Freethought & Rationalism Archive

doodad · 03-09-2003, 05:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
If God (or a being exactly like him) is not the standard of good, then there is no standard becuase there is no such thing as good. There might be pain and pleasure, pleasant and unpleasant experiences, but to assert that one or the other is inherently superior to the other is unsupportable.

We are left with mere preference. The question is, are you really satisfied with that?

Ancient cultures, such as the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans, had concepts of morality long before Judaism or Christianity showed up. It appears that much of Judaic concepts of morality were borrowed from earlier faiths, and since Christianity is little more than Judaism with a new plan of salvation, which isn't really all that unique compared with that of Judaism, I don't see Chrisitianity having any monopoly on moral standards either.

You take what you prefer, but I'll opt for the pleasure. What are you, some kind of a masocist?

doodad · 03-09-2003, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fiach
But as your introduction suggested we need to define God, and since God is hypothetical, different definitions can be proposed. What is God? Is God the creator of the Universe? Perhaps that should be the starting point before considering the human god who snoops into and intervenes in trivial human behaviour.

I will post a followup in this theme. I have posted it before.

Fiach

God is not in our face as much as you may have been led to believe, and I think the antics of Pres. Bush may have contributed to your opinion. Hopefull he's a one term president, and I voted for the idiot for lack of a better alternative.

I think the genocide and the killing of dissenters and innocents in the OT portrays not the work of a God, but extreme zealotry or nationalism on the part of the ancient Jews. Like so many self-centered groups, they sugar coat their behavior with divine principles in order to justify their acts. I've been studying the OT recently, and those jerks cannot even get along amongst themselves, let alone get along with others.

Sad to say, our administration seems to be infected with the same attitude. "If you aren't with us you are against us." I hope there's enough people left in America to see him for what he is and will turn him out the next time around. If you've ever lived around a radical southern believer you would see where Busky is coming from. He's on an ego trip and it will hopefull end someday. I do think that some of what he wants to do is in the interest of freedom and peace in the long run but I wish he'd leave religion out of it.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 03-10-2003, 09:58 AM

Silent Dave,

Quote:

Originally posted by Silent Dave

...I will state my question for the third and final time, and should you fail to answer it for the third time I will let that failure speak for itself...

Dave

This is the best part...

And what exactly will this failure say?

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 03-10-2003, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
No, I am waiting for anyone to demonstrate the existence of any god.

Vorkosigan

Why?

If God exists then relationship with Him is personal and thus a subjective experience.

Trying to get people to prove Him to you kinda misses the point.

You can't judge a poem with a sliderule.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 03-10-2003, 11:28 AM

HRG,

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG
And if God X exists, then there just exists one additional entity who may have a personal preference, thus one additional moral system.

Hmm...this is dubious. This sounds much like 'Oh...if the president existed that would just mean there is one more person with an opinion'.

In truth...its only the kings opinion that counts.

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG

Who defined good and evil as inexorably linked to a specific entity ? Certainly not me.

Correct. This is the position of the theist. From the theistic view point 'good' and 'evil' only have meaning in the context of and objective moral standard...God. Additionally, they don't have any real meaning in absence of said objective moral standard.

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG

This is not a tautology. All you can say is that "if God exists, his opinions about morality are an additional standard - additional to all the standards which we have come up with (Golden Rule, Categorical imperative".

This was addressed above...it smacks of 'If the king exists...his opinion is just an additional one.' The tautalogy is really...
IF God exists (and God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (Holy)) THEN God is the moral standard.

You can do a check on this if you wish. If an omnibenevolent entity exists...whose word are you going to take on what is good and evil? Yours? Don't think so.

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG

That they are measured in terms of your God may be your personal definition of good and evil. It is not the common one, and it is certainly not mine.

Correct. This is the viewpoint of the theist.

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG

No. The definition of genocide is unconcerned with the identity of the actor, or whether he is natural or supernatural.

I think you missed the intent. Genocide stems from evil intent. IF God exist and is Holy He can't commit genocide. This does not mean however, that He can't judge the wicked.

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG

Attention: redefinition of "evil intent" to "that what God cannot have".
Someone who orders genocide has an evil intention by the common definition of evil.

Attention: redefinition of "Holy" to "can do evil". See the problem here? IF God exists and He is Holy...he can't do evil. IF God exists and he does evil He can't be Holy...and therefore not God.
This is why God's Holiness is tautological.

Also quick note...you've got some circular reasoning there.
Evil intention => genocide (your statement)
Genocide => evil intention (definition)

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG

This has nothing to do with alleged holiness, but with brute force. You may equally claim that Stalin "judged" his adversaries to execution or the Gulag.

Not really.

Stalin had neither...
-the standard by which to judge (Holiness)
-the knowledge by which to judge (omniscience)
-the intent for justice
-the authority to judge

God has all these.

Quote:

Originally posted by HRG

The Amalekite children did not wage war, nor did the Egyptian firstborns.

Amalekites: I see...you would rather destroy the people and leave the children to waste in the desert and die of hunger?

Egyptians: You forgot a minor detail HRG...
God leveled this plague upon the land of Egypt...not the people. Jews, gentiles, Egyptians even livestock were all subject.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

theophilus · 03-10-2003, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Silent Dave
If the alternative is to risk being immoral by not following God's command to commit genocide, absolutely. But in fact, there are many different accounts of secular objective morality, none of which you have shown to be problematic.

Dave

Please name the systems and explian how they are "objective."

Better yet, please explain why, on a non-theistic basis, genocide is immoral.

theophilus · 03-10-2003, 12:49 PM

Most of the responses indicate that readers have not paid attention to my post.

They also demonstrate a failure to take into account the disctinction between creator and creature. God created with a purpose and his actions are consistent with that purpose and with his character.

All men are under his judgement since "all have sinned and fall short," so there are no "innocents." Whether God chooses to execute his judgement immediately or postpone it is his decision.

theophilus · 03-10-2003, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
No, I am waiting for anyone to demonstrate the existence of any god. So far, in 5-10,000 years of theistic mummery, this has not been one. Since this has not been demonstrated, ipso facto, we have morals without god.

That's a very astute observation. However, the existence of morals cannot be explained on a purely materialistic basis. The fact that all peoples in all places have a "sense" of right and wrong (though they may differ in details) is in fact an argument in favor of God and the fact that all men know this God even though they deny him.

Of course, if you want the long explanation, you'll have to start reading in evolutionary psychology, etc.

Vorkosigan

If you think morality can be explained on the basis of adaptive or survival techniques, then you don't understand the transcendental nature of morality.
People do not believe murder is wrong for any utilitarian reasons, they believe it is wrong because the image of God which survives in them witnesses that it is wrong.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas · 03-10-2003, 01:13 PM

theophilus

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Most of the responses indicate that readers have not paid attention to my post.

They also demonstrate a failure to take into account the disctinction between creator and creature. God created with a purpose and his actions are consistent with that purpose and with his character.

All men are under his judgement since "all have sinned and fall short," so there are no "innocents." Whether God chooses to execute his judgement immediately or postpone it is his decision.

I would second this. God need not procure special permission from His creation before leveling His judgement.

The we live at all is testament to His mercy.

That He would send His Son into this world to save us is testament to His grace.

Satan Oscillate My Metallic Sonatas

Philosoft · 03-10-2003, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
If you think morality can be explained on the basis of adaptive or survival techniques, then you don't understand the transcendental nature of morality.

This doesn't make any sense. How can we understand something that transcends understanding?

Quote:

People do not believe murder is wrong for any utilitarian reasons, they believe it is wrong because the image of God which survives in them witnesses that it is wrong.

Again, do you have any way to determine this other than parroting what the Bible says?

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

03-10-2003, 12:49 PM	#47
theophilus Banned Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Southern California Posts: 2,945	Most of the responses indicate that readers have not paid attention to my post. They also demonstrate a failure to take into account the disctinction between creator and creature. God created with a purpose and his actions are consistent with that purpose and with his character. All men are under his judgement since "all have sinned and fall short," so there are no "innocents." Whether God chooses to execute his judgement immediately or postpone it is his decision.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.