Is God a moral monster?
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-05-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(07-05-2014 04:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 04:19 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Kinda like this...
"Gang-raped Indonesian woman may be caned publicly"
http://www.financialexpress.com/news/gan...ly/1248212

What freaks me out the most about this thread is how it reminds me of the pedophile pushers from last year. Right now even the better angels of my nature have armed themselves and are calling for a public hanging.

Do you affirm or deny the second premise of the moral argument which states:

2. Objective moral values and duties exist.

Have you read the story I linked to?
Is there a difference between Shariah Law and the scriptures already quoted in this thread regarding the treatment of women in the OT?

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
07-05-2014, 04:55 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(07-05-2014 04:43 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 04:20 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Do you affirm or deny the second premise of the moral argument which states:

2. Objective moral values and duties exist.

Have you read the story I linked to?
Is there a difference between Shariah Law and the scriptures already quoted in this thread regarding the treatment of women in the OT?

Yes.
Find all posts by this user
07-05-2014, 05:00 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(07-05-2014 04:34 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 04:28 PM)Dom Wrote:  It makes sense to be nice to each other. Once you get that, maybe people will get along better with you here.

It makes sense to YOU. It does not makes sense to others. In fact, others positively find meaning in life by hating others and picking on and ridiculing others beliefs. Richard Dawkins said that religious people should be RIDICULED. A far cry from this being nice thing you think is so common sensical.

(07-05-2014 04:28 PM)Dom Wrote:  Whatever pre-conceived idea you have about what "we" are like, you need to drop it and actually listen. Then you will establish positive contact.

You came here with all these misconceptions about us, how about listening instead of arguing. Then you may know better how to communicate with this lot.

When people tell me there are no objective moral values, no right, no wrong, no good, no bad, I find it awfully inconsistent that these same people would say that I should be nice.....

I just find the usage of the word "should" to be inconsistent with the denial of moral values and duties.

Once again, it is innate to contribute to the conservation of the species.

Everything innate is distributed unevenly, we don't all have the same dose of it. That means we don't all act the same. And there are always extremes = people with so much empathy that they cannot function efficiently, and people devoid of empathy.

This is not anybody's fault, there is no blame there.

We do try to take care of everyone as a society, even if we fail often, there has been a lot of improvement in just my life time. We try to support those who cannot function efficiently, and we try to help the ones who are missing empathy, unfortunately often we don't succeed here either and bad things happen. Then we try to practice prevention.

This is all logical and there is no code, and no one to enforce that code.

You keep trying to tell us that only god can make such a code. We don't need a code, we already have everything it takes to be a decent human being. And the ones who don't - you find them in and out of church too.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
07-05-2014, 05:02 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(07-05-2014 04:55 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 04:43 PM)Full Circle Wrote:  Have you read the story I linked to?
Is there a difference between Shariah Law and the scriptures already quoted in this thread regarding the treatment of women in the OT?

Yes.

No. Tell me what the difference is - everything you have said so far is exactly like Shariah law.

[Image: dobie.png]Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
07-05-2014, 05:14 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(07-05-2014 04:34 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 04:28 PM)Dom Wrote:  It makes sense to be nice to each other. Once you get that, maybe people will get along better with you here.

It makes sense to YOU. It does not makes sense to others. In fact, others positively find meaning in life by hating others and picking on and ridiculing others beliefs. Richard Dawkins said that religious people should be RIDICULED. A far cry from this being nice thing you think is so common sensical.

(07-05-2014 04:28 PM)Dom Wrote:  Whatever pre-conceived idea you have about what "we" are like, you need to drop it and actually listen. Then you will establish positive contact.

You came here with all these misconceptions about us, how about listening instead of arguing. Then you may know better how to communicate with this lot.

When people tell me there are no objective moral values, no right, no wrong, no good, no bad, I find it awfully inconsistent that these same people would say that I should be nice.....

I just find the usage of the word "should" to be inconsistent with the denial of moral values and duties.

That opinions are subjective does not preclude having opinions. Similarly, even an avowed preference for tolerance does not preclude non-acceptance of certain attitudes by said subjective viewpoints.

People judge you - and as it happens, my judgement is "moral vacuum", a sobriquet last earned by the dear departed PleaseJesus - according to themselves. Subjectively.

No doubt you instead choose to see this as the same inane witless dumbfuckery you've been spouting; to wit, "people have opinions, therefore GAWD", but if it's not been made abundantly clear by now, that will find few to no takers in an audience actually capable of abstract thought.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
07-05-2014, 05:25 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(07-05-2014 05:00 PM)Dom Wrote:  Once again, it is innate to contribute to the conservation of the species.

Innate to who? To you? To a few? To the majority of humans?

It certainly is not innate to all.

But let me assume for a moment that the ideal is indeed innate to every human. What makes it obligatory? Why SHOULD every human so order their lives in such a fashion that they contribute to the conservation of the species? Why SHOULD every human take this ideal they possess and deny their own desires just so that the species can be conserved?

(07-05-2014 05:00 PM)Dom Wrote:  We do try to take care of everyone as a society, even if we fail often, there has been a lot of improvement in just my life time.

You cannot help but speak as a moral realist. It is inescapable and therein lies the power of the moral argument.

You use words like "improvement".

Do you not get it?

There can be no improvement in a morally relativistic world. Improvement carries with it the idea of progress. It carries with it the idea that we are getting closer and closer to some moral standard that exists and to which we strive to adhere to.

But since you say there is no standard to which people can strive to order their lives to accord with, there is no improvement. There is just change. Today a man may beat his wife. A year from now he may realize that it causes him too much trouble with the law and so he stops. Since there is no law that he is obligated to strive to adhere to his change in behavior is just that, a change. It is neither an improvement nor a regression.

Words like progress, and improve, and better or worse, or wrong or right cannot be used by a moral relativist because the words are loaded words. They carry with them and require some ideal or standard of measure.

C.S. Lewis once remarked that a man does not call a line crooked unless he knows what a straight one looks like.

Progress, improvement and like words all carry with them the idea of changing for the better. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other.

The key here, and watch this closely, is that the standard that measures two things is something different from either. The standard used to measure two competing ideas or things cannot be either of the things it is used to measure.

So when anyone, atheist or theist decides to open their mouth and use words like "wrong" or "bad" or "evil" or "progress" or "improvement" and they are talking about morality, they are relying on the existence of something that they are using to measure how close or how far an act or idea conforms to said standard.

As ethicist Richard Taylor stated, apart from God, the idea of moral obligation is unintelligible. The words remain, but the meaning is gone.
Find all posts by this user
07-05-2014, 05:29 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(07-05-2014 04:27 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 04:24 PM)Anjele Wrote:  Got the same vibe...the guy is looking for someone to agree that rape is okay if you can't help it.

Should people know better than to rape?

Do you not know better?

How many rapes have you committed? Or are they still in the planning stages, since you already have your defense and all.

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Anjele's post
07-05-2014, 05:31 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(07-05-2014 05:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 05:00 PM)Dom Wrote:  We do try to take care of everyone as a society, even if we fail often, there has been a lot of improvement in just my life time.

You cannot help but speak as a moral realist. It is inescapable and therein lies the power of the moral argument.

You use words like "improvement".

Do you not get it?

There can be no improvement in a morally relativistic world. Improvement carries with it the idea of progress. It carries with it the idea that we are getting closer and closer to some moral standard that exists and to which we strive to adhere to.

But since you say there is no standard to which people can strive to order their lives to accord with, there is no improvement. There is just change. Today a man may beat his wife. A year from now he may realize that it causes him too much trouble with the law and so he stops. Since there is no law that he is obligated to strive to adhere to his change in behavior is just that, a change. It is neither an improvement nor a regression.

Boy, you are just dumber than a sack of manure.

An "improvement" is an improvement according to the one calling it an improvement.

This stems from a principle known as "opinions are subjective".

(07-05-2014 05:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Words like progress, and improve, and better or worse, or wrong or right cannot be used by a moral relativist because the words are loaded words. They carry with them and require some ideal or standard of measure.

C.S. Lewis once remarked that a man does not call a line crooked unless he knows what a straight one looks like.

Funny you should say that, since "straight" is purely a matter of frame of reference.

(07-05-2014 05:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Progress, improvement and like words all carry with them the idea of changing for the better. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other.

A subjective standard. As is implicitly necessary when a person is referring to other people.

My word but you're a thick one, eh?

(07-05-2014 05:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  The key here, and watch this closely, is that the standard that measures two things is something different from either. The standard used to measure two competing ideas or things cannot be either of the things it is used to measure.

Citation needed - if that's even anything but word salad.

(07-05-2014 05:25 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  So when anyone, atheist or theist decides to open their mouth and use words like "wrong" or "bad" or "evil" or "progress" or "improvement" and they are talking about morality, they are relying on the existence of something that they are using to measure how close or how far an act or idea conforms to said standard.

Yes, we call that standard "their own opinions".

If you so fundamentally and repeatedly fail to understand grade-school level notions such as, oh, say, "different people think differently", the modern world must be a baffling, inexplicable, and terrifying experience for you.

Which, to be fair, would explain a lot of fundie behaviour.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
07-05-2014, 05:41 PM (This post was last modified: 07-05-2014 05:44 PM by Leo.)
RE: Is God a moral monster?
This walker dude have serious issues. The dude is shitting all the atheist forums he can find. And he isn't even funny. Some trolls post some hilarious shit but this dude seems to believe all the shit he writes.NoNo
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like Leo's post
07-05-2014, 05:54 PM
RE: Is God a moral monster?
(07-05-2014 05:29 PM)Anjele Wrote:  
(07-05-2014 04:27 PM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  Should people know better than to rape?

Do you not know better?

How many rapes have you committed? Or are they still in the planning stages, since you already have your defense and all.

The bible condones rape and murdering infants, if you're not OK with rape and infanticide, your source of morality is not God or the Bible.

This is very simple, and yet we still have idiots who claim "God is the source of all morality." No: you can't follow Biblical morality without getting arrested.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
[+] 4 users Like rampant.a.i.'s post
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: