(February 20, 2020 at 3:28 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: I think what we know so far about the universe being tuned for us, makes anyone who claims we came here by chance absolutey dishonest. If I remember correctly, you already seem to agree that something can't come from nothing. Since we are mortal beings, and there has to be always something, doesn't that warrant then an eternal cause, at least, whose properties can be inferred from its effects?

That is a lie. Any educated person knows this. You by this simple paragraph display great ignorance of science. The universe , 99.99% of it, is deadly to us. Even here we were the ones tuned by mutation and natural selection to the more temperate parts of the planet.

The remaider is just religious

Quote: think what we know so far about the universe being tuned for us, makes anyone who claims we came here by chance absolutey dishonest. If I remember correctly, you already seem to agree that something can't come from nothing. Since we are mortal beings, and there has to be always something, doesn't that warrant then an eternal cause, at least, whose properties can be inferred from its effects?

None of this is true

(February 20, 2020 at 3:28 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(February 20, 2020 at 11:03 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Prometheus and Dike were worshipped by the Greeks of antiquity. Prometheus formed humans from clay and gave them the gift of fire stolen from the gods. Zeus had him tortured horrifically for the latter. Dike, daughter of Athena, was the personification of justice, the spirit of moral order, and fair judgment. Presumably she doesn't fault us for not worshiping her as long as we don't better, after all, that would be unjust.

I see you're cherrypicking what you answer to.

I have absolutely zero obligation to respond to everything you say or anything you say. Limiting what I respond to is a mercy I grant to the rest of the forum to prevent our interactions from becoming book-length. I have a life to attend to and the more of your posts I read, the less of them I want to respond to.

(February 21, 2020 at 9:01 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:Generally, we can refine and expand on Boru's definition; evil is harm done by a competent agent in circumstances with relevant attributes absent the presence of mitigating facts.

That's fine (and a definite improvement on my definition) as far as moral evil, but it excludes natural evil.

Which, now that I think of it, may have been your point.  I'll see myself out.

Boru

As well as circumstantial, accidental, and incidental evil.  These things might still be bad, especially if there are a plurality of bad making properties....but we generally don't consider it evil when a person does harm by necessity, accident, or ignorance. More like regrettable, avoidable, and stupid.

(February 21, 2020 at 10:29 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: I have absolutely zero obligation to respond to everything you say or anything you say. Limiting what I respond to is a mercy I grant to the rest of the forum to prevent our interactions from becoming book-length. I have a life to attend to and the more of your posts I read, the less of them I want to respond to.

I don't get the suddenly rude tone. Trying to save face? 

But if you're used to quick chit chat about the big questions, or mistakenly think that biased, superficial thoughts, while sitting comfortably in your sofa, about sweet people thinking that god loves us all, are going to have any kind of weight in these discussions, just say it.

Go. Run. You're free.

(February 21, 2020 at 8:23 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Definitions are notoriously consistent with themselves.  In my experience, when people unfamiliar with any moral system beyond their own make statements like that, they're thinking of exclusively sub optimal decision fields, inherent conflicts between a plurality of value making properties, or the simple failure of a moral agent to consistently apply that moral system in day to day life.  

We can define evil functionally, we can define it generally by it's relation to all moral systems, or we can define it specifically with reference to the contents of a given moral system.  The first two are the most instructive as concepts, though we use the third in our day to day lives.

Functionally, evil is a categorization of items based on the referents of a moral system.

Generally, we can refine and expand on Boru's definition; evil is harm done by a competent agent in circumstances with relevant attributes absent the presence of mitigating facts.    There's an incredibly high chance that this description of evil will be functionally equivalent to any description of evil, derived from any source..including a religious source.  Disagreements are generally over the contents of terms, rather than the form of the moral inference.

The third definition is not a definition of evil itself, but a description of facts that can contribute to the categorization.

What qualifies as a competent moral agent?
What are the relevant attributes of a circumstance with moral import?
What are the mitigating factors of any relevant attribute or competent moral agent?  

All fun questions, but as a practical matter - it's not necessary to know the answers to live a moral life.  Don't harm, do help.

