On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2017, 02:55 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 01:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You and your buddies may just as well create a description of what you mean by good, a shared description and criteria, like folks who have similar taste in music, clothes, films might be able to.

Wrong again.
There are criteria for definitions of ethical principles. These are in no way similar to tastes in music, food etc. Your bullshit is nothing but bullshit

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
15-03-2017, 03:01 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 02:55 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 01:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  You and your buddies may just as well create a description of what you mean by good, a shared description and criteria, like folks who have similar taste in music, clothes, films might be able to.

Wrong again.
There are criteria for definitions of ethical principles. These are in no way similar to tastes in music, food etc. Your bullshit is nothing but bullshit

I don't think he understands where those criteria come from. Bit of research would go a long way.

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
15-03-2017, 03:12 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 01:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 01:52 PM)Banjo Wrote:  WTF are you doing here you lying cunt???

Fuck off! CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored

Just get off it mate.

NEVER!!!

To all those who are new members.

This troll tried to use my cancer against me in the hope I would be confused and not recall an event which did not occur.

Of course I could not remember it. It NEVER happened.

This guy is so low he tries to take advantage of a guy suffering deadly cancer for 3 years.

That, my friends is the scumbag who calls himself, Tomasia.

Lower to the ground than a snake. A complete slime ball with no integrity. No balls. No brain and of no worth.

Tomasia, I would never say this to anyone but will to you.

You are a pathetic excuse for a man.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Banjo's post
15-03-2017, 03:15 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 06:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Theists don't need to justify P1... [P1: God is purely and absolutely good] ...because Good is subjective, there are no right or wrong answers to what's morally Good, given that morality is subjective, and is matter of one's own personal, and perhaps communities view of it.

What do you mean you don't have to justify the claim that your god is unequivocally "good"? Of course you do, and your nonsense about good or bad being subjective is immaterial to the claim; you're just playing with semantics. Or are you maybe agreeing that a lot of people—like me—would consider your putative god to be a total cunt? After all, you do agree that the definition of good is a personal one.

So my opinion of him is just as valid as yours—according to your logic.

Quote:An atheist may disagree with what a theist thinks is good, but it's more akin to two people disagreeing on what good food, or good music is, than the shape of the earth.

So if I opine that this crème brûlée desert is absolute crap, but you say it's really delicious, then by default yours must be the correct opinion? Why?

Quote: ...such as one that treats morality as a matter of consequences, and a another that treats morality as a matter of perceived intentions.

Uh... what?

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 03:21 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 03:12 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 01:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Just get off it mate.

NEVER!!!

To all those who are new members.

This troll tried to use my cancer against me in the hope I would be confused and not recall an event which did not occur.

Of course I could not remember it. It NEVER happened.

This guy is so low he tries to take advantage of a guy suffering deadly cancer for 3 years.

That, my friends is the scumbag who calls himself, Tomasia.

Lower to the ground than a snake. A complete slime ball with no integrity. No balls. No brain and of no worth.

Tomasia, I would never say this to anyone but will to you.

You are a pathetic excuse for a man.

Banjo. Anyone that would state that they should have been banned 2000 posts ago, is signaling that they are intentionally engaging in activities worthy of being banned, and signals harmful intent. This alone is justification to me to ban said person. That said I don't make those decisions, and I'm not fully informed on the events that brought forth that particular statement. That's just my initial analysis.

That Tom whatever is seemingly not a cool dude is readily apparent. Please don't think the new guys can't see him for what he is. I figured it out by your signature long before I encountered him. And you've built enough rapport with me to take your signature seriously.

Actions like what you describe are fucked up and wrong.

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
15-03-2017, 03:27 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 03:21 PM)JesseB Wrote:  Actions like what you describe are fucked up and wrong.

damned straight.

And nothing was done....

I'm amazed I even return.

This site is extremely troll friendly.

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 03:30 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 02:36 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I don't disagree with you that morality is a complex issue, for starters our moral beliefs, views and attitudes, have the long stench of thousands of years of religions framing those perceptions and attitudes, whether we recognize the long reaching consequences of those influences or not...

Nope. Religion never has and never will affect my morals and/or ethics Tom. As a lifelong atheist, my morals and ethics are all of my own volition and discretion.

I'd be interested if you could suggest some of those religious "long-reaching consequences" that you're so sure have influenced my moral beliefs.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
15-03-2017, 04:36 PM (This post was last modified: 15-03-2017 04:48 PM by Glossophile.)
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 01:53 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  We are quite unlikely to define good the same way. You and some room full of your buddies, perhaps some room full of liberal humanist might have more success with that, than you and a virtue ethicist, or non-consequentialist.

You and your buddies may just as well create a description of what you mean by good, a shared description and criteria, like folks who have similar taste in music, clothes, films might be able to. This doesn't make it any less subjective. Just like I might be able to provide you a set of criteria that defines what I find attractive, in fact you may even be able to point to individuals that I would find attractive based on that criteria, without sharing that standard yourself. None of which makes it any less subjective, or resolves any of the problems they're purported to address.

You're taking the arbitrariness of the standard and equating it to subjectivity of measurement. An inch is a completely arbitrary unit of measurement, but that does not prevent us from agreeing on the length of a particular object. All that is required is agreement on how long an inch is.

Now, you may argue that there is far more disagreement over what "good" means than there is over what "inch" means, but this does not seem to be the case if you look past the surface. There is neither an individual nor a culture on Earth that truly and innately seeks suffering rather than well-being.

This underlying universal consensus, which my definition at least approximates, is revealed whenever a theist tries to rationalize an ethically questionable act of God. They tacitly recognize that such divine atrocities do not fit such a universal definition of "good." Moreover, the rationalizations always consist of attempts to re-interpret the deity's behavior in such a way that it does fit the definition that I gave, or at least one very much like it. There would really be no need for such rationalizations if there was any genuinely significant disagreement over what "good" really means. Rather, the theist could simply say, "Well, we just have different subjective moral tastes," and be done with it.

What you cite as disagreement over what "good" ultimately means is really just disagreement over how best to achieve that which everyone essentially agrees is "good." For example, ISIS does not ultimately reject the maximization of well-being and the minimization of suffering. They just have some very twisted ideas about how best to accomplish that goal, tied up in the whims of a petty and vindictive god.

This is where morality becomes much more objective than you think. Like I said, the well-being or suffering of a sentient creature can be evaluated with reasonable objectivity, so moral systems can similarly be evaluated according to their success at maximizing the former and minimizing the latter. Deviant moral paradigms and behaviors arise when the perpetrators are either unable or unwilling to carry out such evaluations in a sufficiently informed and honest manner.

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
[+] 4 users Like Glossophile's post
15-03-2017, 04:52 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 04:36 PM)Glossophile Wrote:  ... For example, ISIS does not ultimately reject the maximization of well-being and the minimization of suffering. They just have some very twisted ideas about how best to accomplish that goal, tied up in the whims of a petty and vindictive god.

Excellent point. Every member of ISIS undoubtedly wants the best for his wife and kids and standards of living etc—just like "we" do. It's just [sic ] that they try to achieve that by perverse, unconscionable methods, according to advantageous distortions of their religion—and encouraged by the perceived self-indulgent social excesses of the Western world.

—But they're still all cunts nevertheless.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-03-2017, 05:06 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 03:12 PM)Banjo Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 01:58 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Just get off it mate.

NEVER!!!

To all those who are new members.

This troll tried to use my cancer against me in the hope I would be confused and not recall an event which did not occur.

Of course I could not remember it. It NEVER happened.

This guy is so low he tries to take advantage of a guy suffering deadly cancer for 3 years.

That, my friends is the scumbag who calls himself, Tomasia.

Lower to the ground than a snake. A complete slime ball with no integrity. No balls. No brain and of no worth.

Tomasia, I would never say this to anyone but will to you.

You are a pathetic excuse for a man.

> A fundie Christian participant on the Amazon forums tried to do the same thing to me a couple of years ago. He was a despicable cur. Angry
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Gwaithmir's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: