Mrs. Cleaver."
So...
...what is it you want from me, Hank? I said I enjoy his humor.
The messages are contradictory. If I agree with you, you attempt to label me with your TV joke. If I don't, I'm a blazing idiotic religionist. So why don't you tell me how to do it?
-Col.
The concept of evil
If you want to have a look at how at least one atheist (namely myself) handles the subject of good and evil the you can read that here.
Thoughtful
Thanks, Thameron-
I scanned the article and it's clear you've put significant thought into it. I appreciate that. It would take me some time to digest all of what you've offered, partly just to make sure I was not misunderstanding you at any point. I think a host of questions would eventually come to my mind (as would be the case for you if I had written an article that dealt with certain pivotal worldview concepts).
I admire your application to sober thought and to its courteous presentation.
-Col.
Thank you Col
We atheists do occasionally think about things like good, evil and the value of human life. Without a God to turn to we must perforce seek for other foundations. My own non-theistic moral foundation rests upon two facts which seem incontestable:
1) We are a social species and need each other to survive. If not necessarily as individuals then definitely as a species.
2) We are part of the Earth's biosphere. Wreaking harm upon it endangers us as well.
This is the minimum for survival, but there is more having not to do with morality but rather with purpose. Right now as far as we know we are the only technological species in existence. I think that gives us a responsibility not only to survive, but also to progress. By progress I mean know as much as we can know by extending our perceptions (and ourselves) into the depths not only of space but also of the earth and its oceans. By progress I mean sharing the work and the joy of discovery specieswide. By progress I mean unlocking all of the genetic code and if nothing else ensuring each person starts with the potential for a healthy life. And here is my problem with the theistic viewpoint. In the theistic view I am not even a small part of that worthwhile venture. I am a created thing. A puppet. A pet. A clever pet perhaps but a pet nonetheless, and what owner doesn't want their pets to love them? Furthermore anything our entire species does will amount to nothing because there is someone (God) who already knows all of the answers at the back of the book but just isn't giving them to us. Now I don't know if you believe in the rapture/armageddon etc. future, but it seems that theistic world view is 'things are bad, God will watch for a while and then eventually get pissed and blow everything up, then clean up the mess and start over'. I personally think that view is unworthy of a sentient being, unproductive and dangerous since we presently have the means to destroy our planet's biosphere in a matter of hours. If I have seemed unduly vicious to you it may be because of my frustration at seeing the potential of our species slipping into the darkness.
Consistent
Thameron, I think your moral social underpinnings are quite sound and consistent given your worldview. As I said before, you've obviously given sober thought to it. I don't take you (here) as vicious, and it is clear to me that you are (here) to be taken quite seriously. You have a fear--in the healthiest sense of that word--of what can happen if an errant worldview runs amok.
Perhaps at some point it would be informative to learn a bit more about each other's position. I would say your understanding of Christian theology is a charicature, you would say, perhaps, my understanding of atheololgy is misplaced. At any rate, thank you for your considered input.
-Col.
Admitted
Col I do admit to the use of caricature (it's a weakness), but I have an excuse. From where I am sitting there really is no such thing as a 'Christian' viewpoint because not all of the people who call themselves 'Christians' agree on much of anything (if you can provide an example of something that each and every Christian sect agrees on I would be obliged). There may be a Catholic Viewpoint, a Greek Orthodox viewpoint, a Lutheran viewpoint, a Methodist viewpoint, a Baptist viewpoint, a Gnostic viewpoint, a Seventhday adventist viewpoint, a Jehovah's witness viewpoint, a Mormon viewpoint, a Nazarine viewpoint, a Christian Scientist viewpoint, an Evangelical viewpoint, a Pentecostal viewpoint, a Congregational viewpoint and a Unitarian viewpoint et al (although it might be argued that Unitarians aren't really Christians). This is just a short list of those who call themselves 'Christians'. Which of them are the real Christians and which the false? Against what standard do you measure them? So you see my difficulty. At least my caricature is a single caricature and is thus less unwieldy.
Hard to discern.
Col., while Hank and I haven't discussed this matter at all, I can see something of where he is coming from (oh, and the Eddie Haskell reference is pertaining to this). It is hard to discern what your intent really is, and I have had others ask me just what was up with you, since the data points are all over the place.
Part of my (I'll not speak for anyone else) skepticism regarding you is based on experience in dealing with people of intense faith. It may be unfortunate, but lots of experience has taught me to be leery, since such people often demonstrate a willingness to use many different types of cameoflague in order to engage us heathens, sometimes hiding their true motives even from themselves. I usually play fair with people, and take them at face value, so long as I am getting a consistent set of information from them as to who they are and what they believe. But when I get conflicting information, I start to wonder what is really going on. Without getting into detail (I don't have the time or energy right now), I get just enough conflicting data from you (in the form of your comments and interactions here) to raise a couple of red flags.
Now, since this is 'just' a discussion forum, it's no big deal. It's not like you're asking me to co-sign a loan or something. So I don't spend too much time worrying about it. But I do wonder, and the writer in me pays attention (I find people fascinating, particularly those who clearly do not think like I do.)
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Understandable
I can understand the skepticism.
As I said in one or other of my recent posts, of course I have ideas that I think are correct. If someone proves me wrong, I'll change them. In the process, people most typically attempt to persuade others of their own ideas as well. You overtly mentioned once that you might make me think about atheism. I've no problem with that--it's what I'd expect.
The question about evil or wrongdoing is one area where I can't see all the details of how you hold your worldview. You evidently think I'm coming at it from the wrong angle as well. I guess I have to ask (pun actually intended), "Was it wrong to ask you about it?" I realize it was not a good time for you given other exigencies. But in general?
Perhaps if there were a formula as to how uti wants outside interaction to come (if at all), I would be able to avoid the pitfalls I've run into.
I'm trying to be as up-front as I can be. I think atheism is errant. I think theism/Christianity has validity. Here we all disagree, but that is the obvious stage. Duplicity must never be a part of it--or Hank's worries would be realized. I also hope serious thought can be a part of it. Sometimes, it has not.
Is there anything else that would be helpful? Is there something I've been unclear on, or anything that raises trust questions? I'll help if I can.
-Col.
Discussion v. debate.
In general? Certainly not. I think part of what I run into (as seen in my first part of the earlier post), and part of the interaction problem here, is that sometimes you seem to want honest discussion, and other times we seem to drop into more debate-style tactics, which are not meant to illuminate so much as they are designed to "score points".
That help?
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Point taken
Well observed. Some of the posts here I've not even read for that very reason; they seemed little more than a Jr. High brat-fest one-up-manship. I never want to be guilty of that.
Discussion, by its nature, can lead open/inquiring minds (or those with blinders on as well) toward debate. Perhaps I crossed a line here. I think there were several days' worth of posts that contributed. Several had spoken about evil. When you placed your blog, that was the word I saw, not thinking so much about the balance of the blog. But the balance is what the blog was really about, and what others and yourself were concerned with. I should have seen that.
Thameron has come the closest to answering some of my questions. At heart it has to do not so much with what is evil, but is there evil and if so, why is it "evil"?
-Eddy
Evil. Weeeeeee!
I can see quite a bit of confusion in this thread. I echo Rick and Jim to some degree-calling something evil is -let me make this perfectly clear-not necessarilay dependent on one's theology in any way. The idea has been around longer than your god, whether you choose to acknowledge that fact or not. Also, evil is not a thing-no matter how solidly it fits into a christian worldview, it is still not itself a real thing-it is a perspective on an action, event, or being. For the most part, just an opinion.
If an atheist offers an opinion on evil, it most likely references real world consequences for real people. This is the "absolute" grounding for the opinion, not imaginary consequences or words in a book.
Weeee what?
Mere affirmations a gripping conviction do not make.
