On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2017, 08:28 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(20-03-2017 07:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

Just so we're clear. You're coming from the position that your god could lead an army to torture rape and create endless agony of ALL humans, even the one's he claimed he was going to save, and because he's your god that would be 100% ok and moral of him. Is that it?

Or are you saying its ok for your god to care about some people and not care about others? I mean, there's no evidence your god cares about anyone. If he did it would show up in statistics and be universally undeniable. Yet that doesn't happen. Why is that?

For clarity, your position is, anything your god chooses to do is 100% right at all times no matter what that choice is, no matter how harmful it is, and no matter the reason (even if its just cause he got bored one day and decided to be evil for a change). Is that it?

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
[+] 3 users Like JesseB's post
20-03-2017, 08:33 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(20-03-2017 07:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

It's not that anyone is cherry picking biblical standards from your book, its that those standards are arbitrarily applied and they are trying to show you this. It's not consistent.

In D&D terms it's chaotic good at best

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
20-03-2017, 09:00 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(20-03-2017 07:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Seriously, when was the last time you contributed something of value to this forum?

You make the same useless, pointless arguments every time some someone mentions morality.

You are telling atheists that they can't discuss morality without god. You no better than Ken fucking Ham saying "were you there?" in regards to evolution.

Why do you insist on trying to stifle any discussion of morality?

You contribute NOTHING. Absolutely fucking nothing. Actually, less than nothing since you actively impede the discussion at hand. People are trying to talk and discuss and learn from each other, and you come in here and shit all over the forum with your repetitive, droning discharge and kindergarten theology.

Yes, it is possible to discuss morality without god.
Yes, it is possible for atheists and theists to have a meaningful discussion about morality.

And if you weren't so busy being a fucking troll, you might see that.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
21-03-2017, 03:25 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(20-03-2017 07:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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?

Not killing people or supporting violence is entailed by the very definition of "compassionate." Whether the standard is biblical or not is irrelevant.

See, this is the problem with your brand of argumentation. You seem to act as if the meanings of certain key words are not nearly as agreed upon as they actually are. This is absurd, because if the meanings of such words were really as hazy and various as you imply, it'd be a wonder that we can have such a meaningful discussion at all.

In what context would a conversation like this one make any sense?

PERSON 1: Oh, yeah, he's really compassionate!
PERSON 2: So, he doesn't kill people or support war or violence, right?

Person #1 would rightly look at Person #2 as if to say, "Duh! Were you not listening?" Stop pretending you don't know what common words mean, Tomasia.

(20-03-2017 07:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

With your claim of cherry-picking, we've come right back to the original point that I was trying to make with my initial post. Let's say that I cite a Biblical passage that makes God look like a sadistic jerk. You then claim that I've cherry-picked it. How do you know that, though? A likely response is that you know your God is good, so I must've cherry-picked it if it makes God look bad, right? But the assumption that I cherry-picked it is then used as support for the very claim that God is good. Round and round you go. The question-begging should be obvious.

(20-03-2017 07:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

I swear, it's as if you haven't been listening to anything I've said. Can morality be reduced to math-like objectivity? Most likely not. That does not automatically mean that it's as subjective as musical taste, either. Enough with the false dichotomy! For one thing, my taste in music cannot by itself affect how I treat other people. My sense of morality very well can.

(20-03-2017 07:56 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  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.

Blink Facepalm

Are you serious? That was quite possibly the lamest argument I've yet heard from you. Characters in a work of fiction are not living beings with actual lives and feelings. The father who puts food on the table for his children but not for starving Somalians is probably dealing with limited resources and capabilities, which force him to prioritize and help those to whom he is most useful first. Your god's creations are living creatures, and he is presumably working with infinite resources and power. If God really treats us like characters in some twisted novel he's writing even though we're far more real and alive than any fictional personage, then you've just proven my point. He's a dick.

Apples are just like oranges...except that they're not!

The only sacred truth in science is that there are no sacred truths. – Carl Sagan
Sōla vēritās sancta in philosophiā nātūrālī est absentia vēritātum sanctārum.
Ἡ μόνη ἱερᾱ̀ ἀληθείᾱ ἐν φυσικῇ φιλοσοφίᾳ ἐστίν ἡ ἱερῶν ἀληθειῶν σπάνις.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Glossophile's post
21-03-2017, 04:47 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
Ah, the endless comparisons to humans. If God is no more powerful, capable and knowledgable than a human, then I could cut it some slack.

But even then, it comes across as a pretty shitty human. We're expected to lower the standards rather than raise them, for some reason, when dealing with a god.

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
21-03-2017, 04:49 AM
On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(21-03-2017 03:25 AM)Glossophile Wrote:  Not killing people or supporting violence is entailed by the very definition of "compassionate." Whether the standard is biblical or not is irrelevant.

You're confused, it's the other way around. The only standard that's relevant is the biblical standard, and criteria. Since the folks here are trying to appeal to the Bible's subjective criteria for goodness, and not their own as the basis for claiming God is not good.

The claim is entirely dependent on what goodness, compassion, fairness, mercy etc meant for the writers and communities of the scriptures.

Quote:With your claim of cherry-picking, we've come right back to the original point that I was trying to make with my initial post. Let's say that I cite a Biblical passage that makes God look like a sadistic jerk.

Cherry picking here is in regards to dealing with the standard of Goodness implied by the Bible, which you earlier tried to dismiss as irrelevant, when in facts it's the only standard that's relevant.

If you're accusing God of not being subjectively good based on your own subjective liberal humanistic standards, I'm not going to dispute that, since that's just your subjective opinion. And my disagreement with a subjective opinion, is not a factual disagreement, but a subjective one.


Quote:You then claim that I've cherry-picked it. How do you know that, though? A likely response is that you know your God is good, so I must've cherry-picked it if it makes God look bad, right? But the assumption that I cherry-picked it is then used as support for the very claim that God is good. Round and round you go. The question-begging should be obvious.

Same way you can accuse people of cherry picking any other written texts, since we're speaking of the Bible.

Quote:I swear, it's as if you haven't been listening to anything I've said. Can morality be reduced to math-like objectivity? Most likely not. That does not automatically mean that it's as subjective as musical taste, either. Enough with the false dichotomy! For one thing, my taste in music cannot by itself affect how I treat other people. My sense of morality very well can.


Morality is subjective, full stop. An argument atheists have been making for centuries now, but apparently many still have a hard time swallowing.



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
21-03-2017, 05:57 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(20-03-2017 08:28 PM)JesseB Wrote:  Just so we're clear. You're coming from the position that your god could lead an army to torture rape and create endless agony of ALL humans, even the one's he claimed he was going to save, and because he's your god that would be 100% ok and moral of him. Is that it?

I'm saying that morality is subjective. And if someone did believe such a being or person was good even though he did such things, he wouldn't be factually incorrect it holding this view. Because there are no right or wrong answers to subjective stances.

Quote:Or are you saying its ok for your god to care about some people and not care about others?

Sure, don't we all? Don't we all care about our own children then some strangers children who don't concern ourself with to cloth and feed.

Quote: I mean, there's no evidence your god cares about anyone. If he did it would show up in statistics and be universally undeniable. Yet that doesn't happen. Why is that?

Because that's called moving the goal post. Just because the argument that God is not Good is failing as a result of moral subjectivity, doesn't mean you can try and move the goals post on the sly to get out of it.

Quote:For clarity, your position is, anything your god chooses to do is 100% right at all times no matter what that choice is, no matter how harmful it is, and no matter the reason (even if its just cause he got bored one day and decided to be evil for a change). Is that it?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm merely referring to the biblical standard of morality, a standard that doesn't indicate that any conceivable possibility would be okay. Just because someone things that the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima was a morally good thing, doesn't mean that he believes that anytime a bomb is dropped it's a good thing. I'm merely concerned with the character of God in the bible, and his community, and those moral subjectivist attempting to speak of attributing Goodness to God as some sort of logical fallacy. I also personally don't find anything immoral about their actions and practices, or imagine that can wag my 21st century moral finger on folks who had to make far tougher decisions than you or I ever will. But then again, I'm also not a liberal humanist.

"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
21-03-2017, 06:01 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(14-03-2017 05:45 PM)Glossophile Wrote:  This is something I've been tinkering with off-and-on, ........
It is complicated. The more simple analysis is following: God makes only Good, devil does only evil.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2017, 06:02 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(21-03-2017 06:01 AM)theBorg Wrote:  
(14-03-2017 05:45 PM)Glossophile Wrote:  This is something I've been tinkering with off-and-on, ........
It is complicated. The more simple analysis is following: God makes only Good, devil does only evil.

Who created the devil?

You're boring....Drinking Beverage

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
21-03-2017, 06:06 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(20-03-2017 09:00 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  You are telling atheists that they can't discuss morality without god. You no better than Ken fucking Ham saying "were you there?" in regards to evolution.

Why do you insist on trying to stifle any discussion of morality?

Quit with the strawman, I never claimed, or implied that atheists can't discuss morality with or without God, or have moral discussions. I'm merely reminding folks who seem to forgot, that all moral arguments, views, positions, are ultimately subjectively grounded. And the differences in subjective views, are not factual or objective disagreements, by the very nature of being a subjective stance.

Quote:Yes, it is possible to discuss morality without god.
Yes, it is possible for atheists and theists to have a meaningful discussion about morality.

Sure, but people tend to ignore their own presuppositions, the background beliefs, such as moral subjectivity, rather than a meaningful discussion you get a variety of inconsistent and incoherent non-sense, of people attempting to speak out of both sides of their mouth, because they have trouble dealing with the implications of their presuppositional moral beliefs.

I'm not trolling you. I'm not attacking any of you personally. It's just that people tend to be emotionally invested in their moral positions, and as a result often are sensitive to people speaking of morality as a subjective thing, even if at some level they acknowledge it is. They like to keep it as their dirty little secret, and don't like it when this is highlighted so blazingly and in the open.

"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: