God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-10-2012, 03:10 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 02:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-10-2012 02:03 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  When dealing with something infinite while being finite could we even pretend to define God?

I don't understand that. It's like saying something is 1 and -1.
1 + -1 = 0.
It can't have the properties of both. It means it's "nothing", OR the words have no meaning.
Why say it's either ? Why say anything about it ? Why not just say it's "0" ?

I'm saying that because we are finite we can't define something with infinite properties. It's beyond our grasp of understand and obtainable knowledge.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 03:22 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 03:10 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(05-10-2012 02:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't understand that. It's like saying something is 1 and -1.
1 + -1 = 0.
It can't have the properties of both. It means it's "nothing", OR the words have no meaning.
Why say it's either ? Why say anything about it ? Why not just say it's "0" ?

I'm saying that because we are finite we can't define something with infinite properties. It's beyond our grasp of understand and obtainable knowledge.

I do get that. I respect that, (even though I see no need for that).
What I don't get is, if you can't define something, why posit it at all. It's the same as saying "I believe in a 'nothing'". There is nothing consistent about the way it's defined, (so far), and since we know humans cooked up every line in the Bible, and mostly why, what's left to support Yahweh, that's not part of a circular system ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 05:08 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 12:39 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(05-10-2012 10:44 AM)Aseptic Skeptic Wrote:  I've heard William Lane Craig say something like "God gave those innocent children a direct immediate admission into Heaven, so he really gave them the greatest gift imaginable." I doubt he's the only one who believes that it's OK for God to kill children because he takes them right to heaven, skipping the lifetime of potential suffering and possible sinning that might even lead them astray so they could have ended up in hell. Bypassing all of that for a guaranteed early admission into eternal bliss would really seem to be a great gift.

Heck, if God came right now and zapped me dead and took me to heaven (presupposing it's all real and all as wonderful as Christians think it's supposed to be), I sure wouldn't have any hard feelings. Actually, standing there in Heaven, with the realization that my atheism was totally wrong and I would have gone to hell for eternity, I would probably be quite grateful to God for giving me a shortcut to Heaven and sparing me from an eternity of hellish suffering. It would be quite a gift.

So I guess I can understand the true believers using some version of this as justification for God to give this gift to children.

And that would be fine, if they did not 100% of the time put the lie to it in their own personal lives, by proving over and over again, that they, at some level do not really believe what they assert they believe. Over and over in every hospital, every day, people, and families who all *say* they believe that they believe in heaven, PROVE they really do not, as they desperately hang onto life, and refuse "humane" options, such as turning off the ventilators, and other mechanical devices. If Craig's wife, or he himself were in CCU/ICU, he would not say "I wish to go to heaven now, turn off my IV antibiotics, and turn off the vent". It's ALL a pile of bullshit. When worst comes to worst, they demonstrate that they don't really believe, what they *say* they believe.

I understand the premise of this OP is to point out the ridiculous (supposed) behavior of the Yahweh god.
But since there is no god, any discussion of what he/she/it does is irrelevant. The discussion should be about why, how and when the culture which cooked up the god(s) actually gave them the characteristics they did.

We, or at least know why. That is more irrelevant than discussions that might turn the lurking believers who see how men of reason and logic deal with their genocidal son murderer.

Don't sell yourself short. I do not and pray, so to speak, that the butterfly effect is at work.

For evil to grow--you know the rest.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 05:16 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 12:50 PM)Egor Wrote:  God is not bound by morality any more than you are bound by morality in a dream you are having. Babies, bugs, adults, Hitler, Ghandi, Mohammed, Jesus, my late dacshund--it's all the same to God. He creates a drawing in his mind and crumples it up at will.

I disagree only because our subconscious may be just as locked into our morality as our conscious mind. That to me is a more logical assumption than yours because our brains are hard wired to default to cooperation by nature. Our subconscious may be able to subvert this to try and play with various scenarios but that seems less likely than it just staying in it's hard wiring.

I don't know how we could confirm either of our views though.
But I am always right. YesYesSmartass

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 05:30 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 01:09 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Before one "names" a god, or discuss what it does or does not do, one must come up with a coherent definition of what "god" means, which is the position of Ignosticism :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism
I have yet to see one, which does not limit the "o" s, (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresent), and is coherent. The very concept of "existence" requires certain properties of his universe, which theists assume, or Special Plead away. A being which does not change is either dead, or a rock, (and even the rock is changing).

As far as I can tell, Ed (Egor)'s definition of god, is synonymous with "reality", except he adds a universal super-consciousness to it. I don't see any evidence or need for the "consciousness" part.

No argument on this but consciousness just happens to be. At least to our next evolutionary step. Let me see if my beliefs meet your tough standards.

The Godhead I know in a nutshell.
I was a skeptic till the age of 39.
I then had an apotheosis and later branded myself a Gnostic Christian naturalist.
Gnostic Christian because I exemplify this quote from William Blake.

“Both read the Bible day and night, But thou read'st black where I read white.”

This refers to how Gnostics tend to reverse, for moral reasons, what Christians see in the Bible. We tend to recognize the evil ways of O T God where literal Christians will see God’s killing as good. Christians are sheeple where Gnostic Christians are goats.
This is perhaps why we see the use of a Jesus scapegoat as immoral, while theists like to make Jesus their beast of burden. An immoral position.

During my apotheosis, something that only lasted 5 or 6 seconds, the only things of note to happen was that my paradigm of reality was confirmed and I was chastised to think more demographically. What I found was what I call a cosmic consciousness. Not a new term but one that is a close but not exact fit.

I recognize that I have no proof. That is always the way with apotheosis.
This is also why I prefer to stick to issues of morality because no one has yet been able to prove that God is real and I have no more proof than they for the cosmic consciousness.

The cosmic consciousness is not a miracle working God. He does not interfere with us save when one of us finds it. Not a common thing from what I can see. It is a part of nature and our next evolutionary step.

I tend to have more in common with atheists who ignore what they see as my delusion because our morals are basically identical. Theist tend not to like me much as I have no respect for literalists and fundamentals and think that most Christians have tribal mentalities and poor morals.

I am rather between a rock and a hard place but this I cannot help.

I am happy to be questioned on what I believe but whether or not God exists is basically irrelevant to this world for all that he does not do, and I prefer to thrash out moral issues that can actually find an end point. The search for God is never ending when you are of the Gnostic persuasion. My apotheosis basically says that I am to discard whatever God I found, God as a set of rules that is, not idol worship it but instead, raise my bar and seek further.

My apotheosis also showed me that God has no need for love, adoration or obedience. He has no needs. Man has dominion here on earth and is to be and is the supreme being.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 05:39 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 02:59 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Talking about an imaginary spirit is dumb.

Do you not read fairy tales to your children as a teaching tool?
I have and they are quite handy.

Just think of the bible as a fairy tale for adults.

There is a lot of moral teachings in the bible if you have the brains to look the right way. Not to jump the judgement gun, because I do not know your mind, but this remark of yours shows that you may not have what it takes.

Don't get mad. Prove me wrong.

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 06:14 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 03:10 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(05-10-2012 02:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I don't understand that. It's like saying something is 1 and -1.
1 + -1 = 0.
It can't have the properties of both. It means it's "nothing", OR the words have no meaning.
Why say it's either ? Why say anything about it ? Why not just say it's "0" ?

I'm saying that because we are finite we can't define something with infinite properties. It's beyond our grasp of understand and obtainable knowledge.


I have let you go for now but now you are bordering on foolishness and lack of thought. I went back and

“God is the three O's; however, He operates under created parameters when dealing with us.”

This is a definitive statement that you cannot get close to proving because all you have is hearsay and book say. All from men.

“He isn't limited but only by His own infinite nature”

He isn’t limited except he is. Quite the use of grammar.
As to infinite, one would need to know where and when the end of time is for him to know that he can get further in time and if he did, then that was not the end of time then was it? IOW, you nor God can truthfully say that God is infinite.

“What evidence are you talking about, the Bible?

When referring to Christianity, yes.”

Yet you ignore that the writers of the O T do not read it literally and have rejected the Jesus you believe in.

Who has more authority over the O T. The Jews who wrote it of the Christians who reversed much of what the Jews believed about their own book of myths?

Regards
DL
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-10-2012, 07:53 PM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 02:59 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Talking about an imaginary spirit is dumb.

And that's exactly true, especially since we can't even decide what we're arguing about. Cool

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
06-10-2012, 12:40 AM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
(05-10-2012 09:49 AM)Greatest I am Wrote:  This question is more for theists but if any non-theist disagrees with the Ted link, please opine.

God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?

The first principle or morality is Harm/care of children. It is highlighted by the trait of compassion.

God ignores this throughout the bible by killing many of the weakest, most vulnerable and innocent, ---- children and babies.

God is showing a cowardly trait that contains no compassion or morality.

Children cannot be guilty of sin yet God kills them.

Yet those of the Abrahamic cults, Christians, Muslims and other believers, do not reject this cowardly and immoral God.

Why not?

Regards
DL

This clip shows the first five principles of morality.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

This clip shows what some think of God killing children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7irFN2gdI

First of all your very ignorant of theology if you don't understand the absurd and disgusting concept of original sin. Every child born is automatically a sinner in many branches of theology and I don't think either of us disagrees it's disgusting and absurd.

But there is an immense problem that must be solved before that discussion can even begin. Can anyone actually prove that "sin" exists. I would assert until I'm shown otherwise that sin is simply a concept made up by the religious and does not actually exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2012, 05:13 AM
RE: God does not follow the first principle of morality. Why not?
Oh noes! Another prophet! Big Grin

(06-10-2012 12:40 AM)Godless Wrote:  First of all your very ignorant...

What's up with his very ignorant? Learn some fucking grammar before you try to insult someone, k?

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: