On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-03-2017, 05:28 PM
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.


Listen dude, I made the mistake of a making a joke about you asking me for nude pictures of myself, that everyone besides you understand to be joke.

If I knew you were gonna take it the way you did, and become this upset about it, I would have never of made it in he first place. I apologized to you privately and publicly about the level of distress it caused you.


I don't personally care how you treat me, your signature or anything else. And if it made you some how feel better, then I'd support it all the way. If taking your frustrations on me solved something for you, than I'm happy to oblige. But that's not the case at all. I'm just an insignificant theist on an atheists forum, who has no Ill will towards you, or anything you've said about me. Because hey I deserve it.

I'm not sure what else you want me to do, to help you move on and quit wasting your time with this.


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
15-03-2017, 05:53 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
Even the most cursory examinations of history will demonstrate that not only does religion employ subjective morality it also employs an absurdly conservative and antiquated variant. It was only after the rest of civilization had determined that fascist dictators/slavery/burning people at the stake/beating homosexuals was no longer in vogue that religion was dragged kicking and screaming to have its nose rubbed in its mess and finally forced to catch up with the rest of us.

In the absence of an external moral system, the modern theist might well find themselves wondering if it is good etiquette to stone a person for eating lobster bisque or if it is proper to simply run them down with a car. Beating slaves, selling children, marrying rapists, and masturbation are all dealt with but probably not in a manner that a modern society would view as healthy and well-adjusted.

Those who bleat that we are doomed without a moral compass to guide us typically fail to note that we are doomed much more thoroughly and rapidly by following the moral compass of bronze-age goat fuckers.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Paleophyte's post
15-03-2017, 06:08 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 08:31 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 07:11 AM)Gwaithmir Wrote:  > So when God commits genocide, it's not really genocide. Facepalm

No, if a person thinks a particular genocide, was or is good, then they haven't made a factually incorrect statement. You may not agree with them, or their outlook, perhaps even finding it repulsive to your own liberal humanistic sentiments, but they are not wrong. If I think dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was a morally good thing, there's not much you can say, beyond restating that you personally didn't like it, in a variety of different ways.

My wife thinks runny eggs taste good, I think they're disgusting, she's under no obligation to justify that runny eggs taste good, and the nature of our disagreement isn't a factual one, but one about individual preference. I.E a subjective difference, not an objective one.

> WRONG!

> Comparing runny eggs to mass killings is a completely inappropriate analogy, and I think you already know how lame it is.

> Dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima is also an inappropriate comparison. The U.S. Government was trying to inflict maximum damage on the enemy in order to win the war. It was not the government's intention to systematically wipe out the Japanese.

> Genocide is the systematic destruction of an entire national, racial, ethic, or political group. The fact that it is evil is self-evident, regardless of whether the act was perpetrated by Man or God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Gwaithmir's post
15-03-2017, 06:16 PM
On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 02:49 AM)Glossophile Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 01:27 AM)Robvalue Wrote:  If god is indeed incomprehensible, then it's ludicrous to say that it is "good".

I think one of my favorite quotes from Sam Harris is appropriate here.

"We're told that God is loving and kind and just and intrinsically good, but when someone like myself points out the rather obvious and compelling evidence that God is cruel and unjust, because he visits suffering on innocent people of a scope and scale that would embarrass the most ambitious psychopath, we're told that God is mysterious. Who can understand God's will? And yet this merely human understanding of God's will is precisely what believers use to establish his goodness in the first place. If something good happens to a Christian (he feels some bliss while praying, say, or he sees some positive change in his life), […] we're told that God is good. But when children by the tens of thousands are torn from their parents' arms and drowned, we're told that God is mysterious. This is how you play tennis without the net."

I swear, Sam Harris' oratory is almost as mesmerizing as Carl Sagan's, with that intellectually delicious cocktail of deliberation, eloquence, and straightforwardness.


You have a great point. I'm frequently disgusted by people who "Praise Jesus" when crawling out of the rubble that used to be their trailer after their Lord Jesus sent that tornado to flatten that mobile home park. They forget to praise the first responders who dug them out of the wreckage. They also forget how callous it sounds to thank god or Jesus when you survive when your neighbor didn't.

Having said that, I liked reading early Harris. I think he's a fine writer and a clear thinker. In "The End of Faith," he told me something I hadn't known, which was Gandhi's response to the Holocaust, which was appalling. For those who might not have known this, here's what Wikipedia says about it:

"Gandhi's views came under heavy criticism in Britain when it was under attack from Nazi Germany, and later when the Holocaust was revealed. He told the British people in 1940, 'I would like you to lay down the arms you have as being useless for saving you or humanity. You will invite Herr Hitler and Signor Mussolini to take what they want of the countries you call your possessions... If these gentlemen choose to occupy your homes, you will vacate them. If they do not give you free passage out, you will allow yourselves, man, woman, and child, to be slaughtered, but you will refuse to owe allegiance to them.' George Orwell remarked that Gandhi's methods confronted 'an old-fashioned and rather shaky despotism which treated him in a fairly chivalrous way', not a totalitarian Power, 'where political opponents simply disappear.'

"In a post-war interview in 1946, he said, 'Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher's knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs... It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany... As it is they succumbed anyway in their millions.' Gandhi believed this act of 'collective suicide', in response to the Holocaust, 'would have been heroism.'"

However Harris went off the rails for me when he wrote a pro-gun essay in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. I lost all respect for him and I doubt I'll ever get it back
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Rachel's post
15-03-2017, 06:22 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 05:28 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 03:12 PM)Banjo Wrote:  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.


Listen dude, I made the mistake of a making a joke about you asking me for nude pictures of myself, that everyone besides you understand to be joke.

If I knew you were gonna take it the way you did, and become this upset about it, I would have never of made it in he first place. I apologized to you privately and publicly about the level of distress it caused you.


I don't personally care how you treat me, your signature or anything else. And if it made you some how feel better, then I'd support it all the way. If taking your frustrations on me solved something for you, than I'm happy to oblige. But that's not the case at all. I'm just an insignificant theist on an atheists forum, who has no Ill will towards you, or anything you've said about me. Because hey I deserve it.

I'm not sure what else you want me to do, to help you move on and quit wasting your time with this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Look, I don't want this thread to be derailed with this, so I'm just going to say this once and move on. I understand that I'm coming in after the fact, I'm not going to jump into anything that happened before, but a few things here really bug me. I think this needs to be said.

I get that you're publicly attempting to apologize and I'm not going to take that away from you, many wouldn't even bother.

It's not cool to claim that "everyone else" thought you were joking, you aren't in the minds of everyone here. Regardless of your intent you clearly caused harm to someone. Your attempt at an apology sounds more like an attempt to shift the blame over to him, and I really don't like that. It's not your job to tell him he's wasting his time, that comes off as condescending and rude.

A far better apology would be "Intentionally or not, I harmed you, that was wrong. I apologize. I will try to never let it happen again"

This one takes ownership of your actions, and the consequences of them, makes no insinuations on blame. Takes ownership of your intent not to cause harm. Sounds less scum-baggy politician like, and uses far fewer words.

Then you can move on with your life, its not up to him to forgive you. He's not obligated to forgive you, you shouldn't expect it. Just move on and try to never harm people in the future. It's all you can do dude.

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
[+] 2 users Like JesseB's post
15-03-2017, 06:23 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 06:16 PM)Rachel Wrote:  However Harris went off the rails for me when he wrote a pro-gun essay in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. I lost all respect for him and I doubt I'll ever get it back

Harris lost my respect when I read his book on free will, which was entirely over-simplified. Sad
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Thoreauvian's post
15-03-2017, 06:27 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 06:23 PM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 06:16 PM)Rachel Wrote:  However Harris went off the rails for me when he wrote a pro-gun essay in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. I lost all respect for him and I doubt I'll ever get it back

Harris lost my respect when I read his book on free will, which was entirely over-simplified. Sad

Over simplification can be a huge problem, I think it can be a trap that can catch any that aren't watching out for it.

Sad part is there is also such a thing as over complicating things as well....

I feel like there's a bit of both at times in the arguments that Tom has put forward. And applied in odd ways, in odd places.

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
[+] 2 users Like JesseB's post
15-03-2017, 09:03 PM
On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 06:23 PM)Jay Vogelsong Wrote:  
(15-03-2017 06:16 PM)Rachel Wrote:  However Harris went off the rails for me when he wrote a pro-gun essay in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre. I lost all respect for him and I doubt I'll ever get it back

Harris lost my respect when I read his book on free will, which was entirely over-simplified. Sad


He does have that tendency in interviews with Bill Maher too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rachel's post
16-03-2017, 12:53 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
Since there has been a lot of debate about morality, I'll leave my video here for anyone who is interested Smile

I go into detail about definitions, and what I view as common misunderstandings/miscommunications.




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
16-03-2017, 06:11 AM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(15-03-2017 06:08 PM)Gwaithmir Wrote:  Comparing runny eggs to mass killings is a completely inappropriate analogy, and I think you already know how lame it is.

Surely, since a variety of different emotions are elicited, such as anger, empathy, etc... that are not a part of our considerations of runny eggs.

But some people are more averse to mass killings than others. I'm okay with mass killing when they might benefit myself, my family, and my communities safety and security. If we bombing civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki afforded us such outcomes then I'm okay with it. If foreign civilians casualties are collateral damage, so be it. The people of the philippines seems okay with their presidents deaths squads, since the cleaned up the streets.

If people in the ancient world had to kill entire swaths of people, children and the like, to ensure their continual survival, I'm not gonna wave my finger of disapproval, unlike my liberal humanistic counterparts. Some will call these acts evil, others would call them good. What you can't accuse someone of doing, by considering such actions good, is being factually incorrect in doing so.

Quote: The fact that it is evil is self-evident, regardless of whether the act was perpetrated by Man or God.

IS that an objective truth, that Genocide is evil? Or is that just another subjective moral statement?

"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: