Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

[Blues Man]

... There is no absolute right and wrong. ...

Good is everything what helps all and every life.

Your opinion

Let me state this once again. Morals are standards which exist for logical reasons and are independent of man because they exist for logical reasons. man cannot make them be anything he wants them to be.

They do not exist independent of man because man has created them.

Man has created mathematics - but this doesn't mean everywhere in the nature is not mathematics too.

Math does not exist anywhere but in the mind.

Math is basically a language

You don’t have a curious mind?

Curious about what?

Saying math is basically a language in no way indicates I am not curious.

 

[Mindful]

... There is no absolute right and wrong. ...

Good is everything what helps all and every life.

Your opinion

Let me state this once again. Morals are standards which exist for logical reasons and are independent of man because they exist for logical reasons. man cannot make them be anything he wants them to be.

They do not exist independent of man because man has created them.

Man has created mathematics - but this doesn't mean everywhere in the nature is not mathematics too.

Math does not exist anywhere but in the mind.

Math is basically a language

You don’t have a curious mind?

Curious about what?

Saying math is basically a language in no way indicates I am not curious.

Really? Sounds like a logical disconnect. You’re not even curious as to why I said that. Instead, jumping to a misguided conclusion.

 

[Blues Man]

... There is no absolute right and wrong. ...

Good is everything what helps all and every life.

Your opinion

Let me state this once again. Morals are standards which exist for logical reasons and are independent of man because they exist for logical reasons. man cannot make them be anything he wants them to be.

They do not exist independent of man because man has created them.

Man has created mathematics - but this doesn't mean everywhere in the nature is not mathematics too.

Math does not exist anywhere but in the mind.

Math is basically a language

You don’t have a curious mind?

Curious about what?

Saying math is basically a language in no way indicates I am not curious.

Really? Sounds like a logical disconnect. You’re not even curious as to why I said that. Instead, jumping to a misguided conclusion.

All I can do is infer your meaning from a reply to a particular post.

You replied to my post about math being another form of language.

I cannot read your mind so if you posed that question in response to something else then at least give me the context .

 

[Mindful]

... There is no absolute right and wrong. ...

Good is everything what helps all and every life.

Your opinion

Let me state this once again. Morals are standards which exist for logical reasons and are independent of man because they exist for logical reasons. man cannot make them be anything he wants them to be.

They do not exist independent of man because man has created them.

Man has created mathematics - but this doesn't mean everywhere in the nature is not mathematics too.

Math does not exist anywhere but in the mind.

Math is basically a language

You don’t have a curious mind?

Curious about what?

Saying math is basically a language in no way indicates I am not curious.

Really? Sounds like a logical disconnect. You’re not even curious as to why I said that. Instead, jumping to a misguided conclusion.

All I can do is infer your meaning from a reply to a particular post.

You replied to my post about math being another form of language.

I cannot read your mind so if you posed that question in response to something else then at least give me the context .

Infer. Too many people do that.

 

[Blues Man]

... There is no absolute right and wrong. ...

Good is everything what helps all and every life.

Your opinion

Let me state this once again. Morals are standards which exist for logical reasons and are independent of man because they exist for logical reasons. man cannot make them be anything he wants them to be.

They do not exist independent of man because man has created them.

Man has created mathematics - but this doesn't mean everywhere in the nature is not mathematics too.

Math does not exist anywhere but in the mind.

Math is basically a language

You don’t have a curious mind?

Curious about what?

Saying math is basically a language in no way indicates I am not curious.

Really? Sounds like a logical disconnect. You’re not even curious as to why I said that. Instead, jumping to a misguided conclusion.

All I can do is infer your meaning from a reply to a particular post.

You replied to my post about math being another form of language.

I cannot read your mind so if you posed that question in response to something else then at least give me the context .

Infer. Too many people do that.

So you expect me to be able to read your mind?

What have I said in any post in any thread on any day that would make you ask the question about my curiosity?

 

[Mindful]

... There is no absolute right and wrong. ...

Good is everything what helps all and every life.

