The problem of evil

Scut Farkus said:
well. you're a fanatical joiner with no self.
Click to expand...

Ah, by not joining. Much like the Buddhist meditation technique of concentrating on one hand clapping..

Scut Farkus said:
conquering material obsession and status obsession and fantasies of dominance would cure all the world's ills.
Click to expand...

Sounds pretty. And we know people like Richard Gere, Oprah, the Beatles (except Ringo), Bill Gates gave away all of their wealth and live in poverty...

Oh wait.

Well at least Buddhist societies like China, Pakistan, Japan, Cambodia, etc. follow the principles of turning from material wealth...



Scut Farkus said:
deep staters like the world's ills, they profit of all kinds of dysfunction, war, violence, greed, addiction.
Click to expand...

Most or many of those deep staters will virtue signal Buddhism while plotting unfettered and unrestrained rule. Those like Bill Gates who profess Buddhism are just virtue signaling to their fellow Oligarchs.
Scut Farkus said:
so there is a concerted psyop to destroy peace and harmony.

its dark and evil and goes all the way to the top.
Click to expand...

What peace and harmony?

My early attraction to Buddhism was because of the systematic violence it teaches in Kung Fu.
 
Uncensored2008 said:
Ah, by not joining. Much like the Buddhist meditation technique of concentrating on one hand clapping..



Sounds pretty. And we know people like Richard Gere, Oprah, the Beatles (except Ringo), Bill Gates gave away all of their wealth and live in poverty...

Oh wait.

Well at least Buddhist societies like China, Pakistan, Japan, Cambodia, etc. follow the principles of turning from material wealth...





Most or many of those deep staters will virtue signal Buddhism while plotting unfettered and unrestrained rule. Those like Bill Gates who profess Buddhism are just virtue signaling to their fellow Oligarchs.


What peace and harmony?

My early attraction to Buddhism was because of the systematic violence it teaches in Kung Fu.
Click to expand...
yes. i know.

we have many virtue signalling warmonger libertarian Buddhists.

some understand Buddhism more than others.

don't let child raping priests turn you off from the golden rule either.
 
Scut Farkus said:
yes. i know.

we have many virtue signalling warmonger libertarian Buddhists.

some understand Buddhism more than others.

don't let child raping priests turn you off from the golden rule either.
Click to expand...

Most child rapists are in public schools - though I admit that I'm completely turned off to public schools.
 
Cypress said:
I believe to some extent it is imprinted on human conscience, and in some very real sense is universal in human nature.

Since I am not omniscient like others in this thread, I cannot say for certain why a universal moral conscience, which does not depend on Darwinian laws of evolution, are a part of the human condition. .
Click to expand...
What parts of morality would be genetic?

Anthropology is the scientific study of human behavior, biology, culture, society, and language. The comparative studying of human behavior, be they modern or primitive. would strip away the social conditioning aspects to reveal the genetic ones.

AFAIK, while there's a genetic aspect of survival and mate-seeking, morality seems to be social conditioning. Survival being that people who are murderous assholes don't live long enough to breed much whereas people who get along well with others do survive within a human tribe.

www.apa.org

Moral minds

Psychological researchers are discovering the roots of human morality.
www.apa.org www.apa.org

Moral minds​

Angels vs. Demons: How psychological researchers are unearthing the roots of human morality
In a best-case scenario, psychology can identify processes that can help a person learn to make better moral choices. "You can become more moral. That's part of what development is about," says Anne Colby, PhD, a psychologist and consulting professor at Stanford University....

..."People aren't just pawns of their culture. They have the capacity to think about the cultural norms and pressures, and the moral creativity to say,


The Psychology of Morality
Abstract
Five questions regarding the nature of the moral sense, the origin of conscience, the
development of morality, variability in the moral sense, and the relation of morality to
behavior are examined from the point of view of four theoretical approaches (psychoanalytic
theory, social learning theory, cognitive-developmental theory, and evolutionary psychology).
In addition, some concepts and findings from outside the four approaches are also touched
upon. The moral sense is shown to be complex, comprising cognitions, feelings, and
behaviors. The theoretical approaches disagree regarding the issues of whether conscience
directly reflects social teaching, or is constructed by the developing individual. They also
disagree on whether moral development is incremental or stagewise. Explanations of
individual, gender, and cultural differences in morality differ across the four approaches.
None of the approaches explains the relation of behavior to morality; rather, application of
social psychological theories is suggested. More recent developments are briefly reviewed,
supporting the view that the evolutionary approach and its extensions have become
dominant in the field in recent years. Focus on social relations rather than individuals,
emphasis on emotions rather than reason or action, pluralist views of the bases of morality,
and functions of morality in group competition are highlighted as aspects of the newer
approaches....

...Regardless of how or whether consensus is reached on the issues being actively debated
at present, it seems possible to predict some overall trends that probably will not be
reversed. First, despite the tendency of psychologists to revert to investigations of
individual differences, human morality will continue to be recognized as a species-specific
adaptation that evolved in the context of social living and is activated in social relations.
Thus, it is likely that research on the psychology of morality will continue to be dominated
by ideas and theories stemming from evolutionary psychology, and that, compared to the
past, the study of morality will focus less on personality and individual development and
more on social relationships....

