Are these people "robots"?

[davidv]

When it comes to life-and-death importance it is the best policy to gather as much information as you can, and then make the decision. It is foolish (in my eyes) to trust others, when it comes to my life. How could any other human know as much about me as I know?

If you are ever in a car crash and are bleeding to death, are you going to ask the EMT for their creditials before letting them treat you?

 

[ateista]

If you are ever in a car crash and are bleeding to death, are you going to ask the EMT for their creditials before letting them treat you?

Please, be serious.

 

[BlaineTog]

Too many times have I been in a chasing game, when someone kept running in circles and never admitting ignorance on the subject.

Sure, but we’re talking about our beliefs here, and we at least know what those are.

Many Christians subscribe to its literal truth, and will quote the Bible to support them. And nothing you could say will sway their absolute “certainty” that they are right and you are wrong.

Ok. But they’re either Roman Catholic or they are not. If they’re not Catholic, then they’re free to hold whatever (erroneous) beliefs they want. If they are Catholic, then they’re heretics and need the true teachings of the Church taught to them.

Sorry, God is absent from my life, and still it is quite pleasant, nay, wonderful.

If you’re on Earth, then he isn’t. No matter how covertly hidden he may be, he’s there with you right as you read this.

I mean, disagree all you want, but that’s the Catholic belief that I’m trying to explain to you. I don’t claim that I can convince you that all pleasure comes from God if you’re coming from the premise of atheism, but that’s the Catholic belief, and it’s completelly coherent within Catholic theology. That’s all I’m trying to say.

Yes, that is a more modern way of thinking. People started to realize that the verbatim Biblical notion of hell is simply morally repugnant.

And, more to the point, absurdly bad literary reading. History and myth are written differently, almost by definition, and the bible has bits of both in it, among a vast number of other genres. “Bible” means “books,” after all; it’s those parts of God’s library that are on loan to us. Certainly God is more than a historian!

*As I said before, I find your analysis much to my liking. But let’s be honest, it is nothing more than wishful thinking. *

Perhaps it is, perhaps it isn’t. But Hope is a fundamental virtue.

I cannot resist and tell you a joke (I hope you have not heard it).

I heard one kindasorta like that, but it had a different punchline (IIRC) and it was a while ago. Ya, me likey.

I can suggest a way to do it: let it be eternal sleep without any dreams. That would work just fine.

As I said, I’m extremely unsure of my footing here, but I suspect that what you’re suggesting is impossible. If you choose God, then you’re on track to heaven; maybe you’re reluctant, maybe it will take thousands of years of purgatory, but you’re slowly but surely working your way to perfect union with God. If you choose not-God, then you are also refusing any half measures such as sleep without dreams (assuming it’s possible for the soul to sleep; it might not be, as the soul is not the same thing as the conscious intellect), since those half-measures would be part of purgatory. Thus, not-God is Hell.

*No, I am asking questions, not making demands. Very different. *

No, you’re stating immutable syllogisms. “If God loves us, he wouldn’t let rape happen.” You’ve presupposed that your syllogism is correct. In fact, you’re putting this syllogism forward as a hard fact which supposedly disproves God, as if it is a perfect diamond, indestructible. A question is “God, why does rape happen?,” not, “If you’re so great, you wouldn’t let rape happen,” and you’re doing the latter.

*I heard that before, and found it utterly unconvincing. I will give you a short synopsis of how I understand this line of reasoning.

…

Is this a fair assessment of your position? If so, I will give you my reasoning why I find it unacceptable.*

Actually, my position is that this is the only possible world. All other suppositions are logically incoherent. And this world is not as good as it could be; it is fallen, and it would be better if it had not, even though God has caused greater good to come out of the fall.

And I see what you’re setting up with the “any single rescue.” It isn’t that rape shouldn’t be stopped, but that there are specific methods of going about stopping it, and miracles are usually not appropriate methods, for reasons that only God in his infinite wisdom fully understands. Specific reasons, anyway. In general, miracles as standard practice compromise free will as well as the very world we live in. Imagine a place where bullets turned into impotent puffs of air and swords became as jelly when swung at a person. Imagine a place where mean words just didn’t reach the ear of the target, where we were protected from every danger. It would be a dream world, an unreal place where nothing could grow. Wisdom comes from suffering, you know. That’s why test scores in the Boston area dropped dramatically after the 2004 World Series (citation: www.madeupstatistics.com)).

Rape is evil. It’s one of the worst evils in the entire world. But God thinks that the risk of rape is worth your chance to be truly, freely happy, to be eternally in love with him and with everyone, to be a god! And don’t forget the three temptations of Jesus: all of them were temptations to destroy the world and remake it populated with automatons instead of humans who can be higher than the angels if they so choose. Earth is not a robotics laboratory, but a crucible in which wormlike motes of dust are turned into gods, gods which make all conceptions of Zeus or Athena or Odin look like cold, tired dolls dressed up in tiny t-shirts.

 

[ateista]

No, you’re stating immutable syllogisms. “If God loves us, he wouldn’t let rape happen.” You’ve presupposed that your syllogism is correct. In fact, you’re putting this syllogism forward as a hard fact which supposedly disproves God, as if it is a perfect diamond, indestructible. A question is “God, why does rape happen?,” not, “If you’re so great, you wouldn’t let rape happen,” and you’re doing the latter.

Well, I think I had better clarify something. As you are aware, I do not believe in God, when I speak about God, it is the human concept (or understanding) of God I have in mind. You and the other believers on these boards make statements on these boards about God. Those utterances are the basis of my arguing.

You guys are the ones who assert that God is a loving being. When I ask such questions as “How can a loving being allow rapes to happen”, I am really not questioning God. True, I could have said instead: “on what grounds are you, my discussion partners assert that God is loving, when he tolerates such events to happen”. Yes, I could have said it in such, long fashion. The shortened version is just there to save bandwidth.

I do not question God, I question you. And I hope that it is permissible to ask another human about his or her ideas, concepts and explanations, no matter what the subject might be - even God.

I will reply to the rest of your post later.

 

[davidv]

Please, be serious.

I was. The example was meant to illustrate what I though to be a very untenable position your “life-and-death importance” put you in. At many points in our life we are completely dependent on someone else for a “good” outcome. In some cases we have no say, as in the accident senerio. In other cases, like our faith, we usually have more time to determine who to trust and weigh any evidence they provide. I know of no human who knows the answers to all of the questions. So, it all boils down to “who will you trust?” In my case, I have learned to trust the Church and the intuitions that I have reading Scripture in light of her teachings.

 

[ateista]

I was. The example was meant to illustrate what I though to be a very untenable position your “life-and-death importance” put you in.

Of course I did not mean that being in the emergency room with a fresh heart-attack (been there, did that, have the t-shirt to prove it) it would be prudent to ask for the doctors’ diploma. This is so obvious, that it should not have come up at all.

At many points in our life we are completely dependent on someone else for a “good” outcome. In some cases we have no say, as in the accident senerio. In other cases, like our faith, we usually have more time to determine who to trust and weigh any evidence they provide.

Now, that is more like it. Suppose a doctor diagnosis you with a possible cancer. It is a very serious problem - definitely in the life-and-death category. The proper way of handling it - in my opinion - is to go and ask for a second, and a third and maybe for a fourth opinion - and based upon those opinions - you must decide what to do about it.

I know of no human who knows the answers to all of the questions. So, it all boils down to “who will you trust?” In my case, I have learned to trust the Church and the intuitions that I have reading Scripture in light of her teachings.

I understand this. It is your way to put your trust into those people. My take on this problem is this:

No human (alive today or in the last many hundreds of years) has ever had first hand knowledge about these questions - including the members of the clergy.

Allegedly - many thousands of years ago - some humans had some experience. We know (or should know) that in those times superstition was rampant - it was a time of incredible ignorance. We should also know that stories get distorted during the ages. An impartial analysis of the Bible tells wildly impossible scenarios - presented as facts.

What is more likely? That those stories are just fabrications just like innumerable other ones of similar kind? (None of which you believe, by the way) Or that they are factual descriptions of true historical value? The choice is yours. I play the “percentages” and opt for the first hypothesis.

 

[ateista]

Actually, my position is that this is the only possible world. All other suppositions are logically incoherent. And this world is not as good as it could be; it is fallen, and it would be better if it had not, even though God has caused greater good to come out of the fall.

