Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JamesBannon · 07-31-2005, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valmont

The God in whom I have faith would not ask such a thing. If my faith was shown to be misplaced, my God not to exist and another, crueller god asked this of me I would hope that, in such a moment of dreadful epiphany, I would stand by my morals.

But how about you, as an atheist? Suddenly having the proof that you have always asked for, would you acknowledge him and take the gun?

I'd tell Him to get stuffed! I'd say the same thing to anyone who did this, man or God.

His Noodly Appendage · 07-31-2005, 07:27 PM

I too would refuse any such command, regardless of the source. I would not consider the command of any being to have inherent moral weight over a human life (assuming the human wanted to live, etc.)

As for seebs's question - that's the basis behind a hundred moral dilemmas. If the continued existence of one innocent girl-child would cause doom and suffering for a sufficient number of others (to use the classic case) - would you shoot her?

I hope I'd have the strength to do so.

But as mentioned the question posed by the OP actually related to the source of morality, not whether we should or would do what we determine to be moral.

seebs · 07-31-2005, 08:07 PM

My point is, I think the original question, to a certain extent, presupposes that a given moral system can produce an outcome which obviously contradicts normal expectations about it...

arkirk · 07-31-2005, 09:10 PM

I think there is a measure of difference between a God who relishes human violence and a code of some kind that seeks to ameliorate and reduce human violence...and ignorance. The guy who would willingly give god a little show at his request of violence...the guy that would accept a god who made a special "son" he launced to earth so he could suffer and die in his behalf...this guy, if he hears voices too is downright dangerous.

Ancient gods were bloodthirsty creatures indeed. They were little more then than they are today, an attempt to control human behavior through fear. The more we hear about terrorism, the more we hear about Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Religion insinuates itself in these conflicts, always side stepping the issue of its place in them, by saying "some" or "Fundamentalist" or some such thing. No! that's not the meaning of OUR RELIGION! It's just the extreme elements. Yeah, sure!

Ms. Siv · 07-31-2005, 11:33 PM

Nero's Boot, from my limited past experience with debating theists, I can tell you that no theist will answer your question in a straightforward yes or no.

Just wait and watch

FRC · 08-01-2005, 12:41 AM

....and you raise the gun and pull the trigger and........click.

God shakes his head and says, "Man, you are one sick puppy after all."

Ms. Siv · 08-01-2005, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRC

....and you raise the gun and pull the trigger and........click.

God shakes his head and says, "Man, you are one sick puppy after all."

:rolling:
But that contradicts his own axioms of morality ... the religious morality of the 'its right because my god says so' kind ...

Xrikcus · 08-01-2005, 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valmont

But how about you, as an atheist? Suddenly having the proof that you have always asked for, would you acknowledge him and take the gun?

I would assume that an all-powerful God asking that could make me do it. If a God did instruct me to do it, much as it might well be proof there was a God, it would be an admittal that he was not worth worshipping (nothing that worship is very different from belief of course) and hence equally not worth obeying. The only grounds to obey might be those same grounds that make a soldier kill an innocent child when told... could my morals stand the test? Probably not I have to admit, but I'd like to think they could.

Valmont · 08-01-2005, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xrikcus

I would assume that an all-powerful God asking that could make me do it. If a God did instruct me to do it, much as it might well be proof there was a God, it would be an admittal that he was not worth worshipping (nothing that worship is very different from belief of course) and hence equally not worth obeying. The only grounds to obey might be those same grounds that make a soldier kill an innocent child when told... could my morals stand the test? Probably not I have to admit, but I'd like to think they could.

The hypothetical is not dissimilar for the Christian and the atheist. The Christian is forced to confront the situation that God is not as he believed Him to be, the atheist is forced to confront the situation that the unvierse is not as he believed it to be. For both, I suspect, it is more a test of moral courage than moral theory.

And I agree, such a god is not worthy of worship or obedience.

IRON MAN · 08-01-2005, 02:44 AM

God makes the rules and is therefore not subject to them.

To suggest otherwise is to try to project a mortal moral code onto a God. That's like trying to tell your CEO he can't take a 2 hour lunch break because it's not company policy.

If God did allow Abraham to kill Isaac then that's still okay because the body is of no consequence when compared to the immortal soul.

In the bible God has done this exact kind of thing on more than one occasion, and if he exists then he is quite entitled to do it.

Logically, if God makes a rule and says, "thalt shalt not kill/murder/whatever", and you take that as gospel, then by what authority do you say he has no right to personally make an exception to this rule? It's the same guy telling you both things.

If God exists, in the xian sense, then even if you are an atheist you must concede his existence in the above scenario, and therefore the existence of the soul, and it's importance in relation to physical life.

The choice is still yours though, if you want to tell him to go stick it he is supposed to let you, (although he could change his mind about that too).

Who says that killing your friend doesn't have some grand importance in the scheme of things that you are unaware of that makes it moral, even by human standards?

08-01-2005, 02:44 AM	#20
IRON MAN Banned Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Australia Posts: 3,127	Well guys I'm no theist, but as I understand it ... God makes the rules and is therefore not subject to them. To suggest otherwise is to try to project a mortal moral code onto a God. That's like trying to tell your CEO he can't take a 2 hour lunch break because it's not company policy. If God did allow Abraham to kill Isaac then that's still okay because the body is of no consequence when compared to the immortal soul. In the bible God has done this exact kind of thing on more than one occasion, and if he exists then he is quite entitled to do it. Logically, if God makes a rule and says, "thalt shalt not kill/murder/whatever", and you take that as gospel, then by what authority do you say he has no right to personally make an exception to this rule? It's the same guy telling you both things. If God exists, in the xian sense, then even if you are an atheist you must concede his existence in the above scenario, and therefore the existence of the soul, and it's importance in relation to physical life. The choice is still yours though, if you want to tell him to go stick it he is supposed to let you, (although he could change his mind about that too). Who says that killing your friend doesn't have some grand importance in the scheme of things that you are unaware of that makes it moral, even by human standards?

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

07-31-2005, 07:27 PM	#12
His Noodly Appendage Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6,513	I too would refuse any such command, regardless of the source. I would not consider the command of any being to have inherent moral weight over a human life (assuming the human wanted to live, etc.) As for seebs's question - that's the basis behind a hundred moral dilemmas. If the continued existence of one innocent girl-child would cause doom and suffering for a sufficient number of others (to use the classic case) - would you shoot her? I hope I'd have the strength to do so. But as mentioned the question posed by the OP actually related to the source of morality, not whether we should or would do what we determine to be moral.

07-31-2005, 08:07 PM	#13
seebs Contributor Join Date: May 2002 Location: Saint Paul, MN Posts: 24,524	My point is, I think the original question, to a certain extent, presupposes that a given moral system can produce an outcome which obviously contradicts normal expectations about it...

07-31-2005, 09:10 PM	#14
arkirk Veteran Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: North Hollywood, CA 91601 Posts: 7,698	I think there is a measure of difference between a God who relishes human violence and a code of some kind that seeks to ameliorate and reduce human violence...and ignorance. The guy who would willingly give god a little show at his request of violence...the guy that would accept a god who made a special "son" he launced to earth so he could suffer and die in his behalf...this guy, if he hears voices too is downright dangerous. Ancient gods were bloodthirsty creatures indeed. They were little more then than they are today, an attempt to control human behavior through fear. The more we hear about terrorism, the more we hear about Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. Religion insinuates itself in these conflicts, always side stepping the issue of its place in them, by saying "some" or "Fundamentalist" or some such thing. No! that's not the meaning of OUR RELIGION! It's just the extreme elements. Yeah, sure!

07-31-2005, 11:33 PM	#15
Ms. Siv Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: India Posts: 2,340	Nero's Boot, from my limited past experience with debating theists, I can tell you that no theist will answer your question in a straightforward yes or no. Just wait and watch

08-01-2005, 12:41 AM	#16
FRC Junior Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: Abbotsford, BC Canada Posts: 49	....and you raise the gun and pull the trigger and........click. God shakes his head and says, "Man, you are one sick puppy after all."

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.