The Futile Arguments Thread

[hackenslash]

As it happens, I think that evil is a useless concept, and good and bad only marginally less so. The former is emotion-laden to the point of no utility, while the latter two are entirely subjective. What is not subjective, though, and constitutes something that actually has an objective existence, is suffering. Since suffering does exist, and is very real and demonstrable, we have something that constitutes something we can measure this entity's characteristics against. Since this celestial peeping-tom is supposed to be omnipotent (lol) and omnibenevolent, suffering should not exist, because an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god cannot co-exist in a universe in which there's needless suffering.

Warning to apologists: If you actually erect the canard that Kalamity Kraig does here about suffering being good for people, you will incur my ire, because that's about as deeply immoral an assertion as can be erected, and only demonstrates just how toxic dogmatic belief in a magic man really is. Anybody who erects such an assertion should be made to suffer deeply, in my opinion, to see if they really think it's good for the sufferer.

Edit: Word substitution

[Stevil]

This doesn't even address the analogy, since the analogy doesn't contain anything about a "neutral state."  It specifically addresses the stark dichotomy between good and evil as propounded by followers of religion.  As well, the analogy doesn't contain "day" and "night," but rather "light" and "shadow."

What I am trying to say is that Good and Evil are closely related and come from the same source, but there is also neutral. I am sure not all things can be categorised as Good or Evil. The shadow to me is neutral. The Good and Evil of light are the respective and percieved actions of light for better or for worse. Not simply the lack of light.

[Stevil]

I'm reminded of a word I learned recently; "sciolism."  A shadow is a specific thing which is created by the presence of light.  Generalized darkness, as described in the above quote, is not "one very large shadow."

If you put a frame around a photo, does that photo become something new, something that has been created by the frame?
I don't see a difference regarding darkness, e.g. if you frame it with light then you have the concept of a shadow, but in reality the darkness was always there and does not need the light to become something different. It does not become a shadow. People would term it as a shadow but that is simply a concept. It remains what it was before it was framed by light. It remains as darkness.

Dark is not the opposite of light. Dark is a neutral state, where as light is an excited, energetic state.

You're defining "dark" to suit your position.  Let's look at the dictionary:

From Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary:

dark
1 : having very little or no light â€"opposite light
2 : not light in color : of a color that is closer to black than white
3 of a color : having more black than white : not light â€"opposite light

It seems that according to the dictionary, dark actually is the opposite of light.

I would still disagree, light is a particle and energy duality, it is existence of energy. Darkness is the lack of this energy presence rather than negative energy, it is neutral rather than opposite. The dictionary definition you are referencing is using a conceptual viewpoint rather than reality.
If we are using it as an analogy of Good and Evil are you saying that Evil is simply a lack of good? Would you say that when I roll over in my sleep in the middle of the night that this action of mine is Evil simply because it lacks Good?

This doesn't even address the analogy, since the analogy doesn't contain anything about a "neutral state."  It specifically addresses the stark dichotomy between good and evil as propounded by followers of religion.  As well, the analogy doesn't contain "day" and "night," but rather "light" and "shadow."

I feel that I am addressing your analogy by trying to point out that your shadow is neutral rather than the opposite, I cannot fathom how in your analogy that the shadow would relate to Evil given the point that light is representing Good. Your analogy is positing that all things are either Good or Evil and I think that is a dangerous stance. When president Bush said "You are either with us or against us" it sent huge shivers down my spine. A person in such power having such a polarised, dangerous and naiive stance.

[Recusant]

I'm reminded of a word I learned recently; "sciolism."  A shadow is a specific thing which is created by the presence of light.  Generalized darkness, as described in the above quote, is not "one very large shadow."

If you put a frame around a photo, does that photo become something new, something that has been created by the frame?
I don't see a difference regarding darkness, e.g. if you frame it with light then you have the concept of a shadow, but in reality the darkness was always there and does not need the light to become something different. It does not become a shadow. People would term it as a shadow but that is simply a concept. It remains what it was before it was framed by light. It remains as darkness.

1.     Framing a photo does not create anything but a framed photo.  Whereas casting light on an object creates a shadow.

You seem to have completely ignored the fact that the analogy that I proposed was intended to mirror the Christian dogma of how evil arises.  Evil, in the Christian view as I understand it, is the lack of goodness from their god.  Their god is the source of all good.  Thus anything cut off from their god is evil.  The point of the analogy is to show that if their view is correct, then it's very hard to escape the fact that just as the light from the sun interacts with objects to create a shadow, so does the good from their god  actually bring evil into existence.  If their conception of reality is correct, the world does not create evil on its own. Rather only by the existence of their "pure good" emanating from a single source can "evil" be said to exist.

Dark is not the opposite of light. Dark is a neutral state, where as light is an excited, energetic state.