I don’t think it would be a good idea to go into a thorough analysis of Genesis. Maybe another time. Suffice it to say that it was not the “Original Sin” that caused the degradation of the world. In the Genesis it is clrearly stated that God cursed the ground, cursed Adam and Eve. If you say that this world “should” be better, you really ought to look into those verses. The act of “disobedience” had no direct effect on the state of affairs. It had a direct effect on God, who became angry, and cursed his creation.

And I see what you’re setting up with the “any single rescue.” It isn’t that rape shouldn’t be stopped, but that there are specific methods of going about stopping it, and miracles are usually not appropriate methods, for reasons that only God in his infinite wisdom fully understands.

Let’s analyze the two problems that I see.

One is, indeed the human-on-human violence. In these cases it is stated that it would be inappropriote for God to intervene, since it would be a direct impostion on the free will of the perpetrator.

First, I have no reason to grant the freedom of action for such evil deeds. To be brutal about it: “to hell with his free will”. We, as humans, keep on interfering with the free will of criminals, in the name of justice. Why do we have more “freedom” than God does? Why does God not intefere in the name of decency? Why does God always “respect” the freedom of the strong and brutal people and “shrug off” the free will of the weak?

The other problem has nothing to do with human evil.

It has everything to do with such mundane facts the as the lack of rain. Every year millions of people (both adults and children) die of famine. They work diligently on their own betterment and try to eke out a living in a tough environment. But the rains do not come, the plants wither, and they starve. It would need no special miracle to give them rain.

The whole issue boils down to the assertion that “God is love”. Love without actions is just a “four-letter word”. And God does not act. That is the problem - in my eyes, of course.

Specific reasons, anyway. In general, miracles as standard practice compromise free will as well as the very world we live in. Imagine a place where bullets turned into impotent puffs of air and swords became as jelly when swung at a person. Imagine a place where mean words just didn’t reach the ear of the target, where we were protected from every danger. It would be a dream world, an unreal place where nothing could grow.

In other words, it would be heaven. What is wrong with it?

Wisdom comes from suffering, you know.

Who needs wisdom, when one can have bliss? Is there a need for “wisdom” in heaven?

 

[BlaineTog]

Well, I think I had better clarify something. As you are aware, I do not believe in God, when I speak about God, it is the human concept (or understanding) of God I have in mind. You and the other believers on these boards make statements on these boards about God.

But this doesn’t really change anything, because you’re still not actually asking questions but are instead attempting to use the problem of pain as a sledgehammer to break apart Christian theology. We’re giving you the Christian response to why pain exists in the world, and you, in turn, simply refuse it. You aren’t raising objections, but are instead just saying “no.”

In the Genesis it is clrearly stated that God cursed the ground, cursed Adam and Eve. If you say that this world “should” be better, you really ought to look into those verses. The act of “disobedience” had no direct effect on the state of affairs. It had a direct effect on God, who became angry, and cursed his creation.

Actually, we don’t have to be thorough at all:

“Cursed be the ground because of you.” Gen 3:17.

It’s clearly a causal relationship. Of course, even if it weren’t directly causal, that doesn’t mean indirect causality would actually have changed my argument at all. For example, the angel with a flaming sword God has guarding the tree of life. God put the angel there because if man were to eat of the fruit of eternal life, he would be locked into a state of eternal sin (ie hell), and then it wouldn’t necessarily be a choice since you could presumably eat said fruit by accident. That man fell necessitated the rest of the world being filled with pain.

One is, indeed the human-on-human violence. In these cases it is stated that it would be inappropriote for God to intervene, since it would be a direct impostion on the free will of the perpetrator.

As well as a compromising of the world, yes.

First, I have no reason to grant the freedom of action for such evil deeds. To be brutal about it: "to hell with his free will". We, as humans, keep on interfering with the free will of criminals, in the name of justice.

As I said, there are ways of interfering with his free will which are ok, and ways which aren’t, but it’s important to understand that free will is an ephemeral, cloudlike thing, not a light switch. If a rapist tries to rape someone and you grab him and throw him in jail, his free will has still been respected; he might have succeeded, which means he can choose to not rape because rape is wrong, and not because he probably wouldn’t get away with it. Of course, the world is a collage of methods, and how much of each is right is something only God can calculate.

Also, God does interfere, but only in the appropriate manner. Who knows how many rapes would happen if God didn’t bother to get the little voice in people’s heads to tell them not to? That God doesn’t place a total moratorium on rape, make it literally impossible, doesn’t mean he doesn’t try to prevent it as much as possible.

It has everything to do with such mundane facts the as the lack of rain. Every year millions of people (both adults and children) die of famine. They work diligently on their own betterment and try to eke out a living in a tough environment. But the rains do not come, the plants wither, and they starve. It would need no special miracle to give them rain.

Some of these overlap, but I have five basic responses:

A) Because humans are fallen, they require a fallen world in which to live.
B) By choosing to leave God, humanity chose a fallen world.
C) Physical evil, even starvation and plague, are bad, but not the ultimate evils. Greater good comes because of them. Need gives us the opportunity to fill that need.
D) Pain in the here and now is unpleasant, but ultimately not important. In fact, pain can be a great motivator to faith and goodness, in which lie the only chances for happiness on a grand scale. For example, if someone is standing on a bridge that’s collapsing and they’ve frozen solid, a good, strong slap across the face might be just the ticket to get them moving.
E) Pain excises pain. Sometimes you need a little surgery to stop your appendix from hurting.

The whole issue boils down to the assertion that "God is love". Love without actions is just a “four-letter word”. And God does not act. That is the problem - in my eyes, of course.

God does act in loving ways, just not how you would like him to, like how a child might be extremely angry with a parent for not letting him have candy for every meal.

In other words, it would be heaven.

No, it would be a dream world, the opposite of heaven. It would be a place of utter pointlessness. Heaven is more real than the world, but what you propose is far less real. Humans become insipid impotent puerile robots who have been forced into loving God, and forced love is logically incoherent.

Who needs wisdom, when one can have bliss? Is there a need for “wisdom” in heaven?

God is perfect wisdom, so wisdom is in abundance in heaven. Humans aren’t supposed to just be happy, but to be divine, good, and paragons of power. As C.S. Lewis puts it, if you were to see now what you could one day become, you would be strongly tempted to bow down and worship yourself. No one worships the person who has put themselves in a coma so a computer can constantly stimulate the pleasure centers of their brain.

 

[ateista]

But this doesn’t really change anything, because you’re still not actually asking questions but are instead attempting to use the problem of pain as a sledgehammer to break apart Christian theology.

In a sense: “guilty as charged”. But I don’t see anything wrong or blasphemous about it. Christian theology is a man-made phenomenon, a philosophical system. Since I see apperent contradictions in it, I point them out. I am not trying to put you down, I am interested in the fact that good, normal and smart people engage in a behavior that I see as: doublethink.

I am not even asserting that there is no God - though I do not believe there is. But I am most certainly asserting that God - if exists- is nothing like the Christian theology teaches him to be. Because that teaching is internally contradictory and inconsistent.

We’re giving you the Christian response to why pain exists in the world, and you, in turn, simply refuse it. You aren’t raising objections, but are instead just saying “no.”

I think, I am raising objections. But even if I would only be saying “no” (which I don’t think I do), I don’t do it from a perverse desire to be obstinate. I reject the answers, because they are unsatisfactory to me. I am sure they are perfectly rational and satisfactory to you.

My definion of “love” and caring cannot be reconciled by the apparent state of affairs. Your definition of “love” allows it - but only if the word is attibuted to God. I am pretty sure you would agree with me in denouncing a human who professes to be loving and caring and whose words are not borne out by his actions.

“Cursed be the ground because of you.” Gen 3:17.

My point is that God could have chosen not to be offended by man’s disobedience. He chose to react the way he did and instead of pardoning the first and only “offense” (which a loving parent would do) he immediately became angry and did curse his creation. My assessment of this behavior is “seriously overreacting”.

If a rapist tries to rape someone and you grab him and throw him in jail, his free will has still been respected

Let’s revert it: the free will of the victim has not been restricted, because her “desire” not be raped was superceded by the rapist. Do you see it like this? Again: my definition of free will is to have at least two choices, and no force applied.

