The Aché (allegedly commit infanticide & senicide) are neither angels nor fiends. They're human — Yuval Noah Harari
Selfish, ignorant, violent... — Cidat
Are humans evil by nature? Selfish, ignorant, violent... — Cidat
Humans are neither good nor bad, but they can often be relied upon to do the wrong thing. — Tom Storm
Not (involuntarily) "evil".
"By nature", we akratic apes are (all-too-often) foolish / stupid. — 180 Proof
No one knowingly does evil. — Socratea
Do not attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity — Robert J. Hanlon (Hanlon's razor)
Translation (almost word for word) :roll: –Instead, "by nature", we akratic apes are (all-too-often) foolish / stupid. — 180 Proof
Instead, "by nature", we akratic apes are (all-too-often) foolish / stupid.
— 180 Proof
Trsnslation (almost word for word) :roll: –
As a species, one of h. sapiens' basic cognitive defects is that our 'volition is weak enough for us to recognize the better course of action and yet to take the worse' (usually because it requires less / least effort) and as a consequence this entails 'failing to learn from failures not to repeat our failures', by which we also often inadvertantly (blindly) harm ourselves or others (or both). — 180 Proof
By the way, I want to pick your brain on something that I just realized which is that being immoral, even in the worst possible sense, even though it breaks moral laws does not violate a law of nature. What's up with that? 180 Proof, care to take a stab?
I mean, I could torture someone in an unimaginably horrific way but at no point in the process will I actually violate the so-called laws of nature. Nature, it seems, permits, if not that at least doesn't prohibit, evil.
On the other hand, being good is in almost all cases an uphill task, almost as if a good guy/gal/child is on the verge of transgressing a law of nature. — TheMadFool
A "free choice" assumes at least 2 viable options, right? Only 1 viable option among other nonviable options is a trap it seems to me and not a "free choice". The Pope et al can stuff that theidiocy where the Sun don't shine. — 180 Proof
Were Adam and Eve informed of the consequences of the choice they made? I'd say no, they weren't, but could have been, by God. So, God is arguably responsible for the harm which resulted. — Ciceronianus
Maybe I missed my calling after all. More or less, this was one of my apostatic "arguments" when I was sixteen: Adam & Even were set-up for "The Fall". — 180 Proof
That's the sort of imbecilic nonsense one must believe in order to be a (thoughtful) "Christian". :shade:Jesus - is it not the case that God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself for rules he made himself? — Tom Storm
(Emphasis is mine.)The very word 'Christianity' is a misunderstanding – at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. — The Antichrist, aphorism 39
Sure he did. Genesis 2:15 to 2:17.
15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.” — Hanover
You're right. But "the man" was only warned of death, not everything else--working, sweating, experiencing pain, sickness, inclination towards evil, etc., for himself and all his descendants. So, "the man" wasn't fully informed. — Ciceronianus
But see, Genesis 3:17, "To Adam he said, 'Because you listened to your wife and ate fruit from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat from it,' 'Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat food from it all the days of your life."
I take this to mean that Adam was punished not just for what he did but "because [he] listened to [his] wife." It's one thing I guess to defy God on your own, but to do it because your wife tells you to seems just a bit too much for even the good Lord to tolerate. — Hanover
A. "Eve" was told by "the Serpent" that eating the "forbidden fruit" would make them "like G"; after "G" found out that they'd disobeyed, "G" admits, in effect, they ("Adam & Eve") have become like us (me) ...
B. Scripture recounts that "G" tells them "you shall die" for disobeying but doesn't tell "Adam & Eve", who've only ever eaten from the "Tree of Life" up to that point and know nothing of death (let alone birth), that they will die because "G" will be the direct cause of their deaths - in effect, be their torturer & executioner - by forever blocking access to the immortality-granting/sustaining "Tree of Life" - i.e. forced 'starvation'.
In sum: "G" made "Adam & Eve" sick - too weak to freely choose to obey even under the most favorable circumstances (i.e. "paradise") - and yet commands them (& us!) to be well - perfectly obedient and repentent; "the Serpent" tells the truth about the "fruit of the Tree" whereas "G" dishonestly, manipulatively - like a sociopathic soccer mom tells the children not to go into the refrigerator or else something bad will happen to them, then burns the little ones with cigarettes and feeds them only dog food for naively disobeying - sets up "Adam & Eve" just to (given enough time, inevitably) "fall". Deus vult, right? — 180 Proof
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.