Gnostic Bishop wrote:Let's take an example if you like. How does evolution explain Saddam Hussein's gassing of the Kurds? Just take this one question if you think I'm complicating things.




I can explain the large picture but you have to understand the small one first.

You are trying to tell the teacher how to teach.

You have the three questions above to answer before the teacher can continue to teach.

I think it must be plain to anyone following this discussion that you simply can't answer my question based on your philosophy.
Waffle away Bishop.

Sure, While you refuse to answer 3 simple questions which show that you either do not understand the issues at hand, or you are just ---------

One would wonder why you keep bringing this issue up when you clearly do not have what it takes to understand it.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote:The last time you competed for a job, you knew someone else would lose the competition. Right?

I knew someone would lose, not someone else.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Do you think the loser thought evil had befallen him?

Not unless I surreptitiously put crack cocaine in his coffee just before his interview.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:You intended for him to lose when you entered the competition. Right?

Sure,I wanted the same job he did. Nothing personal of course.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:You are trying to tell the teacher how to teach.

You have the three questions above to answer before the teacher can continue to teach.

I await your further instructions teacher.

What a competitive world we do live in. Why does everything have to be so? We even have competition for baking on our TV. Cooking and baking is so relaxing.....why do they want to spoil that? I take your point about the job interview......but why should life be seen as such a fight?

Flann 5 wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:The last time you competed for a job, you knew someone else would lose the competition. Right?

I knew someone would lose, not someone else.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:Do you think the loser thought evil had befallen him?

Not unless I surreptitiously put crack cocaine in his coffee just before his interview.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:You intended for him to lose when you entered the competition. Right?

Sure,I wanted the same job he did. Nothing personal of course.

Gnostic Bishop wrote:You are trying to tell the teacher how to teach.

You have the three questions above to answer before the teacher can continue to teach.

I await your further instructions teacher.

2 out of three. Quite good for you.



Gnostic Bishop wrote:
You intended for him to lose when you entered the competition. Right?

Flann
Sure,I wanted the same job he did. Nothing personal of course.

Yes. In most cases there is nothing personal in our competitions.

Do you think the loser thought evil had befallen him?

Regards
DL

Penelope wrote:What a competitive world we do live in. Why does everything have to be so? We even have competition for baking on our TV. Cooking and baking is so relaxing.....why do they want to spoil that? I take your point about the job interview......but why should life be seen as such a fight?

I can appreciate your preference for peace and harmony rather than conflict and strife,Penelope. It's a clash of worldviews and sometimes our egos intrude into the debate beyond the actual questions being debated.
Everyone has a view. Even the view that this is a bit crazy and it's better to have harmony rather than conflict over something,is based on how one sees these things.
So someone else might think it's just not that important and that's based on their beliefs and worldview.
I take your point though that we should try to be respectful at least. That's a challenge at times.

Penelope wrote:What a competitive world we do live in. Why does everything have to be so? We even have competition for baking on our TV. Cooking and baking is so relaxing.....why do they want to spoil that? I take your point about the job interview......but why should life be seen as such a fight?

We are an evolving species and all seek to be the fittest. Nature is what is driving us.

All we can do is try to reduce the harm we do to each other.

In my job example, where there are safety nets, like where Flann lives, the harm is relatively small, but if he lived where there were no safety nets, he might have made the loser starve to death.

He may not recognize that fact and that is why he is so cavalier with the issues at hand. That or he did and did not want to step up to it.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote:In my job example, where there are safety nets, like where Flann lives, the harm is relatively small, but if he lived where there were no safety nets, he might have made the loser starve to death.

We see stark examples of this sometimes where there is a scramble for food aid for famine relief and not enough to go round.

I'm not sure you could say they were doing intentional evil to others in this kind of situation though fights can break out. That would fit competing for survival.
Nothing like intentional premeditated murders though. And you maintained that evolution accounts for intentional evil actions.
My question remains how evolution explains something like Saddam Hussein murdering the Kurds. He wasn't starving and your explanation must cover all cases not just the ones where starving people literally struggle for their lives.
So let's hear your explanation on Saddam,Hitler,and Stalin etc based on evolutionary competition and winners and losers.

Flann 5 wrote:

Gnostic Bishop wrote:In my job example, where there are safety nets, like where Flann lives, the harm is relatively small, but if he lived where there were no safety nets, he might have made the loser starve to death.

We see stark examples of this sometimes where there is a scramble for food aid for famine relief and not enough to go round.

I'm not sure you could say they were doing intentional evil to others in this kind of situation though fights can break out. That would fit competing for survival.
Nothing like intentional premeditated murders though. And you maintained that evolution accounts for intentional evil actions.
My question remains how evolution explains something like Saddam Hussein murdering the Kurds. He wasn't starving and your explanation must cover all cases not just the ones where starving people literally struggle for their lives.
So let's hear your explanation on Saddam,Hitler,and Stalin etc based on evolutionary competition and winners and losers.

I will try to speak to your view but need to know it a bit better so allow me to know nothing of what you speak of.

What was Saddam fighting for or hopping to gain?

What was Hitler trying to gain by murdering Jews and declaring war on the world?

What was Stalin trying to gain by killing so many of his own?

I do not need a long reply. Just give the gain that they all sought and then I can phrase my response properly.

You did not argue against your having to personally do harm to others as you compete so I will take it that you have agreed. If not, say so and show how you could have competed without the loser thinking evil came his way.

Regards
DL

Gnostic Bishop wrote:So let's hear your explanation on Saddam,Hitler,and Stalin etc based on evolutionary competition and winners and losers.




I will try to speak to your view but need to know it a bit better so allow me to know nothing of what you speak of.

What was Saddam fighting for or hopping to gain?

What was Hitler trying to gain by murdering Jews and declaring war on the world?

What was Stalin trying to gain by killing so many of his own?

I do not need a long reply. Just give the gain that they all sought and then I can phrase my response properly.

I asked you to explain how evolutionary competition explains intentional acts of evil and gave you Saddam as an example for you to tell me how this applies.
Now you ask me questions as if you want me to explain it for you. It's for you to explain how it applies,not me.

Let's say I agree with you (which I don't) that the atrocities of these men was caused by evolutionary competition. You
say we owe evolution a huge thanks for being available to us otherwise we would go extinct.

Not only that but you say that this is how things are and should be.

Then you say that we all must do what some (Christians) will think is evil as we create winners and losers to this competition.

Finally you say doing evil is actually forced on us by evolution.

Now you say your whole area of specialty is morality!!
1 We should give evolution a huge thanks for these atrocities.
2 This is how things are and should be.
3 Christians think this is evil but it's just creating winners and losers to this competition and isn't actually evil.
4 Committing these atrocities was actually forced on Saddam and Stalin by evolution.
5 So how then could they be morally responsible if it was forced on them?
Thanks for the lesson on morality, teacher.