Would the rapist’s free choice be eliminated by preventing his ability to carry out his deed? Or would it be restricted? I say it would be restricted.

Was the victim’s freedom eliminated by being taken by the rapist? I say it was eliminated. To say that she could just lay back and enjoy the inevitable is not a true choice.

Do you see any logical problem with this reasoning?

Also, God does interfere, but only in the appropriate manner. Who knows how many rapes would happen if God didn’t bother to get the little voice in people’s heads to tell them not to? That God doesn’t place a total moratorium on rape, make it literally impossible, doesn’t mean he doesn’t try to prevent it as much as possible.

That is usually called “argumentum ad ignoratiam”. I am sorry, but I must reject it completely unsatisfactory and fallacious.

I will continue later.

 

[BlaineTog]

In a sense: “guilty as charged”. But I don’t see anything wrong or blasphemous about it. Christian theology is a man-made phenomenon, a philosophical system. Since I see apperent contradictions in it, I point them out. I am not trying to put you down, I am interested in the fact that good, normal and smart people engage in a behavior that I see as: doublethink.

Then the correct response is still, “I see problems, but you seem to think it’s reasonable, so would you please explain the solution to me?” It’s terrible arrogant of you to think that a system of belief that has over 1 billion people in the world adhering to it (nominally or not) and has been around for 2,000 years is internally inconsistent. I mean, I don’t believe in Hinduism but that doesn’t mean I think it’s internally inconsistent.

Also, Christianity, if the Christians are right, is divinely inspired. The Church is of God, even if it’s manned by imperfect humans.

My definion of “love” and caring cannot be reconciled by the apparent state of affairs. Your definition of “love” allows it - but only if the word is attibuted to God. I am pretty sure you would agree with me in denouncing a human who professes to be loving and caring and whose words are not borne out by his actions.

That’s a strawman. As I said in my last post, God does act, and he acts with love, just not in the ways you prescribe. For example, there’s the argument (really, the appeal) to aesthetics: “There is the music of Bach, therefore there is a God who loves us.” And of course there’s the old saw, “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy.”

If God were to act as you want him to act, it would be a total systems change. It’s not “The world, minus rape,” but “The world, minus pain,” and thus “The world, minus choice.” You would turn us into mindless robots.

My point is that God could have chosen not to be offended by man’s disobedience.

No he couldn’t. It would be literally impossible. Forgiveness is a gift, and it has to be accepted freely.

He chose to react the way he did and instead of pardoning the first and only “offense” (which a loving parent would do) he immediately became angry and did curse his creation. My assessment of this behavior is “seriously overreacting”.

If you think that that’s “seriously overreacting,” I think you don’t understand the concept of God at all. What God did was merciful. God is absolutely perfect, absolutely beyond reproach. He created us and gave us a perfect world to inhabit, and we spit in his face. The first sin wasn’t just disobedience (and what a disobedience! He only gave them one thing that they weren’t supposed to do, and they did it!), but Pride as well. Adam and Eve thought they could become like God just because some snake told them to. How absurd! How arrogant! And then instead of falling at God’s feet and begging for forgiveness, they hid, and when he found them, they just passed the blame on down.

But you also don’t understand the story of Genesis. It wasn’t just that they had sinned, but that they had caused a fundamental change in the nature of man. The fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil wasn’t just some random tree with an extra-long name. Its fruit can best be called magical because it alters the structure of the consciousness of anyone who eats it. Eating it has irrevocable consequences. Because of this, we have to have sin ground out of us slowly but surely.

Let’s revert it: the free will of the victim has not been restricted, because her “desire” not be raped was superceded by the rapist. Do you see it like this? Again: my definition of free will is to have at least two choices, and no force applied.

Choice is never arbitrary, though, or at least almost never arbitrary. Let’s say there’s a concert that you want to go to, but you have work then. You have dueling desires to fulfill your duties as an employee and to satisfy your aesthetic taste for music. The choice is free, but that doesn’t mean you do it without reasons.

Would the rapist’s free choice be eliminated by preventing his ability to carry out his deed? Or would it be restricted? I say it would be restricted.

If it were to be stopped when it otherwise could have succeeded, it would be restricted. If it were to be stopped by a miracle, it would have been eliminated because then it’s not really a choice at all. He has been put in jail without committing any offense at all, we all have been. Now, if blatantly miraculous rape preventions are rare, then might still be able to respect his free will, but not if they are a standard practice.

Was the victim’s freedom eliminated by being taken by the rapist? I say it was eliminated. To say that she could just lay back and enjoy the inevitable is not a true choice.

If she were an enlightened Buddhist, she would be able to do that just fine, but yes, it’s fair to say that he free will has been compromised. But again, it could have been different.

(Con’t below)

 

[BlaineTog]

(Con’t from above)

That is usually called “argumentum ad ignoratiam”. I am sorry, but I must reject it completely unsatisfactory and fallacious.

It would be fallacious, except we’re talking about a logical system, and in the context of the theological system of Christianity, what I described is part of the answer as well. Specifically, conscience, which undoubtedly prevents rapes. Well, I suppose if you’re so pessimistic about humans that you think we’d commit rape every single time we thought we could get away with it it isn’t undoubtable, but I think that that’s a drastically unfair assessment of humanity.

And that last sentence of mine you quoted isn’t fallacious by any means. You made a positive statement which isn’t necessarily true. “God doesn’t make it literally impossible for rapists to carry out rape, therefore he doesn’t do anything at all to prevent rape” is not a deductive certainty.

 

[mlchance]

And that last sentence of mine you quoted isn’t fallacious by any means. You made a positive statement which isn’t necessarily true. “God doesn’t make it literally impossible for rapists to carry out rape, therefore he doesn’t do anything at all to prevent rape” is not a deductive certainty.

But that’s ultimately all the atheist has to prop up his continuing refusal to evaluate Christianity on its own terms rather than arbitrary and impossible standards of evidence not demanded in any other part of life. It’s all part of the “there’s no proof” game, the first rule of which requires that all proof be denied at all costs in order to make the game appear worth playing.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ateista]

But that’s ultimately all the atheist has to prop up his continuing refusal to evaluate Christianity on its own terms rather than arbitrary and impossible standards of evidence not demanded in any other part of life. It’s all part of the “there’s no proof” game, the first rule of which requires that all proof be denied at all costs in order to make the game appear worth playing.

I am willing to contemplate your evidence. Show me a case where God prevented a rape, and I will consider it. It should be a little more than pointing to an aborted rape attempt due to the random arrival of the police - and say: “maybe God interfered in this case”.

Is it “arbitrary and impossible” standard of evidence to demand more than “maybe God does interfere, we just don’t know it”? In all the other parts of life - contrary to what you said - we demand more, much more. Contrary to what you said, you want a **much lower level of evidence **in defending God. You are satisfied with a “maybe”.

A lawyer would be laughed out of court if he tried a defense of “maybe the accused had a good reason to do what he did, we just don’t know it”. Here is something to ponder. The Jews - after the holocaust - set up a trial, and actually convicted God (in absentia) for breaking his covenant with them. Now that took courage. (Well, maybe not… after all God does not interfere.)

Show me where I denied all “proofs”. If you consider “maybe God interferes, but we don’t know it” - a proof, then we really have so divergent concepts of “evidence” and “proof”, that a meaningful dialog is impossible.

 

[ateista]

If God were to act as you want him to act, it would be a total systems change. It’s not “The world, minus rape,” but “The world, minus pain,” and thus “The world, minus choice.” You would turn us into mindless robots.

When I see such wild assertions I truly despair. How can you say that the absence of rapes, genocides, famines, tsunamis and diseases would lobotomize the whole human race, and turn us into mindless robots?

How can you say that the “world minus pain” equals to a “world minus chocies”? Life would offer many challenges, but we would have more time to devote to creating new music, contemplate life’s many mysteries. We would have more time and energy to improve the quality of our life. Someone who is near starving cannot concentrate on God. He is concerned with the problem of where his next meal will come from.

 

[davidv]

How can you say that the “world minus pain” equals to a “world minus chocies”?

Because if there is truely choice, then someone, somewhere, will choose to do something that causes pain.

 

[ateista]

Because if there is truely choice, then someone, somewhere, will choose to do something that causes pain.

How do you know that?

This leads back nicely to the question in the OP. In a world comprised of only good, decent people (there are quite a few of them) no one would choose to cause pain, gratituous pain. But they still would have choices, many of them.

