Logicboy03:



Evil is something/action that causes unnecessary harm or damage than benefit to a person (or people) affected by that something or action.

What is "unnecessary harm or damage"?

Ihedinobi:

What is "unnecessary harm or damage"?

Seriously, have you heard of an infinite regress?

Logicboy03:



Seriously, have you heard of an infinite regress?

lol. Yes, I have. But it's your fault I'm regressing. You preferred to define evil independent of good. My question is to show you how silly that is. Your answer had only said, "evil is something that causes evil". That is no answer.

The correct answer is "evil is that which is not good". But if you answered that, you would still have to come back to answering "what is good/goodness"? In answering that you'll come close to appreciating the truth of image123's comment.

Ihedinobi:

lol. Yes, I have. But it's your fault I'm regressing. You preferred to define evil independent of good. My question is to show you how silly that is. Your answer had only said, "evil is something that causes evil". That is no answer.

The correct answer is "evil is that which is not good". But if you answered that, you would still have to come back to answering "what is good/goodness"? In answering that you'll come close to appreciating the truth of image123's comment.

@ bold,


You dont know the meaning of damage/harm?


You are also foolish enough to fail to see that there is also "neutral". Evil can be defined independent of good.

Logicboy03:



@ bold,


You dont know the meaning of damage/harm?


You are also foolish enough to fail to see that there is also "neutral". Evil can be defined independent of good.

Sure it can. So, define damage/harm. And 'neutral' too, while you're at it.

Ihedinobi:

Sure it can. So, define damage/harm. And 'neutral' too, while you're at it.

lol.....Anony taught you well! ask your opponent to define while you offer no rebuttal to the original premise.

Logicboy03:



lol.....Anony taught you well! ask your opponent to define while you offer no rebuttal to the original premise.

Tell me about it. He and Anony are like Batman and Robin, caped crusaders indeed.

More like pinky and the brain..

Ihedinobi:

Sure it can. So, define damage/harm. And 'neutral' too, while you're at it.

Lovely just lovely. I am so laughing my head off. Thank you twin bro, you just made my morning.

Logicboy03:
lol.....Anony taught you well! ask your opponent to define while you offer no rebuttal to the original premise.

lol lol lol..........that's what you get when you carelessly throw words around without defining them and then expecting your opponent to somehow use his psychic powers and read your mind to know what you are talking about.

plaetton:

Tell me about it. He and Anony are like Batman and Robin, caped crusaders indeed.

Lol, go and find your own batman

muskeeto2: More like pinky and the brain..

go and find your own brain

muskeeto2: More like pinky and the brain..

LWKMD!

Guy, your posts are always some of the best, funniest and witty on nairaland.

+1 till infinity

Mr_Anony:
Lovely just lovely. I am so laughing my head off. Thank you twin bro, you just made my morning.

Ihedinobi:

Sure it can. So, define damage/harm. And 'neutral' too, while you're at it.

Mr_Anony:
lol lol lol..........that's what you get when you carelessly throw words around without defining them and then expecting your opponent to somehow use his psychic powers and read your mind to know what you are talking about.

Original argument;


Image123 is wrong for saying that all atheists are evil. You have offered no rebuttal, only to ask me to define good, evil, nuetral.




If someone says that your parents are fools, myabe you will say that the person should define "fool" and "parents".

Logicboy03:


Original argument;

Image123 is wrong for saying that all atheists are evil. You have offered no rebuttal, only to ask me to define good, evil, nuetral.

If someone says that your parents are fools, myabe you will say that the person should define "fool" and "parents".

lol, if someone says my parents are fools, I will ask him why he thinks so. in other words he must define what it means to be foolish and how my parents fit that category. If I disagree with him, then I must give a better definition of what it means to be a fool and then explain how my parents do not fit that category.

Image123 has called atheists evil and has defined for you what it means to be evil and how atheists fit that category. It is now up to you to give a better definition of evil and now show how atheists don't fit the bill.

So my friend, over to you

Logicboy03:
All muslims are evil
All christians are evil
All atheistic Buddhists are evil
Do you now see the simple problem with your foolish line of thought
64% of japanese are atheists. Can you comfortable say that an absolute majority of japanese people are evil? Just remeber your Toyota/Honda/Sony/Sharp products an remember that the Japanese are very reserved people.

Your understanding of evil is flawed. What you may think of as good may in reality be evil. Evil is often attractive in form.

All that is not good is evil. There are no shades of gray. One of the lessons from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis 3 is that we often misplace evil for good.

Unless you are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, you are evil.

Ihedinobi:
The correct answer is "evil is that which is not good".

Lol.. Evil is that which is not good? Really... in the same vein, good is that which is not evil.. someone should learn the difference between a definition and an antonym..

aletheia:
Your understanding of evil is flawed. What you may think of as good may in reality be evil. Evil is often attractive in form.

