On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-03-2017, 03:43 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(17-03-2017 06:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 06:29 PM)JesseB Wrote:  You don't offend me, being a psychopath doesn't frighten me or bother me. It is what it is. It's not so much biology (or maybe it is who the fuck knows for sure), I'm not that way. It seems I Just happen to have far more empathy than you...

Also your position on the surface may seem reasonable, but your lack of concern for other humans outside your group is a threat to your group. It's kinda sad you can't see why.

(I take that back, some of your poorly based arguments offend me a little, only cause I expect more effort)

Judging that I love my family, friends, community, and have a great deal of empathy for them, this would exclude me from being a psychopath. And secondly empathy is selective. It's why we empathize with some characters, people, better than we do with others. We love our children more so than we love other people's children, etc..This doesn't make us psychopath, it just a part of being human. In fact humans are tribal. That's not psychopathy that's just basic human nature.

And no I can rationally consider threats to my group, and act accordingly to mitigate those threats. My actions, and policies I support might in turn benefit not only my group but groups outside of it as well. Such as in considerations of the economy, or climate change, or selecting political representatives.

If you want to present a supposed threat on my group, by my lack of concern for those outside of it, I would like to hear it.

Global climate change, potential food source related problems, problems that can be caused by population (both too great a population for a particular environment, or too small a population can be a problem), limited planetary resources to share, These are just a few things that would affect you along with every other member of your species on the planet.

We've seen species go extinct by growing out of balance within their environment, along with species that are possibly soon to go extinct because the don't want to fuck. I mean we have so much in this world we can draw on for examples here dude. That your concerns are so narrowly focused is very short sighted and does pose a threat to your little click, along with everyone else.

So there's some examples you asked for.

Your view seems to be too myopic I don't even know if you could even begin to grasp the potential reality of a mass extinction event for humans. But I hope you try.

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-03-2017, 03:47 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(17-03-2017 12:02 PM)Glossophile Wrote:  
(17-03-2017 07:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Don’t say “we” , because “we” all don’t define good along those lines.

I know. That's why I said, "...if we define 'good,' as..." Did you not notice the word "if" at the beginning? That was me asking you to temporarily grant my premise just for the sake of argument. Surely you're capable of that.

(17-03-2017 07:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And even though the criteria is objectively measurable,...

So you do get my point after all!

(17-03-2017 07:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  ...what constitutes as good looking is still subjective.

I addressed this in the paragraph that starts off with, "Now, you can argue that my definition is itself subjective,..."

Your XBox scenario raises an interesting question. Although refusing to sell it in order to feed starving Africans fails to increase well-being, it also fails to increase suffering. In other words, it does not add to the suffering that was already there. You are not sabotaging African agriculture or deliberately undermining those charity efforts that do occur in wealthier parts of the world.

A decent argument could be made that your XBox scenario is morally neutral at worst. The question at the heart of the matter is this. Does mere inaction count as negative action? There is clearly room for debate here.

Ultimately, though, if you did decide to sell your XBox and use the proceeds to feed starving children, virtually everyone on the planet would agree, even if only implicitly, that doing so was a good deed (as opposed to a neutral or bad one). This is that underlying universal consensus that I'm talking about.

(17-03-2017 07:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What if you take a nihilist who doesn’t believe in good or bad, or right and wrong. Though he believes that we should have laws in place to punish rapists, primary to insure his own safety, and those whom he cares about, but doesn’t believe it’s evil,...

[...]

And whose maximal well-being is this core morality concerned with? For humanity? For all living creatures? For one’s self? One’s tribe?

"Primary [sic] to insure his own safety and those whom he cares about." That's the linchpin. Even your nihilist seeks to maximize the well-being and minimize the suffering of himself and at least a subset of other sentient creatures. He may not use the labels "good" and "evil," but the criteria that he's using to derive the need to punish rapists, for instance, is still essentially the same as those invoked by someone who's more willing to speak in those terms.

In fact, if there is any significant point of variation in the underlying universal core of morality, I think you've just hit upon it. It lies in how broadly we cast our nets of moral consideration. Yet even here, it is quite plausible that those moral systems which privilege an exclusive in-group are distinguished from more inclusive ones largely by an underestimation of out-group sentience. If that's the case, then the apparent variation again lies not in the core moral imperative but in how the moral agents in question understand the world around them. I think this view is reasonably well-supported. After all, if you want to commit genocide, you must first dehumanize (i.e. reduce the perceived sentience of) the target group.

(17-03-2017 07:17 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Would you say that about other animals as well, that there’s not a single chimpanzee whose morality can’t be reduced to “maximal well-being and minimal suffering”? Or a singe cat, or mouse? etc…



Every living thing seeks its own well-being and avoids its own suffering. It takes a social species to extend that goal beyond oneself, and it takes a rational species to make sophisticated judgments as to how that objective is best accomplished based on its understanding of how the world works. Humans are the most social and the most rational species that we know of, so although some other animals are indeed capable of some degree of moral behavior, the human moral capacity is the richest and most nuanced.

This right here. MAN DUDE SPOT ON!

DLJ Wrote:And, yes, the principle of freedom of expression works both ways... if someone starts shit, better shit is the best counter-argument.
Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes JesseB's post
17-03-2017, 04:13 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(17-03-2017 06:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 06:29 PM)JesseB Wrote:  You don't offend me, being a psychopath doesn't frighten me or bother me. It is what it is. It's not so much biology (or maybe it is who the fuck knows for sure), I'm not that way. It seems I Just happen to have far more empathy than you...

Also your position on the surface may seem reasonable, but your lack of concern for other humans outside your group is a threat to your group. It's kinda sad you can't see why.

(I take that back, some of your poorly based arguments offend me a little, only cause I expect more effort)

Judging that I love my family, friends, community, and have a great deal of empathy for them, this would exclude me from being a psychopath. And secondly empathy is selective. It's why we empathize with some characters, people, better than we do with others. We love our children more so than we love other people's children, etc..This doesn't make us psychopath, it just a part of being human. In fact humans are tribal. That's not psychopathy that's just basic human nature.

And no I can rationally consider threats to my group, and act accordingly to mitigate those threats. My actions, and policies I support might in turn benefit not only my group but groups outside of it as well. Such as in considerations of the economy, or climate change, or selecting political representatives.

If you want to present a supposed threat on my group, by my lack of concern for those outside of it, I would like to hear it.

He's equivocating the term "empathy".
Empathy is not selective. For example health care providers, ED workers, therapists .. all have non-selective empathy. Rotton Tomato is so full of shit.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-03-2017, 05:01 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 03:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... I am listening to atheists passing moral judgments on a being that doesn't exist. And yes, you can pass moral judgments on non-existing beings like villains in a comic book, etc...

Oh fucking dear... this has to be the silliest thing I've read from you Tom.

We atheists are not passing "moral" judgment on a "being" (I prefer the word entity BTW) that doesn't exist. We only do that in a purely abstract sense—as a favour to theists that will not or can not accept that their revered deity simply doesn't exist in the real world.

And now, apparently, you're more than happy to conflate comic book heroes with your god? Of course you can't realistically pass moral judgment on Spiderman, Captain America, or Batman. They're figments of their authors' imaginations—just like your holy book.

—You'll notice too that I invariably preface everything I say about your "god" with the words purported or alleged or supposed.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like SYZ's post
17-03-2017, 06:01 PM (This post was last modified: 17-03-2017 06:13 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 03:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... I am listening to atheists passing moral judgments on a being that doesn't exist.

No you're not, Rotten Tomato.
You're listening to judgments, (the belief position of those making them is actually irrelevant), being made about the "idea" of a particular deity having any moral authority, and why the "idea" of a particular one having that authority is preposterous, in light of what its followers/believers have stated/written/claimed about him.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-03-2017, 08:28 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
Hmm, would he rather we told all theists to fuck off out of here? That we won't for a second take their claims seriously?

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
18-03-2017, 06:30 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(17-03-2017 06:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 03:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... I am listening to atheists passing moral judgments on a being that doesn't exist.

No you're not, Rotten Tomato.
You're listening to judgments, (the belief position of those making them is actually irrelevant), being made about the "idea" of a particular deity having any moral authority, and why the "idea" of a particular one having that authority is preposterous, in light of what its followers/believers have stated/written/claimed about him.


It's more like atheists here are casting aspersions on the theist claim God is the epitome of morality and the source of all absolute morality, and is himself creator of the very concept of morality.

The myths about this God demonstrate a lack of basic morality, to begin with.

Yog Sothoth! Yog Sothoth! Come back old ones! Yog Sothoth!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
19-03-2017, 05:49 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(17-03-2017 06:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 03:51 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  ... I am listening to atheists passing moral judgments on a being that doesn't exist.

No you're not, Rotten Tomato.
You're listening to judgments, (the belief position of those making them is actually irrelevant), being made about the "idea" of a particular deity having any moral authority, and why the "idea" of a particular one having that authority is preposterous, in light of what its followers/believers have stated/written/claimed about him.
Just the same old tired insinuation that if we really didn't believe in theistic ideation, we would have no interest in it and would simply ignore it.

Our interest in the topic has to do with the harms religion does versus other things we disagree with. Religious faith is not innocuous and irrelevant like a belief in the tooth fairy, even if it has no more basis than that. In my case, my interest is in part related to the harmful effects of religious faith on me personally and my desire to both atone for the role I played in spreading religious faith, and to help others similarly ensnared.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like mordant's post
19-03-2017, 06:53 AM
On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(19-03-2017 05:49 AM)mordant Wrote:  
(17-03-2017 06:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No you're not, Rotten Tomato.
You're listening to judgments, (the belief position of those making them is actually irrelevant), being made about the "idea" of a particular deity having any moral authority, and why the "idea" of a particular one having that authority is preposterous, in light of what its followers/believers have stated/written/claimed about him.
Just the same old tired insinuation that if we really didn't believe in theistic ideation, we would have no interest in it and would simply ignore it.

Our interest in the topic has to do with the harms religion does versus other things we disagree with. Religious faith is not innocuous and irrelevant like a belief in the tooth fairy, even if it has no more basis than that. In my case, my interest is in part related to the harmful effects of religious faith on me personally and my desire to both atone for the role I played in spreading religious faith, and to help others similarly ensnared.


This is silly the argument presented here is about attributing goodness to God, in light of what he's purported to have done, or not done. Not the evils of religion as whole, nor is it a question of his existence all together.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2017, 06:55 AM
On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(18-03-2017 06:30 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  
(17-03-2017 06:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  No you're not, Rotten Tomato.
You're listening to judgments, (the belief position of those making them is actually irrelevant), being made about the "idea" of a particular deity having any moral authority, and why the "idea" of a particular one having that authority is preposterous, in light of what its followers/believers have stated/written/claimed about him.


It's more like atheists here are casting aspersions on the theist claim God is the epitome of morality and the source of all absolute morality, and is himself creator of the very concept of morality.

The myths about this God demonstrate a lack of basic morality, to begin with.


What's basic morality? If I accuse someone of demonstrating a lack of basic morality, have I made an objective or subjective claim about them?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: