Who is more evil?

Originally posted by wolfgang59
But they all know what evil is!

It's what they define as evil (not how they define evil).

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder ... but we all know what the
word beauty means. Not agreeing on what is beautiful does
not mean that we cannot agree on a definition of beauty.

You're kidding, right?

"It's what they define as evil (not how they define evil)."
I think you need to roll your joints just a scosch tighter.
You're probably getting too many seeds.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You can't refer to the colloquial use of the word 'evil' in this world, since there is clearly and demonstrably huge chasms between large groups of people on the use and application thereof.

According to militant Muslims, the US is evil while beheading civilians is permissible.
According to some factions of Christianity, abortion is evil.
Accor ...[text shortened]... anyone, now do they?
About as much bearing as your force-guided writings, and just as relevant.

I have a fairly good idea of the road you intend to take me down, namely that I should choose some sort of absolute morality - pinned on your god perhaps. The thing is, not only is the morality of your god just as subjective as mine (despite any protestations to the contrary), the morals of your god are utterly despicable - truly "he" is a monster.

But anyway, it serves my (and I'll wager many others) purposes sufficiently well in this thread that people apply their own subjective definition of "evil" and report back which of A or B they find more evil. Indeed, for the sake of example, if one person X thinks that stabbing babies in the eye is evil, whilst Y doesn't then though there is no consensus on the term "evil" the majority of us, those who do not deviate far from the median, will still find much that is of academic interest in the two answers. To pin down a definition of the word that we would all agree on in every nuance is preposterous.

Alice and Bob don't need to have any bearing on anyone ... an account has been given of their traits and the OP asks which is found to be more evil by the reader.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You're kidding, right?

"It's what they define as evil (not how they define evil)."
I think you need to roll your joints just a scosch tighter.
You're probably getting too many seeds.

I thought you might struggle with that so I gave an
analogy using beauty but alas it is still beyond you.

All I can suggest is that you contemplate a situation such that
every question you ask of someone is countered with "Well it
depends how you define ........ - you can fill in the blank with
any word in your question. Imagine what fun that will be.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I thought you might struggle with that so I gave an
analogy using beauty but alas it is still beyond you.

All I can suggest is that you contemplate a situation such that
every question you ask of someone is countered with "Well it
depends how you define ........ - you can fill in the blank with
any word in your question. Imagine what fun that will be.

Why?

We get that argument from empty-headed simpletons here in this thread every day.

(Oh, sorry, I meant trolls, because 90% of the time, people who do this are just trolling. Can't think of a rebuttal? Just ask them what they mean by ________, even though online dictionaries are just a click away.)

Originally posted by Suzianne
Why?

We get that argument from empty-headed simpletons here in this thread every day.

(Oh, sorry, I meant trolls, because 90% of the time, people who do this are just trolling. Can't think of a rebuttal? Just ask them what they mean by ________, even though online dictionaries are just a click away.)

Yep Suzy you're right.

Those that can't think of a rebuttal simply ask "What do you mean by ..."

We agree.

It's what I'm complaining about.

It's what Freaky is doing.

Thanks for your support.

Originally posted by Agerg
An entity A who answers to nobody and exploits this position to kill and torture whomsoever he pleases. An entity who, for the purpose of stroking his own gargantuan ego, has set up the biggest damned [b]protection racket that has ever, and could ever be, conceived by condemning his own son (albeit somehow himself) to death - such that he may then use this ...[text shortened]... d in the spirit of rebellion, persuaded a couple of fig adorned people to eat a naughty apple!??[/b]

Entity A is good.

Entity B is evil.


Your characterization of God is as ignorant as it gets. How does it feel to know that you are deliberately twisting the truth into a lie. And you know you are!

Therefore you must be a liar.

Just being honest. Try not to get too worked up over it.

Originally posted by Agerg
I have a fairly good idea of the road you intend to take me down, namely that I should choose some sort of absolute morality - pinned on your god perhaps. The thing is, not only is the morality of your god just as subjective as mine (despite any protestations to the contrary), the morals of your god are utterly despicable - truly "he" is a monster.

But anyw ...[text shortened]... unt has been given of their traits and the OP asks which is found to be more evil by the reader.

You may or may not have an idea on the road, but from what you've said here, I'm going with the negative.

You're mixing currencies which have no exchange rate available and are otherwise wholly incompatible. Using ill-fitting terms and phrases, you then attempt to apply them to an economy which literally has nothing to do with any of them!

Evil is a value-based assessment.
As is good.
Morality can be also viewed as a value-based assessment, albeit on a more 'general rules' basis.
Any one can have an assessment of good or evil based on (if they prefer) nothing more than their personal predilections.
Only a group of people can weigh in on morality.

God's system is not one of good and evil, nor is His plan morality. His standard is above either one and, yes, it is based upon the only unchangeable standard available: His own character.

That smug sense of pride you have gathered to yourself in elevating your morals above God's might offer you a portion of succor now, but it will ultimately mock you when the light of day dawns on your shabby raiment.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
I thought you might struggle with that so I gave an
analogy using beauty but alas it is still beyond you.

All I can suggest is that you contemplate a situation such that
every question you ask of someone is countered with "Well it
depends how you define ........ - you can fill in the blank with
any word in your question. Imagine what fun that will be.