Your opinion

Let me state this once again. Morals are standards which exist for logical reasons and are independent of man because they exist for logical reasons. man cannot make them be anything he wants them to be.

They do not exist independent of man because man has created them.

Man has created mathematics - but this doesn't mean everywhere in the nature is not mathematics too.

Math does not exist anywhere but in the mind.

Math is basically a language

You don’t have a curious mind?

Curious about what?

Saying math is basically a language in no way indicates I am not curious.

Really? Sounds like a logical disconnect. You’re not even curious as to why I said that. Instead, jumping to a misguided conclusion.

All I can do is infer your meaning from a reply to a particular post.

You replied to my post about math being another form of language.

I cannot read your mind so if you posed that question in response to something else then at least give me the context .

Infer. Too many people do that.

So you expect me to be able to read your mind?

What have I said in any post in any thread on any day that would make you ask the question about my curiosity?

This is not about you.

 

[Blues Man]

... There is no absolute right and wrong. ...

Good is everything what helps all and every life.

Your opinion

Let me state this once again. Morals are standards which exist for logical reasons and are independent of man because they exist for logical reasons. man cannot make them be anything he wants them to be.

They do not exist independent of man because man has created them.

Man has created mathematics - but this doesn't mean everywhere in the nature is not mathematics too.

Math does not exist anywhere but in the mind.

Math is basically a language

You don’t have a curious mind?

Curious about what?

Saying math is basically a language in no way indicates I am not curious.

Really? Sounds like a logical disconnect. You’re not even curious as to why I said that. Instead, jumping to a misguided conclusion.

All I can do is infer your meaning from a reply to a particular post.

You replied to my post about math being another form of language.

I cannot read your mind so if you posed that question in response to something else then at least give me the context .

Infer. Too many people do that.

So you expect me to be able to read your mind?

What have I said in any post in any thread on any day that would make you ask the question about my curiosity?

This is not about you.

Then why the fuck did you ask me if I had a curious mind or not? Am I supposed to know you are not responding to me when you quote my posts?

 

[ding]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

Standards exist for logical reasons so they exist independent of man. They exist because of logic. That makes it absolute.

 

[ding]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

 

[ding]

Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

For you, me, and Adam to answer this question; we need the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam may have needed what he was denied by Yahweh to know if the tree of the knowledge of all things, is good or evil to eat from. As scriptures say, he was mentally and morally blind without it.

You and I cannot see any better than Adam could when our mental eyes are blind on issues and without knowledge of them.

It seems that Yahweh put Adam in a catch 22. Damned to being mentally blind and as bright as a brick and unable to reproduce or condemned to death if he educated himself.

Regards
DL

Neither good nor evil exists outside of the mind of man

Good exists. Evil doesn’t.

Do hot and cold exist outside the mind of man?

What about light and darkness?

There is no physical quantification of good or evil.

When there is a thermometer that can measure the evil in the air let me know.

Does cold exist? Does darkness exist?

Yes and they can be quantified

When you can measure "evil" let me know.

WHat would one unit of evil be called do you think?

Maybe we should call it a Satan or a Lucifer.

So tell me how many Lucifers must be present in the air for a murder to be committed?

So cold does not exist. Only heat exists. Darkness does not exist. Only light exists.'

Cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light.

Evil doesn't exist either. Evil is the absence of good.

Unfairness doesn't exist. Unfairness is the absence of fairness.

G-d said evil exists,
you weren't consulted.

Creation is not bound by the limits of dulaistic human logic.

The epitome of human corruption - when man willfully denies his evil potential.

Everything God created is good.

And yet G-d calls man's heart evil.

Who are you to argue?

God said everything he created is good. It's the first thing you were told.

Man has a choice to do good or not do good. The problem comes when he doesn't do good and fails to admit it and learn from his mistakes.

Which is contradicted by modern neuroscience.

Show me how modern neuroscience contradicts that man doesn't rationalize doing wrong as right?

There is no absolute right and wrong.

Both are merely value judgements. Those value judgements have become part of many cultures because they prove to make survival easier not because there is some metaphysical thing called good or evil

Just pain and pleasure. If you can get away with pleasure without the pain that would be great, right?

So there would be nothing wrong with harming others for your gain, right?

These are your logical conclusions.

I never said just pain and pleasure. People who choose to live together in a cooperative society have to agree on what behaviors are allowed and disallowed in their society.

A society can certainly believe sacrificing people on the altar of some god is perfectly acceptable. I'll even go so far as to say that if any of us were raised in such a society that we too would believe it to be acceptable.

If all there are are opinions then the only thing that is real is pain and pleasure.

No there are as many things as there are opinions.

There are those who believe mortification of the flesh to be a necessary component of worship.

So to them pain is the means they derive pleasure in serving their god.

And to you the only thing that exists in actuality is your pain and pleasure. Do whatever doesn't give you pain and whatever gives you pleasure. Screw everyone else. There is no moral authority. It is whatever you can take for your pleasure.

I do not believe I have the right to harm another person in any way.

In fact I stopped eating meat because I don't want to be responsible for the large scale suffering of animals.

That is my choice, my judgement, not some overriding absolute moral code becase such a thing does not exist outside of what is agreed upon by the members of a society

Sounds like you are making a moral argument to me.

What's wrong with being like an animal?

I'm not. That is my personal choice. i have no moral or any other justification for forcing you to believe as I do.

Exactly, which is why you can't argue I would be wrong to take from you using force.

Whereas, I can make that argument against you. I have authority on my side. You have no authority on your side.

I can make my own judgements of what I deem right and wrong there is no absolute standard just the subjective ones.

Authority is just another agreed upon societal contract the Authority we agree upon in our society is not the authority agreed upon in others. Therefore there is no absolute standard

Logic, which like truth, is absolute, and says otherwise.

 

[ding]

Let me state this once again. Morals are standards which exist for logical reasons and are independent of man because they exist for logical reasons. man cannot make them be anything he wants them to be.

They do not exist independent of man because man has created them.

No. Man discovered them. Logic established them. They exist for logical reasons. They can’t be whatever you want them to be.

 

[Blues Man]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

Standards exist for logical reasons so they exist independent of man. They exist because of logic. That makes it absolute.

If there were no men there would be no standards on man's behaviors therefore standards do not exist apart from man

There is no logic if there is no human mind to create it.

Humans can justify absolutely anything they do. So the standards you experience are those that have been agreed upon directly or tacitly over millennia of people living together which is why standards can vary so much between different groups of people.

 

[Blues Man]

Let me state this once again. Morals are standards which exist for logical reasons and are independent of man because they exist for logical reasons. man cannot make them be anything he wants them to be.

They do not exist independent of man because man has created them.

No. Man discovered them. Logic established them. They exist for logical reasons. They can’t be whatever you want them to be.

Man created them.

and yes standards can be whatever the people of the society say they are.

 

[Blues Man]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

 

[rylah]

Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

For you, me, and Adam to answer this question; we need the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam may have needed what he was denied by Yahweh to know if the tree of the knowledge of all things, is good or evil to eat from. As scriptures say, he was mentally and morally blind without it.

You and I cannot see any better than Adam could when our mental eyes are blind on issues and without knowledge of them.

It seems that Yahweh put Adam in a catch 22. Damned to being mentally blind and as bright as a brick and unable to reproduce or condemned to death if he educated himself.

Regards
DL

Neither good nor evil exists outside of the mind of man

Good exists. Evil doesn’t.

Do hot and cold exist outside the mind of man?

What about light and darkness?

There is no physical quantification of good or evil.

When there is a thermometer that can measure the evil in the air let me know.

Does cold exist? Does darkness exist?

Yes and they can be quantified

When you can measure "evil" let me know.

WHat would one unit of evil be called do you think?

Maybe we should call it a Satan or a Lucifer.

So tell me how many Lucifers must be present in the air for a murder to be committed?

So cold does not exist. Only heat exists. Darkness does not exist. Only light exists.'

Cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light.

Evil doesn't exist either. Evil is the absence of good.

Unfairness doesn't exist. Unfairness is the absence of fairness.

G-d said evil exists,
you weren't consulted.

Creation is not bound by the limits of dulaistic human logic.

The epitome of human corruption - when man willfully denies his evil potential.

Everything God created is good.

And yet G-d calls man's heart evil.

Who are you to argue?

God said everything he created is good. It's the first thing you were told.

Man has a choice to do good or not do good. The problem comes when he doesn't do good and fails to admit it and learn from his mistakes.

Which is contradicted by modern neuroscience.

Show me how modern neuroscience contradicts that man doesn't rationalize doing wrong as right?

There is no absolute right and wrong.

Both are merely value judgements. Those value judgements have become part of many cultures because they prove to make survival easier not because there is some metaphysical thing called good or evil

Just pain and pleasure. If you can get away with pleasure without the pain that would be great, right?

So there would be nothing wrong with harming others for your gain, right?

These are your logical conclusions.

I never said just pain and pleasure. People who choose to live together in a cooperative society have to agree on what behaviors are allowed and disallowed in their society.

A society can certainly believe sacrificing people on the altar of some god is perfectly acceptable. I'll even go so far as to say that if any of us were raised in such a society that we too would believe it to be acceptable.

If all there are are opinions then the only thing that is real is pain and pleasure.

No there are as many things as there are opinions.

There are those who believe mortification of the flesh to be a necessary component of worship.

So to them pain is the means they derive pleasure in serving their god.

And to you the only thing that exists in actuality is your pain and pleasure. Do whatever doesn't give you pain and whatever gives you pleasure. Screw everyone else. There is no moral authority. It is whatever you can take for your pleasure.

I do not believe I have the right to harm another person in any way.

In fact I stopped eating meat because I don't want to be responsible for the large scale suffering of animals.

That is my choice, my judgement, not some overriding absolute moral code becase such a thing does not exist outside of what is agreed upon by the members of a society

Sounds like you are making a moral argument to me.

What's wrong with being like an animal?

I'm not. That is my personal choice. i have no moral or any other justification for forcing you to believe as I do.

Exactly, which is why you can't argue I would be wrong to take from you using force.

Whereas, I can make that argument against you. I have authority on my side. You have no authority on your side.

I can make my own judgements of what I deem right and wrong there is no absolute standard just the subjective ones.

Authority is just another agreed upon societal contract the Authority we agree upon in our society is not the authority agreed upon in others. Therefore there is no absolute standard

Logic, which like truth, is absolute, and says otherwise.

Logic is absolute?
I think one of the main aspects of logic was always to expose its human limits.

Show a mathematician 2+2=4
and he will find the way to defy the "equation".

So much for logic.

 

[ding]

Man does not do evil for evil's sake.

FACT

Some German and British soldiers of world war 2 reported that killing is able to make fun. In war it's possible someone kills only on reason it makes fun to kill. In such a situation everyone is able to do evil for evils sake.

What does that have to do with anything?

You said "man doesn't do evil for evil's sake." I showed to you that this sentence finds not a full representation in the reality. I think everyone is able to come in war into the situation to kill just for fun. I'm not sure now - but did Vietnam veterans not report about similar problems?

Man has free will to do good or not do good.

But no one has a free will to recognize what's good or not good. Lots of people think for example to say "right or wrong, my country" is an honorful thing - but indeed it is criminal to say so. ("Right or wrong, my country" = I'm not sure it is good what I do, but I do not care about good and evil as longs as I do what I do for my country.)

Those guys did not do evil for evil's sake. The did "evil" for the sake of their own selfish good; their enjoyment.

No. They did not go to war, because they loved it to go to war. They noticed how the war changed their psychological structure and they did not like to live with lies - as you do now, because you on your own - like everyone else - could be one of them.

