phk offf trool

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spunky doesn't even believe in the devil.
> Otherwise she wouldn't have put the word Devil in
> quotation marks.


>
> Gen...you assumed because I put a word in quotes
> that I must like that word, the
> devil, how outrageous? Your assumption and your
> poor support of the female sex as seen in other
> posts here at FU makes it easy to see you are not
> a real woman, nor Marge.
>
No, I'm not inferring that putting a word in quotes means you like it. There are limited reasons to use quotation marks and that is not one of them.

I support people that deserve my support. You do not deserve my support.


I believe your first posting contradicts your second post above. I know the rules of using quotes, but I wanted to put a bigger emphasize on the word...devil, since some don't believe he's real.

FYI...Gen...supporting your supposedly female sex, is not supporting me...Duh?
But, thank you now for speaking out and removing all doubt.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/13/2009 08:32PM by Prada Denim.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spunky,
>
> Aren’t you high enough? Booze will just make you
> dizzy.


Avoiding my previous question and trying to sidetrack the subject, you

should get awards for this, because this part of your charcater shines

through all your posts under other names...Duh! Staying focused is a

major problem for you, yes?

So, if booze makes YOU dizzy why do you drink so much?

Prada Denim Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spunky revealed.


You wish! Maybe that's just the best you can do, considering you.

Wallow in it Prada.

Spunky, why are you such a man hater?

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spunky Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Would you believe it? My response to the Prof
> has
> > been deleted. WOW! Why does that not surprise
> > me?
> >
> > Basically:
> >
> > I made my argument which is probably why my
> post
> > was deleted.
> >
> > There is good and evil in the world, just look
> > within this site for the evil.
>
> What, specifically do you deem 'evil' on this
> site?
>
> > Because the Prof went fishing for my response
> so
> > often with his posts is an
> >
> > indicator that he possibly deleted my post, no
> one
> > else seemed to care.
>
> I did not delete your post. I would assume that
> power would have to come from a moderator. I have
> been waiting for you to support your argument that
> good requires evil, to explain what you mean by
> 'god is love', and for you to explain what you
> mean by 'evil is energy'. I don't really need you
> to support your contention that the bible backs
> you up, since I showed that it didn't.
>
Wrong Prof...you never showed or proved that the Bible

doesn't support what I said...Alias.

There are numberous stories accounting how God destroyed cities

for their evil, unethical and immoral actions,

...you can look it up because you apparently need the experience.

God also rewarded good with good.

God also has her own reasons for her actions. Yes, we don't know if God is

female or male, I get comfort from thinking of God as a Her.


You took my "evil is energy" out of context, Everything has an energy of sorts.

Everything in nature is in balance and in order to have love, you then have hate.

To have good, you also must have evil. This gives you free will to choose, which

ultimately defines who you are here and always. So choose wisely! People on

this site have not always done that...hate prevails. Which begs the question,

why? You can't say because of me which is your norm, because this hateful

atmosphere has been here along time, just look at the history of posts.


> Now, had you provided any of these things in the
> post that was deleted, I would most certainly have
> examined it. I would not have deleted them even
> if I had the ability.
>
> > Gen...you assumed because I put a word in
> quotes
> > that I must like that word, the
> > devil, how outrageous? Your assumation and
> your
> > poor support of the female sex as seen in other
> > posts here at FU makes it easy to see you are
> not
> > a real woman, nor Marge.
>
> I realize you were not talking to me, but what is
> an "assumation"? Further, exactly what sort of
> drone behavior are you expecting females to
> emulate?

Like the men here who have supported one another, women usually

do the same, but not in here, how about that?

There's a reason for that...
>
> > Azzzzzzz...it would be smart and safer if you
> > learn to just speak for yourself, unless you
> are
> > all those who've posted on this page?
> >
> > Now Alias, answer my question is alcohol good
> or
> > evil?
>
> Alcohol is a substance, it cannot perform actions
> and thus it cannot be said to be evil.

Nothing good comes from the abuse of alcohol.

Like I said before it's about choices, alot of people make

bad choices involving alcohol.
> Then again, I'm closest to a non-cognitivist (it
> some respects) when it comes to the whole moral
> domain I suppose.


I think you meant to say (in some respects), comfirmation

that you are not a Prof. You are just an insecure little

person looking for attention.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/07/2009 09:00PM by spunky.

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I believe your first posting contradicts your
> second post above. I know the rules of using
> quotes, but I wanted to put a bigger emphasize on
> the word...devil, since some don't believe he's
> real.
>
> FYI...Gen...supporting your supposedly female sex,
> is not supporting me...Duh?
> But, thank you now for speaking out and removing
> all doubt.

If you knew the rules for using quotation marks, you would not have used them for emphasis. That is not correct usage.

I did not contradict myself. Apparently you are confusing your words with mine. I do not support someone based merely upon their sex. That behavior is not only illogical, but the kind of thought process that leads to prejudice. You have done nothing to gain my support and therefore you do not receive it.

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spunky Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I believe your first posting contradicts your
> > second post above. I know the rules of using
> > quotes, but I wanted to put a bigger emphasize
> on
> > the word...devil, since some don't believe he's
> > real.
> >
> > FYI...Gen...supporting your supposedly female
> sex,
> > is not supporting me...Duh?
> > But, thank you now for speaking out and
> removing
> > all doubt.
>
> If you knew the rules for using quotation marks,
> you would not have used them for emphasis. That
> is not correct usage.
>
> I did not contradict myself. Apparently you are
> confusing your words with mine. I do not support
> someone based merely upon their sex. That
> behavior is not only illogical, but the kind of
> thought process that leads to prejudice. You have
> done nothing to gain my support and therefore you
> do not receive it.


You're a nut! The male brand. You have said a woman's place is doing

laundry, with Margie's support, when given the opportunity to support

women...definately the response of a man, not a woman. Since your aren't

a woman, I can see why you don't want to see the contradictions, this blindness

you have is not attributed to you and you alone. No, this type of behavior and

ignorance has sent many better fleeing from here from shock. You don't think a

prejudice already exists between men and women? It's not like we've had the vote

that long...dude.

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You have said a woman's place is doing laundry,


Apparently you aren't familiar with sarcasm.



> You don't think a prejudice already exists between men and women?
> It's not like we've had the vote that long


I didn't say that prejudice does not exist. But to encourage that kind of thought is just plain stupid.

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> spunky Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > You have said a woman's place is doing laundry,
>
>
>
> Apparently you aren't familiar with sarcasm.
>
>
>
> > You don't think a prejudice already exists
> between men and women?
> > It's not like we've had the vote that long
>
>
> I didn't say that prejudice does not exist. But
> to encourage that kind of thought is just plain
> stupid.


Ignoring it is stupid, but your reponse is spoken like a true man.

Thank you once again for the confirmation.

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Ignoring it is stupid, but your reponse is spoken
> like a true man.
>
> Thank you once again for the confirmation.

You aren't talking about ignoring prejudice, but creating it. That is completely counter productive.

As for my sex... I believe that REStonPeace, Meeper, pgens, Margie, Lurker, SRE, Mr Mephisto, Mr Doctor, and Erik would all be happy to vouch for the fact that I'm female. However, since we are all Elliot in the Morning, I guess that isn't good enough for you.

Genevieve Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for my sex... I believe that REStonPeace,
> Meeper, pgens, Margie, Lurker, SRE, Mr Mephisto,
> Mr Doctor, and Erik would all be happy to vouch
> for the fact that I'm female.

whatever, you are totally photoshopped.


"the wisdom of the wise will perish, the intelligence of the intelligent will vanish."
Attachments:

spunky Wrote:
> Wrong Prof...you never showed or proved that the
> Bible

Are you now simply denying reality? I quoted specific scripture to support my contention. You are now reduced to claiming that the post isn't there, when it's plain as day that it is. Go up an reread it.

> There are numberous stories accounting how God
> destroyed cities
>
> for their evil, unethical and immoral actions,
>
> ...you can look it up because you apparently need
> the experience.

This doesn't support any of your contentions. I'm not arguing that the bible says that god hasn't destroyed cities. Did you forget what you were supposed to be defending??

> God also rewarded good with good.
>
> God also has her own reasons for her actions.
> Yes, we don't know if God is
>
> female or male, I get comfort from thinking of God
> as a Her.

Unfortunately that view is unbiblical. In fact, the Bible makes great pains to show the inequality of women to men. Woman is made from man. Man is the head of the family. Most absurd of all is that the wife is listed among the property a man possesses in the ten commandments.

> You took my "evil is energy" out of context,
> Everything has an energy of sorts.

Then put it *into context*, don't just assert that I took it out. As to your second point, every material entity has energy, yes. Evil is not a material entity - it is an abstraction. Abstractions are brain states. In other words, evil is a label we give certain actions and behavior, it does not exist on it's own as a beach ball would. This is why I specifically asked you to define what you meant by evil - because saying that evil is energy is nonsensical.

> Everything in nature is in balance and in order to
> have love, you then have hate.

Rocks do not love or hate. The Sun does not love or hate. Love and hate are names we give emotions and behaviors. I do not know what you mean by 'balance', but it seems clear to me that you are being misleading.

> To have good, you also must have evil. This gives
> you free will to choose, which

I do not accept the notion of 'free will', but we can explore that after we clear up some of the confusion surrounding the terms you are using.

You state: Everything in nature is in balance.

Love, evil, hate, and good are concepts that exist in the mind - they do not exist physically in nature. Ergo, by your standards they do not need to be balanced.

You could possibly object by saying that the brain is in nature - this is true - however you would be equivocating by saying that the brain and what the brain states refer to (ie, the conceptions) are the same. In short, you are riding up against the hard problem of consciousness. To make it simple, I will say this - the brain state of you thinking about a unicorn exists - it is a pattern of neurons which fire in a specific way to produce a certain brain state. The *unicorn* does not possess physicality.

In the same sense, good, evil, love, and hate do not possess physicality and thus do not need to be balanced.

> ultimately defines who you are here and always.
> So choose wisely! People on
>
> this site have not always done that...hate
> prevails. Which begs the question,
>
> why? You can't say because of me which is your
> norm, because this hateful
>
> atmosphere has been here along time, just look at
> the history of posts.

I think I have demonstrated that good/evil are not required to balance, by your standards. Further, I have demonstrated that they do not require physicality. So you say that 'evil' is prevalent on this website. I take this to mean that you feel that the words/opinions expressed on this website promote the harm (emotional) of individuals. You are now asking why this is the case - I would suggest that this is the case because people can get out their aggressions on this website and that it provides them with anonymity. In short, they suffer no repercussions by engaging on this website. No one knows who they are and they don't know their victims. Their is a lack of empathy because of this - because ultimately were I to make fun of you, what would be the effect? The effect would be that you might have your feelings hurt, but it's not like anyone knows who you are. It's not like you couldn't log off of this site and never encounter the harmful words in real life. It is, in essence, similar to vicariously watching strangers engage in illicit activities - it's irresistible because we perceive no ill effects for *ourselves*.

> Like the men here who have supported one another,
> women usually
>
> do the same, but not in here, how about that?
>
> There's a reason for that...

This sounds like you are an advocate of poor behavior. You think that Gen should have supported you merely because you were a woman. Not because she fundamentally agreed with your position. In short, you *want* here to be divisive. Then you pretend to be interested in women's rights and being treated as equal??


> Nothing good comes from the abuse of alcohol.
>
> Like I said before it's about choices, alot of
> people make
>
> bad choices involving alcohol.

This is circular - of course nothing good can come from the *ABUSE* of alcohol. You are defining the *use* of alcohol as a bad thing and then stating that nothing good can come from bad things.

> I think you meant to say (in some respects),
> comfirmation
>
> that you are not a Prof.

No, that is not what I was confirming. I was making a comment on my stance in regards to morality.

It is true that I am not a professor - had you any awareness of where the name "Professor Pangloss" comes from and my prior posts on religion you would immediate sense the irony of my username. But I guess you never read any Voltaire, did you?

> You are just an insecure
> little
>
> person looking for attention.

Ah, insults from a woman who is claiming that insults are evil and that this board is full of them. Please tell me what you are basing this insecurity on? Is it because I've repeatedly dismantled your arguments and held you to the task of defending yourself?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/08/2009 08:54AM by Professor Pangloss.

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 04:20PM by Alias.

holy shit, prof pangloss pwns again. Give it up spunky. You say that everyone is hateful or evil on this site, yet you yourself throw nothing but insults out without backing up anything with facts... just like your thread on how men are the cause of all of the problems in the world... and by the way, there is no way the christian god could be a woman, after all your bible says god created man in his own image. He also created Adam first, then from Adams rib came Eve. So yea, another pro women argument from spunky with no backing on it.