I don't know what is more sad: that you can't see the error of your own thinking, or that you think a head full of crap has anything clever to tell the world.

You're just a sad little boy/man, either way.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You may or may not have an idea on the road, but from what you've said here, I'm going with the negative.

You're mixing currencies which have no exchange rate available and are otherwise wholly incompatible. Using ill-fitting terms and phrases, you then attempt to apply them to an economy which literally has nothing to do with any of them!

[i]Evil[/ ...[text shortened]... succor now, but it will ultimately mock you when the light of day dawns on your shabby raiment.

Given the statement I'll explore shortly, I am inclined to think, on the contrary, that I did indeed have an accurate idea of the road you would take me. But anyway, though your analogy about currencies and exchange rates is interesting, I think we can get along just fine with little more than a bartering system. Some will trade with gold, others will trade with pyrite, others with rotting cabbage, but all sides will form an opinion of whether the others offer fair value or not.

You assert that god's standard is above good and evil, and that it is above morality, and that it is the only unchangeable standard available. Firstly why should I accept any of this to be true by just your decree!? Should I also accept without question that "his" favourite colour is orange if you say it is orange!???
Secondly, the Bible, from what I have read about it would suggest that "God"'s is highly capricious - certainly not a constant *. Finally I don't see any value in the standards of the entity you would put forward, and what's more, the very bedrock of Christian faith - the supposed purpose of the crucifixion - I find to be just as repulsive as the eternal hell idea **.

As for what you see as smugness on my part, it is an honest statement nonetheless. Your god looks to have been conceived by people with a sense of right and wrong 2000+ years less advanced than my own. It is a god that needs sacrifice, it is a god that is heavy-handed in vengeance, it is a god that is prejudiced, it is a god that is cruel, it is a god that thinks like humans, and most importantly, it is a god that could never inspire me to be a better person simply because I surpassed it long before hitting my teens.

If there is a god, yours is a very bad approximation of it.





------------------------------------------------------------------------
* "he" supposedly wiped almost the entire human and animal population of the earth because, to "his" surprise, a few people ticked him off.

** how in blazes am I supposed to find anything good about condemning, torturing, and humiliating someone to settle a score, especially a score that was instantiated by the very thing that condemned him in the first place to pay for it!??

Originally posted by josephw
Entity A is good.

Entity B is evil.


Your characterization of God is as ignorant as it gets. How does it feel to know that you are deliberately twisting the truth into a lie. And you know you are!

Therefore you must be a liar.

Just being honest. Try not to get too worked up over it.

Thanks for your honesty ... so far, thanks to you and RBHILL we have:

slaughtering/torturing/blackmailing despot .........not so evil
insubordination towards above................................. evil


I look forward to more input from theists, especially the fundamentalists amongst you 🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
Thanks for your honesty ... so far, thanks to you and RBHILL we have:

slaughtering/torturing/blackmailing despot .........not so evil
insubordination towards above................................. evil


I look forward to more input from theists, especially the fundamentalists amongst you 🙂

At least you're not just getting bored!

Tell me, how do you justify your characterization of the God of the Bible while simultaneously not believing He exists?

Seems to me that you are either ignorant concerning what the Bible says about who and what God is, or you are deliberately mischaracterizing God for reasons of your own.

Originally posted by josephw
At least you're not just getting bored!

Tell me, how do you justify your characterization of the God of the Bible while simultaneously not believing He exists?

Seems to me that you are either ignorant concerning what the Bible says about who and what God is, or you are deliberately mischaracterizing God for reasons of your own.

Woot ... a challenge!

Ok, first up "slaughtering". Does the Bible say the following:

"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead."

"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

? 🙂

Originally posted by Agerg
An entity A who answers to nobody and exploits this position to kill and torture whomsoever he pleases. An entity who, for the purpose of stroking his own gargantuan ego, has set up the biggest damned [b]protection racket that has ever, and could ever be, conceived by condemning his own son (albeit somehow himself) to death - such that he may then use this ...[text shortened]... d in the spirit of rebellion, persuaded a couple of fig adorned people to eat a naughty apple!??[/b]

I would honestly say A is more evil. But A is not being truly represented as the God of the bible in your scenario.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I don't know what is more sad: that you can't see the error of your own thinking, or that you think a head full of crap has anything clever to tell the world.

You're just a sad little boy/man, either way.

You have failed to show any error in my thinking - not that I have
had to do much - because as Suzianne said you are just an
empty-headed simpleton without any meaningful rebuttal.

Your second post in this thread declared the OP irrelevant so why even contribute (if I can use that word loosely to describe your mutterings)?

Originally posted by Agerg
Woot ... a challenge!

Ok, first up [b]"slaughtering". Does the Bible say the following:

"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh ...[text shortened]... because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

? 🙂[/b]

"And it came to pass, that at midnight the LORD smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of the captive that was in the dungeon; and all the firstborn of cattle. And Pharaoh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all the Egyptians; and there was a great cry in Egypt; for there was not a house where there was not one dead."

True, but you forgot to mention how these people enslaved the Isrealites and oppressed them... Did I mention "severe" oppression?

"And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked into the ark of the LORD, even he smote of the people fifty thousand and threescore and ten men: and the people lamented, because the LORD had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

Here again, you are not understanding what was required to properly handle the Ark.