And what you say here on pieces of electronic paper is not this, what you are doing on your own. If everything what god creates is always only good then you would not try to change anyones opinion - independent how evil or absurde this opinion is. And I fear exactly this is the brainwashing background to say so. Such ideas eliminate critics. And Christians never said so. God created the devil for example. Jesus was injust, when he damned a fig tree for example. Jesus said in another context "Don't call me good" and so on. You perception is selective. And you don't see that god has many, many, many children - and he is the father of them all.

You think you showed me that men did evil for evil’s sake. I say they did evil for the sake of their own selfish good.

I agree that you don’t know what good is. That’s pretty much been my point when I say you don’t have perfect information or knowledge. God does. You can’t see how everything works for good. He can.

 

[ding]

So it seems that morality is an artifact of intelligence. That in reality we are different than animals.

It's not morality.

It's a set of standards that are agreed upon by the members of a society.

All the human cultures that have condoned human sacrifice or ritualistic violence were not cultures of animals but of humans

Morals are standards. And they exist for reasons. Logical reasons. Which is why morality is an artifact of intelligence and independent of man.

What you are arguing is that because humans are subjective that there are not absolute standards which is ridiculous.

There are not absolute standards and I have already given examples of the differing standards between civilizations of the past.

In some cultures today it is acceptable to subjugate women to the point of raping with impunity. That is what that group of people have deemed acceptable therefore there is no absolute moral standard.

The differing behaviors was due to subjectivity. Not logic. Standards, like truth, are discovered.

We disagree.

Logic is not truth. Logic is the study of the principles reasoning. And people can use logic to justify just about anything.

Logic and truth are absolute. Logic, like truth is discovered. I never said they were the same thing.

According to you logic or truth are unimportant because they only exist in the mind. Apparently you are a materialist, lol.

Mind you everything we know is manifested in mind. Only an idiot would dismiss things that are manifested in the mind.

 

[ding]

Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

For you, me, and Adam to answer this question; we need the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam may have needed what he was denied by Yahweh to know if the tree of the knowledge of all things, is good or evil to eat from. As scriptures say, he was mentally and morally blind without it.

You and I cannot see any better than Adam could when our mental eyes are blind on issues and without knowledge of them.

It seems that Yahweh put Adam in a catch 22. Damned to being mentally blind and as bright as a brick and unable to reproduce or condemned to death if he educated himself.

Regards
DL

Neither good nor evil exists outside of the mind of man

Good exists. Evil doesn’t.

Do hot and cold exist outside the mind of man?

What about light and darkness?

There is no physical quantification of good or evil.

When there is a thermometer that can measure the evil in the air let me know.

Does cold exist? Does darkness exist?

Yes and they can be quantified

When you can measure "evil" let me know.

WHat would one unit of evil be called do you think?

Maybe we should call it a Satan or a Lucifer.

So tell me how many Lucifers must be present in the air for a murder to be committed?

So cold does not exist. Only heat exists. Darkness does not exist. Only light exists.'

Cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light.

Evil doesn't exist either. Evil is the absence of good.

Unfairness doesn't exist. Unfairness is the absence of fairness.

G-d said evil exists,
you weren't consulted.

Creation is not bound by the limits of dulaistic human logic.

The epitome of human corruption - when man willfully denies his evil potential.

Everything God created is good.

And yet G-d calls man's heart evil.

Who are you to argue?

God said everything he created is good. It's the first thing you were told.

Man has a choice to do good or not do good. The problem comes when he doesn't do good and fails to admit it and learn from his mistakes.

Which is contradicted by modern neuroscience.

Show me how modern neuroscience contradicts that man doesn't rationalize doing wrong as right?

There is no absolute right and wrong.

Both are merely value judgements. Those value judgements have become part of many cultures because they prove to make survival easier not because there is some metaphysical thing called good or evil

Just pain and pleasure. If you can get away with pleasure without the pain that would be great, right?

So there would be nothing wrong with harming others for your gain, right?

These are your logical conclusions.

I never said just pain and pleasure. People who choose to live together in a cooperative society have to agree on what behaviors are allowed and disallowed in their society.

A society can certainly believe sacrificing people on the altar of some god is perfectly acceptable. I'll even go so far as to say that if any of us were raised in such a society that we too would believe it to be acceptable.

If all there are are opinions then the only thing that is real is pain and pleasure.

No there are as many things as there are opinions.

There are those who believe mortification of the flesh to be a necessary component of worship.

So to them pain is the means they derive pleasure in serving their god.

And to you the only thing that exists in actuality is your pain and pleasure. Do whatever doesn't give you pain and whatever gives you pleasure. Screw everyone else. There is no moral authority. It is whatever you can take for your pleasure.

I do not believe I have the right to harm another person in any way.

In fact I stopped eating meat because I don't want to be responsible for the large scale suffering of animals.

That is my choice, my judgement, not some overriding absolute moral code becase such a thing does not exist outside of what is agreed upon by the members of a society

Sounds like you are making a moral argument to me.

What's wrong with being like an animal?

I'm not. That is my personal choice. i have no moral or any other justification for forcing you to believe as I do.

Exactly, which is why you can't argue I would be wrong to take from you using force.

Whereas, I can make that argument against you. I have authority on my side. You have no authority on your side.

I can make my own judgements of what I deem right and wrong there is no absolute standard just the subjective ones.

Authority is just another agreed upon societal contract the Authority we agree upon in our society is not the authority agreed upon in others. Therefore there is no absolute standard

Logic, which like truth, is absolute, and says otherwise.

Logic is absolute?
I think one of the main aspects of logic was always to expose its human limits.

Show a mathematician 2+2=4
and he will find the way to defy the "equation".

So much for logic.

Absolutely. Logic is absolute. Feel free to believe otherwise.

 

[rylah]

Man does not do evil for evil's sake.

FACT

Some German and British soldiers of world war 2 reported that killing is able to make fun. In war it's possible someone kills only on reason it makes fun to kill. In such a situation everyone is able to do evil for evils sake.

What does that have to do with anything?

You said "man doesn't do evil for evil's sake." I showed to you that this sentence finds not a full representation in the reality. I think everyone is able to come in war into the situation to kill just for fun. I'm not sure now - but did Vietnam veterans not report about similar problems?

Man has free will to do good or not do good.

But no one has a free will to recognize what's good or not good. Lots of people think for example to say "right or wrong, my country" is an honorful thing - but indeed it is criminal to say so. ("Right or wrong, my country" = I'm not sure it is good what I do, but I do not care about good and evil as longs as I do what I do for my country.)

Those guys did not do evil for evil's sake. The did "evil" for the sake of their own selfish good; their enjoyment.

No. They did not go to war, because they loved it to go to war. They noticed how the war changed their psychological structure and they did not like to live with lies - as you do now, because you on your own - like everyone else - could be one of them.

And what you say here on pieces of electronic paper is not this, what you are doing on your own. If everything what god creates is always only good then you would not try to change anyones opinion - independent how evil or absurde this opinion is. And I fear exactly this is the brainwashing background to say so. Such ideas eliminate critics. And Christians never said so. God created the devil for example. Jesus was injust, when he damned a fig tree for example. Jesus said in another context "Don't call me good" and so on. You perception is selective. And you don't see that god has many, many, many children - and he is the father of them all.

You think you showed me that men did evil for evil’s sake. I say they did evil for the sake of their own selfish good.

I agree that you don’t know what good is. That’s pretty much been my point when I say you don’t have perfect information or knowledge. God does. You can’t see how everything works for good. He can.

You confuse the inevitability of G-d's ultimate goal for creation,
with the ability of human to defy it. and in spite it.

The fact that G-d makes sure humanity fulfills its goal,
doesn't make the serial killer's choices and actions into good ones.

Otherwise why did G-d give humanity the commandment to judge people?
Not for their good deeds, and not because of lack of them.

Not for not giving enough charity,
but for BAD deeds.

 

[rylah]

Is the knowledge of good and evil, good or evil?

For you, me, and Adam to answer this question; we need the knowledge of good and evil.

Adam may have needed what he was denied by Yahweh to know if the tree of the knowledge of all things, is good or evil to eat from. As scriptures say, he was mentally and morally blind without it.

You and I cannot see any better than Adam could when our mental eyes are blind on issues and without knowledge of them.

It seems that Yahweh put Adam in a catch 22. Damned to being mentally blind and as bright as a brick and unable to reproduce or condemned to death if he educated himself.

Regards
DL

Neither good nor evil exists outside of the mind of man

Good exists. Evil doesn’t.

Do hot and cold exist outside the mind of man?

What about light and darkness?

There is no physical quantification of good or evil.

When there is a thermometer that can measure the evil in the air let me know.

Does cold exist? Does darkness exist?

Yes and they can be quantified

When you can measure "evil" let me know.

WHat would one unit of evil be called do you think?

Maybe we should call it a Satan or a Lucifer.

So tell me how many Lucifers must be present in the air for a murder to be committed?

So cold does not exist. Only heat exists. Darkness does not exist. Only light exists.'

Cold is the absence of heat and darkness is the absence of light.

Evil doesn't exist either. Evil is the absence of good.

Unfairness doesn't exist. Unfairness is the absence of fairness.

G-d said evil exists,
you weren't consulted.

Creation is not bound by the limits of dulaistic human logic.

The epitome of human corruption - when man willfully denies his evil potential.

Everything God created is good.

And yet G-d calls man's heart evil.

Who are you to argue?

God said everything he created is good. It's the first thing you were told.

Man has a choice to do good or not do good. The problem comes when he doesn't do good and fails to admit it and learn from his mistakes.

Which is contradicted by modern neuroscience.

Show me how modern neuroscience contradicts that man doesn't rationalize doing wrong as right?

There is no absolute right and wrong.

Both are merely value judgements. Those value judgements have become part of many cultures because they prove to make survival easier not because there is some metaphysical thing called good or evil

Just pain and pleasure. If you can get away with pleasure without the pain that would be great, right?

So there would be nothing wrong with harming others for your gain, right?

These are your logical conclusions.

I never said just pain and pleasure. People who choose to live together in a cooperative society have to agree on what behaviors are allowed and disallowed in their society.

A society can certainly believe sacrificing people on the altar of some god is perfectly acceptable. I'll even go so far as to say that if any of us were raised in such a society that we too would believe it to be acceptable.

If all there are are opinions then the only thing that is real is pain and pleasure.

No there are as many things as there are opinions.

There are those who believe mortification of the flesh to be a necessary component of worship.

So to them pain is the means they derive pleasure in serving their god.

And to you the only thing that exists in actuality is your pain and pleasure. Do whatever doesn't give you pain and whatever gives you pleasure. Screw everyone else. There is no moral authority. It is whatever you can take for your pleasure.

I do not believe I have the right to harm another person in any way.

In fact I stopped eating meat because I don't want to be responsible for the large scale suffering of animals.

That is my choice, my judgement, not some overriding absolute moral code becase such a thing does not exist outside of what is agreed upon by the members of a society

Sounds like you are making a moral argument to me.

What's wrong with being like an animal?

I'm not. That is my personal choice. i have no moral or any other justification for forcing you to believe as I do.

Exactly, which is why you can't argue I would be wrong to take from you using force.

Whereas, I can make that argument against you. I have authority on my side. You have no authority on your side.

I can make my own judgements of what I deem right and wrong there is no absolute standard just the subjective ones.

Authority is just another agreed upon societal contract the Authority we agree upon in our society is not the authority agreed upon in others. Therefore there is no absolute standard

Logic, which like truth, is absolute, and says otherwise.

Logic is absolute?
I think one of the main aspects of logic was always to expose its human limits.

Show a mathematician 2+2=4
and he will find the way to defy the "equation".

So much for logic.

Absolutely. Logic is absolute. Feel free to believe otherwise.

Oh "believe"....

Weren't we discussing logic?

Exactly the point I was making.