On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2017, 06:58 AM
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.


Since the question is about moral goodness, and morality is subjective, the belief positions of all parties attempting to attribute moral goodness, or deny it is relevant.




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, 12:11 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(19-03-2017 06:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 05:49 AM)mordant Wrote:  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.
Thanks for not addressing my actual points, as usual.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2017, 12:40 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(19-03-2017 06:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Since the question is about moral goodness, and morality is subjective, the belief positions of all parties attempting to attribute moral goodness, or deny it is relevant.

Again, The Bible claims God is good and there is a long list of sub-goodnesses listed that God has. God is said to be merciful, compassionate, just, fair and more.
But then the NT makes claims about what God does that is not any of those sub-goodnesses. These sub-goodnesses are defined in no uncertain manner in the Bible. Not my definitions, but the definitions found in the Bible.

If God arbitrarily decides who will be elect, and saved, and who will not, from the beginning of time, that is in no way, just, fair, merciful, nor compassionate. So as an atheist, I am not making arbitrary decisions, subjective decisions as to what is moral, I simply note the claims of the NT and their internal contradictions, the incoherence and foolishness of biblical theology. God the Great Potter who makes some "vessels" to honor, some to dishonor to display his might. Again, that is in no way, just, fair, merciful, nor compassionate, as claimed God is all these things.

This biblical theology makes no sense at all.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
20-03-2017, 01:29 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(20-03-2017 12:40 AM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 06:58 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Since the question is about moral goodness, and morality is subjective, the belief positions of all parties attempting to attribute moral goodness, or deny it is relevant.

Again, The Bible claims God is good and there is a long list of sub-goodnesses listed that God has. God is said to be merciful, compassionate, just, fair and more.
But then the NT makes claims about what God does that is not any of those sub-goodnesses. These sub-goodnesses are defined in no uncertain manner in the Bible. Not my definitions, but the definitions found in the Bible.

If God arbitrarily decides who will be elect, and saved, and who will not, from the beginning of time, that is in no way, just, fair, merciful, nor compassionate. So as an atheist, I am not making arbitrary decisions, subjective decisions as to what is moral, I simply note the claims of the NT and their internal contradictions, the incoherence and foolishness of biblical theology. God the Great Potter who makes some "vessels" to honor, some to dishonor to display his might. Again, that is in no way, just, fair, merciful, nor compassionate, as claimed God is all these things.

This biblical theology makes no sense at all.

> We can expect nothing else from a book inspired and written by ignorant, superstitious, and fallible men. Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-03-2017, 01:36 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(20-03-2017 01:29 AM)Gwaithmir Wrote:  
(20-03-2017 12:40 AM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  Again, The Bible claims God is good and there is a long list of sub-goodnesses listed that God has. God is said to be merciful, compassionate, just, fair and more.
But then the NT makes claims about what God does that is not any of those sub-goodnesses. These sub-goodnesses are defined in no uncertain manner in the Bible. Not my definitions, but the definitions found in the Bible.

If God arbitrarily decides who will be elect, and saved, and who will not, from the beginning of time, that is in no way, just, fair, merciful, nor compassionate. So as an atheist, I am not making arbitrary decisions, subjective decisions as to what is moral, I simply note the claims of the NT and their internal contradictions, the incoherence and foolishness of biblical theology. God the Great Potter who makes some "vessels" to honor, some to dishonor to display his might. Again, that is in no way, just, fair, merciful, nor compassionate, as claimed God is all these things.

This biblical theology makes no sense at all.

> We can expect nothing else from a book inspired and written by ignorant, superstitious, and fallible men. Consider

Well... I don't know. While you're prolly right lets not forget many of the classics were written by the Greeks long before the bible (I could be wrong on the relative dates as I'm going off memory, but the new testament was written in newer Greek, not ancient Greek). There are writings in many places far superior and older than the bible. So not all humans have been so ignorant through history. The bible's really a lackluster example of the quality of work, and thoughts for ancient writers. Quite a disservice to the rest of them to be compared to the writers of the bible.

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
20-03-2017, 01:42 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(20-03-2017 01:36 AM)JesseB Wrote:  
(20-03-2017 01:29 AM)Gwaithmir Wrote:  > We can expect nothing else from a book inspired and written by ignorant, superstitious, and fallible men. Consider

Well... I don't know. While you're prolly right lets not forget many of the classics were written by the Greeks long before the bible (I could be wrong on the relative dates as I'm going off memory, but the new testament was written in newer Greek, not ancient Greek). There are writings in many places far superior and older than the bible. So not all humans have been so ignorant through history. The bible's really a lackluster example of the quality of work, and thoughts for ancient writers. Quite a disservice to the rest of them to be compared to the writers of the bible.

> Undoubtedly, those Greek classics were written by men far more intelligent than the Bible writers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Gwaithmir's post
20-03-2017, 07:05 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(19-03-2017 12:11 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(19-03-2017 06:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.
Thanks for not addressing my actual points, as usual.

To address your actual points, would be to address a strawman, since they're not related to any point I've raised. Which didn't say that atheists shouldn't be interested in religion, or anything about religious harm.

"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
20-03-2017, 07:09 AM (This post was last modified: 20-03-2017 07:21 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(20-03-2017 12:40 AM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  Again, The Bible claims God is good and there is a long list of sub-goodnesses listed that God has. God is said to be merciful, compassionate, just, fair and more.
But then the NT makes claims about what God does that is not any of those sub-goodnesses. These sub-goodnesses are defined in no uncertain manner in the Bible. Not my definitions, but the definitions found in the Bible.

If God arbitrarily decides who will be elect, and saved, and who will not, from the beginning of time, that is in no way, just, fair, merciful, nor compassionate. So as an atheist, I am not making arbitrary decisions, subjective decisions as to what is moral, I simply note the claims of the NT and their internal contradictions, the incoherence and foolishness of biblical theology. God the Great Potter who makes some "vessels" to honor, some to dishonor to display his might. Again, that is in no way, just, fair, merciful, nor compassionate, as claimed God is all these things.

This biblical theology makes no sense at all.


Is the claim that God is not good, or sub-good an objective claim or a subjective one?

Say a person such as myself disagreed and holds that God is good, and you claim he's sub-good, is this a factual disagreement, or a difference in subjective opinion?

You also seem to suggest that you understand what it means to be "good" according to scripture, yet scripture advocates the variety of practices ascribed to God on people themselves, kill transgressors, genocide, etc.. so perhaps your interpretation of what it means to be good according to scripture is a bit cherry picked?

"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
20-03-2017, 12:22 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(20-03-2017 07:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-03-2017 12:40 AM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  Again, The Bible claims God is good and there is a long list of sub-goodnesses listed that God has. God is said to be merciful, compassionate, just, fair and more.
But then the NT makes claims about what God does that is not any of those sub-goodnesses. These sub-goodnesses are defined in no uncertain manner in the Bible. Not my definitions, but the definitions found in the Bible.

If God arbitrarily decides who will be elect, and saved, and who will not, from the beginning of time, that is in no way, just, fair, merciful, nor compassionate. So as an atheist, I am not making arbitrary decisions, subjective decisions as to what is moral, I simply note the claims of the NT and their internal contradictions, the incoherence and foolishness of biblical theology. God the Great Potter who makes some "vessels" to honor, some to dishonor to display his might. Again, that is in no way, just, fair, merciful, nor compassionate, as claimed God is all these things.

This biblical theology makes no sense at all.


Is the claim that God is not good, or sub-good an objective claim or a subjective one?

Say a person such as myself disagreed and holds that God is good, and you claim he's sub-good, is this a factual disagreement, or a difference in subjective opinion?

You also seem to suggest that you understand what it means to be "good" according to scripture, yet scripture advocates the variety of practices ascribed to God on people themselves, kill transgressors, genocide, etc.. so perhaps your interpretation of what it means to be good according to scripture is a bit cherry picked?

If you claim God is good, but God is not good, you are simply wrong. If the bible repeatedly claims God is just, fair, merciful, compassionate and then tells us God does things that are not just, fair, compassionate or merciful, God obviously is not good.

No matter how you twist and turn, once one realizes that God is not good, by the Bible's own standards, one can either accept these facts, or abandon reason and rationality.

You obviously don't want to accept the facts of the matter. You are looking for a way to delude yourself. So be it. But nobody here is going to join you. Its reason or irrationality and I choose reason. I suspect if you asked here for a show of hands, almost everybody here will also choose reason and rationality over self delusion and irrationality in face of the facts I have set forth here.

A god that decides Jane is of the elect and saved, and John is of the reprobate and damned is not fair, just, merciful or compassionate.

When I shake my ignore file, I can hear them buzzing!

Cheerful Charlie
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
20-03-2017, 07:56 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(20-03-2017 12:22 PM)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:  If you claim God is good, but God is not good, you are simply wrong. If the bible repeatedly claims God is just, fair, merciful, compassionate and then tells us God does things that are not just, fair, compassionate or merciful, God obviously is not good.

No matter how you twist and turn, once one realizes that God is not good, by the Bible's own standards, one can either accept these facts, or abandon reason and rationality.

You again seem to suggest you understand the biblical standards in question, but it appears to be entirely cherry picked. Let say you hold that someone who is compassionate wouldn't kill people, support war, or violence, is that the biblical standard of compassion of yours?

Clearly those who attributed the variety of qualities to their God, were fully aware of the various aspects you seem to imagine negates their very criteria. Either you're cherry picking the Bible, or your attempting to apply your own liberal humanistic moral standards to the premodern writers of scripture.

Quote:You obviously don't want to accept the facts of the matter. You are looking for a way to delude yourself. So be it.

You don't make any sense, if morality is subjective, then it's not a matter of facts just subjective opinions, which we can subjectively disagree on, without a factual dispute. There's nothing factually incorrect about differences in subjective views. Just like there's nothing factually incorrect about you thinking that Taylor Swift makes good music, even if I disagree with you.

Quote:A god that decides Jane is of the elect and saved, and John is of the reprobate and damned is not fair, just, merciful or compassionate.

Are authors not fair, because some characters in their stories are heros, and other villains? Is a father not fair because he feeds his children, takes care of them, but not some poor child in Somalia? It seems to me your trying to apply your own liberal humanistic standards as being the biblical standards, when they're not.

"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: