Religion?

[Simple Abundant Living]

Perhaps, but that is because that is very extreme. That still doesn't change any of the original argument though.

Just a final thought on god and the creation of evil,

It is hard for me to fathom the idea that God ultimately created millions of evil mass murderers over the years. If I was religious, it would be hard even for me to call it right to kill or even imprison someone who was born that way by my own holy god. In a way, you shouldn't judge/hate someone for anything really because they have no control over how they were born/raised/taught.

I will never be able to understand why this "God" led to the creation of human beings that truly and absolutely could never believe this "correct" religion. If god is as described in the old and new testaments, he wouldn't punish those who had no choice in how they think/behave in their life. But then how can the idea of a "hell" be actually possible or true for those that are evil? It doesn't seem fair.

The amount of unanswered questions, contradictions, and false information along with everything we have changed and know in modern times just makes it seem impossible for one human religion to be completely right about this super-being that created the entire universe.

So it seems you reject the idea of free will.  We aren't simply products of our environment, although our upbringing does have an effect on us.  There are countless stories of people raised in horrible conditions, who choose to live good lives, and vice-versa.

I believe that an all-knowing God can judge us fairly.  I hear judgements passed everyday on social media "Obama is evil" "conservatives are evil", etc.  I think God understands our true natures and will judge us fairly, and in the end we will agree on His perfectly fair judgements.   

[GuitarStv]

Free will?

There's a rather substantial amount of brain chemistry evidence that suggests the concept of free will is entirely fictitious (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/).  Your brain responds to electrochemical stimulus, and it's pretty easy to change your decision making by altering this stimulus (for example: http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/brainontrial.htm).  Most decisions that the human brain makes are enacted a full ten seconds before you're consciously aware of what you'll do (http://rifters.com/real/articles/NatureNeuroScience_Soon_et_al.pdf).  Your body can carry on living, talking, and doing things with your consciousness turned off (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.VF4rlY_iCTw).

I don't put significant faith in the concept of conscious decision making . . . the science doesn't appear to support it.  This does lead to some sticky philosophical questions related to decision making in general though. . .

[Simple Abundant Living]

Free will?

There's a rather substantial amount of brain chemistry evidence that suggests the concept of free will is entirely fictitious (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/).  Your brain responds to electrochemical stimulus, and it's pretty easy to change your decision making by altering this stimulus (for example: http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/brainontrial.htm).  Most decisions that the human brain makes are enacted a full ten seconds before you're consciously aware of what you'll do (http://rifters.com/real/articles/NatureNeuroScience_Soon_et_al.pdf).  Your body can carry on living, talking, and doing things with your consciousness turned off (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.VF4rlY_iCTw).

I don't put significant faith in the concept of conscious decision making . . . the science doesn't appear to support it.  This does lead to some sticky philosophical questions related to decision making in general though. . .

Wow, then why are we at MMM?  Can't...change...consumerist...tendencies!!!

[GuitarStv]

Free will?

There's a rather substantial amount of brain chemistry evidence that suggests the concept of free will is entirely fictitious (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/).  Your brain responds to electrochemical stimulus, and it's pretty easy to change your decision making by altering this stimulus (for example: http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/brainontrial.htm).  Most decisions that the human brain makes are enacted a full ten seconds before you're consciously aware of what you'll do (http://rifters.com/real/articles/NatureNeuroScience_Soon_et_al.pdf).  Your body can carry on living, talking, and doing things with your consciousness turned off (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.VF4rlY_iCTw).

I don't put significant faith in the concept of conscious decision making . . . the science doesn't appear to support it.  This does lead to some sticky philosophical questions related to decision making in general though. . .

Wow, then why are we at MMM?  Can't...change...consumerist...tendencies!!!

You're here because your brain decided what to do, and then convinced your consciousness a few seconds later that it was a good idea.

[arebelspy]

Free will?

There's a rather substantial amount of brain chemistry evidence that suggests the concept of free will is entirely fictitious (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/).  Your brain responds to electrochemical stimulus, and it's pretty easy to change your decision making by altering this stimulus (for example: http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/brainontrial.htm).  Most decisions that the human brain makes are enacted a full ten seconds before you're consciously aware of what you'll do (http://rifters.com/real/articles/NatureNeuroScience_Soon_et_al.pdf).  Your body can carry on living, talking, and doing things with your consciousness turned off (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.VF4rlY_iCTw).

I don't put significant faith in the concept of conscious decision making . . . the science doesn't appear to support it.  This does lead to some sticky philosophical questions related to decision making in general though. . .

Wow, then why are we at MMM?  Can't...change...consumerist...tendencies!!!

Unless you're predetermined to change them.  Then you must do exactly what you're going to do.

[Simple Abundant Living]

Free will?

There's a rather substantial amount of brain chemistry evidence that suggests the concept of free will is entirely fictitious (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/).  Your brain responds to electrochemical stimulus, and it's pretty easy to change your decision making by altering this stimulus (for example: http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/brainontrial.htm).  Most decisions that the human brain makes are enacted a full ten seconds before you're consciously aware of what you'll do (http://rifters.com/real/articles/NatureNeuroScience_Soon_et_al.pdf).  Your body can carry on living, talking, and doing things with your consciousness turned off (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.VF4rlY_iCTw).

I don't put significant faith in the concept of conscious decision making . . . the science doesn't appear to support it.  This does lead to some sticky philosophical questions related to decision making in general though. . .

Wow, then why are we at MMM?  Can't...change...consumerist...tendencies!!!

Unless you're predetermined to change them.  Then you must do exactly what you're going to do.

Which is why I also reject predetermination, which cannot exist with choice and accountability.

[FIPurpose]

Free will?

There's a rather substantial amount of brain chemistry evidence that suggests the concept of free will is entirely fictitious (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/).  Your brain responds to electrochemical stimulus, and it's pretty easy to change your decision making by altering this stimulus (for example: http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/brainontrial.htm).  Most decisions that the human brain makes are enacted a full ten seconds before you're consciously aware of what you'll do (http://rifters.com/real/articles/NatureNeuroScience_Soon_et_al.pdf).  Your body can carry on living, talking, and doing things with your consciousness turned off (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.VF4rlY_iCTw).

I don't put significant faith in the concept of conscious decision making . . . the science doesn't appear to support it.  This does lead to some sticky philosophical questions related to decision making in general though. . .

Therefore all criminals currently in jail should be released because it's really all just brain chemistry, and they can't choose. Unless our penal system is designed to change that chemistry? This is getting really ethically complex.

[GuitarStv]

Yeah, there are some pretty huge moral implications to the science that fly in the face of how we currently approach law and accountability in general.

[arebelspy]

Free will?

There's a rather substantial amount of brain chemistry evidence that suggests the concept of free will is entirely fictitious (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/).  Your brain responds to electrochemical stimulus, and it's pretty easy to change your decision making by altering this stimulus (for example: http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/brainontrial.htm).  Most decisions that the human brain makes are enacted a full ten seconds before you're consciously aware of what you'll do (http://rifters.com/real/articles/NatureNeuroScience_Soon_et_al.pdf).  Your body can carry on living, talking, and doing things with your consciousness turned off (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.VF4rlY_iCTw).

I don't put significant faith in the concept of conscious decision making . . . the science doesn't appear to support it.  This does lead to some sticky philosophical questions related to decision making in general though. . .

Therefore all criminals currently in jail should be released because it's really all just brain chemistry, and they can't choose. Unless our penal system is designed to change that chemistry? This is getting really ethically complex.

That doesn't follow at all.  What if by locking them up we deter others?  A legal system of punishing people, even if they had no choice in doing it, can follow ethically, to create less harm from others.

[HappyRock]

"How exactly do you define malice and evil?"

Sure, a society can change and make up their own meaning for any word, but all of the definitions I used were based on the actual meaning of the word (Dictionary definition).

In my own words, evil is any action which harms one person or group of people more than it helps any other person or group of people. Malice is pretty much the same as evil.

Wait what? 

Nearly ALL actions (especially those of government) harm one group more than helping another simply due to waste, inefficiency, and entropy.

Any action, for example, of redistributing resources.  If you were 100% efficient, it'd take X from group A, give it to group B, and have a net of 0 for everyone.

However due to waste and inefficiency, you take X from group A, give X-waste amount to group B, and boom, you've hurt A more than you've helped B, therefore evil.

Food stamps, for example, aren't 100% efficient.  Therefore all the resources you take from the people paying for it is MORE than the resources given to the people receiving it, therefore it's evil.

Or, a more simple reasoning: that definition is not correct.

You actually misunderstood how I was using the word. It was correct, in terms of what we were referring to in our original argument (if you read the previous posts, I had explained this). We were discussing capital punishment, and the differences between "murdering" somebody, and "killing" somebody. For these reasons, my use of the word "harm" implied physical damage that would thus lead to the death penalty (For example, killing somebody. Plotting terrorism, etc).

Your entire post offers no alternate ideas/views about the original questions, and ignores all real points I was trying to make in my original posts.

Just to add,

In terms of how we were discussing "evil", which is a very PROFOUND type of immorality and wrong, I was hoping you would understand I meant "harm significantly" (or kill, if you prefer that).

[HappyRock]

Free will?

There's a rather substantial amount of brain chemistry evidence that suggests the concept of free will is entirely fictitious (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/).  Your brain responds to electrochemical stimulus, and it's pretty easy to change your decision making by altering this stimulus (for example: http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/brainontrial.htm).  Most decisions that the human brain makes are enacted a full ten seconds before you're consciously aware of what you'll do (http://rifters.com/real/articles/NatureNeuroScience_Soon_et_al.pdf).  Your body can carry on living, talking, and doing things with your consciousness turned off (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.VF4rlY_iCTw).

I don't put significant faith in the concept of conscious decision making . . . the science doesn't appear to support it.  This does lead to some sticky philosophical questions related to decision making in general though. . .

+1, I have to agree with you entirely on this one. I have long thought the idea of "free will" is actually false, or predetermined from birth. (How your brain works/was raised.)

[Simple Abundant Living]

Free will?

There's a rather substantial amount of brain chemistry evidence that suggests the concept of free will is entirely fictitious (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/).  Your brain responds to electrochemical stimulus, and it's pretty easy to change your decision making by altering this stimulus (for example: http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/brainontrial.htm).  Most decisions that the human brain makes are enacted a full ten seconds before you're consciously aware of what you'll do (http://rifters.com/real/articles/NatureNeuroScience_Soon_et_al.pdf).  Your body can carry on living, talking, and doing things with your consciousness turned off (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.VF4rlY_iCTw).

I don't put significant faith in the concept of conscious decision making . . . the science doesn't appear to support it.  This does lead to some sticky philosophical questions related to decision making in general though. . .

+1, I have to agree with you entirely on this one. I have long thought the idea of "free will" is actually false, or predetermined from birth. (How your brain works/was raised.)

And we call those things habits or instinct.  Have you changed your habits since learning about MMM?  I know I have.  So how does that work without free will?  If there's no free will, MMM should shut down the forum and blog.  'Cause we're just going to do what we're going to do.

[HappyRock]

Free will?

There's a rather substantial amount of brain chemistry evidence that suggests the concept of free will is entirely fictitious (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/).  Your brain responds to electrochemical stimulus, and it's pretty easy to change your decision making by altering this stimulus (for example: http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/brainontrial.htm).  Most decisions that the human brain makes are enacted a full ten seconds before you're consciously aware of what you'll do (http://rifters.com/real/articles/NatureNeuroScience_Soon_et_al.pdf).  Your body can carry on living, talking, and doing things with your consciousness turned off (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.VF4rlY_iCTw).

I don't put significant faith in the concept of conscious decision making . . . the science doesn't appear to support it.  This does lead to some sticky philosophical questions related to decision making in general though. . .

+1, I have to agree with you entirely on this one. I have long thought the idea of "free will" is actually false, or predetermined from birth. (How your brain works/was raised.)

And we call those things habits or instinct.  Have you changed your habits since learning about MMM?  I know I have.  So how does that work without free will?  If there's no free will, MMM should shut down the forum and blog.  'Cause we're just going to do what we're going to do.

Free will exists to a certain extent, in that we can make our own decisions based on our individual logic/reasoning. And we may be able to change if we are influenced by other factors (like MMM). But different people's subconscious minds and how were they raised could limit this. Scientifically, it can be argued that some people do not get this "free will" to choose certain things in their life.

You may be able to choose, but you were fated to one option.

[arebelspy]

Free will?

There's a rather substantial amount of brain chemistry evidence that suggests the concept of free will is entirely fictitious (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/).  Your brain responds to electrochemical stimulus, and it's pretty easy to change your decision making by altering this stimulus (for example: http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/brainontrial.htm).  Most decisions that the human brain makes are enacted a full ten seconds before you're consciously aware of what you'll do (http://rifters.com/real/articles/NatureNeuroScience_Soon_et_al.pdf).  Your body can carry on living, talking, and doing things with your consciousness turned off (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.VF4rlY_iCTw).

I don't put significant faith in the concept of conscious decision making . . . the science doesn't appear to support it.  This does lead to some sticky philosophical questions related to decision making in general though. . .

+1, I have to agree with you entirely on this one. I have long thought the idea of "free will" is actually false, or predetermined from birth. (How your brain works/was raised.)

And we call those things habits or instinct.  Have you changed your habits since learning about MMM?  I know I have.  So how does that work without free will?  If there's no free will, MMM should shut down the forum and blog.  'Cause we're just going to do what we're going to do.

There's no "should" if there's no free will.  If there's no free will, he'll keep it up - or not - as he's determined to.  And people will find it and change their habits - or not - as they are determined to.  You can change your habits with determinism - you are set in one set of habits, then something happens that makes you change them.  That thing that happened doesn't have to be free choice.

[arebelspy]

"How exactly do you define malice and evil?"

Sure, a society can change and make up their own meaning for any word, but all of the definitions I used were based on the actual meaning of the word (Dictionary definition).

In my own words, evil is any action which harms one person or group of people more than it helps any other person or group of people. Malice is pretty much the same as evil.

Wait what? 

Nearly ALL actions (especially those of government) harm one group more than helping another simply due to waste, inefficiency, and entropy.

Any action, for example, of redistributing resources.  If you were 100% efficient, it'd take X from group A, give it to group B, and have a net of 0 for everyone.

However due to waste and inefficiency, you take X from group A, give X-waste amount to group B, and boom, you've hurt A more than you've helped B, therefore evil.

Food stamps, for example, aren't 100% efficient.  Therefore all the resources you take from the people paying for it is MORE than the resources given to the people receiving it, therefore it's evil.

Or, a more simple reasoning: that definition is not correct.

You actually misunderstood how I was using the word. It was correct, in terms of what we were referring to in our original argument (if you read the previous posts, I had explained this). We were discussing capital punishment, and the differences between "murdering" somebody, and "killing" somebody. For these reasons, my use of the word "harm" implied physical damage that would thus lead to the death penalty (For example, killing somebody. Plotting terrorism, etc).

Your entire post offers no alternate ideas/views about the original questions, and ignores all real points I was trying to make in my original posts.

Just to add,

In terms of how we were discussing "evil", which is a very PROFOUND type of immorality and wrong, I was hoping you would understand I meant "harm significantly" (or kill, if you prefer that).

(Emphasis added.)

So - if I understand you correctly - you are saying that your definition of evil is very narrow and only specific to capital punishment, and wrong in other cases?

I didn't see any real points, other than stuff based on a faulty definition, which I wanted to clear up first.

[Simple Abundant Living]

Free will?

There's a rather substantial amount of brain chemistry evidence that suggests the concept of free will is entirely fictitious (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2010/04/06/scientists-say-free-will-probably-doesnt-exist-but-urge-dont-stop-believing/).  Your brain responds to electrochemical stimulus, and it's pretty easy to change your decision making by altering this stimulus (for example: http://www.rifters.com/real/articles/brainontrial.htm).  Most decisions that the human brain makes are enacted a full ten seconds before you're consciously aware of what you'll do (http://rifters.com/real/articles/NatureNeuroScience_Soon_et_al.pdf).  Your body can carry on living, talking, and doing things with your consciousness turned off (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22329762.700-consciousness-onoff-switch-discovered-deep-in-brain.html?full=true#.VF4rlY_iCTw).

I don't put significant faith in the concept of conscious decision making . . . the science doesn't appear to support it.  This does lead to some sticky philosophical questions related to decision making in general though. . .

+1, I have to agree with you entirely on this one. I have long thought the idea of "free will" is actually false, or predetermined from birth. (How your brain works/was raised.)

And we call those things habits or instinct.  Have you changed your habits since learning about MMM?  I know I have.  So how does that work without free will?  If there's no free will, MMM should shut down the forum and blog.  'Cause we're just going to do what we're going to do.

There's no "should" if there's no free will.  If there's no free will, he'll keep it up - or not - as he's determined to.  And people will find it and change their habits - or not - as they are determined to.  You can change your habits with determinism - you are set in one set of habits, then something happens that makes you change them.  That thing that happened doesn't have to be free choice.

Exactly true about should, and ought, and good, and bad, and punishment, and reward.  None of it exists, or it is arbitrary and meaningless if we are soulless robots at the complete control of our brain chemistry and environmental input.  So the puppet-master God idea has been replaced by chemistry?  Wow, if I believed like that, I couldn't get up in the morning.  I read "The Power of Habit" and I totally agree that many mundane tasks are put on auto pilot in our brain.  Because the brain is striving for efficiency, we don't have to think, "press left foot for clutch, right for brake and gas".  After a while we just do it.  That doesn't mean that thought and logic and decision-making (hopefully) don't go into a lot of our lives. 

[HappyRock]

"How exactly do you define malice and evil?"

Sure, a society can change and make up their own meaning for any word, but all of the definitions I used were based on the actual meaning of the word (Dictionary definition).

In my own words, evil is any action which harms one person or group of people more than it helps any other person or group of people. Malice is pretty much the same as evil.

Wait what? 

Nearly ALL actions (especially those of government) harm one group more than helping another simply due to waste, inefficiency, and entropy.

Any action, for example, of redistributing resources.  If you were 100% efficient, it'd take X from group A, give it to group B, and have a net of 0 for everyone.

However due to waste and inefficiency, you take X from group A, give X-waste amount to group B, and boom, you've hurt A more than you've helped B, therefore evil.

Food stamps, for example, aren't 100% efficient.  Therefore all the resources you take from the people paying for it is MORE than the resources given to the people receiving it, therefore it's evil.

Or, a more simple reasoning: that definition is not correct.

You actually misunderstood how I was using the word. It was correct, in terms of what we were referring to in our original argument (if you read the previous posts, I had explained this). We were discussing capital punishment, and the differences between "murdering" somebody, and "killing" somebody. For these reasons, my use of the word "harm" implied physical damage that would thus lead to the death penalty (For example, killing somebody. Plotting terrorism, etc).

Your entire post offers no alternate ideas/views about the original questions, and ignores all real points I was trying to make in my original posts.

Just to add,

In terms of how we were discussing "evil", which is a very PROFOUND type of immorality and wrong, I was hoping you would understand I meant "harm significantly" (or kill, if you prefer that).

(Emphasis added.)

So - if I understand you correctly - you are saying that your definition of evil is very narrow and only specific to capital punishment, and wrong in other cases?

I didn't see any real points, other than stuff based on a faulty definition, which I wanted to clear up first.

/Facepalm. I think this is similar to the time you wrote your replies about Mark Ferguson and IVM, lol. Let us stop while we are ahead and continue the other good points/discussions in this thread. :)

[arebelspy]

"How exactly do you define malice and evil?"

Sure, a society can change and make up their own meaning for any word, but all of the definitions I used were based on the actual meaning of the word (Dictionary definition).

In my own words, evil is any action which harms one person or group of people more than it helps any other person or group of people. Malice is pretty much the same as evil.

Wait what? 

Nearly ALL actions (especially those of government) harm one group more than helping another simply due to waste, inefficiency, and entropy.

Any action, for example, of redistributing resources.  If you were 100% efficient, it'd take X from group A, give it to group B, and have a net of 0 for everyone.

However due to waste and inefficiency, you take X from group A, give X-waste amount to group B, and boom, you've hurt A more than you've helped B, therefore evil.

Food stamps, for example, aren't 100% efficient.  Therefore all the resources you take from the people paying for it is MORE than the resources given to the people receiving it, therefore it's evil.

Or, a more simple reasoning: that definition is not correct.

You actually misunderstood how I was using the word. It was correct, in terms of what we were referring to in our original argument (if you read the previous posts, I had explained this). We were discussing capital punishment, and the differences between "murdering" somebody, and "killing" somebody. For these reasons, my use of the word "harm" implied physical damage that would thus lead to the death penalty (For example, killing somebody. Plotting terrorism, etc).

Your entire post offers no alternate ideas/views about the original questions, and ignores all real points I was trying to make in my original posts.

Just to add,

In terms of how we were discussing "evil", which is a very PROFOUND type of immorality and wrong, I was hoping you would understand I meant "harm significantly" (or kill, if you prefer that).

(Emphasis added.)

So - if I understand you correctly - you are saying that your definition of evil is very narrow and only specific to capital punishment, and wrong in other cases?

I didn't see any real points, other than stuff based on a faulty definition, which I wanted to clear up first.

/Facepalm. I think this is similar to the time you wrote your replies about Mark Ferguson and IVM, lol. Let us stop while we are ahead and continue the other good points/discussions in this thread. :)

Oh, is that you again, under this new screen name?

Yes, I certainly have a hard time understanding what you mean sometimes.

[arebelspy]

Wow, if I believed like that, I couldn't get up in the morning.

Luckily due to your makeup and influencers you're determined* not to believe it, so you don't have to worry about it. :)

* As in, have no choice, not as in "firm in one's decision."

[Simple Abundant Living]

Wow, if I believed like that, I couldn't get up in the morning.

Luckily due to your makeup and influencers you're determined* not to believe it, so you don't have to worry about it. :)

* As in, have no choice, not as in "firm in one's decision."

Thank goodness my brain chemistry and environmental stimuli do not allow that!  I'd be in a loony bin!  ;)

[HappyRock]

I didn't see any real points, other than stuff based on a faulty definition, which I wanted to clear up first.

Oh, is that you again, under this new screen name?

Yes, I certainly have a hard time understanding what you mean sometimes.

My "real point" was that using the death penalty on those that are actually guilty is not evil or murder, at least from my point of view. I am not sure how you missed that. Rather then harping on a word that was misunderstood (not faulty), can you offer any alternate point of view or reasons that the death penalty is evil?

"Oh, is that you again, under this new screen name?" Lol, we went over this a few times already. I guess you forgot, or are just trolling me. No worries though.

You seem to misunderstand quite a bit, -.^. Like the time you claimed Mark Ferguson had a "fundamental math problem", and misunderstood the general points of his blog. :P

"So - if I understand you correctly - you are saying that your definition of evil is very narrow and only specific to capital punishment, and wrong in other cases?"

Not at all, I am saying that you misunderstood the context of how I used the word "harm" when defining evil.

[sol]

Not at all, I am saying that you misunderstood the context of how I used the word "harm" when defining evil.

Wait, are you saying that killing someone doesn't do them any harm?

I have yet to understand the sort of fundamental disconnect that people experience when they say "killing is wrong, therefore we should kill."

[HappyRock]

Not at all, I am saying that you misunderstood the context of how I used the word "harm" when defining evil.

Wait, are you saying that killing someone doesn't do them any harm?

I have yet to understand the sort of fundamental disconnect that people experience when they say "killing is wrong, therefore we should kill."

Can you quote where I said/suggested that?

Killing somebody does them the worst kind of harm, it ends their life. But I still don't believe you can classify all of "killing" to be entirely wrong per se. For example, if someone killed Hitler, I don't think that would be "wrong".

[sol]

Can you quote where I said/suggested that?

Yes, I think I can...

My "real point" was that using the death penalty on those that are actually guilty is not evil... you misunderstood the context of how I used the word "harm" when defining evil.

You seemed to be saying that killing is not evil because it doesn't do harm to anyone, and that "harm" is the key point in defining evil.  If killing someone does them harm, then how can killing be anything but evil?

The way our justice system currently works is that we've decided that killing people is wrong, so we kill people who kill people.  That doesn't strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

[HappyRock]

Can you quote where I said/suggested that?

Yes, I think I can...

My "real point" was that using the death penalty on those that are actually guilty is not evil... you misunderstood the context of how I used the word "harm" when defining evil.

You seemed to be saying that killing is not evil because it doesn't do harm to anyone, and that "harm" is the key point in defining evil.  If killing someone does them harm, then how can killing be anything but evil?

The way our justice system currently works is that we've decided that killing people is wrong, so we kill people who kill people.  That doesn't strike you as the least bit hypocritical?

I didn't imply that killing didn't do harm, I implied that killing people who murder isn't necessarily evil. It's pros outweigh the cons,  in that innocent people can't be killed at the expense of a murderer living. That's the difference between "Murder" (bad) and "killing" (either bad or good). That is at least how I see it, of course many people with different views could think much differently. Though, I do say that "harm" directly inflicted on innocent people is a key point in defining evil people.

Basically, I was saying that killing can be justified in extreme circumstances. You can't classify all killing (including those guilty and subjected to capital punishment) as "murder". We have decided that killing innocent people is wrong, but I am not so sure killing guilty people is evil or wrong.

[arebelspy]

My "real point" was that using the death penalty on those that are actually guilty is not evil or murder, at least from my point of view.

That's dynamite, but unless you can guarantee that 100% of the people the death penalty is used on are guilty, then murder by the government is being done (on those innocent ones being killed). So someone stating "I don't want my government murdering people" (the comment that started this) is correct.

Doesn't matter what you think about the guilty ones, let's talk about the innocent, unless you're claiming there are none.

[frugalnacho]

My "real point" was that using the death penalty on those that are actually guilty is not evil or murder, at least from my point of view.

That's dynamite, but unless you can guarantee that 100% of the people the death penalty is used on are guilty, then murder by the government is being done (on those innocent ones being killed). So someone stating "I don't want my government murdering people" (the comment that started this) is correct.

Doesn't matter what you think about the guilty ones, let's talk about the innocent, unless you're claiming there are none.

Also guilty of what? premeditated murder?  What if I premeditate and kill a rapist? What if I rape 10 children, but don't kill any of them?  What if I rape one person? And that person happens to be a prostitute?  There is a huge spectrum of "harm" and "guilty" isn't always black and white. 

[GuitarStv]

Why would raping a prostitute be different than hurting anyone else?

[frugalnacho]

Why would raping a prostitute be different than hurting anyone else?

I feel it is less evil than raping a child.  I don't know if I can back that up, but if I had to rank them from most evil to least evil it would be:

child rape > adult rape > prostitute rape

[Gin1984]

Why would raping a prostitute be different than hurting anyone else?

I feel it is less evil than raping a child.  I don't know if I can back that up, but if I had to rank them from most evil to least evil it would be:

child rape > adult rape > prostitute rape

Many prostitutes are children.  And again why would rape of a prostitute be worse than rape of another person of the same age?

[Malaysia41]

This is turning into one of those dark corners of the intstanet I've been warned about.

[frugalnacho]

Why would raping a prostitute be different than hurting anyone else?

I feel it is less evil than raping a child.  I don't know if I can back that up, but if I had to rank them from most evil to least evil it would be:

child rape > adult rape > prostitute rape

Many prostitutes are children.  And again why would rape of a prostitute be worse than rape of another person of the same age?

What if I just have consensual sex with a prostitute then steal my money back?

[arebelspy]

Yeah, we probably don't need to go into more graphic details of what is the most evil thing.

[frugalnacho]

Yeah, we probably don't need to go into more graphic details of what is the most evil thing.

