Who is the Most Evil

[Gizmo Hibiki]

M.Bison from Street Fighter and Laocorn from the Fatal Fury Motion Picture.

[Guest LegendX]

Malus Darkblade is a pretty evil dude.

[Guest Ruinus]

That makes them not evil at all...

 

That is some absurdly ridiculous thinking.

 

Also, I'll agree with Nilan on nominating God to the list. But so that I'm also contributing to this thread, what about humans and the Forerunners and the Precursors from Halo? From what I hear of the new book that came out, they all did some things that doomed the galaxy.

 

Oh, the Photino Birds from the Xeelee series. Their modification of the universe to fit their form of life will probably end up killing everyone else.

[Twogunkid]

Again. Just because we don't know the answer to something, that doesn't mean all theories about it are equally valid. Saying the universe is too complex and that some inexplicable force has to be behind it is one thing. Stretching that argument to then claim that this force monitors you, is omnipresent, punishes the wicked, rewards the good etc is completely different. That is what religion does, it takes a premise that is valid at it's foundation and makes it something silly. There is NOTHING mankind knows of to even remotely demonstrate that a force powerful enough to create the universe would care about our day to day activities. Fact, not faith.

 

As for this (commonly used) "First Cause" argument, why is it that God is immune to this law but the universe is not?

 

 

 

Mass murder is mass murder, what on earth is your point here? That the mass extermination of villages and cities is not a big deal because bigger things have happened later down the line?

 

 

 

What "sin" were they guilty of? Adultery, Idolatory, Sodomy etc. If you think people deserve to be murdered for being gay or following polytheism, maybe somebody should add your name to this "Who is the Most Evil" list.

 

And for the third time in a row, I am STILL waiting for you to name someone who is more evil than God and who has been responsible for the death of more innocents.

But my point was not that because we do not know the answer God exsists my point is because we cannot ever know the answer as there will always need to be something to set it in motion. I may not prove a Christian God, but it does support a creator. Second if we suppose that we are more than mere animals, and are capable of morality. Which most people would hold that we are and there is morality. Something set what is good and evil.

2nd my mass murder point was even if you do not believe any of my other points it proves God is not the most evil.

Finally the majority of the cannanite villages did practice a sacraficial forms of religion often making a sacrafice to their respective Gods of the harvest. And consider the source of all scripture. Many times people use religion as justification for things. Perhaps the ancient Jews attempted to write away their sin.

[Twogunkid]

No. There are several forms of irreligion, it isn't as simple as "religious" and "atheist", those black-and-white categories are for people who have not given enough thought to the subject.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion

So youre an agnostic? Just for the purposes of my understanding. (Being broad)

[Guest LegendX]

Guys, please drop the religious debate. There are already like three threads for it and this isn't one of them. Seriously. Please. Stop.

[Guest Ruinus]

Oh, what about the Dark Eldar from Warhammer 40,000? They are the dudes who go around violating and killing things for fun.

[Guest force_echo]

That is some absurdly ridiculous thinking.

Not really, evil is a point of view, so if they think that what they're doing is good, then from a point of view, they're not evil.

[Guest force_echo]

You know I'd like to throw the Comedian out for consideration.

Watchmen ftw. The thing about their characters is that they are complex, and that is what makes them great. The Comedian was the only one who looked past the uselessness and the ridiculousness of the traditional hero, he saw how the world really was, not bad guys or good guys, he was only human. Plus he served his country, actually became an icon for America, one could argue that that makes him good. One could argue that that makes him evil. One could argue that that makes him a representation of the fallability of a nation, or specifically the US, or even just the Vietnam war. I mean, he did try and *insensitivity* two women, I'm not saying thats not an evil thing to do, I'm just reinforcing my opinion, that evil is most of the time, a point of view and can be debated either way.

 

You're irreligous? I am too. I believe there is a God, but its more of a "don't know, don't care" thing.

[Guest Nilan]

But my point was not that because we do not know the answer God exsists my point is because we cannot ever know the answer as there will always need to be something to set it in motion. I may not prove a Christian God, but it does support a creator. Second if we suppose that we are more than mere animals, and are capable of morality. Which most people would hold that we are and there is morality. Something set what is good and evil.

