How can you believe in a god when..

[maddoggy00]

Let's focus the conversation here, since you either are not understanding my argument or are being stubborn.

*facepalm* You want me to define evil to you? Really?

When did I ask you to define evil I asked you to tell me who gets to interpret what is categorized as evil. I'm not a huge politics buff, but to my knowledge, most judicial systems have separate entities to create, interpret, and enforce laws. I think it's apparent that anyone would easily agree being evil is wrong. But take it to the next step: who gets to determine what falls under the category of evil. I'm suggesting that even murder would not be agreed upon by everyone. Look at abortion, for instance. It's quite obvious people don't agree on it. Some people call it evil, some people call it normal. Who granted you authority over every creature to make the ultimatum claim something is evil? I'm not calling anything gray. It has nothing to do with that, so please remove yourself from that train of thought. In order for something to be white/gray/black you need to first find an interpreter of the law. So my question to you is:
Who decides what is evil?


On a side note, I probably am quite a bit older than you lol. Not that I mind being called a kid, just maybe getting that out of your system may clear your ears to at least acknowledge and digest what I'm saying so you can better and more logically respond to me.




Edit: (didn't show up the first time)

The elders work the same way the "board members" do in a corporation, the problem is that most of them are there for business purposes and maintaining the community, they aren't very "scholarly" if you know what I mean.

Source?

So I'll just ask you this: How many people do you think turned atheist when what they find contradicts what the leader says and his answer was insufficient? A lot.

Source?

[Empire]

Let's focus the conversation here, since you either are not understanding my argument or are being stubborn.


When did I ask you to define evil I asked you to tell me who gets to interpret what is categorized as evil. I'm not a huge politics buff, but to my knowledge, most judicial systems have separate entities to create, interpret, and enforce laws. I think it's apparent that anyone would easily agree being evil is wrong. But take it to the next step: who gets to determine what falls under the category of evil. I'm suggesting that even murder would not be agreed upon by everyone. Look at abortion, for instance. It's quite obvious people don't agree on it. Some people call it evil, some people call it normal. Who granted you authority over every creature to make the ultimatum claim something is evil? I'm not calling anything gray. It has nothing to do with that, so please remove yourself from that train of thought. In order for something to be white/gray/black you need to first find an interpreter of the law. So my question to you is:
Who decides what is evil?

Ok this is just getting repetitive, and you seem to not be getting the point.

Evil is a description. Ok, stay with me here.
God fits that description. Still with me?

I just called god evil because he fit the description of evil.

This isn't a complicated scenario, there isn't a "judicial system" involved, god isn't able to be held accountable, you need to stop overblowing this in an attempt to make it a "grey area" lol.
------------------------------

Sources:

Atheist: Personal experiences from atheist(even on this site) and in general. Well known fact that religious leaders unable to answer things correctly turns people atheist(which is probably why discussion never happens among the religious).

Elders: Well I could post google links, feel it's rather wasteful of my time. Personal experience of the 10+ churches I've been at, talked to the pastor, etc. For the most part Elders are board members who support people, but also deal with the financial side as well.

[maddoggy00]

Evil is a description. Ok, stay with me here.
God fits that description. Still with me?

Evil as an adjective is a description. Evil as a noun is not a description. Try not to confuse the two. Who decides what is categorized as evil (n)? You still haven't touched on this. It's become repetitive because you won't answer my simple question lol.

Sources:

Atheist: Personal experiences from atheist(even on this site) and in general. Well known fact that religious leaders unable to answer things correctly turns people atheist(which is probably why discussion never happens among the religious).

Elders: Well I could post google links, feel it's rather wasteful of my time. Personal experience of the 10+ churches I've been at, talked to the pastor, etc. For the most part Elders are board members who support people, but also deal with the financial side as well.

I'm looking for some reliable sources with quantitative data. This is all your opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying without a source, your statement is weightless.

[Empire]

Evil as an adjective is a description. Evil as a noun is not a description. Try not to confuse the two. Who decides what is categorized as evil (n)? You still haven't touched on this. It's become repetitive because you won't answer my simple question lol.

I'm looking for some reliable sources with quantitative data. This is all your opinion. I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm saying without a source, your statement is weightless.

You do know I'm using it as an adjective right? I'm not saying god is evil itself, but that he fits the description of evil. You don't understand, there doesn't need to be a "who" to decide this, since I'm the one saying it. It's not a law, it's not a thing which you must be bound by, it's my opinion and I can back it up with acts in a religious book/lore(but obviously you are debating grammar and semantics at this point, so I doubt you care).


You want reliable sources with quantitative data for why a certain amount of people quit their religion and what Elders are in the church.... *Scoffs* Yeah, good luck with that.

:/

You know.....there is a limit to being an ass.

[maddoggy00]

You do know I'm using it as an adjective right? I'm not saying god is evil itself, but that he fits the description of evil. You don't understand, there doesn't need to be a "who" to decide this, since I'm the one saying it. It's not a law, it's not a thing which you must be bound by, it's my opinion and I can back it up with acts in a religious book/lore(but obviously you are debating grammar and semantics at this point, so I doubt you care).

Who gets to decide what is considered evil?

[Empire]

Who gets to decide what is considered evil?

Websters Dictionary. Troll.

[maddoggy00]

Websters Dictionary. Troll.

*facedesk*
I didn't ask who defines what the terminology for evil means. Who decides what is morally acceptable, and therefore what is categorized as evil?

[Empire]

*facedesk*
I didn't ask who defines what the terminology for evil means. Who decides what is morally acceptable, and therefore what is categorized as evil?

Who decides what is morally acceptable?: Culture itself defines things that are morally acceptable or unacceptable without severe punishment. The law/government issues the punishment for the more severe ones.

What is categorized as evil?: Anything falling under the definition of evil. If you would like i can post the definition again.
------------

Please stop spamming the same question over and over again. I've answered you several times and any more is overkill.

[maddoggy00]

Please stop spamming the same question over and over again. I've answered you several times and any more is overkill.

Actually, this is the first time you addressed my question. Perhaps you didn't realize the relationship between morality and evil, which is why I tried to ask it a different way.

Who decides what is morally acceptable?: Culture itself defines things that are morally acceptable or unacceptable without severe punishment. The law/government issues the punishment for the more severe ones.

How do you reconcile the differences between different cultures?

For instance, Uganda's culture suggests it's ok to use children (<12 yrs) as infantry for their civil war. What about red-light districts scattered across the world whose governments not only allow their existence, but allow tourism, while most people in the US find that abhorrent? What about war in general? Are you suggesting whoever wins the war was morally right?

[Empire]

Actually, this is the first time you addressed my question. Perhaps you didn't realize the relationship between morality and evil, which is why I tried to ask it a different way.





How do you reconcile the differences between different cultures?

For instance, Uganda's culture suggests it's ok to use children (<12 yrs) as infantry for their civil war. What about red-light districts scattered across the world whose governments not only allow their existence, but allow tourism, while most people in the US find that abhorrent? What about war in general? Are you suggesting whoever wins the war was morally right?

:/ The relationship with morality is hardly the point. Did you just take ethics 101 or something, or are you just an ass in real life?
----------

Really off topic questions again. All that stuff is trying to assume relative ethics right? Well that's almost inherently off-topic as the subject was god. Sure, you can argue what's right or wrong in whatever humans do, i'm sure ethics is a fun subject for you, but it's not relevant to the issue at hand in the slightest.


I'm sorry, your pathetic assumption that I said "whoever wins in war is right".

[noob555]

Actually, this is the first time you addressed my question. Perhaps you didn't realize the relationship between morality and evil, which is why I tried to ask it a different way.





How do you reconcile the differences between different cultures?

For instance, Uganda's culture suggests it's ok to use children (<12 yrs) as infantry for their civil war. What about red-light districts scattered across the world whose governments not only allow their existence, but allow tourism, while most people in the US find that abhorrent? What about war in general? Are you suggesting whoever wins the war was morally right?

You cannot compare a 3rd world country to a first world country. All morals are based on faith, not in a religious capacity but in a humanistic capacity. The lowest common denominator between all crimes is bad faith. Anything that is bad faith is morally wrong.

[noob555]

Who gets to decide what is considered evil?

Anything that is done in bad faith is considered "evil'.

[noob555]

Basically, there is no fucking point in religion. If the only thing keeping a person fucking decent is the expectation of divine reward, the person is a real piece of shit. Religion has existed since one monkey pointed to the sun and said to the other one, "He said to give me some of your shit". The belief in religion is an absolute waste of time. People that believe in religions rather throw a fraction of their money into a wishing well than do something useful with it.

[maddoggy00]

:/ The relationship with morality is hardly the point. Did you just take ethics 101 or something, or are you just an ass in real life?
----------

Really off topic questions again. All that stuff is trying to assume relative ethics right? Well that's almost inherently off-topic as the subject was god. Sure, you can argue what's right or wrong in whatever humans do, i'm sure ethics is a fun subject for you, but it's not relevant to the issue at hand in the slightest.

Sigh. No, I didn't just take a college freshman class. I did take an ethics course in undergrad, but that was probably 10 years ago.

This is not off-topic at all, as it is directly addressing the OP's question. I find it rather amusing you keep trying to attack me and demean my intelligence and ability to think rather than address what I'm saying. Isn't that an admission to being caught in a corner? If anything, you are being an ass, but I'm overlooking that and just assuming you're getting defensive because you're not equipped how to respond to my questions.