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> holy shit, prof pangloss pwns again. Give it up
> spunky. You say that everyone is hateful or evil
> on this site, yet you yourself throw nothing but
> insults out without backing up anything with
> facts... just like your thread on how men are the
> cause of all of the problems in the world... and
> by the way, there is no way the christian god
> could be a woman, after all your bible says god
> created man in his own image. He also created Adam
> first, then from Adams rib came Eve. So yea,
> another pro women argument from spunky with no
> backing on it.


Who wrote the Bible?

a series of men? i dont know what you're getting at here. are you trying to say that its gods word? or that it is corrupt because man wrote it?

Kenny_Powers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> a series of men? i dont know what you're getting
> at here. are you trying to say that its gods word?
> or that it is corrupt because man wrote it?


Finally you get it. Everyone has an agenda.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof.
> Does good have any meaning without evil?

I believe it could. Personally as I said, I lean more towards the non-cognitive approach to morality, which means both can be viewed as meaningless.

In any event, good could be defined as actions that promote the flourishing of sentient beings. Evil could be defined as actions that promote the harm of sentient beings. Neutral could be defined as actions which do not promote or harm sentient beings.

But let's say that I accept the argument that good requires evil for meaning - does this justify the existence of a massive evil or the devil? No, it does not. It could be argued that God could inform us of evil actions and what evil is, and just not actualize evil.

If you say that this cannot be the case then you will have to explain how it is the case with God and with Heaven.

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kenny_Powers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > holy shit, prof pangloss pwns again. Give it up
> > spunky. You say that everyone is hateful or
> evil
> > on this site, yet you yourself throw nothing
> but
> > insults out without backing up anything with
> > facts... just like your thread on how men are
> the
> > cause of all of the problems in the world...
> and
> > by the way, there is no way the christian god
> > could be a woman, after all your bible says god
> > created man in his own image. He also created
> Adam
> > first, then from Adams rib came Eve. So yea,
> > another pro women argument from spunky with no
> > backing on it.
>
>
> Who wrote the Bible?

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1985/who-wrote-the-bible-part-1
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1986/who-wrote-the-bible-part-2
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1987/who-wrote-the-bible-part-3
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1988/who-wrote-the-bible-part-4
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1989/who-wrote-the-bible-part-5

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kenny_Powers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > a series of men? i dont know what you're
> getting
> > at here. are you trying to say that its gods
> word?
> > or that it is corrupt because man wrote it?
>
>
> Finally you get it. Everyone has an agenda.

Okay, so you are imply that we can't trust the bible because it's written by men. Then why trust it about the devil?

]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 04:08PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Alias wrote:
>
> “Does good have any meaning without evil?”
>
> Professor Pangloss wrote:
>
> “I believe it could.”
> ________________________________________
>
> But, Professor.....
>
> How?
>
> And, with all due respect, a cognitive approach
> would be more comfortable for me.


"In any event, good could be defined as actions that promote the flourishing of sentient beings."

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Kenny_Powers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > a series of men? i dont know what you're
> getting
> > at here. are you trying to say that its gods
> word?
> > or that it is corrupt because man wrote it?
>
>
> Finally you get it. Everyone has an agenda.

You do realize you have just disproved your entire faith by stating what you have just said right? Saying that it was the written word of man (who has an agenda) is admitting that the bible is not the word of god, and is indeed full of fallacies. I guess we finally agree on something spunky

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 03:25PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Prof. wrote:
>
> "In any event, good could be defined as actions
> that promote the flourishing of sentient beings."
> _________________
>
> Do you mean as when compared to actions which
> promote the languishing of sentient beings?


No, they do not have to be actions which promote the languishing of sentient beings, as I stated before. They could be neutral actions, for instance. Your response presupposes evil, however.

What do you call those actions which promote the languishing of sentient beings?

I love watching great minds at work.

I love watching you Spunky.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you call those actions which promote the
> languishing of sentient beings?


I think you are missing a premise to my argument. I was arguing that evil was not necessary for good to exist. I was not arguing that it *did not* exist. In short, your question here is a red herring.

l



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 04:38PM by Alias.

Here, I'll put an end to this discussion.

Who lied to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?

God said, "If you eat from the tree of life, you will surely die."

The serpent, who was the devil, said, "No, if you eat from the tree, you will become like God, knowing good from evil."

Adam and Eve ate from the tree, did not die, and suddenly knew good from evil.

The first lie ever told was by God himself. So, he may have lied about other things as well, including the devil. Maybe Satan's an alright guy who just got a bad rap.

And, it was God that decided to ruin the life of faithful Job just to prove a point to Satan, so who is more cruel?

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

\



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2012 04:32PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So...
>
> You believe good exists.
> You believe evil exists.
> You do not believe that evil is necessary for good
> to exist.
>
> Yet, it’s only because they both do exist, that
> you understand the meaning of either one.


If we are talking about my beliefs, then *NO* I do not believe 'good' or 'evil' exist. As I stated before, my view currently is close to a non-cog approach. In short, what does it mean to say that 'good' exists? Do you mean 'good actions'?

In terms of Spunky's argument, that good necessitates evil (supposing they both exist) I asked why this was the case. I provided an example to use for 'good' and I even referenced neutral actions.

Yet you come on here and are claiming that it's only because they both do exist that we can understand the meaning of either one.

What you are doing is begging the question. You are assuming that since they both exist, that they *logically* both have to exist - which is the VERY QUESTION I'm taking issue with.

I do not think that it is necessarily the case that both good and evil have to exist in order to understand one or the other. Here are some ways to understand good without evil:

1. Measure them against neutral actions - actions which cause neither good nor harm.
2. Measure them against the *IDEA* of evil. In this approach, evil actions or 'evil existence' (whatever that means) does not actually have to exist. The ability to conceive of these actions does.

These are two ways for good to exist without evil (or good action without evil). So it is now incumbent upon you or spunky to provide support for your position that evil must actually exist (or evil actions) in order for good to exist.

Again, we are talking logically, not the current state of affairs.

Understand?

I really hate myself for succumbing to the allure of a "new" posting on this thread.

Yet another compelling argument for the need to be able to delete entire threads from my FFXU universe.

Meh..

______________________________________________
I have had to change the addresses to my retaliatory blogs over half a dozen times.

whew thank god fairfax dude gave us his opinion. I didnt know what to think

P.S. sarcasm doesnt translate well over the internet

;



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2012 02:46PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> prof. wrote:
>
> “As I stated before, my view currently is close to
> a non-cog approach.”
> _______________
> Are you floating around in outer space?

I have no idea what you are referring to here.

> prof wrote:
>
> “What you are doing is begging the question. You
> are assuming that since they both exist, that they
> *logically* both have to exist - which is the VERY
> QUESTION I'm taking issue with.”
> __________________
> This is why you will never be granted tenure.

No, I will never be granted tenure because I'm not actually a Professor.

> Is it possible to have good without evil? Yes, in
> the same way you can have darkness without light.

Either you are agreeing with me here or you are trying to sarcastically say that we need darkness in order to for light to exist.

At most you could argue that it would be hard for us to understand what the term 'good' or 'light' would mean in the absence of evil/darkness. Hard to understand is one thing, logically impossible is another. You still have failed to demonstrate that good necessitates evil's existence.

Keep in mind that what we call 'darkness' and what we call 'light' are simply the interpretation of photons, light rays, and such being received by our rods and cones and interpreted in our brains. Without instruments to receive these physical things there is no such thing as light or dark. So if you wish to, by analogy, relegate the concepts of 'good' and 'evil' to such a conceptual space then I can sympathize with that - but that would mean that they do not actually exist outside of minds. In short, Spunky's conclusion is still wrong.

Furthermore I also provided two examples which you have failed to deal with. Both of which provide a way for good to exist without the need for evil actually existing.

I will repeat them:
1. Measure them against neutral actions - actions which cause neither good nor harm.
2. Measure them against the *IDEA* of evil. In this approach, evil actions or 'evil existence' (whatever that means) does not actually have to exist. The ability to conceive of these actions does.

These are two ways for good to exist without evil (or good action without evil). So it is now incumbent upon you or spunky to provide support for your position that evil must actually exist (or evil actions) in order for good to exist.

Prof. wrote:
"No, I will never be granted tenure because I'm not actually a Professor.”
_____________________
Next you'll tell me you don't actually have syphilis.

Darkness can exist without light. But, only after the sun sets.
If you are imagining another reality, then, hypothetically, almost anything is possible.
And, if, in this reality, good exists without evil, you would be unaware of it. Without evil, even your neutral zone, that grey area in the middle, would have no meaning.

In my imaginary reality, I can fly.
Attachments:

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. wrote:
> "No, I will never be granted tenure because I'm
> not actually a Professor.”
> _____________________
> Next you'll tell me you don't actually have
> syphilis.

I will neither confirm nor deny that allegation. Hey look, an elephant!

> Darkness can exist without light. But, only after
> the sun sets.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here, to be honest with you. Darkness can exist in caves or rooms where the sun doesn't penetrate. Or it can exist on planets where the atmosphere so clouds the planet that no sunlight can get through. It can also exist in black holes and eventually it will subsume the universe and there will be no light.

> If you are imagining another reality, then,
> hypothetically, almost anything is possible.

I am arguing logical possibilities - I have been since I initially took issue with Spunky. She said that good necessitated evil. Well, presupposing we have both in this universe for the sake of argument, their existence doesn't mean both are necessary.

To use another example:

You are not a logical necessity for this universe. You are contingent. That means that while you exist in this universe, a universe without your existence is possible.

Why is this important to argue about logical necessities in this case?

It's important for a number of reasons. One of them being that if you argue that evil is necessary then that effects the ontology of God. It also effects arguments for the existence of God. Say you are an atheist and you think that Epicurus's dilemma is a powerful argument for the nonexistence of god.

His argument is roughly:

If God is willing to destroy evil but not able to do so, than he is not omnipotent/all-powerful.
If God is able to destroy evil but not willing to do so, than he is malevolent.
If he is both able and willing, than whence cometh evil?
If he is neither able nor willing, than why call him god?

This is getting a bit side tracked though.

> And, if, in this reality, good exists without
> evil, you would be unaware of it. Without evil,
> even your neutral zone, that grey area in the
> middle, would have no meaning.

I don't see why this necessarily follows. Also, as I stated, we can imagine scenarios that do not actually happened. This lends support to the idea that we could imagine evil even if it never occurred. If you doubt this, then you'd need to explain the volumes of fiction, science fiction, and fantasy that stock library shelves.

> In my imaginary reality, I can fly.


Um...Okay. You realize that this doesn't actually address the point.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2012 02:52PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Prof. wrote:
> "Why you decided to respond to our other
> discussion in this thread is a question of the
> ages."
>
> I'll let you ponder that question for the next
> 1,000 years or so.

Nah, I think you were responding in that other thread and things got turned around for you.

> The Prof:
> "Measure them against the *IDEA* of evil. In this
> approach, evil actions or 'evil existence'
> (whatever that means) does not actually have to
> exist. The ability to conceive of these actions
> does."
>
> I've already agreed with you that good could exist
> without evil. (Disclaimer: possible, not
> probable.)

Okay - then from your point of view, why are you still arguing with me? Don't get me wrong, I do think that the idea that you can't have one without the other is a valid topic and worth discussing. I just wasn't getting anywhere with Spunky. I think the same cannot be said with you, I think we were making some progress. That's why I'm in this conversation.

> You suggest that where there is no evil, one can
> imagine evil.
> I disagree.

Why though? I'm not sure about your theological convictions, but answer me this:

Do you accept that Heaven is supposed to be a place where there is no evil? (by accept I mean to say do you think it's not contradictory to suppose...)

It seems to me that we can imagine a great many things that do not exist. I would put heaven, hell, god, satan, etc all in that category.

> Now, I really have to go. I'm building a time
> machine. It’s dark and my rods are
> malfunctioning.

Is this code for masterbation?

;-)

Hey Spunky, maybe Furfur is the Devil. He's coming to get you

graymoose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hey Spunky, maybe Furfur is the Devil. He's coming
> to get you

I will not be usurped by someone whose name conjures up images of furries rather than demonic entities. Furfur, meet me by the River Styx in thirty minutes.

I'm going to kick your ass like you're Bob and I'm inkahootz.

I'm going to be all over you like stink on Vince.

By the time I'm done with your face, you'll only be able to hook up with Spunky.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto said:

"I will not be usurped by someone whose name conjures up images of furries rather than demonic entities. Furfur, meet me by the River Styx in thirty minutes.

I'm going to kick your ass like you're Bob and I'm inkahootz."


WTF? I've got enough to worry about with Spunky thinking I'm a real demon....


BUT if you must fight, I'll meet you under the plasma in Reston. I have sleeve tattoos on both arms and both legs, you can't miss me.

Prof. we seem to agree on one thing. I thought

the same thing when you addressed the last part of Alias' post.

The msgs from Furfur were not good, but evil. Why would there be

such references to evil and his choice of a demonic name was his choice

for a reason, that doesn't conjure up anything good.

The fact that for centuries there has been references to evil and speculation

to the point of devilish renderings produced of their possible likeness, for a

reason. The Exorcist was based on a true account, this was about evil that truly

exists. There are so many other examples I bet you are familiar with yourself.

The Catholic church even acknowledges this reality with their openness to cast

out demons who have possessed people. I know you will discount these examples

by virture of the fact that you are an unbeliever of such occurrences.

Spunky said:

"The msgs from Furfur were not good, but evil. Why would there be
such references to evil and his choice of a demonic name was his choice
for a reason, that doesn't conjure up anything good."

Spunky, why do you think I'm evil?
Attachments:

Well way to go Furfur. You (Gravis) have just proved what I said on the "Furfur is dangerous". I couldn't have emphasized this any better...thanks! SICKO!

What's up with all of the returns Spunky adds to her post? Typing on an 800X600 resolution monitor?

What's it matter, can't find enough to complain about where you are?

The fact is most of the posters here are middle age, like yourself, so I'm

being considerate...all you know to do is bitch...bitch! Or not?

It matters because it puts breaks in the middle of sentences where no breaks belong. And as for my age, I have not yet attained middle age.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2009 12:00AM by Genevieve.

Spunky wrote:

"The fact is most of the posters here are middle age, like yourself, so I'm
being considerate...all you know to do is bitch...bitch! Or not?"



Spunky, maybe your menopause is causing psychosis. It can happen.

What do you consider middle age Gene? 100! Ha! Ha! In your face!

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What do you consider middle age Gene? 100! Ha!
> Ha! In your face!


Wow, your insults are pathetic. Do they really make you laugh?

And how old are you Spunky?

If you don't want everyone to know, just send me an email Elliot@dc101.com



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/28/2009 12:16AM by Furfur.

Furfur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Spunky wrote:
>
> "The fact is most of the posters here are middle
> age, like yourself, so I'm
> being considerate...all you know to do is
> bitch...bitch! Or not?"
>
>
Gee, how would you know that having registered here just this month?

Darlin' you at the most have only been considerate to your mama (maybe) who you still live with and the police each time they haul your ass away as you bitch about becoming a bitch again. When you sleep the farts you let out through the night keep rhythm with some Cher songs since your last time in jail. I hear your orafices quivers each time you see a man, especially a black one.

>
> Spunky, maybe your menopause is causing psychosis.
> It can happen.


Anything can happen but that doesn't mean it does, maybe to you? A crazy sicko!

Go find your soul, that should keep you busy for along time. Like a dog you appear to be easily distracted.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2012 04:14PM by Alias.

this has turned into a debate as to whether douches exist or not, the answer is unequivocally yes.

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. we seem to agree on one thing. I thought
>
> the same thing when you addressed the last part of
> Alias' post.

No offense, but I'm confused as to what you are talking about here. When I addressed the last part of Alias' post, I was just making a joke about masterbation.

> The msgs from Furfur were not good, but evil. Why
> would there be
>
> such references to evil and his choice of a
> demonic name was his choice
>
> for a reason, that doesn't conjure up anything
> good.

Furfur is a demonic name? I'm unfamiliar with any demons/fallen angels that go by that moniker. I think you are referencing the idea that evil is a name we give for certain actions - correct?

> The fact that for centuries there has been
> references to evil and speculation
> to the point of devilish renderings produced of
> their possible likeness, for a
> reason.

There's a lot here to address, but I'll only focus on this: The idea of a dichotomy between good and evil came about in western religions primarily because of Zoroastrianism. Until that time gods weren't really attributed with being solely good or evil. Case in point with the Hebrew religion. Satan was not the great big enemy until Christianity came along - that is to say, until helenization occurred. Prior to that there was only one entity - Yahweh - a virtual king of the celestial realm. The other divine beings, including Satan, were his worker bees, so-to-speak. If you read the account in Job, I think it's pretty clear that Satan was God's 'tester', 'lawyer', etc. He served a specific function for rooting out unrighteous behavior.

> The Exorcist was based on a true account,
> this was about evil that truly

I am aware that the Exorcist was based on an account with a young boy. I do not believe it was legitimate though.