 

Dude, there are plenty of things that could exist, the point is whether or not it can demonstrated that something does exist. There is only as much justification for believing in a personal God as there is for believing in Santa Clause and unicorns. God would thus have to fall (until further facts are uncovered) under the fiction category.

 

2nd my mass murder point was even if you do not believe any of my other points it proves God is not the most evil.

 

Was God against all the subsequent genocides that took place? Why did He not prevent them if he was benevolent? He is more responsible for orchestrating those massacres than any mere mortals who participated in it. It is after all, part of His plan.

 

Finally the majority of the cannanite villages did practice a sacraficial forms of religion often making a sacrafice to their respective Gods of the harvest. And consider the source of all scripture. Many times people use religion as justification for things. Perhaps the ancient Jews attempted to write away their sin.

 

You are still dodging the point with "maybe" this and "maybe" that. The fact is that your scripture clearly depicts God as sluaghtering entire villages for things as simple as idolatory, sodomy, adultery etc. You can duck the issues by saying "maybe they did something worse" or "maybe some hidden reason was there", but the simple truth is that God as portrayed in the Old Testament would clearly fall into today's "Mass Murderer" category.

 

P.S: I'm a Deist, not an atheist/agnostic.

[Guest Blue Beetle (Jamie Reyes)]

Watchmen ftw. The thing about their characters is that they are complex, and that is what makes them great. The Comedian was the only one who looked past the uselessness and the ridiculousness of the traditional hero, he saw how the world really was, not bad guys or good guys, he was only human. Plus he served his country, actually became an icon for America, one could argue that that makes him good. One could argue that that makes him evil. One could argue that that makes him a representation of the fallability of a nation, or specifically the US, or even just the Vietnam war. I mean, he did try and *insensitivity* two women, I'm not saying thats not an evil thing to do, I'm just reinforcing my opinion, that evil is most of the time, a point of view and can be debated either way.

 

"When you realize how much of a joke everything is, being the Comedian is the only thing that makes sense."

 

Watchmen is a masterpiece.

[Guest Nilan]

Guys, please drop the religious debate. There are already like three threads for it and this isn't one of them. Seriously. Please. Stop.

 

Oops? Fine, I'll stop. The debate was still on-topic though...

[Guest Ruinus]

Not really, evil is a point of view, so if they think that what they're doing is good, then from a point of view, they're not evil.

 

The only point of view that doesn't make them evil is their own, which is exactly what Skirmisher said.

 

What you originaly said:

That makes them not evil at all...

 

That is absurd. Example: A man thinks he is doing good by killing a man, on the grounds that the man has some terrible disease that can be trasnmitted, in this case, STDs. So he goes out and kills the person.

 

From his point of view he did a good act, however, objectively, he did an evil act, as he terminated the life of another person based on nothing more than flimsy reasoning and subjective data. Malum in se and all that.

[Guest force_echo]

The only point of view that doesn't make them evil is their own, which is exactly what Skirmisher said.

 

What you originaly said:

That makes them not evil at all...

 

That is absurd. Example: A man thinks he is doing good by killing a man, on the grounds that the man has some terrible disease that can be trasnmitted, in this case, STDs. So he goes out and kills the person.

 

From his point of view he did a good act, however, objectively, he did an evil act, as he terminated the life of another person based on nothing more than flimsy reasoning and subjective data. Malum in se and all that.

From your point of view, from others point of view he might have done a good thing, you don't know if he was the only person who felt that way.

 

Yes, Watchmen is a masterpeice.

 

PS. People are still deist? I thought that died in the enlightenment era.

 

PSS. No offense... Just wondering....

[Guest Ruinus]

From your point of view, from others point of view he might have done a good thing, you don't know if he was the only person who felt that way.

 

It doesn't matter, those people are also wrong. That they feel it was ok for a man with STD to be killed doesn't actually make it correct. Sure, sometimes evil is subjective and sometimes it is objective, but the idea that someone can't do evil simply because they think themselves good is absurd.

[Guest force_echo]

It doesn't matter, those people are also wrong. That they feel it was ok for a man with STD to be killed doesn't actually make it correct. Sure, sometimes evil is subjective and sometimes it is objective, but the idea that someone can't do evil simply because they think themselves good is absurd.

You can't just say someone is wrong, you're not God, its your opinion, to think otherwise is sanctimonius.

[Guest thetrekker]

*Listens to religious argument before standing up.

 

SHUT UP EVERYBODY!!!! You have threads for this, take them there, not here. Please? Besides, everyone knows who is the most truly evil of them all, Rafael Bombelli.

[Twogunkid]

Look at Ender's Game. I think that does take the question of intent for morality. I come to the conclusion that intent does matter. I am not saying it excuses evil. But it is less evil for like someone raised by radical Islamicists to hate Christians and learns that his whole life and goes and blows up a church is of less moral blame then if I who knows murder is wrong go and blow up a Mosque. Its still wrong, but it is more misguided wrong than evil.

[Guest Nilan]

*Listens to religious argument before standing up.

 

SHUT UP EVERYBODY!!!! You have threads for this, take them there, not here.

 

Boo Hoo?

[Guest Ruinus]

You can't just say someone is wrong, you're not God, its your opinion, to think otherwise is sanctimonius.

 

Nonsense. Somethings are objectively evil and don't require a point of view. *insensitivity*, slavery, murder, etc. Those things do not have a "point of view" to them (except in very exceptional conditions such as self defense in murder).

 

BTW your original statement is still wrong.

 

EDIT: I'm not sure how I'm being sanctimonius in that statement.

[Guest sirmethos]

Nonsense. Somethings are objectively evil and don't require a point of view. *insensitivity*, slavery, murder, etc. Those things do not have a "point of view" to them (except in very exceptional conditions such as self defense in murder).

 

bull.

 

'evil' is a purely subjective thing.

 

if you look at history, pretty much all the things we consider 'evil', have at some point been an acceptable part of life.

 

slavery can be an act of mercy.

murder can simply be a day at work, or even a commendable thing.

even *insensitivity* has in some societies been a fully acceptable part of life. i'm fairly sure that the vikings didn't consider themselves evil when they attacked, killed and/or *insensitivity'd* the citizens of various villages and cities. the english noblemen likely didn't consider themselves evil, when they *insensitivity'd* newlywed women in taking their 'Right of first night'.

torture is another thing that is considered evil, but it has, and very well might still be, an acceptable way of extracting information from prisoners.

 

 

to repeat, 'evil' is purely subjective.

[Guest force_echo]

Nonsense. Somethings are objectively evil and don't require a point of view. *insensitivity*, slavery, murder, etc. Those things do not have a "point of view" to them (except in very exceptional conditions such as self defense in murder).

 

BTW your original statement is still wrong.

 

EDIT: I'm not sure how I'm being sanctimonius in that statement.

No, my original statement is still right. And like I said, unless you're God, you can't really prove otherwise.

 

There are many cases where those things have gray areas. Soldiers murder, just because your country tells you to do something dosen't mean its intrinsically right or wrong, so depending who you are, its a matter of opinion. There are some cases, like murdering for fun, and basically all *insensitivity*, where yes, there is only one viewpoint to it, but unless the man is insane, a man who does something "evil" for a reason he thinks is good, is simply exhibiting another viewpoint.

 

Ex: *uncreative*, many people say he is evil, mainly because of the horrors of the holocaust. But he singlehandedly restored the pride and respect of his homeland, and brought it out of a deppression so bad that people were actually using German currency to keep warm by burning it. He helped an entire nation, and took abck what many people thought was wrongly taken from Germany.

[Guest Ruinus]

bull.

 

'evil' is a purely subjective thing.

 

if you look at history, pretty much all the things we consider 'evil', have at some point been an acceptable part of life.

 

slavery can be an act of mercy.

 

Explain when.

 

murder can simply be a day at work, or even a commendable thing.

 

Which is why I said sometimes it's acceptable in very exceptional cases. You are, I'm assuming, refering to the work of soldiers and armies, and maybe even police officers who have to kill in defense of others. Of course, you could say that this is "acceptable", but it's not "good".

 

even *insensitivity* has in some societies been a fully acceptable part of life. i'm fairly sure that the vikings didn't consider themselves evil when they attacked, killed and/or *insensitivity'd* the citizens of various villages and cities. the english noblemen likely didn't consider themselves evil, when they *insensitivity'd* newlywed women in taking their 'Right of first night'.

 

So? I don't quite care if those people didn't think it wrong, forcing someone into sexual activities is never acceptable. The fact that some societies think nothing of it just shows how ignorant those societies are, not that *insensitivity* itself isn't a bad thing.

 

torture is another thing that is considered evil, but it has, and very well might still be, an acceptable way of extracting information from prisoners.

 

 

to repeat, 'evil' is purely subjective.

 

There's a difference between acceptable and good. Simply because something is acceptable does not make it good or makes it incapable of being evil. BTW, torture doesn't work:

 

There is a strong utilitarian argument against torture; namely, that there is simply no scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness.^[91]

[Guest Ruinus]

No, my original statement is still right. And like I said, unless you're God, you can't really prove otherwise.

 

Except morality doesn't come from deities. You can easily construct morality systems that don't require whatever god you believe in, so please, don't assume someone needs to be your religious idol to have morality or judge morality.

 

There are many cases where those things have gray areas. Soldiers murder, just because your country tells you to do something dosen't mean its intrinsically right or wrong, so depending who you are, its a matter of opinion. There are some cases, like murdering for fun, and basically all *insensitivity*, where yes, there is only one viewpoint to it, but unless the man is insane, a man who does something "evil" for a reason he thinks is good, is simply exhibiting another viewpoint.

 

Yes, soldiers, police officers and the like sometimes kill people. However, they don't go out and kill people just for the hell of it, like you say. And simply because their government tells them to do something doesn't remove good and evil from the equation. A soldier following an order that will kill civilians can't suddenly say "Well, I was following orders, so it's neither!". He can object and refuse to carry that order.

 

Ex: *uncreative*, many people say he is evil, mainly because of the horrors of the holocaust. But he singlehandedly restored the pride and respect of his homeland, and brought it out of a deppression so bad that people were actually using German currency to keep warm by burning it. He helped an entire nation, and took abck what many people thought was wrongly taken from Germany.

 

He also loved his dog, his wife, and was kind and friendly to his servants and some of his generals...

 

And then he also ordered several million people to death and forced people into slavery, forced drafts and conquered their homes. So what if he did some good along the way (in the sense that this "good" came about by terrible and vile means). Also, he helped Germany? Strange, because if it wasn't for him Germany wouldn't have been severely damaged in World War II.

 

Sure, the Depression was shit for the entire world, but the idea that some of *uncreative*'s actions were good because they helped take us out of that is also absurd. I mean, there are ways to solve economic depression that aren't warfare.

[Guest sirmethos]

Explain when.

 

 

 

Which is why I said sometimes it's acceptable in very exceptional cases. You are, I'm assuming, refering to the work of soldiers and armies, and maybe even police officers who have to kill in defense of others. Of course, you could say that this is "acceptable", but it's not "good".

 

 

 

So? I don't quite care if those people didn't think it wrong, forcing someone into sexual activities is never acceptable. The fact that some societies think nothing of it just shows how ignorant those societies are, not that *insensitivity* itself isn't a bad thing.

 

 

 

There's a difference between acceptable and good. Simply because something is acceptable does not make it good or makes it incapable of being evil. BTW, torture doesn't work:

 

There is a strong utilitarian argument against torture; namely, that there is simply no scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness.^[91]

 

i completely agree that there is a Big difference between Acceptable and Good, however, my examples were meant to show that the things we consider 'evil', have not always been considered as such.

 

if they were, as you say, Objectively 'evil', then societies would never have accepted them.

 

and it's not quite true that torture just plain 'does Not work', it is true however, that it is far from a reliable means of extracting information, and that one can be trained to resist it(to a certain point), or to give false or nonsensical information when one eventually breaks.

 

to use the continuation of your own quote "Those favoring torture have however pointed to some specific cases where torture has elicited true information.[93]"