What are we? What are we doing? Where we're going?
Comment has been collapsed.
We are Steamgifters. We're doing giveaways. We're going to die. Sadly, but that's how it is.
Comment has been collapsed.
I am an atheist, I don't believe in fairy tales such as god, evil and other shenanigans. There are only people caged in laws and rules. You break em, then be greeted by consequence. I enjoy this cage. Its nice, warm and safe; not all agrees with me though.
Is it evil of you to try to break the cage? no, but it is psychopathic.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's just philosophical question it doesn't requires you to be believer, it requires you to understand what believers believe in though I^v^I
I kinda agree with you.
Comment has been collapsed.
phil·o·soph·i·cal
ˌfiləˈsäfək(ə)l/
adjective
1.
relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
I respect religion and all the people that believes in them. If I see a religious person talking nonsense, I won't argue. Even a person knocking on my door bothering me, I won't argue, but I refuse to dive in through religious mind. I've done it before, it killed almost all my brain cells. I nearly died.
Comment has been collapsed.
relating or devoted to the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence.
You can't prove if something exists or not if your argument is It doesn't exist because it doesn't exist - you're just stating a statement without any study based on your beliefs (just like some believers do but the other way) I~voI
I was speaking with religious people knocking at my door once and one of them almost took my side I^v^I
Comment has been collapsed.
well. it doesnt work like that. If you can't prove it, it can't be science. Its not the other way around.
but I will give you this fimiliar joke, can god create a rock soo heavy, god can't lift it? If he can, then it isnt all mighty, considering it cant lift it. If it cant, then it isnt all mighty because it cant create it.
anyway! blopidy blop! no religious talk are allowed here on steamgifts, and I will not be breaking out of my cage.
Comment has been collapsed.
Well, let me remind you that there were times when people couldn't prove that Earth travels around the Sun. If nobody would ask "is it possible that the Sun is still and Earth is spinning" nobody would try to prove it. If you won't ask yourself "is it possible that God exists" you won't be able to prove it as well. Following your logic people would just say "the sun is spinning because it's spinning - you can't prove it's another way". Maybe we just don't have tools to probe God exists.
I'm not saying that God is an old man with gray hair who sits in the sky and creates rocks. I'm saying God may be some kind of higher consciousness, a power.
Comment has been collapsed.
You are more than welcome to ask, there is nothing wrong with that.. but in the end, you still need to come up with evidence.
also, we---.. nope nope.. again.. unless you want to get us suspended and this post locked. We shouldn't be talking about religion
Comment has been collapsed.
Atheism and Religion carry one thing in common. The same philosophical mindset. Two parties on either half of the line insistently believing each other to be inherently wrong despite neither side having any evidence.
Atheists stance that there definitely is no god implies that human perception is not limited and that they are afforded the intellectual right to make such claims about the universe.
The interesting thing about Atheists - is there insistent reliance on intellectual dishonesty. The argument often boils down to - there is no proof that god exists - therefor there is no god. Yet obviously that makes no sense. In science, an idea is not dismissed due to a lack of evidence - science only dismisses ideas when substantial evidence is provided to dismiss those ideas - and until that time exists the pursuit of evidence to support the idea is encouraged.
As an Agnostic, I suggest that through the current limitations of human perception we do not have the intellectual right to outright dismiss the idea of a God - nor do we have the implicit requirement to believe in such until evidence of existence is provided. As an Agnostic I support the pursuit of evidence.
Comment has been collapsed.
right.. well, the idea of god came from a book.. no, not even a book, it came from a story a long long time ago. Told by a person from another. Have you played the game telephone? the outcome isn't great. If a sentenced is past around in a group, that sentence would be altered. Now imagine that, but instead of 1 sentence, its a few hundred sentence.. and instead of a group, its thousands of generations.
The original story is probably a guy named Bob who orders people around.. who knows?.. but never the less, its a story.. and you shouldn't believe in stories.
Comment has been collapsed.
Your response is absolutely ridiculous - and I say that as a non-believer. First of all Religion is not based on the story of Jesus who may or may not have been a real person. As long as there has been civilization there have been gods. But lets just pretend that your statement above makes sense and just look at the stories around Jesus (or Bob if you prefer) and examine your premise:
(The existence of Jesus as a historical figure does not have any evidence nor does Jesus having been the son of God)
So Jesus told them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."
What does that provide us with? It provides our story a time narrative. As in, we know there are historically written records from that time frame that are accepted as valid - Rome was a very advanced nation. Since each book of the Bible that discusses Jesus is 'supposedly' written directly by each disciple (The book of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc) they would be written in a biographical nature and not a big line of 'telephone'.
If your premise is that the supposed authors of the texts are not the actual authors of the texts, then at least you have an argument to make - not a very good one, but an argument none the less and once you have established that as 'truth' then your above argument can be considered - but without this argument your above argument doesn't make sense. If your premise is that the old testament (or first 5 books that were supposedly recorded by God speaking directly to Moses) is a game of telephone then maybe you have an argument there. But if you move further into the future - You have religions like Islam (founded well after written documentation was established) or farther into the future you have Mormonism.
Sure all of the religions might be bogus and there may not be a God (you don't have the evidence to say there is none today though) but your argument that religion is a big game of telephone is stupid at best - obviously the Mormon religion wasn't even founded until 1820 - obviously written documentation is very widespread at that point.
Now, I'm not saying that Atheists are wrong - they could be right... but your LACK OF EVIDENCE to prove there is no God is just as equal to religions LACK OF EVIDENCE to prove there is a God.
Comment has been collapsed.
Furthermore, if we assume that all religion on Earth can be debunked as works of fiction still does not disprove the existence of a God or creator of the universe.
Atheists stance that there definitely is no god implies that human perception is not limited and that they are afforded the intellectual right to make such claims about the universe.
Once you can reconcile the above statement and prove that there are no limits to human perception - then you have proven your ideology. Until such a time that human perception is unlimited then your arguments are all completely a waste of time.
Comment has been collapsed.
yep.. sigh.. talking religion is boring.. i will leave you to your opinion and I will play video games.. good day!
Comment has been collapsed.
So you're saying that we need to have unlimited perception to see the obvious?
God has always been a concept created by man based on false assumptions. Primitive minds grasping at straws to explain that which they cannot comprehend. Our perception is greater than theirs ever was......and that, in my opinion is as great as it needs to be to disprove it.
Seriously, how much more must we perceive to rule out the presence of some almighty being, of whom there has been no tangible evidence throughout the history of mankind?
Comment has been collapsed.
Then I suppose we are lucky that your opinion is not absolute.
The only obvious thing about there not being a God is your desire for there to not be one - the existence (or lack thereof) of such an entity is not obvious at all.
You 1) have no proof that God exists and you 2) have no proof that God does not exist - that puts God in a super position of both existing and not existing at the same time. That is called quantum physics AKA SCIENCE BRO. There is no room for debate here, it is what it is period - or you oppose quantum physics AKA SCIENCE BRO. Well if you oppose science, then you embrace faith and your 'obviousness of no God' is taken on the same faith that Religion uses to convince themselves that there is a God which goes full circle to - Atheists and the Religious are both stupid and conclude an opinion based on FAITH and not science.
Why don't you go learn something https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOYyCHGWJq4 and then come back when you're done.
Comment has been collapsed.
That is just a thought experiment. Even Schrodinger's cat does not ACTUALLY exist in a superpostion of two states. It's either dead or alive. Even if nobody ever sees it, it's fate is decided.
You're telling me neither side has proof, so God exists and doesn't at the same time? At least in the experiment, one side knows that a live cat is in the box, so they can claim that it's alive.
In the God argument, the theists come up with this dumb concept out of necessity, either to keep people in line or to control them. Next you'll tell me ghosts are in a state of superpostion of state of existence and non-existence, because nobody has proof to either confirm or deny their existence. All these thought experiments are fascinating and all but please approach it from a materialist's point of view.
Comment has been collapsed.
I honestly don't know what to tell you guy. You don't know jack about science - superpositions are factual states period - you can't even argue it so why would you?
You write off Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Physics as 'its just a thought experiment'.
Why don't you head on back to Plato's Allegory of the Cave.
Comment has been collapsed.
They are incomplete theories, and cannot be relied on for this debate. Even the experts on this don't have an explanation for everything. Don't complicate this debate with quantum mechanics for no reason.
What does the state of an electron have to do with the state of existence of a being? Are you trying to say god exists on a sub-atomic level? Then why bring quantum mechanics into this. It's ridiculous!
Comment has been collapsed.
Lets just go back to basics because you dont even remotely science bro.
Is there extraterrestrial life in the universe? Is basically the exact same question as is there a God.
1) Some people believe there is extraterrestrial life in the universe - with no evidence.
2) Some people don't believe there is extraterrestrial life in the universe - citing a lack of evidence as their evidence.
So the question you have to ask yourself - is can you critically examine a topic while removing emotion from logic or can you not? I don't think people have an emotional need to argue the possible existence of aliens and it is the exact same type of debate.
I can only stand here and say if 1 is true, then 2 has to be false. If 2 is true, then 1 has to be false. If there is no evidence for 1 and there is no evidence in 2 then either 1 or 2 will be proven true at some time in the future and will make the opposite false. Of course if you return to either 1 or 2 is true because 'OBVIOUS' then don't even bother with a response.
Comment has been collapsed.
For all your knowledge of "science", you cannot even apply it appropriately. This is simply not the place to apply quantum mechanics. Superpostion may be a fact on a molecular level, but you cannot apply it here. The Schrodinger's cat experiment was a thought experiment to explain superpositions on a larger scale. Of course, the superposition in this experiment is only theoretical, as is your theory.
Whether extraterrestrial life exists or not is irrelevant to what we observe/perceive. It either exists, or it doesn't. Think about it, there maybe a life-form out there, and you're sitting here saying it both exists and doesn't exist.......SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T SEE IT.
Again, your superposition theory is factual on a sub-atomic level. But cannot be applied practically. You can keep replying with 'you cannot even science bro' or something along those lines. But superposition has nothing to do with any of these debates. You are needlessly adding an 'on the fence option' by foolishly applying quantum mechanic s here.
Also, you put too much faith in Science. The events in the universe cannot be rationalised solely using equations. We can try, but it's not like we were ever meant to.
Edit: Also shouldn't theism be wrong, simply because it was based on false assumptions? You cannot disprove what has already been dis-proven.
Comment has been collapsed.
the last post i made had nothing to do with quantum mechanics guy. I just said extraterrestrial life either exists or it doesn't period - there is no proof either way just like there is no proof either way for a God. How you can dismiss factual information based on an opinion is just plain ignorant. Theism has never been proven wrong. There is no proof. If this supposed proof exists please cite a source - oh you cant? because that proof only exists in your mind.
There is either a God or there isnt. You have no proof for either side of that argument. Your opinion that its obvious is not proof - how you fail to understand that is ignorance.
You clearly don't have an understanding of quantum mechanics can be directly applied to theology. Go read a book. Maybe you should spend some time educating yourself instead of insisting that your opinion of obviousness is evidence. Here is a quick google search of a book you can read:
https://www.amazon.com/Quantum-Physics-Theology-Unexpected-Kinship/dp/0300138407
Or don't, whatever. Ultimately your ignorance doesn't affect my life.
Comment has been collapsed.
Whatever.....guy. You seem to want to live in this fantasy world where there are multiple realities.
Hey tell me something, if a detective is solving a murder case with 10 suspects, but there is no proof ruling out any of them.........are they all the murderers? If so, that would be hilarious!
Comment has been collapsed.
Look how retarded you become when your points are invalidated.
Not that this has anything to do with this discussion but yes GUY there are probably multiple realities. There is a lot of progress being made today in multiple dimensions aka a multiverse. Jesus Christ - its like you don't know jack about science at all.
I JUST TOLD YOU AGAIN FOR THE THIRD TIME - THERE EITHER IS OR THERE IS NOT AND NOT BOTH. I ALREADY REMOVED QUANTUM MECHANICS FROM THE ARGUMENT BECAUSE YOU DONT UNDERSTAND THEM.
The only fantasy world around here is yours where your opinion is fact. Just do yourself a favor and admit that your position has no evidence at all OR PROVIDE THAT EVIDENCE.
Comment has been collapsed.
Keep telling yourself that....guy.
It'll help you sleep better at night. Sweet dreams.
Comment has been collapsed.
Why is it psychotic?
Also, are all the people who broke past laws to mold them into the ones we hold currently crazy too? And it's not safe or nuce for a lot of people, are the crazy for trying to break out?
What does evil have to do with god?
Comment has been collapsed.
they are psychotic because though they are aware of the consequence, they still do it.
but psychotic is not always a bad thing. Sometimes you need to break the cage in order to do good in this world, but again.. they still need to face the consequence.
Comment has been collapsed.
sure , it's at govern of Italy right now, new name used: Renzi
Comment has been collapsed.
Evil exists. There is absolutely no denying it. Some people just say conflict was always caused by "misunderstandings" or "disagreements", and you know what? A lot of petty, stupid conflict existed throughout history. But I dare you to walk right up to a survivor of the Nazi regime and say "Yeah, they're not evil, they're just diffferrrrreeeeeennnnttttt". History is full of evil people, evil groups, and evil concepts, and that isn't going to change any time soon.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't greatly value compassion. I just recognize human nature is full of flaws, at best.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course, if you walk right up to a survivor Nazi officer, he will say "Of course we weren't evil, we were awesome and did a lot of good things to a lot of people! Yes, probably some subhumans had to suffer incidentally, but we did what we did for the people"...
If it depends on who you ask, you can't define "evil" on its own.
Comment has been collapsed.
Does evil exist? Interesting philosophical question amplified by sociological ideology.
Does evil exist in the frame of a philosophical construct? If you answered yes to that question you are inherently implying that there is a natural evil that exists outside the constructs of sociology - but as you described in the OP, animals killing each other for food or territory is not viewed as an evil act - therefor if evil does not exist in nature then it is not natural. However - there are three conflicting truth's to human nature (man outside of enlightenment and civility) and they are 1) we are radically free, 2) we are by nature inclined toward divinity, 3) we are by nature inclined toward evil.
The above is then amplified by the idea that evil can also be a sociological perception based solely on the constructs of an enlightened and civilized man (or any species that one considers enlightened and civilized). Obviously not everyone in society shares the same level of morality - which arguably is the basis for the measurement of enlightenment (not a religious enlightenment) and civility - and as such morality requires the proper perspective to frame accordingly.
If you were to pose the question - is slavery good or evil. From a philosophical standpoint we have to say 'yes' because slavery does not co-exist with rule 1 of human nature. From a sociological standpoint I think today most people would (I imagine) suggest that is evil, but is that response due to social conditioning or is that due to the act itself being bad, and does an act that is bad enough warrant being called evil? I imagine that the Ottoman empire didn't think it was evil to have open slave markets - or plantation owners thought it was evil to have slaves working in the fields - or African tribal leaders selling their tribesman for trinkets was evil (then again, maybe they did).
Religion?
The problem in having a philosophical or sociological conversation with people is when religion is brought into the mix. You either choose to have a Philosophical and Sociological discussion or you choose to have one about Religious Ideology. The reason for that is quite simple: Man exists, we have enough evidence to prove that man exists, therefor he exists - or I think, therefor I am - that is a truth that no one would dispute (unless they watched the Matrix one to many times). It is too easy to dispute the existence of God (or Gods) based on a lack of evidence which ultimately removes the foundation of the Religious Ideology argument in Philosophy and Sociology, unless all parties agree that God does actually exist.
Of course you raise an even more interesting question for Religious theorists - if everything that God made is good - then Lucifer must also be good and there can be no evil. Of course the idea that evil is the absence of divine does lend some credibility to the idea that evil then can exist - but that would then imply that only through divine intervention can things not be inherently evil since that is the natural state of all things (since evil is only present when divinity is absent. But through logical dissection we know that to be nonsense - since evil things happen to divine people all the time (there are stories in the bible that support that - God allowed Satan to test Job's faith - is just one example of evil and divinity co-existing together).
Anyways, interesting post on SG of all places ;)
Comment has been collapsed.
EVIL = imoral actions
morality changes overtime like you said
so yeah evil does exist but its subjective
Comment has been collapsed.
In a way, all human languages were made up by humans as a way to communicate with each other. So, in a way a word like "evil" can be interpreted by the way someone uses it and their own ideals/morals. Even the dictionary is just collective and generally agreed upon set of ideas of how to define a word.
This creates the idea of what the general consensus of what right and wrong or good and evil are. Even If i think someone is evil, they will think they are doing the good thing which doesn't make either party wrong.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, it exists. Most Evil-aligned creatures dwell in the Nine Hells and on the lower planes though.
For humans and intelligent races, there is also the worship of Evil Deities, like Shar, Lolth and Cyric, see Drow individuals for example.
Comment has been collapsed.
I think the "Evil" will always be a perspective. Something evil but justified can be faced as reasonable. There is lots of variants that can nullify the evil. The importance of religion in this context is that they standardize what is evil. Sure they will change someday, but their standard lasts way more than a person that is a constant metamorphosis. The religion kinda attach your standards and guide your behaviors because there are external believes that will fight against your internal believes. Without religion (or other organizations that standardize believes), we tend to have a individual point of view of evil... This can go fucked up gradually because I really believe in Hobbes philosophy (which is not pure "evil" but it is just nature, as you said or compared in the first paragraph). There must be a social (or external) brake to standartize the evil.
Comment has been collapsed.
Evil exists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZYUziemo6A8&t=72
Comment has been collapsed.
Good and Evil don't exist. Just binary judgements to explain how certain acts make others feel from a moral standpoint. Human created abstract concepts don't exist.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's arguable, if you can think of something then that thing exists at some extent even if that existence is dependant of your own existence.
Just like how emotions exist even tho they need the people experiencing them to come into being. Abstract concepts are real as long as someone acknowledges them.
Comment has been collapsed.
I would say "evil" exist between humans but not between animals, because humans are supposed to be "thinking",
And when people start to think "I would hate if X would happen to me, but I have no problem doing X to everyone else", then it's a perfect start for evil.
It also changes in time. What was considered a common practice in the past (like slavery), today is considered evil or immoral.
I'd argue "slavery" is today considered good thing, as long slaves are in China and are making cheap clothes :P Somewhat-sad-jokes aside, some slaves had better lives than lots of people today...
I think my English got bugged today, so sorry if I get anyone confused.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's evil. How bad do you have to be to be evil? Can't say really. I'd say that the Columbine Massacre fucks are evil. Some though seem to say that it's not evil but it's just a thing.
The word "evil" is just overused. Like the memes about being evil for hiding a charger or being douchebags.
Hitler wasn't evil per sé, but the Ice Man was. Even he admits it. And no, admitting it doesn't make you not evil. I could rape a village and say that I'm bad, but it still makes me human.
I think evil isn't from the actions, but the reasons why those actions were committed.
Comment has been collapsed.
I doubt good and evil are part of nature, they're most likely just a personal interpretation of the observer based on preconceptions acquired by living in society. Suppose that you lived in a different society where one of the things you do normally is considered evil, then you are suddenly evil even tho nothing intrinsic about you had changed.
Everything God did is good because everything that exist is necessary and anything that's necessary is good, evil is just part of our perception.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Evil" is just a category we assign to things that do not benefit everyone, but only part of people or things involved in the deed, usually a minority (and not rarely a single person). Or madness, we might often consider "evil" someone that is simply mentally ill (we have quite a history of excorcising ill people).
Comment has been collapsed.
Sit away from the back of the chair.
Place your feet firmly on the floor, aligned with your hips and knees.
Close your eyes.
Relax.
Breathe slowly, in and out.
In and out.
There's no good.
There's no evil.
There's no right or wrong.
There's only you and me.
And SteamGifts.
Comment has been collapsed.
As far as I know and read in Shia Islam,God didn't make any bad things,and It depends on us how do we look at that person,animal or a natural disaster.It's like some people think earth quake is bad,but on the other hand it has some advantages,even in Quran (holy book) surah al nisa and verse 79,God saying "Whatever good comes to you is from God, and whatever misfortune befalls you, is from yourself".
However I'm not that much religious person,but I hope this answer helps you,also sorry if I had some mistakes in my English.
Comment has been collapsed.
"Good and evil dont exist. There is only selfishness."
Motto I created.
Comment has been collapsed.
Evil exists if we want it to exist. Evil is simply a relative term. Evil to one person may be good to another. In the way evil is mostly used, it's simply a term for immoral behaviour or for something that hurts people (except if those people are considered to be evil, then suddenly it's good), sometimes animals or things we care about.
So in my eyes, evil exists as long as humans exist.
Comment has been collapsed.
There's a famous story about Einstein in school or university (which I'm pretty sure is super fake) that he supposedly refutes an atheist teacher that said that God didn't exist because he wouldn't allow evil to exist and bring misery to the world, he pretty much states that God is goodness and evil is just the absence of god in men's hearts just like darkness is the absence of light or cold is the absence of heat.
So yeah, pretty poetic and all, I hardly doubt Einstein would say something like that but forgetting the part of who "said it", I personally feel there is evil in this world, maybe not a horned red dude bellow Earth who causes it, but rather the egoism of men that lets fear and hate overpower them and become selfish, greedy and angry towards others.
The quality that differentiates us from animals is our reasoning, which is why we are expected to be better than our basic instincts and have a set of morals and values, still one thing is to know "right from wrong" according your moral code but what's considered evil is to go farther... it's like having pleasure for inflicting suffering unto others I think.
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, uh, I don't think it's that uncharacteristic for Einstein to say something like that; he described himself as an agnostic with a spiritual framework similar to Spinoza's, which could very well explain it in those terms. Not that, of course, this means he said it, but it very well could have been an authentic saying since it's consistent with the Spinoza's metaphysic, if my paltry understanding of it is anywhere near correct.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I know he believed in a greater power even if he wasn't religious. But it still sounds kind of fishy, I think it's more of the typical chain letter sent in the form of PPT that spreads virally from mailbox to mailbox with 0 sources whatsoever. And since Einstein sometimes talked about God it would be easier to swallow since it has some scientific references to it!
Oh what the heck I will make a quick google sweep for it!
Aaaaand DONE! FAKE
Comment has been collapsed.
Anything exists when you think that it must. That's how paranormal and Gods and stuff works.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's the internet; solipsism is very easy to express and understand, while articulating a basic understanding of non-relativistic traditional Christian theodicy takes about four paragraphs, two seasons, and a movie to establish a framework and clarify terminology.
Comment has been collapsed.
Solipsism goes much further then denial of existence of some separate things and declares that only the one's own mind exists. I guess skepticism describes better what you wanted to say?
Comment has been collapsed.
There are quite a few people saying that reality doesn't exist if aren't thinking and nothing exists if humans aren't looking at it. I may be generalizing and misidentifiying some as solipsists, but I don't think skeptics is the word I lookign for.
Comment has been collapsed.
To me it seems like evil is just humans creation. In nature evil doesn't exist - we cannot say that 2 animals fighting for territory are evil. But when you see 2 people doing the same you know something is wrong. Would it mean that evil is just in our minds? If it's only in our minds what are the measures to determine what is evil and what is not. What's evil for one person may be normal for another. It also changes in time. What was considered a common practice in the past (like slavery), today is considered evil or immoral. Who is right when there is no universal law to determine this and it all depends on one's interpretation?
Different thing is religion concept of evil. As far as I know in catholicism it is stated that nothing was created without permision of God and whatever God has made was good. I can't see a logical reason for evil to exist then. It couldn't exist always because it would mean there was a power which coexisted with God and it denies the idea of monotheism. Additionally it would mean something has appeared without permission of God. But on the other hand God couldn't create it because in this case it would be good. So evil either don't exist or it is good. I am not an expert so correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm not sure what other religions say about evil. I'd appreciate any information about it.
What are your thoughts about this matter though?
Comment has been collapsed.