is there an eruption of evil in the US ?? is evil real ??

[itfitzme]

theory.........the·o·ries


Definition of THEORY

1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another*


2. abstract thought : speculation*


3. the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>*


4 a) : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>*

b) : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>*

5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>*


6 a) : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation*

b) : an unproved assumption : conjecture*

c) : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>


SPECIFICALLY NOTE:

definition #2
definition #4
definition #6 a)
definition #6 b)

Odd he/she missed these isn't it?

And that thing about "you will have to prove it for yourself........" is just a huge dodge, he/she has not one shred of evidence that God does not exist, so just lay it off on someone else to prove it............problem is...........that kind of "dodge" can be reversed.....

See there is an entire universe of evidence that God truly does exist, and is the Creator of all, and I don't HAVE TO PROVE IT, let him/her discover the proof for themselves.

Well, no, I'm not, cherry picking. Definition fall into a scale that runs from technally defined to general colloquial fuzzy usage. *The technically definition is he absolute correct one. It often happens that words are misused in general usage. You are cherry picking the colloquial definition and applying it to the situation where the technical definition applies. The phrase "Theory of Relativity" is a scientifically defined phrase. The definition for "theory" is as I presented it. *The definition of hypothesis is as I presented it.

I could claim that Unicorns exist. *The requirement proof is on the claim. *I could claim ownership of any random piece of real estate. The burdon of proof is of existence of ownership is on the claim.

 

[itfitzme]

Is there another Barb here? You quoted the wrong poster.

I'm working on a phone, so some error crept in. *Not sure what, small screen.

 

[itfitzme]

No, he/she is quoting me......referring to my comment....wow, the level of intellect it must take to achieve such a blunder........and, as usual, the comments he/she provided are just a huge pile of fooey......especially that part of science proving that God does not exist.....wishful thinking at best, complete stupidity at worst..........

Not really, I'm working on a small portable device with a touchscreen keypad and very limited display. Actually, given this I am doing quite well. *Lacking information, it is not surprising how you leap to a characterization that is character attach.

And this incessant defense of evolution is a joke. *Not one of the Darwinites here have given specific proof of the existence of a "partially evolved" being walking the face of the earth...........and, if Darwin's Theory were actual scientific truth, we should be up to our elbows in them........another fraud perpetuated upon humankind by the scientific antichrist crowd...........they serve their master well.......

By what reason do you conclude that we should be "up to our elbows", by what measure of "partially evolved"?

There is no requirement of a "partially evolved being".

We use to be "up to our ellbows" in buffallo. *Go stand ijnthe middle of then the parking lot at the mall and ask the simple question as to why you aren't "up to your elbows" in natural species of weeds, grasses, trees, fauna and flora. There are many reasons for not being "up to our elbows" in species.

Chimpanzees are "partially evolved", by any standard. *Direct evolutionary decendents wouldn't be around because they evolved. *My dog is exceptionally intelligent, knows what i am talking about and demonstrates deferred gratification. *Many species have language. *The fossil records show there was a second humanoid species, of nearly identical intelligence, that evolved in Africa, side by side to the branch that eventually took over and became modern man.

And he/she cherry picked the definition of "theory" by not including the entire definition.........but just another deception on his/her part.

Covered this. *You don't understand the definitions and misapply them. Cherry picking the wrong one rathe than "cherry picking" the right one.*

Note how some folk are so emotionally invested in an idea that as their limited reasoning begins to break down, they become more aggressive, defining othes as the enemy or the outsider and presenting ad hominum attacks rather than sticking to the object.

What I really find humorous is the attempt to use terms like "cherry picking", then completely mis-applying them.

 

[itfitzme]

Are we debating whether or not EVIL is a noun or a adjective here?

I think we are.

If EVIL is a noun, then it can exist without a person, place or thing associated with it.

This is nothing more than magical thinking, in my opinion.

Magical thinking is a characteristic of much evil behavior.

I have to settle on a foundation that killing another is evil regardless of the reason. It is the unfortunate nature of things that is often part of PTSD for vetrans, the unforgivable nature of regretably meeting potential evil with evil.

Therw are somethings that are just a paradox either because we lack sufficient information, skills, or reasoning to resolve them.

