Evil Exists

Post Reply New Topic

I sometimes wonder the old biblical adage, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
It's so easy to target the devastation of Hitler as evil, but wouldn't of been fair if say afterwards someone targeted in retaliation six million germans, six million italians, and six million japanese? Wait though, that's not fair! We would still have to get rid of six million brits, six million americans, and six million russians, because of their horrible responce and timing excercised at the time, so they might as well be held responsible too, right? Wouldn't it be more fair then? I guess at this point you wouldn't have to worry about monetary reparations. I doubt that we would have to worry about this happening again for another millenia because everyone would have a scenario burnt into their head remembering the turmoil of one supposed "evil" doing and the loss of a loved one. Why don't we just go back to public slayings for murderers and rapists so everyone knows the difference between right and wrong?

Last edited by Averick on 30 Mar 2008, 8:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

there is no evil, just things that hurt society and take away people's rights and power as individuals.


religion is one of those things that take away an individual's rights and power. so by that extent...religion is one of the most evil ideological entities around.


so....no, there's not really much clear cut evil. people who think so are living in a fantasy world.

How can one judge anything as evil if one doesn't even define what 'evil' is. On what basis do you, ragtime, base your epiphany moments of witnessing "evil" as absolute truth... when you can't even explain WHY you would define an act as evil?

And skafather, if there is no evil by what standard and usage do you use the term 'hurt.' And on what basis can one decide the nature of that hurt against society or a person's rights or power. If there is no evil, that implies there is no good either. What makes a person's rights or power good that something can hurt it?

And besideyouintime, i was not aware the American revolutionaries were considered separatists and terrorists. Are you referring to the American revolution against the Brits, or north vs south during the civil war?

now you're just being stupid and messing with semantics. my statement was under the context of the idea of a clear cut good and evil in the sense that you'd find in literature...the proverbial black and white.

i live in full color, baby.

lol...

so what you are saying is that you know yourself to be somewhat evil? You just happen to enjoy it, baby?

and please... If you don't know what semantics are, you should not accuse someone who does of employing it's use. As a furtherance to that, I was not arguing using semantics. What I was pointing out was that you singly deny evil, then accuse religion of being evil. My rather elaborate question was a more polite and civil way of saying:
"Explain yourself more fully, for you make no sense."

if you need it explained any more than i've already done twice now then you'll never understand.

haha... what a cop out!

I challenge you to a fight with wet newspapers!

That's right! How dare you not explain it to him a third time, skafather84!

Last edited by Ragtime on 31 Mar 2008, 10:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

Merriam-Webster defines an "epiphany" as:


All knowledge occurs through a spark of spontaneous realization -- even that knowledge which is gained through scientific experimentation. Without that "Ah-ha! I see! Eureka!" moment, there is no such thing as conscious knowledge. You could run experiments forever, but if they don't register in the conscious mind, no knowledge occurs. And that process of registering in the conscious mind is completely spontaneous. Sometimes that moment of knowledge is delivered by an unknown, unseen source, such as God, as when we see and know evil.

Such spontaneous-yet-absolute revelation is physically possible through the dimension hierarchy. When a higher-dimensional being -- say, of the 11th dimension -- reaches down into the 3rd dimension, and causes an event, it's quite natural for the event that is caused to seem sourceless, because the source is out of range of our senses. And some would dismiss the event itself solely based on its unprovable source. The event, however, is plain, apparent, solid, and undeniable to us, being deliberately imposed down into the 3rd dimension from the 11th, while the source remains untraceable since it's in the 11th dimension. I'm speaking entirely under physical laws, and am not employing any spiritual concept or construct. (Unless one defines "spiritual" as "of a higher dimension", which might just be onto something...)

Therefore, it is plain silly to believe that all unprovable things should be suspect, and are by their very nature inferior in validity to our "known" "facts". A perfect example would be the miracles that Jesus performed: the way the story goes, they were performed live, in front of plenty of witnesses. But, there was no hard evidence as to how the miracles were performed. Does that mean they weren't performed? No.

John 9:19: "And they asked them, saying, Is this your son, who ye say was born blind? how then doth he now see?"

Jopn 9:24-25: "Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man [Jesus] is a sinner. He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see."

The blind man had no idea how he was healed. He only knew that for his entire life he had been blind, and that now -- suddenly -- he could see. He therefore could not say that he wasn't healed, for the evidence could not have been plainer that he was indeed healed.
So, the "how" not being known does not diminish the fact.

Last edited by Ragtime on 31 Mar 2008, 11:03 am, edited 14 times in total.

It seems to me he used it correctly, so I don't know why you're posting dictionary definitions...

Gekitsu, I read your entire post, and I have to say I disagree. The problem with relative thinking is that its subject is still handled by intellectual concepts which are assumed to be true -- such as when you wrote that evil "isn't" as clear as I state it to be. "Isn't" isn't clear to me as being a relative term. It sounds as if it must be an absolute term, wouldn't you agree?

infinitely possible realities.

I cant vote here, because ones conception of what "evil" is varies from person to person. There is no "definite" evil. Same goes for the term "good". There is only chaos, harmony, and what lies in between.

I am just asking him to explain it once. And don't be so obtuse Ragtime.

Wow... what a completely irrelevant post. I did pick up the notion of your source of knowledge as being divine revelation though. And that's all I really wanted to know, so thanks. Though next time just a simple: "God tells me" will suffice.

well, you can observe those intellectual concepts, too - but then, they still be only there as the content of a subjects thinkiong act (or observing act, rather).
my point just being: as subjects, we dont have a way of "having" anything in an objective manner. hence, we cant talk with certainty of an objective world, of objective evil, of objective fellow humans, objective anything...
of course, we organize quite every subjective notion we have into the image of an objective nature - thats my critique of the concept of objective evil... how to get ahold of anything in an objective way?

edit: the "isnt" was meant in relation to your quote of "existing whether we realize or not" and "as real as the air we breathe"... the air we breathe isnt real in an objective way.