You're defining "dark" to suit your position.  Let's look at the dictionary:

From Merriam-Webster's Learner's Dictionary:

dark
1 : having very little or no light â€"opposite light
2 : not light in color : of a color that is closer to black than white
3 of a color : having more black than white : not light â€"opposite light

It seems that according to the dictionary, dark actually is the opposite of light.

I would still disagree, light is a particle and energy duality, it is existence of energy. Darkness is the lack of this energy presence rather than negative energy, it is neutral rather than opposite. The dictionary definition you are referencing is using a conceptual viewpoint rather than reality.
If we are using it as an analogy of Good and Evil are you saying that Evil is simply a lack of good? Would you say that when I roll over in my sleep in the middle of the night that this action of mine is Evil simply because it lacks Good?

Once again you are confusing an analogy with physical reality.  This is the realm of concepts, not science.  Also, I am not saying that evil is the lack of good, I'm saying that's my understanding of Christian dogma.

This doesn't even address the analogy, since the analogy doesn't contain anything about a "neutral state."  It specifically addresses the stark dichotomy between good and evil as propounded by followers of religion.  As well, the analogy doesn't contain "day" and "night," but rather "light" and "shadow."

I feel that I am addressing your analogy by trying to point out that your shadow is neutral rather than the opposite, I cannot fathom how in your analogy that the shadow would relate to Evil given the point that light is representing Good. Your analogy is positing that all things are either Good or Evil and I think that is a dangerous stance. When president Bush said "You are either with us or against us" it sent huge shivers down my spine. A person in such power having such a polarised, dangerous and naiive stance.

I believe I've clarified why you are missing the point in previous sections of this post, and won't repeat that clarification for this paragraph unless you think that there is something that I should address.

[LegendarySandwich]

Are you two really arguing over an analogy?  

[AnimatedDirt]

No.  This analogy doesn't fit the "God created evil" premise.  God did not create Good, nor did He create Evil.
God IS Good, thus evil is opposed to God.

So, doing something good as, say, going to church is being God?

You totally miss the meaning, however I'm not surprised.

Doing good does not God make.  God embodies/is the definition of good.

[LegendarySandwich]

You totally miss the meaning, however I'm not surprised.

Doing good does not God make.  God embodies/is the definition of good.

So, what's the difference between good and God then?

[AnimatedDirt]

You totally miss the meaning, however I'm not surprised.

Doing good does not God make.  God embodies/is the definition of good.

So, what's the difference between good and God then?

Good is a concept, a definition, it is a part of what God is.  It is part of His nature.

[LegendarySandwich]

Good is a concept, a definition, it is a part of what God is.  It is part of His nature.

So, being/doing good is becoming closer/more like God, and doing/being evil is becoming farther away/less like God?

[AnimatedDirt]

Good is a concept, a definition, it is a part of what God is.  It is part of His nature.

So, being/doing good is becoming closer/more like God, and doing/being evil is becoming farther away/less like God?

In a simple sense, yes.  DOING good isn't necessarily a trait only of the Godly (meaning those that believe in God).  Good is a trait built into humanity IN THAT we were/are created in HIS image.  Image doesn't necessarily mean physical.

Many men, as evidenced by the Bible, did evil in God's eyes, yet some were called righteous by God.  Why?/How so?

One explanation is best summed up by a quote (I think it was) from Martin Luther.

"A Christian is always a sinner, always a penitent, always right with God."
 -- "Christian is always a sinner, always full of repentance and always justified by God."

One of those ways, but both say the same thing.

[Stevil]

You seem to have completely ignored the fact that the analogy that I proposed was intended to mirror the Christian dogma of how evil arises.  Evil, in the Christian view as I understand it, is the lack of goodness from their god.  Their god is the source of all good.  Thus anything cut off from their god is evil.  The point of the analogy is to show that if their view is correct, then it's very hard to escape the fact that just as the light from the sun interacts with objects to create a shadow, so does the good from their god  actually bring evil into existence.  If their conception of reality is correct, the world does not create evil on its own. Rather only by the existence of their "pure good" emanating from a single source can "evil" be said to exist.

Not ignoring, just struggling to understand religious concepts, I really find them hard to understand.
So, going by your explaination above it seems that I myself am one of the most evil things on the planet if the Christian god exists. If god is casting a frame of "light" around the world and since this light is not touching me in any way, then although I am not changed, not different, just simply framed I have become as evil as anything else could possibly be.

However there is hope for me. If the Christian god does not exist, then I am not in the least evil.

And it gets even better.
Regardless if the Christian god exists or not, I am actually quite a nice person, not a saint, but generally quite good (not Good but good)
So I am either Evil and nice/good, or not Evil and nice/good.
I think I can live with that.

It means that when Christians call Atheists evil then they are right, but it doesn't mean that they are saying we are bad people. Hmmmm, the concept of Good/Evil is very misleading for a non Christian who lacks an understanding of Christian ways, word, descriptions.

