Evil - I Think I've Figured It Out

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   
There is existance, and yes, we exist, and there is all the things that we fear, lets just drain it out to a simple definition, the fear of non existence - this has many forms - darkness, judgement, persecution, murder, the list goes on.

Essentially, there is a "choice" and obviously, this choice is to exist. Those whom deem existence to be futile, by this very observation, have lost the belief in existence itself, and, are damned, as they, will, cease to exist.

Evil, well, they deem that others can cease to exist, because they believe that everybody will cease to exist at one stage.

Lastly, to do something evil, is an to attempt to damn somebody whom believes in existence.

IT is a war that will never cease.
edit on 18-5-2014 by SystemResistor because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:40 AM
link   
a reply to: SystemResistor

I always sucked at phylosophy. Esepecially that which made no sense



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:46 AM
link   
For me evil is almost the same, but phrased in simpler non-metaphysic way.

Way back when...
Humans were like animals. Fighting to survive. When we hurt other people or animals it was to survive as persons or as a species.

Now humans have "evolved" and we hurt other people for personal benefit. That's where evil shows up. Because some people hurt others simply because they can get away with it.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Ultimately what I figured out is some are afraid to face the "self", but it's much deeper than that...

So we have all these distractions, labels and any other method that keeps one distracted. Evil is just another program..



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   
evil can cease if we chose not to acknowledge it with in our own reality, if everyone were to do it than the war would cease. problem is there is always someone that wants to break the rule.




posted on May, 18 2014 @ 02:56 AM
link   
I entertain this theory, this thought, that evil isn't actually bad. That the things we deem to be evil in the world are helping you to reach an end goal.

I've had to redefine what GOD and Divine is. GOD and Divine is both evil and good, adverse and favorable.
If GOD is real, and what it created is perfect then there is no bad, no evil, only what we deem adverse and that everything that happens in this world is happening for a reason, to get you to an end goal.

There is no enemy, only You, going through and having each and everyone of these experiences to reach an end goal. You mapped out the way to reach this end goal before even coming here, and every experience, every second that goes by whether you deem it to be adverse or favorable, evil or good gets you closer to this goal.

The amazing thing is, that every step you take is perfect without knowing or seemingly trying you get closer and closer to that goal.

All you have to do is try your best with whatever it is you're doing, whether it be "evil" or good. (. . .And in this theory everything is actually good. . .but that doesn't mean you shouldn't or can't work towards making the system the way you want it to be.)

(Yes, I know, it is pretty out there. . . ^_^')



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 03:47 AM
link   
a reply to: SystemResistor

You can only define evil for yourself IMHO

What a Christian calls evil, I might well hold dear.

To one person Hitler was evil, to others a visionary, it's all very subjective.

The only evil that needs addressing is robbing children of their innocence, the rest of us are big enough to deal with our own evils.

But then again that is only my opinion

Cody



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 03:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: cody599
a reply to: SystemResistor

You can only define evil for yourself IMHO

What a Christian calls evil, I might well hold dear.

To one person Hitler was evil, to others a visionary, it's all very subjective.

The only evil that needs addressing is robbing children of their innocence, the rest of us are big enough to deal with our own evils.

But then again that is only my opinion

Cody


Complete nonsense. Morality is not relative.

Tell me cody: In what reality is it ok for a man to rape an 18 month old baby? Yours? Because such things happen. Are you going to tell me it's ok for those pieces of excrement to commit such acts because morality is relative?

You haven't really thought this through, have you?



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 04:20 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph




The only evil that needs addressing is robbing children of their innocence, the rest of us are big enough to deal with our own evils.



Already adressed

Cody
edit on 18/5/14 by cody599 because: Crap typing



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 04:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: cody599
a reply to: DeadSeraph




The only evil that needs addressing is robbing children of their innocence, the rest of us are big enough to deal with our own evils.



Already adressed

Cody


How convenient that YOU get to decide. So then Hitler was justified in murdering millions of jews because morality is relative? What about the children he made orphans when he gassed their parents?

It's funny how some people will go to such lengths to avoid absolute morality. It induces all sorts of uncomfortable questions, doesn't it? Like perhaps you and I have sinned...

I could corner you all night over your ridiculous notion of morality but I think it's clear you aren't man enough to admit you are wrong.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 04:57 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

You're going to make yourself look a tad daft at this rate my friend

My kids are Jewish I've written about it here on many an occasion.

I merely stated


To one person Hitler was evil, to others a visionary,


That is a fact and no reflection on my personal morality.

Just saying

Cody



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 05:01 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph




I could corner you all night over your ridiculous notion of morality but I think it's clear you aren't man enough to admit you are wrong. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


You have no idea of my notion of morality my friend
But feel free to try.

And trust me when I say, when I am wrong I'm man enough to admit it.

I stand by my 9 years here and my record, feel free to read through my 9300 posts and find out for yourself.

Cody



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 05:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: cody599
a reply to: DeadSeraph

You're going to make yourself look a tad daft at this rate my friend

My kids are Jewish I've written about it here on many an occasion.

I merely stated


To one person Hitler was evil, to others a visionary,


That is a fact and no reflection on my personal morality.

Just saying

Cody


Your kids being Jewish have nothing to do with it. Don't try to deflect from the issue at hand and then call me "daft" because you aren't able to deal with the weight of the debate.

If morality is relative as you claim, then how is it that it's wrong to inflict damage on the innocent? Isn't right or wrong just shades of grey and dependent on your own culture as you yourself claimed by excusing the actions of hitler? You can't have it both ways yet you want it both ways.

You want things to be wrong when you deem them wrong personally. Yet you yourself have admitted there is something fundamentally wrong about violating innocence. I'm not even certain you understand the debate at this point?

But hey... It's cool. Morality is relative when you say so. That clears everything up for the rest of us philosophically speaking, doesn't it?
edit on 18-5-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 05:05 AM
link   

originally posted by: cody599
a reply to: DeadSeraph




I could corner you all night over your ridiculous notion of morality but I think it's clear you aren't man enough to admit you are wrong. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


You have no idea of my notion of morality my friend
But feel free to try.

And trust me when I say, when I am wrong I'm man enough to admit it.

I stand by my 9 years here and my record, feel free to read through my 9300 posts and find out for yourself.

Cody


Your 9 years here and thousands of posts mean squat to me. I'll call you out the same as anyone else. Address the issue or move on.



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 05:23 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

The issue is you misreading my first post and now trying to look clever my friend.

I would suggest you address that first then we can debate

Are YOU man enough to admit that YOU are wrong ?

Just saying

Cody



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 05:32 AM
link   
wrong thread
edit on 18-5-2014 by Kandinsky because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 05:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: cody599
a reply to: DeadSeraph

The issue is you misreading my first post and now trying to look clever my friend.

I would suggest you address that first then we can debate

Are YOU man enough to admit that YOU are wrong ?

Just saying

Cody


Really?

This is a pathetic response. I get that usually you are the happy go lucky european old guy that gets a free pass because you spend thousands of your posts in chat threads, but this isn't an acceptable reply. I've highlighted inconsistencies in your philosophy and done so clearly. You haven't addressed any of them, and instead implied that your kids are jewish so I should just move on and lol about it.

If there were an ATS award for weak arguments, you would be a leading candidate for this thread alone. I am genuinely curious as to how you can logically defend the inconsistencies in your own moral code. Please feel free to try again. I'll be waiting here when you have a coherent reply instead of a string of logical fallacies.

Please. Lets try again:

Tell me why morality is relative and hitler wasn't necessarily wrong, but violating innocence is inherently morally objectionable. I'll be right here waiting.
edit on 18-5-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph




Tell me why morality is relative and hitler wasn't necessarily wrong, but violating innocence is inherently morally objectionable. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Morality is relative as it depends upon the way we are brought up, and the belief system installed in us, I'd have thought that much was obvious.




The Definition of Morality

First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Mar 14, 2011

The term “morality” can be used either
1.descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, a.some other group, such as a religion, or
b.accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons



Hence my morality is based on my life experience, Hitler's moralities were based on his and your's are based on your's.

It doesn't make you more correct than me, or I you.

The destruction of a child's innocence is evil, that's what I believe as previously stated


the rest of us are big enough to deal with our own evils. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Cody


ETA: I never said Hitler was morally correct, what I said was "to some he was evil to others a visionary "
edit on 18/5/14 by cody599 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 06:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: cody599
a reply to: DeadSeraph




Tell me why morality is relative and hitler wasn't necessarily wrong, but violating innocence is inherently morally objectionable. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Morality is relative as it depends upon the way we are brought up, and the belief system installed in us, I'd have thought that much was obvious.




The Definition of Morality

First published Wed Apr 17, 2002; substantive revision Mon Mar 14, 2011

The term “morality” can be used either
1.descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, a.some other group, such as a religion, or
b.accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons



Hence my morality is based on my life experience, Hitler's moralities were based on his and your's are based on your's.

It doesn't make you more correct than me, or I you.

The destruction of a child's innocence is evil, that's what I believe as previously stated


the rest of us are big enough to deal with our own evils. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...


Cody


Cody, You've contradicted yourself yet again. You state that morality is relative, and thus there is no real right and wrong, and then follow it up by saying that the destruction of a child's innocence is evil. On the latter point we both agree, but how can you be so contradictory on the former?

Morality cannot be "relative" if there is an "evil" that we all agree on (in this case I think most human beings would agree that the destruction of a child's innocence is "evil")

There is no relativity about it if we all agree that certain things are abhorrent.
edit on 18-5-2014 by DeadSeraph because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2014 @ 06:06 AM
link   
a reply to: DeadSeraph

Morality is almost certainly relative. Which of these is morally wrong?

1, Executing prisoners
2, Killing in battle
3, Assassination
4, Euthanasia
5, Killing an adult
6, Killing an adolescent
7, Killing a baby

Most have been practised by China and the States in the past decade with adolescents (17 years old) facing the death penalty. Killing babies was practiced by native cultures as recently as the 20th Century for Aborigines and Inuits. It was once a means of throttling the numbers of females and ensuring more males in patriarchal societies. Even now, China's one child policy has made leaving female babies to die morally okay when it's for the greater interest of the nation.

Vicious tyrants like Pol Pot were able to cause the deaths of millions as it coincided with the relative morality of his time in power and those who followed him. It was the right thing to do...in their eyes.

If morality was ever static, we'd be able to argue against relative morality. I mean, sometimes it's morally right to kill someone. Is it morally right to feed the homeless? I'd say yes, but the usual ATSers would argue 'entitlement' and let them starve...all of which makes it debatable.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join