Is the Tide Turning on Religious Belief?

[Dr. Who]

And what I said over 200 posts ago:




So once again we find the theist and the atheist saying the same thing, accounting for evil in the choices man makes. No one is arguing it's a supernatural force, except for atheists like you insisting theists do when in fact they don't.

And, again, this is predictable given the great influence Christianity has had and continues to have in the West.

Still, after many posts saying atheists don't acknowledge evil, now suddenly you have reversed yourself.

Again, atheists don't acknowledge evil as a supernatural force. They use the word evil to characterize certain acts. This discussion would have ended long ago but for your determination to find an answer to the question as to how atheism accounts for the existence of evil.

[Mister D]

Again, atheists don't acknowledge evil as a supernatural force. They use the word evil to characterize certain acts. This discussion would have ended long ago but for your determination to find an answer to the question as to how atheism accounts for the existence of evil.

We all understand that and no one asked you to account for a supernatural force. What makes an act evil? Because enougg people say it is? Or is it inherently evil? If the latter, how is that possible? How do you account for it? That was the question you have been asked all along. I explained that at least 3 or 4 times.

[Mister D]

It's taken many pages to get Who to admit evil exists. "One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."

I have really bad feeling she'll still be talking about supernatural forces tonight.

[Chris]

Again, atheists don't acknowledge evil as a supernatural force. They use the word evil to characterize certain acts. This discussion would have ended long ago but for your determination to find an answer to the question as to how atheism accounts for the existence of evil.

Why do you say such things in response to my posting that "So once again we find the theist and the atheist saying the same thing, accounting for evil in the choices man makes. No one is arguing it's a supernatural force..."?

Makes no sense. It's incoherent. No one is talking about evil as a supernatural force.

Well, except you.


"They use the word evil to characterize certain acts"

How does the atheist account for that is what you're being asked. As D asks, "What makes an act evil?"

[Dr. Who]

Why do you say such things in response to my posting that "So once again we find the theist and the atheist saying the same thing, accounting for evil in the choices man makes. No one is arguing it's a supernatural force..."?

Makes no sense. It's incoherent. No one is talking about evil as a supernatural force.

Well, except you.


"They use the word evil to characterize certain acts"

How does the atheist account for that is what you're being asked. As D asks, "What makes an act evil?"

It's morally reprehensible to the highest degree.

[Chris]

It's morally reprehensible to the highest degree.

And the source of that? If man is the measure of all things there could never be agreement on what's the highest morally reprehensible act.

[Dr. Who]

And the source of that? If man is the measure of all things there could never be agreement on what's the highest morally reprehensible act.

People use it as they choose, some just hyperbolically or even for comedic value. Outside of its religious context, it's just a word and more often than not an adjective that's overused, so it's lost most of its weight as a descriptive.

I think you can tell by people's reactions to events what sorts of bad acts are most morally reprehensible. To a degree, you can judge by the laws we make and how we charge and sentence the gravest offenses. So, there is a process involving consensus.

[Mister D]

So "evil" is just word applied subjectively to describe acts people don't like. "Evil" is not a real property. Nothing is inherently evil. Acts become "evil" when people say they are.

Are we all in agreement here?

[Chris]

People use it as they choose, some just hyperbolically or even for comedic value. Outside of its religious context, it's just a word and more often than not an adjective that's overused, so it's lost most of its weight as a descriptive.

I think you can tell by people's reactions to events what sorts of bad acts are most morally reprehensible. To a degree, you can judge by the laws we make and how we charge and sentence the gravest offenses. So, there is a process involving consensus.

No, there is no consensus. It's like socialism (see my thread on it) where all the workers make all the decisions, the factory would run itself into the ground in no time. You, a great advocate of the State should know this, you need an authority.

I think we're done here.

[jes'fuchinwitcha]

No, there is no consensus. It's like socialism (see my thread on it) where all the workers make all the decisions, the factory would run itself into the ground in no time. You, a great advocate of the State should know this, you need an authority.

I think we're done here.

Stick a fork in it...