I'm sorry, your pathetic assumption that I said "whoever wins in war is right".

This isn't a full sentence so I'm not completely sure what you were trying to say here. I never assumed you said or thought something. I was asking you a question; that's what normal people do when they debate. They don't assume to know what the other is thinking. Instead, they respectfully listen to what they have to say and respond accordingly. Which you haven't been doing at all here.



I'll try to connect the dots more clearly for you. The point I'm making is <if you assume there is no god>, then you cannot determine who has the authority to decide what is moral, and therefore what is considered evil. There is no proper person or set of people to categorize morality, or evil, because they are inherently bound to, affected by, and biased by those laws. Therefore, there is no universal set of morals, or no universal "evil". By definition, to call someone evil, or without morals, you are admitting there is a higher authority, outside the parameters contained within those laws. Otherwise you are just saying that you don't like the person based on your own <individual> set of priorities, or in other words saying, "I think you're evil" and not, "you are evil". This theory/thought process is called the law of morality. When I mentioned legislation a few posts ago, I was relating this idea to something more tangible. Different sets of people create, interpret, and enforce laws to replicate the best they can this concept of morality. The problem is, though, these sets of people will never truly be separated from each other's circumstances, and therefore will be set within their own parameters, voiding a true universal set of values.

If you do not believe in a god, then you cannot also believe there are such things as morals or evil or corruption. There is only biological and sociological evolution. People do "extreme" things due to chemical imbalances and natural resource deficiencies. Everything bad that happened just happened in due course for the natural process of life. Sure, it may seem like it sucks to you on a personal level because when you see stuff on TV it causes chemical reactions in your brain that make you feel sad or angry emotions, but ultimately you don't know how the things that seem "corrupt" now got that way. Perhaps it was just a bad string of chemically imbalanced individuals who were born into positions of wealth and power. If an autistic kid punches someone in the face, does that make them corrupt? No, they don't know any better!

If you do believe in a god, then you cannot claim he(/she/whatever) is evil. To admit there is a god, then you also admit they have some form of higher power, otherwise they wouldn't be a god. If they are a higher power, then to claim to understand what is categorized as evil is to understand their history, and consequentially probably the entire history of the world's life, and thought process to the same extent they do. I don't know of any religion that claims humans can think on the same plane as a god or contain the same knowledge as one; maybe there is, but it isn't one of the current main-stream ones. Therefore, you do not understand what is evil, because that is determined by an authority you do not understand. You might not like what's happening, but you cannot call it evil. Many religions describe "bad things" as either god's way of teaching us a lesson, or it is just a string of events due to free will, which is what @Rvn touched on.


Edit:
Triple posting?

You cannot compare a 3rd world country to a first world country. All morals are based on faith, not in a religious capacity but in a humanistic capacity. The lowest common denominator between all crimes is bad faith. Anything that is bad faith is morally wrong.

Can you elaborate on this more? I do not understand what you're saying; maybe you're using the wrong words here. I understand how you can have faith in someone else, as in trusting and depending on them, but I don't understand how morals fit into that trust relationship. Are you saying if someone doesn't trust or place their confidence in someone else, then they are being immoral?

Basically, there is no fucking point in religion. If the only thing keeping a person fucking decent is the expectation of divine reward, the person is a real piece of shit. Religion has existed since one monkey pointed to the sun and said to the other one, "He said to give me some of your shit". The belief in religion is an absolute waste of time. People that believe in religions rather throw a fraction of their money into a wishing well than do something useful with it.

Let's hope you're right, or you're screwed! lol

[noob555]

Edit:
Triple posting?

Can you elaborate on this more? I do not understand what you're saying; maybe you're using the wrong words here. I understand how you can have faith in someone else, as in trusting and depending on them, but I don't understand how morals fit into that trust relationship. Are you saying if someone doesn't trust or place their confidence in someone else, then they are being immoral?




Let's hope you're right, or you're screwed! lol

The quoting function doesn't multipost anymore for some reason.
I'm saying any established confidence which is broken is considered bad faith, therefore immoral.
If being a decent fucking person sends me to hell, then god is one shitty fucking being. I rather spend my time learning as much as I can about existence than spend my time stroking Gods ego. Death is law, not punishment. I'm not going to waste my life fretting about the non existential. I'm going to live my life and live it well. You're all so worried about the past and the future. Both of which don't exist in the present. Worries are prayers to your fears. If you stay grounded in reality your suffering will end. You'd realize that god and all the positive feedback cycles are irrelevant. Fearing death is like fearing being born, I'm not going to waste my time being afraid of something which isn't real. I'm going to spend my time doing good things for people because they are people.