[MrPissant]

I believe that some evil is interpretable. But also believe that "True " evil is something only certain areas of the world experience.

My mother was a missionary in the Philippines for a year in the real deep provinces of those islands and says she saw things that would make even the most critical non-believer, a believer in either extreme good, or extreme evil.

Never says what she saw, but my mother is a freakin Science teacher, so her mind is always in the rational/analytical phase, except when she briefly mentions her missionary duties in the P.I.

I dont know what she saw, and dont want to know. I know that alot of witchcraft and weird shit like that is heavily practiced in those areas of the Philippines, so God only knows some of the weird evil shit she's seen.

And that's not open to interpretation at least IMO.

[Toda Hiro-matsu]

Originally Posted by AJax

Thanks for responding..

Emotions themselves may not be logical (and many times are not), but there is always a logical justifications for why emotions are caused.

You see, even you, as someone who denies evil, still recognizes the feeling of what I would call evil. My question to you is, why do you and many others have these feelings? And, is it significant if there is a cross-cultural, universal pattern among all the different causes?

If you recognize the feeling of evil but don't justify it, my thought is that you will be blinded to the very fabric that makes us human.

Evil is a label for people who are perceived as threats. Emotions all came about due to genetic mutations (evolution). These new traits were beneficial for various reasons and gave us an edge in competition with other species before we became (more or less) dominant. These traits (emotions) also have "side effects". Meaning they developed with several functions, a certain number of those functions benefitted us, some were neither beneficial nor detrimental. If they were beneficial, they allowed the carrier (being the human being containing the new gene) to pass those genes down to their offspring. All the while, outcompeting those without the mutant (new) gene. This is how emotion (and ALL other traits/characteristics) came into existence.

As for the emotion of anger. Anger exists (one of the reasons) because it helps to identify threats. If a dog bites a cat, the cat becomes pissed. This helps the cat to remember the dog as a future threat as iit has bitten the cat in the past. Fear also helps in this exact same regard (although not limited to it). Evil is a label precipitated by emotion as a byproduct of different mechanisms we've evolved throughout millenia.

Basically, every trait any organism has had or has ever had is in some way related to survival. That's what evolution is all about. Well, not survival per se, but in the interest of procreation. Survival helps this process, obviously.

[Tiger Uppercut]

what came first the chicken or the egg?

[AJax]

Originally Posted by Rinksterk

Yes I do really believe it. If someone killed my family and whatnot, I would want that motherfucker dead because I would be pissed off that people close to me are dead. It has nothing to do with right or wrong, I'd be pissed off and I would kill that fucker.

Why would you be pissed at him if he did nothing wrong?

[Three Gun Fish]

Originally Posted by Tiger Uppercut

what came first the chicken or the egg?

The egg.

[AJax]

Originally Posted by Toda Hiro-matsu

Evil is a label for people who are perceived as threats. Emotions all came about due to genetic mutations (evolution). These new traits were beneficial for various reasons and gave us an edge in competition with other species before we became (more or less) dominant. These traits (emotions) also have "side effects". Meaning they developed with several functions, a certain number of those functions benefitted us, some were neither beneficial nor detrimental. If they were beneficial, they allowed the carrier (being the human being containing the new gene) to pass those genes down to their offspring. All the while, outcompeting those without the mutant (new) gene. This is how emotion (and ALL other traits/characteristics) came into existence.

As for the emotion of anger. Anger exists (one of the reasons) because it helps to identify threats. If a dog bites a cat, the cat becomes pissed. This helps the cat to remember the dog as a future threat as iit has bitten the cat in the past. Fear also helps in this exact same regard (although not limited to it). Evil is a label precipitated by emotion as a byproduct of different mechanisms we've evolved throughout millenia.

Basically, every trait any organism has had or has ever had is in some way related to survival. That's what evolution is all about. Well, not survival per se, but in the interest of procreation. Survival helps this process, obviously.

If evolution (atheistic) is true, then this is entirely correct, and objective moral values do not exist. So we must ask the question, DO objective moral values exist. An objective moral value is something that would be objectively right or wrong whether anyone believes it or not. For instance, child molestation would be wrong, even if the pedophile doesn't think it is.

Your point is well argued and is the intellectual position of many, but keep in mind that if true, we have no framework of justifying anything we do, or justifying why anything anybody else does is right or wrong. The problem is, our actions supersede our intellect, and we often don't live out the things we say and believe. (That of course can go two ways: it can be either someone does not practice what they preach, or it can mean that someone practices what they don't preach).

If you are correct, you would not be able to justify your feelings of why someone ought to do something, because your justification is based on your own cultural upbringing, and someone else's cultural upbringing may be different from yours. You may say this, but your actions are, I suspect, not often in agreement with this premise. Every day, you feel that someone "ought" or "ought not" do something, and if they don't, you wouldn't justify it based on your own cultural upbringing, would you?

Also, some atheist/evolutionists have written papers on how to justify objective moral values. So even they (ie Sam Harris) believes that objective right and wrong is a reality. I'm not using that as an argument; just food for thought.

Unfortunately this thread is going to be wastelanded.

[Tiger Uppercut]

Originally Posted by Three Gun Fish

The egg.

just appeared?

[Jay Pan ROKK]

Hahaha, a never ending story ...

[Three Gun Fish]

Originally Posted by AJax

If evolution (atheistic) is true, then this is entirely correct, and objective moral values do not exist. So we must ask the question, DO objective moral values exist. An objective moral value is something that would be objectively right or wrong whether anyone believes it or not. For instance, child molestation would be wrong, even if the pedophile doesn't think it is.

Your point is well argued and is the intellectual position of many, but keep in mind that if true, we have no framework of justifying anything we do, or justifying why anything anybody else does is right or wrong.

Objective right and wrong are not the standards by which we interact -- it is consensual or social rights and wrongs. Laws and social mores. Through a series of debates, compromises, and acceptances.

[Three Gun Fish]

Originally Posted by Tiger Uppercut

just appeared?

Nah, something laid it. Something that looks like a chicken, but not quite.