No we don't, I was just pointing out that happyrock is being vague with the definitions of evil and malice.

[GuitarStv]

Why would raping a prostitute be different than hurting anyone else?

I feel it is less evil than raping a child.  I don't know if I can back that up, but if I had to rank them from most evil to least evil it would be:

child rape > adult rape > prostitute rape

Many prostitutes are children.  And again why would rape of a prostitute be worse than rape of another person of the same age?

What if I just have consensual sex with a prostitute then steal my money back?

Then you're a thief, not a rapist.  I think that would be a lesser evil.

[TheNorwegianGuy]

I have always wondered why so many people dont seem to even question the fact that they believe what they believe because of where they where born in the world, how they grew up and who they grew up with. And that out of all the thousands of small and large religions that exist in the world, they just happened to be born into the "correct one"....

[DoubleDown]

unless you can guarantee that 100% of the people the death penalty is used on are guilty, then murder by the government is being done (on those innocent ones being killed). So someone stating "I don't want my government murdering people" (the comment that started this) is correct.

That's a valid point (I was the person who originally objected to use of the word "murder"). I think use of the term "murder" is appropriate in the context of wrongfully executing an innocent person, and that had not occurred to me before. I mean, I knew people were sometimes wrongfully executed, but it didn't occur to me before that this is a situation where describing it as a "murder" is pretty reasonable.

I can't speak for HappyRock, but he/she may have been focusing (like me) on the 99.9% of executions that are lawful (not someone found to have been wrongfully convicted), and therefore was objecting to calling those murder.

Even though viscerally/emotionally I feel like executing really bad people like 9/11 conspirators or serial killers, I'm against the death penalty. Once they're no longer a threat to society, there's no point or moral basis in killing them. I'd rather find a way to put them in perpetual servitude to their victims, if that's possible, or at least hard labor for life to somehow benefit society. Even if it's just digging a ditch or breaking rocks to make gravel for a road project that heavy machinery could do 1000x faster.

[Gin1984]

unless you can guarantee that 100% of the people the death penalty is used on are guilty, then murder by the government is being done (on those innocent ones being killed). So someone stating "I don't want my government murdering people" (the comment that started this) is correct.

That's a valid point (I was the person who originally objected to use of the word "murder"). I think use of the term "murder" is appropriate in the context of wrongfully executing an innocent person, and that had not occurred to me before. I mean, I knew people were sometimes wrongfully executed, but it didn't occur to me before that this is a situation where describing it as a "murder" is pretty reasonable.

I can't speak for HappyRock, but he/she may have been focusing (like me) on the 99.9% of executions that are lawful (not someone found to have been wrongfully convicted), and therefore was objecting to calling those murder.

Even though viscerally/emotionally I feel like executing really bad people like 9/11 conspirators or serial killers, I'm against the death penalty. Once they're no longer a threat to society, there's no point or moral basis in killing them. I'd rather find a way to put them in perpetual servitude to their victims, if that's possible, or at least hard labor for life to somehow benefit society. Even if it's just digging a ditch or breaking rocks to make gravel for a road project that heavy machinery could do 1000x faster.

Do we know that 99.9% of executions are correctly convinced? 

[arebelspy]

unless you can guarantee that 100% of the people the death penalty is used on are guilty, then murder by the government is being done (on those innocent ones being killed). So someone stating "I don't want my government murdering people" (the comment that started this) is correct.

That's a valid point (I was the person who originally objected to use of the word "murder"). I think use of the term "murder" is appropriate in the context of wrongfully executing an innocent person, and that had not occurred to me before. I mean, I knew people were sometimes wrongfully executed, but it didn't occur to me before that this is a situation where describing it as a "murder" is pretty reasonable.

HEY-O, we had someone admit a point was good in an argument on the internet.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying with objecting to a comment of "I don't want my government murdering people" when the execution is a lawful application to a guilty party.  But since it isn't always, that means the government is willfully murdering innocent people (even if accidentally).  That's worthy of objecting to, IMO.

[DoubleDown]

unless you can guarantee that 100% of the people the death penalty is used on are guilty, then murder by the government is being done (on those innocent ones being killed). So someone stating "I don't want my government murdering people" (the comment that started this) is correct.

That's a valid point (I was the person who originally objected to use of the word "murder"). I think use of the term "murder" is appropriate in the context of wrongfully executing an innocent person, and that had not occurred to me before. I mean, I knew people were sometimes wrongfully executed, but it didn't occur to me before that this is a situation where describing it as a "murder" is pretty reasonable.

I can't speak for HappyRock, but he/she may have been focusing (like me) on the 99.9% of executions that are lawful (not someone found to have been wrongfully convicted), and therefore was objecting to calling those murder.

Even though viscerally/emotionally I feel like executing really bad people like 9/11 conspirators or serial killers, I'm against the death penalty. Once they're no longer a threat to society, there's no point or moral basis in killing them. I'd rather find a way to put them in perpetual servitude to their victims, if that's possible, or at least hard labor for life to somehow benefit society. Even if it's just digging a ditch or breaking rocks to make gravel for a road project that heavy machinery could do 1000x faster.

Do we know that 99.9% of executions are correctly convinced? 

No, I threw that figure out there with an educated guess it's somewhere around there. I haven't researched any statistics, and even if we found some, we'd never know about the wrongful convictions that were never revealed.

[DoubleDown]

HEY-O, we had someone admit a point was good in an argument on the internet.

Not only that, it was me that acknowledged it. As the declared #1 World's Most Stubborn Motherfucker Ever, that's a big deal you accomplished --  just ask my wife!

Yeah, I hear what you're saying with objecting to a comment of "I don't want my government murdering people" when the execution is a lawful application to a guilty party.  But since it isn't always, that means the government is willfully murdering innocent people (even if accidentally).  That's worthy of objecting to, IMO.