The word “choice” does not mean that the only two options are to “love” or to “murder”. To say that these are the only valid options is oversimplfication.

 

[davidv]

How do you know that?

It is my logical conclusion based on my experience and my understanding of the recorded history of the human race.

This leads back nicely to the question in the OP. In a world comprised of only good, decent people (there are quite a few of them) no one would choose to cause pain, gratituous pain. But they still would have choices, many of them.

The word “choice” does not mean that the only two options are to “love” or to “murder”. To say that these are the only valid options is oversimplfication.

Where in my answer is the assumption that there only two choices? But the big problem is that the world you postulate is only a dream world - one for which we have no real basis to determine how it would exist. It is my opinion that any attempt to speculate on it for more than pure entertainment, detracts severely from our being able to live more fulfilling lives. As we live in this world, not that one and we are not likely to be able to create “that” one.

 

[ateista]

It is my logical conclusion based on my experience and my understanding of the recorded history of the human race.

Yes, your logic is impeccable - based on the history of the human race.

But I postulated that people are not necessaily “evil”, there are examples of genuinely good people. And I am sure you don’t deny that.

I just brought it to the logical conclusion, that a world comprised of only such people is possible, and in that world no one would case pain intentionally. Not because they are physically unable to do so, but because they do not want to do it.

Where in my answer is the assumption that there only two choices?

You said: “If there is truly a choice…” which indicated to me that you do not consider a “true” choice of doing something good, and doing something better. Like giving some hungry person a piece of bread or treating him for a nice round meal. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.

But the big problem is that the world you postulate is only a dream world - one for which we have no real basis to determine how it would exist.

It is a “dream” world, or a utopia. Do you see a logical reason for the idea that it cannot exist?

It is my opinion that any attempt to speculate on it for more than pure entertainment, detracts severely from our being able to live more fulfilling lives. As we live in this world, not that one and we are not likely to be able to create “that” one.

How true. Exactly like philosophy in general. It is a totally improductive activity, which creates no new houses, produces no food, it is merely a mental “masturbation”, which detracts us from doing a more productive life. No question about it. Why are we (you and I) doing it? Because of its entertainment value. As the Bible said: “One does not live by bread alone”… if my memory serves me well.

 

[Hastrman]

But I postulated that people are not necessaily “evil”, there are examples of genuinely good people. And I am sure you don’t deny that.

I just brought it to the logical conclusion, that a world comprised of only such people is possible, and in that world no one would case pain intentionally. Not because they are physically unable to do so, but because they do not want to do it.

I deny that there have been any genuinely good people, categorically, as far as your interpretation of “goodness” goes. Not killing? Squeamishness.
Feeding the hungry? To make themselves feel better.
And so on.

There are no wholly “good” people.

How true. Exactly like philosophy in general. It is a totally improductive activity, which creates no new houses, produces no food, it is merely a mental “masturbation”, which detracts us from doing a more productive life. No question about it. Why are we (you and I) doing it? Because of its entertainment value. As the Bible said: “One does not live by bread alone”… if my memory serves me well.

Why should I create new houses? Why should I produce more food? What is the good of a more productive life? What do I care if you or I or anybody lives or dies? Is matter real? Is anything else? When you say productive, what do you mean? Is a serial killer doing a more productive life than a brick layer? How do you know?

If you want to answer any such question, you need philosophy. Or a gun–“because I said so” being the only non-philosophical answer.

 

[ateista]

I deny that there have been any genuinely good people, categorically, as far as your interpretation of “goodness” goes. Not killing? Squeamishness.
Feeding the hungry? To make themselves feel better.
And so on.

There are no wholly “good” people.

If that is your view, who am I to argue with you?

Why should I create new houses? Why should I produce more food? What is the good of a more productive life? What do I care if you or I or anybody lives or dies? Is matter real? Is anything else? When you say productive, what do you mean? Is a serial killer doing a more productive life than a brick layer? How do you know?

If you want to answer any such question, you need philosophy. Or a gun–“because I said so” being the only non-philosophical answer.

My friend, the answer I gave to David was semi-sarcasitc. Which I hoped to emphasise by the quotation from the Bible.