On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
16-03-2017, 01:52 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 01:39 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 07:22 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  History has been made. Tom Asia said something I agree with. Laugh out load

Weird. I remember when Tommy boy first got here he was a fierce proponent of objective morality. Turns out he's a dick no matter which side he's arguing for.

I think the real problem may be his desire to focus on polar extremes. 100% objective 100% subjective.... I mean he's a dick about both..... so does ignoring the complexity and changing sides equate to mental masturbation?

I'll let you think about that.....

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
16-03-2017, 01:59 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
If there is no God, then God cannot be the source of any objective morality.

Does that mean morality is totally subjective? No.

Our actions have consequences. We do not have to read some old book of fables to know how to react if we are assaulted, robbed, raped or tortured, or members of our families are so treated, or friends, or even strangers.

The problems arise because we are capable of abstract thinking that allows us to overide this natural, objective foundation of morality. We develop ideologies. Nazis, it's moral and necessary to kill the Jews. Communists. Kill and torture those who will not accept Communism. 7 million dead Ukrainians to force collectivism on the Kulaks. Racism. Slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow law.
Wahabism, kill the Shiites etc.

The problem is subjectivism that is created by ideologies of various sorts that over rides the natural objective morality we should develop from the fact we suffer from various actions.

What is lacking is a general moral ideology that allows us to understand these things and avoid the evils of ideologies that cause mass suffering, or lack of understanding about what morality is about.

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
[+] 3 users Like Cheerful Charlie's post
16-03-2017, 02:00 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 01:04 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  My view is neither wrong or right, it's subjective, just like yours is neither wrong or right. You criticizing a theist for holding to God being Good, is equivalent to you criticizing a man who holds that crème brûlé tastes good, because you don't like it.

Nope. The quality of the crème brûlée is ultimately not subjective; it's obviously objective—as it's a judgment on its quality as judged by a very specific global standard.

If a chef were to use ricotta cheese instead of vanilla custard, or burn the caramel, then everybody—without exception—would agree it was crap. Nothing subjective about that. It is crap.

Your putative god, on the other hand, can (or should) only be judged objectively. Subjectively speaking, you see it as existing, whereas I—from an objective viewpoint—don't see it existing. And objective trumps subjective.

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-03-2017, 02:26 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 01:27 PM)JesseB Wrote:  How do I put it.... Perhaps a good place to start might be slavery, you could say that all the points of view on it were subjective. But I think we came to the right conclusion (however subjective you may think that statement is) based on stepping back and looking at the bigger picture, and the application of empathy, and following the logic to its various natural conclusions and over all end results for all people involved.

It's not a matter of however subjective I think it is, it is subjective, just like your overvaluing of empathy is your own personal sentiment. I on the other hand reserve the bulk of my empathy to my family, my friends, my community, and only marginally to those outside this circle. In fact being a biological creature, my empathy is evoked more acutely by those I identify with easier than those I don't, such as feeling more empathy towards theists than non-theists, for people of my own ethnic stripe, than those who are not, for certain literary characters, than others, etc...

My political and social choices are almost exclusively reserved for the benefit of the circle I'm concerned with the most here, not you, or anybody else. Those choices might as a byproduct benefit you as well, but I don't care whether they do or not.

And I distrust the sincerity and intentions, of the sort of humanistic, liberal crowds that speak of expanding one's circle of empathy, that speak for empathy towards an abstract entity called humanity. It's just preaching from an empty pulpit, a plea for significance.

Quote:Empathy is one of the biggest tools in determining these positions as it helps cross bridges from one set of moral imperatives to another, and ultimately is one of the best tools for determining which one over all is the best. Discounting that is a flaw I think.

I don't discount empathy, my own included, I just hold a realistic account of it.

Quote:Look, I try not to be in the habit of saying things I don't mean. I took the trouble of writing this once already, would be cool if you took the time to really read it. Would make me smile.

I don't discount that for many humanistic/liberal types, empathy for humanity is an ideal, and foundational principles for their own moral philosophies. I may think that such empathy is superficial and paper thin, but I recognize that for such people "empathy for mankind" is a very important concept for their own moral perspectives.

"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
16-03-2017, 02:30 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 02:00 PM)SYZ Wrote:  If a chef were to use ricotta cheese instead of vanilla custard, or burn the caramel, then everybody—without exception—would agree it was crap. Nothing subjective about that. It is crap.

That's a first, someone who seems to want to suggests that tastes are not subjective. I personally love ricotta cheese, and that combination might not taste that bad to me. So there goes your exception.

Quote:Your putative god, on the other hand, can (or should) only be judged objectively. Subjectively speaking, you see it as existing, whereas I—from an objective viewpoint—don't see it existing. And objective trumps subjective.

The question is not about the existence of god, so don't try and move the goal post, but Goodness being an attribute of said God.

"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
16-03-2017, 02:35 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2017 06:37 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 01:52 PM)JesseB Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 01:39 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Weird. I remember when Tommy boy first got here he was a fierce proponent of objective morality. Turns out he's a dick no matter which side he's arguing for.

I think the real problem may be his desire to focus on polar extremes. 100% objective 100% subjective.... I mean he's a dick about both..... so does ignoring the complexity and changing sides equate to mental masturbation?

I'll let you think about that.....

He still is (arguing for objective morality, he basically admitted it a few weeks ago). He thinks we're stupid enough to go down his rabbit hole.
Tastes are real, (and probably objectively testable in individual cases), but they (personal tastes) are in NO WAY comparable to moral principles that are arrived at, (sometimes which may even go against "personal tastes") as a result of study, discussion, and learning. It's a red herring, Rotten Tomato tosses out.