All that is not good is evil. There are no shades of gray. One of the lessons from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in Genesis 3 is that we often misplace evil for good.

Unless you are clothed in the righteousness of Jesus Christ, you are evil.

Christianity rots the brain. End of story.


By your comment, only christians are good.


There is no need to argue with you. You are a terrorist in denial.



So, you are saying that all your ancestors before the Europeans came were evil?


The good samaritan who was a non-believer in judaism or christ was evil?

Mr_Anony:
lol, if someone says my parents are fools, I will ask him why he thinks so. in other words he must define what it means to be foolish and how my parents fit that category. If I disagree with him, then I must give a better definition of what it means to be a fool and then explain how my parents do not fit that category.

Image123 has called atheists evil and has defined for you what it means to be evil and how atheists fit that category. It is now up to you to give a better definition of evil and now show how atheists don't fit the bill.

So my friend, over to you

1) Image123's definition of evil is wrong

2) I gave a definition of evilwhich is a s clear as daylight. Ihedinobi was foolish enough to claim that he didnt know the meaning of "unnecessary" or "damage"

Logicboy03:


1) Image123's definition of evil is wrong

2) I gave a definition of evilwhich is a s clear as daylight. Ihedinobi was foolish enough to claim that he didnt know the meaning of "unnecessary" or "damage"

I think Ihedinobi was pointing out to you that unnecessary damage is a poor definition because when you imply necessity, you must say who or what it is necessary to. In other words, whose opinion counts more. The serial killer who thinks it is necessary to pluck out a baby's eyes before killing her? the police man who thinks it is necessary to take a bribe? the politician who thinks it is necessary to rig the votes. All of them doing "necessary damage". Whose necessity should count more.

let me put it to you in another way: A suitcase of money is found lying around on the ground somewhere. one man thinks it is necessary to report it - there might be a reward, another thinks it is necessary not to report it - that way he can keep it all. According to your law of "Unnecessary Damage" which of the men is evil? or good? or neutral?

Mr_Anony:
I think Ihedinobi was pointing out to you that unnecessary damage is a poor definition because when you imply necessity, you must say who or what it is necessary to. In other words, whose opinion counts more. The serial killer who thinks it is necessary to pluck out a baby's eyes before killing her? the police man who thinks it is necessary to take a bribe? the politician who thinks it is necessary to rig the votes. All of them doing "necessary damage". Whose necessity should count more.

let me put it to you in another way: A suitcase of money is found lying around on the ground somewhere. one man thinks it is necessary to report it - there might be a reward, another thinks it is necessary not to report it - that way he can keep it all. According to your law of "Unnecessary Damage" which of the men is evil? or good? or neutral?

Maybe you could differentiate between evil acts and evil people... Man can be an instrument of good or evil.
Let's take this analogy further..

Nigeria gets into a war with Japan. Some Nigerians are able to infiltrate the Japanese defenses and STEAL data that helps Nigeria win the war.

Are the men evil? Was STEALING evil?

Robin Hood was loved by the poor cos He would steal from the rich and give to the poor. A rich man has some cash he intends to give to a peasant. This money is stolen by Robin Hood and handed over to some other peasant. Is there good or evil in this?

Mr_Anony:
I think Ihedinobi was pointing out to you that unnecessary damage is a poor definition because when you imply necessity, you must say who or what it is necessary to. In other words, whose opinion counts more. The serial killer who thinks it is necessary to pluck out a baby's eyes before killing her? the police man who thinks it is necessary to take a bribe? the politician who thinks it is necessary to rig the votes. All of them doing "necessary damage". Whose necessity should count more.

let me put it to you in another way: A suitcase of money is found lying around on the ground somewhere. one man thinks it is necessary to report it - there might be a reward, another thinks it is necessary not to report it - that way he can keep it all. According to your law of "Unnecessary Damage" which of the men is evil? or good? or neutral?

Have you looked at the dictionary meaning of evil before criticisng my definition? You would be ashamed of your ignorance because my definition is purposely fit for the issue here; religion and morality.


Now, concerning your question.

1) My definition stated the people affected by the action were the people that would be considered when deciding what is necessary or not. Clearly you failed to read my definition. You are so foolish and deceitful at times.


2) The person that owns the suitcase would be done a great deal of unnecessaary damage by losing his assets completely if it is not reported to the police and kept by someone else. Taking somethig that is not your is evil. Causing harm by taking another persons property


3) Reporting the suitcase isnt evil. No damage or harm done. nfact, it is beneficial to all parties. The police does their job, the owner of the suitcase might be lucky to get it back and the reporter can be rewrded or at least acknowledged for his help.



See how foolish you are?

muskeeto2:
Lol.. Evil is that which is not good? Really... in the same vein, good is that which is not evil.. someone should learn the difference between a definition and an antonym..