Agreed. Although as the #1 You-Know-What, I'd object to the characterization of "willfully." They aren't willfully executing innocent people, they're executing what they think is a guilty person and then going "Oops." Still shameful, and doesn't bring back the innocent person.

[GuitarStv]

unless you can guarantee that 100% of the people the death penalty is used on are guilty, then murder by the government is being done (on those innocent ones being killed). So someone stating "I don't want my government murdering people" (the comment that started this) is correct.

That's a valid point (I was the person who originally objected to use of the word "murder"). I think use of the term "murder" is appropriate in the context of wrongfully executing an innocent person, and that had not occurred to me before. I mean, I knew people were sometimes wrongfully executed, but it didn't occur to me before that this is a situation where describing it as a "murder" is pretty reasonable.

I can't speak for HappyRock, but he/she may have been focusing (like me) on the 99.9% of executions that are lawful (not someone found to have been wrongfully convicted), and therefore was objecting to calling those murder.

Even though viscerally/emotionally I feel like executing really bad people like 9/11 conspirators or serial killers, I'm against the death penalty. Once they're no longer a threat to society, there's no point or moral basis in killing them. I'd rather find a way to put them in perpetual servitude to their victims, if that's possible, or at least hard labor for life to somehow benefit society. Even if it's just digging a ditch or breaking rocks to make gravel for a road project that heavy machinery could do 1000x faster.

Do we know that 99.9% of executions are correctly convinced? 

No, I threw that figure out there with an educated guess it's somewhere around there. I haven't researched any statistics, and even if we found some, we'd never know about the wrongful convictions that were never revealed.

Maybe 96%?  http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/28/death-penalty-study-4-percent-defendants-innocent

[frugalnacho]

unless you can guarantee that 100% of the people the death penalty is used on are guilty, then murder by the government is being done (on those innocent ones being killed). So someone stating "I don't want my government murdering people" (the comment that started this) is correct.

That's a valid point (I was the person who originally objected to use of the word "murder"). I think use of the term "murder" is appropriate in the context of wrongfully executing an innocent person, and that had not occurred to me before. I mean, I knew people were sometimes wrongfully executed, but it didn't occur to me before that this is a situation where describing it as a "murder" is pretty reasonable.

I can't speak for HappyRock, but he/she may have been focusing (like me) on the 99.9% of executions that are lawful (not someone found to have been wrongfully convicted), and therefore was objecting to calling those murder.

Even though viscerally/emotionally I feel like executing really bad people like 9/11 conspirators or serial killers, I'm against the death penalty. Once they're no longer a threat to society, there's no point or moral basis in killing them. I'd rather find a way to put them in perpetual servitude to their victims, if that's possible, or at least hard labor for life to somehow benefit society. Even if it's just digging a ditch or breaking rocks to make gravel for a road project that heavy machinery could do 1000x faster.

Do we know that 99.9% of executions are correctly convinced?

It's not even close to 99.99%, or even 99%.  I've heard figures that it's close to 4%+ of inmates put to death are innocent.  It's probably even higher since they don't actively investigate cases once they are dead.  Why waste the resources trying to prove a dead person innocent when you have 4%+ of current death row inmates are also innocent and you still have a chance to reverse that decision before they get put to death?

[frugalnacho]

unless you can guarantee that 100% of the people the death penalty is used on are guilty, then murder by the government is being done (on those innocent ones being killed). So someone stating "I don't want my government murdering people" (the comment that started this) is correct.

That's a valid point (I was the person who originally objected to use of the word "murder"). I think use of the term "murder" is appropriate in the context of wrongfully executing an innocent person, and that had not occurred to me before. I mean, I knew people were sometimes wrongfully executed, but it didn't occur to me before that this is a situation where describing it as a "murder" is pretty reasonable.

HEY-O, we had someone admit a point was good in an argument on the internet.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying with objecting to a comment of "I don't want my government murdering people" when the execution is a lawful application to a guilty party.  But since it isn't always, that means the government is willfully murdering innocent people (even if accidentally).  That's worthy of objecting to, IMO.

I still object to saying something isn't murder just because it's condoned by the government, so isn't technically "unlawful".  I know that technically it's not the correct usage of murder, but I disagree with the government on what should be considered "lawful", and I have a feeling most people would not change their usage if they changed the law.  ie if it was not unlawful to kill a black person, I would still consider that murder even though it wouldn't fit the dictionary definition.

[arebelspy]

unless you can guarantee that 100% of the people the death penalty is used on are guilty, then murder by the government is being done (on those innocent ones being killed). So someone stating "I don't want my government murdering people" (the comment that started this) is correct.

That's a valid point (I was the person who originally objected to use of the word "murder"). I think use of the term "murder" is appropriate in the context of wrongfully executing an innocent person, and that had not occurred to me before. I mean, I knew people were sometimes wrongfully executed, but it didn't occur to me before that this is a situation where describing it as a "murder" is pretty reasonable.

HEY-O, we had someone admit a point was good in an argument on the internet.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying with objecting to a comment of "I don't want my government murdering people" when the execution is a lawful application to a guilty party.  But since it isn't always, that means the government is willfully murdering innocent people (even if accidentally).  That's worthy of objecting to, IMO.

I still object to saying something isn't murder just because it's condoned by the government, so isn't technically "unlawful".  I know that technically it's not the correct usage of murder, but I disagree with the government on what should be considered "lawful", and I have a feeling most people would not change their usage if they changed the law.  ie if it was not unlawful to kill a black person, I would still consider that murder even though it wouldn't fit the dictionary definition.

