As far as the "Evil Exists" aspect, do you think you could describe "Evil?" I would say that the only way to describe it is to consider it to not actually be a "thing", but an absence of something. Regardless of believing in a higher power or not, I would say that relativity is nonsense, and that there is a right and wrong in everything, even if it's complicated and the line isn't very straight and obvious. So I would say that evil is an absence of good, just as darkness is not a thing, but it is an absence of light. So unfortunately, this flow chart, in my opinion, is going off of a subject that doesn't actually exist. But I'd be interested to see what you say or come up with in spite of this.Jerod
It seems to make sense that anything that improves human life, whatever makes life more bearable, more comfortable and makes us happier as a whole is the definition of what is good, and evil would be considered someone/something that intentionally hurts/kills us with malice (no apparent reason other than pleasure or meanness). So I think that evil is the extreme opposite of good, the absence of good could be innocuous and not necessarily good or evil so to speak, but killing for the sake of killing would be considered evil, so in that sense a serial killer could be considered evil.
Not even god could create a "real" Penrose Triangle or a devil's tuning fork.:
They are logical contradictions. He could not create a universe where left exists but right does not.
It simply doesn't follow that, since God created a universe with evil that He is not good. A universe with "good" but no "evil" would be a logical contradiction of the same order as "left" with no "right".
"Are you suggesting that it is not real?
Tell me... Where are the originals of Aristotle?
How about Plato, Caesar, Alexander the Great, or Socrates?
Where are their bones?
Where is the proof they ever actually existed and are not just myths?"
The difference is we have plenty of writings, military plans, and eyewitness accounts of the existence of these people, unlike Jesus in which we have zero evidence of his existence. There is more evidence of Mohammed's existence then there is of Jesus.
But perhaps the main difference is these people did not claim to be god or the son of god. There is no claim of them walking on water, turning water to wine, being born of a virgin, raising people from the dead, being crucified and rising from the dead, etc. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Evidence that religion cannot come close to providing because they are all bronze age myths and the time is up for these myths. It is time for reason and rationality to take their place so we can advance as a society.
MFW I designed this! I designed it in Paint.net and uploaded to it to 4chan in one of the atheist debates.
Didn't realise someone had saved it, let alone reposted it. :D
Nice very simple yet logically well rounded.
The chart didn't really go wrong anywhere, it is just illustrating a quote by Epicurus.
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" - Epicurus
Ok first of all the notion of "evil" and "good" itself is created by man, because think about what that term really means. If there were no humans (or life), what would constitute "evil"? There would be no lifeforms to harm (needless to say, no one to cause the harm itself). There would be no malice in the universe, then who is there to cause the evil? No one, and who is god left to judge? himself, or herself, or itself, however you see it fit.
The point is, this argument is a self-evident one. It is only true because the things it uses to define itself (good and evil) are themselves undefined until we take a stance on the conclusion itself (whether or not god exists).
PS: I had to manually go to uncapitalize the G in god, that's how engrained the notion of superiority of god is in the English language.
If there was no life, there would be no one to ask the question,,, If there were no Humans, but the rest of the animal kingdom existed, then I think evil would still exist, have you never seen an animal kill just for the sake of killing, I have, I had a dog that killed a kitten, not to eat it, just because it was being a pest. Just because an animal has no empathy it doesn't make it any less evil, so, is the lack of empathy the definition of evil? Or is malice the definition of evil? Because the same dog was given to me because it kept killing it's previous owners chickens, and it didn't eat them either. Or was it the combination of the two that constituted the definition of evil? Either way it shows that evil exists with or without the existence of man.
Join Think Atheist
Welcome toThink Atheist
Get Started Nowor Sign In
Or sign in with:
Started by Unseen in Small Talk 59 minutes ago.
Started by Unseen in Neuroscience, Cognitive Science, Psychology. Last reply by Unseen yesterday.
Started by Belle Rose in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by Unseen 1 hour ago.
Started by Unseen in Philosophy. Last reply by Unseen 5 hours ago.
Started by Dale Headley in Small Talk. Last reply by Davis Goodman yesterday.
Sunday School April 19th 2015
Sunday School April 12th 2015
Sunday School April 5th 2015
Posted by Simon Mathews on April 15, 2015 at 4:14am
Posted by Belle Rose on April 15, 2015 at 1:00am
Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com
© 2015 Created by umar.
Report an Issue |
Terms of Service
Please check your browser settings or contact your system administrator.