Word salad aside, I still can't find any moral system in these lines. You're referring to it but it remains undefined. Anyway, in light of your definition of evil, absence of any harm is equivalent to absence of evil. What kind of harm, physical or psychological, did Muhammad do to his bride back then? I want precise, objective answers.

Do we have any reported complaints from Aisha herself? No. What we have instead are anonymous newbies fourteen centuries later feeling bad for her over the web.

OFC you can, it's entirely likely that you can find your own moral system in those lines.

Sure, though.....in my system, the absence of harm is the absence of evil. If nothing's being done, what is there to call evil? Do you generally see evil where nothing is happening in your own moral system?

This is getting stranger by the minute. What am I supposed to draw from your comments? That a little girl liked being raped? I doubt it, but it doesn't really matter to me if you insist as much. I don't decide whether things are evil, or not, on the basis of whether children enjoy them. What...about any of this, both the claim that you're making and the fact that you are making it..is supposed to change my mind about islam and it's "prophet"? You're only confirming the things I have already heard, which are the things that make it impossible for me to join your club as a person of good moral character and strong conscience.

You...are free to make every excuse you like for the rape of a child..or any number of other blatantly evil articles of your faith. I'm uninterested

(February 21, 2020 at 9:17 am)LastPoet Wrote: That is a lie. Any educated person knows this. You by this simple paragraph display great ignorance of science. The universe , 99.99% of it, is deadly to us. Even here we were the ones tuned by mutation and natural selection to the more temperate parts of the planet.

The remaider is just religious

Why aren't you dead then? There are physical constants tuned to the 120th zero out there, you know, aren't they enough to get you to think of a more serious reason of us being here.

And mutation/Natural selection require precise chemical and physical laws to work. Did these laws come by chance too, according to you, Mr. educated person?

It's not like you're going to have to wait long for any human being to die.....

So what if the universe is fine tuned for us? I think the whole claim is hilarious on it's face..but assuming it were true, so what? God exists? Your god?

Who cares.

(February 21, 2020 at 11:34 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: This is getting stranger by the minute.  What am I supposed to draw from your comments?  That a little girl liked being raped?  I doubt it, but it doesn't really matter to me if you insist as much.  I don't decide whether things are evil, or not, on the basis of whether children enjoy them.

How did marriage turn into rape, exactly?? there is this huge nuance you're already aware of. But for some reason, a grudge, a stereotype in your head you're not willing to talk about, Muhammad committed a horrendous crime by merely marrying. Sunni literature does draw the line between marriage and actual physical intimacy. Reportedly, the consummation took place three years later, she was nine by then. 

Sure, I am aware the age of majority is not nine anymore. But back then, this age was based on physical signs of puberty. And that is reasonable, and I really don't see anything repugnant about it, and certainly nothing than can possibly amount to rape.

The thing is, you need more details to build a case for rape. Because, as I said, Quraysh guys back then could distinguish between marriage and rape [duh], they would've tipped off the entire Mecca if Muhammad committed such an unspeakable act, more importantly, you wouldn't have heard of a person called Muhammad, because honor killings were standard practice back then.

---

(February 21, 2020 at 11:42 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It's not like you're going to have to wait long for any human being to die.....

The relevant part is that it took a lot of planning to get an alive person. Nobody can honestly wrap their heads around that all the complexity of human anatomy arised from nature playing with itself. Be it a million years long, a billion years, or an infinitely long natural process.

Who's building a case for rape? The guy's been dead for centuries. Nobody is taking him to court. This is just my ethical assessment of your cult founder's alleged character by reference to his alleged acts. Here, he'd be in jail, or worse. You can be as fine with it as you like. I'm obviously not, and no amount of you making further excuses has any bearing or value on that.

Anywho, so what if it took alot of planning to "get a person alive" - that's not surprising to me since I have a handful of kids. So what if your evil god made us? I'm not exactly rushing out to the nearest mosque on account of how some dipshit god played around in the mud. Atheists don't believe that fairy tale, but even if we did..it's unlikely that this would change our opinion of islam as a religion or your god as a character.