Image doesn't necessarily mean physical

Oh my. Now I don't think I will be able to understand this concept.

[AnimatedDirt]

Image doesn't necessarily mean physical

Oh my. Now I don't think I will be able to understand this concept.

When a picture is taken of you with a cell phone or any image-taking device, is that image an exact representation of you?
I would think you would say, 'no'.  It is a two-dimensional likeness, but it is not an exact physical image of you.

[Recusant]

Are you two really arguing over an analogy?  

And while none of our honored Christian members have bothered to address that analogy, I think that Stevil and I have had a productive conversation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Not ignoring, just struggling to understand religious concepts, I really find them hard to understand.

I don't blame you sir.  If you haven't been indoctrinated from a very early age in the fanciful and extravagant fabrications erected by centuries of Christian theologians, it must be difficult to accept that any sensible person takes them seriously.  Their fabulations confound even themselves sometimes.

So, going by your explaination above it seems that I myself am one of the most evil things on the planet if the Christian god exists. If god is casting a frame of "light" around the world and since this light is not touching me in any way, then although I am not changed, not different, just simply framed I have become as evil as anything else could possibly be.

Well no, you yourself are not evil at all (in my understanding of Christian dogma).  Rather it's atheism which is evil.  The good which emanates from the Christian god "illuminates" you whether you acknowledge its existence or not.

However there is hope for me. If the Christian god does not exist, then I am not in the least evil.

And it gets even better.
Regardless if the Christian god exists or not, I am actually quite a nice person, not a saint, but generally quite good (not Good but good)
So I am either Evil and nice/good, or not Evil and nice/good.
I think I can live with that.

It means that when Christians call Atheists evil then they are right, but it doesn't mean that they are saying we are bad people. Hmmmm, the concept of Good/Evil is very misleading for a non Christian who lacks an understanding of Christian ways, word, descriptions.

Only the more simplistic variety of Christian believes that atheists are evil, I think.

Image doesn't necessarily mean physical

Oh my. Now I don't think I will be able to understand this concept.

I'm not sure that the above was addressed to me.  Analogies obviously are not physical things though, and aren't governed by physical realities.

[defendor]

Legendary Sandwich- simply calling B.S. without having grounds to disagree or making an argument, other than mere opinion, is a logical fallacy. You are swaying from a debatable argument for personal bias, without addressing the debate with facts or tangibility or logic.

Law of non-contradiction- There is no objective standard of good and evil

I think that evil is a useless concept

then you point to an objective stance of evil.

What is not subjective, though, and constitutes something that actually has an objective existence, is suffering. Since suffering does exist, and is very real and demonstrable.

Why is there suffering?  It depends, we have to first establish whether the moral grounds are objective or subjective.  

If they are subjective, then you can't ever know why, it's only different levels of moral neutrality as perceived by those who are undergoing whatever plagues them.  

If there is an objective moral reality, then you have a basis for an argument, and one you may not like.  I have posted on God's justice and grace earlier so God is just and unjust. He is not in-just. God would be completely just by killing me, for my crimes are eternally worthy of death. By trying to continually establish myself as God.  But his Grace is not just. It is not injustice either. It is unwarranted. I do not deserve his Grace. I deserve his justice. But he excuses his justice through the sacrifice of His Grace(Jesus). God doesn't save me from himself, he saves me from myself. A murderer is deserving of death, this is justice. But if someone were to take his punishment of death so that the murderer could change his ways (repent), he would live in light of this sacrifice and turn from his ways. He would receive un-justice, not injustice. This is Grace.  

Jesus was asked this same questions by the pharisees, the question in perspective you should ask is not 'why is there evil', but why aren't you at the extreme brunt of it?  Why aren't you suffering?

This is more geared towards Stevil- If there is no objective benchmark for what Good is (in this case God) then you cannot have an objective standard of morality, defining evil (absence of God).  It's like ships to a light house, if there is no immovable standard to direct and guide us, then everyone is going haywire without a sense of direction.  But it seems that everyone has a sense of direction (morality).  My beliefs state, that regardless of whether you acknowledge the light house exists or not (Good i.e. God), it is there and everyone has sense about it.  

About the whole the shadow debacle regardless of what depicts what and which comes first, darkness is merely the absence of light.  So without light, you would never really know what darkness or shadows were for there was never any differentiation.  But with light, there are various, objective degrees of the presence of light.

I noticed a topic on the sinfulness of man, this is called total depravity, we are sinful before birth.

[AnimatedDirt]

But he excuses his justice through the sacrifice of His Grace(Jesus).

This wording doesn't sit well with me.  It seems to suggest that God simply then chose to not execute His justice.  Impossible.

God's justice/wrath is not acted out on me because He (God) placed His wrath and judged Christ in our stead.  In no way does God excuse His justice, but rather His justice was instead acted out on Christ, in whom if we believe/trust/have faith in Him, we are "dead" and the wage of sin is paid.