Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Philosoft · 03-14-2003, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Soma
If God's intentions are to slaughter us all, then what's it to you? If God thinks that is the right thing to do, then it is. It's simple as that. There can be no standard to judge God. His is beyond our ability to judge. I can say I find God's actions repugnant, but what I say has no affect on His actual nature.

Then why do we bother worshipping this being? It's going to do whatever it does anyway.

Quote:

God is a sound concept.

"God" isn't really a concept at all. It's an amalgam of attributes with nothing to attach them to.

Quote:

Those who declare God evil fail to understand that it is not evil for God to do what we perceive as evil. He operates on different rules, namely, His own. He has prescribed separate rules for man to follow.

Again, why is this being worthy of worship? We have no idea if he has our best interests in mind.

Soma · 03-14-2003, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft

Then why do we bother worshipping this being? It's going to do whatever it does anyway.
[/b]
"God" isn't really a concept at all. It's an amalgam of attributes with nothing to attach them to.

Again, why is this being worthy of worship? We have no idea if he has our best interests in mind. [/B]

I never said God was to be worshipped. The fundamental message most lofty religions preach is one of being an adherent of religious morals and a seeker of transcendant truth. That does not necessarily mean getting on one's knees and praying to God as if He's some magical man eager to hear what you have to say.

In other words, meditation and living right are better than prayer and mindless adherence to dogma.

Tabula_rasa · 03-14-2003, 01:56 PM

Quote:

God's actions are always just. Because it is He who decides what is good and what is evil for every living thing in existence, His actions cannot be evil unless He Himself sees it as such.

Therefore, God can murder, rape, whatever, and He has done no evil.

Although similar arguments have been given by other christians, it is my belief that such a position is logically inconsistent and is flawed beyond belief. I will give you the benefit of a doubt on your psychological status and will therefore conclude that you are in fact a troll.

*plonk*

Tabula_rasa

Philosoft · 03-14-2003, 01:57 PM

Soma, you certainly have a unique (and refreshing) point-of-view. Arguing the standard Christian doctrine ad nauseam can get stale. Alas, I won't be able to respond at length for perhaps 24 hours.

Until then...

Soma · 03-14-2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tabula_rasa
Although similar arguments have been given by other christians, it is my belief that such a position is logically inconsistent and is flawed beyond belief. I will give you the benefit of a doubt on your psychological status and will therefore conclude that you are in fact a troll.

*plonk*

Tabula_rasa

I will take your ad hominem attack as indicative of you being philosophically inept and incapable of logical reasoning.

Soma · 03-14-2003, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft
Soma, you certainly have a unique (and refreshing) point-of-view. Arguing the standard Christian doctrine ad nauseam can get stale. Alas, I won't be able to respond at length for perhaps 24 hours.

Until then...

It should be noted that I am not a Christian and am most likely arguing with ideas that would offend the typical Christian.

Mageth · 03-14-2003, 02:27 PM

Your implied presumption that moral objectivism can exist without God is fallacious.

Well, I don't see where I implied that. My implication was that any morality based on such a god could not be called "objective."

God may arbitrarily create moral codes, but they are still objective morals because His power is infinite. Remember, He can shape everything as He wishes it to be.

Such moral codes would not be "objective"; they would be arbitrary and subjective. How much bite he has behind his bark has nothing to do with it.

If God wants murder to be good, then so it shall be.

That's arbitrary, and subjective, morality.

As for whether I am describing an inherently amoral God or not, well, if God thinks what He is doing is moral, then He's moral, isn't He?

You need to look up the definition of "amoral." If the only thing guiding god's actions is what he thinks, and he can do anything he wants to do and arbitrarily label it as "moral", then he is, in essence, amoral.

Soma · 03-14-2003, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Well, I don't see where I implied that. My implication was that any morality based on such a god could not be called "objective."

Such moral codes would not be "objective"; they would be arbitrary and subjective. How much bite he has behind his bark has nothing to do with it.

That's arbitrary, and subjective, morality.

You need to look up the definition of "amoral." If the only thing guiding god's actions is what he thinks, and he can do anything he wants to do and arbitrarily label it as "moral", then he is, in essence, amoral. [/B]

The problem with attaching adjectives to God is that they do not necessarily apply to Him. Take, for instance, the claim "God is moral." What does that mean? Contrary to what most of us think it would mean -- that God is moral -- it simply means God is the source of morality. God Himself is not moral. He is, technically, amoral, thus, I will agree with you that God is amoral.

Secondly, God's power does matter. Any moral edicts He declares affect all living things in existence until a time God decides to recind His declarations. His power allows Him to create morals which are objective by nature. That is a power He possesses which no other being does (as far as we know).

From His perspective, morals He declares are arbitrary. From our perspective, they are objective and it would wise for us to adhere to them.

Mageth · 03-14-2003, 02:58 PM

You're not describing a system of morality; you're describing an system of arbitrary rules (not morals) with arbitrary punishment applied for the breaking of the rules. Reminds me of the prison where Cool Hand Luke was forced to repeatedly dig and fill a trench. The Warden who dictates and enforces the rules, with his whip and his aviation-sunglassed thugs, is in no way creating a "moral" environment.

There's no sense, no objectivity, and no morality in such a system. Cool Hand Luke was justified in his rebellion against such an unjust, immoral system.

Soma · 03-14-2003, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
You're not describing a system of morality; you're describing an system of arbitrary rules (not morals) with arbitrary punishment applied for the breaking of the rules. Reminds me of the prison where Cool Hand Luke was forced to repeatedly dig and fill a trench. The Warden who dictates and enforces the rules, with his whip and his aviation-sunglassed thugs, is in no way creating a "moral" environment.

There's no sense, no objectivity, and no morality in such a system. Cool Hand Luke was justified in his rebellion against such an unjust, immoral system.

A fallacious analogy. God literally creates and defines morality, we limited, finite beings cannot.

To say that moral objectivism can exist without God is erroneous; it cannot exist on its own accord. It is only God that can permit the existence of moral absolutes.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-14-2003, 01:57 PM	#44
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	Soma, you certainly have a unique (and refreshing) point-of-view. Arguing the standard Christian doctrine ad nauseam can get stale. Alas, I won't be able to respond at length for perhaps 24 hours. Until then...

03-14-2003, 02:27 PM	#47
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	Your implied presumption that moral objectivism can exist without God is fallacious. Well, I don't see where I implied that. My implication was that any morality based on such a god could not be called "objective." God may arbitrarily create moral codes, but they are still objective morals because His power is infinite. Remember, He can shape everything as He wishes it to be. Such moral codes would not be "objective"; they would be arbitrary and subjective. How much bite he has behind his bark has nothing to do with it. If God wants murder to be good, then so it shall be. That's arbitrary, and subjective, morality. As for whether I am describing an inherently amoral God or not, well, if God thinks what He is doing is moral, then He's moral, isn't He? You need to look up the definition of "amoral." If the only thing guiding god's actions is what he thinks, and he can do anything he wants to do and arbitrarily label it as "moral", then he is, in essence, amoral.

03-14-2003, 02:58 PM	#49
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	You're not describing a system of morality; you're describing an system of arbitrary rules (not morals) with arbitrary punishment applied for the breaking of the rules. Reminds me of the prison where Cool Hand Luke was forced to repeatedly dig and fill a trench. The Warden who dictates and enforces the rules, with his whip and his aviation-sunglassed thugs, is in no way creating a "moral" environment. There's no sense, no objectivity, and no morality in such a system. Cool Hand Luke was justified in his rebellion against such an unjust, immoral system.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.