The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Lol what state granted IP rights on 'evil' to theists?

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: I would add (see in situ)

Lol what state granted IP rights on 'evil' to theists?

Evil isn't a religious concept. It's a moral concept, and it can be and is far better defined by ethical language than religious.

We think evil actually has a meaning. Theists typically consider evil to be what their deity says is evil. That interpretive nature to the definition is not exactly comforting to atheists:)

Anyone can define evil by their ethical standard and then you can know a lot about how they will behave. But a religionist relies on multiple and various sources of interpretation of the given word and will naturally be inclined to choose interpretations according to aesthetics.

Ultimately a faithholder will act on what is understood to be given truth. This may or may not be moral. History shows this is often murderous and barbaric. Often not, but often so.

What religionists call evil leaves much to be desired.

But if I say what I think is evil, it's what it is. I can later act against that, but I then won't have the defense, "Well I prayed and understood that this was the right thing to do", and since your 'evil' is determined by faith, how can I counter that you are a hypocrite? I can't, because your 'evil' is what god says, and stipulating god is in fact saying, what god tells you is only ever known by you.

If I say something is evil but then do otherwise, I'm a hypocrite at least, or criminal at worst. I leave myself no moral 'out'.

Essentially the faith holders definition of evil isn't a definition at all. It's a mutable changing thing that may or may not be determined by divine truth. Even if there is a divine truth, only the person receiving it has evidence of it.

Put another way, if I had to determine what good and evil is from the actions of Christians.. I would be go insane:) There's peace and there's murder. There's adherence to property rights, and wanton plunder. There's little empirical pattern here:)

I do think we are on the same side. Your working interpretation of what you believe to be divine truth is consonant with my morality. But many of your coreligionists have strongly differing views about the morality of liberty. Historically religion has not been terribly friendly to liberty, except in the founding of the United States. Liberty fundamentally challenges religion because religions want to self propagate, and embracing liberty denies forcible propagation.

Also you're wrong about my belief being irrational. What I have been trying to explain is that I don't believe. It's not that I don't believe in God, or that I don't believe in Allah. I don't believe. I also don't believe there is no God nor there is no Allah.

I don't believe.
I do think.
Lacking certain knowledge I make assumptions based on the best information. These assumptions are always subject to change as I get more information.

That may be irrational to you, but it's not belief:) I'm a methodological skeptic. Rejection of belief is one of my core values. I don't believe it's likely for me to understand if I accept information that is liable to be false.

So you see why I make judgements not just about religions, but between them. Today, Christianity has a lot more moral people than the other big contenders of Islam and Statism and Hinduism.