Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?

[sideshowbob]

Yet you think that what we do does not affect others.

What we do doesn't necessarily effect others in an evil way.

Your thinking is too simplistic. Competition for jobs has good and bad effects, both here and elsewhere. Competition makes a stronger economy over here, which spills over into benefits for other economies worldwide. Asian economies are strengthening partly because of spinoff from western economies. The places where millions of children are dying - e.g. Africa - are the ones with less effects from us.

 

[Greatest I am]

What we do doesn't necessarily effect others in an evil way.

Your thinking is too simplistic. Competition for jobs has good and bad effects, both here and elsewhere. Competition makes a stronger economy over here, which spills over into benefits for other economies worldwide. Asian economies are strengthening partly because of spinoff from western economies. The places where millions of children are dying - e.g. Africa - are the ones with less effects from us.

I agree except that I try to KIS.

Competition does have both good and evil. Good for the winners and evil to the losers.
The simplest, to me, is to think demographically and think of yourself in a common and in that way you see those at the bottom of the pyramid dying and how that effects the whole common. Most cannot think this way.
Put all you examples of success and failures, the good and evil that we both recognize in a demographic common and you can see how we all have an effect on each other.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

Competition does have both good and evil. Good for the winners and evil to the losers.

Again, that's too simplistic. It isn't a black-and-white case of "winners" and "losers". It's a complex interrelationship of consequences, both harmful and beneficial.

When children play sports, they get exercise whether they "win" or "lose". They can learn good sportsmanship by winning or losng. They can improve their skills by winning or losing. When we compete for jobs, the one that "loses" might get a better job next week.

Instead of looking for the simplest answer, you should be looking for the right answer or the best answer - or at least a sensible answer. Your simple answer is none of them.

 

[Greatest I am]

Again, that's too simplistic. It isn't a black-and-white case of "winners" and "losers". It's a complex interrelationship of consequences, both harmful and beneficial.

When children play sports, they get exercise whether they "win" or "lose". They can learn good sportsmanship by winning or losng. They can improve their skills by winning or losing. When we compete for jobs, the one that "loses" might get a better job next week.

.

Yes or he might have been losing for some time and go home and kill himself and his family because he cannot feed them. You as the winner have no way of knowing what he will do.

You do not like simplicity but I like to KIS so more will understand.

We agree on the good and evil created by cooperation and competition so if you want to go start a complicated O P on the issue go ahead.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

You do not like simplicity but I like to KIS so more will understand.

That sounds more like propaganda than "understanding".

 

[Greatest I am]

It is neither. It is trying to reach a wider group.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

You said exlicitly that you like to keep it simple "so more will understand". What you seem to be doing, though, is ignoring anything that shows you're wrong and avoiding requests to back up your claims. You don't seem to be willing to help anybody understand.

If all you're saying is that we can't account for every possible trickle-down evil effect of our actions, than that's a Captain Obvious moment. But if you're suggesting that we can't avoid intentionaly doing evil, then you need to address the counter-examples given.

 

[Greatest I am]

You said exlicitly that you like to keep it simple "so more will understand". What you seem to be doing, though, is ignoring anything that shows you're wrong and avoiding requests to back up your claims. You don't seem to be willing to help anybody understand.

If all you're saying is that we can't account for every possible trickle-down evil effect of our actions, than that's a Captain Obvious moment. But if you're suggesting that we can't avoid intentionaly doing evil, then you need to address the counter-examples given.

What counter-example?
All you have done is agree with the premise hat competition creates losers and complained about my not making things more complicated.

Sure some losers learn to compete better and win later but then they create a loser and eventually someone at the end of the line falls off. No big deal in sports but a hell of a deal when it is a competition for resopurces to feed your family or yourself.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

What counter-example?All you have done is agree with the premise hat competition creates losers....

I've done no such thing. I pointed out that people you call "losers" sometimes get a better opportunity because of missing out on one. Thus they are not losers at all. They're winners of a different kind. Winning and losing is not as simple as you portray it.

Sure some losers learn to compete better and win later but then they create a loser and eventually someone at the end of the line falls off.

You haven't shown that anybody "falls off" because of anything I do. Person A gets a job and child Z dies. You haven't shown cause-and-effect.

 

[Greatest I am]

I've done no such thing. I pointed out that people you call "losers" sometimes get a better opportunity because of missing out on one. Thus they are not losers at all. They're winners of a different kind. Winning and losing is not as simple as you portray it.


You haven't shown that anybody "falls off" because of anything I do. Person A gets a job and child Z dies. You haven't shown cause-and-effect.

Yes I have. You just refuse to continue the chain of loses down through the demographic common.

In a 5 level common for instance, the second has lost to the first tier, the third to the second etc. The last tier is the least fit and will die out.
In reality we have more tiers but the outcome is the same.

Who is starving to death as we speak, the top tiers or the bottom?
The bottom. Why are they there?
Because they have lost at the competitions that they have engaged in.
Think of us all in a socio economic demographic pyramid. It is quite easy to see the process that way.
Natural eugenics is hard at work.

Regards
DL

 

[sideshowbob]

You just refuse to continue the chain of loses down through the demographic common.

You haven't shown that any such "chain of losses" exists - and you insist on calling them "losses" when often they are not.

Who is starving to death as we speak, the top tiers or the bottom?
The bottom. Why are they there?
Because they have lost at the competitions that they have engaged in.

No. As I mentioned earlier, much of the starvation in the world is caused by politcial issues over there, not by some imaginary "tier structure".

Think of us all in a socio economic demographic pyramid.

That's where you're going wrong. It isn't a pyramd. It's more like a geodesic dome, only far more complex and irregular.

 

[Greatest I am]

Done here.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Done here.

Typical. This troll consistently refuses to address any points that come anywhere near refuting its nonsense.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?


Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin or do evil. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?


God creates original sin, and does not by fiat remove that. Most moral evil results directly from that according to theologians, both Christian and Moslem. God could but does not. We have Paul's cockamamie "gotchya" of original sin that moves all responsibility for moral evil to God. God creates Satan. Satan causes evil. So who is responsible here.

It simply does NOT work and cannot.

Now the problem is to explain this away and the theologians cannot. 4 centuries of theodicy and we have no answer.


Cheerful Charlie

 

[Greatest I am]

Can you help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?
And if you cannot, why would God punish you?


Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by putting forward their free will argument and placing all the blame on mankind.
That usually sounds like ----God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy. Such statements simply avoid God's culpability as the author and creator of human nature.

Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

If all sin by nature then, the sin nature is dominant. If not, we would have at least some who would not sin or do evil. Can we then help but do evil? I do not see how. Do you?


God creates original sin, and does not by fiat remove that. Most moral evil results directly from that according to theologians, both Christian and Moslem. God could but does not. We have Paul's cockamamie "gotchya" of original sin that moves all responsibility for moral evil to God. God creates Satan. Satan causes evil. So who is responsible here.

It simply does NOT work and cannot.

Now the problem is to explain this away and the theologians cannot. 4 centuries of theodicy and we have no answer.


Cheerful Charlie

I agree. Perhaps that is why they tried to take the evolution model I posted and tried to create their doctrine of theistic evolution which is science and not theology. They sure like to try to uses ( steal ) scientific theories as their own.

Regards
DL