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
16-03-2017, 02:39 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 01:52 PM)JesseB Wrote:  I think the real problem may be his desire to focus on polar extremes. 100% objective 100% subjective....

As opposed to something that's somewhat subjective as well as somewhat objective?

"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
16-03-2017, 02:46 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 02:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  That's a first, someone who seems to want to suggests that tastes are not subjective. I personally love ricotta cheese, and that combination might not taste that bad to me. So there goes your exception.

FFS... it's impossible to debate anything sensibly with you when you're backed into a corner. I like ricotta cheese too, but it certainly doesn't make for an acceptable crème brûlée that'd be judged as crap by everybody else on the planet—except, apparently you LOL. And I never mentioned its "taste". I referred to its "quality" as the metric. Different thing. Playing with semantics—as you frequently do here—brings you undone sometimes mate.

Quote:The question is not about the existence of god, so don't try and move the goal post, but Goodness being an attribute of said God.

FFS... again. So you're happy to judge the humanitarian qualities of a purported supernatural entity you haven't yet proved to exist in the real world? You must prove it exists before you can even think about whether it's good or bad.

Otherwise it's like asking a diner to judge the quality of the crème brûlée before they've even tasted the first spoonful.

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
16-03-2017, 03:37 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2017 03:52 PM by JesseB.)
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 02:39 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(16-03-2017 01:52 PM)JesseB Wrote:  I think the real problem may be his desire to focus on polar extremes. 100% objective 100% subjective....

As opposed to something that's somewhat subjective as well as somewhat objective?

Perhaps you're beginning to grasp what I am trying to say here.

I propose an alternative, which you could try to debate or refute, but I challenge you to instead expand your mind. Not to accept this as "the objective" truth or even "Your" truth. For I highly doubt MY ethical and moral imperatives could ever line up with with most others. Nor do I care. I will actively seek to test my raison d'etre, in this I find the point of what "I am."

I hit one point of which I accept I will not change, for in this I can not change, and that is the freedom found in my thought and will. I find in this simply one piece if my identity. (this is important to know, but I expect you will need to apply this after the fact to understand why)

Self awareness, conscious thought, are a disease. I am not the first to propose or adopt this position. Yet consider the very nature of death. Confront the reality around you (if you can). Does this reality cause you despair? suffering? I would suspect it does, and it prolly should.

Now imagine a world without anchors, without a herd to provide protection. And a fundamental part of an Identity incapable of lying to itself, incapable of choosing a safe easy ideology to stand against the harshness of reality. A life that has only ever known isolation and solitude.

Do you think such a person could accept an "Objective" truth? It would seem to me in direct contrast to the meaninglessness that is our lives. You're story will one day end, the extent of your influence will fade, all will turn to nothing. and this world will carry on without you, as it did for billions of years before your birth. You're existence will count for what? How cruel a fate that you should be capable of becoming aware of reality as it is. Is this a bad thing? I don't think so, but then I don't subscribe to an objective notion of good or bad.

You seem to fail to recognize that reality, is. Yet morality is our construct, a human construct. To an extent there will always be a subjective consensus in much of it. After all who is to determine that we are somehow deserving of our existence? Yet that as I have stated before would be an impractical silly place to conclude this story here, lets take it further. We are fully capable of generating what we consider to be an objective consensus. Those things which we can agree are most beneficial to our species and the environment we depend on to survive. To maximize those things that promote and create well-being, and happiness, and the continued existence of our species. Do we need to adopt these values? Hell no. We could destroy all life on this planet (and frankly we might) and who's to fucking say that is wrong except us? (or any aliens who might one day find the remains of our sad misguided species)

And yet when I say to you rape is wrong. I mean it. I don't say things that I don't mean. Slavery is wrong. Murder is wrong (personally I prefer pacifism I hate violence, yet one other truth that I know from experience, I will chose violence before allowing my life to end).

To you this appears to be a paradox I think, a conflict, when I say its not a matter of polar extremes 0% or 100% you say somewhere in the middle.... and like most good answers the correct answer is.... yes and no....

(So I'm clear this is meant to provoke thought not be an answer)

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
16-03-2017, 03:51 PM
RE: On the Circularity of Presupposing God's Goodness
(16-03-2017 02:46 PM)SYZ Wrote:  FFS... it's impossible to debate anything sensibly with you when you're backed into a corner. I like ricotta cheese too, but it certainly doesn't make for an acceptable crème brûlée that'd be judged as crap by everybody else on the planet—except, apparently you LOL. And I never mentioned its "taste". I referred to its "quality" as the metric. Different thing. Playing with semantics—as you frequently do here—brings you undone sometimes mate.

I’ve used the term taste, particularly when it comes to food. If by quality you meant something other than taste, as an objection to what I said in my comparisons, then perhaps you were trying to erect a straw man.

If by quality, and”absolute crap”, you don’t mean taste, as I used in my analogies you were responding to, then it’s not all together clear what it is you meant by them, so sorry for assuming that you were actually criticizing a point I actually raised.



Perhaps by “quality”, “absolute crap” you just meant that by substituting certain ingredients in a crème brûlée recipe, the end result wouldn’t be a crème brûlée , though it might still taste good, then I’m not gonna argue with you. I can agree with you if you’re merely stating that a particular desert being a creme brûlée is either objectively true or not, where a crème brûlée is a physical description of a dish and it’s ingredients.


Quote:FFS... again. So you're happy to judge the humanitarian qualities of a purported supernatural entity you haven't yet proved to exist in the real world? You must prove it exists before you can even think about whether it's good or bad.

Yet, 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...

"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: