Evil?

[jegs2]

In Christian dogma, the only crime that can warrant eternal death is to reject God. Acts such as lying, murdering, harming others, are all acts which equate to rejecting God.

Incorrect. The only crime to warrant condemnation is rejection of Christ, as stated in John 3:16 - 18 (my sig provides a link).

[EvilGrey]

I don't even know why we bother arguing with this prick; we've made the same points over and over, and he doesn't even TRY to address them. He's just jerking us around, and I think he knows perfectly well that he's just wasting our time; look at how he puts smileys after every goddamned thing he says. Why don't we just ban the little fuckwad?

I only have one question, has anyone met a fundy who is willing to actually debate what is being discussed instead of either twisting peoples words or trying to create a tangent. Banning him or not banning him is pointless.

Has anyone ever tried debating with me?

Saying I'm wrong without explaning why or presenting coherent, logical arguments does not give me anything to work with.

I am right only because you let me be right by failing to present sound refutations of my arguments.

[SeebianWurm]

Ban!

Why?

He is not debating, discussing, or in any way positively interacting with anyone. All he is doing is expressing his idiocy, in a rather annoying and repetitive manner. The man is a case study in wall of ignorance.

[SirNitram]

I hereby add 'redefining the words 'logical', 'God', 'Demigod', and 'refute' in an attempt to avoid defeat' to the list of Bannable offenses EvilGrey has committed.

[EvilGrey]

I hereby add 'redefining the words 'logical', 'God', 'Demigod', and 'refute' in an attempt to avoid defeat' to the list of Bannable offenses EvilGrey has committed.

If I am banned, I would like to point out that you, and Lady Tevar, are two of the most idiotic posters I've ever encountered.

[Kitsune]

Has anyone ever tried debating with me?

Saying I'm wrong without explaning why or presenting coherent, logical arguments does not give me anything to work with.

I am right only because you let me be right by failing to present sound refutations of my arguments.

I doubt this will work either....say I beleive faeries are real, a gnome came up to me and told me crossing a ring of toadstools is evil....I tell everybody this and everybody things I am crazy. It is the same way, saying god told me so therefore it is evil. What is good and evil has to be a human based judgement system. and be able to be undrestood by anyone who thinks to be a workable solution.

[jegs2]

If I am banned, I would like to point out that you, and Lady Tevar, are two of the most idiotic posters I've ever encountered.

Okay. I'm beginning to see the reason for the call...

[EvilGrey]

Has anyone ever tried debating with me?

Saying I'm wrong without explaning why or presenting coherent, logical arguments does not give me anything to work with.

I am right only because you let me be right by failing to present sound refutations of my arguments.

I doubt this will work either....say I beleive faeries are real, a gnome came up to me and told me crossing a ring of toadstools is evil....I tell everybody this and everybody things I am crazy. It is the same way, saying god told me so therefore it is evil. What is good and evil has to be a human based judgement system. and be able to be undrestood by anyone who thinks to be a workable solution.

A positive set of moral codes and concepts of right and wrong work best, in theory, if perceived as the product of God. They become absolute, universal, and therefore something noble that all men should submit to.

[Kitsune]

A positive set of moral codes and concepts of right and wrong work best, in theory, if perceived as the product of God. They become absolute, universal, and therefore something noble that all men should submit to.

That has failed, look at the garbage in the christian / jewish code of laws. A person can be stoned for working on Saturday, for example. The problem is that this 'super code' with all this stupidity is stamped with 'this is the rule' of god' and you are not even suppose to think about it. Moral codes needs to be something that can thought about that an explained.

You should steal - why - because you do not want someone to steal from you and lose stuff you value.
You should not steal -you should not just because I say so.

A simple example in a battleship discussion. In the navy, You are only suppose to have two coats of paint on inside surfaces of your ship. It has reach doga state where no-one really knows why. Now the reason is because one than two coats present a fire hazard.

[LadyTevar]

I hereby add 'redefining the words 'logical', 'God', 'Demigod', and 'refute' in an attempt to avoid defeat' to the list of Bannable offenses EvilGrey has committed.

If I am banned, I would like to point out that you, and Lady Tevar, are two of the most idiotic posters I've ever encountered.

Once again, here EvilGrey is throwing stones, attempting to rile the wasps. Since he believes himself immune to our stings, why should we be bothered with or by him?

If we do not ban him, then may I sugget that we Shun him?

Edit: SirNitram calls this "The Final Solution", used on someone called Timothy Jones.

[AdmiralKanos]

I hereby add 'redefining the words 'logical', 'God', 'Demigod', and 'refute' in an attempt to avoid defeat' to the list of Bannable offenses EvilGrey has committed.

If I am banned, I would like to point out that you, and Lady Tevar, are two of the most idiotic posters I've ever encountered.

Wrong answer, asshole.



Goodbye.

[fgalkin]

I hereby add 'redefining the words 'logical', 'God', 'Demigod', and 'refute' in an attempt to avoid defeat' to the list of Bannable offenses EvilGrey has committed.

If I am banned, I would like to point out that you, and Lady Tevar, are two of the most idiotic posters I've ever encountered.

Goodbye.

Amen!

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[jegs2]

I think he felt the ban coming, so he got in his parting shot.

[LadyTevar]

I hereby add 'redefining the words 'logical', 'God', 'Demigod', and 'refute' in an attempt to avoid defeat' to the list of Bannable offenses EvilGrey has committed.

If I am banned, I would like to point out that you, and Lady Tevar, are two of the most idiotic posters I've ever encountered.

Wrong answer, asshole.
(snip)

Goodbye.

Well... yes, that's a Final Solution.

[SirNitram]

So, the Lex Animata, The Living Law, formed from the mighty morality of SirNitram did open up a can of Smackdown, squelching the heretic while alluding to the mighty Predator. Let us all celebrate with sex, chocolate, more sex, and more chocolate.

Forever and ever, amen.

[AdmiralKanos]

I think he felt the ban coming, so he got in his parting shot.

I think he was never serious about anything he said, and was simply trying to annoy people. Notice how he never even half-heartedly tried to argue points, but would always say something like "you can't address any of my points" even if we just had. Also notice how he made no effort whatsoever to seriously convince or convert anyone.

[LadyTevar]

Let us all celebrate with sex, chocolate, more sex, and more chocolate.

Forever and ever, amen.

Where's the Chocolate?

[LadyTevar]

I think he felt the ban coming, so he got in his parting shot.

I'm willing to bet that was the lamest parting shot ever seen.

If, Wong Forbid, I ever do something stupid enough to get banned, I hope my 'parting shot' is better than that.

[SeebianWurm]

All is quiet on the western front.

[HemlockGrey]

I didn't even understand half the stuff he spewed.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I think he was never serious about anything he said, and was simply trying to annoy people. Notice how he never even half-heartedly tried to argue points, but would always say something like "you can't address any of my points" even if we just had. Also notice how he made no effort whatsoever to seriously convince or convert anyone.

I think you said it first, Mike, but something just felt wrong about that guy. I think we were all being had the whole time and he didn't believe a single word he said. Either that or he's a deranged individual with strong serial killer potential. Remember his classic line "How could I be attracted to anything with an open flesh wound between its legs?" We should introduce him to RayCav, then kill them both before mutilated bodies of women start turning up.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Actually, I have talked to RayCa, at length. He has not demonstrated any sociopathic tendencies to me over AIM...but then again, I am no expert.

[Jawawithagun]

evil: adj.

As used by hackers, implies that some system, program, person, or institution is sufficiently maldesigned as to be not worth the bother of dealing with. Unlike the adjectives in the cretinous/losing/brain-damaged series, evil does not imply incompetence or bad design, but rather a set of goals or design criteria fatally incompatible with the speaker's. This usage is more an esthetic and engineering judgment than a moral one in the mainstream sense. “We thought about adding a Blue Glue interface but decided it was too evil to deal with.” “TECO is neat, but it can be pretty evil if you're prone to typos.” Often pronounced with the first syllable lengthened, as /eeee'vil/. Compare evil and rude.

works well enough for me.

and just to add to the discussion

Moral absolutism--the belief or theory that there are absolute standards against which moral questions can be judged--suggests that morals are not determined by societal or situational influences. According to moral absolutism, morals are inherent in the laws of the universe, the nature of humanity, or some other fundamental source. Moral absolutism is sometimes contrasted with moral relativism and typified--although thereby also oversimplified--by such phrases as "Right is right and wrong is wrong."

Moral absolutism regards actions as inherently or inarguably moral or immoral. Moral absolutists might, for example, judge slavery or childhood female genital mutilation to be absolutely and inarguably immoral regardless of the beliefs and goals of a culture that engages in these practices.

In a minority of cases, moral absolutism is taken to the more constrained position that actions are moral or immoral regardless of the circumstances in which they occur. Lying, for instance, would always be immoral, even if done to promote some other good (e.g., saving a life). This rare view of moral absolutism might be contrasted with moral consequentialism--the view that the morality of an action depends on the context or consequences of that action.

Modern human rights theory is a form of moral absolutism, usually based on the nature of humanity and the essence of human nature. One such theory was constructed by John Rawls in his A Theory of Justice.

Many religions have morally absolutist positions, regarding the system of morality as having been set by the deity or deities. They therefore regard such a moral system as absolute, (usually) perfect, and unchangeable. The philosophy of Objectivism also takes a morally absolutist stance, as it regards the laws of morality to be, like the laws of physics, inherent in the universe itself.

Semi-religious arguments for moral absolutism have to do with the relationship between free will, choice, and morals. Some have argued that without free will, the universe is deterministic and therefore morally uninteresting (i.e., if all moral choices and moral behavior are determined by outside forces, there can be no need for any person to ponder morality). Therefore, if we believe in free will, it stands to reason that the universe is inherently structured to allow moral behavior; indeed, this feature may be somehow integral to the universe's reason for being. A softer, but equally valid, line of reasoning is that the universe needs to permit us to have choices, but leaves the concerns of those choices (and their consequences) up to the people making them. In this case, moral absolutism is a subjective decision (i.e., free will must, by definition, include the freedom to choose what is moral).

These views are generally not accepted by those who deny free will. Some, in fact, deny free will and still accept moral absolutism--and argue that these two beliefs are inextricably tied.



The philosopher Immanuel Kant was a promoter of moral absolutism.