Ihedinobi is still an apprentice of Anony

Logicboy03:


Have you looked at the dictionary meaning of evil before criticisng my definition? You would be ashamed of your ignorance because my definition is purposely fit for the issue here; religion and morality.


Now, concerning your question.

1) My definition stated the people affected by the action were the people that would be considered when deciding what is necessary or not. Clearly you failed to read my definition. You are so foolish and deceitful at times.


2) The person that owns the suitcase would be done a great deal of unnecessaary damage by losing his assets completely if it is not reported to the police and kept by someone else. Taking somethig that is not your is evil. Causing harm by taking another persons property


3) Reporting the suitcase isnt evil. No damage or harm done. nfact, it is beneficial to all parties. The police does their job, the owner of the suitcase might be lucky to get it back and the reporter can be rewrded or at least acknowledged for his help.



See how foolish you are?

Good. Your definition is now clear. The necessity that counts is that of the owner of the suit case. Good and evil here will be measured by how much the two men have offended the owner. Mind you, the two people have not seen touched or experienced the suitcase owner but they have deduced that he must exist because his suitcase exists and therefore they go ahead and do right by the yet unseen owner.

In the same way, we are observers of creation. Because we see creation, we deduce that there must be a creator and because He owns everything, it is His necessity that counts and so we do right by Him. That is what it means to be good.

The man that is evil is the man that says that the suitcase cannot possibly have an owner and as a result he can do whatever he likes with the suitcase and it's contents

That is the message Image123 was trying to pass across. It appears that once again, you have agreed with me. Sorry for reading you wrong, i thought you were an atheist. My mistake

Logicboy03:

Ihedinobi is still an apprentice of Anony

Ihedinobi is an apprentice of Christ. I am an apprentice of Christ.

Whose apprentice are you?

Mr_Anony:
Good. Your definition is now clear. The necessity that counts is that of the owner of the suit case. Good and evil here will be measured by how much the two men have offended the owner.

Omg, when did it become an offence to happen upon a misplaced suitcase?

Religion: create the virus, sell the antivirus..

muskeeto2: Why r u bothered? It's Yahweh's opinion..

An atheist should not give a f**k...

That name. . .

Mr_Anony:
Good. Your definition is now clear. The necessity that counts is that of the owner of the suit case. Good and evil here will be measured by how much the two men have offended the owner. Mind you, the two people have not seen touched or experienced the suitcase owner but they have deduced that he must exist because his suitcase exists and therefore they go ahead and do right by the yet unseen owner.

In the same way, we are observers of creation. Because we see creation, we deduce that there must be a creator and because He owns everything, it is His necessity that counts and so we do right by Him. That is what it means to be good.

The man that is evil is the man that says that the suitcase cannot possibly have an owner and as a result he can do whatever he likes with the suitcase and it's contents

That is the message Image123 was trying to pass across. It appears that once again, you have agreed with me. Sorry for reading you wrong, i thought you were an atheist. My mistake

You have remixed the issue again. The issue here was a definition of evil and not the existence of a god.


1) The necessity starts with the action not the owner of the suitcase. Reporting it or taking the money is what determines the evil.

2) We know how suitcases are made down to the detail. We know that people can own suitcases, we have seen evidence for that. Do we know how the universe was made? Have we seen god make a universe?

Please dont compare these two things.



urthermore, we are still on definitions which we shouldnt.


Are all atheists evil? Answer the question

JESUS CHRIST IS NOT THE SON OF YAHWEH. NOT ONCE DID JESUS MENTION YAHWEH AS HIS FATHER!
YAHWEH AND THE FATHER OF JESUS ARE 2 SEPARATE ENTITIES. . . OR SO I BELIEVE

Mr_Anony:
Good. Your definition is now clear. The necessity that counts is that of the owner of the suit case. Good and evil here will be measured by how much the two men have offended the owner. Mind you, the two people have not seen touched or experienced the suitcase owner but they have deduced that he must exist because his suitcase exists and therefore they go ahead and do right by the yet unseen owner.

In the same way, we are observers of creation. Because we see creation, we deduce that there must be a creator and because He owns everything, it is His necessity that counts and so we do right by Him. That is what it means to be good.

The man that is evil is the man that says that the suitcase cannot possibly have an owner and as a result he can do whatever he likes with the suitcase and it's contents

That is the message Image123 was trying to pass across. It appears that once again, you have agreed with me. Sorry for reading you wrong, i thought you were an atheist. My mistake

checkmate

Image123:
checkmate

[img]http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i55/5/7/25/frabz-Oh-really-Tell-me-more-5cb378.jpg[/img]

muskeeto2:

Religion: create the virus, sell the antivirus..

Dohohohoohohohohohohohoho