Would life be worth living if there was no God? - Page 17

CHRISTINE77 · #**241** May 1, '12, 8:30 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PumpkinSeed

Atheists still understand right from wrong. They just don't think there is a God to judge them for it. And while they believe they won't have to follow God's law, they still have to follow government law.

Atheists don't seem them selves as cocky people who are perfect. Ive never once seen an atheist say they are perfect. They know right from wrong just as you and I do. They just don't believe in a God.

I don't know why you seem to think Atheists are incapable of basic thought.

I don't think they are incapable of basic thought. Just higher thought. Thought above the laws of men.

ThinkingSapien · #**242** May 2, '12, 3:57 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobCatholic

They do believe in the existence of evil but they don't refer to it as sin. This is because the most common definition of "sin" and "sinner" have the theological sense.

Personally I only use the term "evil" to be a synonym for malicious. It's not something to which I would attach the label "exists". It's an abstraction for many other actions with mal-intent. If some one asked me "Do you think that evil exists?" I would have to reject the premise of the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHRISTINE77

I don't think they are incapable of basic thought. Just higher thought. Thought above the laws of men.

While I still find the word "higher" in this context to be ambiguous would not laws authored by people (whether monotheist, polytheist, or atheist) be part of the collection of laws of men? Could it be both a member of this collection and higher than it?

CHRISTINE77 · #**243** May 2, '12, 9:55 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien

Personally I only use the term "evil" to be a synonym for malicious. It's not something to which I would attach the label "exists". It's an abstraction for many other actions with mal-intent. If some one asked me "Do you think that evil exists?" I would have to reject the premise of the question.

While I still find the word "higher" in this context to be ambiguous would not laws authored by people (whether monotheist, polytheist, or atheist) be part of the collection of laws of men? Could it be both a member of this collection and higher than it?

You are a perfect example. You seem to be befuddled by the word "higher".

ThinkingSapien · #**244** May 2, '12, 11:23 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHRISTINE77

You are a perfect example. You seem to be befuddled by the word "higher".

Without an agreed upon system of ranking (whether subjective or objective) statements on one thing being higher than another are open to a number of different meanings.

Though to me the bigger problem with the previous message is something that could be demonstrated with a Venn diagram.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHRISTINE77

I don't think they are incapable of basic thought. Just higher thought. Thought above the laws of men.

To say that a human has thoughts that are higher than/above those of humans is much like saying German Shepard is higher than/above dogs or a Mercedes is higher than/above vehicles. If it were said that these things were higher than the average among humans/dogs/cars then the statement is less ambiguous. Or if it were said that one of these was highest among its group then the statement is less ambiguous.

But the lack of a specified ranking system for "higher" or "above" still leaves ambiguity within the statement (as a member's ranking within a group can change with the ranking system). When ranked on gas economy, cost, or a survey of comfort level, or travel distance until refuelling is needed a set of vehicles containing a bicycle, a mercedes passenger car of some type, and an air plane the "highest" among them would change with the ranking system. Going back to an earlier use of higher:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CHRISTINE77

Do you think there is something higher than humanity, and if so, what?

Well, there was no ranking system implied or stated. So the interpretation of the question is left open. Ranked by population there are many other organisms that are "higher" than humans (ex: many insects). Ranked by mass there are many other life forms that are "higher" than humans (ex:California red wood trees). I use these as examples. I don't have any default ranking system that I would use for your question. I'm fairly sure these were not the ranking systems that you have in mind. But then again I don't have access to your mind. So the only way that I could know what you are asking is if you provided a non-ambiguous ranking of interest.

BobCatholic · #**245** May 2, '12, 1:54 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien

Personally I only use the term "evil" to be a synonym for malicious. It's not something to which I would attach the label "exists". It's an abstraction for many other actions with mal-intent. If some one asked me "Do you think that evil exists?" I would have to reject the premise of the question.

So you've never seen people act with malicious intent? No rapes? No robberies? No murders?

Those are evils.

ThinkingSapien · #**246** May 2, '12, 2:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobCatholic

So you've never seen people act with malicious intent?

I think the answer to that was inferable from my first sentence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien

Personally I only use the term "evil" to be a synonym for malicious.

To state it more plainly I have seen people act with malicious intent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobCatholic

No rapes? No robberies? No murders?

Those are evils.

Here you are using the word "evil" that is consistent with this part of my previous reply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien

It's an abstraction for many other actions with mal-intent.

Have you found something that I've said to be in disagreement with your thoughts?

BobCatholic · #**247** May 2, '12, 5:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThinkingSapien

I think the answer to that was inferable from my first sentence.
To state it more plainly I have seen people act with malicious intent.

So therefore, you have seen evil since you've seen people with malicious intent do their evil things.

I'm trying to figure out where is the point of disagreement. I'm not talking about sin, as I know atheists don't believe in sin.

In the realm of ethics and morality from a non-theological perspective, evil does exist and is synonymous with sin in a theological perspective - the only difference is that sin talks about WHO is being offended by the evils. You can commit an evil to someone, but it is not a sin unless God is in the picture.

Evil -> an offense against one or more people
sin --> an offense against one or more people, one of them being God

The only difference is if God is in the picture.