> exists. There are so many other examples I bet
> you are familiar with yourself.
>
> The Catholic church even acknowledges this reality
> with their openness to cast
>
> out demons who have possessed people. I know you
> will discount these examples
>
> by virture of the fact that you are an unbeliever
> of such occurrences.

I do not discount these examples because I am an unbeliever. I discount these occurrences because they do not have very good empirical support for them.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Prof wrote:
>
> "Nah, I think you were responding in that other
> thread and things got turned around for you. "
> Yeah, so, maybe that happened.
>
> "It seems to me that we can imagine a great many
> things that do not exist."
> Imagine a sense which would be as vivid as vision
> or hearing.

Are you suggesting that good and evil are on par with vision or hearing?

In any event, I think this is going to devolve into a discussion on qualia, but for the sake of argument, both vision and hearing can be described without their existence being necessary.

For example, hearing is the result of sound waves coming into contact with cilia in the inner ear that is then interpreted by the brain (basically).

> “Is this code for masterbation?"
> Masturbation causes blindness.

Only if you aim for the eyes...

>Get a grip.

Is this another reference to masterbation?

> “Do you accept that Heaven is supposed to be a
> place where there is no evil?”
> Well, I just keep hoping I’ll get lots of candy
> and rides on the roller coaster for free.
>
>
> Do you think evil can exist without goodness?

As to my personal opinion, I do not think good and evil exist. That is to say that I am a non cognitivist in terms of ethics - I do not think that to say something is 'good' is to make a truth statement; ie, basically morality is not prescriptive.

Now, if I presuppose that I'm wrong on this - as I have in this thread - and I try to make sense out of good/evil then yes, I think it is logically possible for evil to exist without actual goodness (or good without actual evil).

Pangloss you are wrong and in denial, I have seen evil and good enough times to realize the difference. I will not continue the conversation further because you refute reality at every turn. Many people have a dark side which I would call evil and that would not fully be realized if there wasn't good to compare.

[



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2012 03:56PM by Alias.

spunky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss you are wrong and in denial, I have seen
> evil and good enough times to realize the
> difference.

Wow, that's a powerful argument you have right there. Anecdotal and assertive with no reasoning or evidence behind it.

> I will not continue the conversation
> further because you refute reality at every turn.

Would you mind pointing out one example of this? Thanks.

> Many people have a dark side which I would call
> evil and that would not fully be realized if there
> wasn't good to compare.

If this is so, then why are you wasting your time here - clearly you need to use your special skills in order to correct wrongs in the world and to wake people up to their 'dark side'.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof wrote:
>
> "Are you suggesting that good and evil are on par
> with vision or hearing?"
>
> Not at all. You suggested that we can imagine a
> great many things which do not exist. I have been
> trying to imagine another sense like sight or
> hearing, since I was a little kid.

Have you thought about sharks? The reason I bring them up is because I think that some sharks (maybe the hammerhead) have what could be constituted as another sense. They have ampullae of Lorenzini, which another sense organ. Here's the obligatory wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ampullae_of_Lorenzini

> "Get a grip. Is this another reference to
> masterbation?"
>
> Not if you are a woman. "Grip" wouldn't make
> sense.

Sounds like it could be painful...

> Anyway, how could evil exist without good?

Maybe I'm not quite getting what you are asking here, since I've responded a few times with how I think that evil (if we assume it exists) could exist without good. So what do you mean?

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2012 04:54PM by Alias.

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Prof. wrote:
> "Sounds like it could be painful..."
>
> Indeed.
>
> I ask how could evil exist without good, because I
> imagine evil would self-destruct.

I'm not sure what you mean here. I suggested that good could exist without actual evil. In short, we could have knowledge of what evil was, yet never freely choose to do it. Those who would have chosen freely to commit evil wouldn't have been created.

> RE: the sharks. No, that doesn't help me.
> Watching a sunset, listening to Mozart. I want
> another sense like that.

You want an additional sense that is the same as two of the senses you already have?

Wouldn't you just call them sight and sound?

> (I'd also to read people's minds and see through
> their clothes.)

You'd better hope that if you ever got the ability to see through someone's clothes that you'd never encounter 'land whales'...

;



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/27/2012 04:48PM by Alias.

Biden is a demented ass clown

The "devil" is a cop out, an excuse. There are only these evil Jews. Let us be honest.