I agree, but it's a semantics point that many won't, and those who don't you won't change their mind, so it's not really worth arguing.

[frugalnacho]

unless you can guarantee that 100% of the people the death penalty is used on are guilty, then murder by the government is being done (on those innocent ones being killed). So someone stating "I don't want my government murdering people" (the comment that started this) is correct.

That's a valid point (I was the person who originally objected to use of the word "murder"). I think use of the term "murder" is appropriate in the context of wrongfully executing an innocent person, and that had not occurred to me before. I mean, I knew people were sometimes wrongfully executed, but it didn't occur to me before that this is a situation where describing it as a "murder" is pretty reasonable.

HEY-O, we had someone admit a point was good in an argument on the internet.

Yeah, I hear what you're saying with objecting to a comment of "I don't want my government murdering people" when the execution is a lawful application to a guilty party.  But since it isn't always, that means the government is willfully murdering innocent people (even if accidentally).  That's worthy of objecting to, IMO.

I still object to saying something isn't murder just because it's condoned by the government, so isn't technically "unlawful".  I know that technically it's not the correct usage of murder, but I disagree with the government on what should be considered "lawful", and I have a feeling most people would not change their usage if they changed the law.  ie if it was not unlawful to kill a black person, I would still consider that murder even though it wouldn't fit the dictionary definition.

I agree, but it's a semantics point that many won't, and those who don't you won't change their mind, so it's not really worth arguing.

Agreed, but I thought it was worth pointing out that those people aren't necessarily misusing the word murder per se.  Even though I know and understand the dictionary definition of murder (as being unlawful), and the government condones capital punishment, I still disagree i'm misusing the term. Just like if they changed the laws of abortion and allowed you to abort your child up to a day after birth, technically that would no longer be murder, but based on my own belief system I would consider it (and call it) murder.  So I understand why people refer to abortion as murder (whether any of us agree with them, or whether it's technically unlawful in their particular state is irrelevant).

[kite]

Probably going to be in the minority here...
But in my view, capital punishment is evil and far more evil than any crime that an individual commits.  It isn't motivated by passion or recklessness in the heat of the moment,  it is not prompted by some psychopathology that drives one person to do something horrible.   Instead,  it's a collective decision to deprive someone else of life.   We can dress it up in due process,  and have a doctor swab the injection site with alcohol, but it is still the most barbaric thing in our society.   
And FFS, there is free will.  That's not the whole story, but just because the moon exists, doesn't mean the sun does not. 

 

[Malaysia41]

Wow that was a marvelous discussion over the word 'murder'.  as the OP I'll clarify my POV FWIW:

I don't want my government killing anyone, guilty or innocent.

[Knapptyme]

: Pretty much every single religion conflicts with each other in some way (Different gods, prophets, beliefs, customs)
- If that is the case, would that mean that only one religion is correct, and that other religions are wrong? How can multiple all-powerful gods and individual prophets exist for EACH religion?

Some religions are, for lack of a better word, more inclusive -- their beliefs do not exclude the possibility of other religions being "true." For example, mainstream Buddhism and Hinduism accept the possibility of many gods, and many paths to enlightenment. To a Buddhist, a Christian can still gain enlightenment one day. So, those religions can largely coexist without conflicting with other worldviews (of course, in practice, there are still violent conflicts).

Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all share the Old Testament. They differ on the "extra" parts that have been added by Christians (New Testament) and the Koran (Islam).

Mainstream Christianity (my religion) is exclusive. In that religion, Christ is the only path to salvation, and other religions are seen as "false." By accepting Christ as one's personal savior, you have eternal life; without Him, you will die permanently once you die in this world. So, with Christianity, there is very much a "true" or "false" dichotomy that doesn't exist for Buddhists or Hindus or some other religions.

"Christ" isn't a religion.  It's worth pointing out that most Christian churches are less exclusive than they have been historically.  You'd be hard pressed to find a Lutheran who thinks Baptists are going to hell, for instance.  Most protestants would agree that it's at least possible for a Mormon or a Catholic to be saved through their faith in Christ, although they may also think that Mormonism and Catholicism are not "Christian".

I've even heard some Christians state that the Jewish Covenant with Yahweh is "salvific" for the Jews, although I personally think that's more an expression of being uncomfortable with exclusivity than a religious opinion founded in belief in a supernatural revelation.

As the conversation takes a different turn later, I'll try to pick up off of this one. Forgive me for not reading more if this becomes redundant.

In light of this forum and the blog from which it was formed, I believe religion (Christianity as an example) to be mostly detrimental to FIRE. For those who know about donating proper amounts of income (tithe of 10%) to the church, that can become a huge burden. I would argue on that point, however, that it does help form a habit of living on less, which can be good. It just doesn't also come with the rewards of stashing away more of your income in profitable investments (financially speaking). Thus, I am torn on those grounds.

On terms of a particular religion's validity, I would only ask leading questions regarding life or what comes after it. I'm not opposed to other opinions, but if I was left to believe that the life and consciousness I currently experience is all there is for me in this universe or beyond, I am left with two conclusions.

1. Achieving financial independence becomes of utmost importance to maximize what little time I have to enjoy. (Not a bad conclusion considering I am slowly joining the cult that is devoted to MMM ideals.)

2. Reject the null hypothesis and consider something beyond (religion) that makes the most reasonable/universally beneficial sense.

Exclusivity aside, having answers to life's deeper questions provides mental stability for most. Given that those answers often reside within religious contexts suggests to me that it is a good thing. Considering Christ was a great example of living on less and loving those around him, I choose to emulate that. (You might even consider that he retired at the early age of 30 from earthly work of carpentry.)

[popsy13]

No religion teaches to kill anyone and to get involved in criminal activities. All religions teach to live peacefully.