I do find in your affirmations, however, something that lies at the very heart of my original query. Your answer is not as reasoned as Thameron's or Jim's, however I think many non-atheistic philosophers would say that yours is why there is some "logical conclusion" trepidation:
Mere opinion in this arena can be a scary thing.
In some way, for there to be genuine evil, one must get beyond simple biology. Falcons don't "murder". Thameron's effort with relationships steps in this very direction (beyond mere biology). If, however, you are correct, then it may be the value placed on those relationships is only illusory, viz. "just an opinion." Unless we can get beyond "just an opinion" in this area, I think there will always be those that will use such to their own (evil) advantage. Here, as Jim said, he, Hank, me or whoever (certain real people right now) don't murder and rape because they are not evil in this sense. But I do wonder what other (large?) segments of society would do if they were convinced no moral objectives existed. This is not, at least as I understand them, the position of any of the above-mentioned posters. But if your contention were to be found correct and realized globally, I fear there would be many who would use their guns for more than shooting golf balls.
In your defence, you did preface "just an opinion" with "for the most part." In order to find where the line came between the "most part" and the "other part", however, we would need some sort of guide, wouldn't we? Here, again, is where Thameron's input was, in my opinion, thoughtful. Do you have another means?
-Col.
Soul brothers.
Col.,
I don't mind (and am not above) a little bit of "gotcha" in an otherwise relaxed discussion, but I don't care for debate as such (biggest reason I'm not an attorney).
Do you believe in a 'soul'? That you have a 'mind' which is separate from your brain? I don't. When people speak of a 'mind' what they are describing is the manifestation of an emergent phenomenon which is the result of, and dependent upon, biological processes. If my brain dies, or fails to perform to a sufficient degree due to age, illness, injury, or toxins, then my 'mind' ceases to be present, or is present in a compromised form. My 'mind', or my 'soul' if you will, does not exist as a separate entity - it is entirely contingent on proper operation of my brain.
Likewise, 'evil' is a term used to describe behaviour by humans. It does not exist as separate entity. My guns are not 'evil', though they may be used to evil purpose. A lion is not 'evil', even if it tries to eat me. Couple that with Thameron's outline on the topic (which is a good introduction to non-theistic concepts of 'evil'), and I'm willing to see where else the discussion leads.
Ha! I think even Hank would have to agree - that's *funny*.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Evil minds?
C'mon, Jim- There are much better reasons than that for not being an attorney. I think it's bad enough if Hank hates me. The entire general population hates attorneys. (Lets see, if there is no mind without a brain, is there still evil without lawyers...?)
Seriously, I don't believe the mind (spirit/soul/whatever) are as inseparbly tied as you do, and this, in large part, on mind/brain research grounds. But that isn't so much here nor there right now. My questions would be along other lines, but I think I'll let it rest.
Oh, and Eddy. He was my twin brother. Or so most people think. When I was very young one of us drowned, and to this day they don't know if it was him or me.
-Col.
Ahem.
Don't go putting words in my mouth. I don't "hate" you.
Thanks, man.
In all truthfulness, Hank, I was quite troubled. First, because I think everyone has a desire to be accepted, even by those with whom they disagree. And second, because I am trying very hard to be fair. If I've come across Eddyish to you, I'll try to improve. Sometimes I'm just trying to make a joke, or be funny, but because you don't know me or because of the lack of non-verbal cues in written dialogue, I haven't accomplished my intent.
I have a soft spot for both cow-punchers and the writings of Twain. I hope that doesn't make me Haskell.
All the best~
-Col.
Take care
Jim, I'm sorry about your mother-in-law. I can't imagine how wearing it is.
Just for the record, I agree wholeheartedly with your Jewish professor. And, at least in my mind, the so-called "problem of evil" and evil's nature are not identical, one dealing primarily with suffering and the other with ontology. I've seen several posts here about evil that I agree with completely; I just didn't understand how this could be.
I hope you can put your feet up this evening and get some rest. Maybe a cup 'o decaf joe or an ice-cold Pepsi in a hot-tub.
All the best~
-Col.
It is...*exhausting*.
Col., thank you for your well wishes as regards caring for MMIL. This last week has been difficult, and whether that portends something more or is just random flux is hard to say...and so hard to plan for.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Calls 'em as we sees 'em
My point wasn't to debate the CIA, or anything that you and I both know is wrongdoing. My question had to do with evil per se. You clearly espouse there is such a thing. In what light do you see it?
-Col.
If you don't believe in God then you can't believe in evil?
That doesn't follow at all. If anything, I would say that humanists have a truer understanding of evil than those religionists who say that something is evil if it offends some old guy with a beard who lives on a cloud. Humanists understand that an act is evil if it causes suffering to real people down here on earth in the here and now.
- No More Mr. Nice Guy!
I wouldn't know
what a religionist believes, since that is about the last thing I'd be. Nor, as a theist, do I have any inkling of an old guy on a cloud. But I do know that it isn't murder for, say, a tigress to take down a gazelle. Have we crossed some evolutionary line that takes us from biology into ethics because we are higher vertebrates than tigers?
-Col.
Bear in mind
That most of the followers of the Abrahamic religions want to define good as being in the graces of a God for whom wanton slaughter of populations down to the last man, woman, child and animal is not uncommon at least according to their texts. Somehow cleaving to this being makes them more 'moral' than we poor misguided atheists. Now from my own perspective I would think murdering all the babies in a town was an act of evil, but if God does it it has to be good. Just think of God as the Very Very Big Brother. But what about the Prince of Peace? Well according to the book when he wasn't off killing fig trees he had this to say:
Suffice to say the needles of their moral compasses are a tad unsteady.
A little correction if I may...
...in the interests of accuracy.
I checked Luke 19:27 and it doesnt have 'Jesus said'. It is in fact the end of a story Jesus was telling the disciples. The quote is attributed to a nobleman in the story Jesus was telling, that is, it is the nobleman in the story who said, 'But my enemies blah blah blah...'
Murky
Well the point of saying that wasn't at all clear in the version that I read, but setting that aside for now how about
And Mr. Family Values goes on to say:
And woe betide the resistors
Not to mention that it isn't much of a deterrent to evil if you will be forgiven no matter what heinous crime you do. So all of those repentant child rapists are there in heaven while the good intentioned atheists burn in hell, but god is good. Yup real good.
Accurate
The quotes you posted this time are pretty accurate. Matt: 10 34-37 did say he would cause division and he was spot on. For proof one needs only to look out the window. Or turn on the TV. As for the ones from Luke, we'll discuss that again if it comes up. Im still studying the subject of hell. Suffice it to say that I dont think it involves eternal french frying.
Not to mention that it isn't much of a deterrent to evil if you will be forgiven no matter what heinous crime you do. So all of those repentant child rapists are there in heaven while the good intentioned atheists burn in hell, but god is good. Yup real good.
Methinks youve been listening to the folks over at Westboro Baptist Church too long. They think the Christian God is in the business of torturing people that dont agree with him. From what I gather from the Christian bible, no one is in hell yet. No one has been judged yet except for Christians, and a lot of them are flunking, going by the standards they ought to be living up to.
As for deterrent, I asked a friend of mine, "If you can be sure you would be forgiven no matter what you do, would you start killing and raping people?" He said No of course. He's not an evil person.
Nevermind
Virtually the same words and the same quote as given by Jim below, but hitting the 'post' button too late. Nothing to see here.
Here ya go, Col.
That's about it in a nutshell. For those of us who are not believers, and don't therefore have a God to 'answer' to, this is as good a working definition of why we don't murder and rape as any.
Jim Downey
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Like Science Fiction? Read my novel, Communion of Dreams, for free.
Otherwise...
It's also a pretty good indicator that "good" and "evil" aren't defined by theology. It exists pretty independent of it.
For those familiar with AD&D
This would epitomize Lawful Evil.