...Regardless of how or whether consensus is reached on the issues being actively debated
at present, it seems possible to predict some overall trends that probably will not be
reversed. First, despite the tendency of psychologists to revert to investigations of
individual differences, human morality will continue to be recognized as a species-specific
adaptation that evolved in the context of social living and is activated in social relations.
Thus, it is likely that research on the psychology of morality will continue to be dominated
by ideas and theories stemming from evolutionary psychology, and that, compared to the
past, the study of morality will focus less on personality and individual development and
more on social relationships.
On the other hand, individual differences in preference for or use of particular bases
of morality are being actively researched as correlates of various social psychological
constructs, such as authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, need for cognition and
political ideology, to name a few. This trend is likely to continue and expand, contributing
to the integration of moral psychology into social psychology
 
Scut Farkus said:
I'm totally for the separation of kids and schools, as outlined in the constitution.
Click to expand...

We are already too far off the subject of evil, but exactly where does the constitution say anything about " separation of kids and schools"?

Even the Danbury letter is silent on that subject.
 
Please if you would all turn your Bible to the book of Franklin chapter 4 verse 12.

And sendeth not the fruit of thy union to the transgender Nazi academy of mediocrity.
 
Cypress said:
All your attempts to claim alignment with objective morality depend on sociological sophistry.

I don't know why you're ashamed to claim ownership of moral relativism. As long as your opinion is that the holocaust and Gulag were crimes against humanity, you are not aligning yourself with Nazis, and that's really what matters.
Click to expand...

So I guess the answer is that there is literally no number of times it can be explained to you.

This is why I cited all those references so you could at least read and learn some stuff. But apparently it was too much. Sorry I overwhelmed you. I know you don't like to read.
 
Daylight63 said:
So I guess the answer is that there is literally no number of times it can be explained to you.

This is why I cited all those references so you could at least read and learn some stuff. But apparently it was too much. Sorry I overwhelmed you. I know you don't like to read.
Click to expand...
he's a paid deep state gatekeeper.

don't worry about it.
 
Daylight63 said:
So I guess the answer is that there is literally no number of times it can be explained to you.

This is why I cited all those references so you could at least read and learn some stuff. But apparently it was too much. Sorry I overwhelmed you. I know you don't like to read.
Click to expand...
^^^
Perry PhD's obsession with @Cypress continues unabated.

IMO, jealousy and envy are the driving forces for Perry.
 
Daylight63 said:
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with Jesus Christ. Here's what he said:

But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

You are free to deny the teachings of Jesus but then it would make a mockery of many of your own posts in which you LAUD Jesus' moral teachings.

I wish I understood your position because it seems to be very "pro-Jesus" except for what Jesus taught.
Click to expand...
But you say there is no God. Which is it, dude?
Why do you believe there is no God?
 
Daylight63 said:
SO let's take one of the "classics" of the PoE: the concept of an infant with an aggressive and vicious cancer. The question is "how could an all-loving God allow that to exist?"

By your reasoning it is an active behavior of God to keep people from getting cancers. That's about the only way for this concept of "evil as the absence of good" to work.

Like your example of "heat" vs absence of heat. So by your reasoning the Problem of Evil is simply turning it into the question: "How could an all-loving omnipotent God withhold the beneficence to keep the child from suffering?
Click to expand...
Yet you say there is no God.
Which is it, dude?

You said there is no God. Why do you think there is no God?
 
Daylight63 said:
So I guess the answer is that there is literally no number of times it can be explained to you.

This is why I cited all those references so you could at least read and learn some stuff. But apparently it was too much. Sorry I overwhelmed you. I know you don't like to read.
Click to expand...
You post papers you can't even explain in your own words, and then misrepresent it's conclusions; for example-->

Cypress said:
So in other words, you don't have any reputable source saying the global scientific community has anything like a consensus that we really understand consciousness at the level of fundamental physical science.

This is why I can't trust you when you Google scientific papers without reading them yourself and being able to explain them in your own words.

The paper's conclusions openly states that we still don't understand the emergence of consciousness, which they call a "challenging topic" which still needs to be clarified. They're not even sure if a brain is necessary for consciousness. That's how far away we are from really understating it.

Please don't post any more papers you can't explain in your own words, and which don't actually conclude what you wish it concluded.

I'm not going to trust your links anymore.
Click to expand...

There's no reason to trust papers you post.

You should be able to explain things in your own words.

Obviously what is happening is you are googling science papers you believe conform to your preconceived notions, but then you're just skimming the abstract and not even trying to take in the paper as a whole.
 
Yakuda said:
It's the complete absence of good. That's evil. The complete absence of heat. Is absolute zero. Both only appear in the total absences of that which does exist, good and heat.
Click to expand...
Neither good nor evil are a temperature, of course.

If you are going to describe 'good' as a quantity, and 'evil' as a lack of quantity, what is the unit of that quantity?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top