Let's take an extreme, but not unrealistic situation. If a gunman has just killed mother of an infant and is pointing the gun at the infant, would killing the gunman be an evil act?

I say that killing the gunman would be a morally required evil act.

There would be no forgiveness for allowing the infants death. There would be no forgiveness for having killed the gunman. There, is though, some logic for choosing one evil act over the evil action. The short of the reaaoning is basically "tit for tat" or "do unto others". And the unfortunate nature of it simply a lack of information, time and skill to choose an action that would completely resolve the dillema. And, it would be juat as fundamentally immoral to take the emotional position of resolving the conflict by defining the choice as "the lesser of two evils" or "a neccessary evil".

But that's just me personnally. I tend to beleive in ultimate personal responsibility. I also tend to feel anxious.

 

[tipofthespear]

theory.........the·o·ries


Definition of THEORY

1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another*


2. abstract thought : speculation*


3. the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>*


4 a) : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>*

b) : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>*

5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>*


6 a) : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation*

b) : an unproved assumption : conjecture*

c) : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>


SPECIFICALLY NOTE:

definition #2
definition #4
definition #6 a)
definition #6 b)

Odd he/she missed these isn't it?

And that thing about "you will have to prove it for yourself........" is just a huge dodge, he/she has not one shred of evidence that God does not exist, so just lay it off on someone else to prove it............problem is...........that kind of "dodge" can be reversed.....

See there is an entire universe of evidence that God truly does exist, and is the Creator of all, and I don't HAVE TO PROVE IT, let him/her discover the proof for themselves.

Well, no, I'm not, cherry picking. Definition fall into a scale that runs from technally defined to general colloquial fuzzy usage. *The technically definition is he absolute correct one. It often happens that words are misused in general usage. You are cherry picking the colloquial definition and applying it to the situation where the technical definition applies. The phrase "Theory of Relativity" is a scientifically defined phrase. The definition for "theory" is as I presented it. *The definition of hypothesis is as I presented it.

I could claim that Unicorns exist. *The requirement proof is on the claim. *I could claim ownership of any random piece of real estate. The burdon of proof is of existence of ownership is on the claim.

Actually you are, choosing the definition that supports your theory......but that's ok, not worth bothering with really.........

 

[tipofthespear]

Are we debating whether or not EVIL is a noun or a adjective here?

I think we are.

If EVIL is a noun, then it can exist without a person, place or thing associated with it.

This is nothing more than magical thinking, in my opinion.

Magical thinking is a characteristic of much evil behavior.

I have to settle on a foundation that killing another is evil regardless of the reason. It is the unfortunate nature of things that is often part of PTSD for vetrans, the unforgivable nature of regretably meeting potential evil with evil.

Therw are somethings that are just a paradox either because we lack sufficient information, skills, or reasoning to resolve them.

Let's take an extreme, but not unrealistic situation. If a gunman has just killed mother of an infant and is pointing the gun at the infant, would killing the gunman be an evil act?

I say that killing the gunman would be a morally required evil act.

There would be no forgiveness for allowing the infants death. There would be no forgiveness for having killed the gunman. There, is though, some logic for choosing one evil act over the evil action. The short of the reaaoning is basically "tit for tat" or "do unto others". And the unfortunate nature of it simply a lack of information, time and skill to choose an action that would completely resolve the dillema. And, it would be juat as fundamentally immoral to take the emotional position of resolving the conflict by defining the choice as "the lesser of two evils" or "a neccessary evil".

But that's just me personnally. I tend to beleive in ultimate personal responsibility. I also tend to feel anxious.

Again we disagree I fear.........depending on "who" the "forgiveness" would be expected from for killing a gunman to prevent them from killing an infant child.......IF you are suggesting that God would not forgive someone protecting the child's life, you are wrong. Murder is evil, certainly; however to take a person's life in self defense, or in the defense of others is not evil according to God's standard of "evil." That may be your standard, but do people really have to seek your forgiveness? No. Neither do they have to seek mine for such an act. While the taking of a life is never a simple thing, and can have long lasting emotional effects upon some/many people, it is not necessarily evil in and of itself. The motivation for the act is what determines if it is an evil act, or a justified act, and this is true in both man's Law and God's Law..........my thoughts........

 

[PaulS1950]

The Bible told us, "thou shalt not murder" until it was translated to Old English when it was changed to, "thou shalt not kill". It may sound the same and in some circumstances it may even be the same but we were never meant to suffer at the hands of others needlessly. We are told many times throughout the Bible to defend ourselves and provide for our families. There are also many places where it tells us to punish the wicked. My favorite passage is, "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" which was later changed to, "Thou shallt not suffer a witch to live." It is my favorite because at the time it was changed it meant the same thing but today a witch is a member of a different religion and now the word "witch" has an entirely different meaning. The Bible has been changed through many levels of interpretation and translations but add to that the changes in the definitions that language undergoes and it becomes a real challenge to get to the real meaning of what is written and what was really intended.
The guiding light through biblical passeges, for me, is always the gospels. Jesus never told us to seek out evil and destroy it - but He did tell us to brush the dust of those from our shoes and go on. So, Ignore those with different beliefs and preach to those who want to know and just walk away from those who don't wish to know. That is the work we were given by Jesus Christ. I always figured I was in no condition to do "God's work" so I limit my job to my work and let God do His own work in His way and time.

 

[tipofthespear]

The Bible told us, "thou shalt not murder" until it was translated to Old English when it was changed to, "thou shalt not kill". It may sound the same and in some circumstances it may even be the same but we were never meant to suffer at the hands of others needlessly. We are told many times throughout the Bible to defend ourselves and provide for our families. There are also many places where it tells us to punish the wicked. My favorite passage is, "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" which was later changed to, "Thou shallt not suffer a witch to live." It is my favorite because at the time it was changed it meant the same thing but today a witch is a member of a different religion and now the word "witch" has an entirely different meaning. The Bible has been changed through many levels of interpretation and translations but add to that the changes in the definitions that language undergoes and it becomes a real challenge to get to the real meaning of what is written and what was really intended.
The guiding light through biblical passeges, for me, is always the gospels. Jesus never told us to seek out evil and destroy it - but He did tell us to brush the dust of those from our shoes and go on. So, Ignore those with different beliefs and preach to those who want to know and just walk away from those who don't wish to know. That is the work we were given by Jesus Christ. I always figured I was in no condition to do "God's work" so I limit my job to my work and let God do His own work in His way and time.

A lot of good thoughts there........... One thing I would add is that God usually (not always) works His will through us. In that He uses someone to do what He wishes done, so we have to be open to His will, and what He would have us to do. I agree that none of us (no man) are worthy of "doing His work," rather it is He working through us that accomplishes the task. We must be "willing vessels......."

And with regards to translations 'n' such, that is why it is so very important to study the Word of God. Thank you for this thoughtful comment.

 

[itfitzme]

theory.........the·o·ries


Definition of THEORY

1. the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another*


2. abstract thought : speculation*


3. the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>*


4 a) : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn>*

b) : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>*

5. a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>*


6 a) : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation*

b) : an unproved assumption : conjecture*

c) : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>


SPECIFICALLY NOTE:

definition #2
definition #4
definition #6 a)
definition #6 b)

Odd he/she missed these isn't it?

And that thing about "you will have to prove it for yourself........" is just a huge dodge, he/she has not one shred of evidence that God does not exist, so just lay it off on someone else to prove it............problem is...........that kind of "dodge" can be reversed.....

See there is an entire universe of evidence that God truly does exist, and is the Creator of all, and I don't HAVE TO PROVE IT, let him/her discover the proof for themselves.

Well, no, I'm not, cherry picking. Definition fall into a scale that runs from technally defined to general colloquial fuzzy usage. *The technically definition is he absolute correct one. It often happens that words are misused in general usage. You are cherry picking the colloquial definition and applying it to the situation where the technical definition applies. The phrase "Theory of Relativity" is a scientifically defined phrase. The definition for "theory" is as I presented it. *The definition of hypothesis is as I presented it.

I could claim that Unicorns exist. *The requirement proof is on the claim. *I could claim ownership of any random piece of real estate. The burdon of proof is of existence of ownership is on the claim.

Actually you are, choosing the definition that supports your theory......but that's ok, not worth bothering with really.........

Actually, I am using the definition used by the people that defined and used the words when they coined the words "law", "theory", "hypothesis", and the phrases "Law of gravity", "Theory of Relativity", "Laws of thermodynamics" and "Theory of evolution".

Here, as a test, write an equation that describes Newton's law of gravity. You can go with either a two body mass equation or just a single mass using standard Earth gravity. How about the three laws of thermodynamics, just in general. Or, describe the basic reasoning behind Einstein's theory of special relativity.

Now, given I can, who knows best what the definition of hypothesis, law, and theory is in the context of scientific use? You or me?

That is, if it's not to much bother.

 

[PMZ]

"Good" and "evil" are handy words to discribe a relationship between people and events. There are hardly any events that all mankind would agree are/were "good" or "evil".

 

[PratchettFan]

the reason I put this thread in the clean debate zone is to debate the subject of Evil ..is Evil a force that exists ?? is it mental or spiritual or idiological ?? are we going through a wave of evil in the US with all of the mass shootings and terror attacks ect..???please refrain from blaming the left or the right or a certain group of people !!! I want to debate the force of evil itself !! NOT BLAME THE RACE,POLTICAL IDIOLOGY ,OR RELIGION OF THE PERPERTRATORS OF EVIL ACTS !! IS EVIL A FORCE THAT ACTUALY EXIST ??

No.

 

[itfitzme]

The Bible told us, "thou shalt not murder" until it was translated to Old English when it was changed to, "thou shalt not kill". It may sound the same and in some circumstances it may even be the same but we were never meant to suffer at the hands of others needlessly. We are told many times throughout the Bible to defend ourselves and provide for our families.*
...
The Bible has been changed through many levels of interpretation and translations but add to that the changes in the definitions that language undergoes and it becomes a real challenge to get to the real meaning of what is written and what was really intended.

That is very interesting, parricularly the change from murder to kill.

 

[Circe]

That is very interesting, parricularly the change from murder to kill.

If true. I doubt it is true. No citation given, of course.

 

[jodylee]

good and evil do not exist it is a human construct to describe stuff happening

 

[tipofthespear]

Well, no, I'm not, cherry picking. Definition fall into a scale that runs from technally defined to general colloquial fuzzy usage. *The technically definition is he absolute correct one. It often happens that words are misused in general usage. You are cherry picking the colloquial definition and applying it to the situation where the technical definition applies. The phrase "Theory of Relativity" is a scientifically defined phrase. The definition for "theory" is as I presented it. *The definition of hypothesis is as I presented it.

I could claim that Unicorns exist. *The requirement proof is on the claim. *I could claim ownership of any random piece of real estate. The burdon of proof is of existence of ownership is on the claim.

Actually you are, choosing the definition that supports your theory......but that's ok, not worth bothering with really.........

Actually, I am using the definition used by the people that defined and used the words when they coined the words "law", "theory", "hypothesis", and the phrases "Law of gravity", "Theory of Relativity", "Laws of thermodynamics" and "Theory of evolution".

Here, as a test, write an equation that describes Newton's law of gravity. You can go with either a two body mass equation or just a single mass using standard Earth gravity. How about the three laws of thermodynamics, just in general. Or, describe the basic reasoning behind Einstein's theory of special relativity.

Now, given I can, who knows best what the definition of hypothesis, law, and theory is in the context of scientific use? You or me?

That is, if it's not to much bother.

That's quite simple. Since you continue to hold that evolution is a scientific fact/truth, apparently I am the one who best understands............as evolution is a flawed theory at best, and an outright lie at worst........and my calling it a theory, or an abstract thought, or speculation, or an unproved assumption, conjecture makes my understanding superior to yours...........lest you doubt this, then please answer the question I posed to all the disciples of Darwin here:

Where are they? Where are all the partially evolved beings/creatures/species? If you can not give scientific proof that these exist, then evolution is a lie!

 

[PratchettFan]

good and evil do not exist it is a human construct to describe stuff happening

I would take that a step further. It is used to establish that the stuff we cause is ok and the stuff they cause is not ok. During WWII, the cowardly nazis showed their true colors by butchering innocent civilians by bombing cities. Our brave airmen, risking their lives in a glorious effort, struck deep into enemy territory to take the war to the Germans. We were good, they were evil, we were doing exactly the same thing.

 

[tipofthespear]

good and evil do not exist it is a human construct to describe stuff happening

I would take that a step further. It is used to establish that the stuff we cause is ok and the stuff they cause is not ok. During WWII, the cowardly nazis showed their true colors by butchering innocent civilians by bombing cities. Our brave airmen, risking their lives in a glorious effort, struck deep into enemy territory to take the war to the Germans. We were good, they were evil, we were doing exactly the same thing.

To deal with the questions posed in the OP, and to ignore the other sidebars.......

Evil is no more present today than it has been throughout recorded history in my opinion.

Yes, evils exists, evil separate from man exists. Now, those of you who are engulfed in the "carnality" of man, and are blinded to the "spirituality" of man cannot and will not understand this, however evil is real. Good is real.

Simple question: "Is wind more present in today's world? Does wind even exist?"

 

[PratchettFan]

good and evil do not exist it is a human construct to describe stuff happening

I would take that a step further. It is used to establish that the stuff we cause is ok and the stuff they cause is not ok. During WWII, the cowardly nazis showed their true colors by butchering innocent civilians by bombing cities. Our brave airmen, risking their lives in a glorious effort, struck deep into enemy territory to take the war to the Germans. We were good, they were evil, we were doing exactly the same thing.

To deal with the questions posed in the OP, and to ignore the other sidebars.......

Evil is no more present today than it has been throughout recorded history in my opinion.

Yes, evils exists, evil separate from man exists. Now, those of you who are engulfed in the "carnality" of man, and are blinded to the "spirituality" of man cannot and will not understand this, however evil is real. Good is real.

Simple question: "Is wind more present in today's world? Does wind even exist?"

Wind is the movement of air. Certainly it exists. Evil, however, is just a convenient word. I doubt you can point to any particular act which could not be called evil and good, depending upon one's point of view.

 

[Circe]

Since you continue to hold that evolution is a scientific fact/truth, apparently I am the one who best understands............as evolution is a flawed theory at best, and an outright lie at worst........and my calling it a theory, or an abstract thought, or speculation, or an unproved assumption, conjecture makes my understanding superior to yours...........lest you doubt this, then please answer the question I posed to all the disciples of Darwin here:

Where are they? Where are all the partially evolved beings/creatures/species? If you can not give scientific proof that these exist, then evolution is a lie!

I can't see why you care --------

Why not just believe in the 4000-year-old Earth and the Garden of Eden and whatever you like? You don't need to force or convince or persuade or punish other people into believing it also. You are not getting threatened with imprisonment or burning at the stake for your beliefs, so why not just quietly enjoy them?

You can hug your beliefs to yourself as "true" and pity the great majority who believe in evolution. You are really lucky to live in a time when you can believe minority beliefs and not get killed for it --- in Tudor times they burned people alive for a whole range of religious beliefs!

Trying to convince everyone else to believe as you do isn't going to make that belief more or less true.

 

[Circe]

good and evil do not exist it is a human construct to describe stuff happening

I would take that a step further. It is used to establish that the stuff we cause is ok and the stuff they cause is not ok. During WWII, the cowardly nazis showed their true colors by butchering innocent civilians by bombing cities. Our brave airmen, risking their lives in a glorious effort, struck deep into enemy territory to take the war to the Germans. We were good, they were evil, we were doing exactly the same thing.

That's it, both are good posts, IMO.

All this ancient Manicheism! That there is a Devil versus a God, or at least a Devil responsible for all the tempting and evil while God watches who gives into it and deserves Hell for their free will -----

This is all nonsense.

We just do what we do for sociobiological, evolved reasons that further our genes and those of people like us and attempt to destroy other breeding groups of humans and take their resources. This has been going on forever; it's a main way humans evolve, by fighting each other, at least the males do. There are lots of species in which the males fight and kill each other for evolution; and some other species (ants, other primates) which fight wars to eliminate other gene pools and take resources. Justifying it all by saying the Redskins or Japs or Krauts are "evil" and dehumanizing them by using names like that are all to make it easier to kill a different genetic group, that's all. That's not evil: it's the human condition.