Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Photocrat · 05-05-2002, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL:
But it doesn't help someone who doesn't believe that God exists, that you don't think God will forget them.

You at least are writing to rw and telling him you care and you haven't forgotten. But God's not going to post on this thread is He? (Just wait, someone probably will post with the username of God, now, but I'll be skeptical

I think that God has other ways to communicate which do not require the use of this message board.

Quote:

Seriously, Photocrat, I mean, you can say God talks to us through humans but what would make an atheist believe that when a person talks to him/her that is really a message from God, or God sent them to say that? Why would an atheist believe that?

I am not claiming divine inspiration, if that's what you're asking. I said "if my feelings are any indication" after all & it's quite true that an atheist would reason that my feelings are not an indication of anything.

Quote:

I think you have to give convincing answers to these questions if you expect rw to believe you...that's my opinion anyway...

The sections quoted here were not my answers to anything :]

Quote:

> You are worth it to me, John

I believe that and I'm sure he appreciates it but I don't know how you're going to get from there - for him - to "God exists and cares about you".

(But, go ahead, surprise me... )

love
Helen

This part was not intended as an arguement for or from anything. Were it intended as such, it would be dismissed as ad misercordiam. But few complain that it's not logical for someone who cares about someone else to express that, right?

Photocrat · 05-05-2002, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by rainbow walking:
PH: Who says He makes no effort? Have you forgotten, too, that old notion of God working *through* Christians? It's not as though a hand reaching out of the sky is the best/right/only way to help people. Helping others via timely intervention by followers can be twice as effective; helping both the Christian who gets to make a difference in someone's life, as well as the obvious help to the person being helped... :]

Rw: Then christians are to blame for mine and others' deconversion?
------>

I believe you have already claimed responsibility for this instance, at least. For the others, I do not know. In fact, it may be that [those who were supposed to be] Christians *were* in fact responsible. I seem to recall several atheists having said something like that... Christians aren't perfect, even if Christ is...

In the mean time, though, you have me [& several others] here trying to convince you to come back. Though I suppose it's not just because you're an atheist deconvert [there are plenty of others here; not that I haven't remonstrated with them, too], but because you're my friend.

Photocrat · 05-05-2002, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Slex:
Photocrat,
Let me tell you what is wrong with your reasoning from my point of view. Human beings are different from God - they don't posses his qualities. Having children is the result not only because they want to love them. It is also for egoistic reasons that people have children. People are mortal. But they want to live forever or at least the longer the better. People think that part of themselves continue to live in their descendants - both in flesh and in mind. That is why they are willing to compromise and bear children even if they know that these children will endure some suffering, although they don't know how much will be that suffering, but they hope it won't be much.

It's okay to suffer, so long as we hope it will not be much? We essentially *know* that our children *will* suffer, albeit not how much, we make the choice for more selfish reasons and we're more moral? Huh?

Quote:

And here comes the difference between God and humans. God is, by definition, immortal. Unlike people, he doesn't need offspring to prolong his life.

So? Do we need to prolong our life? That purpose is futile. Whether the universe collapses or expands, there will be a point beyond which human life cannot survive...

Quote:

He is also omniscient and knows exactly how much suffering everyone will go through and whether he/she will reject him and live a sinful or righteous life. And humans don't.

I can estimate it, however. Moreover, if they have children, it only continues in perpetuity and compounds the responsibility it would seem?

Quote:

It is a hypothetical assumption, but I think that if people knew that their future child will be born with an illness, or that their child will become a rapist or a serial killer, they just wouldn't create him.

You already know the odds. Would you abort your child because they might have to suffer from the measels? How much suffering would you decide to be "too much"? Now you can play God in that scenario & I can reuse your own arguements. Go for it...

Quote:

The truth is that they can only guess what kind of life will have their children and they hope that these children will live a better life than themselves and will be better persons, too.

Hope. So you have nothing more substantial against which to weigh the future suffering you, realisitically, are forcing upon them?

Quote:

Parents often see in their children the possibility for a second chance, they think that through their children they can make up for their old mistakes, the mistakes they didn't have the time and ability to correct. They hand down their knowledge for life to the next genereations, telling them: "I failed here and here, so don't do like me in these cases and you'll be successful". People think that their own suffering and wrong decisions can serve as an example for their children how not to act and that this will result into better life for these children.

And theists cannot learn from their mistakes?

Quote:

And when I said that it is a hypothetical assumption that if people know their children will have lots of trouble and suffering in their life they wouldn't create them I wasn't right. It is not hypothetical at all. Here we are undergoing an economic crisis - the average month salary is around $90. Some young people here don't want to have children, because they don't want them to live in misery. Now, I think that when they know that the probability that their offspring will have a difficult, poverty-stricken life, people do exactly that - they don't make children.

But they'll always suffer, if they live long enough to... even in "good" times... If you're saying that we can 'outweigh' that with the hope of future good; why can't God do that as well? Especially if hell is 'just' eternal spiritual separation from God?

HelenM · 05-06-2002, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Photocrat:
I think that God has other ways to communicate which do not require the use of this message board.

I'm sure that other Christians nod their head when you explain these, but do you think an atheist would be the least bit convinced that what you think is communication from God, really is?

I am not claiming divine inspiration, if that's what you're asking. I said "if my feelings are any indication" after all & it's quite true that an atheist would reason that my feelings are not an indication of anything.

It's not claiming divine inspiration to believe that God sent you to show His love to rw.

Still, you could probably make a case on Biblical ground that God might actually give you a specific message for rw. Lots of people believe He does do that...although I think it's a dangerous belief, myself: that some people have the very words of God and God tells them stuff to tell/about other people. I'd rather not think God operates that way...it gives other people too much control over me, if God is going to tell them secret stuff about me

Helen: I think you have to give convincing answers to these questions if you expect rw to believe you...that's my opinion anyway...

The sections quoted here were not my answers to anything :]

If you read what I wrote you will see I did not mention any answers you had given so far. I was talking about hypothetical future answers. How could you have given them already to questions I was raising in a post you hadn't read yet? (Except by divine revelation/inspiration, I suppose

)

Helen:
quote:
> You are worth it to me, John

I believe that and I'm sure he appreciates it but I don't know how you're going to get from there - for him - to "God exists and cares about you".

(But, go ahead, surprise me... )

This part was not intended as an arguement for or from anything.

I didn't say it was!

Were it intended as such, it would be dismissed as ad misercordiam. But few complain that it's not logical for someone who cares about someone else to express that, right?

Did I complain about that?

I thought it was very kind of you to say you cared.

All I was trying to do is point out that (in my opinion) "I care" is unlikely to have much effect on rws deconversion.

Unless you think he deconverted solely because he thinks no-one cares. Which I doubt. But then - as a Christian, it's understandable that you would try to find a reason for his deconversion that leaves your faith intact and doesn't imply that he's closer to the truth than you.

The general lines of rationalizing I have seen are:

1) He was never a Christian in the first place (so God didn't have a good hold of him I suppose...whatever...because "No-one can snatch you out of My Hand" - what do you do with that verse otherwise?
2) He left for emotional reasons i.e. Christianity is true but some emotional issue has got in the way of him seeing that for now.
3) There's some sin he wants to engage in so he's persuaded himself Christianity is not true, so he can go do that.

No 4), which is "it really isn't true" is not an option for believers, obviously...

This is a general comment, not directed specifically at you, Photocrat - the way Christians appeal to ex-Christians rather disrespectfully minimizes the amount of thought that seems to go into most deconversions, as best I can tell. Or most that one might encounter here. Even in the case where a deconversion was somewhat triggered by some emotional thing, that generally is not the whole story. Most people wouldn't just abandon a deep-seated belief system without careful thought - and probably quite a bit of agonizing over what is really true. And more often than not, Christians don't seem appropriate cognizant of this...in my experience...

love
Helen

Pomp · 05-06-2002, 12:31 PM

Photocrat,

You really want to do this in excruciating detail, don't you? Let's have at it.

Note that I am speaking of indirect, or negative, responsibility, as opposed to direct, or positive, responsibility, which I understand to mean something very similar to "cause." In your example, the person who placed the ice cube on the sidewalk bears positive responsibility for its melting, but everyone who knew that it was there and elected not to return it promptly to a freezing environment bears negative responsibility for its melting.

Well, how am I responsible say, for knowing ahead of time that an ice cube (that someone else put on a hot sidewalk) will melt?

Generally, I consider agent A to be indirectly responsible for event X if A had the knowledge that X was to occur and the ability to prevent X from occcurring and X did occur. As an example, if you are about to unwittingly enter a dangerous area (a minefield, perhaps), and I know this, but fail to warn you, then I am indirectly responsible for any injuries you might incur while walking through that area. As an example of a different sort, if Alan Greenspan knows that an economic recovery is on the horizon, has the ability to stop that recovery by toying maliciously with interest rates, and elects not to to do so, then Alan Greenspan is indirectly responsible for the economic recovery.

Note, first, that each of us, under this definition, is indirectly responsible for innumerable events every day. NOte, further, that I have thus far used "responsibility" in a morally neutral manner. I have passed no judgement regarding whether my failure to prevent you from walking into a minefield is "good" or "bad."

Returning to the original topic of this thread, consider the following syllogism, in which "God" refers to the Xian god:

P1: X is sufferring eternal torment in hell.
P2: God, being omniscient, was aware that X would suffer in hell before X actually entered into hell.
P3: God, being omnipotent, had the ability to prevent X from suffering in hell (if nothing else, by electing not to create X in the first place).
C1: (from P1-3 and the definition, above, of "indirect responsibility") God is indirectly responsible for X's torment.

You're *still* missing some premises--

I think I may have covered all the necessary premises. Let me know if you still think I'm missing anything. If you're satisfied with my position thus far, we can continue to the question of moral culpability on the part of those who are indirectly responsible for horrendous events.

HelenM · 05-06-2002, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompous Bastard:
Generally, I consider agent A to be indirectly responsible for event X if A had the knowledge that X was to occur and the ability to prevent X from occcurring and X did occur. As an example, if you are about to unwittingly enter a dangerous area (a minefield, perhaps), and I know this, but fail to warn you, then I am indirectly responsible for any injuries you might incur while walking through that area

Indirectly responsible...I'm not sure that's fair unless you set up a minefield in a place where you knew people were liable to go unwittingly.

Otherwise, so what if you know? Are you sure you're indirectly responsible just because you didn't warn every person about it? How could you know who might go there? How could you have time to warn them? Why would it be your job to warn them, not the person who put the mines there? Isn't it their job? Why are you even indirectly responsible? Is that what simply having knowledge does to a person?

Isn't it really the responsibility of the person who knows because there's some direct connection between them and the minefield such as, they ordered it to be set up or set it up themselves.

I think life would be very complicated if we had to use all the knowledge we have to warn everyone about things...just in case they didn't know and/or might be put at risk.

But I did notice at the end of your post that you separated the terms 'moral culpability' from 'indirectly responsible' and maybe what I am doing is assuming they are one and the same, in what I wrote...

Anyway I would be interested in your response, either way

love
Helen

[edited to remove the obvious split infinitive at the beginning!

]

[ May 06, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]

Pomp · 05-07-2002, 02:01 PM

HelenSL,

But I did notice at the end of your post that you separated the terms 'moral culpability' from 'indirectly responsible' and maybe what I am doing is assuming they are one and the same, in what I wrote...

You got it in one try. I'm defining "responsible" in a purely functional manner, making no judgements (yet) regarding whether or not one ought to be held morally accountable for any or all of the actions for which one is indirectly responsible. I'm waiting for Photocrat's critique of my notion of responsibility before I address the moral question.

Photocrat · 05-07-2002, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompous Bastard:
Photocrat,

You really want to do this in excruciating detail, don't you? Let's have at it.

Note that I am speaking of indirect, or negative, responsibility, as opposed to direct, or positive, responsibility, which I understand to mean something very similar to "cause." In your example, the person who placed the ice cube on the sidewalk bears positive responsibility for its melting, but everyone who knew that it was there and elected not to return it promptly to a freezing environment bears negative responsibility for its melting.

Well, how am I responsible say, for knowing ahead of time that an ice cube (that someone else put on a hot sidewalk) will melt?

Generally, I consider agent A to be indirectly responsible for event X if A had the knowledge that X was to occur and the ability to prevent X from occcurring and X did occur. As an example, if you are about to unwittingly enter a dangerous area (a minefield, perhaps), and I know this, but fail to warn you, then I am indirectly responsible for any injuries you might incur while walking through that area. As an example of a different sort, if Alan Greenspan knows that an economic recovery is on the horizon, has the ability to stop that recovery by toying maliciously with interest rates, and elects not to to do so, then Alan Greenspan is indirectly responsible for the economic recovery.

Note, first, that each of us, under this definition, is indirectly responsible for innumerable events every day. NOte, further, that I have thus far used "responsibility" in a morally neutral manner. I have passed no judgement regarding whether my failure to prevent you from walking into a minefield is "good" or "bad."

Returning to the original topic of this thread, consider the following syllogism, in which "God" refers to the Xian god:

P1: X is sufferring eternal torment in hell.
P2: God, being omniscient, was aware that X would suffer in hell before X actually entered into hell.
P3: God, being omnipotent, had the ability to prevent X from suffering in hell (if nothing else, by electing not to create X in the first place).
C1: (from P1-3 and the definition, above, of "indirect responsibility") God is indirectly responsible for X's torment.

You're *still* missing some premises--

I think I may have covered all the necessary premises. Let me know if you still think I'm missing anything. If you're satisfied with my position thus far, we can continue to the question of moral culpability on the part of those who are indirectly responsible for horrendous events.

P1: I have problems with the moral judgements that might arise thereof, as "suffering" is ill-defined here & not well understood in general, at least with respect to 'suffering in hell.' Different Christians have different ideas of "hell" (literal furnace, spiritual separation from God, both, or what?) which very much relates to "suffering." While Christians essentially agree that you wouldn't like going there, *why* you wouldn't like going there is another matter... and I'm not even addressing the completely non-literal hell, annihilationism, conditional immortality, etc. etc. etc. ...

P3: In what way would God prevent them? The way I see it, He's already trying to stop anyone headed thataway, whether directly or indirectly. If He's "indirectly" responsible, why wouldn't you expect Him to stop it "indirectly" through the actions of believers or whatever? :]

Much better, though. I require specifics because that's where our disagreements tend to lie.

Photocrat · 05-07-2002, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Typhon:


Our point is biological. Nothing more. Even that is not really a "point," just a current and local phenomena.

Are you saying you think your proposed "God" created the humans of your particular creation myth because he had to? Is creation a biological imperative for a creator?

We are limited biological creatures. We spend vast efforts and resources on doing the best we can to pass on our genes and ensure their survival and happiness. If god produced his offspring for the same reasons, but was omnipotent, he would have been farther better equipped to design us for eternal living. If he failed to, with his foreknowledge, and his omni ability, then he did so by choice, by design, by purposeful act. He is thus, in such a scenario, fully culpable of any outcome.

JUST as I might add, as you would be in the case of the ice cube on the hot sidewalk. Sure it's the heat that melts the ice, but it sure wasn't the ice cub that put itself on the hot sidewalk. That was you, and you knew what would happen, could have put the ice cube in a nice cold freezer, but nooooo, you put it on the hot sidewalk, where it now is a puddle of water, soon evaporated, sent skyward, and eventually returning perhaps as part of the polar ice cap (hmm, were you a Hindu god by any chance?). Now, an ice cube doesn't exactly care, but if it did, it wouldn't be its fault, it would be yours.

.T.

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]

So, we're doing something because it feels good (*ahem* "biological imperative"), which induces suffering on our offspring (the only way to end human suffering is to end human existance, it would seem...) and it's no big deal?

If you want to take that route, you have to condemn essentially the whole world, your parents included to throw God in there, too.

BTW, how is it my fault for knowing about an ice cube that someone else put in the sun, on the other side of the planet, will melt? Foreknolwedge is still not causation...

Photocrat · 05-07-2002, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by HelenSL:


It might be more like this...I'm just guessing...he found that life was better when he stopped following the rainbow, because it hurts too much when the gold isn't there - and if you can't follow the rainbow without hoping for the gold, maybe it's better to go off and enjoy what you actually have...

We'll all find out about eternal life when we get there and until we do, who can be sure anyway?

love
Helen

But, you actually have the rainbow to enjoy...
That was the point...

The 'pot of gold', BTW, I mean to represent perfect knowledge of all theological questions in this life; not eternal life. After all, I *do* believe in Heaven :] It's hell that we have questions about.

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

05-05-2002, 09:48 PM	#62
Photocrat Regular Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Posts: 405	Originally posted by rainbow walking: PH: Who says He makes no effort? Have you forgotten, too, that old notion of God working through Christians? It's not as though a hand reaching out of the sky is the best/right/only way to help people. Helping others via timely intervention by followers can be twice as effective; helping both the Christian who gets to make a difference in someone's life, as well as the obvious help to the person being helped... :] Rw: Then christians are to blame for mine and others' deconversion? ------> I believe you have already claimed responsibility for this instance, at least. For the others, I do not know. In fact, it may be that [those who were supposed to be] Christians were in fact responsible. I seem to recall several atheists having said something like that... Christians aren't perfect, even if Christ is... In the mean time, though, you have me [& several others] here trying to convince you to come back. Though I suppose it's not just because you're an atheist deconvert [there are plenty of others here; not that I haven't remonstrated with them, too], but because you're my friend.

05-06-2002, 12:31 PM	#65
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	Photocrat, You really want to do this in excruciating detail, don't you? Let's have at it. Note that I am speaking of indirect, or negative, responsibility, as opposed to direct, or positive, responsibility, which I understand to mean something very similar to "cause." In your example, the person who placed the ice cube on the sidewalk bears positive responsibility for its melting, but everyone who knew that it was there and elected not to return it promptly to a freezing environment bears negative responsibility for its melting. Well, how am I responsible say, for knowing ahead of time that an ice cube (that someone else put on a hot sidewalk) will melt? Generally, I consider agent A to be indirectly responsible for event X if A had the knowledge that X was to occur and the ability to prevent X from occcurring and X did occur. As an example, if you are about to unwittingly enter a dangerous area (a minefield, perhaps), and I know this, but fail to warn you, then I am indirectly responsible for any injuries you might incur while walking through that area. As an example of a different sort, if Alan Greenspan knows that an economic recovery is on the horizon, has the ability to stop that recovery by toying maliciously with interest rates, and elects not to to do so, then Alan Greenspan is indirectly responsible for the economic recovery. Note, first, that each of us, under this definition, is indirectly responsible for innumerable events every day. NOte, further, that I have thus far used "responsibility" in a morally neutral manner. I have passed no judgement regarding whether my failure to prevent you from walking into a minefield is "good" or "bad." Returning to the original topic of this thread, consider the following syllogism, in which "God" refers to the Xian god: P1: X is sufferring eternal torment in hell. P2: God, being omniscient, was aware that X would suffer in hell before X actually entered into hell. P3: God, being omnipotent, had the ability to prevent X from suffering in hell (if nothing else, by electing not to create X in the first place). C1: (from P1-3 and the definition, above, of "indirect responsibility") God is indirectly responsible for X's torment. *You're still* missing some premises--** I think I may have covered all the necessary premises. Let me know if you still think I'm missing anything. If you're satisfied with my position thus far, we can continue to the question of moral culpability on the part of those who are indirectly responsible for horrendous events.

05-07-2002, 02:01 PM	#67
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	HelenSL, But I did notice at the end of your post that you separated the terms 'moral culpability' from 'indirectly responsible' and maybe what I am doing is assuming they are one and the same, in what I wrote... You got it in one try. I'm defining "responsible" in a purely functional manner, making no judgements (yet) regarding whether or not one ought to be held morally accountable for any or all of the actions for which one is indirectly responsible. I'm waiting for Photocrat's critique of my notion of responsibility before I address the moral question.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.